---

THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Blackburn, will you close for the Government?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  All right, proceed.


C L O S I N G  A R G U M E N T  4:40 p.m.

MR. BLACKBURN:  You know, I couldn't help but think during the last ten minutes listening to Wade talk about motive, you know, and the unbelievability of it all; and I suppose, in a way, it is unbelievable that a successful person might kill his family and that a person to whom his children cried "Daddy" might raise his hand in anger or rage or coolness, perhaps, and kill his family, but I can't help thinking back to what I said late this morning.
     We don't contend -- we don't contend that Dr. MacDonald killed his family because Kristen wet the bed.  We contend, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant killed his family because events overtook themselves too fast.  Think yourself for a moment in your own daily lives if you have been angry at someone, but not really meaning to be, and you have raised your hand -- maybe to your own child -- but you would never, you know, follow through.  You stopped short.  You didn't do anything.
     Suppose when you are tired late in the morning or early in the morning and you are worn out and things just aren't going right, that you do raise your hand and before you can regret it, you have done something that is irretrievable.  Everything else, ladies and gentlemen, we say, in that crime scene, flowed from that moment.
     I don't say to you that the Defendant, as I said this morning, has always been a bad person.  I don't say to you that for the last nine years, he has been a bad person.  But I do say to you that on the early morning of the 17th of February, time stopped in the MacDonald home and for a flicker of a second, something happened, I think the evidence shows, which caused tragic events to unfold and the killing of the children was necessary for self-survival.
     Mr. Segal, in his presentation this afternoon, attacked again -- he attacked us, he attacked the CID, he attacked Stombaugh, Shirley Green, and anybody who has ever been with the Government, as I recall, was attacked.  He said that our case was like a house built on sand.  I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, the only sand in this case is that which was perhaps attempted to be thrown into your eyes to keep you from seeing the evidence in this case.  He said that you would write the final chapter and Wade Smith said that you might have the power to give the Defendant peace.  We suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that regardless of your verdict -- regardless of your verdict, whether it is innocent, innocent, innocent, or guilty, guilty, guilty, you don't have the power to give the Defendant peace.
     He said that were were non-partisan.  I suppose there is a grain of truth in that.  We are advocates.  We are pushing a point of view, but let me tell you why -- because we believe it to be true.  I am sure that Mr. Segal would not suggest that we would push it for any other reason.
     He went over the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and, I think, implied to you that we had to show each little item beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is not what we have to show.  We have got to show you beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed these crimes, however we do it.  Whether we do it this way or that way or whether you believe this or believe that, you could throw out 90 percent of our evidence, but if you believe the other ten percent convinced you that the Defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is okay, just so long as we convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.
     He talked that we had misstated some principle of law dealing with the burden shifting from the Government to the Defendant.  We did not misstate that.  We did say that he didn't explain it.  You know, Wade talked a minute ago about what is inside.  Well, that is all right.  What is inside when the Defendant takes the stand and does not attempt to explain the unexplainable, when he is asked questions and doesn't give an answer and relies on his counsel to answer for him?  We rely, ladies and gentlemen, and ask you to rely on the law of common sense.  I will repeat it again this afternoon because it makes a whole lot of sense to me.  Don't you know if he could have, he would have.
     He says that the physical evidence doesn't say anything -- it doesn't speak.  It is only attorneys speaking.  I say to you that the physical evidence simply cries out an explanation.  I heard this afternoon little straw men being set up that we did not raise and then being knocked over by the Defendant.  He talked at great length about threads and fibers and his explanation for where they were.  Isn't it interesting, ladies and gentlemen, that all these MPs and these people who were at the crime scene and tracked in and tracked out in the rain and all this other stuff -- why didn't they track some back into the living room from the master bedroom?  There were a lot of MPs, according to the Defendant and the Government, in the master bedroom.  Why weren't some of those threads somewhere else?
     Miraculously, he asks you to believe that only the threads in the living room area were the ones that were tracked and not those somewhere else.
     He talks about the movement of the bodies and he spoke of Dr. Neal.  He forgot to tell you that Dr. Neal testified from the witness stand that all the photographs of the bodies -- or at least some of the photographs of the bodies -- were taken prior -- not after -- but prior to his checking the bodies.  The picture of the pajama top on Colette MacDonald was first taken by James Alexander before Dr. Neal ever got there -- a little black and white Polaroid shot of it -- one of the first photographs, I think, introduced in the trial.
     You recall that Dr. Neal says that he moved Colette.  How did he move her?  He goes over here and moves her towards him.  He picks up the pajama top.  Did he say that he went over to the bed and shook it out on the bed?  Did he say that he went out and shook it out on the club?  You didn't hear Mr. Segal explain the club, did you -- not with respect to those two threads?  No mention was made of that -- not one.
     Dr. Neal's testimony was contradicted by three Government witnesses -- Ivory, Shaw and Connolly -- who said that he moved the body of Kristen but not the body of Colette and Kimberly.  But whether you can reconcile that disagreement in your minds or not, it still does not change the fact that even if you believe Dr. Neal and choose to disbelieve our three witnesses, so what?  So what?  If the photographs are taken before, if the pajama top doesn't go under the body, big deal.  It doesn't change those threads and fibers, of which there were more than 60 in that room.
     He talks about the blood on the feet of Colette MacDonald and that it wasn't checked.  There is not the slightest indication that the footprint exiting Kristen's room belonged to anybody other than Jeffrey MacDonald.  The Defendant himself on cross-examination said that it was probably his.  H. O. Medlin identified it.  When you get to the point of why we only have his word and why the picture didn't take it and Osterburg said, "Well if you can see it, you can take a picture of it," remember that Medlin said that he saw the ridge lines with a magnifying glass and the photography equipment didn't have that magnifying equipment.  That is why the ridge lines weren't picked up, according to the very testimony of Medlin -- not because you couldn't see it.
     He talked at length about the crime scene and said we made fun of it.  We don't intend to make fun of anything, and certainly not a serious crime scene like this, but I do fail to see the strong significance of the movement of things that have little or no evidentiary value.  He even spoke about the glasses again today and said that there was blood on them.  Yes, there was blood, and the testimony was that it was consistent with that of Kristen and inconsistent with that of the Defendant.  He said that we were talking about the hospital at Hamlet and perhaps that is where it got on there.  I don't recall that testimony ever coming or that argument ever coming from the Government -- maybe you do.
     He gave you a long list of people that were at the crime scene.  Remember, of course, that all those people were not all there at the very same time.  You recall the testimony of the MPs who stated that they stayed there a relatively short time.  Even though Ivory didn't make a list of the MPs who were there, you remember that Bob Shaw said that he had someone do that.  Ivory did not have to do every little single thing.
     He talked about the inconsistencies of statements between Government witnesses and the Defendant himself, and said that we were holding people by different standards.  You have got to remember one thing: first of all, the Government witnesses are not Defendants in a criminal case; secondly -- you have got to remember two or three things -- secondly, the Defendant -- Government witnesses aren't attempting to live and get their freedom by their statements, but most importantly, he is showing inconsistencies between one witness and another witness -- not an inconsistency between a witness' statement and his subsequent statement at some later time.  I submit to you that there is a tremendous difference when you say "A" and "B" disagree and "A" and "A" disagree with "A."  It is quite different, I would submit.
     He talks about the pajama top and where it was torn.  I think by an implication he said that MacDonald said that it was ripped in the master bedroom.  Huh-uh.  MacDonald said that he took it off in the master bedroom and he did not hear a ripping sound.  MacDonald said that he doesn't know where it was torn and he cannot come by his counsel and tell you, "Now, we do know where it was torn."  In any event, we don't disagree necessarily on that.  We believe it was torn in the master bedroom.
     He talks about the fact that there were few yarns and there would have been few yarns because it wasn't torn in a seam area.  Ladies and gentlemen, Paul Stombaugh did, in fact, testify that that blue pajama top was, in fact, torn in a seam area as well as other places.
     He talks about the sheet and the bedspread and the fact that you cannot draw any conclusions from that because it was wet, it was tacky, it was put together in a bag.  Well, I recall his own Defendant expert, John Thornton, whom Wade Smith has just said was outstanding, he said that there was a right cuff of the blue pajama top on that sheet.  The Defendant cannot have it both ways, ladies and gentlemen.  You can either identify impressions on that sheet or you can't.  You remember the testimony of Paul Stombaugh who said, with respect to how long it takes blood to dry and the shoulder area in which he said there was a small amount of blood and that it would have taken five to six minutes to dry.  To say now that when it was moved, that all the blood was wet and that is where all the impressions came from, I think, certainly begs the question on that.  We submit to you that that testimony concerning that sheet and the impression on it is still extremely valid.
     He talked about the pajama top on Colette and some said that her breast was exposed, but the photograph didn't show an exposed breast.  He forgot to mention that whether or not you can see something like that and show up in a picture depends in great degree on the camera angle that you are taking the picture from.
     Ladies and gentlemen, I also think I heard him say that we contended that the pajama top was torn in Kristen's room and there weren't many threads there.  No, we haven't said that the pajama top was torn in Kristen's room.  I think there is a very valid explanation of why there were very few threads there.  I think most of them simply had fallen off by the time it was taken there.  I think that is why there were very few threads there.
     Ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant has testified and I would agree with the Defense that on and the shoulder area in which he numerous occasions -- he piled a stack high -- and that he always testified voluntarily, which I think is true.  But you have got to remember something, ladies and gentlemen, and the Defense keeps making a big spat of the fact that this is 1979, and that it is the same as 1970, and that nothing has changed -- forgetting to tell you that in 1971, and 1974, every single -- not every single bit -- but a tremendous amount of this evidence was re-analyzed by the FBI and that the new investigation that resulted in this re-analysis and much of this evidence was done at the specific request of the Defendant himself.
     Again, I think that the Defendant is seeking to have it both ways.  The Defendant has told his story many times.  The physical evidence has become additionally known at different times.  For example, we know different things after 1970 that we did not know at the Article 32 proceedings, or that the military did not know at the military proceedings at the Article 32.  Sometimes you have to change a story to keep up with where the evidence is going.
     He stated that the blood tests in the living room were suspect, but of course, the benzidine test, while it may give you a false positive, does not give you a false negative, and even John Thornton himself said that it was a very specific test for the identity of blood.
     They said -- they gave you an explanation of why there was blood in Kristen's room and where the blood for the footprint could have come from.  I think he said that the Defendant could have carried it there, a weapon could have carried it there, or intruders could have carried it there, but the problem with that is that the only A type blood there is in the footprint.  It is not in a pool or something.  It is not in a different location.  It is in the footprint.  If it is in the footprint, I submit to you that it is not rational to say that it got there through any of the three ways which the Defendant alleged.
     Ladies and gentlemen, we talk about motive.  What is the motive, again, for the intruders?  I am not going to go back into that as I did this morning, but at the same time, you think about the motive for the Defendant.  While we aren't required to prove a motive and he is not required to prove a motive, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if he says, "Where is your motive over here," well, okay, we will say, "Where is your motive over there?"  I submit to you that when you compare them, ours is better.
     Ladies and gentlemen, they went at great lengths to discredit the pajama top, and I think that is deserved -- well, they should -- I would, too.  Do you know why?  Because it is mighty, mighty damning.
     Shirley Green did not say, as I recall her testimony, that she did follow Paul Stombaugh's theories on exit and entry wounds.  She said that she didn't.  There is a big difference between did and didn't.  You recall the FBI Report, and I mentioned it this morning and I am sorry, but I have got to mention it again, Paul Stombaugh said that he saw several holes -- not all as the Defendant has correctly stated -- that had the appearance of entry holes and some that had the appearance of exit holes.  He also concluded -- a couple of paragraphs down -- that because he got the pajama top a year and a half after the crime, it was impossible to determine whether or not the holes were entry or exit holes.  I submit to you that their attack on the pajama top reconstruction is based on a false premise.
     They read you part of Stombaugh's testimony and tried to imply that he changed his story.  Huh-uh.  You remember what he said?  He said, "We re-folded it exactly the same way," and they did.  They put the left sleeve on the floor, they took the right sleeve and put it inside out, and they put it as best they could on a mannequin or something.  Stombaugh never said, "We placed it in the same position."  There is a big difference in the words "placed" and in the words "re-fold."  The fact that 48 thrusts or 21 thrusts through the pajama top can make 48 holes is a singular significant fact which I tell you proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeffrey MacDonald killed his wife, Colette, and it is a very short leap from that to say that he killed the other two as well.
     We have never said that the Defendant faked his injuries.  We are not contending that.  I don't know whether he faked them or not.  I don't know that there is any evidence that he faked them.  We only tried to compare and contrast to you the injuries that his family received with the injuries which he received, and to tell you that they were not of the same consistency.
     The fibers at the end of the hall -- there is no evidence in this case linking those fibers to the blue pajama top.  Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Segal says that there is tremendous evidence of intruders -- the ice pick, the two knives, and the club.  He said that the club probably came from the well in the back of the house.  You recall the testimony of Bob Shaw, who said that he looked for footprints in that area and didn't see any, but here, we have got four intruders coming to the house perhaps without any weapons and finding them at the crime scene along with surgical gloves.  Isn't that incredible, ladies and gentlemen?
     The people Milne saw, the person Mica saw, Helena Stoeckley doesn't even say that she had a weapon, Posey didn't say that Helena had a weapon -- he said that there was something in her hands.  Paring knives -- everybody who testified on this subject said the MacDonalds had knives.  The ice pick, Pamela Kalin, I submit to you is worthy of belief.  You can recall her testimony.  She changed her mind, true; she said that she was scared and frightened when she was first interviewed -- she was 15 or 16 years of age.  Mildred Kassab, who said that there was an ice pick; the Defendant said that there wasn't an ice pick that he knew of.  And the club: you recall the testimony of the Defendant.  He said that he had never seen that club before and yet his attorney gets up here and says, "Well, it was probably there and you can reasonably infer that, but it was only probably kept back here."  Again, I submit to you that is the Defendant seeking to have it both ways.
     Again, he says, "How did those weapons get outside the back of the house and it is implausible to throw them out."  You know, a man who has killed his family can do a lot of things, I suppose, and I don't think it is too difficult to open a screen door and throw the weapons out the door.  We submit to you that that is precisely what occurred.
     The girl that Mica saw doesn't fit their theory -- not ours.  Our case is not based on theory.  Our case is based on fact.  The girl had no boots.  Milne: his story doesn't fit their theory as well as our case, but it fits our case perhaps better than it does their theory because it is quite possible that no one saw these people.  It is also quite possible that the Defendant saw them.  What is the problem?  It is that Milne saw them at 12:00 and the description does not match the description the Defendant gave of what they had on and what they were wearing.
     Finally, they go after Helena again.  The only thing that I am going to say about Helena Stoeckley -- because you can talk about wreaths, you can talk about going to the funeral, you can talk about wearing black, you can talk about killing a cat, you can talk about witchcraft, you can talk about anything you want to; but you can't overcome the one fact that the Defendant, in 1970, at the Article 32, was shown her photograph and said that he had not seen her before.  Now, how do you get around that?  I think that takes care of her -- of Helena Stoeckley.
     Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I want to say in closing, as we said this morning, that this is a difficult case, not because the evidence is difficult, but it is difficult because of the people involved -- the Kassabs, who have been injured and will be injured for the rest of their lives, regardless of your verdict.  Mrs. MacDonald, who has been injured and will be injured the rest of her life, regardless of your verdict; their friends, who will suffer the same fate, and, I guess, the Defendant himself.
     You know, I am sure it is very sad for everybody who knew these people to look at those photographs.  I think it is very sad for people who knew these people to look at pictures of kids playing, of Halloween and Christmas.  I wish more than you know that we could have shown you that kind of picture.  I wish more than you know we weren't here.  I wish more than you know that I did not think the evidence pointed to the Defendant.  I think the supreme tragedy in this whole thing really is, if our evidence is correct and the Defendant did it, which we believe he did, think for a moment of the last minutes of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen, when they realized that they were going to die and they realized for the first and the last time who it was that was going to make them die.  It is incredible.  It is unbelievable, as Wade said.  You wouldn't think it.  People have said that he is not that kind of guy, but, ladies and gentlemen, people do strange things -- man's inhumanity to man -- but we think he did it.  For that, we are sorry.  For that, you have an awesome burden and responsibility.  You have got to decide, beginning tomorrow, what the evidence is and what your verdict will be.  We believe strongly -- as strongly as we don't want to believe -- that he did it and he is guilty of Count One of first-degree murder, of Count Two of first-degree murder, and Count Three of first-degree murder, and I ask you to so find.  Thank you.