Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell is known as the Sherlock Holmes of bloodstain evidence. He wrote the book, Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood, published by the U.S. Department of Justice (1971). His Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation (1982) is considered the definitive text on the subject by law enforcement. Dr. MacDonell is a criminalist.
Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a criminalist as “one versed in criminal law; a writer of criminal law.” Today that definition has been extended to include the one who employs physical science to solve crimes. Applying the physical sciences of physics, biology chemistry, and logic MacDonell has objectively interpreted evidence and reconstructed crimes in over 3,000 criminal cases. It was because of his reputation as a criminalist that both prosecutors and defense attorneys have turned to him to give testimony in the proceedings that have ranged from a Village Justice Court to Federal Courts, and, in an unusual case he testified before the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal, Quebec. He has worked with such lawyers and barristers as Leo Adler, Joel Martin Aurnou, F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran, Jr., John Daniels, Robert Ford, Betty Friedlander, William Kunstler, James Lockyer, Ron Meshbesher, Charlie Oberly, Barry Scheck, Mike Tillman, and Leonard Wineglass among others.
In the course of his career, MacDonell has given expert testimony in such diverse disciplines as Analytical Chemistry, Beer Drinking, Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation, Crime Scene Reconstruction, Fingerprint Identification, Glass and Glass Fracture Patterns, Hair and Fiber Identification, Firearms Identification, Forensic Pathology, and Light Microscopy to name a few areas.
As a criminalist, MacDonell’s interest is in the scientific analysis of the evidence. Truth is found in the evidence. To establish what the evidence is disclosing about a particular crime, any crime, the criminalist must be objective. As Alfred Allan Lewis states:
The criminalist is not interested in editorializing; that is for the media. He is not interested in motives; that is for the law enforcers. He is not interested in emotional, often biased pleas for or against the defendant; that is for the lawyers. If he is not what MacDonell calls “a liar for hire,” he is interested only in a scientific analysis of the evidence, which he regards as synonymous with the truth.1
Internationally recognized for his objectivity, he has analyzed evidence and given testimony in numerous cases including the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. His reports and/or testimony was pivotal in the trials of Jean Harris, Clayton Johnson, Suzie Mowbray, O.J. Simpson, and Nick Tufaaro. Regardless of the social status of the defendant, MacDonell is aware of the stakes in the game of the judicial process. There are shortcuts an attorney can take to achieve his or her win. But a courtroom victory does not necessarily mean that justice has been served.
He collaborated in the writing of The Evidence Never Lies: The Casebook of a Modern Sherlock Holmes (1984) with Alfred Allan Lewis. His latest book, After Holmes: Dr. MacDonell’s Forensic Casebook, with Allan Eaglesham, was released in 2011. His books are available on-line.
1 Alfred Allan Lewis with Herbert Leon MacDonell, The Evidence Never Lies: The Casebook of a Modern Sherlock Holmes (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984), xii
Q: You grew up in the small town of Bolivar, New York and lived there from 1928 until 1945 when you left to attend Alfred University. You also worked in your family business, the MacDonell Oil Company. What lessons did you take from those years that shaped your interest in chemistry and later your interest in criminology?
A: I consider both to be institutions of higher education. The recovery of petroleum from the earth is not a science but it uses scientific principles. The secondary recovery by flooding began about the time I was born. It was called the five spot method where there were four water wells around every oil well to push oil to the oil well. I was always interested in chemistry and in my English I class in 1943 I wrote my biography, “ME” at age 14. In it I made it clear that my ambition was to get into some line of science, preferable chemistry. I recall seeing the movie, “The Kid Glove Killer” in which Van Heflin starred as a crime laboratory director and I was hooked on forensic science.
Q: You were given the moniker of “The Mad Bomber of Bolivar.” Why was that?
A: As a small child I went with my father to watch oil wells being shot. When some 120 quarts of nitroglycerine is exploded to fracture oil sand 1100 feet below where you are standing you can feel the shock waves under your feet. I enjoyed making explosives in my laboratory when I was twelve or so. I made ammonium triodide, phosphorus and potassium chlorate bombs, mercury fulminate, as well as pipe bombs and nitroglycerine. We lived on the edge of town so I could test my bombs in a vacant lot with only a few neighbors knowing what I had done.
I accepted the challenge to detonate a bomb where several of us high school students went to have a cigarette during the noon hour. During WWII cigarettes were called “fags” and our meeting place was under a large elm tree on the bank of a creek bed near the school. The tree was known as, “The Fag Tree”. Well, one noon I had placed a pipe bomb in the bank under this mighty tree and with my group at a safe distance I set off the bomb. The bomb was mightier than the roots of the elm tree and it came crashing down into the creek bed. Everyone knew I was responsible but no one complained as apparently people wanted the tree down anyway.
Q: Would you agree there seems to be a fine line between a life of crime and the life of a criminalist? What kept you on the straight and narrow path?
A: No, I do not agree. I feel that they are completely on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Crime is wrong and dishonest. I was brought up to be a gentleman and always to be honest and this I have always done to the best of my ability. There was never any other path for me than the straight and narrow. Possible punishment was never a factor because crime is wrong.
Q: In 1951, you accepted a full professorship at Milton College. You were 22 at the time, held only a B.A. degree and were newly married. From Milton, you attended the University of Rhode Island. There you met and studied under Harold Charles Harrison. Harrison was the Professor of Analytical Chemistry, but also the Assistant Director of the Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory. You have said that your relationship with Harrison was one of the most significant factors in your career. How did studying and working with Harrison influence you?
A: “Doc” Harrison and I were a perfect fit. He did not know much about photography and I did not know much about forensic science so we exchanged information. In 1955 I was allowed to attend the Basic Criminalistics program that went from October until June. It was for law enforcement officers in Rhode Island and I was the first civilian to do so and quite possibly the only one to date. I learned as much from the other students as I did from the instructors as they had a wealth of experience. Harrison taught me how to use the comparison microscope and I showed him how to take ultra violet fluorescence photographs. I made some of the exhibits Dr. Harrison used in court.
Q: Dr. Paul Leland Kirk established criminology as an academic discipline. His book Crime Investigation was essential reading for examining a crime scene. You once stated that the most accurate information you found on the subject of blood spatter was in Dr. Kirk’s 1955 affidavit on the Dr. Samuel Sheppard murder case. When did you first meet Kirk?
A: I first met Paul Kirk after he presented a paper at an American Chemical Society meeting in Cleveland on 7 April 1960. He spoke on, “The Present Status of Forensic Chemistry.” I had dinner with him and Jack Cadman during that symposium. Paul and I became very good friends and visited each other several times. He came to Corning and spoke to a local ACS meeting that I had arranged. We discussed the Sheppard case many times and he said he valued my input.
Q: Your book Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood is considered the bible on the subject of blood spatter. What was Kirk’s response to your preliminary findings before you wrote the book?
A: Paul Kirk never lived to see the report I wrote on the research I conducted for the Department of Justice because it was published in 1971, a year after he died. However, he was the person who was responsible for my getting the grant to conduct that research. During the 5th International Meeting of Forensic Sciences in Toronto in June 1969, Dr. Kirk came up to me after my presentation on the Dr. Stephen Shaff case and paid me one of the greatest compliments I have ever received; he told me I had done more with bloodstain patterns than he had ever imagined possible. He encouraged me to apply for a grant from the National Institute on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice and receive some funding to conduct further research on bloodstain patterns. I followed his advice and received the first grant under what was called Project Acorn; “Mighty oaks from little acorns grow”. He was confident that I would get a grant because, he confessed to me, he was a member of the awards committee.
Q: You mentioned the Dr. Stephen Shaff case. Would you briefly summarize this case? Why did you select this particular case for your presentation?
A: This is a classic case because it required some research into new areas of forensic science. Simply put a 44-year-old veterinarian was warned that a 21-year-old boy was driving to his home to beat him up. The doctor met the 1966 Volkswagen Microbus in the driveway and told the driver to go home. Instead, the driver threw the driver’s door open hitting the muzzle of the shotgun. The doctor took a firmer grip on the shotgun and it discharged. The window was broken and the driver was killed. The charge struck a strut that was in front of the glass and with that point and the impact of the charge to the head-liner (ceiling) the trajectory could easily be traced. This trajectory established the maximum opening of the door at the time of discharge. It was nine and one-quarter inches.
Blood that spattered from the head wound landed on the wrap-around bumper. This was a problem because in order to have blood land on the bumper the door had to be open at least 25 inches. Using an identical VW I had an associate see how fast he could push open the driver’s door from 9 ¼ to 25 inches. This experiment proved how easily the door could be opened to let blood spatter from the head and land on the bumper.
Q: You conducted extensive research on porous glass while employed at Corning Glass. How important would that research become to your work as a criminalist and that of others in your field?
A: I demonstrated how well porous glass could be used as the matrix for both chromatography and electrophoresis. I received a patent on both of those inventions. I do not know how much either technique is used today if at all. While the resolution is very good and produces permanent results the cost of the glass may not justify common usage.
Herbert and Phyllis MacDonell in 1950
Q: You left your position as a Senior Chemist at Corning Glass to pursue your work in forensic science. How supportive was your wife Phyllis of that decision and what role did she play in your work?
A: Phyllis assisted me in many ways but the most routine was proofreading my reports. She went with me many times when I had to visit a crime scene or examine physical evidence. She was very supportive of my work, strange as it often could become during the reconstruction of a homicide to arrive at the truth. She understood the necessity of obtaining facts, the correct information that is essential to science. Phyllis was always there for me when I took a controversial case like the Black Panther case in Chicago in 1969. We rolled with the punches together.
Q: How did you meet Phyllis?
A: When Bolivar Central School (Bolivar, New York) opened for fall classes in 1941, there was a new teacher there to greet the music students, Mr. W. Philip Austin. Mr. Austin had previously taught vocal and instrument music at Richburg. I tell the story that I took three things from Mr. Austin: theory, harmony, and his daughter who had come into the eighth grade, my class. Phyllis had missed a year of school because she had had rheumatic fever the year before. Therefore, she was a little older than most of the class including me. Phyllis wore silk stockings because of having had rheumatic fever. When I saw her it was truly love at first sight. We dated but she moved away before graduation because her father accepted a music faculty position at Alfred-Almond Central School and her family moved to Alfred, New York.
Q: There is a story about when you asked Phyllis’ father for her hand in marriage he was not at all surprised.
A: In 1949 I was invited to spend the Christmas holidays with Phyllis and her family. She thought that would be the perfect time for me to ask her father for her hand in marriage. I have a vivid memory of Phyllis and me washing the dishes one night. The kitchen was far removed from the living room and I agreed to ask for her hand the next day. About all I can remember is that I was with Mr. Austin in the school shop helping him construct a large lighted star when I asked, “Sir, would it be alright if I were to marry Phyllis?” I distinctly remember his quick response. He said, “Yes, that would be fine. Could you hand me that screwdriver?”
Q: You have been collecting fingernail pairings since 1957 with the idea that no two sets of fingernail markings were identical. Has anything come of that research?
A: Absolutely, it was shown to be the most significant evidence in the KFC-5 case in Kilgore, Texas where the prosecution believed that they had a match of fingernail striations and I proved they were wrong. Later one of the true murderers confessed after I testified and the other was convicted. Actually, fingernail striation identification is better than DNA! The DNA of identical twins is the same but their fingernails are not.
This case occurred in Kilgore, Texas in 1983 where five employees of a local KFC were found shot to death execution style, in the head, on a refinery road; two men and three women. At autopsy a broken fingernail was found on one of the male victim’s trousers. A young white man was the prime suspect because he had been seen near the KFC that morning and because he had a broken fingernail. The prosecution had their expert look at the evidence fingernail as well as one trimmed off the suspect’s finger. They concluded that the longitudinal striations matched and the suspect was arrested.
The prosecution expert had read several articles I had written on matching the longitudinal striations of fingernails and wanted me to look at their evidence to secure my endorsement of his and a colleague’s belief that they had a match, a positive identification. They brought the fingernails to me and I told them that it was not a match and the nails were from two different persons. The district attorney ignored my findings, went to trial with his two “experts” and secured a conviction on the fingernail evidence alone.
Dr. MacDonell and his wife, Phyllis
A few years later it was reported that a crime lab technician wanted to conduct the newly found forensic tool, DNA, on those fingernails and he did. Result, the evidence fingernail was from a female, in fact from one of the two female victims! They released the poor fellow who had been convicted on false evidence but now they had an unsolved quintuple homicide. They had two other suspects; two black men who were also seen in the area the morning of the murders. The defense retained the two former prosecution witnesses as they claimed the fingernail match was valid and they had released the actual murderer. They claimed I was wrong and so was the DNA! One fellow confessed after my testimony and the other was found guilty.
Q: Over the years, you have investigated other cases that haven’t made big headlines. Some people become blood stain pattern analysts and criminalists for the money or the thrill. You have had no qualms of being critical of law enforcement and prosecutors, as well as defense attorneys. What motivates you when deciding to take a case?
A: I do not select the cases I shall or shall not take. I have taken almost every case that was presented to me since 1957. One exception was the Spector case in California. I did not like the strategy of the defense and I told them so. When I was called it was clear that the defense was attempting to retain all the forensic experts they could so the prosecution could not engage them. I felt that this was dirty pool and I wanted to return the retainer they had sent. I was told that I could not return it because I already knew their strategy.
Q: To put it mildly, attorneys and barristers are often perceived in a negative light. You have worked with both high and low profile attorneys and barristers both in the United States and Canada. Who are some of the attorneys and barristers with whom you have worked over the years?
A: I was a witness for Ronald I. Meshbesher in Minneapolis several times. I consider him the best of the best. I have also been a witness both for and against the late William Kunstler who was very articulate in court and once when I was appearing for the prosecution in the case of Joanne Chesimard in New Jersey rose up and told the court that the defense would accept me as an expert in any field I chose to speak. I worked with F. Lee Bailey during the OJ Simpson case in California and he was great as usual. In my opinion the greatest defense barrister in Canada is James Lockyer in Toronto. I also place Leo Adler of Toronto on the same level but I did not work nearly as many cases with Leo as I did James.
Q: What factors would cause you to decline your services as a forensic scientist?
A: I tell the attorneys that I shall report on what I find. If an attorney tells me what he wants me to find I tell him I do not want his or her case and he or she can go to hell!
Q: You once remarked that you could produce patterns of blood that can fool anyone. There are times when you aren’t actually at a crime scene. You depend on the observations, photographs, and other data collected by the Evidence Technicians. How accurate is the analysis and interpretation of bloodstains compared to fingerprints in those circumstances? What precautions do you take at your forensic lab to be certain that the evidence provided you hasn’t been contaminated by law enforcement or others?
A: The error that some less experienced examiners make is to fail to recognize that there may be more than one explanation as to what caused a particular bloodstain pattern. When a pseudo-scientist, although he may be an experienced police investigator, closes his mind to any alternate possibility than what he believes happened, that is bad science and he will be a bad witness.
Q: Does the evidence ever lie, or does it mislead based on manipulation and presentation to a jury?
A: THE EVIDENCE NEVER LIES, as is the title of a very interesting book written about me! It is the incorrect interpretation of evidence that is the problem. Honest examiners can, and do, make inadvertent mistakes. Dishonest examiners can and do distort the truth.
Q: Do you think blood spatter is being overshadowed by DNA evidence in the minds of jurors? As a forensic scientist do you have any reservations about DNA profiles?
A: This is like comparing oranges and apples. They are two entirely different tools of the forensic scientist. One is serology and the other geometry. In any given case one may be more important than the other. Although the popular opinion is that DNA is infallible, it cannot differentiate between identical twins; fingerprints and fingernail striations can.
Q: While teaching Criminalistics at Corning Community College, you invented the MAGNA Brush™ for developing fingerprints. How did that come about? How did this change the method of collecting fingerprints at a crime scene?
A: I felt there should be a better, more gentle, way to process latent fingerprints with powder. I considered having a magnetically susceptible dust suspended in a magnetic field as a possibility. I actually made the first model when in the Research Laboratory of the then Corning Glass Works. I used a glass tube, a small bar magnet, a piece of coat hanger wire, and a short piece of rubber tubing. I got some very fine iron powder from the stock room and the MAGNA Brush™ was invented. I thought the fingerprint experts would welcome my invention but quickly learned that several were greatly displeased with it. They had spent years developing their technique of dusting latent fingerprints with a camel’s hair brush but in five minutes I could teach anyone how to do it better! Today the MAGNA Brush™ is made of aluminum and has been copied worldwide.
On June 8, 1981, I was interviewed by Jane Pauley during THE TODAY SHOW in the NBC Studios in New York City. The subject was the Jean Harris case. Apart from the Jean Harris case, I also demonstrated the MAGNA Brush™ to Jane. She placed her latent fingerprints on a 3″ x 5″ white index card after which I developed them on camera. She thought the MAGNA Brush™ was a novel device. I enjoyed this interview and would like to report that Jane Pauley is a very warm and friendly person on or off camera. She autographed her processed fingerprints for me.
Q: You have often spoken about prosecutorial misconduct; the attitude of putting winning above justice. One case in particular comes to mind, that of the Court Martial of Lieutenant Michael Behenna. Why do you call the prosecutor’s conduct into question in the Behenna trial?
A: I had been retained as a possible rebuttal witness to what the defense bloodstain expert might say. However, it was not until after I had arrived at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, that I finally learned the trajectories of Ali Mansur’s two gunshot wounds. They were both nearly horizontal and from an overhead view essentially parallel. In the prosecution’s preparation room before the three captains, one colonel, one major, and two sergeants, I used one sergeant as a model and asked him to stand in front of me and raise his right arm. I put my right index finger under his arm and said, “Bang, you have been shot.” I then asked him to drop down and as his head went by my right index finger I said, “Bang, you have been shot again.” This scenario, though unlikely, is possible and I could not think up a better one.
Q: For clarification, Ali Mansur was alleged to be an Al-Queda agent responsible for an IED attack on Lieutenant Behenna’s platoon. The attack killed two and left others seriously injured. Days after the attack, Behenna’s squad was ordered to bring Ali Mansur in for questioning by Army Intelligence. Following his questioning, Mansur was released to Behenna who was ordered to return him to his village. At that time Behenna took him into the desert and interrogated him further under a railroad culvert. During the questioning Mansur was shot. Behenna did not report Mansur’s death. Three days after the incident Army Intelligence issued a “Kill Capture Order” for Mansur. It was only then that Mansur’s death was disclosed. Months later, Behenna was charged with his murder. Is that a fair and balanced summary of the events culminating in Behenna’s Court Martial?
A: As far as I know it is. You have provided information that I did not have before and can neither confirm nor deny it.
Q: What occurred after you presented your scenario to the prosecution?
1st Lt. Michael Behenna
A: The next day Behenna testified and for the first time gave his recollection of the events. He said that he was standing, facing Ali Mansur when the translator, Henry, said something. Behenna said that he turned his head slightly to his left and Ali Mansur reached out to grab his gun. At that moment he fired and a second later he fired again. I poked the major sitting next to me and said, “That is exactly what I showed you yesterday.” He nodded. Shortly after Behenna’s testimony I was told that I would not be called as a witness and sent home. I sent an e-mail to the lead prosecutor advising her that I felt she should have informed the defense attorney of my findings because it certainly was Brady material, exculpatory evidence. It basically showed that Behenna was telling the truth. It was clearly self-defense and not first degree murder.
Q: Do you think, believe Behenna is innocent?
A: I believe his testimony fits the known physical facts. If Ali Mansur was standing and reaching for Behenna’s gun and was, at that moment shot, it would explain the horizontal trajectory of Ali Mansur’s chest wound. If he dropped straight down and was shot in the head as his head passed in front of the muzzle of Behenna’s gun that would be consistent with the horizontal trajectory of the head shot and the near parallel trajectories of both shots. To have both of these trajectories consistent with the government’s theory requires that Ali Mansur rolled off the piece of concrete he was sitting on to the ground and somehow his right arm landed, raised up far enough to allow the second shot to enter beneath it and have a horizontal trajectory, as if he were standing and parallel to the head shot if he were looking straight ahead. I consider this so unlikely as to constitute a near impossibility. My reenactment of how I believe the shootings occurred is far more likely.
Q: For the record, were you aware that Behenna’s mother, Vicki, was one of the lead federal prosecutors in the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing case?
A: At the time I met her during the trial I only learned that she was a Federal Prosecutor. I learned later that she was involved in the McVeigh case. I was contacted by the defense in the McVeigh case but I could not help them. If I had disagreed with the government’s fingerprint expert I would have met Mrs. Behenna when she would have cross-examined me.
Q: You examined the ballistics evidence in the Robert Kennedy and the Martin Luther King assassinations. Based on the evidence you have seen, are you satisfied that justice was carried out in both those cases?
A: No, neither case had sufficient physical evidence to conclude that either Sirhan Sirhan or James Earl Ray was guilty. Robert Kennedy was shot from behind, a place Sirhan Sirhan never was at the time of the shooting. The rifle Ray supposedly used could not fit into the available space when its muzzle was placed on that dent in the windowsill, if it were the stock it would have to have been several inches into the wall. The identification of microscopic machining marks on the rifle muzzle regarding a dent in raw unpainted wood was faulty because there were no individual characteristics in the wood.
Q: You have stated that you were drawn to criminalistics because you enjoy puzzles. For over sixty years, you have seen human behavior both at its worst and its best. What case, if any, still disturbs you? What case stands out where you saw the best of human behavior in solving a crime?
A: The worst was in the case of Clayton Johnson in Shelburne, Nova Scotia, where the prosecution (the Crown) presented a case they had to have known was based on faulty evidence.
Clayton’s wife accidentally fell down their basement staircase and died. The investigation showed that Clayton was miles away at the time but because within a few months he married a younger woman so his daughters could have a mother the case was reopened. The witnesses changed their original testimony as to the time of a telephone call and the bloodstaining at the bottom of the basement stairway and he was convicted. As a result Clayton Johnson was accused of beating his wife to death in their basement. A forensic pathologist and I created the only possible scenario using her knowledge of wounds and my model who fell backwards down a staircase. Her fall was controlled as she was held by a wire on the stage of Peter Pan. I was able to show that the wounds to Mrs. Johnson’s head were completely consistent with those my model would have received in a backward fall.
Thermon Thomas with Dr. and Mrs. Herbert MacDonell
Perhaps the best was the case of Susie Mowbray in Brownsville, Texas, when the jury saw through the bullshit the prosecution presented through an incompetent “expert”. Susie Mowbray was accused of shooting her husband, Bill Mowbray, as he was lying in bed. I had been retained by the prosecution and after I had examined the evidence I concluded Bill Mowbray had taken his own life. He had held a .357 magnum contact to his head with the result that blood, hair, brain substance, and skin were blown to the ceiling, the walls, and the bedcovers. His wife, Susie, was wearing a long sleeved white nightgown which was completely bloodstain free. I gave that opinion in my report. My report was withheld from the defense and I was not called to testify. I never heard anything about this case for years until Susie’s son discovered my report and turned it over to an appeals attorney, Robert Ford. Bob was successful in getting a new trial for Susie during which I was called as a witness for the defense. Susie Mowbary was acquitted after spending over ten years in prison for a crime she never committed.
Q: Over the years you have taught many young people about forensic science. What advice do you have for someone considering a career in the field today?
A: Study science, especially physics, and mathematics. Be thorough and honest. Do not look for evidence to support your theory but rather develop your theory from the evidence. Be willing to consider alternate explanations. Expect to be challenged by those with different opinions. Never let an attorney tell you what he or she wants you to find.
Postscript: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014, the Army Clemency and Parole Board in Washington, D.C. rendered the decision that Lieutenant Michael Behenna will be released on parole on March 14, 2014. Furthermore, the Lieutenant will be eligible to pursue being exonerated of the charges against him. His case will rest on the evidence of Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell, which was withheld by the prosecution at the Court Martial. Click here to read more.
Photo Credits
D. Herbert Leon MacDonell, L.A. Times, photo taken by Will Yuman – all rights reserved
Herbert and Phyllis MacDonell in 1950 – family photo – all rights reserved
Dr. MacDonell and his wife – family photo – all rights reserved
Jane Pauley’s Fingerprints – courtesy of Dr. MacDonell – all rights reserved
1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna, courtesy of the Behenna family – all rights reserved
Thermon Thomas with Dr. and Mrs. Herbert MacDonell – family photo – all rights reserved
Pursuing Truth in the Puzzles of Evidence: An Interview with Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell, Forensic Scientist is a post from: LIFE AS A HUMAN