Trial Transcripts
August 17, 1979
Helena Stoeckley
Scans of original transcript
F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 9:00 a.m.
THIS CAUSE came on for further trial before The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., United States Chief District Judge, and a jury, on Friday, August 17, 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, for what we hope will be the last meeting of the TGIF Club. Any further evidence for the Defendant in this case?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Call your witness, please.
MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor pleases, the Defense calls Helena Stoeckley.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, while we are waiting, may we approach the Bench?
THE COURT: Yes; approach. Get us off to a good start.
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. BLACKBURN: This is the one, of course, we all talked to yesterday. I remember you talking about a voir dire. I know that Wade mentioned this morning that she had commented on the necessity of wanting an attorney. I just wanted to be sure, before we got started, how we are going to go.
MR. SMITH: I think our position, Judge -- of course, we will do whatever Your Honor wishes to do -- but I feel that we will just go ahead with her, if we can, and see what happens.
MR. BLACKBURN: I think that is fine.
THE COURT: Well, let's go.
(Bench conference terminated.)
(Whereupon, HELENA STOECKLEY was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as follows:)
D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 9:03 a.m.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, would you spell your full name, please, for the record?
A H-e-l-e-n-a S-t-o-e-c-k-l-e-y.
Q And where do you currently reside?
A I have no permanent address right now.
Q How long has it been since you have had a permanent address?
A Approximately one month.
Q Prior to then, where were you living?
A In Columbia, South Carolina.
Q Were you living in an institution of some sort at that time?
A Not an institution -- it was a Quarterway House.
Q What is a Quarterway House?
A The one I was staying in was just for people who were looking for jobs at that time, and they were furnished with meals and a place to stay and charged a small rent until they could get a job.
Q Was it a place also expecially designed to help people who had had drug problems in the past?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you yourself been a user of drugs in the past?
A Yes, sir.
Q Before we get into anything else, I think we ought to find out how you are feeling today, and what your situation is; is that all right?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q I will have to ask you, Ms. Stoeckley, not to nod. Just say "yes" or "no."
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you at the present time, within the last 48 or 76 hours -- have you taken any medication or drugs of any sort?
A No, sir.
Q When is the last time that you have taken or you did take any drugs or medication?
A Approximately one week ago, when I broke my arm. It was prescribed by the emergency room doctor.
Q And your arm now -- is that in some sort of a cast?
A Yes, sir; it is in fiberglass.
Q I'm sorry?
A It is in a fiberglass cast.
Q Which arm are you talking about, please?
A My left arm.
Q And at that time, when you had your arm treated, what sort of medication or drugs did you receive?
A Demerol.
Q 50 milligrams of Demerol?
A Yes, sir.
Q Intravenously received?
A One was by intramuscular injection. Then I received five tablets to take with me.
Q Have you ever been committed to any mental institution for either being mentally ill, having a mental defect, or in any way being -- in a layperson's word -- being "crazy"?
A No, sir.
Q To your knowledge, has any psychiatrist ever told you, or ever made a finding that you are crazy or mentally ill or mentally defective?
A No, sir.
Q You can read and write the English language, in fact, can't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q You graduated from high school?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was in Fayetteville, North Carolina, wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q How old were you when you graduated from high school?
A 15.
Q Fifteen -- would that mean you skipped a couple of grades in school?
A Two years in France.
Q Did you ever go to school after you had graduated from high school at the age of 15?
A Several different schools.
Q Could you tell us a little bit about the kind of schooling you have had -- better tell me what year it was you graduated from high school in Fayetteville?
A 1969. Since then I have been to Aquinas Junior College in Nashville, Tennessee, for Police Science for one year.
Q You say in what year?
A That was about '71-'72.
Q You were at the St. Thomas Aquinas Junior College?
A Yes, sir.
Q In Nashville, Tennessee? And what kind of course were you enrolled in?
A Police Science.
Q How many months did you attend that college?
A About seven months.
Q Did you drop out at the end of that program or quit?
A I had some drug problems again, and I just dropped out.
Q Have you been to any other school besides the college you mentioned in Nashville?
A Yes, sir; I took Operating Room Technician training in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Q When did you do that?
A About 1974.
Q How long was that course that you took?
A That was a six-month course.
Q Were you able to finish that particular program?
A Yes, sir.
Q That qualified you to be a technician to assist --
A (Interposing) In surgery.
Q Any other schooling that you had besides high school and the schools you have told us about?
A In 1975, I attended Daytona Beach Junior College, and took nursing.
Q You took nursing to actually be a nurse or a nurse's aide?
A Nurse.
Q How long did you stay there?
A One year -- it was a one-year program.
Q Did you finish that program?
A I finished, but I never took my State Boards.
Q Was it because of some problems you were having?
A It was a health problem.
Q All right; where were you living in 1969 and 1970?
A In Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Q Did your parents also live in Fayetteville in that period of time?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, your mother and father still live there today; isn't that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q I gather you have not been in regular contact with your parents for some time?
A No, sir.
Q Did you actually move out of your family's home some time after high school?
A Immediately after graduation.
Q Whose decision was that?
A Mine.
Q Was there some particular reason why you left your family at that point?
A It is a close family, and I was already involved with drugs; and I did not want to hurt the family any, so I moved out.
Q Now, you lived in Fayetteville until what year, if you remember, after leaving high school?
A Off and on I lived there through the latter part of '71.
Q And at that time did you move to Nashville, Tennessee?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you weren't living at home with your family, where were you living after high school between the time you went to Nashville?
A I had an apartment in the section called Haymount Hill in Fayetteville.
Q Could you tell us a little bit about what the Haymount section of Fayetteville was like back in '69 and '70?
A It was a miniature version of Greenwich Village; had the head shops and the pizza shops, and things like that.
Q When you say a "head shop," just to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing, would you tell us what a "head shop" was?
A A small store sort of like a boutique where they sold what you would call at that time what hippies were buying. I mean --
Q (Interposing) Did they sell water pipes?
A Paraphernalia and stuff like that.
Q "Paraphernalia" -- you mean paper you roll marijuana cigarettes in?
A Yes, sir.
Q Little rolling devices for marijuana -- little rolling machines?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did they sell pipes you smoke hashish with?
A Yes, sir.
Q Incense candles?
A Yes, sir.
Q In fact, that was -- incense candles and paraphernalia usually was a stock in trade at a head shop; is that right?
A That was the major extent of their stock; yes.
Q You could buy posters, I think, and sometimes psychedelic lights?
A Yes, sir.
Q You lived in the Haymount section from 1969 until 1971. Were there people who were connected with the Army -- soldiers or recent ex-soldiers -- who also were living in that area at that time?
A A majority of that section was comprised of a lot of soliders.
Q Were, to your personal knowledge, some of those persons people who were absent without leave from their units?
A Some of them were.
Q Some of them were hiding out from the police?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I want to talk a little more about that subject -- but I guess I better ask, to make sure that we all know what we are talking about -- from your own experiences with drugs back in 1969-1970; you told us that contributed to your leaving your family home; am I correct in that regard?
A Yes, sir.
Q Ms. Stoeckley, in that period of time -- '69-'70, what drugs were you yourself using regularly?
A At that time I was addicted to heroin and opium. I used a number of other drugs.
Q All right, let me ask you, before we get to those drugs, you say you were addicted to heroin and opium. How were you using heroin? What form were you taking it in?
A I was mainlining -- intravenous.
Q And that expression "mainlining" means you were taking it through intravenous injection; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q As opposed to what -- sniffing it, or...?
A Snorting it.
Q Snorting it, all right. And how about opium -- what form were you taking it in?
A It was liquid opium. I was injecting that too.
Q You injected that also?
A Yes, sir.
Q How often would you say during that period were you using heroin -- let's talk about on a daily basis or weekly basis so we can get a better fix on it?
A During the day maybe six or seven times.
Q You would take an intravenous injection of heroin and/or opium six or seven times a day?
A Yes, sir.
Q That went on for how long -- how long did you remain addicted to the use of heroin and opium?
A Off and on, about nine years.
Q During the period of time that we are most talking about now -- '69-'70 -- you were not off; you were on; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q I think you said something about other drugs that were also involved. Did you ever use, say, any barbiturates?
A Frequently; yes.
Q And barbiturates -- are they known by the street term of "downers"?
A Yes, sir.
Q Not to get technical, but they essentially make you sleepy or depress your central nervous system?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why would you use barbiturates if you were also using opium and heroin at that time?
A Just as a substitute sometimes.
Q You mean you couldn't get opium or heroin?
A If there was none available, I would go and get some barbiturates instead.
Q And how would you take those drugs back then?
A Usually I would inject them also -- break them down and mix them up and shoot them.
Q Now, did you have occasion in that same period of time to use a drug known as "angel dust"?
A Yes, sir.
Q And angel dust is also known by what other name -- what other more technical name?
A It depends on what it consists of. It can be PCP, anything else. It can be cut with heroin, different drugs.
Q To your knowledge, what is angel dust or PCP?
A It's just marijuana mixed with some other drug to smoke.
Q Are you talking about PCP or THC?
A PCP is a horse tranquilizer.
Q That's what I'm talking about. Angel dust is also known as PCP and that's a horse tranquilizer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What kind of an effect did that have?
A It just tranquilizes you.
Q Now, did you also have occasion to use LSD during '69-'70?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is LSD?
A You mean the technical name or what?
A No, I don't mean the technical name but what did you know it to be at that time?
A Just acid, a hallucinogenic.
Q And when you say "a hallucinogenic," what would a person using LSD experience? What is a hallucinogenic? What kind of effect did it have?
A You just used it to take trips; that's all. You would see colors and distorted images and things like that.
Q How often did you use LSD in '69 and '70?
A Almost daily.
Q Almost daily. That's also in addition to the heroin and opium that you were taking; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what quantities of LSD would you be taking?
A One tablet, depending on what it was -- a blotter, one blotter -- something like that.
Q You say "a blotter." Is that a procedure where LSD was in liquid form and someone --
A (Interposing) Dropped onto a blotter.
Q Could it have been dropped from an eyedropper onto a blotter?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then what would you do with that blotter?
A You would eat it.
Q You would eat the piece of blotter?
A Stick it on your tongue and you keep it on your tongue or go ahead and chew it up and swallow it.
Q How long would you feel yourself in '69 and '70 the effects of having taken this hallucinogenic LSD?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this line of questioning. It is clear that the witness has been on drugs during this time.
THE COURT: It would appear to the Court that you have explored that about far enough. Maybe you are about through.
MR. SEGAL: I would be glad to make an offer, Your Honor, about why we want to pursue this a bit. It is not going to go on forever.
THE COURT: Ask your question. It will be quicker.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q The question I think I asked you -- let me back it up. Did different people get affected by LSD at that time in different ways?
A Yes, sir.
Q There was no single, uniform reaction as far as you knew from people using LSD; was there?
A Never.
Q Now, I would like to ask you: how long would you experience the effects of LSD when you took it?
A Eight or nine hours.
Q And during that eight or nine hours, you would see colors. What else would you see? How was the world seen by you when you were taking LSD?
A It would just distort everything.
Q How about if you looked at a carpet on the floor? When you yourself were taking LSD, what would you see -- would you see just the carpet?
A If I looked at one, it usually looked a lot like a flying carpet. It would be like riveted and everything.
Q You mean it actually was going up to the ceiling or was it wavy?
A No; it was just kind of furled-like.
Q Did you also have occasion to use in '69-'70 a drug known as mescaline?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that also another hallucinogen like LSD?
A It is milder.
Q It is a milder hallucinogen. Did you yourself have occasion to use it in '69 and '70?
A Yes, sir.
Q How often would you say, Ms. Stoeckley, you know, you would use mescaline?
A Maybe twice a week.
Q Why would you use that as opposed to LSD? Was there any difference; would it have a different meaning to you?
A I just didn't like LSD that much. It was too heavy for me. Mescaline was a lot easier.
Q When you say that LSD was too heavy for you, are you saying that the experiences that you had when you took LSD were too disturbing or upsetting -- would it be fair to say that?
A I didn't like the drug taking me, and that's what it would do. With mescaline I could handle it usually.
Q You say "drug taking me." I guess I have to ask you: what do you mean you didn't like the "drug taking me"? What was it that was taking you when you took LSD?
A I didn't like losing control.
Q And was that an effect that you experienced when you used LSD?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you find that you were acting differently than you would like to act when you took LSD?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, not to go on forever with the catalog of a drugstore, but I want to ask you about a couple of drugs. Did you have -- I want to ask you about, did you have occasion to use any other drug frequently -- why don't you just tell me that? Did you use any other drug frequently in 1969 or '70, other than the ones that we're talking about now?
A Well, we would smoke marijuana daily, and hash.
Q Hashish?
A Cocaine infrequently.
Q Did you ever use the drug known as THC?
A Yes, sir.
Q THC is the extract of the most potent part of marijuana.
A Marijuana, yes, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to the leading questions.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q How would you use THC?
A It was usually in tablet form, too.
Q Now, did you ever have occasion during 1969 and '70 to go up to Fort Bragg military reservation?
A I frequently went into Fort Bragg, as I was a service dependant.
Q Was your father still in the Armed Forces at that time?
A He was retired.
Q Retired?
A But I still had use of the facilities.
Q And you would go on to Fort Bragg to the Womack Army Hospital for instance?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was the primary place you went to?
A Generally, yes, sir.
Q Were you familiar with some of the housing areas that were on Fort Bragg at that time?
A Most of them.
Q Did you know Anzio Acres?
A I had friends there, yes, sir.
Q Did you know Corregidor Courts?
A Somewhat. I cut through there a lot.
Q Let me show you, if I may, a photograph -- a photograph marked Defendant Exhibit 80, which was given to us in court the other day.
First of all, let me show you the photograph and ask you to take a look at it, please, Ms. Stoeckley.
(Witness complies.)
Q Have you seen this photograph before, by the way? Is this one that I showed you yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q I just have to ask you -- you have a quiet voice -- but I have to ask you to keep it up so that members of the jury here can hear you.
I showed you this photograph yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recognize what housing area is shown in this area, or any housing area that you have ever seen?
A It looks like any number of the Army housing areas on Fort Bragg.
Q When you looked at it yesterday, what housing area did you say -- and I am asking you now -- if you recognize any specific housing area?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q May I ask --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Just interrogate the witness as to what her recollection is about anything that has to do with the case.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I ask you to look at the photograph and see if you can indicate whether you have a specific recollection as to what housing area is depicted here?
A When I first saw it I said it did look like Corregidor Court.
Q It did look like Corregidor Court. Did you also recognize a street or two streets in this photograph?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED as to the form.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Looking at it now, do you recognize one or two of the streets that are shown in this photograph?
A Not by name.
Q I ask you to think back, then, as to when you were shown this photograph yesterday and ask you whether at that time you recalled the name of the street?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor, please --
THE COURT: (Interposing) OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Would you try to think of it, Ms. Stoeckley, and see if you recall the name of the street?
A When I first saw it I said it looked like Castle Drive.
Q Did you also indicate the name of another street there that you recognize?
A No.
Q Did you recognize any building that is shown in that picture as belonging in 1969 or '70 to anybody who lived in Corregidor Court?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you know --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Why don't you ask her what she knows this morning, not what you asked her yesterday or she told you yesterday?
MR. SEGAL: I'm asking her whether in '69 she recognized -- or '70 -- she recognized -- I will re-phrase the question.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recognize any home there and do you know who has lived in the home that is depicted in that picture?
A Not a specific home.
Q All right. Let me just move this away.
Now, in 1969 and 1970, did you ever hear the word spoken by other people and used by yourself perhaps, called "pig"?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that a word commonly used in the Haymount Section by -- let's say other people?
A Yes, sir.
Q You had occasion to use that word, also, sometimes, is that right?
A Pretty often.
Q Pretty often, all right. Was the word "acid" spoken frequently on the streets of the Haymont Section in '69 and '70?
A Yes, sir.
Q There are a number of words that were used in '69 and '70, weren't there, for people when they liked something -- people who lived in that section of town, when they liked something, they had kind of a special word to express liking something, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Something that you would like would be -- well, I guess people said the word "good" sometimes, didn't they?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was the word "cool" ever used to indicate approval?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was the word -- was "hip" as indicating it was good ever used?
A Yes, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: We would OBJECT to the leading questions.
THE COURT: Yes, I will SUSTAIN the objection.
MR. SEGAL: Might I make an offer, Your Honor. We have been subjected to two hours of reading a magazine --
MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) OBJECTION to comments, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you have any comments, you can make those at the bench. I will SUSTAIN the objection as the form of the question. I will let the witness answer. You have established she is not under the influence of drugs or anything this morning.
MR. SEGAL: May we see Your Honor? I think we will speed it up a little bit?
THE COURT: Come up.
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I want to formally ask with a caveat for leave to examine this witness as on cross, although I will make every attempt to conduct the examination in critical matters where I can as on direct, because I think it is the best way to go. But this is a witness whom I have caused to be arrested; who has been in prison because of me; who knows that her interest is contrary to my client.
And I think it is not asking too much under the rules for leave to proceed that her interest is adverse to that of the Defendant. Now, again -- I will say that I basically don't expect to do that much, but when we get to a point to move it along or get to gut issues, I would like to do that.
THE COURT: I have detected nothing in the demeanor or answers or anything else in this witness to indicate any hostility whatever to your questioning. She has answered the questions forthrightly and intelligently, and I see no reason to vary the rule in this particular instance.
MR. SEGAL: My point would be --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Mr. Segal, look -- you spent virtually all day yesterday at the expense of the Court and the jury with leave to examine this witness. You wanted 30 minutes. You extended it to 45, and hour and 15 minutes, and finally it ran the gamut of the whole day. We did nothing yesterday while you could explore this thing.
Now, I don't think it is fair for you to come now and to establish her version of the testimony through this witness, who has exhibited no hostility at all, and I am not going to let you do it.
MR. SEGAL: Let me say this --
THE COURT: (Interposing) I will say, if something else comes up -- but in its present posture, that is all you have. And I will not vary the rule.
MR. SEGAL: I think that the rule permits on what must be non-critical matters, but which are important to the Defendant -- I mean, for God's sakes, for me to have to say to her, "Will you now please state all the words you remember from people saying good things?"
This case will not rise or fall on that, although it may be necessary fact. The rule permits the Court -- and in my experience it has always been that on matters that are not central to the issues, then that was favored to move the case along.
I don't want to take the whole morning with this witness. I want to get to my point. And I have an obligation to respond to some of this -- you know -- hours of reading that we were subjected to, that we were led to believe that Jeffrey MacDonald could have only learned and nobody else knew about, unless you read this Esquire magazine.
THE COURT: You have a witness who apparently is doing a pretty good job at it. You are up here just to see if you may vary the form of the questioning, so that you may give her the answers in the question, and that is what I am precluding your doing right now under the present circumstances, so ask your questions.
(Bench conference terminated.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, were there any other words that were used by people you knew at that time when they wanted to say that they liked something -- something was good -- that they liked it? Could you give us some of the other words?
A "Far out."
A A lot of the younger kids, like in junior high and stuff, were saying "groovy" and things like that.
Q In 1969 and '70, had you heard of Charles Manson?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at that time, did you have an opinion about him -- what you thought about him as a person?
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, it goes to matters raised by the Government, not anything I have introduced in this trial. We were subjected --
THE COURT: (Interposing) I SUSTAINED the objection.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you read about Charles Manson?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where did you learn about him and his activities?
A Just from the newspapers.
Q Did you have occasion to learn or see anything about him on television?
A On the news and on the radio and things like that.
Q Did you believe that he was a person who had any kind of special power over other people?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: I will OVERRULE that.
THE WITNESS: Any special power?
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Was he a person who, in your opinion, possessed special powers?
A I am not sure if you would call it "powers." He had some kind of something over those people. I don't know what.
Q Did you know of him in connection with any cult or cult-type activity that you were familiar with?
A No; not specifically.
Q Well, were you interested yourself in 1969 and '70 in the subject of witchcraft?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you know -- and have a friend, as a matter of fact -- who visited you whom you considered to be a witch?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was her first name?
A Sheila.
Q Was it because of Sheila that you became interested in 1969 and '70 in witchcraft?
A I was already interested. She just informed me more on the subject.
Q Did you own some books at that time on witchcraft yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were the names of those books?
A It was A Treasury of Witchcraft -- several different volumes of it.
Q Two volumes?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you learn at that time about the rituals that are performed by, say, the high priests or priestesses of witchcraft?
A From these books.
Q Yes?
A From the books; yes, sir.
Q Did you also learn in talking to Sheila about it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was there any ritual that you learned about and knew about at that time involving the killing of animals?
A A lot of the rituals involved killing the animals and using their blood.
Q What was the most commonly used animal that was killed?
A A cat.
Q Beg your pardon?
A A cat.
Q Cat? Was there some special relationship that you believed between cats and witchcraft?
A A cat is generally the familiar in witchcraft.
MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.
THE COURT: Relevancy grounds?
MR. MURTAGH: Relevancy.
THE COURT: I fail to see it. Let him proceed. Sometimes the Court does not perceive immediately the direction in which the questioning is going. Go ahead.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What would be done, to your knowledge, at that time with the blood of an animal such as a cat that was killed by a priestess?
A It depends on what type of ritual you were using at that time. It could be sprinkled on a person or thing or anything.
Q The blood could be sprinkled on a person or a thing, you say?
A Yes, sir.
Q That could be done for both good and bad purposes, as witches would see that?
A There is two separate types of witchcraft -- black and white. White is for benevolent purposes.
Q Black is for what?
A Usually for doing harm to someone.
Q In your knowledge and experience at that time, did the priestesses wear any particular clothing when they performed ceremonies or rites?
A If it was really a high priestess, yes.
Q I should say, "a high priestess." What did the high priestess wear? What was the custom and what was the practice in that regard?
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Yes; go ahead?
A Generally, some type of robe -- like a vestment of some sort.
THE COURT: Like a what?
THE WITNESS: A vestment.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q If a robe or vestment wasn't available, what else, if anything, might a priestess wear?
A Anything.
Q To your knowledge, was a sheet ever worn?
A Sometimes.
Q What color might these vestments be?
A The witches in the coven generally wore black. The high priestess would wear black, and the high priestess just usually wore white.
Q Now, does a candle play any part in the ritual of the high priestess?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what role would a candle play?
A The candle generally signifies death or growing old or something like that.
Q Is there any reason why the priestess -- the high priestess -- would use a candle as opposed to some other kind of illumination -- a flashlight or some mechanical light?
A It's just a belief that the Devil is afraid of any kind of artificial light, and they use candles or torches or something like that.
Q When the high priestess was to perform such as go to a ceremony -- have a ceremonial -- might they ever walk outdoors in their robes?
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll SUSTAIN that as to the form.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q All right, were there some ceremonies in which the high priestess was engaged -- were they indoors or outdoors at all times?
A They were generally indoors.
Q Did they ever, to your knowledge, take place outdoors?
A Occasionally in like a State Park or something like that. Nowhere in public, though.
Q What, in going to a ritual -- would a priestess carry anything in the way of a light?
A Generally a candle.
Q Would that be lit or unlit?
A Lit.
Q Now, how long would you say you were involved in witchcraft yourself?
A About three years.
Q When did you give it up?
A Well, at the end of that three years, I ran into a bad experience with some people in Florida and I decided I didn't want to have anything else to do with it.
Q Would that be around what -- 1972 or 1973?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I want to direct your attention to February of 1970, Ms. Stoeckley. I want to ask you about the early morning hours of February 17th of 1970; all right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, just to give us a little context -- let me back it up. Late on the evening of February 16, 1970, what were you doing, if you can recall?
A In the evening, I don't know.
Q What is the last thing you remember doing on February 16, 1970 -- that's Monday -- Monday evening?
A The last thing I remember doing is talking to a friend of mine in my driveway.
Q And who would that person have been? Do you remember the first name?
A Greg.
Q About what time of the day or night was it when you spoke to him?
A It was around midnight.
Q That means it would be February 16th if it was 11:59 p.m. and if it was midnight, it was February 17th?
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
MR.SEGAL: Can we not get the times straight in this case, Your Honor, without an objection from the Government? I can't understand why that should be a subject of any objection to anybody in this court that would want to know.
THE COURT: Is it all right if they object, and the objection is OVERRULED?
MR. SEGAL: It is not that question, Your Honor --
THE COURT: (Interposing) It is that question. Now, you ask your next one.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you. May I have Your Honor's indulgence for one second?
(Pause.)
MR. SMITH: Your Honor, may we approach the Bench juist for a brief moment to straighten out something that may speed this up?
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SMITH: Judge, we sat as patiently as we could for three weeks while the Government put on their evidence. We sat through two hours of their reading about a black swan having sexual intercourse with a woman on a bed, and we didn't object but one time when we came up here and asked Your Honor to review it. But now, Your Honor, I fear that the attitude of the Government and the way Your Honor is answering their questions makes it appear that we are idiots for asking these questions of the witness.
I think we have a right to explore these things, and you know, we are not getting to do it. The objections --
THE COURT: (Interposing) I am absolutely amazed that you would make this statement, Wade. They made an objection, and I just overruled it, and then Mr. Segal just comes along and wants to give a lecture. You know that I do not permit that.
MR. SMITH: I know.
THE COURT: And I also try to handle it in a way that will not reflect on him or your client.
MR. SMITH: I know.
THE COURT: I have tried repeatedly to do that. I don't see what the problem is.
MR. SMITH: We appreciate that, but I wanted Your Honor to know --
THE COURT: (Interposing) I can't keep them from objecting and, if they do, then the duty devolves on me to rule.
MR. SMITH: All right, we will proceed. Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Well, go ahead.
(Bench conference terminated.)
THE COURT: Any further questions of this witness?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, you say you recall standing in your driveway about midnight either at the end of February 16th or the beginning of February 17th; is that right -- 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where did you live? What was your address at that time?
A I'm not sure of the number, but it was on Clark Street.
Q Did you have a neighbor by the name of Bill Posey -- William Posey -- at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you know Mr. Posey -- who he was?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was this a whole house or an apartment that you were living in?
A It was a house made into several different apartments.
Q Was there anything that was -- well, what you would call -- unusual going on that night inside the apartment?
A Not inside my apartment; no, sir.
Q All right, inside the house? Was there any painting going on at that time?
A Not at that time.
Q At some later time?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that?
A When I returned to the house.
Q When you returned -- I see. Now, how long did this conversation that you were having with this man in your driveway take place?
A I don't know how long it took, but I know when he left.
Q When did he leave?
A At exactly midnight. He had to get back to Fort Bragg for guard duty or something.
Q Do you know who that man was with at that time?
A He was with the 82nd Airborne Division.
Q And was he in uniform or out of uniform at that time?
A He was out of uniform.
Q Now, I ask you: after he left, what did you do?
A I'm not sure what I did after he left. I went back in the house and I don't remember what I did.
Q Had you had any drugs during the day of February 16, 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you tell us, to the best of your recollection, Ms. Stoeckley, what you had taken -- what type of drugs you had taken that day?
A Well, I had taken for sure the opium and the heroin. I had smoked grass all day, and then, when Greg left, he left me with a hit of mescaline which I swallowed there at the care before he backed out.
Q Right before he left you say you received some mescaline or took some mescaline?
A Yes, sir.
Q Again, your voice is quiet and soft so it is a little hard for me to hear the details. I did not hear how you got that. Was it from him?
A He gave it to me and I swallowed it while he was still standing there.
Q What form did you take that mescaline in?
A Tablet.
Q Do you remember how many you took?
A One.
Q How soon thereafter did you start feeling any of the effects of the mescaline?
A It was good mescaline; I guess pretty soon afterwards. I am not sure about the time.
Q Is it hard to judge time when you are using a drug like that?
A Not usually.
Q Just so that I don't misunderstand you, were you using a quantity of heroin and opium on that day -- February 16th -- that you previously described this morning -- about six or seven intravenous injections?
A Yes, sir.
Q Besides that, and the mescaline and the marijuana, do you have any recollections of any other drugs you used that day?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have any recollection -- what is your next recollection after taking mescaline?
A Returning to the house later that morning.
Q Can you pinpoint in any way what time it was that you came back to the house?
A About 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock.
Q In the morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did you -- when you say you came back -- I guess it is fair to assume you were awake. How did you come back? What form of transportation did you use?
A In a car.
Q You have a recollection of coming back to that address around 4:30 or 5:00 in the morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you a passenger in the car or were you driving the car?
A I was a passenger.
Q Do you, offhand, know what kind of car it was?
A Not what kind -- it was a blue car. That's all I know.
Q It was a blue car. The make or model you have no knowledge of?
A It was a smaller-type car. I don't know what kind.
Q Do you know whether or not it was a Mustang, Ford Mustang?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Not for sure, no, sir.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Who else was in the car, Ms. Stoeckley, when this recollection comes back to you?
A I can't remember their names. Just some soldiers from Fort Bragg.
Q How many were there?
A Two or three -- I don't know.
Q Do you know what race these other men were?
A Not for sure, no.
Q When you say "not for sure," that means you would be guessing if you were to try to identify the race of each and every one of the three men in that car?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is there any explanation that you can give us as to why you can recall coming back -- or how you are able to recall coming back in the car, but cannot recall who the persons were who were in the car with you?
A 'Cause they just dropped me off and I got out and went in the house.
Q Do you have a specific recollection of where you were between midnight or shortly after midnight and 4:35 in the morning?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have a specific recollection as to what you did at that time, between midnight and a little bit after 4:35 in the morning?
A No, sir.
Q Do you remember in the months after February 17th, the first few days after February 17th, having some conversation with your neighbor, Bill Posey?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall talking with him about the subject of the MacDonald murders at Fort Bragg?
A The subject came up but I don't remember what was said.
Q Let me break the question, if I can, into two parts. Do you or don't you recall at least talking about the MacDonald murders with Bill Posey within the week after February 17th, 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have a recollection of anything that you said to him at that time about the MacDonald family and murders that had taken place?
A Only one conversation that I do remember having.
Q Okay, can you tell us about that conversation? First of all, do you remember approximately when after February 17th, 1970, that that conversation took place?
A It was about a week and a half later I would say. He was up on Haymount Hill, and I ran into him up there; and I was just fooling around. I knew -- you know, he seemed to be trying to put me on the spot or something.
So, I don't remember the extent of the conversation, but it ended up by my telling him to tell his wife to keep her door locked.
Q May I ask, do you recall talking about the MacDonald murders before this remark was made?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What was the subject matter that you were talking about before you made this comment to Mr. Posey?
A I'm not sure.
Q Did you have some other conversation with Bill Posey between February of 1970 and, say, Aguust of 1970?
A Several times.
Q Did the subject of the MacDonald murders come up in those conversations?
A Usually.
MR. BLACKBURN: I would OBJECT to this line of questioning.
THE COURT: Well, I cannot rul on an objection to a line of questioning. If there is a question I will try to rule on that.
MR. SEGAL: I'm sorry; I could not hear Your Honor's ruling.
MR. BLACKBURN: I WITHDRAW the objection.
THE COURT: That one is over. I will tell you, though, he apparently wanted to object to a line of questioning and it is a little bit difficult for the Court to make a ruling on that kind of an objection; but I said if you made a specific question and there was a specific objection to that question, I would undertake to rule on that. That is what I told him.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you. I gather the Government has withdrawn the objection?
THE COURT: They did.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What I was asking, Ms. Stoeckley, was, you did tell us of having some conversations with Bill Posey, other than the one you mentioned between then and August of 1970, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q I would ask you, did any of those conversations involve the subject of the MacDonald murders?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did any of those conversations involve where you were and what you had done between midnight and 5:00 a.m. on February 17th?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to leading in the questioning of the witness.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did they involve that subject matter?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember now what you said to Mr. Posey about those matters?
A Not specifically, no.
Q Do you recall anything that you told him during that period of time as to where you were between midnight and 5:00 a.m. on February 17, 1970?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recall what you said to him?
A I just told him I did not know where I was.
Q Did you tell him anything else that you now remember saying about where you were between midnight and 5:00 a.m.?
A No, sir.
Q Later on in 1970, you moved to Nashville, Tennessee, didn't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did the MacDonald murders have anything to do with your decision to move to Nashville?
A To some extent, yes.
Q What was the extent. Tell us about that, please?
A The police harassment and things like that, and involvement of the family name. I just thought it would be best to move away.
Q And when you were in Nashville, where did you live?
A When I first moved there I lived in a dormitory. Then I moved out into an apartment.
Q Do you know what street that apartment was located on?
A Portland Avenue.
Q Portland Avenue?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have a neighbor when you lived on Portland Avenue, by the name of Jane Zillioux? Did you know a lady by that name?
A She was Jane McCampbell, yes, sir.
Q Jane --
A (Interposing) McCampbell.
Q Jane McCampbell, but you now know her by her married name of Zillioux?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall having a conversation in the latter part of 1970 with Jane McCampbell Zillioux about the MacDonald murders?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember approximately when that took place?
A No; I was real sick that day when she came over to check on me. She was sort of afraid of me, anyway. She was not used to being around drug addicts and things like that. She was not sure what was wrong with me, so she was sort of in a hurry to leave.
Q Is that the latter part of 1970, though?
A Yes, sir.
Q You say you were "sick." What were you suffering from at that time?
A Hepatitis.
Q Have you suffered from chronic hepatitis for some years?
A Nine years now; yes, sir.
Q When did you first become a victim of hepatitis?
A 1969.
Q Do you recall Mrs. Zillioux talking to you about your condition at that time -- about the way you were feeling, the sickness you were having?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that clear in your mind?
A Not real clear; no.
Q Do you recall the subject of the MacDonald murders coming up at that time when you were talking to Mrs. Zillioux?
A No; I don't.
Q Are you saying you don't recall it being talked about, or you don't recall what was said, if it was talked about?
A I don't recall what was said.
Q Again, I am going to break the question into two parts. First of all, I just want to know if you can recall the subject matter coming up? I don't ask you to say yet whether you remember what was said; all right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall, Ms. Stoeckley, that the subject of the MacDonald murders came up on that visit when Mrs. Zillioux came over to your apartment?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall what you said to her at that time?
A No, sir.
Q Did you also know in Nashville in 1970 a man by the name of Red Underhill?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who is Red?
A He was a friend of Jane's and Bonnie Hudgins, another friend of mine in Nashville.
Q Would it be fair to say that you, Jane, Bonnie and Red all lived, first of all, very close together, did you not?
A We did not live close together. Bonnie had a store on the corner and Jane lived across the street from me, and Red was just a frequent visitor in the area.
Q Do you recall in late 1970 Red Underhill coming to your apartment? Do you remember such a visit by him?
A I remember him knocking on the door; yeah.
Q Do you recall talking with him at that time? I am not asking whether you recall the contents again, but I only want to ask you whether you recall talking to Red Underhill at that time?
A All I recall is when I finally answered the door to him and seeing who it was, and then I went back in and sat down.
Q Do you remember Red Underhill coming in?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Again, I have to ask you to say "yes" or "no."
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have any recollection at all -- well, first of all, do you recall the subject of the MacDonald murders coming up at that time when Red Underhill came there?
A No, sir.
Q Do you recall Red Underhill leaving your apartment, though?
A Yes, sir.
Q Am I correct in understanding that you do not have any recollection of what was said, though?
A No; because when Red came to the apartment I was sort of upset, which was one of the reasons he left.
Q I am sorry?
A That was one of the reasons he left so quick, because he wanted to go get Bonnie to see what was wrong with me.
Q He wanted to get Bonnie Hudgins to help you?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Yes?
A Yes, sir.
Q Just to finish that discussion -- do you remember that during the time that Red was there and came to your apartment, the subject of the murders at Fort Bragg -- do you remember that subject coming up?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. She answered that.
MR. SEGAL: I thought it was not clear, Your Honor; I am sorry.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recall in 1970 and '71, while you were in Nashville -- do you remember meeting a man by the name of Jim Gaddis?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who is or who was Jim Gaddis?
A He was a Metro policeman at that time when I met him.
Q When you say "Metro," you mean Metropolitan Nashville Police Department?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was he a uniformed patrolman, or was he on some sort of special assignment?
A He was on special assignment with Internal Affairs.
Q He was on special assignment with what?
A With Internal Affairs.
Q How long did you know Jim Gaddis?
A About a year and a half, I guess.
Q Do you recall at some time during the period when you were an acquaintance of Jim Gaddis the subject of the MacDonald murders at Fort Bragg coming up?
A Several times.
Q Several times? Do you recall what you said, the words you said about where you were and what you did on February 17, 1970, when you spoke to Jim Gaddis?
A Not specifically.
Q Did I ask you when I talked to you yesterday to try and think of the words that you said at those times you spoke to Mr. Gaddis?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did I ask you to try and think of those?
A You asked me, but I can't remember anything that was said.
Q That was the next question. Did I ask you to think about it? Have you tried?
A I have tried, but I don't remember what was said.
Q Do you recall talking to a CID agent in 1970 and '71?
A I talked to several CID agents.
Q Do you remember one particular CID agent by the name of Mr. Brisentine? Does that name at all sound familiar to you?
A The name does; yes, sir.
Q Do you remember the name of any other CID agent?
A Mahon.
Q Mr. Mahon? Is it your recollection that Mr. Mahon and Mr. Brisentine saw you at the same time?
A Yes, sir.
Q If I were to suggest to you that this was about April 24th of 1971, would you have any reason to disagree with that?
A No, sir.
Q Was that discussion about -- or in that discussion, did the subject of the MacDonald murders come up when you were asked questions about that?
A That was the topic of conversation.
Q If you recall the conversation right, do you remember what you told Mr. Brisentine at that time?
A No, sir.
Q And that includes -- I will go into the whole question. Do you recall what you told Mr. Brisentine, if anything, about what you may have done on the early morning hours of February 17, 1970?
A All I told the CID whenever I talked to them was I didn't know where I was at that time.
Q The conversation with Mr. Brisentine -- did it last more than about 30 seconds?
A Yes, sir.
Q About how long did it last, would you say?
A Approximately an hour, I would say.
Q Do you recall anything else that you said to Mr. Brisentine on April 24, 1971, about the MacDonald murders?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know a policeman -- actually, a detective -- in Fayetteville in 1969-1970, by the name of P. E. Beasley?
A Yes, sir.
Q How old a man was Mr. Beasley at that time?
A About 50 years old.
Q About 50 years old? And what was Mr. Beasley's work in the police department at Fayetteville at that time, if you know?
A He was with the Inter-Agency Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Q When you say the Inter-Agency Bureau of Narcotics and Drugs, do you know what that was? What is the Inter-Agency Bureau?
A It was made up of CID and city police and different agencies.
Q When did you first meet Mr. Beasley?
A I guess the first time he busted me.
Q That was your introduction; right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, when did that first contact with Beasley take place?
A Late 1969.
Q Was that an arrest for a narcotics law violation against you?
A Not the first one; no, sir. Not the first time he busted me; no, sir.
Q What was it for?
A I think it was for trespassing.
Q Did you and Mr. Beasley have other, similar contacts afterwards?
A Only in narcotics.
Q Did he bust you again?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you continue to know Mr. Beasley all the time that you remained living in Fayetteville?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your relationship with him? Was he an enemy, a stranger to you? Just describe in your own words.
Q I considered him a very good friend.
Q Was Mr. Beasley somebody you trusted?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Mr. Beasley express some trust in you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever know Mr. Beasley ever to do anything as far as you were concerned that you couldn't depend upon or rely upon in your own experiences with him?
A Never.
Q Do you consider Mr. Beasley today, here -- August 1979 -- to still be a friend of yours?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you stay in contact with Mr. Beasley after you left Fayetteville?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did you do that, Ms. Stoeckley?
A Well, if I was visiting Fayetteville, I would call him at the station. One time he was in the hospital. I went to see him when he was at home.
Q Did you ever have occasion to write Mr. Beasley?
A I think I did; yes, sir.
Q You talked to him over the years; is that right?
A Well, he came to Nashville too.
Q He came to Nashville too. Do you recall when he came to Nashville?
A Sure do.
Q About when?
A About 1972. He came up there with a CID agent, Dick Mahon.
Q And at that time did the subject of the MacDonald murders come up?
A That was his reason for being there; yes, sir.
Q If I were to suggest to you that that was probably more like between February 27th of 1971, and March the 1st of 1971, would you have any reason to think otherwise as far as the dates?
A No, sir.
Q Did you not talk to Mr. Beasley on several occasions between those three dates -- the 27th through the 1st of March? Did you have more than one conversation with him during that period of time?
A Yes, sir.
Q And were the conversations about the MacDonald killing at Fort Bragg in February of 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q You recall exactly the subject matter of those conversations; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have a recollection -- a clear recollection in mind -- of what you said at that time?
A No; I just asked him to see where I stood, if I was in any trouble or what.
Q Do you have any other recollection of what you said to him about the events of February 17, 1970?
A Not specifically.
Q Now, did you have occasion to talk with Mr. Beasley anytime recently?
A Recently?
A Yes.
Q Well, yesterday.
Q Yesterday. Now, I guess we ought to make it clear. Was yesterday the first time that you and I had ever met and talked to each other?
A Yes, sir.
Q When I talked to you, was Mr. Smith, my colleague over here -- was he present when we talked yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q When I told you that Mr. Beasley was also around what did you say?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.
THE COURT: Well, yes, I think you better ask her a more specific question.
MR. SEGAL: All right, Your Honor.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Would you describe where you and Mr. Smith and I first met? Was it in a room here in the courthouse?
A Yes, sir.
Q And was there anybody else who was in that room when you and I and Mr. Smith met the first time?
A Well, Beasley came in and you also asked me if I wanted someone there to take notes.
Q Yes.
Q And I said, "Yes," and you had someone come in. You also gave me permission to re-read the notes when we were done.
Q All right, let me ask you this: Mr. Beasley came in right after you and I met?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that with your approval or disapproval that Mr. Beasley was there?
A A little bit of both.
Q A little bit of both. Did you not want him there?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this.
THE COURT: Well, OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: Well, I had been given some misguided information on him and I was sort of --
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q (Interposing) Did you and he talk it over?
A We cleared it up and then I was happy to see him.
Q As far as you were concerned, was Mr. Beasley present as a friend yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you also see Jane McCampbell Zillioux yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did she come in and talk with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see Red Underhill yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he also talk with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Bill Posey also talk with you yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q By the way, was there anybody else who you knew who was a friend of yours present at any of these times?
A My fiance was allowed to come in and sit down.
Q What is his name?
A Ernest Davis.
Q He was sitting right next to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, now, did each of those people I have mentioned to you -- Jane and Red and Bill Posey -- each tell you what they remembered of their conversation of the various dates that I have been talking about this morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, after they told you what they remembered, did it in any way revive or bring back a memory of what you have said?
A Only pieces of the conversation.
Q Did it revive your memory fully as to what you said to those persons about the MacDonald murders?
A No, sir.
Q Now, at that time when we were meeting yesterday and talking, do you recall me showing some photographs to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q In fact, we looked at quite a few photographs; didn't we?
A Yes, sir.
Q I want to show you these photos, please, to see whether we are talking about the same photos. They have previously been identified in the record as Government Exhibits G-775, 776, 773, 771.
Do you recall me showing you a group of photographs, of which the four I am about to show you now were part of them? Please take a look at those, if you will, Ms. Stoeckley?
A Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: For the record, may it be indicated that the photographs I have exhibited to the witness are autopsy photographs, three of them of Kristen MacDonald and one of Colette MacDonald?
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, when you looked at those three photographs of Kristen MacDonald, do you recall what, if anything, you said as far as any recognition of the person depicted there?
A No.
MR. ANDERSON: I could not hear her answer, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I understood her to say "no." Is there another question?
MR. SEGAL: Yes.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You are still examining those pictures, Ms. Stoeckley?
A No, sir.
Q Will you look at the picture that is marked G-771 of Mrs. Colette MacDonald? Do you recall what, if anything, you said when you saw that photograph yesterday?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SEGAL: May I have the basis of the objection, Your Honor, for the ruling?
THE COURT: Yes; you may ask this witness today if she recognizes it. It is not a question of what she told you during some private conference with her.
MR. SEGAL: It is only preliminary foundation, Your Honor.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recognize --
THE COURT: (Interposing) What do you say about that picture today?
THE WITNESS: I don't recognize her.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q All right; let me show you some other pictures. Do you recall looking through several large books of photographs yesterday, such as the one I am holding in my hand?
A Yes, sir.
Q I want to show you a series of five photographs from one of those books.
MR. SEGAL: For the record, let me indicate I am showing to the witness photographs taken from the crime scene at the MacDonald house prior to removal of the bodies, identified heretofore as Government 59, Government 70, Defendant Exhibit 22, Defendant Exhibit 84, Government Exhibit 145 -- these photographs having been identified as taken in the bedroom of Kristen MacDonald.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, will you please take a look at these photographs and first of all tell me if they seem familiar as among those you saw yesterday?
A I saw these yesterday.
Q Beg your pardon?
A I did see these yesterday.
Q Does naything in that last group of photos I have just showed you seem familiar to you?
A No, sir.
Q Does the picture of the person in the bed in any way seem familiar to you?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT. She has answered the question.
THE COURT: Yes; she said nothing in any of the photos -- was that your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Nothing seems familiar to you?
(Witness nods affirmatively.)
MR. SEGAL: I need to ask one specific matter that I want her to look at and ask her whether that refreshes any recollection, or has any recollection.
MR. ANDERSON: We OBJECT.
THE COURT: I will let him ask her.
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me just ask you about an item in the photos that are marked G-59 and G-145. I want to hold them up, please, if I may, and ask you if you see first of all an item in the foreground here, in the left corner of both of these photographs? Can you see that, Ms. Stoeckley?
A A hobby horse.
Q Beg your pardon?
A A hobby horse.
Q Does that item seem familiar to you in any way?
A No.
Q It does not?
A (Witness nods negatively.)
Q Sometime after February 17, 1970, did you stop using LSD?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was there a specific reason why you did that?
A Only the reason I explained earlier?
Q Was there a reason that had anything to do with the MacDonald murders?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q In February of 1970, did you own a hat of any sort?
A Yes, sir.
Q How would you describe that hat?
A Just an old, floppy hat.
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge me for a moment.
(Counsel confer.)
MR. SEGAL: May we ask how long it would take to get this matter?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SEGAL: Three days ago, Your Honor, I tendered a subpoena in which the Government said was unnecessary and they accepted from me a request that they produce certain exhibits from the Article 32 proceeding, in 1970, which had been in their possession.
I asked for that to be here in court yesterday. This is the moment when I precisely need those. They are not here, and I am just saying that, you know, I am going to go on to other questions; but I do think that we could do better in cooperation when things like that are agreed upon that we should have them available.
Now, I don't know what the delay is. I wanted to show this lady a picture, you know, of the hat precisely we are talking about at this time.
THE COURT: Picture of what hat? Her hat?
MR. SEGAL: The hat which we believe is a replica of a hat she wore at that time. It depicts it exactly.
MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, may I respond as to -- Mr. Segal did offer a subpoena complete with a check for all of the exhibits that were introduced in the Article 32.
MR. SEGAL: We did not ask for all the exhibits.
MR. MURTAGH: By the exhibits I mean some notebooks or photographs and things like that that were part of the investigating officer's report.
I told Mr. Segal I was not going to give them to him then. I would make them available. As you know, Your Honor, yesterday's schedule was sort of thrown into chaos.
Since that time no one has come -- you know, I expected someone to come around and get something. They certainly haven't been hesitant in the past.
They are in the counsel room, but as to the photographs, Your Honor, we would object anyway; because what this is, is a photograph that apparently was taken at the direction of the Defense during the Article 32 investigation of a floppy hat.
Then it was introduced into their record during the Article 32 investigation. It is not wholly Ms. Stoeckley's hat. I think that's another one of these deals where the -- it may appear that the witness is identifying a photograph of an exhibit which in fact is -- it is not an exhibit.
There is no --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Well, I don't know where we would go, but I noticed on the shelf in the closet of the master bedroom at Fort Bragg yesterday that there was a floppy hat there.
I suppose if you showed her that that she would say, "Yeah, mine was like that one too."
I will let her describe the hat.
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, there is a specific need, really, for the Defense. Now, I think it is cooperation in the spirit --
THE COURT: (Interposing) You got a picture of the hat?
MR. MURTAGH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Let him have the picture of the hat.
MR. SEGAL: I want the other exhibits that we subpoenaed and you said you would give them. You would bring them to the courtroom. Why can't we have them? Why do we have to fool around with this trial; why can't we get on it with it?
MR. MURTAGH: Why didn't you ask for them this morning?
Well, anyway, Judge, let me ask this as to the hat: where are we going with the hat is then the artist's drawing of a girl wearing a floppy hat, and we would most violently object to that photograph being shown to the witness without a proper foundation.
MR. SEGAL: Why don't you find out whether I --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Wait a minute -- listen. We are not up here for you to argue with him in my presence. You just present whatever you've got here to the Court, and if it involves a ruling I will make it.
MR. SEGAL: I do think, Your Honor --
THE COURT: (Interposing) I told him to get the picture of the hat --
MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) I will get the whole thing.
MR. SEGAL: But, Mr. Murtagh, my objection --
THE COURT: (Interposing) He said he would get the whole thing.
MR. SEGAL: My objection is two-fold -- if we can take 30 seconds maybe it would go more smoothly; you know, somehow the Defendant never does anything right in this case. He issued a subpoena --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Listen, listen, we can't try that. We can't try that. I have been trying to avoid it for five weeks now, and I'm not going to resurrect it here.
You said you'd get the exhibits: get them.
(Bench conference terminated.)
MR. SEGAL: While we are waiting for a matter to be brought in, I can proceed with certain other questions.
THE COURT: Please do.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q In 1970, Ms. Stoeckley, was your hair similar to the way it looks today?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was it always the color that it is now?
A Yes, sir.
Q It has been that way for some years?
A Yes, sir.
Q Again, you've got a very quiet voice. I have to ask you to keep it up a little.
Did you ever wear anything over your hair in 1970?
A Only as a joke sometimes.
Q Well, whether it was serious or a joke, did you wear anything over your head?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that?
A A blonde wig.
Q And what was the length of the hair on the blonde wig?
A Just a little bit longer than my own hair.
Q I'm sorry?
A A little bit longer than my own hair.
Q Does that mean about shoulder length?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long had you owned the blonde wig?
A About three months, I guess.
Q Did you in the -- January, February, 1970, own any boots?
A Several pairs.
Q Did you have both short and long ones?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, now, when you say "short boot," I guess we should get our definitions right. How far up on the leg did you consider a boot to go before it was short?
A Ankle-high.
Q Did you have any boots at that time that were higher than that?
A Two other pairs. Two other pairs.
Q And how far up your leg did they go?
A One went up the calf and one went all the way up to the knee.
Q Were each of those boots the kind with the zipper on the side -- you could slide into them?
A Both of them had zippers on the inside.
Q What color were each of those boots?
A The ones that went to the thigh were white, and the ones that went to the knee were brown.
Q Do you recall how tall you were in 1970?
A About 5' 5".
Q Did you weigh about what you weigh today?
A No.
Q Were you heavier or lighter than that?
A Lighter.
Q What was your weight in 1970, approximately?
A About 115.
Q 115 pounds?
A Uh-huh (yes).
Q I don't mean to pry, but I need to ask you, about what do you weigh now?
A About 138, 140.
(Defendant Exhibit No. 86 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me show you, Ms. Stoeckley, a photograph marked D-86 for identification, and ask if you recognize this picture?
A Yes, sir.
Q What does this picture show -- you've got to keep your voice up, please?
A It is just my picture.
Q Is that a picture of yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know when that picture was taken, approximately?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that?
A 1970.
Q Would that be about August of 1970? Does that sound about right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is there anything unusual about your condition in this photograph when it was taken, or anything about your condition?
A Physical condition, you mean?
Q Well, physical or emotional condition?
A Well, I was definitely on drugs at that time it was taken.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead -- keep your voice up. Let me stand back a little bit. So you were definitely on drugs at the time that picture was taken?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know what drugs you were on at the time that picture was taken?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT. She has testified that she was on drugs during this time and which drugs it was.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: Judging from my eyes I'd say some kind of -- well, the usual heroin and probably some barbiturates.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Who took that photograph, if you know?
A Police department.
Q And what police department took that photograph?
A Fayetteville.
Q Fayetteville. Is that connected with an arrest at that time?
A Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: May the photograph be published to the jury, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Defendant Exhibit No. 86 ws received in evidence.)
(Exhibit passed among the jury.)
MR.SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge us for one moment while we look at some of the material the Government produced a few minutes ago for us.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: If you think it will take very long, we could take our recess now.
MR. SEGAL: That would be appropriate now since the material was just delivered a few minutes ago. I would appreciate the opportunity.
THE COURT: All right, suppose we take our morning recess and come back at 11:00 o'clock.
Members of the jury, don't talk about the case.
(The proceeding was recessed at 10:42 a.m., to reconvene at 11:00 a.m., this same day.)
F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 11:00 a.m.
(The following proceedings were held in the presence of the jury and alternates.)
THE COURT: Because of our crowded condition this morning, those of you who cannot find seats or those of you who are seated, we are going to have to reinvoke the 15 minute rule. If you are going to want to go at any time before 15 minutes, please leave now.
If anyone is outside and wants to come in, the next entry will be 15 minutes. It will be 11:15. We will just do it on that schedule.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I think we need to see you at the Bench.
THE COURT: Yes, come up. We can't start a session without a bench conference.
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, at the recess, Mr. Segal marked with the clerk the photograph of the floppy hat which we gave to him and also a new artist's conception drawing which we will anticipate that he is about to show to Ms. Stoeckley.
Now, this is the artist's conception drawing that has been done in 1979. It is radically different from the artist's conception drawing in 1970. It was done after the photographs of Ms. Stoeckley were published in the press, and it bears a striking resemblance to her.
I think without a proper foundation --
MR. SEGAL: May I answer that, Your Honor? Before we get to that, Judge, I hate to be a pain in the neck and I guess I am, but I am going to say something about procedure. I don't understand. Before I have offered any evidence, the first thing the Court hears is the Government's argument about why I can't even go to that.
Now, I would like an objection or offer of proof request and I will answer and respond. I now have to respond to the garbage which is not part of this record. Now, what I propose to do is very simply: this lady has testified that she wore a floppy hat and a blonde wig at that time.
I am going to show her -- I am going to ask her whether there is any photograph extant that she knows of that shows her with a floppy hat and blonde wig. I have reason to believe, based upon the interviews, that she will say no.
I propose to show you and artist's conception and ask whether you feel this is a fair representation of the way you looked when you wore a floppy hat and blonde wig, and I cannot find anything that could be wrong with asking this witness, and I have reason to believe, based on my interview, that she will say it is a fair representation.
Now, since there is no photo extant from it -- the Government never tried to do it -- there is nothing wrong with the Defendant trying to do it. To the contrary, there are plenty of instances where defendants have been made to stand up, put on clothing and wear things -- artist's drawings made of how the defendant looks if he wore such a thing so that people can say, "Does that resemble or not resemble a certain matter?"
THE COURT: Have you got the artist present?
MR. SEGAL: No, sir; I don't need the artist present to lay a foundation for it.
THE COURT: But for cross-examination purposes --
MR. SEGAL: (Interposing) He can be produced if necessary; certainly, Your Honor. But the point is: it is just like they laid a foundation. They never brought a single photographer in. They never brought a single photographer in. All we have to say is: "I want to show you a visual exhibit. Does this exhibit" --
THE COURT: (Interposing) What you are preparing to do is to show the jury an artist's conception which is strikingly like the witness herself and, he is suggesting, in all probablility made after looking at her or a photograph of her -- is that what you want to do?
MR. SEGAL: What's wrong with that if it is the purpose -- the purpose which I am offering at this time is to say, "Is this the way you looked?" In other ways, nobody bothered to show the way she looked in 1970. As a matter of fact, I will go further in my offer of proof.
THE COURT: Ask your question.
MR. MURTAGH: It appears that Mr. Segal is conceding that the artist's conception drawing was made while looking at a photograph of Ms. Stoeckley. This is the same artist's conception drawing that has run in the paper.
MR. SEGAL: He is wrong.
MR. MURTAGH: Oh, come on.
MR. SEGAL: Once again, he is as wrong as he is on other things in this case -- on facts.
THE COURT: All right, ask your questions. We are taking too much time.
(Bench conference terminated.)
(Whereupon, HELENA STOECKLEY, the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed the stand, and testified further as follows.)
THE COURT: I will have to ask the audience also because of complaints of whispering and so forth that we will have to have absolute quiet in the courtroom because this witness talks in a rather low tone of voice, and she is difficult to hear. So, if you are going to stay in here, then you have got to be quiet. Proceed.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you, Your Honor.
D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 11:07 a.m. (resumed)
THE COURT: Try to keep your voice up so everybody can hear you.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, prior to our recess, I had asked you about a hat that you had owned in 1970; do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And can you try to give us a little bit better verbal description of the way it looked?
A It was just an old, floppy, brimless [sic] hat.
Q Let me show you a photograph that has been marked as Defendant Exhibit 87 for identification and ask whether the hat that is depicted in that photograph in some way resembles the hat that you owned in 1970?
A Yes, sir.
(Government Exhibit No. 87 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Q It does?
A Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: May that be published to the jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Exhibit passed among the jury.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, on February the 18th of 1970 -- I want to direct your attention to that date -- did you have occasion to give your floppy hat to anyone?
A No, sir.
Q Did you see Detective Beasley on that date -- February the 18th, 1970?
A I'm not sure. I probably did.
Q Did you have any occasion in mid-February -- after February 17, 1970 -- to show or give your floppy hat to anyone else, including Detective Beasley?
A I didn't give it away; no.
Q Well, I didn't mean to give it away.
A Well, I wore it all the time.
Q Did you see Detective Beasley on or about the early morning hours of February 18, 1970, at the Hickory Trailer Court?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened, if anything, at that time involving yourself and Detective Beasley?
A There was a drug bust.
Q Were you taken into custody at that time?
A More or less.
Q Yes?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know whether or not you were detained for the CID to meet with you on that date or on a subsequent date?
A I was, but they never showed up so I was released.
Q What date was that that we are talking about -- that you were held for the CID?
A It should have been about the 18th.
Q Now, you were picked up, you say, at the Hickory Trailer Park; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that is located where?
A In Spring Lake.
Q Spring Lake is near Fayetteville; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Just a few miles outside of Fayetteville?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were taken down to the police station in Fayetteville?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Detective Beasley take custody of you at some time there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know why the CID was called in connection with an arrest that had been made in Spring Lake which was not on military property?
A It involved several Fort Bragg soldiers.
Q Do you know whether or not at that time you were being held for investigation in connection with possible involvement in the MacDonald murders?
A Only what I assumed.
Q You only assumed that?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Let me ask you -- how long did you continue to own the floppy hat after February 17th, 1970?
A Maybe six or seven months. And it was stolen and I got another one.
Q You say, six or seven months, and then it was stolen?
A I started to wear it less and less frequently.
Q You started to wear it less and less frequently after February 17th, 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q And for what reason was that?
A Because of the connection that people were coming up to me and assuming that, since I wore the floppy hat, I was the girl in question. And I stopped wearing the hat.
Q What about your blonde wig? Did you wear that very much after February 17, 1970?
A Not at all; I got rid of it.
Q What's that?
A I got rid of the blonde wig.
Q You got rid of the blonde wig? What date did you get rid of the blonde wig?
A 19th or 20th -- somewhere around there.
Q 19th or 20th of February, 1970; is that right?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q It is fair to say you got rid of it, again, because it connected you possibly with the MacDonald murders?
A Yes.
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What was the reason you got rid of it?
A Because it connected me with the murder.
Q What about your boots? What happened to them?
A The heel came off of one of them, and I just got rid of them.
Q Got what?
A The heel came off and I got rid of the boots.
Q Didn't bother to fix it; right?
A No.
Q What pair of boots did the heel come off?
A The white ones.
Q The white ones? Where did you get rid of them?
A I threw the boots in the trash can and I burned the wig.
Q Did that happen around the 18th or 19th of February that you got rid of them?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where is it that you broke the heel on those boots?
A I am not sure. I just put them on one morning and found out the heel was broken. I don't know where I broke it at.
Q This arrest that you were taken in custody for on the 18th of February -- did any CID agents show up to talk to you about that -- whatever matter it was that you were being held in custody for?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: Not at that time.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Not at that time? At any time in February, 1970, did any CID agent come up to you and talk to you about it?
A It was either February or March. I am not sure. I was in jail, and two came down to see me.
Q You are talking about the drug arrest, or some other matter?
A It was a drug arrest.
Q They did not talk to you anything about the MacDonald case, did they?
A That was what they came and talked to me about.
Q I am sorry; I misunderstood you. They came and talked to you about what, then?
A About the MacDonald murders.
Q Did you talk to them about that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know what you told them at that time?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have any recollection at all about what you said at that time?
A No, sir. I just went through the same thing about not knowing where I was that night and that was all I could tell them.
Q Ms. Stoeckley, do you know what your blood type is?
A Not offhand.
Q Not offhand? I want to ask you one question slightly out of order. I neglected to get to it before, but you told us you went to Fort Bragg a number of times because you went to Womack Army Hospital; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you also visit other areas at Fort Bragg?
A On occasion.
Q Do you know any shopping center at Fort Bragg -- any shopping area at Fort Bragg?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where is the shopping area located?
A I used to stop at one on my way to Womack sometimes, or going back home.
Q Which one was that?
A Mallonee Village.
Q Mallonee Village? Do you know what the name of the streets were where that intersected?
A One is Honeycutt.
Q Now, to your knowledge, is there a picture that now exists that shows the way you looked in 1970 with the blonde wig on, or with the blonde wig and your floppy hat on?
A I never had a picture taken with that wig on.
MR. SEGAL: At this time, I propose to show her an exhibit.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this.
MR. SEGAL: That figures.
MR. MURTAGH: We OBJECT to that comment, Your Honor.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I want to show you an exhibit which is marked D-89 for identification.
(Defendant Exhibit 89 was marked for identification.)
Q I would like for you to take a look at this exhibit, which I think it is fair to describe to you as an artist's representation. Does this exhibit, first of all, appear to be a representation -- a fair representation, as an artist might view it -- of the way you would look in February of 1970 or January, 1970, with your hat and wig on?
A Not completely; no.
Q All right; in what way would you think it was different -- it would be different to more correctly reflect the way you look?
A The chin is not that square.
Q You say the chin -- your actual chin -- is, you don't think, quite as square as the artist has shown it?
A (Witness nods negatively.)
Q You have to say "yes" or "no," please.
A No, sir.
Q Anything else?
A The hat was square at the top, instead of rounded like this one.
Q A little squarer at the top? Would that be correct? Or a lot squarer? I don't mean to give you the value.
A Just a little bit.
Q A little squarer? Aside from those two items, does that picture fairly represent the way you looked if you wore your floppy hat and wig at that time?
A Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: May it be published to the jury, Your Honor?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: Well, I suppose that it is objectionable, in that this witness says that if you are trying to show how she would have looked, I don't get the impression that this witness agrees that that is the way she would have looked. She says the hat is different and the chin is different.
MR. SEGAL: Well, Your Honor, the statement about the hat as slightly squarer -- we can correct that --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Well, now, the word "slightly squarer" was your word.
MR. SEGAL: I asked her if that was her words. Did she accept that, or was I wrong? Let me put it back to you.
THE COURT: Take a look at this photograph [sic] and see whether or not you think that it looks like you would have looked with your hat on and your chin at that time?
THE WITNESS: My hat on and my chin?
THE COURT: Yeah; your hat on and your chin. It is a fair representation of how you would have looked at that time? Just say "yes" or "no."
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, now; I will let you proceed.
MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor please, I would like to publish it in fairness with the square hat, the original -- the squared hat in the drawing here.
THE COURT: All right.
(Defendant Exhibit 89 was received in evidence.)
(Exhibit passed among the jury.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q After you were interviewed in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1971, when did you have occasion to leave there -- what year or month, if you recall?
A I am not sure of the month. It was sometime I think in late '73 or early '74.
Q At that time was anyone contacting you or had anyone contacted you about the MacDonald murder case again?
A While I was in Nashville?
Q Yes.
A Yes, sir.
Q Who was that?
A Detective Beasley and Dick Mahon from the CID.
Q We know about an early contact, you know, in 1971. Are you talking about a second time he came to see you?
A No, sir.
Q Did your leaving Nashville at that time have anything to do with the fact that there was any investigation pending in the MacDonald case?
A No, sir.
Q Where have you lived? Just tell us the cities where you have lived since that time until you were brought here the other day?
A Well, I went back to Fayetteville; Cincinnati, Ohio; Daytona Beach; Deland, Florida; Greenville, South Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; up to Wahalla, South Carolina. That's where I was picked up.
Q And you told us before that you didn't have any permanent address during that period of time after you left Nashville?
A No, I never stayed in those places.
Q Did you know that anyone was trying to locate you to interview you in connection with the MacDonald case?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what, if anything, did you do when you found out that they were looking to interview you?
A I just didn't want to be bothered so I moved again.
Q How many times did you move to avoid being interviewed?
A About three times.
Q Were you present in that house in Wahalla last week, when a woman lawyer came to that house in the evening?
A When a woman lawyer?
Q Yes, a black woman?
A No, sir.
Q You were not, all right.
I want to show you some photographs that you may have seen yesterday also.
MR. SEGAL: They are marked for the record Government Exhibits 23, 24 and 75. These have been previously described in this case as being some of the photos taken of the MacDonald living room.
I ask you to look at all three of them first, please.
(Witness complies.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Have you done that, Ms. Stoeckley?
A Yes, sir.
Q I ask you to give particular attention, if you will, please, to the photograph which is marked G-75, which shows sofa, coffee table, and part of the hallway and some clothing in the MacDonald house. Would you look at that, please?
Do you have any reason to believe that you have seen that scene before, prior to being shown the photographs yesterday and today?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have any reason to believe that you were ever standing in that place?
A No, sir.
MR. SEGAL: May we approach the bench, Your Honor?
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SEGAL: At this time, Your Honor, I ask for leave of Court to take this witness as on cross, because she is a surprise and hostile witness.
I represent to the Court that during the interviews with me and with other persons present she stated that when she looked at the picture she had a recollection of standing over a body holding a candle, seeing a man's body on the floor.
I also may say, Your Honor, we are now down to the bottom five or six critical things that she revealed yesterday. I have a feeling, based upon her answer to this one now, that when and if I ask her in direct fashion, that I may get negative answers.
I had no anticipation of that, because yesterday throughout the time that she made these statements, we accepted them, did not expect contrary.
We have not had any different statements from her and we feel that we are entitled to the plea of surprise as well as the fact, I think, at this point -- the extent of her hostile relationship not in terms of manner but the hostility of her interest to the Defendant.
I am going to tell Your Honor the other things that she has said. Would that be appropriate now to expedite, or should we do it one at a time?
THE COURT: Well, if it will save any trips up here maybe you should tell us now.
MR. SEGAL: She has already actually said something, and I did not want to raise a surprise question. I want to do it all at one time. The photograph that I showed her of the bedroom of Kristen MacDonald: during the interview yesterday, she stated that she remembered riding the rocking horse when she looked at that picture.
She also stated yesterday she remembered standing at the end of the sofa holding a candle. She also said when she saw the body of Kristen MacDonald -- the one when she was clothed, with the baby bottle -- that that picture looked familiar to her.
That scene looked familiar. She also said when she was shown the photograph of Colette MacDonald -- the same one I showed her today -- that she said that the face in that picture looked familiar, except that the chin was broken and made it a little hard.
She also stated -- and I'm going to get to it -- she's gotten to the point where she does not sound like she is going to cooperate further -- that she was standing of the corner of Honeycutt across from Mallonee Village.
She has a recollection of standing there during the early morning hours of February 17th, 1970. She further stated yesterday, and I intend to ask her now, that she has a recollection of standing outside the house looking at her hands and saying, "My God, the blood; oh my God, the blood."
She said that took place February 17, 1970. There are witnesses to each of these things. I must say, Your Honor, there were persons present the entire time this took place.
I intend to now ask her directly each of these questions. If she refuses or denies her statements I ask for leave to confront her:
"Did you not say that yesterday when you were confronted with these photos?"
If she persists in denying it we will of course impeach her as we have the right to impeach her under the rules. Although we have called her as a witness, there are rules that permit that to be done.
When I am done with that I intend to turn her over for cross-examination.
MR. BLACKBURN: Of course, I was not there when she talked with the Defense yesterday, but in her interview with the Government none of those statements were made. She specifically told us --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Did you ask her any?
MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, sir. She specifically told us that she had been shown the photographs and we asked her, "Did you recognize any of the scenes in those photographs?"
The answer was no. I asked her, "Have you ever been in that house?" She said no. I said, "Do you know anything about that?" "No." "Who do you think did it?" "Dr. MacDonald." You know, it just went one right after the other.
I discussed -- I told Mr. Smith last night what she told us. I was under the impression to this very moment that what she told us was essentially what she told them.
It is difficult for me -- you know -- I am not saying that they are not saying what she said. I just don't know which way it is, because she has not indicated anything to the Government.
MR. SMITH: Judge, here I think is where we are. Generally, she said to us the same thing and that is, "I don't remember." But in two or three or four instances -- whatever the list would reveal -- she says something which would give an interesting insight into her mind.
I would submit that we have a right to cross her on those; if she denies them then they have a right to impeach her on the statements or show that she did not say anything like that.
THE COURT: I am not going to cross the hostility thing until there is a reason shown to indicate it; but I am going to ask the witness a question myself.
(Bench conference terminated.)
THE COURT: Ms. Stoeckley, how long did you spend yesterday talking to Defense counsel in this case -- Mr. Segal, Mr. Smith, and others?
THE WITNESS: About three and a half to four hours.
THE COURT: Did you thereafter talk to the Government's attorneys?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Had you ever seen them and talked to them before?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. One member I had before.
THE COURT: Now, did you tell both sides the same story?
THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, that was the question I was going to ask.
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SEGAL: The point -- each of the things that I am representing to the Court were said in the presence of other witnesses. It is not a question of my saying it. It is not going to be counsel and the witness.
I intend to fully call those people.
THE COURT: I am confident of that. You would not stand here and tell me that she said one thing unless she said it.
MR. SEGAL: And not be able to back it up.
THE COURT: But I tell you what, if Blackburn tells me that she told him that, I am going to say that too. I don't know where you are going with this kind of testimony, but go on. I am not going to, on the 25th day of the trial -- I ain't going to stop now just because it don't make any sense to me.
MR. BLACKBURN: Judge, does that mean that he can ask as on cross?
THE COURT: No, I have not said that. I said I would make that decision when we come to it.
(Bench conference terminated.)
THE COURT: Any further questions of this witness?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor -- a few basic matters. We are getting to the end of this.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, I asked you before to take a look at some photographs of what we have had identified here at the trial as the body of Kristen MacDonald -- Government 60, 70, 59 and 84. Do you recall these photographs?
A Yes, sir.
Q When I asked you before whether they seemed familiar to you, do you recall saying that the scene did not seem familiar to you as your answer today in court?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you not recall at this time that yesterday, as you were sitting in the room outside the courtroom, when you were shown --
MR. BLACKBURN: (Interposing) Your Honor, excuse me. We would OBJECT to this type of question.
THE COURT: Let me just ask the question. Were you asked that same question by this lawyer yesterday?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What did you say then?
THE WITNESS: Well, I studied the picture for a while, and I don't know. I just don't recognize it.
THE COURT: Is that what you told him, or did you tell him something different?
THE WITNESS: Well, the younger girl just looked like -- I don't know. She looked like a little girl I had seen before. That's all.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recall talking, when I was not in the room, in the presence of Jane, about those pictures?
A I was just trying to see if I had ever seen any members of the family before.
Q I understand that, Ms. Stoeckley, but I am asking you, though --
A (Interposing) I said I could have seen Colette somewhere on post.
Q Let's back up a second, though, please. We've got two subjects together and I need to do one at a time. Do you recall yesterday that when I was not asking you any questions, but you were talking with Jane Zillioux, the lady from Nashville -- do you recall that when you sat there looking at that picture you said --
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.
THE COURT: Yes; I will SUSTAIN that.
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, there is a plea of surprise in this matter in regard to the answer. I think we are entitled to present the question in this form --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Let me ask her one more time.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you told anybody else when this lawyer was not there any different story about whether or not you recognized these pictures or anybody in them?
THE WITNESS: What I just said about Colette and the youngest girl.
THE COURT: He wants to know, though, have you looked at these pictures and told somebody else that you did, in fact, recognize this scene, or that you had been there, or something of that nature?
THE WITNESS: Not that scene.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me hand the group of photos back to you again. Ms. Stoeckley, do you recall, just as you are now, sitting on the stand, looking at those photos -- do you recall staring at those photos at some length when Jane Zillioux was sitting just about next to you in that room in this building?
A I mentioned something about the rocking horse.
Q Yes; all right, will you tell us about the rocking horse -- what you recall saying about it?
A I made some comment about it being broken or something.
Q Does the picture show anything about a broken rocking horse?
A I can't tell if it is broken or not. It looks like it is.
Q Beg your pardon?
A It looks like it is broken.
Q It looks like it is broken? Let's take a look, and if you can show us, perhaps -- may I hold up this photo, please? Well, in this cornucopia of photos, we are having a little trouble finding it. Mr. Murtagh, do you know where it is?
MR. MURTAGH: No; I don't.
MR. SEGAL: You wouldn't know where it is; all right.
(Pause.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, I am going to put here on the easel, so that the members of the jury can also look with you, the first of two photos. One is an enlargement marked G-982; then the other one is marked G-145(a). Can I impose upon you, please, to perhaps step down here next to the witness stand, look at the photograph and tell me, how does it appear to be broken in any fashion?
A The part going to the spring.
Q That looks broken to you; is that right?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Now, let me show you the photograph that is marked 145(a). You also see in the lower left-hand corner the rocking horse; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does that look broken to you there also?
A No.
MR. SEGAL: You may go back to the stand, please.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, do you recall what you first said when you first observed that photo yesterday in the book that I showed you -- the black one?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Please, Ms. Stoeckley, what did you say about the rocking horse?
A That was the first thing I muttered, is that it was broken, and when you asked me what I said, I just said nothing.
Q Beg your pardon?
A You asked me what I said, and I said nothing and shrugged it off.
Q Did you say anything at all about your having touched or used that rocking horse at the time?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: Not at that time; no.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q At what time?
A I don't even remember saying that yesterday at all.
Q At what time did you ever say anything about touching the broken rocking horse?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we OBJECT.
THE COURT: I SUSTAIN that.
MR. SEGAL: I thought the witness said, "Not at that time."
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What did you mean, Ms. Stoeckley, when you said "Not at that time"?
A Just that I didn't say it yesterday; no.
Q Did you ever say it?
A Not that I recall.
Q Ms. Stoeckley, do you have a recollection of standing or of ever being outside of 544 Castle Drive late at night?
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we OBJECT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you have such a recollection?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have a recollection of weather conditions in the vicinity of 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970?
A No, sir.
MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor pleases, I plead surprise for the reasons I have already stated.
THE COURT: Ask your question.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you not say yesterday when you were sitting in the witness room that you recalled standing outside on February 17th in the early morning hours in the rain and looking at your hand?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you not recall saying that?
A No, sir.
Q Do you recall looking at your hands any time on February, the 17th, 1970, in the early morning hours?
A Not on that day; no.
Q Well, I am concerned about that early morning.
A No, sir.
Q Did you not say yesterday when you were in the witness room that you had a recollection of looking at your hands and seeing something on them? Do you recall that?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What's your answer, Ms. Stoeckley?
A No, sir.
Q Are you saying you did not say that yesterday?
A I don't remember saying it; no.
Q Do you recall saying it to Jane Zillioux? Do you want me to bring her in?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.
MR. SEGAL: It is a question of recognition of who she was talking to. It ought to be an issue here.
THE COURT: Well, I believe the witness has indicated that she talked to somebody named Jane. I don't know what that last name is. I can't hear it. Did you talk to somebody named Jane yesterday?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What did you tell her about looking at your hands?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember saying anything about my hands.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you say anything to Mr. Beasley about it?
A No, sir.
Q To Mr. Underhill yesterday?
A No, sir.
Q Were you on the corner of Honeycutt and Lucas near Mallonee Village on the morning of February 17, 1970?
A Not that I know of.
Q Do you recall being asked about that yesterday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall what you said about that yesterday?
A I said I had been on that corner before, but I couldn't have been there that morning.
Q How do you know that you couldn't have been there on that morning if you don't know where you were?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: I will SUSTAIN your objection. You can't argue with this witness.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q All I want to know is: I thought you told us before that you did not know where you were between midnight and 4:35 on February 17; that was your testimony; wasn't it?
A That's true.
Q Can you can for certain that you were not on the corner of Mallonee and Honeycutt that norming?
A No; I can't.
Q Now, I asked you a few minutes ago to look at the pictures --
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge me for a second.
(Pause.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, I asked you a few minutes ago to look at those pictures of what we now know to be the living room of the MacDonald house; do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q I particularly asked you to look at one photograph which depicts both the sofa and the coffee table -- that would be G-75; do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that not one of the photographs that I showed you yesterday in the books of photographs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall now what you said about what knowledge or do you recall what you said about having been there or not been there back on February 17, 1970?
A I said the sofa looked familiar, but I've seen a lot of sofas that looked like that.
Q Do you recall saying something about seeing a body there?
A I said there was nothing on there.
Q Do you recall yesterday saying in the witness room you recalled seeing a body there on the sofa or the floor when you were holding a candle; do you recall making that statement?
A That was only like in a dream or something like that.
Q Well, first of all, let's find out: do you recall making that statement? We need to know whether we are talking about the same thing.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I think we would OBJECT. I think she has answered that.
THE COURT: Yes, I will SUSTAIN the objection. Ask her another question.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recall the day that the MacDonald family funerals were taking place at Fayetteville at Fort Bragg, North Carolina?
A More or less; yeah.
Q What color clothing did you put on -- wait a minute. Before I get to that -- had you heard about the funeral on the radio or read it in the newspaper about the funeral that was taking place?
A I wasn't really paying attention to it; no.
Q You were not. Did you know what was happening, though -- what was taking place at Fort Bragg? Were you aware of that?
A No; I wasn't aware of it.
Q Well, let me ask you: the week after -- during the week of February 17th through February 21st of 1970, did you have occasion to get a floral wreath from a florist?
A Yes, sir; several of them.
Q Several of them. They were funeral wreaths; were they not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where did you set these funeral wreaths up?
A Along a fence between mine and Mr. Posey's house.
Q As a matter of fact, what color clothing were you wearing on the day that you set up these funeral wreaths outside your house?
A Black.
Q Black. Funeral black?
A No; I always wore black or purple.
Q As a matter of fact, what was your usual color of clothes that you wore?
A Black or purple.
Q A purple vest, a purple skirt -- was that your usual clothing?
A (No response.)
Q How many funeral wreaths did you have outside your house on that day?
A I don't know -- five, six.
Q Why did you set up funeral wreaths during that week after the MacDonald family murders?
A It wasn't just at that time. There was a florist up the street from us, and they used to throw them out all the time, and they were good flowers and stuff, and we used to just pick them up and take them home.
Q It was just a coincidence, you are saying?
A Probably; yes.
Q Now, I would like to know something about the people you were associating with in 1970; all right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have a friend by the name of Allen?
A Allen?
Q Yes.
A I may have at that time.
Q Well, let me put it to you this way: you had a number of acquaintances in the Haymount community; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were there among your acquaintances any persons that you believe, based upon your knowledge of that time, who were capable of doing the kinds of things you know happened to the MacDonald family?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT. SUSTAINED.
MR. SEGAL: Just one second, Your Honor.
(Pause.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Didn't you know Allen Mazerolle in 1970?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you know him?
A Yes, sir.
Q How would you describe his appearance?
A Very clean-cut, well-dressed.
Q A nice-looking man?
A Yes.
Q About approximately what age?
A About 24 or 25.
Q In what connection did you know Allen Mazerolle?
A I used to deal for him.
Q You used to do what?
A I used to deal for him.
Q You mean, you worked for him in the selling of drugs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you also have a personal relationship with Allen Mazerolle?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was Allen Mazerolle a man -- well, do you know who Allen Mazerolle worked for?
A He was in the Army.
Q He was in the Army at the time?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q What kind -- what was his connection with the drugs that you were dealing? Did he supply them to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What kind of drugs were they?
A Usually LSD.
Q Was Mr. Mazerolle engaged in transporting drugs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Transported them from where to where?
A I don't know from where, but I got them.
Q Got them off of Fort Bragg?
A (Witness nods negatively.) No.
Q Was there any quantity of drugs you were handling at that time coming from soldiers who were arriving from Vietnam?
A Through him?
Q Not necessarily through him, but generally speaking at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Allen Mazerolle ever strike or do violence to you?
MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION, Your Honor.
MR. SEGAL: I think we have a right to show the nature of her acquaintances, given the context of this total case and the facts we have, Your Honor.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
THE COURT: Yes; I don't know what the purpose of this is.
MR. SEGAL: I will make an offer, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Come up.
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SEGAL: My offer of proof, Your Honor, in this final area of questioning -- or next to the last area of questioning here -- is not only do we believe -- we are in the process of building a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence as to her involvement and potential involvement in this case, but it is to show that her associates -- the people she was close with, lived with, dealt with -- were capable of the kind of violence, as opposed to, say, a bunch of flower children who would not lift a finger to hurt a fly.
It would be inconsistent with the Defendant's response to these accusations to show that her friends were peaceful and lovable. It would prove it is not likely that she had associates who were capable of the monstrous kind of beatings here. On the contrary, we have reason to believe, based upon our interviews with her -- it is not spectulation -- that this Mazerolle and several others were people capable of considerable violence.
It is circumstantial evidence in response to the Government's accusations that there was no group and if they were her friends, they were not capable of this.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we just don't think it is relevant to go into all the friends she might have had. She doesn't know whether they were capable of violence or not. She is not competent to testify.
THE COURT: He just wants to show that Mazerolle beat her up.
MR. BLACKBURN: I anticipate he is probably going to go to some of the other friends after we get through with Mazerolle.
MR. SEGAL: I will tell you what. I can short-cut it, perhaps. Rather than going into a myriad of names, to avoid that, I intend to ask you whether she has suffered various injuries from '69 all the way up to the present injury, and who inflicted these injuries. We will not go into names of the friends, were they related to drugs.
She has been hospitalized, beaten, broken -- she deals with a fairly heavy-handed, violent crowd. That is all that I ask. I think that will probably save the objections.
MR. BLACKBURN: We would OBJECT on the grounds of relevance that she has been beaten up by her friends, and still what he says is circumstantial evidence. There is still no connection between her and this crime, other than the fact she doesn't know where she was.
THE COURT: He wants to make an argument, for whatever it is worth, that she ran around with a bunch of people who were capable of brutality.
MR. SEGAL: We have other evidence. The Defense does not rest on this alone. Please understand that. On this subject matter --
THE COURT: (Interposing) Well, let's go.
(Bench conference terminated.)
THE COURT: Did Mazerolle beat you up on some time?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: He would sometimes beat you up?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right; do you want to ask her any more about that?
MR. SEGAL: Not Mazerolle, Your Honor. Bear with me one second.
THE COURT: All right.
(Pause.)
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q During 1969 and 1970, Ms. Stoeckley, were you ever beaten up by other members of the groups of people you dealt with and related with in Fayetteville?
A No, sir.
Q Have you suffered other injuries since that time from people that you have been dealing with and working with in drugs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Your present injury now -- your arm injury -- is that a result of a beating someone gave you with a steel bar recently?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that about drugs, too?
A Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Any cross-examination?
MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, sir; I believe a few questions.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N 11:57 a.m.
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, directing your attention to, I guess, the 16th or 17th of February, at 12:00 midnight, I believe you testified on direct examination you were standing in your driveway; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was your house?
A Clark Street.
Q You were with Greg Mitchell?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long did you stand in the driveway with him? Do you recall?
A Not really.
Q I'm sorry?
A Not really; I don't know how long it was.
Q He gave you a hit of mescaline, which you took at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, how far is Clark Street from Fort Bragg, if you know?
A I don't know how many miles. I would say about 20 minutes away.
Q About 20 minutes away?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let me hand you Defendant Exhibit number 80 and ask you to take a look at it?
(Witness complies.)
Q Have you had a chance to look at it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would it be fair to say that at 12:00 midnight on the 16th of February, 1970, you were not in that location?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were on Clark Street in your driveway?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you have testified that you had a blonde wig; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where did you usually keep the blonde wig?
A In a closet in my apartment.
Q On Clark Street?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you wear it very frequently?
A Infrequently.
Q You wore it sort of as a joke, as I understand you?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you were talking with Greg Mitchell in the driveway, do you recall whether or not you had the blonde wig on or off?
A I did not have it on. He did not like it.
Q He didn't like it? And, if you didn't have it on, it would be in the closet; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q I believe you testified that you had two or three pairs of boots?
A Yes, sir.
Q You wore those frequently?
A When I wore shoes, that is what I wore -- was the boots.
Q You don't recall which pair of boots you had on that night; do you?
A No, sir.
Q Now, the ankle boots that I think you said, what color were they?
A Black.
Q Black?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did they zip up or did they lace up or what?
A The black ones were just a slip-on and then they buckled around the ankle.
Q It is fair to say that you just don't know where you were between 12:00 o'clock midnight and about 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock the next morning; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Directing your attention to that photograph and assuming for a moment, if you will, that the MacDonald apartment is this one right here (indicating), to your own personal knowledge, Ms. Stoeckley, have you ever been inside the MacDonald apartment before?
A No, sir.
Q At any time?
A Not that type; no, sir.
Q I am sorry?
A Not that type of apartment; no, sir.
Q It is fair, then, to say that it is your testimony that to your own personal knowledge, you have never been in that particular apartment at any time?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was the first time you have seen Dr. MacDonald?
A To my knowledge, this morning.
Q This morning?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q It is the first time to your knowledge that you have ever seen him; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let me show you this picture of Kristen MacDonald again. Do you need to look at it again?
A No. I have got one.
Q You have got one, okay. Besides seeing that scene in those photographs, to your own knowledge, when was the first time you have ever seen that house?
A Yesterday.
Q And how did you see it?
A In the pictures.
Q You were shown a number of photographs yesterday; were you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And those photographs purported to be the crime scene of the MacDonald apartment; is that true?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall ever seeing any of those scenes prior to yesterday?
A Not these particular scenes; no, sir.
Q Now, you testified that the little girl in that bed -- you had seen a little girl like that; is that your testimony?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where might you have seen such a little girl?
A I worked a lot with children. I could have seen one like that anywhere.
Q I believe you testified that you might have seen Colette on post; is that correct?
Q Yes, sir.
Q To your knowledge, did you participate in the killings of the MacDonald family?
A No, sir.
Q How do you feel towards children?
A I love children.
Q Of your own personal knowledge, did you kill Colette MacDonald?
A No, sir.
Q How about Kristen?
A No, sir.
Q How about Kimberly?
A No, sir.
Q Did you try to kill Dr. MacDonald?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know who did?
A No, sir.
Q Do you recall ever being in the MacDonald apartment carrying a candle?
A No, sir.
Q Now, I believe you testified on Direct that you have been through Corregidor Courts before; is that correct?
A I cut through there quite a bit.
Q That was sometimes on the way to Womack?
A Either Womack or over to the Officers' Club or anything. I used to take Extension Courses at the college over there, too, and cut through there.
Q That would have been prior to 1970; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever have occasion that you can specifically recall to go on Castle Drive by the MacDonald apartment?
A Not until after the murders.
Q Not until after the murders? Well, how long after -- do you remember?
A About a year later.
Q About a year later? Why did you go back, if you recall?
A Just to see if anything would look familiar or jolt something in my memory or something.
Q To see if anything looked familiar? Did it?
A No, sir.
Q Did it jolt anything in your memory?
A No, sir.
Q Now, after the 17th of February, 1970, I believe you testified that you were arrested or picked up or questioned concerning this matter; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did your picture ever appear in the paper, in the Fayetteville newspaper, to your knowledge?
A I don't think my picture did; no, sir.
Q Has your picture ever been in the paper, to your knowledge?
A Not until yesterday.
Q How long did you live in Fayetteville after the murders?
A About a year.
Q About a year? Were you questioned quite a bit concerning the MacDonald murders after they occurred?
A I wasn't the only one.
Q I don't mean to imply that you were, but were you personally questioned?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you ever hassled by the police concerning this situation?
A The City Police; yes, sir.
Q Is it fair, then, to say that in your opinion the City Police of Fayetteville hassled you about this; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You testified that you got rid of the blonde wig; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell us again why you did that?
A Well, I already had people coming up to me and making comments concerning the murders and everything. I just wanted to get rid of anything that might look like I had anything to do with it.
Q That was to keep you from being hassled by the police; isn't it?
A Yes.
MR. SEGAL: That is what she said. It is OBJECTED TO, Your Honor.
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q I am sorry -- what did you say?
A Yes.
THE COURT: I think she had answered the question, too, but we have a way of doing everything in duplicate, so I will let him ask it twice.
MR. SEGAL: All right, Your Honor.
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q For the second time, what was your answer?
A What was the question?
A I take it, then, that at some occasion, you got rid of the hat because you felt you were being hassled by the police; is that correct -- I mean the wig?
A The wig; yes.
Q Now, is it a fair statement to say that what you know of the MacDonald killings is a result of what you have been told by somebody else?
A As far as I know.
Q Let me ask you this question: the fact that you did not know where you were for the five hours or four and a half hours from 12:00 until 5:00 o'clock that morning and the constant comments that you testified that you got from other people concerning the murders, did that cause you to have some concern yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, you did not have an alibi for where you were; did you?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever wear gloves very often?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever wear gloves at all?
A Very rarely. It had to be pretty cold.
Q Do you know what the weather was like at about midnight, or do you recall?
A No.
Q I am sorry?
A Not really.
Q You don't recall if it was raining or not?
A No. As far as I know, it wasn't raining.
Q What about the weather at about 4:30 or 5:00 that morning -- do you recall the weather at that time?
A I didn't pay that much attention; no, I don't remember.
Q When was the first time on the 17th of February, 1970, that you heard of the MacDonald killings?
A After I had been in my apartment for about 30 minutes.
Q How did you hear?
A There was a news bulletin on the radio.
Q That was the first time you had heard about it?
A Yes, sir.
Q You testified that you were into witchcraft; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And there were high priestesses -- were you a high priestess?
A There wasn't any as far as I knew. There were no other -- well, I wasn't a witch anyway. There wasn't anyone interested in witchcraft in that area.
Q I am sorry. You will have to speak up.
A There wasn't anyone interested in witchcraft in that area where I lived.
Q Is it fair to say you were reading about witchcraft?
A Right.
Q But you were not a witch yourself?
A No.
Q Did you ever wear white sheets or white robes around?
A No.
Q You never wore choir robes or anything like that?
A No.
Q You spoke of the term "pig," talked about pigs; and I assume you talked about that frequently or used that term frequently?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Whom did you refer to as pigs in 1970?
(Witness looks at the Court.)
THE COURT: Does that answer your question?
MR. SEGAL: We OBJECT, Your Honor.
MR. MURTAGH: We were surprised.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, that was a surprise answer.
THE WITNESS: I did not mean that. That wasn't towards you.
THE COURT: She is trying to retract it now, but it is recorded for all history.
MR. BLACKBURN: I think she should be given every opportunity to retract, if that is her answer.
THE WITNESS: It is the law enforcement --
THE COURT: (Interposing) All right, she is going to answer your question now. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Any law enforcement agent.
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q In other words, you called the police "pigs"?
A Right.
Q You didn't think of children as being pigs?
A No.
Q Or ladies as pigs?
A No.
Q You didn't think of Colette, Kristen and Kimberly as pigs, did you?
A No, sir.
Q Now, about floral wreaths -- you said that you put four or five floral wreaths on --
A (Interposing) On a fence.
Q Where was the florist?
A About half a block up the street in Haymount.
Q Was this the first time you'd ever put floral wreaths on your lawn or the fence?
A To be honest, it is about the first time they put floral wreaths like that out.
Q Who else -- did anyone else go with you to get the wreaths?
A Several people.
Q More than one?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever go to this floral shop and get flowers when they would throw them out?
A All the time.
Q By "all the time," you mean once a week or --
A (Interposing) Any time that they would throw them out. We used to cut through the back there anyway on our way to the pizza shop, so anytime there was fresh flowers thrown out we would take them back home with us.
Q In your mind, was there any connection at all between the MacDonald murders and the funerals, and the fact that you all went to get the funeral wreaths?
A No, sir.
Q You got them because they were available?
A Right.
Q Now, you said that you wore black, is that correct, or dark purple?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that unusual for you?
A No, sir.
Q You normally wore that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you wear dark purple or black because the MacDonald family had been murdered?
A No, sir.
Q Did you wear dark purple or black because the MacDonald family was being buried at that particular time?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever been violent before in your life?
A Never.
Q At any time -- I believe you said "never," is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: Just a second, Your Honor.
(Pause.)
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q You know, you have testified on direct examination this morning that a number of people in Fayetteville and Nashville, Tennessee, talked to you about the MacDonald murders?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you testified whether it was on direct or cross that you did not remember where you were, and that you had been picked up and questioned on a number of occasions.
As a result of not knowing where you were and not having an alibi, and as a further result of being questioned a number of times, did there come a time in your own mind when you began to worry yourself about your involvement in this killing?
A Yes, sir.
Q And is it fair to say that that is the reason that you became concerned, because of what I have just stated?
A It was more the reason of what I was talking about: these people.
Q One of the reasons that you were talking about were these people?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Because you didn't know where you were in answer to their questions?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let me hand you what has been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 306, a club. Prior to right now, have you ever seen that club before?
A No, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, if we could have just one more moment.
(Pause.)
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q I think you testified on direct examination you were out in a car with some folks about 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you don't remember who they were?
A No, sir.
Q Was it unusual for you to come in, in the morning at 4:30 and 5:00 o'clock?
A Not at all.
Q You had done that before?
A All the time.
Q Isn't it true that you might have been at a place called Dunkin' Donuts that morning?
A That is where I was coming in from at that time.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would mark for identification Government Exhibit 952, which purports to be a photograph.
(Government Exhibit No. 952 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, let me hand you this and ask you if you can take a look at it. Do you recognize the person?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Who is it?
A Me.
Q Could you speak up a little louder?
A It is me.
Q Do you know when that photograph was taken?
A I think it was a few weeks after the murder, downtown in the police station.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would ask to publish this to the jury.
THE COURT: Very well.
(Government Exhibit 952 was received in evidence.)
(Exhibit passed among the jury.)
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Do you know whether or not the photograph I was just showing to you -- do you know whether or not that photograph was ever shown to Dr. MacDonald before?
A No, sir; I don't.
Q With respect to the mescaline that you took, I think you said one hit; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q What would one hit do to you?
A Put you on a mild trip.
Q I think you have also testified that you had a lot of drugs in your body that day; is that correct -- the 16th?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that unusual for you to do that?
A No, sir.
Q That was fairly normal; is that correct?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Isn't it true that during this period of time in 1970, when you were taking these drugs, that days sort of ran together; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at times, you would not know where or remember where you had been or what you had done; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q This is not the first time in your life that you have not ever remembered where you were one night; is it?
A No, sir.
Q Now, I think they brought out that you had a neighbor named Mr. Posey; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you testified, I believe, on Direct that you once told him somewhere that he had better tell his wife --
A (Interposing) To keep her door locked. That was a joke.
Q It was a joke? Why did you say that to him, if you can recall?
A He was leading me on in this conversation, and I felt like he was trying to make me say things that I didn't want to say, and I just threw that in there.
Q Do you recall ever having a conversation with Mr. Posey when he offered to give you an alibi for where you were?
A Yes, sir.
Q He did? Did anybody else ever offer to give you an alibi?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever take them up on it?
A No, sir.
Q When you talked to Ms. Zillioux, Mr. Underhill, Mr. Beasley, Mr. Gaddis, Brisentine, Mr. Posey -- other than yesterday in Raleigh -- is it fair to say that during this period of time in your life that you were still taking drugs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Mr. Beasley ever tell you that you had better come up with some kind of story?
A He said it would be to my advantage to try to figure out where I was that night.
Q You never made up any story as to where you were; did you?
A I tried.
Q You don't know who killed the MacDonald family; do you?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of anybody who you think killed the MacDonald family?
A No, sir.
Q Now, the floppy hat which you said you had -- and you liked your hat because you wore it almost all the time; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You kept that after the murders; didn't you?
A But I didn't wear it as frequently as I used to.
Q That is because you were being talked to, I suppose?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q These words that you testified in 1970 -- '69 and '70 -- the words "pig," "acid," "groovy," I think: were those common words at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were not the only person that said those words?
A No, sir.
Q They asked you about Mr. Manson; do you recall that this morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he have any power over you?
A No, sir.
Q Did anybody have any power like that over you?
A No, sir.
Q I believe you testified that when you got home in your apartment, some painting had been going on; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that an unusual occurrence at your house?
A Nothing was an unusual occurrence in my house.
Q Let me ask you this question, Ms. Stoeckley: is it fair to say that as a result of the MacDonald murders and the questions which you were asked in 1970, and because of the clothing that you owned, that you got a fair amount of attention from folks about this crime?
A Not especially attention -- just harassment.
Q With respect to this hobby horse in the photograph, prior to seeing that horse in that photograph, have you ever seen that hobby horse before?
A Plenty of times.
Q When you were talking about a hobby horse being broken this morning -- and I guess, maybe yesterday -- which one were you referring to?
A Well, when I first looked at the picture yesterday, I thought it was broken.
Q That is the only significance that has to you?
A That is the only reason I said that.
Q Did it appear to you to be broken in the picture; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I believe you said that on the 18th of February, 1970, you were detained by the Fayetteville police; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you were expected to be interviewed by the CID?
A Yes, sir.
Q They did not show up?
A No, sir.
Q Isn't it true that there did come a time subsequent to that, as I believe you testified, that the CID did, in fact, interview you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Concerning the MacDonald killings?
A Yes, sir.
Q To your knowledge, were a lot of people being interviewed or questioned?
A Yes, sir.
Q By the CID or by the Fayetteville police?
A By someone -- some law enforcement.
Q By law enforcement?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q I believe you were asked a number of questions concerning the fact that you had moved as a result of the MacDonald killings; is that correct?
A It was one of the reasons; yes.
Q What were some other reasons?
A I had been to North Carolina Memorial and taken methadone and everything and I wanted to move away into another area where I could stay clean.
Q Is it fair to say that you were not particularly anxious to come to North Carolina this week?
A Yes, sir.
Q Prior to leaving North Carolina in 1970, you had cooperated in some ways with the Fayetteville Police Department; is that not correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And as a result of that cooperation, is it not true to say that even today, you are still fearful for your safety?
A Yes, sir.
Q Isn't it true that that is the primary reason you did not want to come here and testify?
A It was one of the reasons; yes, sir.
Q You have no reason to believe, do you, that you were standing on a street corner at 4:00 o'clock in the morning on the 17th of February, near Fort Bragg; do you?
A I don't have any reason to believe that; no.
THE COURT: Mr. Blackburn, may I inquire --
MR. BLACKBURN: (Interposing) It would be a few more minutes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then, it is time for us to go to lunch on our Friday schedule and that is what we will do now. We will come back today at 1:30. You know, we only get one hour on Friday. If you will come back at 1:30. Don't talk about the case. Take a recess until 1:30.
(The proceeding was recessed at 12:32 p.m., to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)
F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 1:30 p.m.
(The following proceedings were held in the presence of the jury and alternates.)
THE COURT: Any further questions of this witness?
MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, HELENA STOECKLEY, 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 1:31 p.m. (resumed)
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Ms. Stoeckey, let me hand you Defendant Exhibit Number 86 and 89. With respect to Defendant Exhibit 86 -- that's a photograph of you, I take it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay, if you don't mind, would you speak up a little bit louder?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know when that photograph was taken or what year it was taken?
A I think it was taken in 1970.
Q In 1970. Now, this drawing that was done is the Defendant Exhibit 89. Taking that drawing in its totality, is that you?
A No, sir.
Q You didn't sit for that drawing; did you?
A No, sir.
Q You don't know who drew it?
A No, sir.
Q I take it that you don't know, then, whether or not whoever drew it -- this drawing -- also had this photograph?
Q No, sir.
Q Now, when you came home at about 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock that morning on the 17th, you got out of the car; you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see any blood on your hands?
A No, sir.
Q Did you see any blood on your clothes?
A No, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: No further questions, Your Honor.
MR. SEGAL: I have a few questions on redirect, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 1:33 p.m.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, do you remember hearing about the funerals of the MacDonald family that were being planned; do you recall that?
A Being planned?
Q Yes; you heard that there was going to be a funeral of the MacDonald family; hadn't you? You heard that in 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q Didn't you want to attend that funeral?
A I made mention of that fact at one time.
Q Does that mean that you did or not want to go to the funeral of the MacDonald family?
A At one point I did.
Q I can't hear you.
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you talk to some other people about going to the MacDonald funeral?
A Just about getting a way to it or if I would be allowed to go to it or something like that.
Q And was the only reason why you didn't go to the funeral was because you couldn't get anybody to take you out there?
A No.
Q What was the reason why you didn't go?
A I just changed my mind.
Q Who was it that you talked to about the fact that you wanted to go to the MacDonald funeral?
A I'm not even sure.
Q Was it people that you lived with in the house?
A Probably someone who frequented being at the house quite a bit.
Q What did you mean when you said you weren't sure you would be allowed to go?
A Well, I didn't know if it was for family members or what.
Q Now, your testimony is that you had never met the MacDonald family prior to February 17, 1970; correct?
A Yes, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I would OBJECT.
THE COURT: Yes; I don't see that this -- it is what you went into, I think, on direct examination. And on cross-examination, I don't think that there has been anything new brought out about this, has there?
MR. SEGAL: I thought it related to some issue. I have nothing further on that point, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You were asked by the Government's attorney whether anybody had power over you. Do you recall being asked that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And was your answer -- your answer was that nobody had power over you; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q In 1969 and 1970, did some drug have power over you when you used it?
A A drug did; yes, sir.
Q What was the drug that most had power over you when you took it?
A Heroin.
Q What about LSD?
MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Yes, Ms. Stoeckley?
A It didn't really have any power -- well, I couldn't control it.
Q Can you tell us a little more clearly, when you say you couldn't control it?
A I mean, I couldn't control my actions when I was on it. That is why I discontinued using it.
Q You discontinued -- finally discontinued using LSD in what year?
A About '71.
Q And when you discontinued using it, was it because when you used it, you had thoughts that were related to the MacDonald case?
A Not necessarily; no.
Q Not necessarily?
A No.
Q Did you have thoughts relating to the murders of the MacDonald family when you were using LSD between February 17, 1970, and when you stopped in 1971?
A I don't know what I would be thinking when I was using LSD.
Q Well, what is it, if you can tell us more precisely, that finally made you stop using LSD regularly?
A It wasn't any one thing. I just got tired of the drug taking me.
MR. SEGAL: Bear with me just one second, please.
(Pause.)
MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions of this witness at this time, Your Honor.
MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I would like to have one question, if I might.
THE COURT: All right.
R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N 1:33 p.m.
BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Ms. Stoeckley, have you ever been formally accused or convicted of any crime of violence?
A Of violence?
Q Yes, ma'am.
Q No, sir.
MR. BLACKBURN: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right; call your next witness. You may stand down.
(Witness excused.)
MR.SEGAL: Your Honor, the Defense calls Mrs. Jane Zillioux. While she is being brought forward, may we speak to you about some matters?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BLACKBURN: I assume this witness can be excused.
MR. SEGAL: That is part of the matter. Not until we have a chance to talk to Your Honor.
THE COURT: Don't let her be excused yet.
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E
MR. SEGAL: In regard to this witness, Your Honor, I at this time wish to place her under subpoena, because I wish to retain her. I do not want her to be held in custody as a material witness.
THE COURT: I thought she was under subpoena.
MR. SMITH: I don't know that we ever got her served.
THE COURT: Well, the warrant you had issued for her arrest had the effect of a subpoena.
MR. SEGAL: All I would like to have, Your Honor, is the witness be advised that we have not released her. She is under subpoena. We will tender the witness fee immediately to her, so that she, you know, will be able to stay.
THE COURT: Do you want some time to do that, or have you already got it prepared?
MR. SEGAL: We don't have it prepared, Your Honor, but we will do this afternoon.
THE COURT: Get it done right away. You see the girl has done what she came here to do. I am not after holding people in jail.
MR. SEGAL: I agree entirely. It will take us less than half an hour to have a subpoena for her. I would just ask, out of the hearing of the jury, of course, that Your Honor tell her that the subpoena means what it says, and that she had best not run off. I don't think she will, if she hears it from Your Honor. Everything you know about her says despite her looking up at the Court, that she would listen.
THE COURT: What do you want me to do, go in yonder jail right now and tell her?
MR. SEGAL: If we are going to have a voir dire -- I don't know whether we are going to have a hearing out of the presence of the jury or not.
THE COURT: On these other witnesses?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That was going to be -- we didn't have time for me to tell you, but that was going to be my solution to that. I don't see how I can rule without knowing where you are going and what the witnesses are going to say. In that connection, how many of this type witness do you have?
MR. SEGAL: There are five.
MR. SMITH: There are five.
MR. SEGAL: Let me call the first one and Your Honor will get an idea of what their testimony is like. That may help you. Then you may see whether you want to hear the rest of them.
MR. SMITH: They are different kinds of people.
THE COURT: Got any Stoeckleys in the crowd?
MR. SMITH: We have changed all the Stoeckleys' names.
THE COURT: Tell me about the length of testimony for these witnesses.
MR. SMITH: I would say direct --
THE COURT: (Interposing) You are looking at an hour and 15 minutes of remaining trial time for this day.
MR. SMITH: My feeling is the direct examination of those witnesses would take 20 minutes to 30 apiece.
MR. SEGAL: That is correct.
THE COURT: Well, would it profit anything just to let this jury go? How long would your voir dires last?
MR. SEGAL: Probably shorter -- there'd be less objections that are made for the purpose of the jury. We will just hear what they have to say.
THE COURT: That is 50 minutes, and if there is any cross-examination -- I was going to say I might just give the jury the afternoon off and get all of that behind us this afternoon.
MR. SEGAL: We have some other administrative matters to discuss with Your Honor that could also be profitably discussed at this time after the jury leaves, if you wanted to do that. We are ready to go either way. We have witnesses here.
MR. SMITH: We are primed and ready.
THE COURT: Of course, doubtless, you could finish with one witness this afternoon or maybe two, but if we can't finish with all of them, then there is not a whole lot to be gained by just doing one or two, it would seem to me. If we can get all these things, then I anticipate that what they say may be different. This statement may be in one category, say, lacking admission against interest -- the other just purely a state of mind, or something like that, which might invoke a different rule.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Does the Government have any suggestions about the thing?
MR. MURTAGH: Since each one of these things is going to have to be ruled on, I think by the Court, because they are all intermixed -- I thinkn that the best thing, Judge, is to perhaps let the jury go. And if Defense Counsel would omit some of the foundation questions and just cut right to the meat of it, we could get the matter solved -- get them all done today.
THE COURT: Did you say you had something else to bring up this afternoon?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor. There are a couple. We have a motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.
MR. SMITH: That is being moved on, I understand, now.
THE COURT: That was handed to me yesterday afternoon with an affidavit. I did not consider that affidavit sufficient, and so I need to know some more on that. Maybe I ought to explain why I don't.
I get these things all the time. Everybody who is in Marion in jail would rather be in Raleigh testifying.
MR. MURTAGH: There are two that are in there right now. They confessed years ago.
THE COURT: I can get you any witness in the world who'll say anything, but when we are talking about going halfway across the street -- it is over 200 miles to Marion to get a witness out of jail to have him come here. I would want to know a little bit more.
MR. SEGAL: Certainly, Your Honor. We can supplement that with other testimony.
MR. SMITH: I talked with an FBI man this morning with Mr. Anderson in regard to making a little further discussion with Mr. Frier, and I talked with Mr. Frier on the telephone with FBI people there, so I think we are underway or completing some investigation.
(Bench conference terminated.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, it's got so we have at least one goodie for you every day. Yesterday, we gave you virtually the whole day off. Also, you got a bonus yesterday. We raised your pay by $5.00 a day. I heard no objections to that.
Now, it appears that the next five witnesses who will be called to testify will -- it is believed by counsel -- undertake to offer testimony about matters which will involve some decisions as to the admissibility of the evidence, perhaps some close questions of evidentiary law.
The normal way to handle this is let you go back here and wait while we educate ourselves and hear all of this; but I have proposed that since we obviously cannot finish today and these all have to be gotten rid of, that we take all five of these witnesses and hear their testimony in your absence, and let you take the rest of the day off.
Then when you come back, we will have the witnesses ready to testify and you can hear them and you won't be going in and out, and they won't be parading up here for these bench conferences.
So with the consent of counsel for all parties and at the suggestion of the Court, we are going to let the jury retire for the remainder of this trial day, and of course for the week.
We will reconvene Monday morning at 10:00 o'clock, our usual Monday reconvening hour. I pause at this time to remind you again of the instructions which remain in force and effect at all times. They are, briefly, that you are not to discuss this case among yourselves.
Don't let anybody discuss it in your presence. Do not read, look at, or listen to anything that may appear in any of the news media. I will be asking you about that Monday morning.
That is particularly binding at this time for that. Testimony, it is anticipated, will be given from this witness stand this afternoon while you are not here, which you may never hear.
And it's just too much to ask of you that you weed out that which came to you from some outside source from that which you have heard in here; so I caution you not to let anything of that nature come to your attention from any source whatsoever.
Finally, members of the jury, you must keep open minds about the case. Although it may seem to you that there is hardly anything else that could be said about it, I am informed that you have not heard it quite all yet.
So please keep open minds about it. I commend you again for the manner in which you have been discharging this responsibility. I just don't think I have ever seen a better jury than this one, from the standpoint of your promptness and the attention which you have paid to the witnesses and to the counsel and to the Court.
I express this for them because they can't talk to you; but I can -- that all of us are grateful for the attitudes that you have so admirably demonstrated in the hearing of this case.
I am going to let you retire now. Have a good weekend, a safe trip home and back, and we will see you Monday morning at 10:00 o'clock.
(Jury exits at 1:52 p.m.)
(The following proceedings were held in the absence of the jury and alternates.)
THE COURT: All right, call your first witness.
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, could we dispose of the administrative matter in regard to the subpoena I have prepared?
THE COURT: Oh, yes.
MR. SEGAL: May we ask the Marshal to bring Ms. Stoeckley back to the Court, please. It will just take a moment, Your Honor.
(Ms. Stoeckley enters at 1:55 p.m.)
MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, Ms. Stoeckley has been present in the Court pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued for her as a material witness in this matter after I had filed an affidavit with this Court and made an oral motion in that regard. I believe at this time, it is appropriate to discharge the warrant of arrest. It would expire, I think, this evening anyway. However, because it is not certain in my mind that Ms. Stoeckley's testimony may not be needed further in this case -- at this time, I am going to tender her a subpoena as a witness -- a subpoena to be here at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon. I will ask that thereafter -- she can be excused, and I will just make arrangements to locate her.
I am also going to tender her the statutory witness fees in that regard. My request to the Court, though, in view of the fact that Ms. Stoeckley has frankly stated that she did not want to be here and that she was so difficult to locate, I would ask the Court to advise Ms. Stoeckley of the importance of honoring the subpoena and the fact that the Court does fully expect her to return here as needed pursuant to this subpoena.
THE COURT: Well, I will say to the witness, Ms. Stoeckley, first of all, I hope you will understand that the Court, when called upon to do so in a case of a witness who is apparently reluctant to come to Court or is evading process of the Court, had to, in this instance, take some necessary action to insure your presence here.
Insofar as the Court is concerned, of course, you have discharged that duty and you will be free from further arrest at this time. What counsel is telling you, though, is that conceivably he might want you to testify further at some later time in the trial, and in that event, he is serving you with a subpoena at this time for your continued appearance or at such time as he will let you know. Of course, that is the process of the Court and failure to comply with it could result in sanctions of one kind or another against you, so you will understand that. I am sure that counsel will not call you unless he feels that it is essential to the defense of his client, but if he does, of course, you will be expected to comply.
MR. SEGAL: Is that clear, Ms. Stoeckley?
MS. STOECKLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: Do we have your word that you will appear as required?
MS. STOECKLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you, Your Honor.
Webmaster note:
The original stenographer's misspellings of Melony and Mazzarole were corrected to Mallonee and Mazerolle, respectively, in this transcript.