July 26, 1982: Letter from Freddy Kassab to Dr. Stephen Shea
re: Jeffrey MacDonald
Note: Translation of the document following the scanned copy
From the files of Freddy Kassab
SEE: April 21, 1982: Dr. Stephen Shea's letter in support of Jeffrey MacDonald
Note: Translation of the above document as I read it to be
(Spelling, punctuation and grammar preserved)
July 26, 1982
Stephen R. Shea MD
St Mary Medical Center
Long Beach Ca. 90810
Dear Dr. Shea:
I write this letter because I feel that you are in the same position that I was in, in 1970, whereby the source of most of your information is Jeff MacDonald. I think you champion his cause because you have been convinced by him that he is innocent.
I must point out to you, that having read and heard some of the things you have stated as facts, you are quite mistaken. I will point out some of the gross errors in the letter you sent out asking for help.
Before that however I think I should state that to be fair to yourself and to those who agree with you. You should all get together and chip in to buy a copy of the verbatim transcript of the trial. Read it carefully without taking sides, then make up your minds. Oh yes I know, some of you attended a few days of the trial, but it did last over seven weeks, and the portion you heard was simply part of the defense.
Now to your letter dated April 21, 1982.
1. You realy should know how to spell Colette's name if you have an interest. (I say this in spite if the fact that I am the world's worst speller.)
2 No one ever testified that they found Jeff unconscious it was stated that he seemed to be unconscious.
3. No doctor, or anyone else for that matter ever said that Jeff had seventeen stab wounds.
4. As far as the stab wounds being "potentially life threatening" The actual statement was by the attending doctor, who said that if you have a 20% collapsed lung and the other lung collapses, you are in trouble. You as an emergency room doctor can use your own judgement. Jeff was diagnosed as having a 20% pneumothorax, that progressed to 40%. just before the chest tube was inserted. Would you call that life threatening???
5. Jeff never testified that the girl had on white boots. He said they were brown and shiny.
6. The M.P's description of the girl on the corner was, that she was wearing a rain coat, a floppy rain hat and NO boots. The no boot part was not a sure thing, but he added that she had good looking legs. His theory being that if she had on a rain coat and boots there is no room to see good looking legs.
7. "Neighbors also described seeing a band of people in the neighborhood matching the description." Not so unless you are refering to Mr. milne, who stated he saw a group wearing sheets at around midnight How they matched Jeff's description I fail to see. Or Helena for that matter.
8. "Two days later Helena burned her blond wig, white boots and floppy hat." That is only a partial truth. She stated that she burned the wig, that she threw the boots in the garbage because one of the heals was broken and that she gave her floppy hat to Beasley. Beasley, stated under oath that the hat was black not White.
9. I don't think I should go into your statement "She described items in the house that she could only know if she had been there" because everything she has stated in her so called confession, has appeared in print in the newspapers. I have no way of proving if she did or didn't read them, however her intense interest in the case is and was in 1970 quite obvious.
10. "None of the seven wittnesses were allowed to testify" That matter is now before the Fourth Circuit Court, as it pertains to the Rules of evidence. However of the seven, one was on Jeff's legal staff and five of the remaining six, did testify before the jury (but not relating to hearsay evidence)
11. Expert medical testimony was presented at trial that directly refuted Judge Dupree's "theory" but this was ignored." I don't know who told this , but no such testimony was ever presented at the trial.
12. "Had the jury been allowed to hear the Stoeckley wittnesses etc....." That is a matter pure conjecture. I say that, even given the fact that seven of the jurors in an interview with the Fayetteville Times (1'23/31) stated that it would not have changed their vote. The other five jurors refused to be interviewed.
13. As to the Article 32 being the longest in history, that is a favorite statement of Mr. Segal. Actualy there were 23 days & Col. Rock never stated that Jeff had been falsely accused. Nor did he ever say that Helena should be investigated concerning her "participation".
14. Helena was not the daughter of a high ranking officer. She was in 1970 the daughter of a retired Lt. Colonel. The rank is debatable but the fact that he was retired refutes the sujestion that he was somehow able to protect her.
15. "Dr. MacDonald was selected because of his involvement in a drug rehabilitation program."
I don't know who gave you this information, but it is completely at odds with the truth and Jeff's own sworn testimony, that he was NOT so involved.
(From article 32 testimony)
16. "Government prosecutors are attempting to block this investigation."
It is a matter of record that Mr. Murtagh in June of 1981 turned over to the F.B.I. the complete Gunderson report.
17. "The government presented a case without a motive."
That statement, as the record shows is not true, regardless of that the laws of or I should say the Rules of evidence are clear that motive is not something the government is required to prove.
18. The 56 sets of fingerprints that were lost or destroyed.
The truth and the record shows that 24 single prints remain unidentified. That is not an unusual amount in a "lived in house" What you were not told, was that the following persons who were Known to have been in the house, REFUSED to give the government their fingerprints. 1. Jeff's mother. 2. Jeff's brother. 3 The whole Kalin family who lived next door.
Furthermore Helena's print were not in the house, and to this day she has not claimed that she wore gloves.
19. "The hair in Colette's hand."
How you can make such a statement and retain your self respect is beyond my ken.
In 1974, the bodies of Colette and the children were exhumed for that very purpose and the hair was positively identified by the F.B.I. as Colette's It was so testified to at the trial.
20. "The unidentified wax drippings." What you stated is true, only as far as it goes. What someone ommited telling you was that, that same report (in 1970) went on to state that at that time the wax was old and that the propable source was Birthday Cake Type candles.
21. Your reference to the sketches by a unknown artist in 1979 (Segal refused to disclose his identity) These were done long after Jeff and his lawyers had photo's of Helena. The thing that should trouble you is that those sketches in no way resemble the one's Jeff had done in 1970, right after the murders. To say that his memory improved after 10 years. Well you can say so if you realy believe it. One thing for you to ponder on is: Why a member of a "satanic Cult" as you describe them, would be wearing a cross dangling from his neck on a check.
22. As to your reference to the polygraph that it is claimed Helena took and passed. I assure you that Jeff's Lawyers will avoid that statement like the plague, in view of the fact that Jeff was given a polygraph by his OWN psychiatrist in 1970 which he failed miserably.
Your statement and thinking that Jeff was convicted on evidence that was "incomplete and fabricated" is completely false and the record shows it. You do not state one single think that was fabricated As far as incomplete is concerned, I will agree that a the government had a great deal more evidence against Jeff than what they used in court.
If you are an honest person and I have no doubt that you are. That you have come to the defense of a friend, out of deep conviction that he is innocent, you must have something to base that conviction on, other than what he has told you and your gut feelings.
A young girl and her two babies were brutal murdered. Anyone should carefully study the evidence before supporting a man found guilty of such a crime.
To infer that the government, framed him because they had no one else simply wont hold water. I don't think anyone believes that to be the case.
Do you think that I would have pursued this for all these years if there was even a chance that he was innocent. NO I loved Colette and the children too much for that.