---

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

THE COURT:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Are you going to sum it up today?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir; if we may.

THE COURT:  Very well.  Do the parties desire to argue this case to the jury?

MR. MURTAGH:  Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  If so, the jury is now with the Government for its opening argument.


O P E N I N G  A R G U M E N T  9:01 a.m.

MR. MURTAGH:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Your Honor, and counsel.  I would like to thank all of you personally for your patience and attention throughout this long and very well-fought trial.
     I think you have all spent your summer performing your civic duty in what was far from a pleasant task.  I think that both the Government and the Defense are in your debt for that.
     Now, this case is a tragedy for both sides no matter what happens.  If the Defendant is convicted as we hope, or if he is acquitted, society loses either way.  If he is convicted, society loses an excellent doctor.  We don't contest that.  He is not on trial for his medical competency.  If he is acquitted, we submit that society loses in that someone whom we believe we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt committed an atrocious crime goes free.  So, there are no winners or losers in this case.  It just doesn't come down that way.
     Now, what any counsel says, certainly the Government counsel but also the Defense, in argument is not evidence.  As His Honor told you, in fact, during jury selection, that the evidence comes from the witness stand and not from counsel.  So what I am saying is what I submit the evidence shows, and if your recollection of the witnesses' testimony is different from mine, by all means, your recollection controls.
     Now, Mr. Smith started out in his opening statement, I think, quite eloquently.  He talked about duty, and it was a moving poem that he recited.  He talked about the duty of the prosecution to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.  He talked also about the duty of the Court as the giver of the law and the duty of the jury, perhaps the most difficult duty of all, as the finders of the facts and the final arbiter of credibility.
     Mr. Smith recited a poem, which, if I may paraphrase, and which went something to the effect of, "I dreamed that life was beauty, and I awoke and found that life was duty."  I wish that we, as prosecutors, could have discharged our duty to Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen MacDonald, whom I must say we stand here representing, by presenting nothing but pictures of a perfect family life, of a perfect marriage, of a perfect husband and father, but that was not our duty.
     Our duty was to take you through a tour of a slaughterhouse -- not a slaughterhouse for the Defendant, certainly, but a slaughterhouse for Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen.  It was our duty to show you many pieces of physical evidence -- much of it grotesque -- and to put these bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together.
     Obviously, we couldn't bring in the eyewitnesses to testify because, we submit, the eyewitnesses were murdered; but as Mr. Blackburn has told you in his opening statement, things, objects, blood stains, et cetera, don't lie.  They tell the story.  It is not an emotional story, but it is a logical story.
     The Defendant tried, we submit, to obliterate or to account for or to disassociate himself with all of the physical or trace evidence connecting him to the commission of the crime.  While this case is anything but simple to try or to judge, for that matter, it does boil down to one simple concept.  In fact, it is a concept for which juries were invented and for which they have evolved: that is to determine credibility -- who is telling the truth and who is lying.
     Is the story told by the Defendant and his injuries, or the lack thereof, credible?  Does it ring true?  Does it in the light of all the circumstances make you say, "I believe him"?  Or is the story told by the crime scene, the physical evidence, the blood stains, the pajama top, the sheet -- does it leave you a little uneasy, and does it on a further reflection make you say to yourself, "No way.  Impossible.  Incredible.  I don't believe it."  Not to put too fine a point on it, "Has the Defendant lied about the alleged struggle with the intruders?"  There were actually, we submit, two struggles -- one between the Defendant and Colette which started in the master bedroom and moved to Kristen's room.  That struggle ended with Colette unconscious, we submit, in Kristen's bedroom.
     The other struggle started almost immediately and continues to this day in this Courtroom.  That is, to make Jeffrey MacDonald's story fit the physical evidence.  It is his effort, we contend, to provide an explanation consistent with his innocence for the presence of his wife's blood type -- we submit that it is his wife's blood on his pajama top -- and to account for his own injuries, or lack thereof, and make them consistent with the injuries inflicted on the victims.
     Milton once said, and if I may paraphrase, "Truth and falsity shall grapple in the Courtroom and truth shall prevail."  Well, that is the poet's view and not a prosecutor's.  Let me share with you if I may a prosecutor's view of that verse.  Truth and falsity have indeed grappled in this Courtroom at least daily, and truth shall prevail, maybe, but only if the jury decides the issues on the basis of the evidence.  I submit again that the issue is the credibility of the Defendant's story and not on the basis of emotion.
     He is not on trial for being a bad doctor.  Truth shall prevail, but only if the jury requires the Government to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt but not -- not -- beyond any doubt whatsoever, because as His Honor, Judge Dupree, instructed you during jury selection, very few things are capable of proof to an absolute certainty.  Again, truth shall prevail only if the jury requires that the Government prove that the Defendant committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt; however, the Government is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the innocence of everyone that was within driving distance of Fort Bragg on the night of February 16th and 17th.  That is not our purpose.
     Mr. Segal has sought, and I might add, very capably, to try everybody but the Defendant.  Helena Stoeckley is not on trial.  The girl on the corner of Honeycutt and North Lucas is not on trial.  The people in Mr. Milne's vision, or he said analogy, or whatever it really was, are not on trial.  The CID and the FBI agents are not on trial, nor is the Army, the Special Forces, or the Justice Department on trial, nor are the Kassabs on trial.  Truth shall prevail, we submit, but only if the jury, on conformity with its oath, makes no distinction as the law requires between circumstantial and direct evidence.
     This is a circumstantial evidence case.  We told you that.  Mr. Blackburn told you that in his opening statement.  We do not shrink from that statement.  It is particularly important to keep in sight in this case because the Defense has done its utmost, I submit, to confuse the issues and to play upon your emotions.
     The Government's case, stripped to the essentials, consists of the crime, the physical evidence, the Defendant's story voluntarily told, the conflict between that story and the physical evidence, from which we submit that it was a fabrication of the evidence, and from that we infer and would ask you to find his guilt.
     The Defense, although the law imposes no duty on a Defendant to present any evidence, the Defendant has chosen to relate his version of the events.  He has also chosen, I might add, to ignore or to try and explain all the physical evidence or to discredit the investigators or the experts and also to offer massive amounts of character testimony.  But character testimony is really one-sided in this case, because the only character witness, we submit, who could have shown the other side of the crime was Colette, and Colette was murdered.
     Besides, we contend that the physical evidence connects the Defendant as the only possible criminal actor; it is immaterial and irrelevant and unnecessary to require that the Government prove by evidence of bad character that he was the type of individual who could have committed the crime.
     For example, the footprint.  You have heard the testimony of Mr. Medlin, who identified the Defendant's footprint exiting from Kristen's bedroom.  You have also heard the Defendant admit on the witness stand under oath that that was probably his footprint.
     Character testimony doesn't add anything to that.  If you find, as we would argue, that that footprint could only have been made during the commission of the crime between the time when Colette was in the north bedroom, as we contend the physical evidence shows, and the time she wound up on the floor of the master bedroom, it doesn't matter.  We are not required to prove the Defendant was the type of person who would have left a footprint.  The footprint -- the evidence -- speaks for itself.
     The crime scene is the logical place to start in summing up this evidence, but let me make a few observations first about crime scenes in general and crime scenes in particular.  Just as there is no such thing as a perfect crime, there is certainly no such thing as a perfect crime scene, and this crime scene was not perfect.  This is particularly true where the crime scene is perceived by the initial discoverers -- the MPs -- as also the scene of a medical emergency.
     Now, you may recall the testimony of the Defense expert, Professor Osterburg, who conceded on cross-examination that efforts to preserve life supercede efforts to preserve evidence.  Now, added to this basic rule of police procedure -- one which I might submit was well known to mystery buffs such as the Defendant -- the ability of the perpetrator by means of his apparent victim status, his military rank, his status as a doctor, to direct the MPs and the medics to move things, and most of all, to get him out of the crime scene fast before anybody really knew what was happening, you are going to have problems with the crime scene.  I submit to you that the problems with the crime scene are generated and stem from the Defendant's efforts, at the initial onset of the MPs coming on, to add confusion, to make the MPs react as was their duty, to preserve life -- certainly, his life -- but I ask you with the aid of hindsight not to hold the MPs and the CID agents to a standard of perfection because just as there is no such thing -- excuse me -- because what was lost does not change what was found.  Things were lost, but things were also found.  What was done does not change what was not done.
     Things that were identified such as the Defendant's footprint in Kristen's room -- exiting Kristen's room -- is not affected by what remains unidentified.  What Mr. Segal has tried to do  -- and it was, I think, his duty -- is to get the jury's attention away from the physical evidence which we contend connects the Defendant and no one else to the murders -- such as his pajama top.  He did this by dwelling on irrelevancies such as the flower pot and the feather.  What they have to do with this crime, I submit, is irrelevant.
     I trust -- no, I believe -- that you will not let the Defendant go free if despite your belief that the physical evidence identified him as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt because Bill Ivory did not send the feather to the Smithsonian to find out what kind of bird it came from or that he failed to interview the cat or because the medic moved the flower pot  -- another observation if I may.
     Just as the Defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial -- only a fair trial -- he isn't entitled to a perfect crime scene either.  The Government's case does not rise or fall on whether the crime scene was perfect.  The Government's case rises and falls on whether the physical evidence connects the Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt to the commission of this crime.
     Besides, what crime scene are we really talking about?  We contend that there are really three crime scenes.  The first crime scene, I submit, is the one which resulted from the infliction of blunt trauma injuries with the club which you have seen on Colette and Kimberly.  You will recall that there was evidence that Kimberly's blood type was found -- well, it was found on the rug.  A piece of rug was cut out, and I believe, shown to you, that was in the master bedroom.  That is the first crime scene, and it started in the master bedroom and it moved again to the north bedroom where Colette was again assaulted.  That is the first crime scene.
     That crime scene consisting of blood stains on the ceiling, walls, is not affected and cannot be changed by the MPs or the medical personnel.  You can't change the fact that Colette's blood type -- I submit, Colette's blood -- was found on the wall above Kristen's bed.
     The second crime scene consisting of the evidence which we submit resulted from a carrying of Colette from Kristen's room by the Defendant to the master bedroom, and further, the infliction of stab wounds on her by the Defendant in the master bedroom, the removal of Kimberly to the south bedroom from the master bedroom by the Defendant, the stabbing of Kristen in the north bedroom, and the self-infliction by the Defendant of his pneumothorax in the bedroom.  There were efforts further by the Defendant to make the crime scene appear to be the work of multiple "Mansonesque" intruders.
     The rubber gloves -- we have the stabbing through the pajama top which we contend serves two functions.  One, he had to have some puncture holes in it, we would argue, to be consistent with his own story.  Two, he had already, we submit, placed it on Colette's body because it had become soaked with Colette's blood and the only explanation consistent with his innocence would be the one that he came up with, "I put it on top of her."  He then stabbed her through his pajama top, we submit.
     Further, we would argue that efforts to make it look like the work of intruders were the use of multiple weapons -- the ice pick, paring knife, the club.  We don't contend that he used or had three or more of these weapons simultaneously, but there is no reason why, we would argue, that he could not have used them at separate times.
     We also would argue that the scene in the living room was staged and that the weapons were disposed of out the back door.
     Now, the third crime scene is the scene from the time Sergeant Tevere -- you may recall him -- a somewhat burly MP who came through the back door into the utility room -- that crime scene starts from Tevere's entry until the removal of the victims' bodies to the morgue.  Now, things got moved during that crime scene.  MacDonald was removed to the hospital.  The phone was picked up by Tevere.  You will also recall that the Defendant had picked up both phones prior to Tevere's arrival; so, it really doesn't make that much difference, we would contend.
     Now, the flower pot gets moved, but I still would argue that the flower pot has no relevancy to the crime scene.  Let's not forget the feather either.  Also, you have MacDonald's wallet which was stolen by a medic.  Remember, Officer Mica told you about that.
     Now, how does that change the identity of the footprint exiting from Kristen's bedroom in Colette's blood type?  It doesn't, we would submit.
     Now, Mr. Blackburn will address what the Defendant said and when he said it and what he knew at the time he said it, but let me say that we would contend that everything the Defendant said ultimately was an attempt to account for physical evidence left during the first and second crime scenes; and in attempting to do so, he tried to account for trace evidence by providing an innocent explanation for his presence or for his touching of the particular object.  "Yes, I was in Kristen's room.  Yes, I touched her, but I was giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation" -- even though he had a punctured lung.
     The trouble with this approach is that if you don't know all the physical evidence -- and he certainly didn't -- at the time you are beginning to account for it, you get trapped or nailed down to a particular sequence of events.  And as more and more evidence is analyzed and collated, which can't be done overnight, this permits you less and less room for inventive maneuvering.  We submit that is exactly what happened.
     Now, since the Defendant had been trained by his own admission in Special Forces to withstand interrogations such as a prisoner-of-war doctor might be subjected to, he knew that if he was going to tell a story, he would have to tell as much of the truth as possible.  He would have to tell the sequence as nearly as possible, but the reason why he touched something would, we contend, be fabricated.  This, we would argue, is really a cover story within a cover story.  Now, since he would have to repeat this time and time again, as I have said he would have to, there is a grain of truth in the sequence of his movements throughout the house.
     Of course, he talked voluntarily for years.  You can't interrogate this Defendant, or any Defendant for that matter, in a case like this without by the nature of your questions informing him of what your evidence shows or what you think it shows.  This is, we would argue, the most difficult type of cover story to penetrate because it contains half-truths and distortions of the sequence of events and such.  I submit the cover within a cover can only be penetrated by the analysis and collation of bits and pieces to form a picture -- a jigsaw puzzle, if you will -- and not by character testimony of somebody who was in Nepal at the time the crime happened.  We would argue that that is irrelevant.
     You don't have to have every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to know what the picture is.  I am sure you have all had the experience of trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together when you get down to the end of it and there is a piece or two missing, but you still know what the picture shows.  That is basically what this case is about.  You have, I submit, sufficient pieces if you will analyze them, and I know that you will make that effort to get the picture -- not of what maybe happened or could have happened, but we submit what the evidence shows must have happened.  What did happen when Jeffrey MacDonald, the Defendant, first assaulted his wife, Colette, and daughter, Kimberly, with the club in the master bedroom and later stabbed them and Kristen?
     I am going to ask you to go back with me now through the crime scene.  I know that it is something that all of us would rather never have seen.  We don't do this to be insensitive to your natural repulsion at this crime.  Anytime any of us looks at these photographs, it shakes us whether we show it or not; but it would be, I submit, a miscarriage of justice if by virtue of the horror depicted and generated in these photographs if the jurors were unable to study the details of the scenes in order to fully comprehend the evidence.  I submit that you owe it to the Defendant and you also owe it to the Government.
     Now, this is, as I said, a circumstantial evidence case.  Circumstantial evidence cases can be divided, broadly speaking, into two types.  You have the chain-type of situation which this case is not.  The simplest example of that would be man buys a gun, man goes to bank, man leaves fingerprint on teller's window, man shoots teller, the bullet matches up, and you have a logical progression -- a single strand, if you will -- that connects the Defendant to the crime.
     This isn't that type of case.  What this case is analogous to is a circle with different bits and pieces of evidence scattered around the circle -- the crime scene -- and these bits and pieces when collated point in one direction and one direction only.  That, we submit, is to the Defendant.
     Now, we have shown you many, many charts and the charts are in evidence.  If at any time during your jury deliberations you feel it would aid you in understanding the evidence to refer to these charts, you need only ask the Marshal to have them brought in.  The purpose of the charts is so that -- you will only hear the evidence one time as it comes in -- sometimes twice -- but generally, you hear it one time.  This case should not depend upon memory -- you can't remember what type blood was found on Exhibit 312.  I submit that you can't.  You need the charts, I would argue, to understand and to relate the evidence one piece to another.
     You will recall that we spent a day -- maybe it was a day and a half -- listening to the evidence about the blood stains, and we showed you some 13 charts which you listened to very patiently, I might add, as we went through those.  I won't go through them with you again.  The blood evidence, we contend, is uncontested.  During the testimony, it was shown that the blood was of a certain type and that it was consistent with or was of the same type as one of the victims or the Defendant.  I would ask you to find from the evidence that the Type A blood found at the crime scene is Colette's blood, that the Type AB blood found at the crime scene is Kimberly's blood, that the Type B blood is the Defendant's and that the Type O blood is Kristen's blood.
     Again, as I said, the case is like a circle and you have to pick some place on the circle to start in tying the pieces together, which, we would argue, relate to the Defendant.
     At this time, I think as logical a place as any to start is outside the back of the house.  Now, you recall the testimony of Mr. Shaw, CID agent, who found the ice pick and the Old Hickory knife under the bush.  I ask you to look at this photograph and you will notice that the knife appears to be under somewhat of a little twig and also a seed pod or perhaps it is a branch.  I would also ask you to recall that the photograph is in a north and south direction -- the south side or the corner of the building being here (indicating) and the north end being in that direction (indicating) by the utility room door.
     Now, if we can swing this other chart around.  You recall the testimony, I am sure, of the chemist that blood on the Hilton bathmat found on the abdomen of Colette MacDonald was of two types -- Type A, Colette's type, and Type AB, Kimberly's type.  You will also recall the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh who compared -- in fact, he took the Old Hickory knife and the ice pick and laid them out on the table here in front of you and showed the configuration of the Old Hickory knife to be consistent with this stain and the configuration of the ice pick with that stain.  I would ask you to find from that evidence that the knife -- the Old Hickory knife -- and the ice pick were wiped off on the Hilton bathmat.
     You also recall the testimony of Mr. Shaw who removed the club from this area here (indicating) because it was raining, and marked it with tongue depressors.  Now, the piece of wood which you have seen several times had two blood types on it -- Type A, Colette's type, and Type AB, Kimberly's type.  Now, when they got the piece of wood to the laboratory, they removed from the club two purple cotton seam threads or two purple cotton threads which were identified as being identical to those of the seam threads of the Defendant's pajama top found on Colette's body, and numerous rayon fibers identical to those of the multi-colored throw rug which was found by Colette's feet.  In fact, you just saw it in that other picture.  I will ask you to remember and bear in mind these two purple cotton threads.  We will come back to it.
     Now, at various times, these photographs were shown to you.  The purpose, we would argue, of this display is to tie the club which was found outside the house to the commission of the crime inside the house.  You recall Colette's body -- the area from which Colette's body was removed -- the splinter, Government Exhibit 125, which Dr. Chamberlain tested for blood on it and it was Type A blood.  We would argue that it was Colette's blood.  The splinter was later fitted back into the club which was found outside the house.  We would argue and ask you to find from the evidence that that shows that that club was used on Colette MacDonald in the master bedroom.
     Now, you recall you heard a great deal of testimony about threads and yarns that were compared to the pajama top found on Colette's body.  I won't go through all of these with you, but I would ask you to remember the testimony of Dr. Thornton, the Defense's expert, who testified to experiments he performed, in which when the seams of cloth such as this -- I believe he, rather than using the actual pajama top, sewed pieces together or his wife sewed them together -- when they were ripped, I believe he testified that scores of threads would either drop out or be shaken loose.  By my count, you find three-score purple cotton seam threads -- purple cotton threads -- identical to those on the pajama top, in the master bedroom.  I would ask you to find from the evidence that the pajama top was torn in the master bedroom and not in the living room.  I would also ask you to bear in mind again the two purple cotton threads found on the club outside the house; and also, I would remind you of the purple cotton threads and the hair found in the pile of bedding on the floor.
     You also see you have not quite a score, but 14 purple cotton threads from the pajama top in Kimberly's room and one of each of a thread and a yarn in Kristen's bedroom, and again, none on the couch and none on the rug and none on the floor in that area.
     Now, this chart is related to the previous chart, but again, we are looking at the collation between the splinters and the threads, and the pattern that I would ask you to find from the evidence is that were you find the splinters from the club, you also find purple cotton threads.  From that, I would ask you to find that the wearer of the garment -- that is the Defendant from which the purple cotton threads came -- was also the wielder of the club.
     I believe that from the previous evidence, you would find that the club was certainly used on at least Colette and Kimberly MacDonald in the crime.  I would also ask you to find from the evidence that the club, which was once part of a piece of wood Mr. Browning testified was part of a larger piece of wood and was cut off, and subsequently, the larger piece of wood was later used as a bed slat.  Mr. Ivory identified that in Kimberly's bed, and subsequent to this smaller piece being cut off -- the club -- it was used along with another piece of wood to support Kimberly's bed -- remember, we brought in the footboard and the headboard -- when it was being painted.  The paint on these objects all matches up and also matches the paint on the Perry-brand surgeon's latex gloves.  From this evidence, we would ask you to find that that piece of wood indeed had a utilitarian use in that house.
     This chart, I would ask you to take a look at, and perhaps starting in the right-hand side, recall for you or ask you to recall that the blue pajama top found on Colette's body has two blood types on it relating to the victims.  That is, you have Type A, Colette's type, of which the testimony shows the vast majority of the blood type -- I believe some 20-odd stains -- were of Type A.  There were massive stains.  We would ask you to find from that that it was direct bleeding -- contact stains.  Kimberly's blood type, there was one stain, which I believe Mrs. Glisson testified that was on the lower front portion of the pajama top, and one stain, Type B -- that of the Defendant's -- which was on the area of the left arm.
     Now, you have the multi-colored throw rug here which has Type A blood on it.  I would ask you to recall if you look at Exhibit 322 and Exhibit 116, you would see that the throw rug, in addition to having the fibers with which it is composed, had on it purple cotton seam threads which we would ask you to find came from the pajama top.  I also recall for you that on the club outside of the house, it had both the purple cotton seam threads and the yarns from the rug.  From that, I would ask you to find that there was a fiber interchange from this rug, after the blue yarns got on it, to the club.
     Now, we have the blue pocket which is found here (indicating).  From the photograph, you can see that the rug is turned up and that we appear to have the pocket upside down.  I also ask you to recall, you have seen this rug and that there is no blood found on this piece of rug.  Now, you may recall the testimony of Mr. Laber, the chemist from the CID Lab in 1970, but is now employed as a Chief Serologist for the Minnesota Laboratory, as to the testimony concerning the pocket from the pajama top.  Mr. Laber, I believe, testified to not only the blood type of the stains which was Type A, the same type as Colette, and I would ask you to find that it is Colette's blood on the pocket, but also that the stains were of two types -- that there was a smear on Area Two which is white beading and that the larger stains were contact or soaking stains.  From that, I would ask you to find that Colette's blood was on the pocket of the pajama top before it was torn off because as you recall, the stains do not penetrate the double layers of the fabric by the seams.
     We also have here the sheet which we will talk about some more.  It has two blood types on it -- Type A, Colette's type, and Type AB, Kimberly's type.  You may recall that Mrs. Glisson showed you the two stains that were Type AB, Kimberly's type.  They were droplets or spatter stains, I submit.  I submit that they got on there when that sheet was in the master bedroom and the club was being wielded on Colette and Kimberly and the blood spun off and landed on the sheet.
     You also remember we have got a piece of latex rubber with group A blood on it.  Mr. Hoffman, the ATF chemist, testified that in his opinion, it was consistent with trace elements that were consistent with the Perry-brand surgeon's gloves and that in his opinion, they were of the same manufacture.
     You may recall that the Defense expert testified after using a different procedure in 1979, that he found some 11 trace elements of which ten were common to both the exemplars and the evidence, and that in his opinion, they were not of the same manufacturing batch, as I recall.  I would ask you to bear in mind that we are talking about parts per million and that the differences are very slight and that in the exemplar pieces of which -- it was Dr. Guinn who tested it -- there were eight pieces of rubber cut from three gloves.  On no two pieces of rubber, either from two gloves from the same manufacturer or from parts of the same glove, were any of the trace elements -- that is, the compositional or the number -- would have been the same.  I think that accounts for the difference.  I would ask you to find that the Perry-brand latex gloves indeed matched the piece of rubber finger section that was found in the sheet.  Besides, what is that finger section doing in the sheet on the floor anyway?
     You also recall that you had the debris removed from that bedspread and that Mr. Stombaugh testified that there was a hair which was identical to the hair removed from Colette's head at the grave which was entangled around the blue cotton thread from the pajama top or identical to the pajama top.  I would ask you to find that it is indeed Colette's hair and that it was entangled around a thread from the pajama top and that that resulted or came from a forcible removal or some type of friction between Colette and the wearer of the pajama top, which is the Defendant.
     You recall the splinter which we showed you.  I won't go through that again, but that that splinter, Exhibit 125, was found in this area behind her head (indicating).  You also have the debris removed from the head or under the head of Colette, the purple cotton threads from the pajama top, we submit.
     We also have the piece of rubber -- the Perry-brand surgical latex gloves here -- and you have also got the Hilton bathmat.  Also, you have debris under the trunk and legs of Colette, which match the purple cotton threads of the pajama top.  I would ask you to find that from this evidence, the purple cotton threads from the pajama top were all over this master bedroom, and that they got there when that garment was ripped in the master bedroom and in no other fashion.
     Again, we have more fibers matching the pajama top found in the area over here (indicating), which I will ask you to note is directly beneath the lettering "Pig" on the headboard, which Mr. Medlin testified to could have been made by somebody using two fingers and wearing a rubber glove.  Again, I will recall or ask you to recall that the finger section of the rubber glove with Type A blood was found in the sheet.  I will also ask you to note that you have these hair yarns, or I guess you would call them ribbons, that were found on the night stand by Colette's side of the bed.  I would ask you to recall that because we will tie that in in a minute.
     Again, we have the pajama top and spatters of blood of Colette's type on the wall, which I submit to you resulted from the club being used on Colette in the master bedroom, "Pig" was again written in Type A blood, debris from the pillow case, more threads and yarns from the pajama top, another piece of rubber matching that, I would contend, of the Perry-brand latex gloves.
     Okay, now, in Kimberly's room, you have again a splinter matching the club, you have purple cotton threads on the north pillow, and you also have Type A and Type AB blood on the wall directly opposite Kimberly's bed.  From the evidence, I would ask you to find that that blood got on the walls and the splinter on the pillow and the threads also in that area when the club was used by the Defendant standing on this side of the bed (indicating), swinging it down and hitting Kimberly.  You will recall that Kimberly was struck -- in the testimony by the pathologist -- on both sides of the face.
     Okay, also, you have many, many purple cotton threads inside the bedding.  You may recall the testimony of Dr. Chamberlain that the -- I am sorry -- the testimony of Mr. Shaw where the bedding was pulled back and by the time Dr. Chamberlain got there -- Specialist Chamberlain at the time -- you were looking at the underside of the top sheet and it was from that area, as I believe he testified, that he removed the purple threads which were later identified as coming from the pajama top.
     You will recall that we asked you to find that Colette was injured in the north bedroom.  You have her blood type on the wall where there were spatters on two areas.  You have her blood -- remember in Mrs. Glisson's testimony about the large stains on the top sheet in Kristen's bed -- which I would submit indicate direct bleeding.  She held them up and they were quite significant in size.  You also have Kimberly's type -- I am sorry -- Kimberly's type blood is on the bedspread.  You have got the blood on the floor right here (indicating).  The testimony about that was that it was all Type O blood.
     Remember, a second ago, I asked you to take a look at the hair yarns that were on the night stand by Colette's side of the bed.  You recall that there was a stipulation that the green yarn found on the floor by the rug here -- you may have a little trouble seeing it (indicating) -- matched or was microscopically identical to the yarns found on the night stand by Colette's side of the bed.
     You may also recall that that yarn was knotted and appears to be broken.  From that, I would ask you to find that that yarn was on the hair or on the head of Colette MacDonald when she was in that room and that it was pulled off and broken.
     Again, you have more debris matching up to the pajama top and the splinter matching the club.  You will also recall the testimony of the pathologist that Kristen sustained no blunt trauma injuries from the club.  Why is there a splinter in that room?  Why is Type A blood spattered on the wall?  Why is Type A and AB blood found on the bedspread?  I submit and ask you to find from the evidence that those stains and that debris results from the use of that club on someone with Type A blood in that room, and I would argue that that was Colette MacDonald.
     We have the two areas which correspond to a right and left footprint.  The left print was identified -- in fact, it is uncontested -- as that of the Defendant.  It is also uncontested that the blood type of that stain is Type A blood.  Now, I ask you, if there was no Type A blood on the floor in Kristen's room, and that that footprint is going out of the room into the hallway, how did the Defendant get Colette's blood on his foot?  What did he step on that has sufficient Type A blood on it to coat the bottom of his foot so that he could track it out?  If he didn't track it in, how did he track it out?  If there was nothing on the floor when the agents or the MPs got there with Type A blood on it, there must have been something which at one time was in that room that had sufficient Type A blood on it for him to step on to get the blood on his foot.  I would ask you to find that there were three movable objects found in the crime scene which had sufficient Type A blood on them to coat the bottom of his foot.  One would be Colette and her clothing, the other one would be the sheet from the pile of bedding on the floor of the master bedroom, and also the bedspread.  We will tie that up in a second.
     Now, you recall that Mr. Stombaugh went through the correlation of each of the items, the so-called weapons, and the clothing of the victims.  I won't go through the other two charts here, but I would ask you to recall that it was only the Defendant's pajama top which had any cuts in it which were consistent with the Geneva Forge knife.  That is the knife that was collected from the master bedroom near Colette's body, which had not enough blood on the blade to fully type.  It was an indication that there was Type A blood.  They were able to do the crust test, but there was not sufficient blood to do the elution test so they could only indicate that it was Type A blood.  I would ask you to bear that in mind.
     I would also ask you to remember that he tied up the ice pick as being consistent with the puncture holes in the pajama top and that in his opinion, the ice pick could have made the puncture holes in the pajama top.  From the evidence, I would ask you to find that, in fact, this ice pick did make the puncture holes in the pajama top.
     Now, you recall that Mr. Stombaugh testified to finding 48 puncture holes in this pajama top.  Most of them are on the back with the greatest concentration in the area of the right shoulder and the right sleeve.  I would ask you to recall that this would be the sleeve that would be closest to the wall in the living room and that it would be the left sleeve -- the left shoulder that would be on the outside, the area where the alleged attackers were.
     Now, Mr. Stombaugh testified that he examined all of these holes and from the absence of torn areas, he concluded that the holes were made while the garment was stationary.  You also recall the testimony of Dr. Thornton, the Defense expert, and his experiment with the ham and the piece of cloth stretched tight over.  We submit that that experiment is invalid because indeed if the garment is being supported in a taut fashion by something like a body, it would have torn holes.  You also recall that when we performed an experiment with another pajama top for Dr. Thornton, the pajama top indeed does get ripped.
     Further, you may recall that even when someone is not trying to stab somebody with an ice pick, it is very difficult not to hit the arms of the person weaving the pajama top back and forth.
     You recall also that Mr. Stombaugh talked about -- I am sorry -- he talked about the blood stains on the pajama top, and in 1971, before he was really involved in this case, he was asked to determine whether the blood stains could have been on the pajama top before it was torn.  You may remember that he testified that the blood stains in this area -- the front panel (indicating) -- the left shoulder and the left sleeve, in his opinion, were on the pajama top before it was torn.  You will also recall that it had the Type A blood that was the same type as Colette's.  I would ask you to find that Colette's blood was on the pajama top before it was torn.  It was on it in three places, and that the rips were subsequently made through here and here (indicating).
     Mr. Stombaugh also testified that in his opinion, the pajama top could have been torn if it was being worn by someone in a normal fashion and if someone was grabbing it and pulling away, or by someone holding the pajama top and spinning away.  I would ask you to find from the evidence that the pajama top was torn by Colette MacDonald either by grappling at it or perhaps, we would argue, that the blood of the Type A -- of the Type A blood on the Geneva Forge knife inside the house may have been wielded by Colette MacDonald in self-defense and defense of her children, and that that being the case, the Defendant spun away from the pajama top or from Colette and it was ripped in that fashion.  But in any event, when it was ripped, I would ask you to find seam threads dropped out.
     Mr. Stombaugh testified that there were 48 holes and you will recall that number.  The sheet was found in the pile of bedding on the floor of the master bedroom, inside of which was the bedspread from the master bed.  Mr. Stombaugh testified that in his opinion, this stain or the stains AB were made by the right sleeve of the Defendant's pajama top.  You will recall the blood testimony and this is consistent with the Type A blood -- this is Type A blood.  From that evidence, I would ask you to find that the Defendant's pajama top was soaked with Colette's blood and came in contact with this sheet and made these stains.
     You will also recall that Dr. Thornton, the Defense expert, testified that he agreed with Mr. Stombaugh as to how these stains were made.
     We have the other side of the sheet, and you recall that there was testimony about the left shoulder impression in the area corresponding to the torn left sleeve of the Defendant's pajama top when it was folded in this fashion (indicating) which would mean that the stain was made after the garment had become soaked in the Type A blood -- Colette's type -- and then came in contact with the sheet.  I would ask you to find from the evidence that this stain was indeed made by a bare left shoulder print and that was the left shoulder of the Defendant and his pajama top had been ripped in the left panel which had been draped down hanging off his left shoulder -- not by a doorknob or by someone wearing a body suit or some other such thing.
     I also remind you, if I may, that there was absolutely no evidence that this sheet -- the blood on this sheet -- was moist when it was picked up by Mr. Ivory and put in the evidence bag.  You will recall that there were photographs.  In fact, this photograph here (indicating) was taken by Mr. Page at practically mid-day so that this sheet was collected sometime -- in fact, the photograph has been cropped, but there is another photograph in evidence which shows the clock on the dresser and it says quarter to 1:00; so, the sheet was collected, at the earliest, sometime after quarter to 1:00.  This would be hours after the blood initially came into contact with the sheet.  I submit and ask you to find that the blood was dry on the sheet when it was picked up.
     You recall the testimony about the handprints -- Mr. Stombaugh's opinion that they were made by a left and right hand.  Dr. Thornton disagreed and said that it was made by multiple drops of blood falling into the same general area.  I submit that that explanation is not credible.  I would ask you to find that these stains were made by handprints.
     You recall also that Mr. Stombaugh and Dr. Thornton testified that Area F, I believe, which is here (indicating) was made by the left sleeve of Colette's pajama top.  Now, we didn't hear from Dr. Thornton about Area G which Mr. Stombaugh testified that in his opinion corresponded to the right sleeve of Colette's pajama top.  We did hear from Mr. Morton.  In Mr. Morton's opinion, although he did not make a direct comparison and did not measure it the same, it was made by a handprint.  I would ask you to find from the evidence that the stain corresponds in size and configuration to the right sleeve of Colette's pajama top and ask you to find that it was, in fact, made by that pajama top.
     The bottom line is that we have the right cuff of the Defendant's pajama top and the left sleeve of Colette's pajama top, and obviously, if you have got one sleeve, you have got the other sleeve, and if the pajama top is soaked in blood, the hands of both persons are also going to be soaked in blood and that is how you get these prints.
     Now, to tie some of this together, we have on the sheet massive amounts of Colette's blood and Kimberly's blood spatters.  We have fabric impressions which we have just gone through, the right and left sleeve of Jeffrey's pajama top, the handprints, Colette's pajama top, and the bare shoulder print.  You also have the debris removed from the sheet.  You have got the piece of rubber -- the finger section with Type A blood on it which matches the Perry-brand latex gloves also found in that sheet.  Now, what was all this stuff doing here?  This can't be, I submit, a coincidence that all of this stuff is found in that sheet when you add to that the debris from the bedspread.  You have Colette's blood.  You can see there is a large area of the bedspread that was stained with Colette's type.  You have the debris removed from the bedspread, the purple cotton thread from the pajama top entangled with Colette's hair.
     Again, I would ask that all of this cannot be a mere coincidence.  I ask that you find from the large amount of Type A blood on the bedspread that it was the bedspread from which the Defendant got the Type A blood on his foot in Kristen's room.
     Now, we have what has come to be known as the reconstruction.  You recall that Ms. Green testified that she took 21 probes by a trial and error method and was able to simultaneously insert 21 probes through the 48 holes forming the pattern that you see here.
     You may also recall that there was much ado about whether the garment was placed or folded in exactly the same position that it was found on Colette's body, but we contend and I believe what the evidence shows is that the examiners folded it -- that is, turned the right sleeve inside out as it appears in the photograph and used that as the basis for the reconstruction.  You can't do this with the left sleeve turned inside out.
     We do not contend that it was placed in exactly the same position as it was -- as each stab wound was being inflicted through it into the body of Colette MacDonald.  Obviously, we couldn't do that because we didn't have the body, but I would ask you to find that it was folded with the right sleeve inside out and that that corresponds to the position in which it appears in the photograph.
     Now, you also remember Ms. Green who was subjected to a rather lengthy cross-examination and who testified as to how she did with the reconstruction.  Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to find from the evidence that this could only happen in this fashion, and only if that garment was folded right sleeve inside out and was on top of Colette's chest, and that 21 perpendicular thrusts with an ice pick went through it into her chest, forming the pattern which you see here (indicating).
     Now, Ms. Green performed some additional reconstructions from a vertical view, and you would see from what we have here as his pajama top and the photograph of Colette's injuries and another photograph with the pins removed and put into the graph paper which is in evidence and is a side-by-side comparison of the patterns' correspondence.  This cannot be, I submit, coincidence.  This could only have happened in the way in which we contend it happened -- that is that she was stabbed through that pajama top 21 times with an ice pick.
     Again, we believe that we have proven by physical evidence which is indisputable and which is cold and which is logical that the Defendant and no one else committed this crime.  Now, if we have convinced you of that beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are still uncomfortable because we haven't answered the question as to whether the Defendant is the type of person who could have done this, I submit to you that that is an emotional doubt and not a reasonable doubt.  I would again ask you to recall the Court's instructions that you decide the case on the basis of the evidence and not on the basis of emotion or prejudice.
     This concludes my portion of the presentation of the opening argument of the Government's case.  I thank you again for your attention and your patience.