---

THE COURT:  Mr. Blackburn?

O P E N I N G  A R G U M E N T

MR. BLACKBURN:  Ladies and gentlemen, as I recall, the first time that I learned from this evidence that the Defendant's story, which you heard many times both on the direct case and the Defendant's case as to what happened on the 16th and the 17th, came sometime after 4:00 o'clock that morning when Sergeant Tevere, Kenneth Mica, and other MPs came to the MacDonald house for the first time to respond to what they heard on the radio was a medical emergency.
     Recall that Tevere and Mica, the Government's first two witnesses in this case, who heard the Defendant say something like this in the master bedroom, "There were four intruders," and he described them.  "There were three males, two of them white, one of them black, wearing a fatigue jacket with E-6 Sergeant stripes on one of the sleeves."  The girl, as Tevere and Mica stated, as I recall their testimony, "had on white muddy boots.  She had a floppy hat.  She had long blonde-like hair."  He thought she was carrying a candle, and these four people tried to kill his family and left only him alive.
     Shortly after 4:00 o'clock, he went to the hospital.  About four hours later, his family went to the hospital, but unfortunately, at about 9:30, rather than responding to additional medical treatment, Colette, Kimberly and Kristen were autopsied.
     Now, for just a few minutes, I want to go through again a rather unpleasant task, and that is to examine again the injuries sustained by all four people in that house.
     Let's take first Colette MacDonald.  You will recall the testimony of Dr. George Gammel who performed the autopsy on Colette MacDonald.  What were the injuries that she sustained?  First of all, he testified that she had two broken arms.  I think the right arm was broken in both bones.  And as I recall the testimony, the left arm was broken and one of the bones was broken in two different places.
     In his opinion, those were in the nature of defensive wounds and were, perhaps, some of the first wounds that she received and could have been caused by the club.  Now, she also received, as you recall, between six and eight lacerations -- one to the chin, as I recall, down here (indicating), several to the head, breaking the skin and in the middle of her head, fracturing the skull.  She received numerous wounds that, in his opinion, were inflicted with a single-blade sharp knife that could have been done by the Old Hickory knife that, as you recall Paul Stombaugh's testimony, was sharp and you recall Bob Shaw's testimony was found at the MacDonald house outside the back door of the utility room.
     About 16 or 17 cuts, she received.  As I recall, nine in the neck and seven in the chest.  In the chest, her pulmonary artery was cut or hit, her lungs were punctured, her trachea was hit at least twice.  Colette MacDonald died, according to Dr. George Gammel, simply bleeding to death.
     She also received 24 puncture wounds that were consistent with the ice pick and could have been made by that ice pick according to the testimony of Dr. Gammel.  That also, if you recall the testimony of Bob Shaw, was found outside the utility room door.
     Now, ladies and gentlemen, three of those ice pick holes, we submit, were on the left arm.  Twenty-one -- 21 -- were found in the chest, 16 in the left and five in the right.  She received a whole lot of injuries.  She was hit a lot of times.  She was stabbed numerous times by numerous weapons.  Does that suggest to you, simply because more than one weapon was used, that there was more than one intruder or more than one killer?  We suggest not.  We will tell you later in our argument this morning why we believe that.
     Let's think about Kimberly MacDonald -- the five-year old.  She also got hit by this club, we submit the evidence shows.  Dr. Hancock, who performed the autopsy on her, said that she had at least two -- at least two hits to the head.  It fractured her skull.  The base of the skull -- you saw that really just horrible picture of the back of her skull that was cracked in six to eight places, he said.  As I recall Dr. Hancock's testimony, he said that if she hadn't got hit again by anything else, she probably would have died or could have died from those blunt trauma injuries.
     Her nose was broken and pushed off to the right.  She had a laceration on the left side of her head.  It is interesting as you recall the photograph -- I don't know if it is here or not, but you have seen it just a little while ago right here -- that when she was in the bed, she was laying on her left side -- laying on her left side where there is an injury.  Now, she also received, according to Dr. Hancock, while she was at least clinically still alive -- he could not count the number exactly because of the closeness of the injuries -- at least eight to ten incised cuts to the neck that could have been made also by a single-blade knife such as the Old Hickory knife.
     What about Kristen -- the two-year old or two and a half-year old, we submit killed in her own room and perhaps in her own bed?  She didn't get hit with the club.  She was the only one that didn't, but she got hit a lot with the knife, we submit, and a lot with an ice pick.  At least 33 times, somebody -- somebody at least 33 times raised a hand and came down in her body with what we submit the evidence shows was either an ice pick or a sharp knife.  Did the killer have to have those two weapons at the same time?  Not necessarily.  Not necessarily.
     You recall the testimony of Dr. Hancock that the ice pick or the puncture wounds were rather superficial compared to the stab wounds -- one of which went through the heart.
     You remember that Dr. Hancock said that she had some cuts.  I don't recall which finger but on several of her hands and one sort of long cut in the nature of a defensive wound.  You know what that suggests, ladies and gentlemen?  It suggests that before Kristen MacDonald died, she knew -- she knew what was going to happen because she fought back.
     Now, what about the Defendant's injuries?  There has been a tremendous amount of testimony about the Defendant's injuries.  I think it is undisputed from both sides that at least he had a contusion on the left side of his face or head that was non-bleeding and that according to, I think, Dr. Gemma and perhaps one of their own doctors, could have caused unconsciousness, although as I recall the testimony of Bronstein, he could not predict whether or not immediate unconsciousness would result.
     Dr. Bronstein stated that unconsciousness could not have come from bleeding wounds.  You recall Dr. Jacobson, who said that he had four, I guess, what he called punctate injuries in this area (indicating) -- sort of in a line -- one, two, three, four close together -- I think he used a fork or something like that when he testified as to what it might have been made with in his opinion.
     You recall the testimony, I think, of all the Government's doctors that he did have a cut over here (indicating) that did not require suturing or extensive medication.  He had a cut right in this area of his body (indicating) which, I think, went this way up and down (indicating).  It did not require suturing, although Dr. Gemma, in fairness to the Defendant, said that perhaps he should have done that or could have done it, but it was not done and that it would heal on its own.
     Of course, he had an injury to the right side which caused the pneumothorax.  Think for a moment of the testimony of the Government's doctors and even on cross-examination, the Defendant's doctor who stated that it was a treatable medical injury, and that in his opinion, any injury inflicted to the chest is potentially fatal.  Recall the testimony of Dr. Gemma who said, as I remember, that if you got proper medical treatment, the insertion of a chest tube and the chest tube worked properly, that there was very little -- almost no risk of it developing into a tension pneumothorax.
     Well, I am not going to stand here today and argue for long, ladies and gentlemen, over whether a pneumothorax is or is not potentially life-threatening or not life-threatening.  That could go on all day long, but I do submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, even if the Government concedes, which we do not, that that was a potentially life-threatening wound, even if we concede, which we do not, that point: how many -- how many did he get compared and contrasted with the number his family got?  One.  How many ice pick wounds did Dr. Bronstein say he saw in Jeffrey MacDonald's chest?  None.  How many ice pick wounds did Mike Newman, the first person who washed up the Defendant, say he saw in MacDonald's chest?  None.  How many ice pick wounds did Frank Gemma say he saw?  He said that he didn't observe any.
     Now, of course, on the Defense case, two of his friends -- half character and they were doctors -- they observed the Defendant, and they saw some injuries that they said could have been made or were puncture wounds.  Of course, when they drew on the diagram over there, as I recall, they drew a lot and they didn't always match as to where they saw them.  Ladies and gentlemen, they didn't read the medical records.  They didn't examine, by their own testimony, the Defendant.
     Now, I am not trying to suggest by and in of itself that because the Defendant was not killed, he is, therefore, guilty of the slaughter of his family.  I don't think that is sufficient evidence.  I am not saying that.  I am saying that when you compare and contrast his injuries to their injuries with the other physical evidence that we have, it certainly should raise in your mind the question as to why he was not hurt worse.
     The coloring, according to the Government's doctors of the Defendant, was good.  His condition, according to their testimony, was good.  He walked to the funeral.  He was out of the hospital in seven or eight days.  In seven or eight days, Kimberly, Colette, and Kristen went to Long Island to be buried.
     Now, we heard a lot of testimony -- a lot of testimony during the Defense's case about drug abuse.  We even heard yesterday from Dr. Hughes.  We heard Major Williams talk, gracious, at length about all the people that had grudges, perhaps, against the Defendant.  He said, as I recall, when he heard that the Defendant's family had been killed, "My God, the drug people have gotten him," or something to that effect.
     You recall that they were concerned that perhaps MacDonald was a fink because he had -- perhaps there was no privilege between a doctor and a drug patient at Fort Bragg.  Okay, we see all of that.  If that be true, ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you some questions.  Why, if they had a grudge against the Defendant, didn't they kill him?  Why, if they came there for wanton destruction, didn't they kill everybody -- particularly, one who could identify them?  Why do you kill a two and a half and a five-year old and don't kill the strongest person who can hurt you back?  Why, why did the intruders leave the Defendant alive?
     Now, you recall the pajama top.  Why did he not get more serious injuries?  Well, of course, he was defending himself.  You recall the testimony of Stombaugh, Thornton, and the Defendant himself on the stand -- particularly, on cross-examination last Friday.  We tried to simulate it, and, of course, we couldn't exactly, and I don't pretend that we did.  But he said, as I recall his testimony, that it wasn't next to his body like it was on the ham.  It was probably away from his body.  He said, as I recall, he didn't move it like Brian and I did in the courtroom, so it tore.  I think he said that he sort of held it like this (indicating) and that the person who had the ice pick came at him not like I did but from like this (indicating).
     Ladies and gentlemen, according to the testimony of Paul Stombaugh, this thing has got at least 48 holes in it -- puncture holes.  Is the Defense saying that in a life and death struggle -- that in a life and death struggle, you stand there with this thing (indicating) in a relatively stationary position while somebody comes at you like that (indicating) -- I don't know how many times -- and doesn't hit your wrists and doesn't hit your arms?  Where are the ice pick injuries to his hands?  Where are the ice pick injuries to his wrists and arms?  By everyone's testimony on this subject, there were none.  I submit that that story is not worthy of your belief.  I suggest that the evidence shows this thing (indicating) was never held like that.  I suggest that the evidence shows that if it were, those holes -- you can look at it -- you can look at every single one of them -- those holes wouldn't be like that.  They would be torn and they would be ripped and the Defendant would have some cuts on his arms or his wrists or his hands to coincide with the punctures by the ice pick.
     Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest that the evidence shows that there was, in fact, a life and death struggle in the house that night -- there truly was.  I suggest that there were at least two white people involved in it.  I suggest the evidence shows that there wasn't a black person involved.  There was only one white male and one white female.  The white female was Colette MacDonald and the white male was her husband, Jeffrey MacDonald.  I suggest to you that some of the injuries that Jeffrey MacDonald sustained could well have been inflicted by his wife, Colette.  We know from the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that she fought -- she fought mighty hard before she died.  You don't get both of your arms broken by standing there waiting to be killed.  You don't get all the injuries she got just standing there waiting to be killed.  You just don't do it.
     You recall the testimony of Gammel and Hancock -- particularly, Gammel with Colette -- he said that the stabbing injuries came at a perpendiclar plane -- perhaps while the body was flat -- suggesting again that she was struck first with the club.  Compare, ladies and gentlemen.  It is incredible that he got with what they got.  If they wanted to kill him, why didn't they?  What was their motive?
     We know from the autopsies that it wasn't sex abuse.  We know from the testimony of Bill Ivory who testified, I think, on a question on cross-examination for five or ten minutes, it was not vandalism, in his opinion.  The house did not look ransacked.  The clothes in the closet were still hanging.  The furniture was not taken.  Of course, the Defendant stated, as I recall, some rings were taken.  We have only his word that those rings were there the night the murders occurred.  He stated that the wedding ring of his wife, Colette -- the wedding ring of his wife, Colette -- he had never seen and been introduced into evidence -- what do you think that is, ladies and gentlemen?  It was taken from her left ring finger, according to the evidence in this case.
     The Defendant stated that four intruders came to his house that night.  We heard a lot of testimony about intruders.  We had hippie day and hippie week, I suppose, in this courtroom.  First, we had, I think it was a Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Milne -- you remember Mr. Milne from Virginia -- he is the fellow that saw three people in three sheets -- white sheets, as I recall his testimony -- walking behind his house which he saw just after he had been working with some glue or working on a model airplane or boat.  He went to the back door and saw them.  They were talking in a monotone voice, as I recall his testimony.  They were all three carrying candles.  It wasn't raining.  The girl was pretty.  She had long blonde hair.  They come around the house, and he sees them going toward the MacDonald house, he said, although he doesn't seem them go in the house and does not know whether they went right or left on Dougherty or onto Castle Drive.
     Because of his own personal concerns and work, he doesn't mention this to anybody.  He doesn't tell his friends the next day after he learns of the murders.  He tells his brother, a lawyer, a year or two later.  He tells the Defendant some years later, but he doesn't tell the FBI, doesn't tell Don Murray about a month or so ago.  Not one time on his own initiative -- not one time did Mr. Milne ever seek to talk with a law enforcement agency about what he saw.
     The time, ladies and gentlemen, that he said he saw these people -- even if you believe what he said is true, and I suggest that it is not worthy of belief, but even if you do believe it -- what was the time that he saw these people?  By his own testimony, it was 12:00 o'clock.  What time did the Defendant say that he went to bed as best he could recall?  At 2:00 o'clock in the morning or at 2:15.  What did these three people in the sheets do for the two hours between the time Milne saw them and the time they went into the MacDonald house -- or two or three hours?  Did they walk around with the sheets in the rain, as it was raining later on according to the MP testimony, around Castle Drive and just wait for the others to come?  What did they do?
     Milne did not say that he saw a floppy hat.  He didn't say that he saw any weapons, but the Defense wants you to believe that those three people might well have been the people who went into the MacDonald house.  Don't you believe that.
     What about the girl that Mica saw at the corner of Honeycutt and North Lucas?  Mica, who we brought out on our direct case, the second witness, said that he saw a girl.  What was she wearing?  Well, she had a hat -- a rain hat.  She, I think he said, had a rain coat or a coat.  Did the Defendant describe the girl he saw as wearing a coat?  I don't believe I heard that.  Mica also said that she had nice legs.
     Well, you know, that may seem sort of silly, but, you know, that is quite important, because if it is credible that Ken Mica saw a girl -- you have got to believe that over here -- it is just as equally credible over here that you have got to believe that he said she had nice legs.  Why is that important?  Because the Defendant said that the girl he saw in his apartment -- the last thing he saw as he fell unconscious was a part of a knee or leg and high-topped boots.  The girl Mica saw, I suggest the evidence shows, was not the girl described by the Defendant.
     Then, of course, last Friday and Monday and maybe even part of this Tuesday morning, we had hippie day.  We had Helena Stoeckley day.  Perhaps one of the most pathetic tragic persons who has testified in this courtroom -- Helena Stoeckley.  She said, as I recall her testimony, that at 12:00 o'clock, she was in the driveway with her friend, Greg Mitchell, who gave her a hit of mescaline.  She did not have her blonde wig on at that time.  It was, perhaps, in the closet in her house.
     At 12:00 o'clock, she was in the driveway and she knew where she was and she said that was a 20-minute drive away from Fort Bragg.  Isn't that interesting, ladies and gentlemen.  The Defense, on Wednesday, puts on some testimony that Milne saw all these girls -- the girl and two guys -- at 12:00 o'clock, and at the same time on Friday morning, they put on another witness who they contend, or I think they will argue, was this hippie girl, and she knows where she was at 12:00 o'clock.  These are two mutually inconsistent stories.
     The only thing that links Helena Stoeckley to this crime scene is the fact that the Defendant says that he saw the girl and poor Helena doesn't know where she was between 12:00 o'clock and 4:30 in the morning.  She doesn't have an alibi.  She said on cross-examination that the first time she heard of the murders was when she heard it on the radio when she got home.
     You heard her testify that she was harassed by the cops.  You heard her say that she got rid of her hat, but you heard Mr. Beasley say that the hat he got from her was black, but Dr. MacDonald says that the hat he saw was white.  Again, a mutually inconsistent fact.
     Now, ladies and gentlemen, just because Helena Stoeckley doesn't know where she was does not make her the person on trial in this case and doesn't make her the person that was in the MacDonald house that night.  You heard her testimony when she looked at some pictures on redirect on late Friday afternoon.  They showed her a picture of Kristen -- the one, I think, that Brian showed you this morning.  She said, as I recall, "That girl looks familiar to me."  She didn't say that the scene looked familiar to her.  She said that the girl looked familiar to her.  I said, "Well, where do you think you could have seen her?"  She said, as I recall her testimony, "Well, it might have been, you know, around Fort Bragg or somewhere on post."
     They made a big deal about the hobby horse -- that the hobby horse, you know, looked familiar.  Ladies and gentlemen, we showed you yesterday -- the one thing we did on rebuttal evidence -- the only thing we did -- we showed you the fact that the newspaper on the day after the murders had a photograph of that hobby horse in that room in the paper.  I suggest to you that you can infer from the evidence that's where Helena Stoeckley, if she saw that hobby horse at all, saw it, like everybody else in Fayetteville, in the morning newspaper.  She was on drugs for a long time, but that doesn't make her guilty of murder.
     I asked her on cross-examination if she did participate to her own knowledge in the killing of the MacDonald family.  She said "no."  The only thing that she said was that she didn't know where she had been.
     You heard the testimony of H. O. Medlin, the fingerprint examiner, testify that he was given record prints of Helena Stoeckley.  They were not located in the MacDonald apartment.  They were not found there.
     Then, we start on some drawings.  We notice that four drawings were taken in 1970, and then, four drawings were done 1979 -- a little bit more specific with the girl looking a little bit more like Helena Stoeckley except for the chin, as I recall, and perhaps her hat.  We know that a cross was found around one of the necks that wasn't in the picture in 1970 -- a little bit more specific.  We narrow it down to Helena and her friends matching over the other two.
     Why was it necessary, ladies and gentlemen, if the photographs and the drawings were good enough in '70, why weren't they good enough in '79?  I suggest that you infer from the evidence that the reason the new drawings were made were to look like Helena and her friends.
     You recall the question and answer of Dr. MacDonald on cross-examination about Helena Stoeckley when we read to him the testimony at the Article 32, "Have you ever seen this photograph?"  I think it is G-105, the picture identified by Helena on the stand as a picture of her.  "Have you ever seen the girl in that photograph before?"  It is a full front page picture of her face.  Do you know what he said?  He said, "No."  Then, they come in here and try to make you believe that Helena was the one, when the Defendant himself in 1970 said that he had never seen her before.
     In any event, ladies and gentlemen, he said on his own direct testimony and maybe cross, too, that he only saw her for a second or two.  She was the least person that he saw.  They make a big deal about the three people around him carrying candles.  The Defendant himself is not even sure that they had candles.  He only knows that there was a flickering light.
     Ladies and gentlemen, think for a moment what you need to make the Defendant's story concerning the intruders and what happened to him make sense.  First of all, you need three sheets which were left outside the house.  You need some candles -- at least three.  You need a white hat according to his story, a dark hat according to Mr. Beasley.  You need some boots.  You need a feather.  You need a club other than the one right here (indicating) -- perhaps like a baseball bat.  You need a motive for them.  Randomness?  If it was randomness -- if it was, why didn't they kill him?  If it was motive because of drugs, why didn't they kill him?  If it was vandalism, why didn't they take something?  Why were syringes and medicine left in the MacDonald apartment?
     Ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant's theory of defense in this case has sort of been like this.  "I tell a story and you are to trust me.  I am telling the truth.  I loved my family.  I loved Colette.  I loved Kimberly and Kristen.  Trust me.  I couldn't have done this.  I could not have done this.  There has been a lot of character testimony.  They say I can't do this; and therefore, because I am not the type of person, I couldn't do that."
     Ladies and gentlemen, as Brian Murtagh told you this morning, if we convince you by the evidence that he did it, we don't have to show you that he is the sort of person that could have done it.
     The other part of their theory is to attack -- attack the Kassabs, attack the CID, attack the Justice Department, and even attack the Government prosecutor.  What they really want to do, ladies and gentlemen, they want to create confusion by all the hippie stories and by all the intruder information -- create confusion.  They don't really care, I suggest, whether you believe Mr. Milne or Helena Stoeckley or the people to whom Helena Stoeckley spoke or the girl that Mica saw.  They don't care which one of those you buy, just so long as you buy one of them.
     I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that if we prove to you that that was MacDonald's footprint in A Type blood, as I will later speak to -- if we prove to you that Colette's blood got on that pajama top before and not after it was torn, then it doesn't make any difference if there were 5,000 hippies outside Castle Drive at 4:00 o'clock in the morning screaming, "Acid is groovy; kill the pigs" because they have not shown that those hippies were inside the house.  It doesn't matter what was going on outside unless they can also tie that in to the inside.  That is where the people died.  They didn't die outside on Castle Drive.  They didn't die out by Milne's apartment.  They didn't die at North Lucas and Honeycutt.  They didn't die in Helena Stoeckley's apartment.  They died at 544 Castle Drive.  For all we know, ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant himself did, in fact, see the people that Milne saw and that is where the story of the intruders came from.  We don't know, ladies and gentlemen.  I can only tell you from the physical evidence in this case that things do not lie, but I suggest that people can and do lie.
     Ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant, by all the evidence, is an outstanding doctor.  I don't think anybody could dispute that.  In 1970, he had a lot to live for.  His wife, Colette, had a lot to live for, too.  She had a dream, according to his testimony, of a farm in Connecticut with children five, animals and cats and dogs and horses.  The children had a dream, too.  They wanted to grow up.  They wanted to be alive.  They didn't get that chance.  The Defendant wanted to continue, I suggest, his career as a doctor.  I think it is reasonable to infer from the evidence -- you heard Dr. Hughes yesterday talk about his airplane, his boat, his car, his medical kits, and the money it must take to buy those things -- you can't have those things, ladies and gentlemen, if you are in jail.
     If we are correct -- if we are correct and the Defendant did what we claim he did -- if he could murder his family, think for a moment what he would do on the witness stand to save his life and his career.  Think, ladies and gentlemen, about that when you judge the testimony and credibility of all the witnesses, and you put his to the same test that you put Paul Stombaugh, Ken Mica, or Richard Tevere, or any of the Defendant witnesses.  They have tried to create in this trial reasonable doubt, which is fair, because we have got the burden of proof of reasonable doubt.  We have got to prove it to a moral certainty beyond a reasonable doubt and we think we have done that -- not an emotional doubt -- but beyond a reasonable doubt.
     Now, of course, the burden of proof never shifts to the Defendant.  It is always the Government's burden of proof, but the Defendant chose to present evidence for something over two weeks and what was the evidence that you heard?  It was evidence of character testimony, of intruders, a story in which he really did not attack our physical evidence, and about two and a half days of expert testimony concerning the physical evidence in this case.
     Ladies and gentlemen, I would suggest to you that when you compare what their experts say with what our experts said -- and we will come to that in a little while -- you will see that the physical evidence in this case, after all the dust has settled, is still up there standing and it hasn't been knocked down.

THE COURT:  All right, that brings us up to our morning recess hour, members of the jury.  We will take a recess now and we will come back at 11:00 o'clock.  Don't talk about the case.

(The proceeding was recessed at 10:45 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:  Does this conclude the Opening Argument for the Government?

MR. BLACKBURN:  No, sir.

THE COURT:  No; you have more?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  All right; proceed.


O P E N I N G  A R G U M E N T (continued)

MR. BLACKBURN:  Ladies and gentlemen, you might recall about 15 minutes ago just before the break, we were talking about the Defendant's story of the intruders.  When you take all seven weeks that you have all been here and all these charts and all this testimony and all the bench conferences and you pour them all out the window, you are left with two things, and it is those two things on which I suggest that you have got to make a decision.
     You don't make your decision on who has the best charts or which expert's got the most degrees and who has published the most in the field.  We will concede that.  We have not published in the field very much.  We have been out in the field.  It boils down to two things.  One, is the Defendant's story and his credibility that it is true.  If you believe it is true, if you believe everything he said, then your task is relatively simple.  You will acquit him.
     If, on the other hand, you contrast that with the physical evidence and somehow it doesn't wash, it doesn't make sense, then you have got a little bit more of a difficult task and it might take you a little longer.  I suggest that when you compare and contrast his story versus the Government's story -- testing the credibility of the Government's case as well, as I think you should -- you have got to come down on one side or the other, because I suggest to you that the evidence in this case, if it shows nothing else, it does show that what he said and what the physical evidence says are not reconcilable and that they are diametrically opposed.
     Brian Murtagh spoke briefly about the crime scene.  If you believe that because Richard Tevere picked up the telephone on which no prints were later found, if you believe that a broken flower pot picked up by a medic, if you believe that some clothes in the hall put on the sofa by Joe Grebner, if you believe that Bob Shaw in picking up the glasses and looking for a fleck of blood -- interestingly enough found to be consistent with the same blood type as that of Kristen -- if you believe that these things -- along with letting the garbage can be emptied before they looked into it -- if you think that all of those things are so important and so bad that you have got no choice but to acquit the Defendant, then I think you ought to do it -- smoke a cigarette and do it.
     I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, those things -- really, the only things that are significant that the Defendant has shown that were not done correctly -- are not relevant.  Whether or not H. O. Medlin fingerprinted the whole part of the master headboard and when he only printed the part where the word "Pig" was written doesn't change the outcome of this case.  You remember the door that Dr. Osterburg said ought to have been printed on every side?  He forgot to say whether or not it was open when the people came in, making it relevant or not relevant as to whether it was, in fact, dusted for prints.
     If you believe that because the film moved when a truck or something went by and some of the prints had to be re-taken two months later -- and as they were by maybe not as nice a camera as the Defense had but the only one that the Government at that time had at the CID -- if you believe that that entitles the Defendant to an acquittal, then acquit him.  I suggest that none of those mistakes change what is here.  We aren't asking you to convict the Defendant on what might have been.  We are asking you to convict the Defendant on what we have got -- what is here -- not what is not here -- not what we didn't find -- but what we did find.
     What about his story?  You recall last Thursday, he took the stand for the first time on direct testimony.  He stated a lot of things and told briefly the story of the intruders and how he was struck.  As I recall his testimony on direct, he was rather vague -- his memory was rather vague about how it all went down.
     You remember Friday on cross-examination the questions that we put to the Defendant.  Let's take his story and let's go through it -- the crime scene -- and see how it fits with the physical evidence.
     First of all, he said that some intruders met him in the living room -- right there (indicating), and he drew these people.  There was one, two, three, four.  The girl was number four, I think, and she is the one that might or might not have had the candle.  He wasn't sure.  The black had the club, but I think he said on cross that it was probably not this club.  I think it was round like a bat and didn't think it was this club.  As I recall his testimony, he said that the first time he ever saw this club was the 6th of April, 1970.  Isn't that interesting when you compare the testimony of the Government experts that this was, in fact, the murder weapon used on Colette and Kimberly, certainly, or a murder weapon and that it did come from the house -- once part of the piece of wood that formed a bed slat in Kimberly's room -- but he didn't see it until the 6th of April, 1970.
     How many threads -- purple, blue, yellow, green, any color -- were found in the living room?  You heard Bill Ivory and Mr. Medlin say that they went through the nap of the carpet in the living room.  How many threads, yarns, and fibers did they find?  Not a single one.  How much blood where he says he was struck with a sharp blade was found in the living room, on the sofa, on the wall, on the floor, on the table, on the glasses, on the Esquire magazine, on anything that matched his blood type?  None.
     How many splinters were found in the living room that matched anything?  None.  But we know that splinters were found in Kristen's room, Kimberly's room, and the master bedroom.  Now, on cross-examination, I recall that I asked the Defendant about the B blood; if the jury should find, as I have just told you, did he have an explanation for that.  He said, "Well, it is obvious that the wound did not bleed too much."  Well, perhaps that makes sense until you remember, ladies and gentlemen, that by his testimony, he believed, although there is a question mark, but he believes that he did not go to the hall bathroom until number six -- he did six things.  He first went, as I recall it, after he was knocked down here (indicating) and fell here (indicating), he goes to the master bedroom and then to the kids' rooms and then to the hallway and then somewhere else before he goes back to the hall bathroom and washes off his hands for the first time -- washes off his hands.  His hands were bloody according to his own testimony.
     He had touched three dead people who had bled a lot.  You recall his testimony on both direct and cross, "I saw a lot of blood."  Well, then, why is the blood in the bathroom sink, according to the Government testimony, that of Type B which matches his, rather than Type A, Type AB, or O which matches his family?  Well, perhaps, this blood came from him -- on his body.  That is all right until you think for a moment that if the wounds didn't bleed too much over here, how come he bled a lot more over here?  You know, he said that he lay unconscious, for how long he did not know, right there.  How much blood of Type B was found on his pajama top which he said was under his wrists?  Very little.  How much Type B blood, if any, was found here?
     Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest to you that the reason and the explanation why there is no Type B blood in the living room, why there are no splinters in the living room, why there are no threads and yarns is really a very easy answer there, I suggest to you.  You can infer from the evidence.  What you can infer from the evidence is: one, the pajama top wasn't torn then; two, a club did not splinter there; three, nobody bled there; and four, you can infer from the evidence that no struggle took place there.
     Now, I am not about to suggest in what I am getting ready to say in the next few minutes that the burden of proof ever shifts to the Defendant because it doesn't.  It stays with us.  You recall on Friday that we asked a lot of questions that if the jury should find this and that, did he have an explanation of that.  You recall essentially his testimony: "It would be pure conjecture," or "No," or "I can't recall."  Perhaps he does not have to explain, but think for a moment if you were on trial for your life and the only thing that made your story perhaps not believable was the inconsistency of the physical evidence.  Don't you think if you could explain it, you would?  Don't you think for one moment if you were on that stand and somebody asked you a question like I asked Dr. MacDonald and you could tell me, "Mr. Blackburn, you are an idiot.  Here is the answer.  Bam."; doesn't it make sense that you would do that?  I suggest that it does.
     Let's go to the master bedroom.  You heard this morning from Brian Murtagh and earlier in the trial from a number of Government witnesses -- Paul Stombaugh, Dillard Browning, and others -- a number of threads and yarns microscopically matching the pajama top were found there.  As I recall the testimony, I think there were over 60 -- over 60 purple cotton sewing threads which matched identically in composition, color, and texture to the blue pajama top, over 18 blue polyester yarns matching the pajama top and at least one blue-black sewing thread matching that top.  What does that suggest to you?  I suggest that you can infer from the evidence that they got there because that is where the top was torn.
     Now, what does the Defendant say about that?  He says, as I recall his testimony now and in the past, that he doesn't know where the top was torn.  It could have been torn here or it could have been torn in the master bedroom.  We asked, "Did you hear any ripping sounds when you were in the master bedroom," and he said, "No."  I asked him if he had an explanation for why there were no threads in the living room.  He said, "Well, it would suggest to me that perhaps it was not torn there.  It was pulled over my head."  You also recall his testimony that he said that he didn't remember backing his head through the pajama top.  It is either one or the other.
     Now, if the pajama top was pulled over his head, what were all these four people doing while it was being pulled over his head?  Was the guy with the club standing there like that, waiting until he got it around his wrists before he could bash him again, because it is not fair to hit a guy when he is down?  What was the guy with the ice pick or knife doing?  Again, waiting -- didn't want to hit him in the back -- he was going to hit from the front -- you know, it is a coward that hits in the back.
     They weren't very courageous when they hit Kristen from the back, were they?  Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest to you that even if the pajama top had been torn in the living room and miraculously had left no threads or yarns -- you recall the testimony of Paul Stombaugh of how it is torn.  It is torn down the front.  If it is torn down the front, does that tie up your hands?  No; it would leave them as they were, I suggest.
     You have heard the testimony of Paul Stombaugh, who stated that with respect to the pajama top, it was torn, in his opinion, down the front.  It was a V-neck.  It was torn in the front, you know, while the person was stationary tearing it like that or as the person turned away.  Isn't it interesting, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant has four little marks right here in a line.  I suggest that you can infer from the evidence that Colette MacDonald pulled that pajama top or that she did like this (indicating) with her four fingers and ripped it down the front and it was torn in the master bedroom.  That is where those cuts or scratches or punctate marks or what have you come from.
     What about the blood -- the Type A blood that Paul Stombaugh testified was on the pajama top before it was torn?  You remember you heard a lot of Defendant experts say, "Well, Stombaugh is crazy.  That is not a left shoulder.  That is not this and that is not that."  Did you hear Defendant's experts say that there wasn't Type A blood on the pajama top before it was torn?  Did you hear that?  Huh-uh.  Don't you know if they could have had an expert here from somewhere, they would have had to have said that, because, ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant's story is that he placed the pajama top on Colette after she was dead.  There is not one whit of evidence to suggest that after it was placed on Colette's body, it was then taken up and ripped.
     All of the evidence suggests that however it was ripped, it was ripped before and not after it was placed on top of the chest of Colette MacDonald.  Well, what does that suggest to you?  It suggests, ladies and gentlemen, that Colette MacDonald bled on that pajama top before it was torn, in three places.  If that be true -- if you should find that from the evidence, I suggest she bled while she was alive and engaged in a struggle with whoever was wearing that blue pajama top before -- not after -- it was torn.
     We asked the Defendant if he had an explanation for that, and he said not to his knowledge.  Don't you know that if he could have explained it, he would have explained it?  We even know that Kimberly's AB blood type was on the pajama top.  How did it get on there?  Well, we know -- if you believe the Defendant's story -- that on the first visit to the master bedroom -- the first circuit -- he took it off and put it on her body and then he went to check Kimberly and then he perhaps got Kimberly's blood on it.  He did not see Kimberly until he had the pajama top off.  How does the AB blood walk from Kimberly's room over here to the master bedroom and get on the pajama top?  We asked him that question, and his response was, "It would be pure conjecture."
     He also testified that in 1970, he did not know the blood types of his family.  Oh, that he did.  You know, we say there is no such thing as a perfect investigation.  There is no such thing as the perfect crime.
     We know that the pajama top, at least, was placed on Colette's chest.  That is one thing with which the Government and the Defendant is in agreement.  Why?  He said that he was in a state of confusion and that perhaps he put it on there to get her warm and protect her from shock, but he wasn't sure why.  He was confused.  Now, I would again suggest that that is something else that we would agree with the Defendant -- he was, in fact, in a state of confusion when he placed the pajama top on there.
     I think that you can infer from this evidence that the reason the pajama top was placed on the top of Colette's chest was because it already had Type A blood on it and he had to have an explanation that would sound reasonable as to why that Type A blood was on it.
     We know that the pocket was on the floor.  I asked him about that and he said that he could think of a number of ways that it could be kicked over there and torn off when the pajama top was torn.  Well, okay, but it is upside down and it has got A type blood coming from the outside in and it is not spatters -- it is contact.  How did that happen?
     You recall Terry Laber's saying that in his opinion, that A type blood got on there prior to the pocket being torn off and yet it didn't bleed from the inside out, but it bled from the outside in.
     We know that Mr. Smith in the Opening Argument talked at great length and very eloquently about how the Government couldn't tell you maybe, it couldn't tell you possibly, it couldn't tell you could have -- that wasn't good enough.  We had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  We had to tell you that it did.  Ladies and gentlemen, we have proved -- if we have proved anything to you, I submit, that this club was the murder weapon -- a murder weapon -- used to strike Colette and Kimberly.  We know it had their blood type on it -- Type A and AB.  We know that splinters from it matched identically in three bedrooms.  We know that one splinter in excess of three inches long fits identically into this piece of wood and had A type blood on it.  I don't know what more we can show you about that club.  That is not maybe.  That is not possibly.  That is not can.
     We know that there was blood on the ceiling.  There was an indentation in the ceiling as somebody pulled that club over to hit Colette.  We know that splinters matching that club are found in Kimberly's room and that Type A blood was found about seven feet high in Kimberly's room and Type AB a little lower.  We know that the club -- from the evidence, I think you can infer -- was used to strike Kimberly a second time in that room.
     How did the threads and the yarns from the pajama top matching the blue pajama top get on Kimberly's bed on top -- underneath the sheet -- 14 of them, I think Paul Stombaugh testified -- 14 blue purple cotton sewing threads and at least five blue polyester yarns.  The pajama top was already off.  Now, we asked the Defendant about that, and, as I recall his testimony, he said, "Well, it was sticking" to his arms.  We asked him if he got on the bed and he said, "No."  We asked him if his arms were moist and he said that he didn't know.  Was there blood on him -- "Surely."  If you believe that that is where they came from, fine.  We suggest that they came from the blue pajama top itself as Kimberly MacDonald was carried back into that room with that torn pajama top and placed in that bed.
     What about Kristen?  We know that at least one thread and the splinter matching the pajama top and the club were found in that room.  We know that Type A blood, from the evidence, was on the wall in a splattered direction.  We know from the evidence that Type A blood was in massive direct bleeding amounts on the top sheet, but interesting, not the bottom.  We know, ladies and gentlemen, that Colette MacDonald had no injuries on her legs, but yet there was a lot of blood -- her own blood -- on the pajama bottoms.  How did that blood get there?
     I suggest from the evidence that you can infer that it got there because the killer took this club and after Colette MacDonald went to Kristen's room, she was banged again with the club up against the wall and fell over and bled on the pajama bottoms.  She didn't bleed any on the bottom sheet because something was preventing that blood from going on that bottom sheet -- perhaps, little Kristen.
     Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard a lot about fabric impressions and contact prints.  We heard Paul Stombaugh say that one print had an impression of a shoulder.  You heard the Defendant say -- Defendant's expert say -- "That is not so."  You heard the Defendant say, well, he wasn't worried about that because that evidence had been disproved.  The same thing with the handprints.  We disagree.  We say that it has not been disproved.
     How did they get there?  You even heard Dr. Thornton.  Don't you know that if he could have disagreed, he would have disagreed to say that one fabric impression contact print matched the right cuff of the Defendant's blue pajama top.  What did the Defendant say about the bedsheet and the bedspread?  To his memory, he could not recall touching or coming in contact with that sheet.
     You recall Dr. Thornton saying, "Well, the imprint could have been made by something that weighed as much as two pounds," I think he said.  Do you think that weighs two pounds by itself?  Ladies and gentlemen, if you throw away the left shoulder; just throw it away -- if you throw away the prints; just throw them away -- which we are not going to do but suppose you do that just for the sake of argument: you have still got a massive amount of Type A blood in the center of the sheet.  You have got two impressions matching Colette's pink pajama top -- the arms.  You have got MacDonald's blue cuff -- the right cuff.  How do you explain that?  What is the explanation for that?  You have also got Type O blood on the floor and footprints.
     Poor Mr. Medlin -- even the Defendant agrees -- the left footprint was probably his.  The intruders did not go barefooted.  The left footprint was exiting and not entering that room was made in Type A blood.  Now, Brian Murtagh touched on that this morning.  How was the footprint made?  How did the fabric impression -- the contact print -- get there?  I submit that it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that after Colette MacDonald was banged on the bed, she came to rest on the floor because we know that in her hand, according to Dillard Browning, a yarn matching the throw rug in Kristen's room was found in her hand.  We know that a hair ribbon was found.  We suggest that that bedspread and that blue sheet taken from the master bedroom were brought into Kristen's room.  She was laid on it, and, ladies and gentlemen, she was picked up and carried back to the master bedroom and put down with her hair hitting the floor first because we know her hand -- her left hand was over her hair.
     We suggest that as the Defendant did that, you can infer from the evidence that he stepped, unbeknownst to him, in a blood type that was not Kristen's and made those footprints as he exited that room, and that is how the fabric impressions and the contact prints were made.
     You recall the testimony of Paul Stombaugh and others for the Government that a hair microscopically matching that of Colette MacDonald was found in the bedspread, intertwined around a thread from this pajama top or microscopically similar to this pajama top, with blood-like deposits on its shaft.  I suggest that that got there at that time.
     We know that pieces of latex were found and torn and some with Type A blood in the master bedroom.  How did they get there?  We asked the Defendant about it and he said, "Not that I can recall," "No," or "No explanation."  Again, while he has no legal responsibility to explain, don't you know -- don't you know that if he could have, he most certainly would have?
     We know that Medlin stated that somebody wrote the word "Pig" in Type A blood on the headboard over where Colette MacDonald slept.  We know that a blue thread or purple thread was found in that area matching the pajama top.  We know that there is a good possibility from the evidence that those surgical gloves matched those in the house, but even if they didn't -- even if you should find that they didn't -- where did they come from and what were they doing there?  Isn't it interesting, ladies and gentlemen, that droplets of Type B blood -- that of the Defendant -- is found in the kitchen near the cabinet where surgical gloves were kept.  Looking at this chart, you can see that he didn't go there until number 13 -- drops of blood at number 13, but at number one where he was cut according to his story, there wasn't any.
     He stated that he used both telephones, and I think there is evidence that at least one phone was, in fact, used -- perhaps both.  Both receivers were off the hook.  He had no explanation for why there was no blood on those phones and no explanation for why, if you find from the evidence, that there was B type blood in the sink.  We suggest to you that you can infer from the evidence.  The Defendant, we do not contend, inflicted all of his injuries -- not by any stretch.  You know the contusion on his his head -- remember the hairbrush in the master bedroom.  I think you can infer from the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that this Defendant with his medical knowledge -- with his medical ability -- knowing that MPs would soon be on the way -- very likely inflicted one -- not all, but one -- injury in the bathroom, and that is where the B type blood came from and that was close to the end and that is why B type blood was not found in the kitchen until number 13.
     Perhaps the most telling thing of all, ladies and gentlemen, you come back to two pieces -- you could throw the whole shooting match away except for two pieces of evidence.  Brian will disagree with me, but I think you could just hold onto two -- these two (holding up the club and pajama top).  Why are they so important?
     Well, you remember, he said that he hadn't seen this until April 6th, and he didn't think this was the club that he was hit with.  The club, the knives, and the ice pick were outside the door.  He didn't go outside the door, but he went to it.  They had A and AB blood on it and some threads which matched -- or some yarns which matched the throw rug in the master bedroom.  They had two little purple threads on them matching identically in composition with these (indicating).  This sounds sort of minor, really, until you think about something.  How did they get there?  If he never touched them, if he never saw them, if the pajama top was not taken off of his body in the hall or the living room until this club was out the door, how in the name of all that is reasonable did they walk out the door and get on the club and stick to it?  I suggest from the evidence that there is an explanation and that is that this club was not outside the back door until after -- not before -- that pajama top dropped threads and yarns and blood to the floor, and as it fell on the floor, it picked up the threads and picked up the yarns with the blood and it was thrown out the door.  I suggest that you can infer from the evidence as to how it got there.
     Of course, the Defendant made a lot about his pajama bottoms which he said were torn.  Well, of course, we don't know what the known was for the pajama bottoms.  If they were torn, how did they get torn?  There is no indication that the intruders hit him below the waist, that they were torn below the waist by the intruders.  And if they were, why didn't they drop some threads in the living room?  Why didn't they drop some threads in the kitchen?  Why didn't they drop some threads in the hall?  Why didn't they drop some threads in the bathroom or the utility room?  Isn't it interesting that they don't drop threads where the pajama top dropped threads?
     Ladies and gentlemen, I have talked to you a long time about all this type of evidence in the story.  What does it all mean?  How could this have happened?  We know from the evidence that the Defendant, as we have said before, was a good doctor.  We know that his family loved him.  We know that from the Valentine cards.  We know that from the card that he read from the witness stand shortly before the end of direct examination that Colette loved him very much.
     I suggest to you, of course, that what the Defense tried to do was to prove the Defendant's love and character through Colette and not from himself.  We know that the Defendant had been unfaithful in his marriage.  We know from the evidence that he had worked the weekend before; he was perhaps tired.
     We know from the evidence that there was a -- maybe it is a minor problem -- the problem of Kristen coming to the bed.  We know that he, according to his story, went to bed late that night and found that the bed was wet.  I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that the slaughter took place over any one thing.  I don't think so, but I think that you can infer from the evidence that a fight developed in the master bedroom between Colette and the Defendant -- a struggle -- an altercation.  We know that Colette was bruised -- perhaps she was struck.
     You know those words -- you heard them in Wade Smith's Opening Argument -- "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."  I believe those words were said, but not from fear of intruders, but I think that you can infer from the evidence that they were said as Kimberly came to the master bedroom to find out what was going on from her father and mother.  We know that she was there.  We know from the evidence that her blood was found on the sheet, on the floor, and in the hall -- or at least her blood type.  I suggest that you can find from the evidence that it was her blood.
     We suggest, perhaps, that Colette MacDonald, in an attempt to save herself or to fight back, got the old dull Geneva Forge knife that perhaps struck the Defendant that was sitting around for what purpose we don't know.  We know from Dr. Gammel that Colette MacDonald had a bruise in this area of the chest (indicating).  I suggest that the Defendant, perhaps in a frenzy, perhaps mad, perhaps disgusted, perhaps exhausted, perhaps tired, he knew that he was going to be away for 30 days in March, if he could, while his wife was six or seven months pregnant -- maybe to fend off his wife, he hit like that; but I think you can infer from the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant in one tragic, brief moment -- so brief -- lost control and came back with that club, and as he did, he struck Kimberly and struck his wife -- perhaps not originally trying to hit Kimberly -- perhaps she walked into the club.
     At that point, ladies and gentlemen, the future is at stake.  It may be too late at that point to undo that which is done.  You know how hard it is to unring the bell.  You know the words, "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?"  Think how close that is to, "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, why are you doing this to me?"
     You remember Pamela Kalin, who said that she didn't hear anything that night?  You remember Pamela Kalin and Mildred Kassab who said that they did not smile as much as they used to, but she still gave Colette some money because all money problems weren't over.
     After Kimberly was struck, we suggest that you can find from the evidence that Kimberly was picked up and carried back to her room and struck with this club again and that Colette, because we know that Dr. Gammel said that she would not have died from these club injuries, went to protect or see what was happening to Kristen, and while she was in there, Kristen had the misfortune to see or know what was going on and Colette was struck again and carried back to the master bedroom.
     Then, of course, again, ladies and gentlemen, you must understand that I think you can find from the evidence, again, things had simply gone beyond repair.  You can't go back and make the family happy again, drink liqueur, and watch Johnny Carson.  It has gone too far.
     An Old Hickory paring knife, we suggest, was located.  While there is no direct evidence that that knife came from that house, there is evidence that that was a common knife around Fort Bragg and that the MacDonalds had paring knives and that that knife was taken and Colette MacDonald was stabbed 16 times and Kimberly was stabbed in the neck at least eight to ten times.
     I think that you can infer from the evidence that -- you know, you remember the Esquire magazine and the words in it -- the Manson-type murders and the multiplicity of weapons equaling the multiplicity of people.  An ice pick was obtained -- you know from Mildred Kassab and Pamela Kalin that they had seen an ice pick at the MacDonald residence, and even though the Defendant said he did not recognize it, we suggest that it was there and that you could find that from the evidence.  That was taken, and Kristen was stabbed superficially with the ice pick after she had already been stabbed with the knife.
     You remember the testimony of Paul Connolly, who said that the Defendant became inconsistent and confused when he talked about Kristen.  Kristen was so hard to talk about.  Perhaps that was because it was the most cold to do -- a defenseless little girl.  Kimberly and Colette had perhaps been struck while angered, but not Kristen.  Well, you know, I said there wasn't a perfect murder.  The pajama top was probably already on Colette's chest.  I think you can find from the evidence that the Defendant forgot it was there and made that terrible mistake of stabbing Colette with the ice pick through that blue pajama top and that is how those holes got there.
     He didn't know at that time that four years later, Shirley Green with the FBI would figure out that 48 can match 21.  You remember the Defendant said that Thornton said that was worthless because she didn't know whether they were entry or exit holes; yet, on cross-examination, you recall that he said that he read from the FBI report of Paul Stombaugh who said that when he got the pajama top, it was a year and a half later and he couldn't be sure whether any of the holes were exit and entry holes.
     I suggest to you that there is only two explanations for how the pajama top got the holes in it -- either his story or our story.  I suggest that they got there one or the other, and I suggest that the evidence shows to you that they got there our way.
     I believe the weapons -- the Old Hickory and the ice pick -- you could find from the evidence were wiped off on the bathmat.  Do irrational and irresponsible drug-crazed people wipe off weapons and throw them outside to be found by investigators?  Why did he say that the Geneva Forge knife was pulled out of the chest of Colette, even though Paul Stombaugh testified that in his opinion, that knife was dull and did not make any of the cuts in the clothing?  Remember, he said, "Don't forget that I pulled the knife out of her chest."  I suggest that you could find from the evidence that he did that because he didn't know what was on that knife and he had to have an explanation for it as to why it was where it was -- he forgot to throw that one out.
     I suggest that the Geneva Forge knife didn't kill anybody.  If he pulled it out of her chest, why does the evidence for the Government suggest that there was no significant amounts of blood on that knife?  Perhaps because it didn't go in that chest -- it nicked the Defendant's arm.
     I believe that the surgical gloves were then taken -- I think you can find from the evidence  -- and used to write the word "Pig" on the headboard.  The self-infliction of one injury was made, the story was concocted, the MPs were called, and he laid down next to his wife to wait for help.  That help came and this confusion began as they tried to get him to the hospital.  Who created so much of that confusion?  Who created the red herring of going to look for the intruders?  We suggest that you can find from the evidence that the Defendant did.
     Ladies and gentlemen, we have not presented an emotional case.  We have presented a reasonable and sometimes boring, tedious, and logical case.  We have given you the explanation that we believe to be true for how all this got where it did and what it means.
     You know, the Defendant had a lot of nice character tesimony, and I am sure that each of you, if you were accused of a crime, would have the same.  Don't ever forget that perhaps the greatest crime of all was committed 2,000 years ago.  And the night before Christ was betrayed, Judas Iscariot would have had 12 of the best character witnesses this world has ever known to have said he couldn't have done it, but you know that he did.
     Ladies and gentlemen, if in the future after this case is over, if in your jury deliberations, you should think again of this case, I ask you to think and remember Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.  They would have liked to have been here.  They have been dead for almost ten years.  That is right now around 3,400 or 3,500 days and nights that you have had and I have had and the Defendant has had that they haven't.  They would have liked to have had that.  If in the future, you should cry a tear, cry one for them.  If in the future, you should say a prayer, say one for them.  If in the future, you should light a candle, light one for them.
     We ask for nothing in the name of persecution.  We ask for nothing in the name of harassment.  We ask for nothing in the name of what is wrong -- nothing -- but God, we ask for everything in the name of what is right and in the name of what is just.  That is why we are here.  We ask for everything in the name of truth.  We ask you, ladies and gentlemen, that this horribly tragic and horribly sad as it is because you know that you have seen Mrs. Kassab and you have seen Mrs. MacDonald and it is sad for both of them -- both of them were grandmothers, not just one -- it is sad for the Defendant -- but it is sad most of all for those who paid the highest price of all, with their lives.  And we ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to return a verdict of guilty as to clubbing and stabbing Colette, guilty of clubbing and stabbing Kimberly, and guilty perhaps most of all for stabbing little Kristen.
     You remember -- I am sure you have heard it many times -- part of the 13th chapter of Ecclesiastes -- "There is a time for everything under the heavens -- a time to be born and a time to die."  Surely, God did not intend on the 17th of February, 1970, for Colette, Kimberly and Kristen MacDonald to die.  It is time, ladies and gentlemen, it is so late in the day, it is time that someone speak for justice and truth and return a verdict of guilty against this man.  I ask this jury to make what I know to be a very courageous decision that he did it and we are sorry, but he did it.  Thank you.

THE COURT:  Will there be a speech for the Defendant at this time?

MR. SEGAL:  If Your Honor pleases, we would request that the Defendant's speech begin after luncheon recess.

THE COURT:  Well, I think this makes a logical point in the presentation of the arguments in which we could take a break, and since we started a little early this morning, suppose we let's take out for lunch a little early and come back today if you will, please, members of the jury, at 1:00 o'clock instead of our usual hour.  While you are out, of course, you have only heard the Government's Opening Arguments in the case.  You have yet to hear the arguments of the Defendant, and, of course, finally, you have to hear the instructions of the Court as to the law applicable to the evidence which you have heard.  Don't talk about the case among yourselves or with others.  Continue to keep open minds about it.  Come back today at 1:00 o'clock today if you will, please.  We will let the jury retire.  Everybody else will remain seated.

(Jury exits at 11:49 a.m.)

THE COURT:  Let me see counsel right here.  I have something for you after the recess is taken.  You may take a recess now until 1:00 p.m.

(The proceeding was recessed at 11:50 a.m., to resume at 1:00 p.m., this same day.)