Appendix — Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Supreme Court brief1971

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1970

No. 323

EDWARD H. COOLIDGE, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

INDEX

Chronoligical List of Important Docket Entries - 1

First Degree Murder Indictment 3

Be | Ramee ee Ee nt pee ne 4

Petition to Quash Search Warrants, ete, 5

Stenographic Transcript of Testimony of Sanapenintie on a ee

ust 31, 1964 and September 1, 1964 _..... a 7

ii INDEX

Stenographic Transcript of Testimony of Hearings on August

. 81, 1964 and September 1, 1964—Continued

INDEX TO TESTIMONY

Page

Direct Cross Redirect

Francis P. McGranahan _...........-..... 8

Donald F. Glennon -_.. i Liasok aalasadae te 23 42

wa 2. eee 55

ESE 67

Norman W. Leavitt _... said <itlcnad ieiicedcsatae a

Mrs, Joanne Coolidge .........._..-.... 90 98

Mrs. Dorothy Coolidge... . 1087

Maurice LeClair ania a

I sac encode 116 117

NE a I itt —

Donald F. Glennon ______. stp assed

Norman W. Leavitt _ ....... == «2127

Exhibits:

A, B, C, D—Four Search Warrants _

E—Arrest Warrant . a det

F—Photocopy of Arrest ‘eens

G—Letter July 15, 1964 from cocci General’s Office

to John Graf -

H—Receipt given by police to Mrs. Coolidge -

I--Motor Vehicle registrations _..___

J—Attorney General’s letter dated Setenhee : 18, 1964

Tentative Findings of the Court on Defendant’s Petition to

Quash Search Warrants, etc. g ¢

Defendant’s Request for Findings of Fact =...

State’s Request for Findings of Fact _ i

Defendant’s Requests for Rulings of Law _.._..

Motion for Further Hearing on Defendant’s Petition to

Quash and Court Order granting Further Hearing

Finding of the Court on Defendant’s Petition to Quash.

Rulings of the Court on State’s insias for siete of

Fact - TELS4

133

165

171

173

175

176

181

184

189

191

192

194

195

196

INDEX iii

Page

Rulings of the Court on Defendant’s Requests for Findings

fae 2... 197

Composite of Findings by the Court on Defendant’s Petition

to Quash Search Warrants to Release Items of Prop-

Se a: See 199

IE UU ali icici cethrnancrnmenceiagniinincncegii 204

Reserved Case in 106 N.H. 186 _____ 205

Opinion, March 11, 1965, in State v. Coolidge, 106 N.H. 186. 207

Re-hearing Denied, April 13, 1965 226

Motion to Return and Suppress Evidence filed eed 13, 1965,

Court Order thereon May 14, 1965 _.. = 227

Stenographic aiatacoeaa of —— from Trial anal

SD miaiedpctcnts - TREO eS

Testimony of:

Mr. Reynolds __ SOE RET nde ar eee On SS = 228

Court -_....... oes 229

Maurice Leclere ___ _ 229

fe ea

a iiecipiccidaessscneiddanaaliies aa

| EE

Norman Leavitt i ietanpictotedajeshdeonined-eaiabindibis Sacetacta:. =a

Carroll Durfee—Vol. VIII Sissi icqansiloaiaaaa mete Ataleaite pet Gigs 258

Carroll Durfee _....- =. slain ita iedislamatads cela ——

RR I Career a paaenec stead eee 259

RS i ania iptctotinetetdalile shee tacipacttiticagn 2)

Reversed Case in 109 N.H. 403 .

Opinion in State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403 ____

Denial of Motion for irinaoanasate and Modified Rennnnin

July 30, 1969 :

Order granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and granting petition for writ of certiorari

10.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF IMPORTANT

DOCKET ENTRIES

Defendant Arrested February 19, 1964, and Man-

chester Municipal Court orders Probable Cause Hear-

ing for March 4, 1964

Copy of First Decree Murder Indictment #3136

Dated: February 26, 1964

Entered: February 26, 1964

Copy of Felony (Kidnap) Murder Indictment #3137

Dated: February 26, 1964

Entered: February 26, 1964

Petition to Quash Search Warrants and Return

Items Obtained without Search Warrants

Dated: July 22, 1964

Entered: July 23, 1964

Hearings on Petition to Quash in Hillsborough

County Superior Court August 31 and September 1,

1964

Tentative Findings by the Court on Defendant’s

Petition to Quash Search Warrants, to Release Items

of Property Seized, etc.

Entered: September 1, 1964

Composite of Findings by the Court on Defendant’s

Petition to Quash Search Warrants, to Release Items

of Property Seized, etc.

Entered: October 13, 1964

Reserved Case is Filed with Hillsborough County

Superior Court and Transferred to the New Hamp-

shire Supreme Court without Rulings of Law. No-

vember 13, 1964

Opinion and Judgment of the New Hampshire Su-

preme Court March 11, 1965, at 106 N.H. 186, and

Motion for Re-hearing denied, April 13, 1965

Trial Commences, Hillsborough County Superior

Court, May 17, 1965

ee AA TRAN LOTT en

18.

Verdicts of Guilty Returned June 22, 1965

Defendant’s Post Trial Motions Denied. August 23,

1965, and September 2, 1965

Reserved Case is filed with Hillsborough County

Superior Court September 30, 1965, and Transferred

to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on October

6, 1965

Opinion and Judgment of the New Hampshire Su-

preme Court. June 30, 1969, at 109 N.H. 403

Defendant’s Motion for Re-hearing

Dated: July 8, 1969

Entered: July 9, 1969

. Motion for Re-hearing Denied and Opinion Modified.

July 30, 1969

Application for Extension of Time in which to File

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Dated: October 9, 1969

Entered: October 10, 1969

Extension of Time Granted on October 10, 1969, to

and including November 26, 1969

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPERIOR COURT

HILLSBOROUGH, SS APRIL TERM 1965

No. 3136

No. 3137

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

EDWARD H. COOLIDGE, JR.

INDICTMENT #3136

THE GRAND JURORS FOR THE STATE OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE, upon their oath present that Edward H.

Coolidge, Jr. of Manchester in the County of Hillsborough,

aforesaid, on the 13th day of January in the year of

our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-four at

Manchester in the County of Hillsborough, and State of

New Hampshire, aforesaid, with force and arms feloni-

ously, wilfully and of his deliberate and premeditated

malice aforethought did kill and murder Pamela Mason

in that he did make an assault upon the person of Pamela

Mason with a deadly weapon, to wit: a Mossberg 22-

caliber rifle, Palomino model 400 S-L-Lr, and did dis-

charge said rifle twice causing the projectiles from the

cartridges therein to strike and wound said Pamela

Mason in the head, and the said Edward H. Coolidge, Jr.

did further make an assault upon the person of Pamela

Mason with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, and did

strike, penetrate and wound the said Pamela Mason and

did slash and cut the throat of said Pamela Mason; and

the said Edward H. Coolidge, Jr. then and there inflicted

said wounds, which wounds were mortal wounds, in and

upon the head, chest, back and neck of the said Pamela

Mason, from which mortal wounds the said Pamela Mason

died, contrary to the form of the statute in such case

made and provided, and against the peace and dignity

of the State.

INDICTMENT #3137

THE GRAND JURORS FOR THE STATE OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE, upon their oath present that Edward H.

Coolidge, Jr. of Manchester in the County of Hillsborough,

aforesaid, on the 13th day of January in the year of

our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-four at

Manchester in the County of Hillsborough, and State of

New Hampshire, aforesaid, with force and arms did

feloniously and unlawfully seize, abduct, detain, conceal,

take, iead, inveigle or carry away the person of Pamela

Mason, a minor child of the age of fourteen (14) years,

with the intent thereby to keep or conceal her from her

parents, guardian, or legal custodian and in the course

of perpetrating and committing said acts did feloniously,

wilfully and of his deliberate and premeditated malice

aforethought did kill and murder Pamela Mason in that

he did make an assault upon the person of Pamela Mason

with a deadly weapon, to wit: a Mossberg 22-caliber

rifle, Palomino model 400 S-L-Lr, and did discharge said

rifle twice causing the projectiles from the cartridges

therein to strike and wound said Pamela Mason in the

head, and the szid Edward H. Coolidge, Jr. did further

make an assault upon the Person of Pamela Mason with

a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, and did strike, pene-

trate and wound the said Pamela Mason and did slash

and cut the throat of said Pamela Mason; and the said

Edward H. Coolidge, Jr. then and there inflicted said

wounds, which wounds were mortal wounds, in and upon

the head, chest, back and neck of the said Pamela Mason,

from which mortal wounds the said Pamela Mason died,

contrary to the form of the statute in such case made

and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the

State.

PETITION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANTS, ETC.—

Filed July 23, 1964

NOW COME J. Murray Devine, Matthias J. Reynolds

and John A. Graf, counsel for Edward H. Coolidge, Jr.,

and represent:

1. That prosecuting authorities have, in the name of

the State, seized items of personal property of the de-

fendant; that said items of personal property were taken

from the person of the defendant, from the home of the

defendant and from the motor vehicle of the defendant;

that said items were searched for and seized without a

search warrant; that said items are now in the posses-

sion of prosecuting authorities; and that said items were

illegally seized in deprivation of the constitutional rights

of the defendant.

WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that all items of

personal property of the defendant seized and retained

as aforesaid be released to your petitioners forthwith;

that all items of personal property of the defendant

seized and retained as aforesaid be suppressed and

quashed; that any and all evidence and information pro-

duced from, by or as a result of the items of personal

property seized and retained as aforesaid be suppressed

and quashed; and for such other and further relief as

may be just.

2. That on February 19, 1964, four (4) search war-

rants, +7298A-D, were issued by a Justice of the Peace;

that on February 20, 1964, items of property were seized

pursuant thereto; that said items seized are now in the

possession of prosecuting authorities; and that said four

(4) search warrants, as enumerated above, were illegally

issued and unlawfully obtained in deprivation of the con-

stitutional rights of the defendant.

5 o

WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that said four

(4) search warrants, as enumerated above, be quashed;

that all items of property seized pursuant to said four

(4) search warrants be released to your petitioners forth-

with; that all items of property seized pursuant to said

four (4) search warrants be suppressed and quashed;

that any and all evidence and information produced from,

by or as a result of the items of property seized pursuant

to said four (4) search warrants be suppressed and

quashed; and for such other and further relief as may

be just.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPERIOR COURT

HLLSBOROUGH, SS. APRLI TERM, 1964

State 3136

STATE

EDWARD H. COOLIDGE, JR.

State 3137

STATE

EDWARD H. CooLipcE, JR.

State 3159

STATE

EDWARD H. COOLIDGE, JR.

Hearing at Manchester in said County on the 31st day

of August and 1st day of September, 1964, on petition to

quash search warrants, to release items of property

seized, et cetera (in 3136 and 3137), before Hon. Robert

F. Griffith, Presiding Justice.

APPEARANCES:

For the State,

William Maynard, Attorney General

Alexander Kalinski, Asst. Attorney General

Emile R. Bussiere, Hillsborough County Atty.

For the Respondent,

J. Murray Devine, Esq.

Matthias J. Reynolds, Esq.

John A. Graf, Esq.

Stenographer,

Hermine T. Snyder.

(fol. 1]

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS P. McGRANAHAN

Sworn by Mr. Devine; direct examination by Mr. Devine:

Q What is your full name?

A Francis P. McGranahan.

Q What is your position?

A Chief of Police of the City of Manchester.

Q* You have appeared at this hearing this morning in

answer to a subpoena that was served on you?

A I have.

Q Did that subpoena ask you to bring the records of

your department with reference to this case?

A Yes, it did.

Q Do you have the records with you?

A No, but they are available.

Q Are they in your possession or in the Attorney Gen-

eral’s possession?

A They are at headquarters.

MR. DEVINE: We will need the records, Your Honor,

but perhaps I can go on for a time with the Chief. Do

you have the warrants, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I don’t have them.

Q Before we get to the warrants with which we are

concerned, can you tell us about normal procedure in the

Manchester Police Department when search warrants are

(fol. 2] wanted to search somebody’s house or somebody’s

vehicle? Do they normally come to you first to get the

warrant or get the complaint sworn to?

A Not necessarily. The captain or the deputy chief—

however, if I am present or available they usually, let

us say go to the superior officer.

Q_ And if you are preser ey come to you to sign the

complaint? .

A Yes.

Q Is that right, Chief?

A Yes.

Q Now, is a record made at the police station when a

search warrant is asked for? That is, is there some rec-

ord made on some of your dockets up there that a search

warrant is sought by a certain person, and a time when

it is sought?

A There is a note generally left by the officer.

Q Where would that note be left? Would it be de-

posited with the record of that particular case?

A I don’t know. I can’t say for sure, Counselor, if

that type of note would be included in the records of the

ease. It could or could not be.

Q Normally your procedure, however, would be to

include such a note somewhere in the records of the case?

A I would say all records are contained somewhere

in the files of the Manchester Police Department.

Q Under your normal procedure what would that note

indicate with reference to the warrant?

(fol. 3] A It would be a note to the effect that on such

a day and hour the officer, after securing a search war-

rant, proceeded to a certain house and searched the home.

Q Would a similar notation normally be made with

reference to an arrest warrant?

A Yes. Yes, there would be a note in regard to an

arrest.

Q Is another note made in these records after the war-

rant has been returned, executed by the officer to whom

it was directed?

A Would there be a return made?

Q Yes.

A Nat necessarily.

Q The only return which normally would be made

would be on the warrant itself—the officer’s inventory on

the warrant itself?

A Yes. Now,—yes. I want to explain further. If the

search warrant resulted in the arrest there would be a

record—there would be a note of the results of the

search.

Q No, on February 19th, Chief, four search warrants

and an arrest warrant were issued in the case of Ed-

ward H. Coolidge, Jr. I believe you have seen these war-

rants, and I believe you signed as complainant on all of

them. I show you a warrant which is marked 7298-A?

A Yes.

Q I ask if that is your signature at the bottom of

that complaint?

[fol.4] A Yes, it is,

Q Do your records indicate whether these search war-

rants—the four search warrants—were sought and re-

ceived simultaneously with the arrest warrant, or whether

they were sought and received prior to the arrest war-

rant? I don’t believe the warrants themselves show that;

but perhaps they would.

THE COURT: Perhaps tue returns would indicate the

time of day that they were executed, wouldn’t they?

MR. MAYNARD: Are you asking what his records

show as to the situation, Brother Devbine?

MR. DEVINE: Yes.

A If my record will show if these warrants were

executed at one and the same time—all of them?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q Your records wouldn’t show that?

A No.

Q Would the warrants themselves show that, Chief?

A I think this is the warrant I signed—the first—

the original warrant that I had signed.

That is the one which has the suffix capital A?

THE COURT: Are you talking now about the search

warrant or arrest warrant?

{fol.5] WITNESS: This is the arrest warrant.

Q That is the arrest warrant?

A Yes, this is the arrest warrant.

Q These are search warrants, Chief. I think this ap-

pears to be the arrest warrant. This is marked 7298?

_ A Yes.

MR. DEVINE: Where is the original of this?

MR. BUSSIERE: That would be the original, filed

with the Court, if it is the arrest warrant.

‘WITNESS: This is the arrest warrant.

Q So you believe that in this case you signed the ar-

rest warrant first?

A Yes.

Q And then signed the search warrants? Is that

right?

A As far as I can determine. Here is the first one I

had looked at.

MR. MAYNARD: Again, Brother Devine, I can’t tell

from your question—are you asking what the records at

the station show, or what his recollection of events is?

MR. DEVINE: I asked if his records would show

when they were issued. He says no. Now I ask if he has

any recollection as to when they were signed by himself,

{fol. 6] acting as complainant.

WITNESS: I am not quite sure there would be a

copy of these at the station.

Q Would the copies in the station indicate when they

were issued with reference to each other? You state there

is a date on the warrant, but there is no time stated?

THE COURT: I take it there is a date on all war-

rants?

MR. DEVINE: Yes; February 19, 1964.

MR. BUSSIERE: May I inquire what the total num-

ber of warrants which you have is?

MR. DEVINE: The four search warrants, which ap-

pear to be originals, and a certified copy which appears

to be the arrest warrant. I was going to have them

marked in a minute, so that we can keep track of them.

MR. BUSSIERE: Off the record—

(Discussion between counsel off the record)

Q Is there anything in those warrants, Chief, which

would serve to refresh your recollection as to the order

in which they were signed, or whether they were all

signed, in fact, simultaneously?

A They were all signed the same day, but it is diffi-

cult for me to say at what time of day I signed them.

([fol.6] Q But whatever time you signed them, did you

sign them all together, as you recall it—the search war-

rants and the arrest warrant?

A I don’t remember.

MR. DEVINE: If we may have these marked, Your

Honor, so that we can keep track of them?

THE COURT: All right.

(Search warrants marked Defendant’s Exhibits A,

B, C, and D; arrest warrant marked Defendant’s

Exhibit E)

MR. DEVINE: You have no objection to their being

marked?

MR. MAYNARD: No; they are a part of the case

already.

Q Chief, referring now to the warrant which has been

marked Defendant’s Exhibit A, and which is 7298-A—

A Yes.

Q This appears to be a search warrant to search cer-

tain premises, a laundermat, at 712 Valley Street. Is that

correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And you signed it as complainant? Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Attached to that by a staple is what appears to be

a photocopy of a complaint or the body of a complaint.

{fol. 7] Can you tell us who drafted the language in that

complaint?

A The original language in this complaint?

Q Yes.

A It was drafted, to my knowledge, in the Attorney

General’s office.

Q At the time you signed this complaint was this

photocopy of the body of the complaint attached to the

complaint, or was that attached thereafter?

A It was attached to the complaint.

Q At the time you signed it, Chief?

A Yes.

Q@ And this list is also a photocopy which is stapled

right below the body of the complaint, giving a list of

items which supposedly were to be searched for. Do you

know who made that list up?

A No, I do not—not for sure.

Q Was that also attached to the complaint at the time

you signed it?

A To my knowledge it was, yes.

Q Now, your oath to this complaint was subscribed

before whom?

A By Attorney William Maynard.

Q Was this complaint taken by you personally before

the Attorney General for his subscription to your oath?

A Yes.

Q There appears to be another stapled list on the

(fol.8] search warrant side of this document, Chief,

which would appear to be a duplicate of the one on the

left hand side? Is that correct?

A I can’t say definitely sure, but I assume that it is.

And when Mr. Maynard took your oath to the com-

plaint, did he at the same time sign ti.is search warrant

as a Justice of the Peace?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is that true of all the other warrants as well?

A Yes, sir.

Q And he signed them all in your presence, did he,

Chief?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do your records indicate at what time the Attorney

General, Mr. Maynard, took charge of the investigation

of this case?

A Yes. I would have to be—my memory would have

to be refreshed on the day that we went to Concord. Act-

ing on information, I went to the Attorney General’s of-

fice sometime in the afternoon.

Q Was it before the Mason girl’s body was discovered

that Attorney General Maynard entered the case, or was

it afterwards, Chief?

A It was after.

Q He was present on January 21st, 1964 at the scene

where the girl’s body was recovered?

A The Attorney General?

Yes.

{fol.9] A I don’t recall seeing him there.

Q Who has the record which indicates the date and

the time when he actually took over supervision of the

investigation of the case?

A Well, it is my understanding that the Attorney

General automatically takes over the investigation of

capital cases in the State of New Hampshire when he gets

knowledge of the crime committed.

Q I think perhaps you misunderstood my question.

Of course you are correct; the law requires the Attorney

General to take over when there is a homocide or suspect-

ed homocide, but who in your department would have the

ony

record showing the date and the time when the Attorney

General actually took over the investigation of this case,

or would there be such a record in your department?

A I would—I would say that the Attorney Genera]

entered into this case before the body was found; but

definitely I know that the Attorney General’s office did

a8 into this investigation prior to the finding of the

Q That is, the girl was supposedly missing from the

evening of January 138th, 1964?

A Yes.

Q And as time went on, and before her body was

found, you became somewhat apprehensive as to what

happened to Pamela Mason?

A Yes. We were in fact greatly disturbed from the

[fol. 10] first day the child was missing.

Q_ And her body was not actually found until January

21st? Is that correct?

A I believe that is the date it was found.

Q So sometime between those two dates—January

13th when she disappeared and January 21st when the

body was found—you reported to the Attorney General’s

office and—

A Yes, and I requested the assistance of the Attorney

General’s office.

Q But you do not recall the exact date?

A No. I am sorry.

Q But at any rate, there is no doubt that once the At-

torney General came into the case, he was in complete

charge of the investigation of the case, and at all times

thereafter?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you assign any particular officer under your

command to work with the Attorney General, and head

up your forces, so to speak?

A Yes. Captain John Stipps.

Q So that after the Attorney General came in, and

maybe even before that, Captain John Stipps had been

in charge of the Mason case?

A Yes.

— —a3 ow |

Q How long after her disappearance was Captain

Stipps assigned to this case, if you remember?

[fol.11] A I know that Captain Stipps was immedi-

ately assigned to shape up the investigation of the girl’s

disappearance, possibly the day after the child disap-

peared.

Q This would be somewhere around January 14*h or

15th?

A Around January 14th or 15th, yes.

Q Would your records indicate, Chief, when Mr. Cool-

idge was first questioned by any of your officers with re-

spect to this case?

A I wouldn’t know.

Q Is it normal when someone is questioned to have

a notation made by the officer who questioned him in the

records of the case?

MR. MAYNARD: I object, and I don’t believe this

is material to the inquiry here. It looks to me as though

he is now delving into other matters.

MR. DEVINE: It may have a bearing on what we

claim is illegal detention later. The State has a certain

time to hold a person for questioning.

THE COURT: May I have the question?

(Question read)

THE COURT: Do you mean at the time during which

the questioning is conducted?

MR. DEVINE: The date and time, Your Honor.

{fol. 12] THE COURT: He may answer.

Q Can you answer, Chief?

A_ I would like to have the question again, if you don’t

mind. You were asking me when the superior officer

questions a suspect or a respondent if there is a note

made of it?

Q Yes.

A Yes, there is a note made of it.

Q So that somewhere in your records in the police de-

partment there would be a notation concerning whatever

date or time Mr. Coolidge was questioned about the

Mason case? Is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Let me ask you something further about your rec-

ords. [s it usual when a man is brought in to the sta-

tion—say for questioning—to make a note of the time

that he is brought in?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Do you know if such a note was made with respect

to Mr. Coolidge when he was brought in on Sunday,

February 19th, 1964?

A I can’t answer that question.

Q Excuse me. February 2nd, not February 19th.

Would it be normal to have such a note made if he was

brought in for questioning, as to the time he arrived?

A On February 2?

Q Yes; February 2, 1964.

{fol.13] A I would say yes.

Q Now, when a man has been questioned, and let us

say is actually put under arrest, is a notation made in

the station record at that time made, showing that he

was arrested for a certain crime, and the time put down

on that?

A If a person is held for an arrest it is put on the

daily blotter—the time of day and date and the name of

the arresting officer.

Q Who under your command would have custody of

the record which would show at what time on February

2, 1964 Mr. Coolidge came in for questioning, and what

time on that day he was placed under arrest for larceny

from Cote Brothers?

A I think—well, I am quite sure that Inspector

Thomas Bolcock would have the records. However, I think

that that particular record would be under the care of

Captain Stipps and Lieutenant John Curran.

Q In other words, as far as Mr. Coolidge and the

Mason case go, all of those records have been gathered

in one place, under the custody of either Captain Stipps

or Lieutenant Curran?

A Yes.

Q And there are no independent records at the police

station, as such, connected with Mr. Coolidge or with

this case, in the station, except in the custody of these

two officers? Is that correct?

A There could be records or parts of records in an-

[fol. 14] other department at police headquarters—in our

general records.

Q It is possible that there might be some duplication

of the records in one place or another?

A Yes. ;

Q But would your independent records have a nota-

tion such as I have asked about—as to the time when he

came in for questioning and the time of his arrest?

Would you have that information other than in the cus-

tody of Captain Stipps and Lieutenant Curran?

A No. Whatever records would be in any other sec-

tion of the department would also be in the official rec-

ords of the case.

THE COURT: Do I understand, Chief, that the body

was discovered February 21st? Can you tell me that?

WITNESS: No. I don’t have any notes with me.

MR. BUSSIERE: I believe it was discovered January

2ist, Your Honor.

WITNESS: Yes; January 21st. I think it was either

seven or eight days after she disappeared.

MR. DEVINE: I would like to have the time he was

brought to the station for questioning on February 19th

[fol. 15] and the time he was arrested; also the time Mr.

Coolidge was brought in on February 2nd, because we

may want to question the chief or other officers about it.

THE COURT: Gentlemen?

MR. BUSSIERE: Well, Your Honor, the State wil!

represent that there is no record that would indicate the

exact time that the search warrants were issued on Feb-

ruary 19th other than the warrants themselves show.

THE COURT: And no one has any recollection

whether those warrants were issued either before or after

the arrest warrant?

MR. BUSSIERE: The State’s representation would be

that they were all issued at the same time.

THE COURT: All simultaneously?

MR. BUSSIERE: All simultaneously.

THE COURT: What about the other records he has

asked about?

]

MR. BUSSIERE: Before we get to that, Your Honor,

for the record we would like to indicate for the record

that there was a fifth search warrant issued, with no

returii.

THE COURT: I have seen that. That was issued on

February 21st.

{fol. 16) MR. BUSSIERE: My previous statement is

amended to that extent. So far as the record of the ar-

rest of Mr. Coolidge and the charge of larceny, if the

Court will give me a few seconds I may be able to say

something about that.

MR. DEVINE: You may sit down, Chief.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Conference between counsel off the record)

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor please, we will have

available after lunch a report indicating—which will

come from the police records—the time that Mr. Coolidge

was borked for the crime of grand larceny on February

2nd o1 3rd. Now, this particular report is what is known

as an arrest form, and will disclose the name of the de-

fendant, the nature of the offense, and the information

relative to that offense, and the time that he was booked

for that offense.

THE COURT: Will you also have the other thing he

asked for—the time he was questioned, the time he was

in the station when he was questioned prior to the arrest?

MR. BUSSIERE: What the State is willing to do

{fol. 17] with respect to that is to make available the

witness who made the notation.

THE COURT: The Chief indicates that there is a

record at the station showing the time.

MR. BUSSIERE: To my knowledge. that would be

in the general report form, which is privileged at this

point.

THE COURT: There isn’t just a report of the time

of the questioning?

MR. BUSSIERE: If there is, I will produce it. |

understand we will be able to get from the officer that

he was brought in at such and such a time, and we can

go on from there.

—

MR. DEVINE: We say we are entitled to examine

the original records, but that the Court should examine

them before we do. This is the original record; not some

record made by the Attorney General’s office. We say

that we are entitled to examine them after the Court has

examined them. If they will be here after lunch, I have

no further questions of the Chief at this time.

THE COURT: Do you expect to have the Chief here

after lunch?

(fol. 18] MR. BUSSIERE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How about you?

MR. DEVINE: No; I don’t believe we will need the

Chief this afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We will stop here until two o’clock.

(Recess 12:30 to 2:00 p.m.)

(Arraignment on State 3159 and State 3179, before

proceeding with hearing)

MR. DEVINE: Your Honor, may we proceed on the

items we were on this morning?

THE COURT: Yes. I believe the State was going to

have some information for you.

MR. DEVINE: Yes, Your Honor,—some records.

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor please, I have the ar-

rest report, wherein the defendant was charged with the

crime of grand larceny on February 3, 1964. The rear

of the form contains a brief summary of some of the evi-

dence in the case.

THE COURT: I believe probably the back part came

in through or as a result of—as a work product,—the

work of officers, a report of their investigation. The front

[fol. 19] of the arrest report indicates the date and time

of his arrest as 2-3-64—2-3-64, at 2:30 a.m.

MR. BUSSIERE: If it please the Court, this is a

photostatic copy of what the Court has, and it can be

separated—the rear from the front part of it.

THE COURT: Do you wish to see the front part of

it? Do you object to his seeing the front part of it?

MR. BUSSIERE: No, Your Honor.

MR. DEVINE: The only comment I have is that on

the part which gives the time of arrest it apparently

doesn’t give the time that he was brought in for ques-

tioning. I would like to ask the Attorney General if there

is any record of it on the blotter.

MR. MAYNARD: I think the time is the same; the

time detained and the time arrested is the same.

THE COURT: No; that is not so. Quite obviously

from the back of the sheet it is not so.

MR. BUSSIERE: Until such time as the man was

under arrest, the evidence would be that he was not under

arrest.

{flo.20] THE COURT: But he wants to know at what

time he was brought to the station.

MR. BUSSIERE: The evidence will indicate that he

voluntarily came to the station.

THE COURT: There is nothing in here to indicate

that.

MR. BUSSIERE: No, there is not, but there will be

avidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: As I understand from Chief McGran-

ahan’s testimony, when a man comes in for questioning

there is some record of the time he comes into the station

for questioning.

MR. DEVINE: Your Honor please, this only indicates

that he was not arrested until February 3rd at 2:30 in

the morning. Our information is that he was in the cus-

tody of the police from one o’clock on February 2n¢_ ‘he

day preceding.

MR. BUSSIERE: His information is partly correct

and partly incorrect. His information that the man came

to the station at a particular hour, give or take a few

minutes, may be correct; but his information that the

man was detained is not correct.

THE COURT: Well, is it your position that he could

{fol. 21] have left the station at any time up to 2:30 in

the morning?

MR. BUSSIERE: That is correct.

THE COURT: But you say he arrived there at 1°30

the previous day?

| —s

MR. BUSSIERE: At the request of the police, he

came in voluntarily.

MR. DEVINE: There may be some question about

that request.

THE COURT: I assume he was requested by the po-

lice to come in for some purpose?

MR. BUSSIERE: That is correct.

THE COURT: Did they cali him in or give him some

aper?

: MR. BUSSIERE: There was some previous talk with

the man, with the understanding that he would come in

later. On the morning of February 2nd there was a tele-

phone call made to him, asking if he would be available

on this day; and those were the circumstances under

which he came to the station.

THE COURT: Do you mean he drove to the station?

MR. BUSSIERE: He drove down to the station by

himself.

[fol. 22] MR. DEVINE: I would like to call for the

first sheet of the arrest report, Your Honor please.

THE COURT: Yes; it may be marked.

MR. DEVINE: Would you mark please the photo-

static copy of the arrest revort as Defendant’s Exhibit

(Copy of report marked Defendant’s Exhibit F)

MR. DEVINE: We propose now, Your Honor, to go

into some of the items taken without warrants, to clear

away some of the underbrush. I would like first to offer

the deed of the Coolidge house—that is, the premises

where things were taken without a warrant.

MR. BUSSIERE: We have no objection to that if the

Court thinks it is material.

MR. DEVINE: I think that ownership of the prem-

ises may be material.

THE COURT: Will you stipulate that they were

owned by the defendant?

MR. BUSSIERE: Yes, if they want such a stipula-

tion. He was merried—if they want such a stipulation,

we will agree.

THE COURT: It is stipultaed that the premises at

812 Seames Drive were in the name of Edward H. Cool-

(fol. 23] idge, Jr., and that Edward H. Coolidge, Jr. was

in the month of February, 1964, married to Joanne Cool-

idge, and she was living in that house with him. This

indicates that the property was purchased by Mr. Cool-

idge on December 17th, 1960.

MR. DEVINE: Also, Your Honor please, the Court

will recall that after recent hearings the Court ordered

the State to furnish the defense with a list of items

which were taken without a warrant and which were in

the State’s possession. In response to the Court’s order,

Brother Graf received a letter from Brother Kalinski,

Assistant Attorney General, under date of July 24th, con-

taining such a list. We would like to offer that letter at

this time and make it a part of the record.

THE COURT: I take it there is no objection. That

may be marked.

(Letter giving list of items taken marked Defend-

ant’s Exhibit G)

THE COURT: I assume that the prosecution will in-

dicate that they have no other things in their possession,

other than the things listed in the search warrants and

{fol. 24] on this letter of July 15th, was it?

MR. BUSSIERE: Except, Your Honor, for items of

microscopic or of no apparent value. It is my under-

standing when we made up the list we were to give a list

of the items of property of the defendant, but I did not

understand that we have at any time been required to

list the microscopic, or perhaps a better term would be

items of no value—no evidentiary value.

MR. DEVINE: This is not my understanding. I

would like to read from the transcript. The Court said,

“In any event I will order the State to furnish you with

a list of his personal possessions, including any taken

from his person, house or car.” This is not as limited as

my brother is now intending to limit it.

MR. BUSSIERE: As something quite well known to

the defendant and to his attorney, there was a request

made of Mr. Coolidge for specimens from his head and

from his body, which were given to the police at such re

quest voluntarily, complying with the request. I do not

consider that hairs, for instance, are property. We ex-

{fol. 25] cepted those items, or items of a similar sort,

from the list which has been supplied.

MR. DEVINE: We are not making any complaint

about the hair, but do I understand that this, with the

exception of the hair, is a complete list?

MR. BUSSIERE: Yes; of items taken from his body,

UR. DEVINE: All other items are here listed?

MR. BUSSIERE: All others items are listed under

“seneral description”, yes.

MR. DEVINE: May we have a short recess, Your

Honor, to examine this latest exhibit on the time of ar-

rest?

THE COURT: Let me know when you are ready.

(Recess 2:30 to 2:40 p.m.)

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor please, I want to clar-

ify one last remark which was made on the record, I

believe. I said with reference to the items which were

described in the warrant that the return shows in a gen-

eral description the items taken. One of those is vacuum

[fol. 26] sweepings. Under that category, so that later

on no one will say that we were misleading the defense—

under that category there are some twenty-two calibre

bullets which were in fact picked up by a vacuum clean-

ing. I am speaking now about items which were seized

by warrant.

THE COURT: Those are described in the warrant

returns. He says they are described as vacuum sweep-

ings, but they are in fact bullets.

MR. REYNOLDS: Inspector Glennon.

TESTIMONY OF DONALD F. GLENNON

Sworn by Mr Reynolds; direct examination by Mr. Reyn-

olds:

Q Would you tell us your name, please?

A Donald Francis Glennon.

Q You are with the Manchester Police Department?

Yes, I am.

And your rank?

Inspector.

How long have you been an inspector?

I was promoted in January, sir.

In January—

Of this year.

All right. Since the first of the year have you been

(fol. 27] in any special section of the police department?

A Well, I have worked on the school patrol; and when

the schools closed I went to the detective division.

Q Referring to the Pamela Mason case, at some time

were you assigned to work on that case?

A Yes, sir.

Q Who assigned you?

A Captain Stipps.

Q Were you assigned t. work under Captain Stipps?

A Yes, sir. I might say Deputy Houle assigned me

to Captain Stipps.

Q Captain Stipps was in charge, as far as the Man-

chester Police Department was concerned with the in-

vestigation?

A Yes, sir.

Q You and other gentlemen worked under him?

A Yes.

Q You took your orders from him and made your

reports to him?

A Yes, sir.

Q When did you first start working on the Mason

case?

A It was early—the latter part of January. I am not

sure of the exact date.

The Mason girl’s body was found, I believe, on

January 21st. Would it have been before then or after?

A I think I worked with them after the body was

found.

That would have been shortly after?

[fol. 28] A Shortly after, yes, sir.

Q Prior to January 21st did you know Mrs. Edward

Coolidge, Jr.?

A Did I know her?

OPO PO PO p

Q Yes, sir.

A No, sir.

Q When was the first time you talked with Mrs. Cool-

idge, Jr. or with Edward Coolidge?

A It was on February 2nd, to the best of my knowl-

me And that was a Sunday?

A Yes, sir.

Q Can you tell us the circumstances as to how you

happened to speak to him or to Mrs. Coolidge?

A Which would you prefer first—the man or the

wife?

Q Sorry. Which would you prefer first—the husband

or the wife? Which happened first?

A The husband, Edward. We were called to the sta-

tion, told that there was a party there to see us. I was

working with Officer LeClair at the time. This was about

quarter of one in the afternoon. We got there, and Mr.

Coolidge—actually it was Officer LeClair that he wanted

to see. Officer LeClair went in and talked with him and I

remained in the outer office, and then shortly after that

I went in and talked with him myself.

Q I want to get the sequence. Were you on duty that

morning?

A That day, yes.

[fol. 29] Q What time did you go on duty?

A Our actual reporting time was eight o’clock in the

morning.

Q Did you or Officer LeClair telephone the Coolidge

house that morning?

A I did not.

Q You didn’t?

A No, I did not.

Q It is your understanding that he reported to be

questioned on the Pamela Mason case?

A Yes.

Q And was to take a lie detecting test?

A Yes.

Q And you and Officer LeClair were to take charge

of the questioning of Edward Coolidge?

A Yes, sir.

Q At quarter of one when you got there with Officer

LeClair, he was already at the station?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, when did you first speak with Mrs. Coolidge?

A Approximately ten-thirty that night.

Q Where was that that you spoke to her?

A At her home.

So that from one o’clock until ten-thirty you didn’t

see or speak with Mrs. Coolidge?

A Yes. I won’t say I didn’t see her, but I didn’t

(fol. 30] speak with her. I saw her, yes.

Q Where did you see her?

A She came to the station.

Q Do you have an idea what time that was?

A It would be in the vicinity of two-thirty or three

o’clock in the afternoon.

Q Do you happen to recall seeing her leave the sta-

tion?

A It was shortly after. I didn’t make any point of

noticing, no.

Q At this time many people were being called in for

questioning and were taking lie detector tests? Is that so?

A I believe that is so.

Q Had you been ordered to give him a lie detector

test that Sunday?

A Not ordered, no.

Q It was your own decision?

A Not mine, no.

Q Whose decision was it?

A I don’t know as I exactly understood. He was com-

ing in on his own to do this.

Q All right. Was LeClair questioning him from quar-

ter of one, or one, for some time?

A He was in there some time.

Q But there would be just yourself, Officer LeClair

and Edward Coolidge?

[fol.31] A Yes.

Q Then at some time you started questioning him?

A You say “questioning”. It wasn’t a questioning

period at that time.

What was it about?

A We wanted him to go to Concord to take a poly-

ph test.

Q A lie detector test?

A Yes.

Was the discussion whether he would or wouldn’t

take the test?

A That is right.

Q At some time he did take the test?

A Yes.

Q At what time did you persuade him to take the

test?

A This would be from three-forty-five to four o’clock.

Q Surely, Officer, there were many events during this

day. At some point did you write up the events of that

day as you saw and observed them?

A Up to that point.

Q The events of that day?

A Yes; I have a report on that day covering Edward

Coolidge. Yes.

Q At that time you made note of the times thing:

took place, and so forth, and the sequence of events?

A Whether or not the time is on there, I don’t know.

I believe it is, but I am not positive.

(fol. 32] Q But at any rate your report ended up go-

ing into Captain Stipps’ possession?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, as I understand it, from about one o’clock

until quarter of four—was it?

A Approximately.

Q The discussions as to the lie detector tests went

on?

A Yes.

Q Were there any discussions as to his particular in-

volvement in the case, as to his being a suspect?

A As to his being a suspect?

Q Yes.

A What we wanted to do was get him to go up and

take the test to see if he was involved, yes, in the Mason

girl case.

Q Was it you and Officer LeClair who had the idea

that he should take the lie detector test?

A Yes, sir,

Q Can you tell me what happened next?

A He agreed, and we took him to Concord.

Q The three of you went up to Concord?

A Yes, sir,

Q Where did you go in Concord?

AzWe went to the new Motor Vehicle Building, of

the State buildings—the state police division.

Who did you see there?

[fol.33] A Detective Sergeant McBain.

Q You asked Detective Sergeant McBain to give Ed-

ward Coolidge a lie detector test?

A Officer LeClair did.

Q Were you present through this test?

A Not through the full of it, no. We watched a por-

tion of it, but we were downstairs in the cafeteria.

Q How long was he upstairs with Detective Sergeant

McBain on this test?

A Over an hour. Perhaps an hour to an hour and a

half.

Q It took about half an hour for you to get to Con-

cord?

A About half an hour, yes.

@ When the test was over, what time would you say

it was?

A In the vicinity of six-fifteen, give or take.

Q At that time did Sergeant McBain report to you

oO about the developments in that test?

Not to me.

4 Or in your presence?

A No. He called Officer LeClair aside and talked with

him.

Q Not in your presence?

A No; they went in another room, and I was with Mr.

Coolidge.

Q Neither of you heard what was said?

A Neither me or Mr. Coolidge, no.

Q Then you got back in the car and came back to

Manchester?

A Yes, sir.

(fol. 34] Q That was at what time?

A I would say roughly, seven o’clock we were home—

seven or seven-fifteen.

And by “home” you mean?

A In Manchester.

Q In the course of the ride back to Manchester, did

Officer LeClair tell you anything about the developments

—particularly the Cote larceny, so-called?

A No, he did not. As a matter of fact, Mr. Coolidge

and I, while we were talking at the State Building—he

started talking about something, and I told him right

then and there that anything he might say would be used

for or against him—anything he might say to me. Then

coming home in the cruiser, the police department vehicle,

I asked him one question. He said, “Would this be held

against me or used in court against me?” I said, “Yes”,

and he said no more.

Q Maybe we should stop here for a second. Is it fair

to say that until seven o’clock when you got back to Man-

chester, you had no idea Edward Coolidge was involved

with the Cote larceny case; it was all involved with the

Pamela Mason case?

A There was talk in the State Building with me, by

Mr. Coolidge, about the larceny of a sum of money. He

didn’t say it was Cote. He said he had admitted to some-

thing.

Q To—

A Mr. McBain, apparently.

(fol. 35] Q In the course of the lie detector test?

A I don’t know.

Q At some time did you check with Inspector Mc-

Bain?

A No, I didn’t.

Q a were not concerned with the larceny charge

at all

A Primarily, no.

Q Will you tell us what happened when you got back

to the station around seven o’clock, as I understand.

A Then we just started talking with Mr. Coolidge.

Q About—?

About the Mason case.

And “we” means you and—

Officer LeClair.

Where were you talking with him?

Upstairs; what you might call the third floor.

The third floor. How long did you talk with him?

Was there a break for dinner?

A Well, it wasn’t constant talking. We would talk

with him. He woul dsay something. We would verify it,

and leave him alone. It was off and on.

Q Again the talk was all about the Pamela Mason

case?

A Yes, sir.

Q There wasn’t any talk about any unsolved Cote lar-

ceny?

A No.

Q How long did you keep on talking with him? Until

when?

{fol. 36] A Well, at two o’clock we figured we had what

we were looking for; at least it satisfied us at the time.

This would be about two o’clock in the morning. Then we

started talking with him about the Cote larceny.

Q This was an unsolved theft of some three hundred

dollars from Cote Brothers Bakery?

A No one had been apprehended for it.

Q The reason you knew about it was because appar-

ently it came out in the course of the Concord visit? Is

that right?

A I would say yes.

Q Up until two o’clock you paid no attention to that?

A No, sir. Only minutely in Concord or on the way

back, but only very minutely.

Q Then, Officer, you arrested him at two-thirty a.m.?

A That is the time he was booked. That is the pro-

cedure down at the lieutenant’s or the captain’s desk when

he is actually charged with the crime.

Q Is that when he was arrested?

A You might say he was arrested at two o'clock,

when we started to talk with him—

Q Maybe I am confused.

OPO Pop

A With myself, if it was Mr. Coolidge in the ordinary

circumstances, I would have him booked for—possibly

investigation; then talk with him and then he would be

pooked for the charge. There would be a time element of

(fol. 87] the actual arrest and the actual booking on the

charge.

Q Is it fair to say up to two-thirty he was not under

arrest?

A As far as I can say, it was two o’clock, though it

was in the papers he was going to be charged.

Q All right. At two o’clock he is charged with the

crime, and two-thirty you did what?

A Actually booked him, That is the final—.

Q Tell us what “booking” means?

A Booking is the actual appearance before the lieu-

tenant and captain in charge. He is asked his name, date

of birth, his address, where he was born. Then we, as the

arresting officers,—I notify the man in charge that he

was arrested from a certain spot and is to be charged

with a certain crime.

Q Who, by the way, was the commanding officer?

A That would be Lieutenant Engelhart.

Q At that time, around two o’clock, you went down

to see Lieutent Engelhart and said you wanted to charge

him with the Cote larceny?

No. At two-thirty we went down to the lieutenant.

Then you put him in a cell, from then on?

Well, he is allowed to arrange bail for himself.

What do you know about bail being set?

Bail was set at one thousand dollars.

Do you call a bail commissioner at two-thirty in the

morning?

A If he has the money or requests to be released, we

[fol. 38] call the commissioner—rather, the houseman has

to do that duty. He calls the bail commissioner, and he

puts up the collateral or cash—he puts up the money and

is released.

Q Would the commissioner come down there?

A At two-thirty in the morning he could have been

released.

OPO POY

Q Did the bail commissioner come down there?

A No; we call him on the phone and tell him the

charge, and he sets the amount of bail.

Q But he doesn’t come down there?

A Not unless he is notified that the party has the

cash or collateral. |

Q Is this bail and all that recorded on another sheet?

A The booking sheet has a place on the side—at the

top of the booking sheet—it has various captions, and

one of them, on top, is “Bail”.

On this one do you know that bail was set, at two-

— = the morning, at one thousand dollars?

es.

o Was Edward Coolidge allowed to make a ‘phone

A He is entitled to, yes.

Did you see him do it?

A I didn’t see him arrange for bail, no.

Q Did he make any ’phone calls?

A_ I don’t know whether or not he made any ‘phone

calls relative to bail.

{fol. 39] Q Did he make any ’phone calls?

A Yes, he made ’phone calls; but relative to this, I

don’t know.

Q Assuming the bail commissioner sets bail at one

thousand dollars. You tell the person under arrest?

A Yes.

Q Do you then tell the person, “You can make a ’phone

call to arrange bail”, that night?

A I think he knew that the bail was set at one thou-

sand dollars, but due to the hour he didn’t call anyone.

He didn’t make any attempt, I don’t believe, to bail him-

self out.

Q After you booked him did you continue to question

him?

A No; he was turned over to a houseman and put in

a cell.

Q Then I hope you went home to bed?

A No, I didn’t.

Q Were you still in the station for some time?

A Not immediately.

— :

Q Did you type up a report?

A Yes, I typed up a report on the back of that sheet,

because he was due in court in the morning.

Q Now, in addition to going up to Concord, that Sun-

day evening you went to Edward Coolidge’s house?

A Yes.

Q You say that was when you saw Mrs. Coolidge?

A Yes.

(fol. “ Q And it was around ten-thirty?

A Yes.

Q Was this something you and Officer LeClair de-

cided to do, or were you told to do it, or what?

We decided to do it.

You decided to do it?

On our own.

And the purpose of going over there was—?

To talk about the Mason case.

To talk about the Mason case with Mrs. Coolidge?

As it was involving her husband.

And what she knew about the Mason case?

That is right.

You decided to go over there on your own?

Personally, or with another subject.

You and Officer LeClair made the decision to go

over there?

A It was Detective Sergeant McBain and myself who

went to the home.

Q So Officer LeClair didn’t go with you?

A No, he didn’t go with us.

Q So you made the decision to go to her home about

ten-thirty?

A Yes.

Q You were in her home how long?

A Approximately three-quarters of an hour.

Q Was she alone?

{fol.41] A When we arrived, no. Her mother-in-law

was there.

Q And that would be—?

A Edward Coolidge’s mother.

Q Did she leave?

A Shortly after.

OPO PO PO ro ror

Shortly after you arrived’

Yes.

Did you ask her to leave?

No, we didn’t ask her to leave.

Did Detective Sergeant McBain ask her to leave?

No; he didn’t ask her to leave, no.

Tell us the circumstances.

We wanted to talk with Mrs. Coolidge, the wife of

the subject, alone. We didn’t know as Mrs. Coolidge

should be there or not. We felt that we wanted to talk

with her alone. We started to talk with her, and then

Mrs. Coolidge suggested leaving. After that we asked

one or two questions.

Q It was indicated that you preferred to talk with

her alone?

A Yes.

Q Then Mrs. Coolidge, Sr. left?

A Yes.

Q Did she leave alone?

A She made a ’phone call. No. She asked some mem-

ber of her family to pick her up.

Q Then you stayed with Mrs. Coolidge how long?

{fol.42] A Mrs. Coolidge, the mother, was there per-

haps five to ten minutes, and then the remainder of the

time—like I said, we were there about forty-five minutes;

so it would be thirty to forty minutes.

Q I suppose Mrs. Coolidge at this point was wonder-

ing where her husband was?

A No. She knew where he was.

Q I mean why he wasn’t home. I suppose you told

her you were still busy with him at the station?

A Yes, I believe we did tell her that—that he was

still in the station.

Q By the way, do you know if after you left other

people were questioning him?

A No, I don’t know that.

THE COURT: What time was this?

WITNESS: This was ten-thirty, when we arrived at

the home of Mrs. Coolidge.

Q This was on lie detector Sunday?

A The 2nd of February.

POPO PO PO

_—

Q Did you tell Mrs. Coolidge why he was at the sta-

tion, and whether or not he would be home?

A Well, I don’t know. She understood this prior to

our coming there.

Q I am sure she knew that he was at the station.

A Relative to the Mason case.

[fol. 48] Q You said he was still at the station being

questioned about the Mason case and you didn’t know

when he would be home?

A I don’t recall as to the words that were used. She

understood that he was there. There was no question

where he was. I am inquiring whether or not you told

Mrs. Coolidge the circumstances of why he was at the sta-

tion and whether or not he would be home or not?

A I believe she asked if he would be home that night.

I think we said, “Possibly not”, “We didn’t know”, “Pos-

sibly, yes, but we didn’t know.”

Q When you said “Possibly not”, did you have in

mind arresting him for the Mason case, or did you have

in mind arresting him for the Cote larceny which came to

light up in Concord; or was it both?

A Not being satisfied—there was some doubt about

some sum of money. Due to that, I didn’t know. On the

Mason case we were not satisfied with his story and

therefore the answer to Mrs. Coolidge.

Q My question is when you told her he wouldn’t be

home that evening, did you have in mind arresting him

for the larceny case or did you have in mind arresting

him for the Mason case?

A I don’t know that we had the idea that we were go-

ing to arrest him at all.

Q You just had in mind keeping him all night in the

station? That is what you had in mind?

([fol.44] A Well, not necessarily.

Q Well, Inspector, what did you talk about there?

A We talked about what he had told us relative to his

activities, and asked her to corroborate or deny.

Q At certain times and dates?

A At certain times and dates.

Q And all that had to do with the Pamela Mason

case?

I oe een

A Yes, sir.

Q You or Detective Sergeant McBain took notes as

to what the conversations were?

Was Mrs. Coolidge with you?

No; she was in the home.

([fol.45] Q When you were in the home, you asked her

questions about Ed’s possessions—clothes he wore, weap-

ons he might own?

Yes.

Q The pants he might have been wearing on the night

of January 13th?

Yes, sir.

Were these pants shown to you?

Yes, sir.

Where was that?

In the home.

In the house?

Yes.

In the living room or the kitchen?

In the bedroom, I believe it was. Yes, sir.

At that time were any weapons shown to you?

Yes, sir.

What else? Meaning what else was shown to you

or did you see that evening?

A That is about the substance of what we were shown

—his clothes, the guns. I can’t think of anything else

that was shown to us.

A I didn’t. No, sir.

Q You left there around eleven-thirty?

A Eleven-fifteen, possible, or eleven-thirty.

Q On the way out did you stop at the garage?

A They haven’t a garage.

Q Did you look in any cars?

A Yes, we looked in both cars. They had two cars.

Q There was a 1963 Chevrolet convertible?

A Yes.

Q And a Pontiac car?

A Yes.

Q You went out on the street and looked at them?

A Yes.

DPOPO PL PO POP

—

By the way, do you happen to know that Captain

Stipps had talked with Mrs. Coolidge that afternoon in

the station by the time you went to the house?

A Iam not aware of the fact.

(fol. 46] Q You didn’t see Ed Coolidge and ask his per-

mission to go to his house that evening?

A Do you mean did I see him and did I make it a

point to ask him?

Q Yes.

A No, I don’t believe I did.

I am curious. If you wanted to talk with Mrs.

Coolidge, why you didn’t call her and ask her to come to

the station or say you would see her the next morning.

A There was no pressing need for her to come to the

station, she being a woman and having a child. We had

a car and we went to the home.

Q As a convenience to her?

A Yes.

Q I mean there was nothing pressing; you were not

afraid that she would run away, or anything like that?

A No, no.

Q If there was nothing pressing, couldn’t you have

asked her to come down the next morning?

A Well, we were working on the case, and the time

element couldn’t be interrupted; it more or less followed

in sequence, and Mrs. Coolidge followed in.

Q If the time sequence ended at about three o’clock

in the morning, would you have gone to the house then?

A Well, possibly we would have, due to the urgency

of it.

[fol.47] Q But he wasn’t arrested for the Pamela

Mason case until three weeks later—February 19th? Isn’t

that so?

Yes.

And this was on February 3rd?

Yes.

Did you see the child?

No. I believe the child was in bed.

Do you know how old the defendant’s wife is?

No, I don’t know how old she is—not offhand. She

is a young girl—younger than I am—and in her twenties,

I believe. I really have no idea.

PO PO roy,

Q Where did you have this discussion with her?

A In the living room. She asked us to sit. She made

coffee for us. She made a pot of coffee.

Q You were in plain clothes?

A In plain clothes, yes, sir.

Q So I understand that at ten-thirty you knocked on

the door, she invited you in, her mother was there,—

A Mother-in-law.

Q Her mother in law, you made it clear that you

would prefer to discuss this matter with her alone; the

mother-in-law went home—somebody came and picked her

up, and then you discussed the case?

A Yes, sir.

Q You asked to see the pants, or something like that,

(fol. 48] and you were shown some clothes and weapons,

and that was about it?

A That is the substance of it.

Q And when you left at eleven-thirty that evening

you took some items with you?

A That is right.

Q What items did you take with you?

A You want me to read this?

Q If it refreshes your recollection, you may read it.

I can make it easier. This appears to be a receipt?

A That it what it is.

Q It is signed “Inspector D. Glennon, Manchester,

P.D.” Is that your signature?

A Yes; it is my handwriting in full.

Q Now will you tell the Court what you took that

evening?

A One Palimino model 400 twenty-two—do you want

the full or the abreviations?

THE COURT: Couldn’t you just ask if he took all

that are listed there?

This list is one Palimino model 400 SSR rifile?

Yes.

You took that?

We were given it.

This is what?

One sixteen guage Remmington shotgun.

PO PO PO

—:

—

{fol.49] Q Without going into all the details this is a

Marlin—is that a shotgun?

No. That would be a thirty-thirty rifle.

And this?

One 410 guage shotgun.

Mossberg & son?

Yes.

Red jacket?

Yes; one red jacket.

One pair uniform trousers?

Yes.

What does this say?

I have received the above items from Joanne Cool-

idge for examination.”

Q And you gave her this prior to your leaving there

at approximately eleven-thirty?

A Yes. Somewhere around there.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to have this marked

as an exhibit.

(Receipt given Mrs. Coolidge marked Defendant’s

Exhibit H)

Q Inspector, on the night of February 2nd did you or

did Detective Sergeant McBain take any items from the

house or from the cars? By “items” I mean anything—

scrapings or anything other than is on this Exhibit H?

{fol.50] A From the house or cars?

Q Any place at all around the property, including his

cars.

A Yes. We took from his car two items, I believe—

one was a box of twenty-two shot, calibre ammunition,

and one pair of trousers from the trunk of the car.

Could you tell me which car?

The Pontiac.

Both came from the Pontiac?

Yes.

Trunk?

No; the ammunition was found in the glove com-

partment and the trousers were found in the trunk of

the Pontiac.

rPO>rOPrOPporo>

PO PO PO

A At eleven-thirty you said “Good-bye” to Mrs. Cool-

idge and went out to the cars?

After asking her permission to do so.

You went to the cars?

Yes.

Did you go back to the house?

I believe Detective Sergeant McBain did. I didn’t.

You didn’t add these things to the receipt?

I didn’t. Of course, I didn’t go back in the home.

Was there any reason why you didn’t add them to

this receipt?

A It didn’t seem of importance; it was just part of the

routine.

As a part of the routine, as you say, if you see

{fol. 51] something you think might help, you take it?

A Yes; with permission, of course.

Q You are not saying that you had permission from

Mrs. Coolidge to take these things out in the car without

telling her about it?

A I assumed that the sergeant might have told her

when he went to the door. I left it there.

Q In your business you claim that you give receipts,

but you don’t know whether Detective Sergeant McBain

did or not?

A In this case, taking the four guns, I thought that

it was advisable to take these, yes.

THE COURT: Four guns?

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, Your Honor, four guns, a

red jacket; and in the list there is a gun charged as be

ing the alleged murder weapon.

Q Now, Inspector, this is the first time that you were

ever at the Coolidge house?

A That is right.

Q And you can’t think of anything else other than

the receipted items, the trousers and the shot?

. A To my knowledge I had nothing to do with taking

anything else out of the house.

Q Did you observe Detective Sergeant McBain take

anything other than what is listed on the receipt or that

you found in the cars?

OPO PO PO Pp

{fol.52] A No, sir.

Q What did you do with these items when you got

back to the station?

A Took them upstairs, laid them on the desk, and they

were tagged.

Q I assume these items are still at the station?

A They were turned over to another party.

Q Did you turn them over to Captain Stipps?

A Yes; by us to Captain Stipps, and I believe he gave

them to another party.

Q But you made your reports to Captain Stipps of all

your events of the day?

A I believe, that was pertinent.

Q Mr. Coolidge was arrested February 19th, some

seventeen days later?

A Yes.

Q Were you in on that?

A Yes, in a way of speaking I was involved with—

not with, but I was at the station when he was brought

in.

Q Did you go to his house the night he was arrested?

A No, sir.

Q Did you ever go to the house that night? I under-

stand even after he was back in the station certain police

stayed in the house all night.

MR. BUSSIERE: I think in the scope of the hearing

[fol. 58] now being held this is immaterial. This is in a

desire to save the Court’s time.

THE COURT: What is the materiality?

MR. REYNOLDS: I want to get back into an item

on the inventory and the warrants.

(No answer)

Q Did you at any time go back to the house and look

the house over after February 2nd?

A No, sir.

Q You never went back there yourself?

A I never went back there myself. No, sir.

Q Inspector, it is fair to say that the items that you

gave the receipt for and the other items taken from the

ear on February 2nd were all related to your investiga-

tion of the Mason case?

As far as I am concerned, yes.

And had nothing to do with the Cote case?

Pardon?

None of these items that you have listed had any-

thing to do with the Cote larceny case?

A No, sir.

MR. REYNOLDS: That is all I have. Thank you

very much.

OPOp

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BUSSIERE:

Q Inspector, did you look through the house for any

weapons?

A No, sir.

({fol. 54] Q How did you happen to obtain any weap-

ons?

A Well, we had been talking to Mrs. Coolidge, and

told her most everybody who had been questioned about

the Mason case, we were taking items for examination—

such as guns and so forth. She stated that they had four

guns in the house.

Q Inspector, as of the time she stated that, did you

know the type calibre or type of gun that had been used

to kill Pamela Mason?

A I knew of the calibre, but right now I can re

member—it was twenty-five-point-something or other. I

can’t remember now.

You knew what—

We were looking for a small calibre gun of some

Were you looking for any particular type?

Primarily, a rifle.

Or a handgun?

Anything like that, yes.

You interviewed many persons in the course of

your investigation of the Pamela Mason case?

A Yes. Very often.

Q Did you take any firearms?

A Yes.

Q Why?

A To ask if it was all right with them to take them

[{fol. 55] to the station for a ballistics test.

OPOPoOd po

Q As far as the firearms in the Coolidge home, who

t them from where they were?

A Mrs. Coolidge got them from the closet.

Q Did she say anything when the firearms were asked

for for examination?

A She said that they had four guns in the home.

Did she say anything else?

A After telling her about the examination of guns

and so on, she s2id she had nothing to hide and she had

no objection to our taking them along for tests.

Q As a matter of fact, didn’t she want you to take

them?

A Yes.

Q Was the same type of conversation had with re-

spect to the red hunting jacket and the one pair of trous-

ers that came out of the house?

A That is right. She had no objection to our having

them.

Q How would you describe Mrs. Coolidge’s attitude

toward you?

A Yes. She was a very, very nice woman. She made

coffee for us, and was very co-operative.

Q She was anxious to clear her husband?

A Absolutely.

MR. DEVINE: Just a minute. I move that that be

stricken.

THE COURT: It may be stricken.

(fol. 56] @ Would you describe her attitude?

THE COURT: He has already said she was co-

operative.

A She was very co-operative.

Q Would you tell the Court the manner in which she

was co-operative?

A In handling the guns, she asked us to take them

along and had no objection whatsoever. She made us cof-

fee, and she indicated to me that she was a very nice and

very co-operative woman.

Q Just going back to a few general questions about

your booking procedure and arrest procedure, when a per-

= y placed under arrest do you take his property from

im?

A Taking a general case?

Q General procedure.

A In a general case when a person is arrested he is

brought before the booking cage, and he is asked these

questions—name, address, date of birth, and then the

items are taken from him by the houseman.

Q What is done with the articles?

; 4 They are placed in an envelope and placed in the

Q When were the articles taken from him?

A Immediately after the questions of the officer in

charge.

Q When you were at the station was Edward Cool’ige

free to come and go as he pleased?

A Yes, he was.

[fol.57] Q Was hein a cell?

A No.

Q Was he free to go where he wished?

A Yes, as far as I was concerned he was.

Did he leave at any time to go anywhere by hin-

A Yes, he did leave to go to the bathroom.

Q How would you describe his attitude?

A He was very co-operative.

MR. BUSSIERE: That is all.

MR. REYNOLDS: If the Court please, I understand

the State has the booking sheet?

MR. BUSSIERE: Yes; I represent this is the book-

ing sheet of February 2nd and February 8rd, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: We might as well take a recess while

you are looking at them.

(Recess 3:35 to 3:55 p.m.)

MR. BUSSIERE: May it please the Court, I believe

counsel have had an opportunity to examine the booking

sheets of February 2nd and February 3rd of this year.

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, Your Honor. I would like

to have this police blotter marked as an exhibit.

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor please, it adds nothing

[fol. 58] to what is already in evidence.

THE COURT: What has it got that hasn’t been in-

troduced? Nothing at all. I thought it had been agreed

the time was from one p.m. on.

MR. REYNOLDS: That is all right. I think he said

it was quarter of one when he got to the station and

Coolidge was there then.

THE COURT: I don’t see that that adds anything

to what is already in evidence.

MR. REYNOLDS: All right, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. REYNOLDS:

Q I have just a couple more questions, Inspector, with

regard to lie detector Sunday, February 2nd.

A Yes.

Q These shells were, you say, taken out of the glove

compartment of the Pontiac?

Yes, sir.

Were they loose or were they in a box?

They were boxed.

They were empty shells?

No; loaded shells.

And they were twenty-two calibre?

They were twenty-two calibre.

Did you pick up any other shells that evening—

empty shells?

A I would say no. I don’t believe I did, no. It was

[fol. 59] just the box. I am pretty sure that is all there

was.

Q Did you look for any shells in the house in the area

where the riflles were found?

A No, sir. We didn’t look for anything in the house.

Q I understand as a matter of routine you were go-

ing around to homes looking for—

A Guns.

Q Guns and other things—small calibre rifles?

A Guns. Primarily guns.

Q You told Mrs. Coolidge, as a routine matter, that

you were looking for these things and wanted to take

them to the station and check them out?

A Yes. With permission.

DPO PO POY

—

She told you he had guns?

Yes.

You were aware that he had guns?

Yes, Four.

You knew that before you went there?

I don’t believe I knew he had any guns, no.

It didn’t come out in your questioning from one

o'clock?

A The questioning was not relative to guns. No,

Q As I understand it, it was your believe that at any

time from quarter of one on, when you first saw Edward

Coolidge, until two o’clock in the morning he could go

home?

A He could have gone if he wished.

{fol. 60] Q You just didn’t think to drive him to his

home at ten-thirty that evening?

A No; no, sir.

THE COURT: How did he get there?

WITNESS: He came in his own car.

THE COURT: How did it get back to his house then?

MR. REYNOLDS: I think we can show that some

time in the afternoon Mrs. Coolidge went to the station

and brought his car home, so that both of their cars were

at the home, Your Honor.

WITNESS: Yes, both of the cars were at home.

MR. REYNOLDS: That is all I have.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. BUSSIERE: No.

MR. REYNOLDS: We would like to call Detective

Sergeant McBain.

OPO ro Po

(fol. 61]

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. McBAIN

Sworn by Mr. Reynolds; direct examination by Mr. Reyn-

olds:

THE COURT: May we confine the questioning of the

sergeant to the visit to Mrs. Coolidge’s house?

MR. REYNOLDS: With one exception, Your Honor,

—some questions about the lie detector tests.

" ssh

THE COURT: Well, I am not concerned with the lie

detector tests today, am I?

MR. REYNOLDS: I think in the lie detector test the

question was asked, “Do you know of any previous un-

solved crimes?”, and at the time Edward Coolidge said,

“Yes, a oCte larceny that I am involved with.”

THE COURT: You mean from then on he was un-

der detection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

May I have your full name and occupation?

William P. McBain.

Your position?

Detective sergeant with the Division of State Po-

lice.

You have been with the State Police for how long?

Twenty-four and one-half years.

At some point you were requested by the Attorney

[fol. 62] General’s office to assist the Manchester police

force in investigating the Pamela Mason case?

Yes.

One of your duties is giving lie detector tests?

Yes.

You are the only one of the force which does that?

No. There is another operator—Major Grey.

When was the first time you saw the defendant?

I will have to go back to 1960 for that answer.

I won’t go into that then, because we are confining

OPO ro ror

A February 2nd, the afternoon, on Sunday.

Q That was when Officers LeClair and Glennon ar-

rived at the State Police Headquarters?

A That is correct.

q For the purpose of your giving him a lie detector

test

A Yes.

Q You made a report and all that, I assume?

A Yes, I did.

Q How long was he in taking this lie detector test?

A The actual test, as far as the machine being in

operation, wouldn’t take longer than fifteen or twenty

minutes.

Q Now, you asked him a number of different ques-

tions, I understand, and looked at the impulses to see if

you _ getting a reading which will tell you some

{fol.68] A Yes.

Q Can you give an example of some of the standard

questions that you asked on the test?

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor please, I don’t know

that this is material.

THE COURT: No; I don’t either.

MR. REYNOLDS: I will strike it.

THE COURT: I am a little troubled, getting into

this re Well, you are withdrawing the question any-

way

MR. REYNOLDS: I will withdraw that.

Q At some time,—at some point that Sunday after.

noon while you were with Edward Coolidge up in Con-

i did something about a larceny—Cote larceny—come

A Yes.

Q Can you tell me what you claim came up and what

was said?

A Well, all questions which are going to be asked on

the machine are gone over with the subject taking the

test before-hand, and one of the question I asked him was

how he was going to answer, “Have you ever committed

a serious undetected crime?” To which he answered,

“Yes. A robbery.” And then he went on to explain the

larceny from the Cote Bakery.

Q And that is how it came out? Is that right?

A That is right.

Q Then you reported this to either Inspector Glennon

(fol. 64] or Officer LeClair?

A I did.

Q Did you drive back with them to Manchester?

A No.

Q At some point, around six or so in the evening up

in Concord, Edward Coolidge had admitted to you com-

mitting a larceny?

A Correct.

—

Sometime later on you came te Manchester?

A I did.

What time was that?

A I would say it was approximately eight-thirty or

nine o’clock that evening.

Q And at that time did you see Edward Coolidge and

question him, or sit in while the questioning was going

on?

A No. I first called Captain Stipps, who was at his

home, and we arranged to meet at the Manchester police

station.

Q Was the purpose of your coming to Manchester and

calling Captain Stipps to arrange your discussing Edward

Coolidge and the Pamela Mason case?

A Yes. Also, I would like to add to that—also fur-

ther investigation of the Cote larceny.

When you left Inspector Glennor and Officer Le-

Clair, you had told them about the larceny?

A Correct.

Had you told them to check it out, or suggested

(fol. 65] that they might do that?

A No, I did not.

Q In any event, you met Captain Stipps in Man-

chester around nine o’clock to discuss Edward Coolidge,

Pamela Mason, and the larceny?

A Yes.

Q , Did you question Edward Coolidge at all that eve

ning

A Yes, I did.

Q When did y ou start talking with him?

A Well, it was after we got back from talking with

his wife.

Q All right. The first time you talked with Edward

Coolidge after Concord was after you had seen his wife?

A There was some conversation between us after the

test.

Q But no conversation in Manchester until after you

saw his wife?

A Yes. Correct.

q You went over what he said with Inspector Glen-

non

A Yes.

Q And you said there were some things you wanted

to check out, and you were looking especially for smal]

calibre rifles and so on?

A There was no special intention on my part to look

for some firearms, if that is what you mean.

Q It came to your attention that he had some fire

arms in the house, you asked to see them, and you were

shown them?

A Yes. After a statement was made to Mrs. Coolidge

[fol. 66] that other suspects in this Mason case were be-

ing questioned, and whenever firearms were brought out

they were asked if they could be tested.

Q Was it you who decided to go over to the house with

Inspector Glennon, were you ordered to, or how did that

work out?

A I think Captain Stipps assigned Inspector Glennon

to go over with me.

Q As a result of conversation with Captain Stipps

you thought it was a good idea to go over there that

night?

A Yes.

Q Rather than call and asked her to come to the sta-

tion?

A Yes.

Q Was there any special reason you had to see her

that night? Was there any—

A No, but I wanted to futher the investigation by

confirmation which only she could give.

Q So your going over had nothing to do with the

Mason case?

A Oh, yes it did.

Q But incidentally you wanted to check out a feature

of the larceny case?

A That is right.

Q Inspector Glennon suggested you were shown cer-

tain things and took certain items, and in addition you

went out and inspected the cars?

A That is right—with the permission, and with the

[fol. 67] keys which were given to us by Mrs. Coolidge.

Q She gave you the keys and you went out and looked

in both cars?

A Yes.

Looking in the glove compartment, the trunk, and

so forth?

A Yes.

Q Was it you or Inspector Glennon who found the

twenty-two calibre shot?

A I found the twenty-two calibre shot in the glove

compartment.

And you took those?

Yes.

And was it a pair of trousers?

I found a pair of trousers in the trunk.

And took those?

Yes.

Did you bring them into the house?

When I brought back the keys and the interview

was about to finish, I went back to Mrs. Coolidge and

told her that we were taking a box of twenty-twos and

another pair of pants.

Q Where was that? Where were you standing when

that took place?

A In the kitchen.

Q You went back in the house?

A Yes.

Q Was Inspector Glennon with you?

[fol.68] A No. He was outside.

Q Did you see Inspector Glennon give her a receipt

for these other items?

A No.

Q Did you tell her that you were going to return

them tomorrow, or sometime?

A I didn’t say a date, no. I said that they would be

returned when we were finished.

Q Did you take any other items from the house, prop-

erty or cars, other than those that are listed? I show

you Defendant’s Exhibit H, which is Inspector Glennon’s

receipt listing these various items. Do you know of any-

thing else which was taken that evening?

A Yes. A recall a single glove.

Q A single glove?

FrOPO PO PO

A Yes, a single glove which was found in one of the

cars, but I am not sure which car iit was.

Where in the car? Back seat? The trunk?

A I think it was found in the back seat.

Q What material glove? A leather glove, a mitten,

A I think it was a brown furry substance, which

could have been partly leather, too.

Q Left hand or right hand glove?

A Idon’t recall.

What did you do with these items?

(fol. 70] A They were brought to the Manchester po

lice station and turned over to Captain Stipps.

Q Did you make a report about the events of that

evening, what was taken, your conversation with Mrs.

Coolidge, and so forth?

A Yes; in conjunction with Inspector Glennon.

Q And in that report I suppose you itemized again the

items which you took—the glove, and so forth?

A I believe so, yes.

Q All right. Can you think of anything else—trous-

ers, glove, and a box of twenty-two caliber—over and

above what is on the receipt list?

A I am not clear as to whether another hunting

jacket was taken. We were shown two hunting jackets,

and whether the other one was taken or not, I do not

recall.

Q Talking about clothing, in addition to the two pair

of trousers and maybe one or two jackets, were there any

other items of clothing?

THE COURT: Why don’t you let him see that? It

might refresh his recollection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The word here is “toque”, which

I didn’t know what it was until recently.

THE COURT: To me it is a cap.

Q Was it a stocking cap or some kind of hat?

A I don’t recal! any kind of cap or hat.

THE COURT: Maybe I am wrong. Isn’t a toque a

{fol. 71] cap?

WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. REYNOLDS: I am referring to Defendant’s Ex-

hibit G. What is a toque?

MR. KALINSKI: I have the same understanding as

Your Honor has. That is what was reported to me and

what I put in the letter.

THE COURT: Perhaps the State will be helpful and

tell you what if anything else was picked up, other than

what these two gentlemen have testified to.

MR. KALINSKI: I don’t think so, Your Honer.

MR. REYNOLDS: Seems to me we have a missing

e, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Seem sto me it is a toque that nobody

knows where it came from.

Q Did you go back to Seames Road, to the Coolidge

home, at any time other than this night?

A Yes. We went back later with a search warrant.

Q That was the day he was arrested, or the day after?

A The day after, yes.

Q At that time you didn’t pick up any hat?

A Well, of course there was a group there.

Q I mean you don’t recollect picking up a hat your-

self?

(fol. 72] A No, I don’t.

MR. REYNOLDS: That is all. Thank you very much,

Mr. McBain.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions?

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, I have just one more.

Q I want to make absolutely sure. Your recollection

is that you didn’t see or didn’t take anything other—

whether it is clothing or not, or whatever it is—other

than these items which are on the receipt, plus the items

you have already told us about?

A Not to my knowledge now.

Q Well, there is a record some place—

THE COURT: May I inquire at some point, when

you bring in things does someone make a list of them?

WITNESS: That would have to be answered by one

of the Manchester officers. You might be referring to a

small knife which I recollect might not have been in-

cluded in this list.

Q Are you referring to finding a knife?

A In the glove compartment of the car.

Q On February 2nd—Sunday night?

A Yes.

That is the glove compartment of what car now?

[fol. 73] A The Pontiac.

Q Did you ‘take that?

A It is not on the list.

Q Forgetting the list, do you remember taking a

knife?

A _ I remember finding it, but whether I took it or not

I don’t know.

Q All right. What kind of a knife?

A _ I would call it a paring knife.

Q Paring knife, trousers, a box of shells, a glove—

plus these things, on this list. Anything else?

A Not that I recall.

Q At any rate, you did make a list of the things you

and Inspector Glennon took, and you put it on a report

which you and Inspector Glennon signed?

A I believe so, yes.

Q You both signed it?

A No. I believe Inspector Glennon made it out and

I looked at it.

Q Did you sign it?

A No.

Q Did you make out any report as to your activities

on February 2nd, 1964?

A As to the conversation with Mrs. Coolidge I did

make a report.

{fol.74] Q Was your report stapled to Inspector Glen- {

non’s, or was it a separate report?

A It was a separate report.

Q Who did you make your report to?

A That would be to Colonel Regan, who would send it

to the Manchester police.

Q You didn’t turn it over to Caption Stipps; your

chain of command was Colonel Regan?

A That is right.

Q And he might or might not have turned it over to

Captain Stipps?

A That is right.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MAYNARD:

When you went down to the house that evening to

see Mrs. Coolidge, you had some matter that you wanted

to corroborate or clear up, as a result of your talk with

Mr. Coolidge?

A That is right.

Q Will you tell us what your reason was for having

a desire to go down to see Mrs. Coolidge?

A When Mr. Coolidge explained to me about the lar-

ceny of money from the Cote Bakery, I inquired how he

did it and what he did with the money. He told me that

he had bought his wife a washing machine. That was

one of the reasons I went down, to confirm that with Mrs.

Coolidge—which she did confirm.

[fol. 75] Q When you went down, did you and Inspec-

tor Glennon go to the house at the same time?

A Yes.

Q Did you knock on the door?

A Yes.

Q Would you tell us what was said when your knock

was answered?

A Mrs. Coolidge came to the door. We identified our-

selves and told her we would like to talk with her, if

possible. /

Q What did she say to that?

A She invited us in.

Q When you went in, who was there?

A It would be Mrs. Dorothy Coolidge—Edward Cool-

idge’s mother.

As well as his wife?

Yes.

Did you go in the front door?

It was the side door, which lead to the kitchen.

After you went in were vou asked to be seated?

Yes.

Did you sit in the kitchen or in another room?

We sat in the living room.

Was the living room off the kitchen?

Yes.

Did you at some time go into the bedroom?

A Yes, at a later time I did.

[fol. 76] Q While you were there Mrs. Coolidge made

you some coffee?

A Yes, she did.

Q How would characterize her attitude toward you

and Inspector Glennon?

She was very co-operative.

I am speaking of Mrs. Coolidge, the wife?

Yes.

Did you talk with Mrs. Coolidge, Sr.?

Just a few questions.

What was her attitude?

I will have to say that she interrupted our line of

questioning in the first place.

Q That is when somehow or other it was made ap-

parent to her that you wanted to talk to the younger

Mrs. Coolidge alone?

A Correct.

Q How long after you arrived there and started talk-

ing with the Coolidge ladies was it that the senior Mrs.

Coolidge left?

A I would say between ten and fifteen minutes.

Q How] ong were you in the house all together?

A I would say we arrived there at ten-thirty and left

around eleven-fifteen or twenty.

Q While you were there did you search the premises?

A No.

MR. REYNOLDS: I object. This is a pretty legal

word. I think the facts speak for themselves as to what

{fol. 77] rooms they may have gone into or didn’t.

THE COURT: I think it is clear, as I understand

their previous testimony, that they took nothing from the

premises—not including the two cars—but what was

brought to them by Mrs. Coolidge. Am I correct there?

WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: And that they did not leave the room

that they were in for the purpose of getting anything.

Is that correct?

WITNESS: There was one instance where Mrs. Cool-

idge did go into the bedroom. I think that was with re

gard to the hunting jacket or the trousers—the uniform

trousers.

POPOrPop

THE COURT: Did you follow her intc that room?

By “you” I mean you and/or Inspector Glennon.

WITNESS: Yes.

Q Did you look into the closet, or feel around?

A Oh, no.

Q Did you look around any of the other areas of the

house, except where you were invited?

A No.

In taking the hunting jacket, did you go through

(fol. 78] the pockets of the hunting jacket?

A No, I didn’t.

Q You couldn’t say if there was anything in the pock-

ets or not?

A No.

Q Were you looking for any particular firearm at

the house?

A No, sir.

Q When you went to the house did you go to obtain

any firearms?

A No.

Q When you went into the bedroom, were you re-

quested to go, or did you just follow Mrs. Coolidge?

A I would say that Mrs. Coolidge, in getting the

things, said—invited us to come along. She would point

out a pair of trousers and say, “Would this be anything

you are looking for?”—in that general vein.

Q Did you ask at some time about looking in the au-

tomobiles?

A Yes.

Q How did that come about? Who asked, and what if

anything did Mrs. Coolidge say?

A I told Mrs. Coolidge we would like to look over the

cars. She used the expression, “We have nothing to hide.

Here are the keys. Go ahead and look them over as much

as you want.”

MR. MAYNARD: I have nothing further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. REYNOLDS:

Q I understand, however, that you were over there

looking for items—firearms and what have you?

[fol.79] A Only when it was suggested to Mrs. Cool-

idge that we were checking on firearms, and did they

have any.

Q None of the items that you were looking for had

anything to do with the Cote larceny?

A That is true.

Q You went over there looking for a washing ma-

chine?

A That was only one reason.

Q Didn’t you believe Edward Coolidge when he told

you he had committed this larceny?

A Yes, I did.

As of six o’clock that evening you were satisfied

that he had committed the larceny?

A But there was no corroboration by another party,

which could have been done.

Q All itenis taken that night, I understand, had to

do with the Pamela Mason case—the four guns and all the

other items? None of them had to do with the larceny?

A Well, we didn’t take the washing machine.

Q Answer my question. None of the things you took

had to do with the larceny?

A No.

Q You went back to the station after that and ques-

tioned him for a while?

A Yes.

Were you present while he had something to eat?

[fol.80] A Yes. He was brought in sandwiches and

coffee.

Q What time was that? Between eleven and twelve?

A_ I would say it was around midnight.

Q When you arrived, Mrs. Coolidge, Sr. was there.

When you questioned Joanne Coolidge, she interrupted,

as I_understand it?

A Yes.

Q In some way or other, the Attorney General says

it was made clear to her that she should leave. Did you

ask her to leave?

A I _ would like to make an explanation as to that.

When we talked with young Mrs. Coolidge, we inquired

whether we should talk to her in the presence of her

mother-in-law. She intimated, “Go ahead; anything told

to her mother-in-law was all right with her.” Then we

started to question Mrs. Coolidge about her husband’s

activities on the night of January 13th. Mrs. Coolidge,

Sr., or the mother-in-law, then made some statement or

interruption.

Q So you asked her if she would kindly leave?

A Well, it wasn’t put as bluntly as that, but that

was the general inference, yes.

Q Well, tell me how you put it.

A I think we said something about we could come

back later when Mrs. Coolidge was alone.

Q Isn’t it true that you could have come back the

next morning very easily?

(fol. 81] A Yes, I suppose we could have.

Q You knew that this lady had a very young child

that might have been a year and a half old?

A Yes.

Q The child was in bed, she was alone, and she was

a young lady?

A Yes.

Q It was fairly late at night, and her husband—you

knew—had been gone at least from one o’clock on?

A That is correct.

Q By the way, when you did go over there Inspector

Glennon did tell Mrs. Coolidge, “Well, we don’t know

whether or not your husband will come home tonight.’’?

A Yes.

Q Didn’t she inquire where her husband was?

A Yes; and out of courtesy we told Mrs. Coolidge that

it was very possible that he would be detained in the

station that evening.

Q But whoever it was hadn’t made up their mind?

Is that right?

A Well, I believe it was Captain Stipps who have had

to be consulted in that respect, yes.

Q You didn’t say, “Your husband is being held at the

station on an arrest under a charge of larceny.”?

A No.

Q Because he wasn’t arrested, was he?

A Not at that time.

[fol. 82] Q Well, not until much later?

A That is right.

Q So you said, “Your husband is in the station, stil]

being questioned on the Mason case.”’?

THE COURT: I believe the previous phraseology was

that her husband was being detained.

MR. REYNOLDS: Detained. I am sorry.

A That is right. I don’t believe there was any spe

cific case mentioned—whether it was the larceny case or

the Mason case.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have no more questions, thank

you.

MR. MAYNARD: I think Your Honor’s recollection

of what Sergeant McBain said is different than my recol-

lection.

THE COURT: All right; let’s have it read. Go back

two or three questions.

(Record checked and read)

MR. MAYNARD: I think the sergeant said that they

were going to detain him until after Captain Stipps made

up his mind whether there was a case.

THE COURT: Let’s ask the sergeant then.

{fol 83] WITNESS: That is what was in my mind—

that it was very possible that he would be detained when

we got back with this informaticn.

MR. REYNOLDS: One move question then.

Q He wasn’t under arrest when you went to Mrs.

Coolidge’s house?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Not to your knowledge. And you had just left

Captain Stipps, who was in charge of the investigation?

A Yes.

Q It was your understanding that he was free to go

at any time?

A Yes. We knew who he was, and I think if he had

to be picked up we could do it very easily.

Q There was no fear that he would flee the country?

A No. In fact, he made an appointment to come back

to see me the following Sunday.

Q You felt that he was satisfied to be in the station

all this time?

A I can’t answer that. He wasn’t in the station all

the time.

THE COURT: Did he ever ask to go home at any

time and come back at any time when you talked with

him at the station?

WITNESS: No.

Q When you were at the station did you or did any-

(fol. 84] one in your presence say to Edward Coolidge,

“Ed, any time you want we will drive you home.’’?

A No; I wouldn’t say that.

Q Did you ever hear anyone, in your presence, say

that to him?

A No.

MR. REYNOLDS: That is all.

MR. MAYNARD: We have no further questions.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. STIPPS

Sworn by Mr. Graf; direct examination by Mr. Graf:

TH ECOURT: Tell me—I have seen the rather

lengthy deposition. Are you possibly going to ask Cap-

tain Stipps anything not asked in the deposition?

MR. GRAF: Just one or two things. I don’t believe

I will be very long with the captain, Your Honor.

Q Will you state your name and address?

A John A. Stipps, 659 Hanover Street, Manchester,

New Hampshire.

Q You are a police officer?

A Iam.

Q Captain?

A Yes.

[fol. — Q In charge of the detective division?

A Yes.

Q On January 21st—was that the date the office of

the Attorney General and the County Attorney took over

control and direction of this case?

MR. BUSSIERE: I object. I don’t believe that has

anything to do with the issue now, Your Honor please.

THE COURT: Yes; unless you agrree that the At-

torney General had control of the case at the time of the

issuing of the warrants. Do you agree that he was in

sg charge at the time of the issuance of the war-

rants

MR. BUSSIERE: We do agree that the Attorney

General had general supervision of the case.

THE COURT: And that he was chief investigating

office at the time he, as magistrate, issued the warrants?

MR. MAYNARD: The representation I would make

is that I had general supervision over the investigation

prior to the time of the finding of the body and at all

times after that.

THE COURT: I think that is satisfactory.

Q We talked last June at some length about police

procedure, in regard to the records? Do you recall that?

(fol. 86] A Yes.

Q As I recall the situation, all records went to you

at the first and were made available to the office of the

Attorney General. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Pretty much from January 21st or up to February

19th, the date of arrest, you had pretty much daily con-

ferences—yourself and other investigating officers of the

Manchester Police Department and the office of the At-

torney General and the County Attorney?

A You said daily?

Q Daily conferences.

A Well, we had conferences. How often, I can’t tell.

Q You had one at least once a week? Is that fair to

A It is possible.

Q_ It is probable?

A Yes.

The conferences had to do with the progress of the

investigation of the case?

A Yes.

Q And Mr. Maynard was a party to those confer-

ences?

A Yes.

Q Calling your attention to January 28th, did you

instruct Sergeant Doyon of the state police and Inspector

LeClair of your department to go to the Coolidge home?

_—

(fol. 87] MR. BUSSIERE: We object, Your Honor

please, and feel that that is immaterial to the issue being

tried before the Court.

THE COURT: I don’t understand the purpose of

this.

MR. GRAF: There has been some reference here, and

I think the facts of the situation are that on the 28th

Captain Stipps instructed two police officers—and I be-

lieve it was just two police officers—to go to the Coolidge

home, at which time they were shown various items.

THE COURT: I don’t see that it makes much dif-

ference. There is no claim by the prosecution as I under-

stand it that the acts of Sergeant McBain and Mr. Glen-

non were not authorized as a part of the investigation.

I don’t see the point otherwise.

MR. GRAF: The point is solely the fact that the

Manchester Police Department here allege that on Sun-

day, February 2nd certain firearms were in the posses-

sion of Mr. Coolidge.

THE COURT: Oh, you mean before tney went there?

MR. GRAF: Yes, before they went there.

THE COURT: You may ask that.

[fol. 88] MR. GRAF: I will ask generally. Strike the

question.

Q Prior to February 2nd did you have personal

knowledge of the fact that Mr. Coolidge owned shotguns

and rifles?

A I was aware of the fact that he owred a Reming-

ton shotgun, a 410 shotgun and a thirty-thirty rifle, and

that is all.

Q Calling your attention to February 2nd—Sunday,

February 2nd, sometime in the evening there has been

testimony that Mr. Coolidge returned from Concord. Do

you recall that testimony?

A Yes.

Q At some point in the evening did you in fact in-

struct Detective Sergeant McBain and Inspector Glennon

to go to the home of Mr. Coolidge?

A Yes. Let’s say we had a conference and the three

of us thought it would be best that they do it.

Q My point is, it was your suggestion that they go

to the Coolidge home?

A Yes.

Q Was this at the instruction of any member of the

Attorney General’s staff or the County Attorney’s staff?

A No.

Q They did not suggest this to you?

A No.

Q By the way, did you or any of the men subject to

your control inform Mr. Coolidge that they were going

to the house?

(fol. 89] A I don’t recall if Sergeant McBain had in-

formed him. I don’t know.

Q And, Captain, again referring back to your depo-

sition, do you recall at some point in the day Mr. Reyn-

olds started asking you some questions?

A Yes.

Q Doyou recall that?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall Mr. Reynolds asking you these ques-

tions—and I refer to page 154 question 691: “And do

your records indicate that you told Mr. Coolidge that you

were sending them there?” Your answer was, “No.” Is

that correct.

A That is the way I meant it now.

Q Is that what you said back in June?

A Yes.

Q The next question, “Did you tell Mr. Coolidge you

were sending them there?” And your answer was “No.”

Is that right?

A It was “No”.

Q So as far as you are concerned, you have no recel-

lection of anyone telling Mr. Coolidge that the officers

were going to the house?

A No.

Q Did you give these two officers any specific instruc-

tions?

A No.

Did you tell them to enter the house—gain entrance

[fol. 90] to the house?

A Gain entrance to the house?

Yes.

: It is assumed if they went to see Mrs. Coolidge

they would enter the house.

Q Did you appraise them if no one was at the Cool-

idge home not to enter the house?

A That is right; to come back.

Q If she wasn’t home to come back?

A That is true.

Q But as long as she was at home you told them it

was okay to go in?

A That is right.

Q And these two officers returned to the station at

approximately eleven-thirty that evening?

A About.

And they brought with them the items which have

already been referred to today?

A Yes.

Q And after they returned did you or any of the men

under your control or subject to your control inform Mr.

Coolidge that they had been to his house, if you know?

A I don’t know.

Q You don’t know. Earlier in the day, Mr. Coolidge

returned from Concord—about six or seven o’clock in

the evening?

{[fol.91] A Yes.

Q Isn’t it a fact that when he got back from Concord

he was not free to leave the station? He wasn’t free to

leave at that time, was he?

A If he suggested that he was going to leave, I might

have—he might have been aliowed to leave. He wasn’t

under arrest at that time.

Q Again let’s go back to the deposition. Let me see

if I can find this. Again referring to your deposition—

page 148, Brother Maynard—

MR. MAYNARD: Do you suggest that the deposition

will impeach the testimony he just made; or will it be

like the last time—will it corroborate it?

MR. GRAF: I think it will show that at six o’clock

or after six o’clock Mr. Coolidge’s stay at the station was

involuntary.

Q Question 169, “Could you explain?” Answer, “]

knew he was there on a voluntary basis.” Next question,

“And at six did it become involuntary, shortly after six

o’clock that night, six p.m.?” And you go on to say, “Why

would it become involuntary at that time. The officers

who conducted that investigation obtained a confession.”

Did I read those correctly?

A More or less.

Q Well, did I read them correctly?

[fol.92] A I couldn’t follow you. I don’t know where

you started.

Q I started up here. Those were the questions and the

answers given, weren’t they?

A I believe it was.

Q That is right. So as far as you were concerned, at

six o’clock in the evening Mr. Coolidge’s presence at the

station was no longer voluntary? Isn’t that so?

A It was voluntary up to this point.

After six o’clock it was involuntary?

A If he had asked to leave then it would have been

necessary to book him for further investigation. We had

not completed our investigation at six o’clock, but at that

time I was aware that he would be charged before the

night was over.

Q Do you mean to say after six o’clock that night if

he had said, “Captain Stipps, I am going home”, he

would have been free to go home?

A Then I could have booked him for investigation.

Q One other thing. The confession you referred to

related to the Cote larceny situation?

A That is right.

Q Captain, do you have a list or a record of those

items which Detective Sergeant McBain and Inspector

Glennon submitted to you upon their return from the

Coolidge house on February 2nd?

A Yes.

[fol. 93] Q You have a list in court?

A I have a memorandum which I had written. I

thought it over today. I had written down some of the

items taken.

THE COURT: I am confused. Is this something you

have written down today?

WITNESS: That is right.

MR. GRAF: I would like to see it.

THE COURT: I don’t see how that would be helpful

to us. We already have a list of the things which the

State thinks—

MR. GRAF: I would like to see the official record,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: That is what I mean; I don’t see how

anything that he did today would be helpful to us in this

matter.

Q Do you have a record which was made on the day

the things were brought in?

A Yes.

Q But you don’t have that record with you now?

A No.

MR. GRAF: That is the record we would like to see,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: I assume the State can furnish it.

You are probably are interested in seeing it, too, unless

[fol. 94]it is what is on the list that comes from Brother

Kalinski.

MR. KALINSKI: I don’t know what the witness is

referring to.

THE COURT: We are all a little confused by the

fact that there seems to be some things on this list which

Sergeant McBain and Inspector Glennon didn’t testify to

picking up. I imagine it is a matter of their recollection,

and that somewhere there is a record of what they

brought back that day.

MR. KALINSKI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions?

MR. BUSSIERE: One or two.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BUSSIERE:

Q Captain, Sergeant McBain testified that he called

you at your home around nine o’clock that night?

A Yes.

Q Any reference which you made to anything which

happened after six o’clock—is that something you have

personal knowledge of, or is it something you are guess-

ing at?

A Yes. I might have gone home around seven o’clock,

knowing an investigation of the larceny at the Cote Bak-

ery was in progress. It was not completed, and as long

(fol. 95] as we had a suspect who was willing to stay,

as Mr. Coolidge was, there was no reason why he should

have been booked.

MR. BUSSIERE: That is all.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GRAF:

Q After Mr. Coolidge returned from Concord, isn’t it

a fact that all the questioning or interrogating, or what-

ever you want to call it, related primarily to the Pamela

Mason case? Isn’t that the fact?

A Yes.

Q And the larceny case was incidental so far as you

were concerned? Isn’t that right?

A We thought the larceny case was not as serious as

the Pamela Mason case, and we put more time on that

than the other.

Q And the purpose in sending the officers to the

Coolidge home on Seames Drive was primarily in con-

nection with the Mason case?

A Well, not primarily with the Mason case. It was

two-fold; the larceny case and the Mason case.

Q You said the larceny case was not so serious?

A I don’t know what they did there. I assume it was

with reference to both.

Q Well, in your sending them to Seames Drive that

evening of February 2nd, at least one of the reasons for

sending them there was for the investigation of the Pam-

ela Mason case? Isn’t that so?

{fol. 96] THE COURT: How much longer are you

going to be?

MR. GRAF: Just one more question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q Again referring to your deposition, page 152 ques-

tion 683—you read along with me and make sure I read

it correctly—Mr. Reynolds asked, “I assume since he

made this confession you considered this grand larceny

case solved as of six o’clock?” Answer, “Well, solved,

yes.” Next question, “Is it fair to say all the questioning

which took place from six o’clock until three in the morn-

ing had nothing to do with the Cote case then?” Answer,

“] would say that is possible.” Were those questions

asked, and were those your answers?

A Yes. That is right.

MR. GRAF: That is all.

THE COURT: Are you through now with Captain

Stipps?

MR. BUSSIERE: Yes.

MR. GRAF: I am through with Captain Stipps.

Thank you, Captain.

THE COURT: How much more do you expect to have

in the way of testimony?

MR. DEVINE: I would say three witnesses, Your

Honor.

[fol. 97] THE COURT: You have three witnesses?

MR. DEVINE: Yes.

THE COURT: Will you need Mr. Coolidge here to-

morrow?

MR. DEVINE: No, I don’t believe he will need to be

here tomorrow, Your Honor.

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor, most of the officers

are here under subpoena.

THE COURT: If they indicate which three they want,

I assume you will produce them tomorrow morning?

MR. BUSSIERE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You do that. I assume that

you can indicate which three you want, and also that Mr.

Coolidge will not be here tomorrow.

I will see counsel in Chambers before you leave.

(Conference between Court and counsel in Chambers

off the record)

SEPTEMBER 1, 1964.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. GRAF: Thank you, Your Honor. Captain

Stipps.

[fol. 98] CAPTAIN JOHN A. STIPPS resumes stand;

sworn by Mr. Graf, redirect examination by Mr. Graf:

Q Captain Stipps, just going back for a moment to

February 2nd, Sunday afternoon did you have some oc-

casion at some point in the afternoon—did Mrs. Coolidge

come to the station?

A Yes.

Q At approximately what time did she arrive at the

station, if you recall?

A Around three or three-thirty.

Q At the station she talked with her husband?

A Yes.

Q As she was about to leave, you also talked with

her?

A Yes.

Q You asked her general questions?

A I spoke to her for about—oh, maybe four or five

minutes.

Q And you spoke to her about what was the sub-

stance of her conversation with her husband?

A I don’t recall exactly, but we did talk in general

about what she had told her husband and what he had

told her.

Q You also asked her about the family situation—

whether she and her husband got along well, and things

of that nature?

A Yes.

Q Did you also inform her that she should answer all

of your questions?

{fol.99] A I do not recall making that statement.

Q You don’t recall it?

A I don’t; but I imagine that was the purpose of

talking with her.

Q You told her that if she didn’t answer your ques-

tions she could be held as an accessory?

A I might have said if she was aware of any crime

he had committed, and it turned out that she knew, it

might be a little different.

Q You told her that she might be charged with a

crime if she didn’t co-operate with you?

A I don’t believe I threatened her that way.

Q But you did threaten her?

A No, I did not.

Q But you did talk with Mrs. Coolidge about the pos-

sibility of her getting into some trouble with the police

if she didn’t answer questions?

A I might have inferred it, but I do not recall the

words.

Q Moving on a little bit in time and focusing your

attention on the events of February 19th—that was the

date of the arrest?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall what day of the week that was?

A No.

Q Perhaps it was a Wednesday?

[fol.100] A It is possible.

Q But in any event, on that particular evening you

and a number of other police officers arrived at the Cool-

idge house with an arrest warrant?

A Yes.

Q The complaint on that arrest warrant was drafted

by whom?

A By the Attorney General’s office.

Q That is, Mr. Maynard? Do you know whether or

not he drafted it?

A I don’t know.

Q But in any event, you arrived at 312 Seames

Drive on the night of February 19th?

A Yes.

Q At about seven-thirty?

A Seven-thirty; maybe seven-forty.

Q In that vicinity, give or take a few minutes?

A Yes.

Q As a matter of fact, Assistant Chief Leavitt was

with you?

A Yes.

Q You ind Mr. Coolidge, Mr. Leavitt and other offi-

cers, returned to the police station?

A Yes.

Q You got to the station at about eight o’clock that

evening? Is that correct?

A Yes.

{fol. 101] Q And it was the next day that Assistant

Chief Leavitt returned to the Coolidge home with the

search warrant?

A Yes.

Q And that would be on February 20th? Is that

right?

A Yes.

Q Now, do you recall approximately what time on the

20th this search took place?

A it might have been in the morning.

Q Sometime after eight o’clock in the morning, per-

haps?

A Yes.

Q Perhaps before noon?

A Yes.

Q And do you know whether or not prior to this time

period, or February 20th, any search was conducted by

any police officers at 312 Seames Drive?

A There was none.

Q So that this was the first search of the Coolidge

premises, with warrants?

A Yes.

MR. GRAF: I have no further questions. Oh, just a

minute please.

Q Just one other thing. On the night of the 19th,

the night of the arrest, you and other officers took Mr.

Coolidge to the station? Is that correct?

A Yes.

[fol. 102] @Q What happened to Mrs. Coolidge during

this time?

A She was driven to her sister’s home in Windham.

@ Asa matter of fact, as you were at the house Mrs.

Coolidge was trying to pick up things for the baby, and

other items of that nature?

A No.

Q She didn’t pack some clothes to take with her?

A Not while I was there.

Q But in any event, she was out of the house almost

immediately as well?

A I wouldn’t say immediately, but some time later

she went to Windham.

Q Within half an hour after you left, isn’t it a fact

that Mrs. Coolidge was out of the house also?

A It is possible.

Q It is also a fact that you left two officers there to

guard the premises?

A Yes.

And also on this evening, you changed the locks on

the Coolidge house?

A That evening?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q When were the locks changed?

A A day or two later.

(fol. 103] Q But within a day or so the police officers

changed the locks at the Coolidge house?

A Yes.

Q There were two officers left at the house on the

night of the 19th. Who were these officers?

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor please, we object to

this.

THE COURT: What is the reason?

MR. BUSSIERE: He is just fishing. This has noth-

ing to do with the issue before the Court.

THE COURT: Is this a serious objection? Do you

really care?

MR. BUSSIERE: Well,—

THE COURT: I will rule whichever way you want

me to, Brother Bussiere.

MR. MAYNARD: Your Honor—

THE COURT: Do you want to insist upon your ob-

jection?

MR. MAYNARD: I think it is a very good objection,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Objection sustained.

MR. GRAF: My exception, Your Honor.

Q How long were these two police officers at 312

Seames Drive?

[fol.104] A Maybe an hour or two.

Q Weren’t the officers left at the house all the eve

ning? Weren’t the officers there all evening?

A They were ordered out of the house.

Q Who ordered them out of the house?

A Indirectly, yes. The attorney didn’t want them in

there so we took them out.

These officers were inside the house?

Yes.

Were there also officers outside the house?

Yes.

Did they remain there?

Yes.

If I understand you correctly, the officers inside

house were, by you, ordered or asked to leave the

ises?

That is right.

But two officers were left outside the house?

That is right.

And they were there all the evening?

That is correct.

Were they there all day on the 20th?

I don’t believe so.

But some time on the 19th—

I think in the morning they were relieved of their

°DPOPO Pro

POPororpopr™

duties.

(fol. 105] Q Didn’t you in fact order Mrs. Coolidge to

leave the house?

A_ I did not.

Q Did you suggest that she leave the house?

A I did.

Q You suggested that she leave the house on that

night. Did you bring a list of the items taken from the

Coolidge house and cars, and so forth, on February 20th

with you today?

A No.

MR. GRAF: It was my understanding that the list

of items taken on February 2nd was to be produced today.

THE COURT: You didn’t mean the 20th?

MR. GRAF: No.

MR. BUSSIERE: Your Honor, the State has in-

quired into the situation. I believe in the course of the

hearing that will be cleared up.

—_—oers

MR. GRAF: We would still like an opportunity, and

reserve our right, to look at the original lists. We would

like to look at the original list.

MR. BUSSIERE: I don’t believe that there is a list

as such. There are reports of the various officers. One

has not been referred to yet; but it will be cleared up in

the course of the hearing.

(fol. 106] THE COURT: All right.

Q Captain, Inspector Glennon and Detective Sergeant

McBain were at the Coolidge house on the evening of

February 2nd?

A Yes.

Q There was police procedure at that time in regard

to the Mason case to keep records of all activities which

transpired, isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q One of the facts involved would be—in these re-

ports or records—to itemize all property discovered,

found, picked up, taken—whether found in the house,

cars or along the roadside? Isn’t that a fact?

A Yes.

Q And these reports would indicate the items taken?

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether or not Detective Sergeant

McBain’s report or Inspector Glennon’s report indicates

the property taken from the Coolidge residence, the Cool-

idge Pontiac ur the Coolidge Chevrolet on the evening of

February 2nd?

A Yes.

Q Those reports do contain that information?

A Yes.

MR. GRAF: I would like to see the reports, Your

Honor please, or the list in the reports. I am willing that

(fol. 107] the Court look at it first.

THE COURT: My understanding is that Brother

Bussiere does not agree with the witness’ statement. He

says that there is not a list of the items taken.

MR. BUSSIERE: Not a list as such. There is a re-

port which shows things.

THE COURT: The report lists things taken?

MR. BUSSIERE: Yes, it does enumerate the items

taken, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What?

MR. BUSSIERE: It does enumerate the items taken,

MR. GRAF: To eliminate any confusion, I would like

to see the reports.

THE COURT: I don’t believe there has been any

confusion.

MR. BUSSIERE: I don’t believe there has been any

confusion. The only thing not yet referred to is a wool

hat of some sort. The State’s explanation will be that

this was in the pocket of a coat which has been referred

to.

THE COURT: I will reserve ruling at the present

time. I understand that the State will put in some evi-

{fol. 108] dence on this, and we will go into it at that

time.

MR. DEVINE: I would like to press the position of

the defense that Captain Stipps should be required to

give the names of the officers stationed at the house,

either inside or outside, on the evening of February 20th.

These officers had an opportunity to take items and to

search, and I think we should be able to inquire into it.

THE COURT: I think you should be able to question

whether or not they did take any items in the house after

you know there is a list.

MR. MAYNARD: I didn’t realize the relevancy be-

fore. If they want names, I think the captain may an-

swer.

THE COURT: All right; the objection is withdrawn.

Q Would you tell me the names of the two officers

who were situated inside the Coolidge house on February

19th?

A I assigned six officers to the detail. I would have

to check the records to be sure. I think Inspector Jolin

and Inspector Lord were assigned to the house inside,

and they never did report that they had removed any-

thing from the house.

[fol. 109] Q As far as you know, at least, they didn’t

¢ And the officers outside the house?

A Yes. The outside officers | think were Sergeant

King—now Lieutenant King—ahgq | don’t recall the

other officer, but there is a repGrt to that effect—that

they were stationed outside of the house.

Q Captain, do you have your records here? Would

they reveal who the officers were pytside the house?

A Yes, I don’t have them here pyt I can get them.

MR. BUSSIERE: —_ Hong) the State will fur-

nish the names of the officers stat;, tside the house.

Sia

MR. GRAF: Fine! I would jike to have them at

this time, if Your Honor please.

THE COURT: What do you gay?

MR. BUSSIERE: When conse] is through with

Captain Stipps I will request Captain Stipps to imme-

diately get that information for jpem.

THE COURT: All right.

Q Captain, one further thing a 1963 Chevrolet and

eTaccees taken on SOme evening in February.

[fol.110) A Yes.

Q Or perhaps it was actually, :

ruary 20th that these cars were tee parang f Pe

A No. February 19th.

i a were taken on the 19th the evening of the

A Just after the arrest.

Q Who took those vehicles?

A They were towed to our

Body, and each vehicle was fol oa ny al a Auto

Q Who were the two office y ;

A There again I would ha\

be sure. I know one was guardes “ a a =, ba

of Exeter, Rockingham County: and “A Aon Luth mg

now Lieutenant Luther—of our’ yoo tm a —

Q They guarded one vehicle » P :

A Yes. I think they gua ,

other I would have to check. ed the Pontiac. For the

at a — King and Lieutenant Luther guard-

A Yes. From the time it

ve. wae" left the house until they

got it in at the station it was +) their view at all times.

Q What time did they leave the house?

A I wouldn’t recall the time. It would be in the wi-

cinity of nine or nine-thirty, by the time the wrecker got

in there to take them out, and they took them out one at

a time, but they were in there some time before midnight.

(fol. 111] Q Both vehicles were picked up and at the

station some time before midnight?

A That is correct.

(9 Which vehicle was taken first?

A I don’t recall.

THE COURT: Are you looking for these?

MR. GRAF: I would like to look at the warrant,

Your Honor.

Q Do you know whether or not there was a search

warrant for these two vehicles?

A I believe there was.

Q Isn’t it a fact—and I call your attention to De

fendant’s Exhibit C—it says, “Search, to wit, 1963

Chevrolet convertible”. That isn’t a search warrant for

the Chevrolet—

MR. BUSSIERE: Objection. That is a question of

law. Warrants were issued on the 19th for two vehicles:

I don’t believe that is a proper question in view of the

facts which have been developed up to this point.

MR. GRAF: I don’t believe the search warrants in-

cluded the vehicles.

MR. BUSSIERE: That is a question of law—whether

or not the State has authority to take the vehicles which

it has a warrant to search.

{fol. 112] Q Captain, just talking generally about the

search warrant, approximately fifteen items are enum-

erated in each search warrant, isn’t that correct” A num-

ber of items anyway?

A Yes.

Q And all of these items—you expected to find them

in either car?

It is possible.

Q Or in the house?

A It is possible.

Or in the laundermat?

It is possible.

Q So it is fair to say to say you didn’t really know

where anything was; you were just looking around in the

best place possible?

A We were looking for certain items.

Q And you were looking for certain items in all four

laces?

‘ MR. MAYNARD. I don’t think it is material whether

he expected to find them or didn’t expect to find them at

any one place.

THE COURT: I think that is a question which might

more properly be directed to the person who applied for

the search warrants.

MR. BUSSIERE: It is my understanding that the

Court had ruled or did rule in so far as the warrants

were concerned that no further testimony would be taken

[fol. 113] to go behind them at this time.

THE COURT: I thought I had ruled in your favor.

MR. DEVINE: May it please the Court, that ruling

was not made on the record, and I would like to have my

exception saved to such a ruling.

THE COURT: I will rule at this time then that there

will be no going behind the search warrants. This also

refers to the State. The State is bound by the search

warrants on their face, and in the event of any admis-

sion or execution or evidence, the State may not rely on

anything not in the search warrants on their face.

MR. BUSSIERE: As I explained in Chambers, the

question was whether or not the ruling—

THE COURT: The ruling was made at the request

of the State, and it is my understanding that the State

wishes to rely firmly on the faces of the search warrants

at the present time.

MR. MAYNARD: I am not sure just exactly what the

ruling comprehends.

THE COURT: My understanding is that at the re-

(fol. 114] quest of the State—and if I am wrong, you

may so inform me—the State has requested that this

hearing be limited to the search warrants on their face,

and that no evidence beyond them should be admitted as

to how they were obtained, other than what appears on

the search warrant itself.

MR. MAYNARD: Testimony would be as to what

appears on the search warrant itself or its face, and re

fers to evidence offered to the magistrate who issued the

search warrant, and I would assume when you say they

are limited to the face, you are including the language of

the warrant which says, “and evidence offered in sup-

port thereof”.

THE COURT: Is it your assertion that evidence will

be introduced that there was a record made and actual

— taken prior to the issuance of the search war-

rant

MR. MAYNARD: I can’t say a record was made,

but there was evidence offered.

THE COURT: In the form of an affidavit?

MR. MAYNARD: No; not in the form of an af.-

fidavit.

[fol. 115] THE COURT: Was it sworn testimony?

MR. MAYNARD: No, it was not. The Chief swore,

in making this application, that there was evidence

thereof. I think Your Honor’s ruling is right; it goes to

the face of the warrant just the same, but there was

other evidence.

THE COURT: My only point is, if my understand-

ing of the ruling is correct you stand or fall at the pres-

ent time upon the warrants on their face, and you might

not urge on an appeal that there was evidence beyond

what would appear on the face of your warrant, other

than you might, of course, assert that evidence was indi-

cated to you orally when issuing the warrants.

MR. MAYNARD: I think with that statement we

are correct.

MR. DEVINE: I am not sure that I understand the

State’s position. Do they take the position that they can

go beyond what appears on the warrant in this court

but we are not allowed to go beyond what appears on the

warrant in this court?

[fol. 116] THE COURT: That is not my understand-

ing at this time. These warrants are unusual. At least,

they are not similar to the one in this opinion, which is

giving some trouble, in that they contain no affidavit. Am

I correct on that?

MR. MAYNARD: That is correct; that is not to the

effect an affidavit is given in the federal service.

THE COURT: And in most states—apparently even

in Texas.

MR. MAYNARD: I am not so familiar with the rul-

ings in other states.

THE COURT: All right.

Q Captain, I think you said that searches were con-

ducted pursuant to these warrants on February 20th? Is

that correct?

A The warrants were issued February 20th, or the

search was conducted February 20th? Is that the ques-

tion?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q Does that mean the search of the vehicles was con-

ducted on the 20th?

A That I can’t say. The return would tell you what

date.

Q Referring to Defendant’s Exhibit B, which is search

{fol. 117] warrant 7298-C, directed to a 1951 Pontiac,

what is the date on the return on that?

A February 21, 1964.

Q Would it be your opinion that perhaps this search

was conducted on the 21st?

A Yes.

Q Calling your attention to Defendant’s Exhibit C,

which is warrant 7298-D, and is directed to a 1963

Chevrolet convertible, what is the date of the return on

that?

A February 21, 1964.

Q Atain it is your best recollection that this search

would have been conducted on February 21st, 1964?

A Yes.

Q While we are at it, why don’t we go to the other

two warrants again. Defendant’s Exhibit A is a war-

rant—

MR. BUSSIERE: I object, if he is going to go

through every warrant at this time. It seems to me that

they speak for themselves.

MR. GRAF: I was under some miscomprehension

with the subject. The vehicles were picked up on the 19th

and I was inquiring as to the time the search was con-

ducted. If you represent that the search was conducted

on the date of the return, I would be satisfied.

{fol. 118] MR. MAYNARD: I am not sure. The wit-

ness says he doesn’t know, and I don’t know either.

THE COURT: Gentlemen, it would be very helpful

to the stenographer—from both sides—if one person would

speak for the prosecution and one for the defense, if pos-

sible, because as you know, the stenographer has to write

each name down when you speak and she isn’t always

looking at you.

Q As far as the house and the laundermat are con-

cerned, is it your best recollection that they were search

on the 20th?

A Yes.

MR. GRAF: No further questions.

MR. MAYNARD: We have no questions, but we may,

Your Honor, wish to call him back. We haven’t deter-

mined at this point of the evidence.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GRAF: Thank you, Captain. That is all I have.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to call Mr. Leavitt.

ee a EP

(fol. 119] TESTIMONY OF

NORMAN W. LEAVITT

! Sworn by Mr. Reynolds; direct examination by Mr. Reyn-

olds:

Q May I have your name, please?

A Norman W. Leavitt.

Q Your position with the Manchester Police Depart-

ment?

A Assistant Chief.

Q You have been in that capacity since January?

A Of this year, yes.

Q In regard to the investigation of the Mason case,

you were assigned—you were working on that case?

A Yes, sir.

, er

Q In the course of it you received certain search war-

rants?

A Yes, sir.

From whom?

A The Attorney General’s office.

Q Well, that is the Attorney General directed you

to go to various locales and try to find certain items

enumerated? Isn’t that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, all of the items that you were looking for are

identically listed in all of the warrants? Isn’t that right?

A These are the returns here.

Q Let me put it this way. In Exhibit A, this is a

search warrant seeking certain items where?

[fol. 120] THE COURT: I think it states, to the left.

A The Laundermat, at 712 Valley Street in Man-

chester.

Q Now, you were in charge of this search, looking for

these items at the Laundermat?

A Yes, sir.

Q You made that search when?

A The forenoon of Thursday, February 20th.

And as required, you filed an inventory as to what

you did obtain?

Yes.

This is your signature—-Norman W. Leavitt?

Yes.

In this inventory you list three items?

Yes, sir.

None of these items are enumerated on the list of

items to be obtained through the search warrant?

A Not as such.

Q All right. Now, the next search warrant inventory

is also signed by you. This is for a search of what prem-

ises?

A The Coolidge house at 312 Seames Drive in Man-

chester.

Q Referring to Defendant’s Exhibit D, you conducted

that search?

A With others; yes, sir.

Q You signed the officer’s return and inventory?

OPOropYS

A Yes.

The search was made when?

{fol.121] A After noontime. I believe it was in the

vicinity of two p.m., on Thursday, February 20th.

Q How long did that search take place?

A Approximately two hours, I would say.

Q Was there at any time a subsequent search con-

ducted of these premises?

A I did not conduct a subsequent search, but I know

there was one made.

Q Now, on your search of the house you inventoried

four items, is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, are any of the four items itemized in the

search warrant as items that you were looking for?

A Specifically as such, no.

Q Now showing you Defendant’s Exhibit B—that is a

search warrant to search a 1951 Pontiac? Is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q A search was made for the same items as in the

other search warrants, under your direction?

A Let me read it, please.

Q Iam sorry. You can compare them.

A My last statement with reference to the search of

the house at 312 Seames Drive—I would like to correct

my answer. One item is listed, which includes debris

which we did take, and which we listed in the inventory.

{fol. 122] THE COURT: Do you want to answer the

last question now? He asked you if the list was the same

as you were looking for in the other two search warrants.

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q And this was the search warrant, Defendant’s Ex-

hibit B, of the 1951 Pontiac?

A Yes.

Q And the search was made for these same items,

under your charge?

A Yes.

Q And that search was conducted when?

A Friday, February 21st, in the afternoon.

Q Where was the search made?

A _ At the police garage in Manchester.

Q That search took how long?

A Approximately four hours.

Q That also was conducted by yourself?

A Yes; myself and Inspector Roger Beaudvin of the

Manchester Police Laboratory.

Q To your knowledge was a subsequent search made,

other than on that day or on that afternoon, of that ve-

hicle?

A I did not make one subsequent to that search. No,

sir.

Q Do you know if the examination of this car con-

tinued?

A I understand that there was another examination

made subsequent to this one.

(fol. 123] @Q Again, when you examined this 1951 Pon-

tiac, you filed an inventory of what items you took?

A Yes.

Q Two items, so to speak?

A Yes, in general.

Q Vacuum sweepings, and a piece of fibre?

A Yes.

Q Were any of these items listed in your search war-

rant?

A Yes. Yes, under the next to the last item, under

“debris”.

Q This item is “work shop debris”. Do you mean to

say your inventory of vacuum cleaner sweepings from

the floor mat and trunk may be considered as—

A In the sense that work shop debris could be tracked

from the shop into the car with other debris.

Q If it had actually been work shop debris, you would

have said “work shop debris”, wouldn’t you?

A In examining vacuum sweepings, it is impossible

to say what is work shop debris, road debris, or house

debris.

Q It says on the search warrant, “Work shop debris,

including but not limited to wood shavings, metal shav-

ings and brass filings”. Did you in your inventory make

rd reference to wood shavings, metal shavings or brass

lings?

ne ae Cre a cae eR we ee

A No, but it is impossible to determine with the

naked eye what the vacuum cleaner contained, individ-

ually.

Q Do you know whether or not the vacuum sweepings

[fol. 124] contained metal shavings? Or do you have no

idea?

MR. MAYNARD: I object, unless he is asking at the

time he made the search.

A At the time we made the search the vacuum sweep-

ings were an accumulation of debris. The only specific

item noted in the vacuum debris in this car was a single

live round of twenty-two calibre ammunition. Because

of its weight and condition, it wouldn’t stay in the vacuum

trap.

Q@ You didn’t indicate any shell or bullet here?

A That is included in the vacuum sweepings.

Q So in this inventory of vacuum sweepings, you in-

clude a bullet or shell?

A It came up with the vacuum sweepings, and I know

of my own knowledge that it came up with the vacuum

sweepings.

Q Why didn’t you inventory the bullet as such?

A Only because it was part of the vacuum sweepings,

and I inventoried it as such.

Q And you felt that vacuum sweepings were in gen-

eral workshop debris—under that general category?

MR. MAYNARD: I object, unless he is referring to

the time of the making of the inventory.

MR. REYNOLDS: I never said at any other time.

A In my opinion, these vacuum sweepings which

{fol. 125] came up could contain workshop debris, house

debris, or any number of different kinds of debris, all de-

posited on the floor mats of this particular car.

Q Well, you understand what we are doing here is

getting a list of the items taken under a search warrant,

and items not taken under a search warrant. The State

has furnished us with a list of the items taken without a

search warrant, so it is fair to add to that list a shell

from the back seat of the vehicle?

MR. MAYNARD: Just a minute. We added that yes-

terday, I believe.

THE COURT: I don’t believe these are quite the

same shells.

MR. REYNOLDS: No; yesterday it was shells from

the glove compartment, which were in a box.

THE COURT: I may be confused, but I think this

is not the same shell which was listed in your list yester-

day.

MR. KALINSKI: I don’t believe there is any confu-

sion. We stated in open court yesterday that we had this

shell included in the vacuum sweepings.

THE COURT: Let me see the letter which was

marked as an exhibit.

MR. KALINSKI: It is not in the letter; it is part of

the return on the search warrant.

(fol. 126] THE COURT: I think that is correct; I

think he said there was a live shell.

MR. REYNOLDS: Now he says there was three.

MR. KALINSKI: I don’t know whether it is two or

three, but whatever it was it was included in the return

of the search warrant.

MR. BUSSIERE: I think I said in the vacuum sweep-

ings there were other things, including live rounds of

ammunition.

THE COURT: I think at some yesterday somebody

did refer to live rounds of ammunition picked up with

vacuum sweepings.

Q We are still talking now of the search of the 1951

Pontiac. The vacuum sweepings included—was it a live

round or spent round?

THE COURT: He said live round.

A Yes, Live round.

Q Was there more than one live round?

A Not that I saw at the time, no.

Q Was there anything else other than ammunition

picked up with the vacuum sweepings?

A Yes. There were pieces of rubber matting—where

the mat was old and deteriorated. I could see that go

into the trap. I could see flakes of rusted metal going

into the trap, but I didn’t itemize them and differentiate

(fol. 127] on the return of the warrant to set out differ-

ent things included in the vacuum sweepings, any more

than I did with the live rounds of ammunition. I could

see things go into the trap, but I didn’t itemize them as

such.

Q At some time the vacuum sweepings were broken

down to analyze what was what? In other words, one

was a bullet, this was this and that was that?

MR. MAYNARD: I object.

THE COURT: I think as a general question it may

stand; beyond that, that would be as far as I would

allow you to go. I assume the answer would be “Yes”?

A Yes. That was the purpose of taking the vacuum

sweepings

MR. REYNOLDS: My rvason was, I don’t believe

that the inventory particularized very much.

THE COURT: I understand.

Q On this inventory then of the Pontiac, you say the

vacuum sweepings covered workshop debris, but these

other items are not listed in the items to be obtained?

Isn’t that right?

A Not as such, but I think therei s a reference to it

somewhere here—under this term, the word “Blood’—

items which appeared with stains on them, which in my

opinion could possibly have been blood, were retained for

examination.

Q Pieces of fibre insulation from left front floor mat

(fol. 128] with reddish stain you felt was covered then by

the word “blood’’?

A Yes, I think so.

Q Now Defendant’s Exhibit C was a search warrant

of the 1963 Chevrolet convertible?

A Yes.

Q And the items to be searched for are the same as

the items sought for in the Pontiac, the house and the

laundermat?

A Yes. The list is identical.

Q And in the search warrant of the 1963 convertible

—does your inventory of these three items list anything

which you asked for in the search warrant?

A Yes, sir; under the same statement I made relative

to the vacuum sweepings.

_—

Q Being the same idea—vacuum sweepings being the

same idea as workshop debris?

A Yes.

“Carborundum honing stone with reddish stains,

boxed”. Is that related to any of the items you were look-

ing for?

A Yes; under this item, “blood”’.

Q Isee. Because of the reddish stain?

A Yes.

Q “Yellow towel, stained”?

A By the same token, under the single word, “blood”.

Q Do you mean this was stained with a reddish color

which you thought might be blood?

[fol. 129] A Yes.

Q When was the search made of the 1963 Chevrolet,

and where?

A In the Manchester Police Station garage, in the

forenoon of Friday, February 21st, in the presence of

William Craig, Jr., Attorney.

Q That vehicle was later returned to Mrs. Coolidge?

A No. Prior to the noon hour we turned the vehicle

over to William Craig, Jr., who drove it off.

Q By the way, were you in charge of the search on

the search warrants in regard to the Pamela Mason case?

A Yes, I was in charge of all the warrants on which

my name appears.

Q And at no time did you ever have a warrant to

take any motor vehicle, did you?

MR. MAYNARD: I think that is a question of law.

Those are the warrants which he had.

THE COURT: These are all the warrants which the

State—

MR. MAYNARD: Those are all the warrants, plus a

warrant for magazines, books and so forth.

MR. REYNOLDS: There was no specific warrant to

take the two cars—the Chevrolet and the Pontiac.

THE COURT: I believe your statement is there were

[fol. 130] no search warrants other than those which are

before the Court?

MR. MAYNARD: That is correct.

MR. REYNOLDS: No more questions, thank you.

MR. MAYNARD: ¥%. have no questions at this time,

MR. DEVINE: Mrs. Joanne Coolidge.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOANNE COOLIDGE

Sworn to Mr. Devine; direct examination by Mr. Devine.

Q Please keep your voice up, so that we all can hear

you, Joanne. What is your name?

Joanne Coolidge.

How old are you, Joanne?

Twenty-seven.

You are Ed Coolidge’s wife?

That is right.

When were you and Ed married?

January 15th, 1961.

Do you have any children?

Yes, we have one daughter.

How old is she?

She is two.

(fol. 131] Q Referring, Joanne, back to the events of

February 2nd, 1964, which was a Sunday—the day Ed

went to the station. Do you recall that day?

A Yes.

Q What was the first indication you had that day that

Ed was going to the station for questioning?

A ’phone call early in the morning.

About what time did they call?

About eight.

Who was the call for?

For Edward.

Was it from the police station?

I believe so.

Did he tell you that they had asked him to come up

for questioning?

Yes.

What time did they ask him to come?

About one.

Did he to to the station about one?

Yes, he did.

POPO PO PO Po

Oro PO POP

POPO YS

Q Where did you go while he went to the station?

A I stayed at my mother’s and had dinner. Then I

was going home, to my home at 312 Seames Drive.

Q Did you stop at the station to pick up the keys to

the house?

A Yes, I did.

(fol. 182] Q Did somebody go below and get the keys

to your house?

Yes.

Did you see Ed at that time?

No, I didn’t.

Some time later did you see Ed at the station?

Yes.

What were the circumstances?

After the baby was asleep, I was doing the dishes.

Two officers came to the house and told me that Edward

wanted to see me at the station.

Q What time was that?

A Between three and three-thirty.

THE COURT: We will take a five minute recess while

the bells are ringing.

(Recess 12:00 to 12:05 noon)

Q Please keep your voice up. I am standing back so

if I can hear you everybody can. About three to three-

thirty, as I understand, two police officers came to your

home, on Sunday, February 2nd, and said that Ed would

like to see you at the station?

A Yes.

Q Did you recognize the officers?

A No.

Q Were they in uniform or plain clothes?

(fol. 133] A _ In plain clothes.

Q Did you accompany them to the station?

A Yes.

Q Tell us what happened then.

A I was lead upstairs, I believe to the third floor,

and I was allowed to see Edward.

Q How long did you see him?

A About five minutes.

Q Then what happened?

POPS Prop

A I was asked if I knew my way out. I said, “Yes”.

One officer said he would take me downstairs. When |

got downstairs, he asked me to wait in a room because

Captain Stipps wanted to speak with me.

Q That was on the second floor?

A Yes.

Q Did Captain Stipps speak with you?

A Yes, he did.

Q Tell us about your conversation with Captain

Stipps?

A Captain Stipps asked me my name, and my maiden

name. Then he wanted to know what Edward had told

me upstairs. I told him it was just plain conversation;

it was nothing concerning any case or anything—just

concern over me and the baby.

Q What did he say then?

A Then he asked—oh, something about if Edward

and I were compatible. I said, “Yes”. He said, “Why, if

[fol. 184] you have been married three years do you have

only one child?”

(Witness weeps )

THE COURT: Why don’t you sit down? You had

better bring her a glass of water.

MR. DEVINE: Do you think you can go on now?

WITNESS: I think so. I am sorry.

MR. DEVINE: All right.

A (Continuing) Then he asked me if Edward had

any other girl friends. I said, “No”. He said he knew

for certain that he did. I said I didn’t believe that, be

cause I knew my husband. Then he went back to what

Edward had talked to me about upstairs, and if I with-

held any information he could give me a prison sentence,

and things like that; and after he let me go.

Q What effect did this questioning and threatening

have on you?

I was very nervous. I could just barely drive home.

Q When you got to your home, who was there?

A My mother-in-law.

Q That is Edward’s mother—Mrs. Coolidge, Sr.?

A Yes.

Q I understand that sometime later that night—I be-

lieve Sergeant McBain and Inspector Glennon, who you

heard yesterday, said at about ten-thirty they went to

your house?

A Yes.

{fol. 185] Q Do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q Were they in uniform or in plain clothes?

A Plain clothes.

Q Was your mother-in-law there at that time?

A Yes.

Q Did they identify themselves as police officers?

A Yes.

Q You let them into the house?

A Yes, I did.

Q Tell us what they talked about at the beginning.

Did you ask about your husband and where he was?

A Yes, I did. When they came in and were seated

in the living room, they just asked my name and where I

went to school, and things like that. Then they had asked

my mother-in-law to leave. I asked them if Edward was

coming home. They said, “No, he was in serious trouble.”

He didn’t state what it was. They told me grand larceny.

That is the first I knew about that.

Q They told you that he was charged with taking

money from Cote Brothers?

A Yes.

Q Did they ask to see a washing machine, or anything

like that, in your house?

A No, they didn’t.

(fol. 186] Q What else did they ask you about?

A They asked if Ed had any rifles, and I said, “Yes,

he does.” Then I asked if they would like to see them,

and they said, “Yes”. I said, “I will get them”, and they

said, “We will come with you.

Q Where was this conversation?

A In the living room.

Q It was Inspector Glennon, Detective Sergeant Mc-

Bain and yourself?

A Yes.

Q Your mother-in-law had left?

A Yes.

Q When they said they would go with you, where were

you going to get the weapons?

To my bedroom.

Did you get them?

Yes.

Did you go to your room?

Yes.

Did they follow you to your room?

Yes.

Did you invite them to follow you to your room?

No. I intended to bring them to the living room.

Tell us what happened in the bedroom.

I got the guns out for them.

1.137] Q Where were they kept?

A In the closet.

Q In the bedroom?

A Yes. I got the guns out and they checked them.

Then they asked what Edward was wearing that night.

Q Did they tell you that they were going around and

checking out firearms and any suspects that they had in

the Mason case?

A No.

Q And did they tell you that you didn’t have to give

them these weapons unless you wanted to?

A No;I felt that I had to.

Q Did they tell you that your husband had given

them permission to come over there?

A No; they never said anything.

Q Or to take the weapons? Is that right?

A Yes.

Q You say they asked you what he was wearing that

night?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What night is being referred to now?

MR. DEVINE: Yes, Your Honor.

Q What night were they referring to?

A January 13th.

Q That is the night the Mason girl disappeared?

POPrO PO pO pop

(fol. 188] A Yes. I had the four pair of trousers

folded. They were on—I forget what you call it—the

hamper. They were on top of the hamper. I put them

on the bed, and they opened the four pair of trousers—

Q Were these work trousers?

A Yes.

Trousers which Ed wore when he worked at the

Cote Baker?

A Yes, they were issued from Cote Brothers. I sug-

gested it might have been one or two pair—according to

how they were in the pile. They checked these two more

closely and they decided to take one.

Q Did they ask if these garments had been cleaned

since January 13th?

A Yes, they did.

Q What did you say?

A I said I waited until I accumulated five or six

pair and then would take them to the cleaners, and it was

one-day service.

Did they take any of the trousers?

Yes, they took one.

Did they say anything when they took them?

They said, “We will take this pair.”

Did they ask anything about the cars?

Yes, they asked if they could check the vehicles,

and I said, “Where?”

One was a Chevrolet and one was a Pontiac?

fol. 189] A Yes.

Q Where were they at that time?

A They were in the driveway.

Q Tell us what happened.

A I went to the kitchen and got the keys to the cars

and gave them the keys, and they went out.

Q Did you go out with them?

A No, I didn’t.

Q Did you watch what they were doing?

A No. I went back to the living room and tried to

clean up a little bit. I did glance out the kitchen window

at one time to see if they had left.

Q How long were they there?

A I would say fifteen minutes or so.

PO PO ro

Q Then what happened?

A One came back with the keys, and then they left.

Q Do you recognize which one of them came back

with the keys?

A I believe it was Officer McBain.

Q Did they say anything about taking anything from

the vehicles?

A No. He said nothing about removing anything

from the vehicles.

Q Did you know whether or not they had taken any-

thing from the vehicles?

A No,—only what they said here. That is the first I

knew about it.

[fol. 140] @Q Do you mean that yesterday is the first

time you knew that anything was taken from the cars?

A Yes.

Q They didn’t ask your permission to take anything?

A No.

Q Now, one of the officers—and I believe it was In-

spector Glennon—gave you a receipt for the four guns,

one red jacket and a pair of uniform trousers, which has

been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit H. Is that correct?

A That is right.

Q This receipt doesn’t list anything as having been

taken from those vehicies? Is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And you say that they didn’t inform you or ask

your permission to take those things?

A No.

Q On the night of February 19th were you at home

when the police arrived?

A Yes.

Q With the arrest warrant for your husband?

A Yes.

Q About what time of the night was that?

A Between seven-thirty and eight.

Q What did the police tell you at that time?

A I believe Captain Stipps was talking mainly with

[fol. 141] Edward. He told me to go in the living room

and get out of their way. I tried to go out :n the kitchen,

and he told me to go back in the living room. Then he

came in and told me that they were arresting Edward.

Q Did he tell you to get out of the house?

A No, he didn’t. He left with Edward, and there was

about four or five left in the house with me. Captain

Stipps did mention that it would be best if I left the

house, and I didn’t want to. Then the other—-I don’t

know who it was—said, “We have made reservations at

a motel for you.” I says, “Well, if I have to leave I

won’t go to a motel.” Then I tried to get my sister. That

is when I went down to Windham.

Q You went down to Windham with your baby?

A Yes.

Q After packing a few clothes?

A Yes. I was going to take my own car. Someone

said that I couldn’t take my own car, that they were both

empounded.

Q Who took you to Windham?

A Two policemen. They were plain clothes men.

Q When did you go back to the house?

A I believe two days later, or a day and a half later.

I needed clothes. I hadn’t taken anything for myself—

just a few things for the baby.

Q When you went back were you able to get into the

house?

(fol. 142] A No. The locks were changed.

Q Were there officers there?

A No.

Q How did you get in the house?

A I called up Bill Craig. He went to the station and

got me a key, and I was allowed to go into the house and

get a few more clothes.

Q When you went into the house after you got the

key to the new lock, what was the condition of the house

inside?

A Everything was left in a jumbie, like when I left

the house; but when I went into my drawers, it was a

mess.

Q It was obvious that the house had been searched,

was it?

A Yes. My dresser—I didn’t go into Eddie’s—I was

just concerned with getting my own clothes, and—My

God!

MR. DEVINE: Thank you, Joanne. I have no fur-

ther questions. These gentlemen may want to ask you

some questions.

MR. MAYNARD: We would like just a moment,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may be seated.

WITNESS: Thank you.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MAYNARD:

Q Mrs. Coolidge, do you remember the evening of

January 13th?

A Yes.

You recall the night of the storm—the night the

[fol. 143] Mason girl disappeared?

A Yes.

Q Were you at home that evening?

A Yes.

Q Had you been at home all afternoon?

A Yes.

MR. DEVINE: May it please the Court, I don’t see

the relevancy of this testimony on this particular issue.

It is not within the scope of my direct examination.

THE COURT: I have a little question about it.

MR. MAYNARD: I think the relevancy may appear

if I am allowed to continue.

MR. DEVINE: May I request that my brother make

an offer of proof at the bench before proceeding with this

line of questions, Your Honor please?

THE COURT: Yes; I think that might be well.

AT THE BENCH:

MR. MAYNARD: I am going to offer some evidence

on the credibility of the witness here. To do that I am

going to show what she knew of the case and what she

[fol. 144] knew of an alibi or alibis which were attempted

to be established by herself as well as by Mr. Coolidge.

THE COURT: I don’t follow you.

MR. MAYNARD: I am going to show by this wit-

ness that she was home on the evening of the 13th of

January, the night this girl disappeared, and that Mr.

Coolidge, through her, attempted to establish an alibi to

the effect the he also was home that evening during the

time the girl disappeared from home, when in fact I think

she testified he wasn’t home; also she went to a neighbor

to get her to testify that he was home, to confirm her

alibi, and later decided she wouldn’t press it as an alibi.

This refers to Captain Stipps’ testimony that he told her

if she had evidence she shouldn’t withhold it.

MR. DEVINE: If it is offered on credibility, you

have to lay a foundation first. I ask Brother Maynard

if he contends anything which she said on direct exami-

nation is not true. I say it corroborates what all the wit-

nesses have said.

MR. MAYNARD: I think most of the things she says

are in line with what the State’s witnesses have said,

[fol. 145] but some things she disagrees on—namely that

they took a set of cartridges aid the fact she didn’t say

they looked at and checked the guns. She says she didn’t

do it. They say she did. And she is the wife of the

respondent.

THE COURT: I guess we will adjourn at this point

until two o’clock.

(Recess 12:30 to 2:00 p.m.)

MR. DEVINE: Your Honor please, when we re-

cessed for lunch I think there was a question pending,

and an objection.

THE COURT: I will exclude it.

MR. MAYNARD: May the record, Your Honor please,

show my exception, if it avails me?

THE COURT: All right.

Q Mrs. Coolidge, on January 28th some officers came

to the house when your husband was there, did they not?

A Yes.

Q Do you know who the officers were who came to the

house that day?

A I don’t recall.

Q When they came to the house did they talk with

you, at that time?

A No.

100

{fol. 146] Q You had no conversation with them?

A No.

Q They talked, however, with your husband, Edward

Coolidge?

A Yes.

Q Were you present during the conversation with Ed-

ward Coolidge?

A Off and on. The baby was sick. I was trying to

keep her quiet, and she was in and out between the kitchen

and the living room.

Q At any time on this January 28th do you recall

whether or not your husband brought out some guns for

the police to see?

A Yes.

Q Do you know how he happened to bring them out?

A No, I don’t.

Q Do you remember any conversation at all about the

guns?

A No.

Do you remember how many guns your husband

brought out for the policemen to see?

A I believe he brought them all out before.

Q Are you interested in firearms yourself?

No.

Q Do you know enough about firearms so that you

can distinguish between shotguns and rifles?

A No; only if I see a bullet, I guess. I know one

has a larger bullet, but I couldn’t tell you which one goes

to which gun.

{fol. 147] Q You don’t recall any conversation between

your husband and the officers about these guns?

A No, sir; not that I can recali.

Q Will you tell us what conversation there was on

February 2nd about the guns?

A Well,—

MR. MAYNARD: Strike the question.

Q On February 2nd the guns were again displayed to

the police officers?

A Yes, that evening—late that evening.

Q Yes, late that evening when you were at home with

your mother-in-law and the policemen came?

101

A My mother-in-law was gone at that time.

Q Yes, but that same evenin

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.