THE COURT:  Call your next witness.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would call Dr. George Gammel.

(Whereupon, DR. GEORGE E. GAMMEL 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

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Please state your name.
A  George E. Gammel.
Q  Where do you presently live, Dr. Gammel?
A  Lincoln, Nebraska.
Q  What do you do for a living, sir?
A  I am a pathologist in private practice in pathology there in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Q  How long have you been a pathologist?
A  Nine years -- ten years.
Q  Where did you attend undergraduate school or college?
A  At Doane College in Crete, Nebraska, a small congregational college.
Q  What degree, if any, did you receive from there ?
A  A Bachelor of Arts degree.
Q  What additional training beyond college have you had, sir, in the field of medicine or pathology?
A  I took my medical school training at the University of Nebraska for four years, and I took one year of a rotating internship at Saint Elizabeth Hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska, and then four years of pathology training, both anatomic and clinical training, at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.
Q  Have you ever been certified in any way in pathology?
A  Yes; I have been certified both in anatomic and clinical pathology.
Q  By whom?
A  By the American Board of Pathology.
Q  You are currently licensed to practice medicine where?
A  Nebraska, Missouri, and North Carolina.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time we would offer this witness as an expert in the field of pathology.

THE COURT:  Very well.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, directing your attention to the 17th of February, 1970, did you have an occasion to be working at Womack Army Hospital?
A  Yes.
Q  How long had you been working there, sir?
A  About six months, I think.  I came in August.
Q  You were working as a pathologist?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, directing your attention to early that morning on the 17th, did you have an occasion as a result of working at Womack Army Hospital to conduct an autopsy on the body of Colette MacDonald?
A  Yes; I did.
Q  When and where did you first see the body of Colette MacDonald?
A  It was in the basement in the morgue where we do all autopsies at approximately 9:00 or 9:20 in the morning.
Q  And how was she dressed when you first saw her?
A  She was nude -- no clothing.
Q  After you first saw her, I take it, that you began the autopsy.  Is that correct?
A  Yes; that is true.
Q  Where did the autopsy take place?
A  In that same morgue area at Womack Army Hospital.
Q  Now, besides yourself, who else was present when the autopsy of Colette MacDonald was conducted?
A  Dr. Charles Davis who was Chief of Laboratories and my direct superior was there, and Dr. Frank Hancock who was another physician working in the laboratory was there.  There were two CID agents, Hawkins and King were there.  I think there was a photographer.  MacAfree (phonetic) was there.
Q  Were pictures taken of the body?
A  Yes; there were.
Q  Now, approximately, sir, if you can recall, at what time was the autopsy first begun?
A  It would be shortly after 9:30 in the morning.
Q  Approximately how long did it last?
A  It lasted well up until noon, as I remember.
Q  Would you state, sir, what you first did in conducting the autopsy?
A  First would be the examination of the external body surfaces and collection of any kind of physical evidence -- for instance, fingernail scrapings or evidence for the laboratory.
Q  Did you do that?
A  Yes; the first thing that was done was fingernail scrapings and I think there was a strand of hair that I found on the right small finger and some other particles underneath the fingernails, and I think at that same time I took a vaginal swab for examination.
Q  After you did that, what did you do next?
A  Next was a detailed examination of the external surface of the body in order to categorize and record the evidence of injury.
Q  Which injuries did you first observe, sir?
A  The first that I really studied in any depth would be, I would classify them as blunt force injuries.  There were more -- well, there were two types of injuries that I saw.  One you could classify as a blunt force injury, and the other type would be the incisional or stab wound injuries so I guess the first one I examined closely would be the blunt force injuries that would be caused by a blunt force of some type or a blunt object of some type.
Q  Where, sir, were those injuries that you have so described as blunt force injuries, located?
A  There were two major locations for the blunt force injuries.  The first to be described, I guess, would be the ones that occurred on the arms, forearms, and hands.
Q  Let's take the right arm first.  What did you observe on the right arm?
A  Okay, the right arm was broken and there were lacerations or cuts that were from this blunt force, plus, there were bruises and scrapes all over the entire -- I guess we call this surface of the arm the volar or the ulna, or the lower surface of the arm, which would be where the ulna connects from the elbow to the wrist.  On the surface, there were multiple bruises, one laceration, and then obviously, the arm was broken about at the mid-point between the wrist and the elbow.  Both bones of this right am were broken and could be seen through the laceration as they were both broken.
Q  If you would, sir, define what you mean when you speak of the term "laceration."
A  A laceration would be like a tear where the skin is actually torn, and you differentiate this from, say, a cut or a slash or an incisional cut.  Because it has a ragged, irregular edge, there is bruising and it is different.  It is a blunt force type of tear of the skin.
Q  Is that all that you observed on the right arm?
A  Yes.
Q  What did you observe, if anything, on the left arm?
A  Similar bruises and on this am, there were two lacerations -- one just above the wrist and one just below the elbow.  Under these lacerations or tears in the skin, again, I could feel a broken bone.  This time it was just the single bone of the arm, the ulna, which is a rather large bone, but again, it is on the outer surface of the arm.  It was broken in two places.  Again, there were multiple bruises and scrapes on this arm and hand.
Q  What, if anything, did you observe, sir, with respect to the left hand?
A  On the back surface of the hand, there was a sharp laceration, or one that would fit into the other category.  It would have been an incisional wound of some type, where the edges were sharp and it looked like they had been caused by a sharp instrument of some type.  It was not particularly the blunt force injury.  There was another defect on the dorsal surface of the left hand.
Q  Dr. Gammel, based on your experience and training as a pathologist, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to the types of wounds these wounds to the arms were?
A  Yes.
Q  What is that?
A  There are known as defensive wounds, and they get that name in that the arms are placed in front of the face and body to defend or to ward away any kind of blows.  This is where the blows lit instead of the body, so they would be classified as defensive-type wounds.
Q  After you examined the arms of the body of Colette MacDonald, what did you observe next, sir?
A  Next, I would go to the next major location of the blunt force injury which would be the head.  The head had sustained multiple blows and in categorizing them, I found five separate lacerations where, again, a laceration would be a tear in the skin.  These lacerations were on the forehead and top of the head or in the scalp area.  The lacerations were quite extensive.  Some were four or five inches long and the skin was widely separated and gaping.  The skull was easy to see.  The skull bone was easy to see underneath these lacerations, and there was a lot of bruising and hemorrhage around in the soft tissues around the laceration.  There was also a bruise, a rather extensive bruise, across the chin and then some more down into the right temple area.
Q  What, if anything, did you observe in the center portion of Colette's head?
A  Again, starting from the eyebrow and going up toward the hairline was another laceration, associated with bruising.  The eye was -- with this one there was another laceration.  At this time, what I saw was a laceration in the soft tissue.
Q  Do you know whether or not the skull of Colette was fractured in any way?
A  Not at this time.  That would require -- actually where I found this was when I actually took the brain out and looked inside.  Then I detected this.  I could go into that now.
Q  Yes, sir; if you would.
A  In going through the evidence of injury, we like to follow it through, to bring it together.
    The next part of the examination was, then, the reflecting of the scalp, the removal of the top of the skull.  We took the brain out and then examined the skull, itself, from the inside.
    At this time, I found a fracture line in the skull.  It was a very small fracture line, so far as skull fracture goes.  It went about three inches in length.  The brain itself had shown a little bit of superficial hemorrhage on the membranes covering the brain.  This was especially observed at the back surface of the brain.  Again, what that means is that when the head is hit by a flow of some kind, the brain is propelled against the back side of the skull and it bounces off of it, so to speak, causing damage to the brain in this manner.  So I did see, then, there was a bruise of the brain, some hemorrhage, and the fractured skull.
Q  Dr. Gammel, I will hand you Government Exhibit 306, sir, and ask you just to take a look at it.  Do you have an opinion, sir, based upon your education, experience and training, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself, whether or not the blunt force injuries to the head and chin area of Colette could have been caused by a club such as that exhibit?
A  Yes.
Q  What is that opinion?
A  The injuries that I saw on Colette could well have been caused by this type of an instrument -- blunt instrument.
Q  Now with respect to the chest area of Colette, what, if any, bruising did you observe on the chest area?
A  It was a so-called pattern bruise, or a defect or a bruise on the chest that had sort of sharp margins and angulations, which I did observe.  Again, it would fit into the category of blunt force injury.  The skin wasn't broken but it was a definite bruise of a pattern type, with kind of a flat surface, and sharp kind of edge and angle.  
Q  Again, Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself whether or not that bruising area could have been caused by any portion of that club?
A  Yes, I think it could; definitely.
Q  Which portion are you referring to?
A  Well, it would either be the edges on the side or the end itself, where there are good sharp margins and angles.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to the angles that that club could have used to inflict the wounds on Colette's head or chin area?
A  Most or all of the blunt force injuries that I saw, I felt were delivered from a frontal position or assault position, in that they struck the head from the front and glanced to one side from the top or the chin across the front.  So it would be a frontal type -- direct.
Q  What about the chest area?
A  Again, it is straight on in some manner, whether straight this way or this way (indicating).
Q  Dr. Gammel, after you examined the blunt force injuries that you have described, what portion of Colette did you examine next, sir?
A  The next would be -- I went to the examination of the stab wound injuries that I saw on the skin surface.  These I categorized into two types.  One would be an incisional stab wound that is caused by a knife, and then another type was a very small pinpoint or puncture wound.  So there were two types of stab wounds that I saw: the knife-like stab wounds and the puncture wounds.
Q  With respect to the stab wounds that you described where were they located?
A  Two major locations: they were on the front part of the chest and on the front part of the neck.  There were -- I counted seven on the front part of the chest, nine on the neck.
Q  With respect to the nine on the neck -- what did your autopsy of Colette reveal with respect to what internal organs, if any, those stab wounds struck?
A  The wounds did go through the skin and went into the soft tissues of the neck, and two of them had actually gone into the trachea or the windpipe -- the pipe that leads from the mouth to the lungs -- so that that trachea or the windpipe was penetrated in two places by these knife tracks.  Also, the thyroid had been lacerated a couple times -- again, had been cut.  And then the soft tissues of the neck , there was quite a bit of hemorrhage or blood -- blood clot present in the soft tissue.
Q  With respect, sir, to the stab wounds -- seven stab wounds in the chest area -- what internal organs, if any, did your autopsy reveal that those wounds struck?
A  The knife wounds, again, in this case went through the skin and also the chest wall and entered in the chest cavity; and there were lacerations or cuts of both lungs, and also of the pulmonary artery.  The pulmonary artery is a major artery that comes out of the heart and goes to the lung.  The knife -- or the knife wound had gone down and nicked the -- actually cut this pulmonary artery, which would cause quite a bit of bleeding.  It also went through the soft tissues in the center of the chest.  We call that medically the mediastinum, and there was a lot of bleeding because of the soft tissue and vessels that were cut in this area as well.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to the direction from which these stab wounds could have been inflicted -- or the angle at which they were inflicted?
A  I felt they were all fairly perpendicular.  In other words, I did not think there was any significant angulation -- perpendicular to the body -- and would place the body flat on the floor facing me straight so they would be straight into the body in a perpendicular right angle method -- angle.
Q  Do you have an opinion, Dr. Gammel, satisfactory to yourself, as to what type of instrument could have caused these stabbing wounds?
A  Yes, I -- I believe it would be a single-edged knife of some form.
Q  A sharp or a dull knife?
A  Should be fairly sharp.
Q  Dr. Gammel, let me hand you Government Exhibit 313, and ask if you would take a look at it for a moment?

(Witness complies.)

Q  Have you had an opportunity to observe it?
A  Yes.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not that knife could have inflicted the stabbing wounds into the body of Colette MacDonald?
A  I think it could well have been -- it would be very consistent with that.
Q  Dr. Gammel, with respect to the other wounds I think you referred to as puncture-type wounds -- is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  Where did you observe those wounds, sir?
A  Most around the anterior chest, again.
Q  By "anterior"  you mean the --
A  The front, front of the chest; and then there are -- I think there were -- there were three on the left upper arm as well, but in all the total count was 21 that I counted at the time I did the autopsy on the front chest, and three on the upper arm, making a total of 24.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not these puncture-type wounds were a major cause of death of Colette MacDonald?
A  I don't believe so.  Most of them were fairly superficial.  I think I could see where at least five went through the anterior chest wall, but I could see no real significant damage to the underlying organs from these -- from these puncture wounds.
Q  Dr. Gammel, let me hand you Government Exhibit 312, and ask, sir, if you would take a look at it?

(Witness complies.)

Q  Have you had an opportunity to observe it?
A  Yes.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not the puncture wounds in the body of Colette MacDonald could have been caused by an ice pick such as that?
A  Yes, they could have been caused by an ice pick such as this.
Q  Now, in examining the puncture holes in Colette's body, did you have an occasion to use a microscope?
A  No, I did not.
Q  In your examination of those puncture holes, how many blue fibers, if any, did you find?
A  I just did a gross -- I just looked grossly at the puncture wounds, and I observed no blue fibers in the wounds.
Q  By the term "grossly,"  what do you mean?
A  That's just by my eye -- eyesight alone.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not any clothing threads of whatever kind would have been found in those puncture holes, if those holes had been made by an instrument such as that ice pick?
A  Because it is so sharp, I would think it would be unlikely that a fiber would be taken into the wound with that.  More blunt objects, they are, but it -- I would think it would be unlikely.
Q  Dr. Gammel, after you observed the puncture holes in the body of Colette, what did you do next?
A  The next part would be actually the removal of all the organs of the body and examining them for other diseases or other injuries.
Q  Did you do that?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  What did that examination reveal?
A  There was not any other significant disease processes.  I did find a normal pregnancy of approximately four to five months gestation.  I did find some evidence of thyroid disease which most likely I would suspect was completely asymptomatic, or that is, was not a problem with her at this moment.  If she would have lived, she might have had some thyroid problems in the future and have to take thyroid medication.  Other than that, I found no other significant disease processes or injuries.
Q  In your autopsy, sir, what evidence did you find of any sexual assault on the body of Colette?
A  None whatsoever.  I did say that I took vaginal swabs and then I would stain those with some stains in the laboratory, and I did find evidence of some spermatozoa there.  They were very degenerate and would mean that sexual intercourse had occurred sometime in the past day to week.  So, as far as I could tell from other examination, there was no evidence of a rape or anything.
Q  You spoke of four to five months gestation; is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  Was it a boy or a girl?
A  It was a boy.
Q  After you completed your autopsy, what did you do with the organs that you had removed from the body?
A  They were placed back inside the body and the body was sewn up.
Q  That included the baby boy?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to the cause of death of Colette MacDonald?
A  Yes.
Q  What is that opinion, sir?
A  I think the cause of death was stab wounds with subsequent hemorrhage and bleeding.
Q  In other words, it is your opinion then that the stabbing wounds to the chest area or the neck area caused the death of Colette?
A  Most likely the chest area; yes, that is my opinion.
Q  Do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not Colette MacDonald could have survived the blunt force injuries to her body?
A  Yes.
Q  What is that opinion?
A  I think she could have survived those; yes.
Q  Now, during the course of this autopsy or prior to this autopsy, do you know whether or not any blood typing was done for Colette MacDonald?
A  Yes, I did take some blood samples at the time of the autopsy.  We sent them up to the laboratory in the Womack Amy Hospital Laboratory for blood typing purposes and this was done there.
Q  Was this done in the course of the autopsy proceedings?
A  Yes.
Q  Under whose general direction was this blood typing done, sir?
A  This was done in the clinical laboratory so it would have been both under my direction and also Colonel Davis, the chief of the laboratory's direction.
Q  He was the man also in the autopsy area?
A  Right.
Q  Was this blood type ever recorded anywhere, sir?
A  On my autopsy protocol, I did record it.  I had a slip of paper at one time that was a report from the Blood Bank Section.  All I have now in my possession is the autopsy report, but I did see that.
Q  What, if you can recall, was the blood type of Colette MacDonald.
A  She was a blood Type A-positive.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Just a moment, Your Honor.

(Pause.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, during the course of the autopsy, did you have an occasion to take any hair samples from the body of Colette MacDonald?
A  I took the hair sample from the right finger where this hair was present.  I did not take it apparently from the hair of the head.
Q  Now, Dr. Gammel, you, in 1970, you were not a forensic pathologist; is that correct?
A  No.
Q  Since 1970, sir, how much training or education, if any, have you had in the field of forensic pathology?
A  After I got out of the Army, I went into a private practice in pathology in Columbia, Missouri, and was elected coroner there, and then we changed the system to a medical examiner system.  I was Chief Medical Examiner for Boone and Callaway Counties in Missouri, and then I moved up to Lincoln, Nebraska, and I am now coroner's physician in that area.  So I kept active in this field and have taken one or two courses -- week-long courses at the Chicago Center for the College of Pathology on forensic pathology.  I have not pursued becoming a forensic pathologist.
Q  Based on what you now know in the field of forensic pathology, what changes or differences would that have made with respect to the autopsy that you performed on the body of Colette MacDonald in 1970, if any?
A  I really don't believe there would be any changes.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, doing it the way we did yesterday, I tender to the Court Government Exhibit 418, which is a certified copy of a Certificate of Death of Colette MacDonald, which I will move into evidence.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Government Exhibit 418 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

MR. BLACKBURN:  That would be Government Exhibit 418.  Also, Government Exhibit 398, which is an autopsy report and protocol on Colette MacDonald from which this witness will testify.

(Government Exhibit 398 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

MR. BLACKBURN:  And also, Government Exhibit 401, which is a Consultation Report with the Department of Army in Washington, D.C., to which this witness could authenticate.  I move these into evidence at this time, sir.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Government Exhibit 401 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, with respect to Government Exhibit 401, the Consultation Report, could you tell us briefly, sir, what that is and what the purpose of it is?
A  Yes.  Autopsies such as this or as far as that goes, any interesting or surgical case that we observed at Fort Bragg was sent up to the AFIP for their review.  This would be placed in their registry as a case, and by that way, a large number of cases can be collected for education purposes and consultation.  So this case, then, was sent up to them for their review. In fact, I went up there and spent some time interviewing with them on this case and that is their report -- their wording.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, we would mark several exhibits.  These are all photographs -- Goverment Exhibits 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 770, 771, 772, and 813.

(Government Exhibit Nos.  760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 770, 771, 772, and 813 were marked for identification.)

MR. BLACKBURN:  In addition, sir, 770(a), 761(b), 762(b), 763(c), and 764(c).

(Government Exhibit Nos.  770(a), 761(b), 762(b), 763(c), and 764(c) were marked for identification.)

MR. BLACKBURN:  I might say, sir, that these are not pleasant photographs.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Would you, sir, look at these exhibits generally, sir, and tell us whether or not you can identify those, sir -- just in general.

(Witness examines exhibits.)

A  Yes; I can.
Q  What are they?
A  They are photographs that were taken at the time of the autopsy on Colette MacDonald.
Q  Do they correctly depict what you observed?
A  Yes.
Q  I ask you, sir, to look at Government Exhibit 761 and 761(b) and ask you whether or not there is any relationship between the two.
A  Yes; the larger one is a blow-up or an enlargement of the smaller one.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, I would move these two exhibits into evidence at this time.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Government Exhibit Nos.  761 and 761(b) were received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, if you will use the pointer, sir, and looking at -- this pointer right here -- looking at Exhibit 761(b), what, sir, does that photograph indicate to you, sir?
A  From my previous descriptions I think this will point out the chest and neck injuries as well as the bruise to the chin which are the blunt force injuries.  The one across the chin and under the neck is the easiest one to see here.  The long gaping wounds here would be the stab wounds and the knife wounds, and then in the neck there are several clusters of stab wounds totaling nine.
Q  This one right here -- is this one that you spoke of that could have been inflicted with a club?
A  Yes; this would be a blunt force type of injury or basically what we have here is a bruising and abrasions or scraping.  There is no actual lacerations on this -- just bruising and scraping.
    The other lesions that you can see here are the puncture wounds.  There are a cluster of three right there -- one there, one there, and over here on this side, one here and one here.  The puncture wounds are difficult to really tell here on the photographs and, in order to count them to be sure it was a puncture wound and not just a fleck of blood or some dried blood, I had to actually probe them and make sure there was a defect in the skin, which I did.
Q  Let me hand you, sir, Government Exhibit Number 770 and 770(a) and ask, sir, whether or not there is any relationship between these two exhibits.
A  Yes; again the larger one is a blow-up or enlargement of the smaller one.
Q  You can identify these exhibits, sir?
A  Yes.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, we would move these into evidence.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Goverrment Exhibit Nos.  770 and 770(a) were received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, would you point at what you observed in photograph 770(a)?
A  I think again you can still see the elliptical laceration and incisional stab wounds inflicted by the knife and also the puncture wounds.  The significant one in this picture is the patterned bruise we have in the chest.  Here's is what I am talking about -- a kind of a sharp margin with an angle and another sharp margin with an angle coming up this way sort of forming a square-like patterned arrangement.
Q  Let me hand you Government Exhibit 762 and 762(b) and ask, sir, if you can tell us, sir, the relationship between these two photographs.
A  Yes; I can.  It is the same picture only with an enlargement.
Q  Can you identify them?
A  Yes, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would move these into evidence.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Government Exhibit Nos.  762 and 762(b) were received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  What, sir, does Government Exhibit 762(b) show to you, sir?
A  This picture demonstrates the front part of the chest and takes care of most of the puncture wounds that I have been describing.  This was before the blood had actually been cleaned away so you can actually look at the various defects.  This would be the anterior part of the chest and lower part of the neck.
Q  Let me hand you Government Exhibit 764 and 764(c) and ask you, sir, the relationship between these two photographs.
A  Again, the larger is an enlargement of the same smaller picture.
Q  And you can identify them?
A  Yes.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would move these into evidence.

THE COURT:  They will be admitted.

(Government Exhibit Nos.  764 and 764(c) were received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, what do you see in Government Exhibit 764(c)?
A  I think with this one you can point out the actual puncture wounds now.
Q  Would you do that?
A  All right; there were 21 on the chest, five on the right side, 16 on the left side, and five -- again I will have to point them out.  You will have to take my word that these are the puncture wounds.  There are one, two, three, four, five, and then on the left side there is a cluster of three -- three -- and another cluster of four -- four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
Q  Would you count, sir, the stab wounds that you observe on Government Exhibit 764(c)?
A  There are a cluster of four right over the center of the chest, one down on the right side, and two on the left side.  
Q  Finally, sir, let me show you Government Exhibit 763 and 763(c) and ask, sir, if you can tell us the relationship between these two photographs.
A  Yes; they are the same only with enlargement of the one.
Q  You can identify them?
A  Yes.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would move these into evidence.

(Government Exhibit Nos.  763 and 763(c) were received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  What, sir, do you observe in Government Exhibit 763(c)?
A  This is very similar to the previous one that was just shown.  Perhaps with a little different lighting on it, so again the puncture wounds will stand out.  You can again count the 5 on the side and the 16 on this side.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, we would move all these photographs that have been shown to this witness into evidence.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Goverment Exhibit Nos.  760, 765, 766, 767, 771, 772, 813, were marked for identification, received in evidence.)

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, also at this time, I might say that we have a selected number of slides that we would seek to show this witness.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Dr. Gammel, if you would, sir, bring the pointer and come down by the screen area.  Your Honor, I believe that this is a slide representing Government Exhibit 760.
    Dr. Gammel, what does this slide represent to you, sir?
A  This would be the forehead in the right forehead area of Colette MacDonald.
Q  What do you observe in that photo and can you speak up?
A  This demonstrates how big this laceration was on the left side of the temple.  There is a large defect in the skin, and again, it demonstrates the skin margins are irregular and torn.
    This in the center would be, actually, the skull, which you can see underneath this.  The skin was pulled out of the way.
Q  This next slide, sir, would represent Government Exhibit 761.  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  This represents the chin, neck, and the anterior chest area.  Again, demonstrating the pattern bruising on the chest and chin, the incisional knife wounds in the neck and the chest and some of the puncture wounds on the chest.
Q  This next slide, I believe, represents Goverment Exhibit 763.  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  The anterior chest area.  This would again be the pattern bruise, the incisional wounds, the puncture wounds.  There are some incisional wounds on the lower neck.
Q  This next slide represents Goverment Exhibit 765.  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  This is to demonstrate the arms, to show you the defensive wounds; this is the right arm.
    It demonstrates the areas midway between the wrist and the elbow, where there was a large defect there.  It shows an irregular, jagged laceration or tear in the skin.  Both bones were broken in these arms; shows you some more scrapes and bruises in other areas on the same surface of this arm.
Q  Is that the right am or the left arm?
A  That is the right arm.
Q  This next arm would represent Government Exhibit 766.  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  This is the left arm, again demonstrating the many bruises, and on this arm, there were two tears in the skin -- one just below the elbow and one down in this end.  There is another laceration -- I am not sure which it is -- where I could feel through the lacerations and again, the ulna, or the one major bone of the wrist, or the arm, was broken in two different places.
    Here are more bruises of the hand in this volar or ulnar surface of the arm.
Q  This next slide would represent Government Exhibit 772.  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  This is to demonstrate the sharp, incisional wound in the back, on the dorsal surface, or the back side of the left hand.  We have a sharp-type of a laceration there.  And it also demonstrates other bruises on the arm.
Q  This next slide is a representation of Goverment Exhibit 813.  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  This is designed to try to summarize all the lesions, or all the trauma we had.  We had the forehead region, the neck bruise, the neck lacerations, the chest bruises, and the various stab and puncture wounds.
Q  What, sir, does this slide represent?
A  This is a try at representing what the lungs actually looked like.  Of course I took them out of the body.  I think you can see on the right lung there would be a laceration that did go into the lung itself.  There are two that I noted on my protocol in the left side.  Now, while these now are not readily identifiable, I would imagine they are in this area.  I think you cannot really demonstrate these on this slide.  But at least it does demonstrate the one on the right very well.

MR. BLACKBURN:  For the record, sir, I misquoted myself.  This slide is representative of Government Exhibit 813.  The previous slide represented Government Exhibit 772.  You may go back to the stand.  Your Honor, at this time, we would move into evidence and mark for identification Government Exhibit 972.

THE COURT:  What is it?

MR. BLACKBURN:  It is a poster with photographs of two knives, an ice pick, and a club on it, and two other photographs of Colette MacDonald -- all of which have previously been moved into evidence.

THE COURT:  Very well.

(Government Exhibit No.  972 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, let me give you this marker.  If you would, sir, take a look at Government Exhibit 972 and in these spaces marked "wounds, contusions, lacerations, cuts and punctures,"  would you write in, sir, the summary of what you found in the autopsy that you conducted on the body of Colette MacDonald?
A  I will start from the bottom and work up.
Q  If you could speak up, sir?

THE COURT:  He said he would start at the bottom and work up.

THE WITNESS:  I will start with puncture wounds.  There were 21 in the chest and 3 in the upper arm, so there would be 24.  Cuts would mean the incisional or sharp cuts.  There were 9 in the neck, 7 in the chest, 16 plus 1 in the left hand -- that would be 17.
    Lacerations.  There were 5 in the head, 2 in the left arm, 1 on the right, 5, 6, 7, 8.  And for the wounds and the contusions, I would just have to put "multiple."  I can't really count those.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, if we haven't done so, we would move this exhibit into evidence.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. BLACKBURN:  I believe that would complete, sir, the direct examination of this witness.

THE COURT:  All right, sir.  Any cross-examination?

MR. SMITH:  There will be, Your Honor.  May we have just a moment?


C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N  (12:33 p.m.)

BY MR. SMITH:
Q  Dr. Gammel, there is nothing new about your testimony today, is there?
A  As compared to the previous --
Q  (Interposing) Testimony that you have given?
A  Perhaps there has been -- at one of the previous testimonies I got a little confused in the number of puncture wounds, and --
A  (Interposing) You have added three punctures to your testimony?
A  I have added three punctures, right.  It was on the summary -- there was an error in the summary, which I think I went over very well at the grand jury proceedings; and in my summary, which was done several weeks after my preliminary -- or my gross autopsy -- I added them up wrong.
Q  I understand, yes, sir.  Is there anything new in your testimony then, sir, other than the three punctures that you have described?
A  Not that I am aware of.
Q  Now, those three punctures were illustrated by you in the photographs that the Government's attorney placed on the board to the left, is that correct?
A  I think on one of the pictures you can see two of the puncture wounds on the left upper arm.  I don't think in any of them you can see actually all three of them, but at least you can see two.
Q  Did you actually go to the home on Castle Drive where these events occurred?
A  I did visit the scene two or three weeks after the autopsy, but it was very much after the fact.
Q  You did not have an opportunity, then, to go and examine the scene before the bodies were removed?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Would you normally do that, Dr. Gammel?
A  I don't -- my answer ought to be "no."  It depends on the system you are in, and certain systems -- like when I was medical examiner in Columbia, Missouri, the answer would be "yes."  Other systems, be "no."
Q  Why would you go to the scene if the system did require that you do that?
A  To try to pick up any sort of information that would help me in doing the autopsy, to bring it together as a -- in a better conclusion that I would if I wouldn't have visited the scene.
Q  Yes, sir.  As a matter of fact, it would be helpful to you, wouldn't it, Dr. Gammel, to see the bodies with the clothing on them?
A  Yes.
Q  And under an ideal circumstance, you would want to see the bodies with the clothing on them, wouldn't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What system were you using -- what protocol were you using on February 17, 1970?
A  The scene investigation was carried out by the CID agents, someone other than me, and I was doing the autopsies, with them, I guess, giving me a summary or summation of what the scene was like.
Q  Yes, sir.  Were you using at that time for your protocol, though, the Autopsy Manual for the Department of the Army?
A  Probably not.  I probably was using the autopsy protocol I had learned as a resident.
Q  When you finally did have an opportunity to examine the bodies, had they been chilled or cooled?
A  Yes, they had been -- they were in the autopsy -- or the morgue refrigerator, and had been there for approximately one hour before I knew about them.
Q  That would not be an ideal circumstance, would it, Dr. Gammel?
A  No.
Q  You would rather the body temperature decrease to the temperature of the surrounding environment naturally, wouldn't you?
A  If -- if that was important that -- for a reason -- the time of death -- if that were important, yes.
Q  It would be important, wouldn't it, Dr. Gammel, in helping you decide the time of death?
A  Yes.
Q  Were you able to decide the time of death in this case?
A  I was able to give an estimation of the time of death based on certain findings, which I felt was fairly accurate.
Q  What was your estimate as to time of death, Dr. Gammel, if you recall?
A  I said something like six hours before I examined the body, and I would have to say plus or minus two or three hours.
Q  It really wasn't very close then, was it?
A  No, no.
Q  All you can really say is that these deaths orcurred some time during the morning hours on the 17th of February, is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  And when you said about six hours prior to your time of examination, what time would that make it then -- even though it is an estimate on your part -- what time would it make it as the time of death?
A  I first examined the bodies at -- and took the temperature -- at 9:20, so it would be around 3:00 o'clock in the morning.
Q  Before you examined the bodies, did you have an opportunity to confer with members of CID to find out what had happened?
A  Yes.
Q  And with whom did you talk?
A  The agents at the scene -- at the autopsy were Hawkins and King.  This is where I gained my information, as I remember it.  I don't think there was anyone else.
Q  You did not talk, then, with Mr. Ivory or Mr. Shaw?
A  No.
Q  Well, what did Mr. King tell you and what did Mr. Hawkins tell you?
A  I don't know if I can remember that other than I --
Q  (Interposing) Just your best recollection.
A  I got the information that these -- that the mother and two children were found dead at their home on base, and that I was to do the autopsy then.  That's really about all the information I got.  There was not -- there was a question on who did it, and that was not known.
Q  Did you have an opportunity ever to examine the clothing that had been on the bodies?
A  No, I did not.
Q  You have never seen the clothing, then, to this day?
A  No, not -- I don't -- no.
Q  Dr. Gammel, the word "forensic pathologist"  has been used in the courtroom by Government's counsel.  What is a forensic pathologist?
A  A forensic pathologist is a -- first of all, a regular boarded pathologist, who takes then -- I think it's either one or two more years of specialty training in a forensic pathology office, and then goes through a board examination and becomes boarded in forensic pathology -- "Specialty Board"  tacked on to "Pathology."
Q  You are not, then, a forensic pathologist?
A  No.
Q  In order to become a forensic pathologist would you have to take the additional training you have described?
A  Yes.
Q  When you examined these bodies on the 17th of February, what was your specific purpose?  What were you attempting to accomplish?
A  Specific purposes were to determine cause of death and collect any kind of physical evidence and to record the evidence of injury.
Q  You had then more than a single purpose of determining what it was that caused death, didn't you?
A  Yes.
Q  You wanted to help authorities, also, to discover who did it?
A  Yes.
Q  Were you thinking about that as you performed the autopsies?
A  Yes.
Q  Were the CID people present with you as the autopsies were being performed?
A  Yes.
Q  Were they talking with you as the autopsies were being performed?
A  Yes.
Q  Did they make suggestions to you about what things they wanted collected?
A  Yes.
Q  When you first saw the bodies, Dr. Gammel, would you state whether or not any plastic bags or any other type material had been wrapped around the hand and the feet, for example, of Colette MacDonald?
A  No, there was not.
Q  Ideally should that have been done?
A  Yes.
Q  For what purpose?
A  In the transportation of the body, there would be -- is apt to either lose material or collect material on the way in.
Q  As a matter of fact, isn't it true that you did discover material under the fingernails of Colette MacDonald?
A  Yes.
Q  What did you discover under her fingernails?
A  I did what would be a routine fingernail scraping.  I just took a fingernail file and scraped out any material that was there.  I thought on the left small finger there might have been a little fragment of skin there and I collected that and put it in one of the vials.
Q  And what did you do with that vial?
A  I labeled it, properly identified it, and I gave it to the CID agents there -- Hawkins.
Q  Do you have any information as to what that skin finally checked out to be?
A  No, I do not.
Q  What else did you find under her fingernail?
A  Just nondescript debris.
Q  Did you find any hair?
A  I found a fragment of hair on the right hand.  It was sort of entwined around the small finger.
Q  Would you describe that hair for the jury if you remember?  If you don't it is all right.
A  All I remember, it seemed like it was light and was fairly short.  That is really all I remember.
Q  How was it attached to her hand?
A  It was either entwined around it or perhaps stuck to it with some of the dried blood that was there.
Q  Do you remember the color of the hair?
A  Light is all I can say.  It might have been blond or light brown.
Q  I don't mean to belabor this point, Dr. Gammel, but do you remember the length of the hair?
A  Well, not really.  I noticed in one of my grand jury proceedings that I said four or five inches, but I don't really remember that at this time.
Q  Did you turn that hair over to the authorities -- the CID authorities?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  Did you find any other kind of hair or particle of hair under her fingernails?
A  No.
Q  You found nothing else that you recall?
A  Not that I could identify.
Q  Did you examine her feet?
A  Yes.
Q  Would you state whether or not there was any blood on the bottoms of her feet?
A  I don't remember that.  It was not in my protocol, so I would have to say "no."
Q  Dr. Gammel, did you take any blood samples or scrapings of blood off the outside of Colette MacDonald's body?
A  No, not specifically that.  I don't remember that.
Q  Were you requested to do that by any CID official?
A  Not that I remember.
Q  You would remember that if you had done it; wouldn't you?
A  Hopefully.
Q  Okay.  Did you take a blood sample from inside Colette MacDonald's body?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  Did you turn that over to the CID people?
A  That, I don't remember.  I collected blood for toxicology which went to the Third Army in Fort McPherson, but they sent it up for the blood typing to our lab.  I don't remember for the CID.
Q  I believe, in examining your autopsy report and the other materials that you prepared, you indicated that you did wash parts of the body; is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  Why did you wash parts of the body?
A  In order to better visualize the wounds that were there so I could then examine the surfaces finding out what bruising or what pattern bruises were underneath the dried blood.
Q  That was necessary, then, as part of your examination to wash them?
A  Yes.
Q  Dr. Gammel, you have described several different kinds of wounds, and you have indicated that those wounds could have been made with several different kinds of instruments.  Photographs of those instruments have been supplied you.  How many different kinds of instruments or weapons, in your opinion, were used on the assault on Colette MacDonald?
A  At least three.
Q  You say "at least three."  Could it have been more?
A  It could have been, but I doubt it, but it could have been.
Q  You indicated, I believe, that at least one of the weapons or instruments was sharp-tipped like a pin; is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  And you probed the injuries that you believe were caused by that; didn't you?
A  Yes.
Q  Did you?
A  Yes.
Q  How deep were those injuries?
A  As I remember, most were fairly superficial and were just underneath the skin into the fat tissues underneath the skin.  There were several that went on through the rib cage into the chest itself.
Q  Dr. Gammel, we are not familiar with how deep the skin would go, for example.  Could you describe the depth of those wounds in terms of inches or centimeters?
A  I would say probably minimum.  Some of the real superficial ones went up to an inch and then the deeper ones, I suppose, two or three or four inches.
Q  How many of those wounds, if you know -- that is the puncture wounds with the sharp-tipped instruments -- could have caused death?
A  I don't think any of them could have because I didn't really find any significant organ injury underneath these puncture wound sites.
Q  What would be the deepest injury inflicted with the sharp-tipped instrument we have been describing -- the icepick-type instrument?
A  I did find a few marks on the left lung surface which I felt correlated with a grouping of three puncture wounds; yet, the surface of the lung was really intact and there was just a little bit of hemorrhage or a little bruising of the lung surface, so that is that.
Q  What would be the shallowest of those?
A  The shallowest was some down in the breast area where there was quite a bit of tissue between the surface of the skin and the chest wall.  They did not get through the chest wall.
Q  Did any of those wounds penetrate bone?
A  The puncture wounds?  Not to my recollection.  I think the ones that I saw that did go in the chest cavity went in between the rib spaces.
Q  Was there significant bleeding from those wounds?
A  In my opinion, no.
Q  What would that tell you as a pathologist -- the fact that there was little bleeding from those wounds?
A  Well, it might mean that there was low blood pressure.  A puncture wound like this, though, characteristically does not bleed a whole lot.  You can put a needle through a chest or operate a big caliber and it won't bleed particularly much.
Q  Now, there are also wounds that you have described as possibly being inflicted by a knife?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You have indicated that that is a single-edged knife, I believe.  How can you tell that it is a single-edged knife?
A  Well, presumably, the pattern of the wound where you take the wound itself, one edge will be sharp and another edge will be dull.  I think you can see by looking at the pictures that, in fact, one edge is sharp and one edge is dull.
Q  Two knives have been shown you by the Government's attorney, Dr. Gammel.  In your opinion, could the wounds that were inflicted that were knife-like wounds on Colette MacDonald have been inflicted by either of those two knives?
A  I have only been shown one this morning.
Q  Have you seen two knives in any exhibit them have given you?
A  Yes, I have.  Yes, I think there has been a picture of them.  That is right, okay.
Q  In your opinion, could the wounds have been inflicted by either of those knives?
A  Yes, I think so.
Q  As a matter of fact, it is true, isn't it, that those wounds could be inflicted by any icepick or by most any paring knife?
A  Of similar size, yes.
Q  Would it be true, then, Dr. Gammel, that you can't say for sure that any of the wounds on Colette MacDonald were inflicted by the weapons you have been shown?
A  That is true.
Q  Dr. Gammel, would that statement also be true with respect to the piece of wood you have been shown -- that is, that it might be that piece of wood and then it might not be?
A  That is true.
Q  The best you can do, then, in terms of the instruments that have been shown you in the Courtroom today and the photographs of instruments would be to say that possibly those were the instruments used and possibly, they were not; is that true?
A  Yes.  The wounds are compatible with those instruments.
Q  Dr. Gammel, were the wounds that were inflicted with a knife-like instrument deeper than the wounds that were inflicted with a pin-like instrument?
A  Probably at similar depth, although when the pin or when the sharp instrument went in, it would not do as much damage because the lung would retract away from it so I would say probably a similar depth.
Q  However, the knife-like instrument did much more damage.  Didn't it?
A  Yes.
Q  How many knife-like wounds did you say there were?
A  In the chest?
Q  Yes.
A  There were seven skin wounds that I counted in the chest.
Q  And those were inflicted with a knife-like instrument?
A  Yes.
Q  And there were other knife-like instrument wounds.  Weren't there?
A  In the neck, yes.
Q  Did the pattern of the knife-like wounds appear to you, Dr. Gammel, to be the same as the pattern of the pin-like wounds?
A  I am not sure --
Q  (Interposing) Let me rephrase the question.  The pin-like wounds are much closer together.  Aren't they?
A  There seem to be groupings of the puncture wounds.
Q  As a matter of fact, some of the pin-like wounds would be a quarter of an inch or a half inch apart.  Wouldn't they?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  There would be a pattern of three or four?
A  Uh-huh.
Q  Then there would be in another place -- there was very little bleeding.
A  (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q  Dr. Gammel, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself, based upon reasonable medical certainty, as to whether it is possible that the pin-like wounds were inflicted after death?
A  I really don't know that.
Q  Is there any way that you can tell us that as a pathologist?
A  I think around many of the puncture wounds there was some hemorrhage into the tissues so it would suggest that there might have been a small amount of blood pressure there.  Perhaps life was still present, but I really don't know because I know just as well you can get a little hemmorhage after death as well.
Q  It would be speculation then.  Is that what you are saying?
A  Yes.
Q  It would be pure speculation to say, then, that Colette MacDonald was still alive when those wounds were inflicted.  Wouldn't it?
A  The puncture wounds -- I'm not sure.  Again, because of the small amount of hemmorhage I saw around it, I might lean and say I suspect there might have been some blood pressure, maybe some life there, but I just don't really know for sure.
Q  Dr. Gammel, we talked a while ago about the time interval and the time of death.  I am interested now in asking you if you have an opinion, based upon reasonable medical certainty, as to whether there was a time interval between the infliction of pin-like wounds and the infliction of knife-like wounds or a time interval between the infliction of knife-like wounds and blunt object wounds.
A  I would think they would all be fairly close together.  Now, I think they would all be fairly close together because I think bleeding inside the chest -- it was massive.
Q  Dr. Gammel, were there any tears at the surface of the skin on the puncture wounds?  That is, were the holes elongated or were they perfectly round holes?
A  As I remember, they were perfectly round holes.  There might have been some bruising on one side but there were, as far as I am concerned, no tears.
Q  Dr. Gammel, as a pathologist, can you tell us whether that would indicate that the body of Colette MacDonald was not moving when the puncture wounds were inflicted?
A  I would think that would be a reasonable thing to conclude because there is no angulation, and there was no tearing at all.  The body should have been still.
Q  Then it would be reasonable to conclude that at the time the puncture wounds were inflicted her body had come to rest even though you can't say whether she was at that moment dead.  Is that correct?
A  Yes; I think that is reasonable.
Q  You have also indicated that those wounds were perpendicular.
A  Yes.
Q  Do you mean by that that those wounds came straight in and at right angles to her body?
A  Yes.
Q  Did all those wounds come in at right angles to her body?
A  As far as I could tell, they were all right angles.
Q  Dr. Gammel, as a pathologist, would that also tell you that her body had come to rest when the pin-point wounds or ice pick wounds were being inflicted?
A  I would think that, again, would be a very reasonable assumption.
Q  Can you say the same thing about the knife wounds?
A  Just about; yes.
Q  Were they perpendicular?
A  Yes; the ones that perhaps were the least perpendicular were the ones in the neck and that was probably because the neck is a smaller area to hit so there was more angulation there but most of them were straight-on, perpendicular.
Q  Dr. Gammel, I take it that sometimes in knife-like wounds there is a twisting as the knife enters or exits.  Was there any twisting in this instance?
A  Perhaps one on the left chest.  You did see another defect coming off but the rest of them weren't.  The rest of them were just one incised cut.
Q  Straight in and --
A  (Interposing) And straight out.
Q  -- and back out?
A  One on the left chest did show a little nick at one edge where it looked like that had happened.
Q  Dr. Gammel, in any instances involving the thrust of the knife-like instrument, did you see evidence that the wooden handle of the knife, if there was a wooden handle or whatever kind of handle there was on the knife, struck and pushed the skin in on the body?
A  Yes; I thought there were two, maybe three, of the lacerations where I did see a pattern bruise right around the margin of the incision which would be compatible with bruising from a handle.
Q  That is common -- is it not -- in knife wounds?
A  Yes.
Q  As a matter of fact, in wounds of entry, Dr. Gammel, isn't it frequently true that material and debris is carried into the wound -- for example, instances involving the entry of a bullet?
A  Yes.
Q  Trash and debris enters the wound --
A  (Interposing) As if from a blunt object like a screwdriver or some very blunt object, is common.  Or a bullet, yes.
Q  Goverment Counsel asked you if you found any blue fibers.  You did not find any blue fibers.  Did you?
A  No; I did not.
Q  But you only looked for blue fibers with your naked eye.  Is that correct?
A  As I remember, yes.  Although in rereading my microscopic description, I did look at the knife wound areas and all I saw was hemorhage but I did not specifically look for that, no.
Q  My question to you, sir, was this: you did not just look for blue fibers in the perfectly cylindrical holes made by the pin-type instruments?
A  No; not specifically.
Q  You did not find any blue fibers in holes made by a knife-like instrument either.  Did you?
A  No.
Q  Were the wounds made by the knife-like instruments within the pattern of wounds made by the pin-type instruments?
A  As you have explained this to me previously, I would have to say yes; I think so.  There were a pattern of three's in the neck and a pattern of four on the front chest -- two on the one side and so forth.
Q  They were all mixed up together.  Aren't they?
A  Yeah, but they did form little groups.
Q  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  Will there be more than just a minute?

MR. SMITH:  Maybe one or two questions, Your Honor.  I would like to have five or ten more minutes with him, if I may.

THE COURT:  If you need that much, we will go now but if you didn't need but one or two minutes, I would give you that now.

MR. SMITH:  I would like to have a little bit more.  Thank you.

THE COURT:  All right, we will let the jury retire for lunch recess, and we will come back today at 2:30.  Remember, don't talk about the case.

(Jury exits at 12:58 p.m.)

THE COURT:  Now, you may recess this court until 2:30.

(The proceeding was recessed at 12:59 p.m., to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., this same day.)


F U R T H E R  P R O C E E D I N G S  (2:30 p.m.)

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

THE COURT:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  We are all present except the witness.

(Whereupon, DR. GEORGE E. GAMMEL, 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  2:30 p.m.  (resumed)

BY MR. SMITH:
Q  Dr. Gammel, directing your attention again, if I may, to what things, if any, were done to the body of Colette MacDonald before you started to do the autopsy.  You have indicated that the body was washed in some places.  Was the body embalmed prior to that time?
A  No.
Q  You washed, I take it, any places on the body where you needed to closely examine the wounds; would that be a correct statement?
A  Yes, I did; yes.
Q  So, you carefully washed the chest area of Mrs. MacDonald?
A  Yes.
Q  Prior to washing the chest area, I take it, the wounds would not have been as easy to detect; would that be a correct statement?
A  That is true.
Q  And would it especially be true that the puncture wounds that were made with the small pointed instrument would have been difficult to see before the chest was washed?
A  Yes, they would be difficult to see.
Q  As a matter of fact, would it not be true that some of those wounds could have been mistaken for flecks of blood, for example?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, I think we have explored this.  I would like to explore it just a little further to be sure I understand it.  You have indicated, I take it, that the cause of death was a wound that was caused with the knife-like instrument; is that correct?
A  More than "a."
Q  Several?
A  Yes, several.
Q  I take it, then, that the blunt-type injuries did not cause the death?
A  That is my opinion.  I don't think they are severe enough.
Q  In your opinion, did they contribute to the death?
A  Well, yes, in some ways, they would contribute to the death because --
Q  (Interposing) Would all of those blunt-type injuries have caused unconsciousness?  That is, would each one of them have caused unconsciousness in your opinion?
A  Not each one of them.
Q  That is, looking at each one separately and treating each one separately, you are saying that not every blunt-type injury would have caused unconsciousness?
A  No.
Q  Which ones, if you can recall now, which ones would not have caused unconsciousness if you recall?
A  Certainly the ones at the arms would not have.
Q  All right.  Directing your attention especially to the ones to the head.
A  Okay.  Most likely, the ones that occurred at the side of the temples probably would not because of the kind of glancing character of it, so I would imagine the one I would be most concerned with would be the one at the center of the head and perhaps the chin.
Q  You are unable to say how many blows were delivered to the body of Colette MacDonald; are you not?  That is, you just can't say?
A  No, there was just too many -- multiple.
Q  You have catalogued 40 or 50, at least, haven't you?
A  I guess -- 20 to 30 -- something like that.
Q  I believe you had 24 puncture wounds?
A  Total wounds, yes.
Q  Total -- that is what I am talking about.
A  Yes.
Q  Total ones -- 24 puncture wounds and then at least 16 with the knife?
A  Uh-huh.
Q  Then, of the ones that you can actually see on the head, would there be six, eight, or ten with the blunt instrument?
A  I saw five definite lacerations and then probably two or three other definite bruises and the rest of them sort of went together -- overlapped.
Q  Would it be fair to say that the body of Colette MacDonald sustained at least 75 blows of one type or another?
A  I would think so.  I could not say for sure.
Q  But you would think so?
A  Perhaps.  I don't know.
Q  Did you examine into the blood alcohol level of Colette MacDonald?
A  Yes.  It was done by the Toxicology Department.
Q  Do you know what the reading was?
A  Yes.
Q  What was it?
A  .3.
Q  Could you translate that for us?
A  It is therapeutic.  Therapeutic is up to .5, so it would be equivalent to drinking one beer.
Q  So, she had had one beer sometime during the evening of her death?
A  Yes, a very small amount in other words.
Q  Were there any evidences of drugs in her blood?
A  There was a little bit of Benadryl, which is an antihistamine that was there found in her urine, I think.
Q  Would Benadryl be something that an expectant mother would take to help her sleep?
A  Perhaps, yes.
Q  Perhaps.  Did you find anything else in the nature of alcohol or drugs in her blood?
A  No.
Q  You did find a fetus, I take it?
A  Yes.
Q  Would you describe the fetus in terms of its health?  That is, whether it appeared to be a normal fetus?
A  It appeared to be a normal male fetus, yes.
Q  Did you take a blood type on the fetus?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Now, you did not fingerprint this body and you did not take footprints or hair samples; is that correct?
A  That is true.
Q  The reason you did not do that is that it was not a part of your protocol, I take it?
A  Yes.
Q  That is, you normally did not do that?
A  No, I normally don't do that.
Q  If the CID people who were standing right there had asked you to do it, you would have been glad to do it, I take it?
A  Fingerprinting just because I don't know technically how to do it, but any procedure that I could do, I would do, yes.
Q  But you were not asked to take a hair sample?
A  No.
Q  And you were not asked to take a footprint or to help with a footprint?
A  No.
Q  And you were not asked to help or cooperate with them in the taking of a fingerprint?
A  No.

MR. SMITH:  Would Your Honor indulge me just a moment?

(Pause.)

BY MR. SMITH:
Q  One last question, please, Dr. Gammel.  No one asked you to examine and take a sample of any blood on the bottom of Colette's MacDonald's feet; is that correct?
A  That is correct, no.
Q  If anyone had asked you to do that, you would have done it?
A  Yes.

MR. SMITH:  No further questions.

THE COURT:  Any Redirect?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir, Your Honor.


R E D I R E C T  E X A M I N A T I O N  (2:37 p.m.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Dr. Gammel, at the beginning of your Cross-Examination before lunch this morning, I believe you testified that under the best conditions, you would prefer to have seen Colette MacDonald at the apartment where she was killed before she got to the hospital; is that correct?
A  It depends on the system.  I am not sure I consider myself a real good scene investigator, but I am probably better than somebody who has not had any experience with it, so it depends on the system.  In this particular case, probably yes.
Q  If you had seen the body of Colette MacDonald at the apartment, what difference or changes, if any, would that have made with respect to the autopsy which you performed on her?
A  None that I can think of personally.
Q  I believe, sir, you spoke on Cross-Examination with respect to the hair that you removed from her hand; is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether that hair has ever been identified?
A  I don't know for sure -- no, I don't.
Q  Dr. Gammel, with respect to the weapons that you were cross-examined about and I asked you about on Direct Examination, when, if at all, are you ever able to positively identify which weapons inflicted which wounds?
A  If there is a particular pattern injury where this pattern can be reproduced and there is some unique characteristic about it, then they can be identified, but in my experience, it is very rare that this occurs; although, it can occur.
Q  Let me ask you this question.  With respect to the ice pick which I showed you this morning, under what conditions could you positively say, if any, that that specific ice pick inflicted the puncture wounds on the body of Colette MacDonald?
A  I can't imagine any on the ice pick wounds where it would leave a pattern that I could recognize.
Q  With respect to the autopsy which you conducted, you stated a few minutes ago that you found a normal healthy male fetus.  What injuries that were inflicted on the body of Colette MacDonald struck the fetus?
A  There were no marks on the fetus.  It would just be the loss of circulation and blood pressure that would affect the baby.
Q  What part of the womb of the body was hemorrhaging, if you know?  What part of the womb of the body where the fetus was hemorrhaging or was there any hemorrhage?
A  There was no hemorrhage.  The uterus and the fetus were normal as far as I was concerned.
Q  At this point, let me ask you a very brief hypothetical question if I can, sir.  Assume these facts -- assume first of all that at the time the stab wounds or knife wounds went into the body of Colette MacDonald, a blue, light garment which would have blue fibers was not on her body; and also assume, sir, that at a subsequent time prior to the puncture wounds being inflicted on her body, a blue garment with blue fibers was placed on her body.  Assume those facts, sir.  In your opinion, would those facts be consistent or inconsistent with your findings with respect to the autopsy?

MR. SMITH:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, just one moment.  No further questions, Your Honor.

MR. SMITH:  No questions.

THE COURT:  Call your next witness.