The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site is a compendium of information about the Jeffrey MacDonald case. MacDonald was convicted in 1979 of the murders of his pregnant wife and two small daughters. He is serving three life sentences for that brutal crime.

The Murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

February 19, 1971: Deposition of Jeffrey MacDonald by
Colonel Jack Pruett and CID Investigator Peter Kearns

SEE: March 20, 1971: Deposition of Jeffrey MacDonald by Colonel Jack Pruett and CID Investigator Peter Kearns


A meeting in the above matter was held at the Philadelphia Bar Association Library, 10th Floor, Widener Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, February 19, 1971, at 10:30 a.m. before Diane Scarangelli, Court Reporter.


U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division.

Counsel for Jeffrey MacDonald

MR. SEGAL: This is a conference being held in the office of the Philadelphia Bar Association Library, pertaining to an inquiry made to me, as counsel for Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, by Mr. Kearns of the Criminal Investigation Division, United States Army, and Colonel Pruett of the same agency. The inquiry was made earlier this week about whether we can arrange an interview with Dr. MacDonald, and it was set up for this morning at the convenience of the parties.
I would like, if I may, just so that we understand what we are doing here and why we are here, if you would indicate to me what is your specific assignment in regard to your desire to interview Dr. MacDonald?

COLONEL PRUETT: As you know, we are from the United States Army, CID agency in Washington, D.C. You know our credentials, our identification: Criminal Investigators for the United States Army.
The basis of our reasons behind wanting to speak to you is to get further into the murders of the MacDonald family back on the 17th of February, 1970. We have been directed to continue and participate in this active, ongoing investigation.
We specifically wanted to contact you personally before attempting to interview Dr. MacDonald, in that it has been indicated to us by the Kassab family that you desire that we speak to you, as his counsel, prior to talking to Dr. MacDonald.

MR. SEGAL: Were you made aware by Captain Douthat in December of 1970, of the requests that I put to him to advise you or Mr. Kearns that we would be available, either Dr. MacDonald or myself?

COLONEL PRUETT: Yes, I was aware of that. However, at that time there was another action going on in relation to this investigation, which at that point in time we were not permitted -- due to the pressure of the work that was going on at that time -- to see you. However, we recognize that you contacted us. That is the basis for our arrival here today.

MR. SEGAL: May I ask, are you proceeding under any specific written instructions in regard to Dr. MacDonald as to what, if any, investigation you would make to him, or are you just going to generally question him with regard to the deaths that took place on February 17th?

COLONEL PRUETT: We are assigned to the general investigation of the entire affair.

MR. SEGAL: May I ask whether you have -- you or Mr. Kearns, or both of you -- read the transcripts of the Article 32 hearing held before Colonel Rock?

COLONEL PRUETT: Yes, we have.

MR. SEGAL: Have you also read Captain MacDonald's tape recorded interview of April, 1970, given at Fort Bragg to Warrant officer Grebner and other members?

COLONEL PRUETT: Yes, we have reviewed the entire case, as far as the evaluation of that data and information, the file, statements, records and so forth. This, as you will know in a criminal investigation, is an ongoing record to this specific data here. We are aware of what has transpired in the past. We are not, if you will -- if this is the basis of your question -- totally going over and over rehashing that investigation in its entirety for the sake of just reinvestigating. It is never closed. Other investigative personnel have been working on this and are continuing to work on it.

MR. SEGAL: Let me ask you: in the course of your reading of the transcript of the Article 32 hearing -- I am sure you became aware of Miss Helena Stoeckley and the evidence that was adduced about her -- have you seen or obtained the statement that she made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation shortly after February 17, 1970?

COLONEL PRUETT: We have certain documentation pertaining to Helena Stoeckley, yes. We have seen her. We have additional data on her but that's not really the purpose of this interview this morning.

MR. SEGAL: Is Dr. MacDonald a suspect in regard to the deaths of his family?

COLONEL PRUETT: Yes, and let me make this clear. This is one reason, I am sure, that the doctor wanted you here -- we desire that you be here initially, also -- Dr. MacDonald is still a suspect in the investigation, as are many others in this particular investigation. We will eliminate none from the investigation until we are sure that the evidence indicates that they were not involved.
Here, Mr. Segal, we would also like to advise Mr. MacDonald of his rights, and that we will comply with the legal requirements of the law.
The other day, when we -- and this was an actual meeting of course -- when he came to the Kassab home, I immediately suggested that we withdraw, in that the Kassabs had informed us of your desires, and of Dr. MacDonald's to have counsel present. We did not discuss the case per se, nor did we question Dr. MacDonald. There were some brief exchanges and so forth, but nothing involving the investigation per se. They were general comments on the Article 32.

MR. SEGAL: I have to confess to you that I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why -- whether the basis for Dr. MacDonald being here this morning to talk to you is with respect to the findings of the Article 32 investigating officer?

COLONEL PRUETT: The findings of the Article 32 investigation -- as you well know, the 32 is not a court. The court is a hearing, as you know of the nature of a preliminary hearing or grand jury type. We are still conducting the investigation of the United States Army, which has a responsibility. The Bureau of Investigations is not conducting this investigation. You, as the attorney, are not conducting this investigation. We have been directed to continue the investigation. We have not eliminated the possibility of others being involved in this particular crime, either military or civilian. Therefore, we are keeping a straight -- open mind about the investigation, and I will be totally candid with no reservations whatsoever. We have many areas to explore, and I am sure you are aware of it.

MR. SEGAL: What troubles me is, if in fact there is a sincere effort to investigate the facts surrounding the killing of February, on what basis can it be handled entirely by the CID, whereas there are civilians involved who do not live on the reservation, and therefore are not susceptible in any way to respond to any instructions, orders, or any other directions given by military investigators?

COLONEL PRUETT: That's true. However, we have in the past, numerous times -- and we do each day -- investigate cases that involve surveillance, even though we do not have jurisdiction over the civilians per se. You know the investigative procedures are normally working either through the FBI or the local police or the appropriate necessary body in the area concerned. We ask for full cooperation and normally we get it. In those instances where we do not, there are other means and methods of obtaining the information legally. I want to reiterate again, that we have a totally open mind. This is not a prosecution. This is not tunnel vision type of investigation as I indicated to the doctor the other day. We are looking for facts and facts only. We have no full -- our references are the investigative efforts. Once we finish our investigation, then, of course, it goes to the judiciary.

MR. SEGAL: I want to respond, I hope, candidly. I would like to believe that there was an investigation going forward that would result in bring to trial the persons whom I have reasons to believe are the ones who are responsible for the deaths of Dr. MacDonald's family, and I want to state that does not mean that it is Dr. MacDonald, by no means. We have received in the last week, a number of calls, pieces of information that indicate basically that the identical subject matter which was covered by the investigators prior to the Article 32 proceedings are being recovered, and the identical questions being put again to people who were previously interviewed, and all focusing on areas involving Dr. MacDonald, which, among other things, the record of sworn testimony and the Article 32 refute.
Now, to be specific about that, persons have been asked by CID investigators within the last no more than two weeks as to whether Dr. MacDonald was known to personally use drugs. The record of the Article 32 reveals there were tests taken of Mr. MacDonald and Mrs. MacDonald, which categorically refutes there were any drugs involved, or usage by the persons. Yet that persistent area being placed before people only makes us feel that it is meant to reiterate to people that there is only reason to believe that despite the testimony of the Article 32, and despite all their statements, that they are either not believed or the Army insists upon proceeding on the exact same theory that went on before.

COLONEL PRUETT: Let me be quite candid with you. As I say, we do not have tunnel vision. I am not at liberty to disclose to you the other investigative activity that is being conducted at this time into other aspects of the case.
Necessarily, since I have injected into this record, and around the first year -- even prior to that for some time -- it is my responsibility to go back from the 17th of February, and even prior, and convince myself of what is fact and what is not fact, the loose ends, and those things that must be tied up. I agree that there are certain information that are being, if you will, reinvestigated. Certain questions are being asked. That's to satisfy me, that it was done properly, that it is the absolute correct truth to either support a charge or to refute a charge. I am not disagreeing with your sources of information. Certainly there have been questions asked. We have been totally truthful with everyone that we have contacted. This is not to cast any aspersion upon the doctor's reputation. It is to satisfy us that we are doing a proper investigation.

MR. SEGAL: One of the matters that troubled us about [whether] the investigation was proper or not was that at a number of junctures we felt that other CID investigators -- I specifically am not referring to you or Mr. Kearns here -- we believe, misrepresented facts -- perhaps as investigative technique, perhaps out of malice, I don't know -- that we would have hoped that in a reinvestigation that would have not occurred again. Mr. Ivory, who is exactly one of the investigators who I believe out of the grossest incompetence, out of malice, made misrepresentations prior to the beginning of the Article 32 proceedings. He was engaged in the interview of Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson in Long Island. That was in the last two weeks. They asked him if he was recording the conversations. He said he was recording the conversation. They agreed to proceed with the interview with him, and give him whatever information he wanted, with the assurance by Mr. Ivory that he would give them a copy of a tape. He made that representation, that he would give it to him.

MR. KEARNS: I made that representation.

MR. SEGAL: Then it turned out that it could not be done, either contrary to procedure or --

MR. KEARNS: They were told that they would have the transcript as soon as I had it transcribed. It has not been transcribed. I haven't seen the transcript. So, they will get it.

COLONEL PRUETT: Why don't you explain the conduct of that interview so he gets it straight.

MR. KEARNS: Mr. Stevenson was not at home when I first went to the house. I introduced myself. I introduced the purpose for the interview. I requested an oral waiver that it be tape-recorded, and they would receive it. I requested a waiver that if she wanted another female present, to be present, if not would it be acceptable just the two of us with Mr. Ivory present. She said, "Yes."
I received a voluntary waiver. Her husband would not be present. We then went into the interview.
She agreed to the tape, as long as I kept it off her table. So what occurred then, doctor and Mr. Segal, is that we talked perhaps for a half an hour, 45 minutes. Mr. Stevenson called from where he was, asked to talk to me on the phone, asked my purpose of being there. He generally objected to the interview, and said that he would be home around 7 o'clock. I told him that I would stop the interview. He then said, "Well, let me talk to my wife again." He talked to his wife. She came off the phone and said, "He says it is okay as long as I am not too upset."
We continued the interview, and approximately an hour later he called again. I am not sure of this; I just surmise that he was apparently surprised that we were still in interview. He then told her -- not me, because he didn't talk to me -- that he preferred that we wait until he got home. She asked me for a transcript. I said, "Yes, I will make one available. I will check with my boss. As far as it goes right now, you will get a transcript. I have to take it back and get it typed, but yes, we will make it available."
They didn't want to be interviewed at the home, because the children were kind of close. They didn't know the circumstances, and they preferred it not. I made arrangements to have an interview in a motel, which was pointed out to by Mrs. Stevenson. The re-interview -- I never finished my interview. Her door broke. We replaced her door, by the way.
We went to the motel, where at 7:00 p.m., 1900 hours, we were to meet both of them for the re-interview, and finish her interview personally. Then we interviewed him. He arrived at 7:00 p.m., pointed out that he had been in contact with Mr. Kassab, who in turn requested that he not be interviewed, and that Mrs. Stevenson not be interviewed without his legal counsel being present, his lawyer. He didn't specially mention you or anyone else, just that he wanted his lawyer present. I agreed to this. He said he was willing to be interviewed but he would go along with what his father-in-law said. He asked about the transcript. I said, "Yes, sir, it will be made available to you when we get it done. I will make sure you get a copy, with your wife's permission, if she wants you to have a copy."
I did not contact the Stevensons again, because of that request for legal -- that there was no sense going to everybody we wanted to interview, knock on the door, travel all over the country, and find everybody wanted a legal conference.
We went back to the Kassab family and then we will find out what the problem is, then we will go out and re-contact the Stevensons. We will decide when I will have my next contact with the Stevensons and then the transcript. But she has to give me a written waiver to let me have a copy.

MR. SEGAL: Let me just covey to you that it was just not a question of transcript, but a question of the tape.

COLONEL PRUETT: We have no hesitancy to give you a copy of the tape.

MR. SEGAL: All I can say to you is the Stevensons came away with the impression that they would originally have it available. Thereafter they were told it might be contrary to Army procedure to make it available. This left them in a sense feeling that there was an area that was left quite unclear for them. If you say it can be made available --

COLONEL PRUETT: I have no hesitancy whatsoever in providing Mrs. Stevenson a copy of the tape and a copy of the transcript.

MR. KEARNS: Can we have a copy of this transcription?

COLONEL PRUETT: I want to get the proper rapport between you and I and Mr. Kearns and the doctor here. And that is, whether or not you feel it or not, we are on the fact-finding mission; and that's exactly what we are going to do this time.
I am not here to rehash the Article 32, only those portions of it which impact upon the investigation. I have no intention of doing it at this time. I don't say to you that this is a totally fresh approach, either, because in some cases it cannot be. We are going to continue the investigation. We are going to speak with everyone who will talk to us, and if they want a copy of their statement or any interviews and so on, they may have it. We have no objection. They are entitled to it. We have nothing to hide. I will be quite frank with you there. We are not trying surreptitious moves of tape recording any of the conversations unless they permit us to. We are not conducting any electronics or eavesdropping anywhere within this investigation. I will not permit it. There is no legal basis for it, and we are not going to do it.
Let me be quite honest with you on another direction. We have no time limit. There is no statute on murder. There is jurisdiction for whomever it may be, military, civilian, or what have you. So, as far as pressing on with the investigation, this we are going to do. There will be no withdrawal from this case. In all due honesty, to the good doctor and yourself here, let me say that we have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing, no subterfuge.
Let me real frank on that point. They want tapes, they get tapes. If they want the transcriptions, they get them. Frankly, as I mentioned to him on Monday morning, as I mentioned to the doctor, we are looking for help. If he is totally innocent it will come out. There have been many, many of them where the suspicion was cast. As time goes on we remove those suspicions. All we are after are the perpetrators of the crime.

MR. SEGAL: Well, let me say this. One, I have no reason to not accept what you say at this junction, that you are going to try to bring a fresh approach to this matter. You will, I think, because you know the history of the case, and somewhat appreciate my own --

COLONEL PRUETT: I know why you are apprehensive.

MR. SEGAL: -- for my inquiries. Because there are things that happen which are a matter of record, so we don't need reiteration between us -- we have all been aware of it -- that would leave any reasonable, sensitive person disturbed about a good many important things that have happened before. From our standpoint of the case, and information we give you, there will be no hesitation on my part -- and I am speaking for Dr. MacDonald too -- there is nothing that he knows that has not already been said totally and completely. But he will clarify, if you need additional questions now. Because there isn't absolutely any doubt in the mind of those who have worked with this thing -- perhaps we are privy to things that you are not privy to. There is completely no basis at all for Dr. MacDonald being a suspect. It doesn't mean that you can't feel that way. I am satisfied that we have clarified some of the underlying concerns here, and if there are questions that now you want to put to Dr. MacDonald, that's fine with us. The only thing I want to suggest, judicially, it is not an easy thing. I will say it for Dr. MacDonald because I know him almost better than himself.
We have had his head opened up and examined. We have learned everything that makes this man tick. It is not totally easy to relive over and over the terrible thing that happened February 17. To the extent that you can ask specific things that you are really interested in of him, fine; rather than a total or re-narration of the whole horrible situation. It may be imperative that you get some narration. I am not objecting to that. I am urging you to have some consideration of that situation. Ask whatever you want to ask, but it would not, I think, be helpful totally in terms of Dr. MacDonald's feelings, and generally his trying to rebuild himself from that time to have to, you know, like relive everything that we already lived through with Walter Reed, the Article 32, and the April interview with the CID. With only that request to you, I put it to you in that fashion, as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more that I want to ask.
Jeff, there is no reason why at this point Colonel Pruett and Mr. Kearns can't ask you questions.

COLONEL PRUETT: Let me say something. Don't misunderstand us. We aren't cold-blooded, and have no compassion for the circumstances surrounding Dr. MacDonald's very, very unfortunate loss of his family. But you must understand from an investigative side of it, if we are going to be totally impartial, that we must take and review the facts as they are, or were at the time. The reason for wanting to work with the doctor, we need his help. Not only from him, but every member of his family, his friends, or any enemies he may have had. Otherwise, we cannot conduct a full, impartial, accurate investigation.
At the same time, we cannot ignore -- we cannot at this point in time ignore the fact that there are many unresolved questions, things that tend to leave a suspicion upon the doctor. If we remove those, I will be the first man to tell you, Mr. Segal. In the meantime, we must ask some questions, if he would respond to them.
In order to comply with the law, I must, in our own protection, advise him of his rights.

MR. KEARNS: You can get a chance to see our identification. My name is Kearns. I am a criminal investigator, assigned to the United States Army Criminal Investigation Agency in Washington.

COLONEL PRUETT: Here is mine, doctor.

Q Doctor, I have to advise you of your rights prior to asking you any questions, even though you are represented by counsel.
I have before me a waiver certification that I will read. I would like you to read it. Thereafter, you can discuss it with your counsel, and it contains your basic rights in this interview.
Initially, I have to identify myself, which I have done.
I have to inform you that we would like to question you about the murder of your wife, Colette and your two children, Kimberly and Kristen.
I have to further advise you that you are suspected of the offense of murder.
You must understand that you have the perfect right to remain absolutely silent. You do not have to say anything. Anything you say or do during the interview may be used against you in a court. I would like to point out at this time, that although we are Army Criminal Investigators, I understand that you have a reserve commitment. Therefore, you are not certain. You could not be recalled for court martial under our present laws.
We can make available all information of our investigation to the appropriate federal agency, who can make arrest and can introduce such evidence if it is legally sufficient before a federal court. So, I want to dispel any fact that what we obtain during our investigation could not be used and introduced against you.
A Yes.
Q You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before you are asked any questions, and you also have the right to have him present during your questioning.
You must understand that, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you free before any questioning begins, if you wish.
If you decide to answer questions now with or without your lawyer being present, you can stop at any time; furnish no explanation, just stop. You can stop answering questions at any time.
You also have the right to stop and confer with you legal counsel prior to any answer.
Based upon this advisement, the waiver of rights in the first person, you stated would read to this effect: "I have read this statement of my rights, and I understand what my rights are. I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time."
You may strike that out, if you prefer to have Mr. Segal here. I understand that Mr. Segal is your retained legal counsel, and is your lawyer. Do you prefer to have him present during the interview?
A Yes.
Q Then you can just interject there, "I am represented by Mr. Bernard Segal, and he is present during this interview.
"I understand, and I know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me, no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me."
Do you understand your rights as I have explained them?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any questions whatsoever regarding your rights?
A No.
Q Would you read this please? Fill it out as you see the spaces are there for your names and my name and Colonel Pruett's name.
Is there any question now about the legal sufficiency of the advisement of rights?
A No. Just sign it here?
Q Yes.

MR. KEARNS: Would you sign as witness, please, Mr. Segal?


COLONEL PRUETT: I appreciate your comments earlier, Mr. Segal, in reference, if you will, to a complete rehash or discussion of the events that too k place on the 17th, 18th and so on of February. We feel they are certain aspects that we should go through again for our own edification, and not just directly with respect to going through the same documents and paper, and the same testimony and so on prior to the past, but I would like to begin with the doctor, to go back to some of the time prior to the 17th of February, as best as you can recall the frame of the 1st to 15th of February, if you will, those two weeks prior. What we are after, as I said before, is your assistance in find out some of your former associates, some of your closer friends, both the intimate friends and friends of the family.
We would also like to know some of the people that you know have personal knowledge of, that you have treated specifically in drug abuse programs, either within the military facility or outside the military facility.
What we are looking for, if you will, is that proverbial straw [sic] in the haystack. So, if you can recall, and if at any time you have anything you want to inject, please interrupt.
Q I would like to go back to about the first of February, and recall from you alone as to what transpired during those two weeks. We feel that there is some information within those two weeks, 1st of February to the 15th.
A You want a documentary narrative --
Q Something generally recalled from you. I realize we are talking over a year ago. Maybe we can tickle your memory a little.
A Can you ask me any specific questions? I was at work.
Q You were on duty during the two-week period?
A Right.
Q You weren't on leave or vacation or time off?
A Yes.
Q You were on duty, on duty station at Fort Bragg?
A I was working in a group surgeon's office.
Q Your preventive medicine office?
A Right.
Q How about some of the drug abuse people that you were treating or associating with during that time frame?
A Right.
Q You were out at Cape Fear at that time?
A Right. I moonlighted occasionally. I probably had -- I really don't remember -- two or three nights, four nights during that time at Cape Fear. Then two, three, four, maybe not that many, two or three nights at Hamlet Hospital. This was the evening employment in the emergency room situation.
Well, in those kinds of situations, I would see people having bad trips. Usually, that was why they would come in the emergency room. I can't always tell. Everyone says they had LSD. Everyone that comes in, unless they know they have taken speed or something, they always say "Oh, God, someone gave me LSD." Or his buddy told me that.
I did have -- it wasn't this two weeks, it was in January. I had a heroin case, which I didn't see that much of. You didn't see hard drug usage, the harder injectable. I had a heroin addict to come into respiratory arrest, to come into Cape Fear.
Q Was this case made a part of the record at the hospital?
A Sure.
Q Do you recall his name?
A No. Since then, people -- I think the nurse at Cape Fear told me that the investigators were there looking for the records and it appears as though they couldn't find it. I called this man's -- this is one that I called -- this man's sergeant late at night, his first sergeant over at the 82nd Airborne. I then transferred him.
The reason I remember it is because a couple days later they had a drug death at Womack, heroin over-dosage. I thought that when I had transferred him he had died. Then I checked into it and I called the hospital. It wasn't the same name. That's the reason I remember the case so specifically. They had two drug cases, and I thought one was my guy. I sent him over okay, but that was a little before these two weeks. During these two weeks nothing really spectacular happened. You have people come in relatively frequently with -- for instance, when a young kid, 25 years old, comes in, they don't always say they came in for drug reaction. They will come in and say that he's got a pain in his chest. 25-year-old kids very often don't get pains in their chest. As you talk to him you realize he is jittery and nervous. Usually he will say something like, "I really need something to calm me down," this kind of thing.

Q Did you ever treat any of these more than once?
A No, not in the emergency rooms. We rotate. You never know what night you are working. You get a schedule.
Q Did any of them ever contact you after that?
A Yes, the kid from the 7th Specialist Forces that I called his company commander. But that was to help him, to not -- the wrong implication came out in the hearing. I called this kid's company commander to help the kid because the MP at the front knew he came in having a bad trip. I called the company commander. He said he would handle it, and sounded very reasonable. It was a major -- Delta Company. I don't remember the major's name, but I am sure it is available.
Q Where did he contact you the second time?
A He called me at home. His wife came in the hospital. She is about 19 years old. She was really terrified. He was in an acute psychotic reaction. It is not easy for a layman to watch that occur, especially her husband. I talked with her for a while and gave her my name and the hospital number, because he was discharged that night. To admit him probably would have meant more trouble for him.
He was okay. He went home on Thursday. I wrote down my name and number of the emergency room, and I believe a couple days later she called me to thank me.
Q You never saw him again?
A I talked to him on the phone. He called me at the office later. Basically, as I remember, it was to say thanks, because he went in and saw the major. He got a chewing out and extra duty, but nothing more than that. He said, "Thanks for leading me down the right path."

Q Let's go back to when you were an intern. I presume that you had occasions to treat or cause diagnosis of either addiction or people that had overdoses from barbiturates and amphetamines. Have you ever in any manner furnished legal testimony, opinion, or testified in any manner whatsoever against any of the people that you treated, even in a casual manner? For instance, by a policeman to state, "Doctor, would you tell us what his pupils look like?" Or to furnish an official report?
A I am a relatively liberal guy, but hard drug usage -- usually they have to sell to maintain the habit. This kid told me he was an addict. After I received him -- I think he was 20 or 21 --
Q This is the same fellow that the two guys brought him in?
A Right. His buddy from the trailer was also on heroin. They both told me that, and I said, "Well, how do you pay for it?" They said they sell it. The cop came in and told the nurse -- he didn't talk to the cop, and I was standing there the whole time. The cop said to me, "What do you think happened to him?"
I told them he had a heroin over-dosage, which he did. It was right in front of him. He didn't say anything. That particular guy didn't say anything to me, but at the same time he was conscious and alert and everything. I transferred him to Womack. I also told him I called his first sergeant. He had no family. I don't know if that's true. But I said, "Well, I am going to have to call someone." He had already given us the unit, so it was easy to get his first sergeant.
Q You never made any testimony or physical medical documents regarding the administrative proceedings or a judicial proceeding?
A No.
Q Never in your career have you testified at any time?
A Not at all. Just occasionally, you know. Usually it was to the psychiatrist. Occasionally, a word to a commanding officer. This was almost always. It was really trying to help the guy. I don't want to sound like Jack Armstrong or anything, but if a guy -- I would call the guy and say, "Look, I don't think the kid is a bad guy. He had a couple pills and he had a bad reaction, and I don't think he is going to do it again."

Q Have you ever had any at your home? They have not visited your home at all?
A No.
Q How about in the neighborhood; were there any around the neighborhood?
A We really were not friendly with any people in the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, I didn't know Pendlyshok lived next door to me until I was in the 6th group for about a month. We had our own circle of friends. Most of our friends ended up being couples, where the guy was another physician, because I saw him at work.
I treated my neighbors. Usually they would come by and ask and stuff but it was never for anything like that. The worst thing I ever treated a neighbor for was VD, a girl.
Q Have you ever turned any of them down, any of the neighbors and so on, any particular requests? We are looking for anything else.
A I would say the only thing that was so minor that it is not even worth mentioning, really, the people right next door to us, the Kalins. I was getting them all their medicine, initially. It started out I was moving. They were helping us move in, when Mrs. Kalin said, "Gee, he has ringworm." I would get them ringworm medicine, bring it home from our dispensary. It was every other day. So finally, I said, "I am going to have to write a prescription." She wasn't perturbed. That's the only time I turned anyone down from actually getting something.
Q How about your work out in Hamlet out there? Again, you are working in the emergency area?
A Right.
Q How about any treatments out there? Drug abuses, others?
A No, I don't know if you have been to Hamlet yet. They tell me now, friends I have, tell me that there are now so many drug problems. I didn't see that many. I saw a couple of people. It was questionable whether it was drugs or psychosis. I saw people having anxiety reactions. If they deny it and there is no needle marks, you don't know. I had a couple patients who intimated that they had taken something to calm them down. We never had any problems.
Q No confrontations with anyone with anyone in the Hamlet area?
A Well, I have had a patient like -- no, not as -- you know, not distinctly, no. There is no sense even intimating something else. It is not that exciting.
Q As you well know, we go back and we also come up with all the patients you treated, and anything that refers to you and so on. Sometimes things will slip. It has happened to me. You go to an emergency room, you ask for medication. Maybe there is a record, maybe not.
A Hamlet, of course, is much more that way than Cape Fear. Hamlet is the hospital owned by two doctors who run it, and it is some old battle-axe down in the emergency room. Sometimes their patients come in and they don't even write it down. They just take care of them.
Q How about activity over in smoke-bomb, over in the Special Forces there? Boys come to you and ask for treatment or help?
A Sometimes. When you are out on a jump or something, the guys would ask if you would give them some Darvon, which is the most I was ever asked for. I wouldn't give the guys drugs and stuff like that. They would kiddingly do it. I think it was kidding. They said, "Hey, doc, can you give me a bottle of Darvon?" We would kid about it, and I never gave anybody anything.
Q Is there anything in your medical endeavors in that specific area, federal and surrounding community, and so on -- is there anything at all that you can think of that might add or shed any light on someone being exceptionally angry with you?
A The only two that I can specifically pick out -- now, see, the thing is, it is hard to get this across. When you are dealing with someone on drugs, or psychotic, you know what is sane or logical to you or me isn't sane and logical to them. I might say to him, "Listen, I am going to give you this shot. You are going to be okay. I want you to stay off this stuff."
He might have a totally different reaction to that. He might think I contacted the FBI. I have people that told me that the firemen come in and, you know, peek in their window. It is just unbelievable, psychotic things.

Q We are dealing now with overreactions, somebody that was high when he was talking to you?
A The only two people, I am sure they have already been -- well, I am not sure. They said they would look into it.
Q The husband and wife thing?
A No, a guy Badger who I was counseling for drug abuse, who apparently has been badgered. This kid is on heroin. Because of that, you know, heroin is a different thing. The heroin guys are the guys -- I am sure Bernie can back it up -- are the ones who perpetrate an awful lot of crimes.
Q Let's divorce anybody that may have had animosity for you through the drug field, from anyone else that you have treated --

Q In the normal course of your professional work.
A You mean an enemy towards me, or angry?
Q Wrote a letter to your physician or made some derogatory comment to the commander or some other doctor in the hospital, complained about either the treatment you have them or it wasn't sufficient, that you have knowledge of?
A Again, I don't mean to sound like Jack Armstrong. I was in a situation where I ended up seeing the people who were complaining. My job was to suit them. So, I ended up always coming out fairly good. The guy would come to me and say, "Christ, doc, I was over at Womack. They wouldn't treat my wife." I talk to the people at Womack or talk to my colonel and get it all together and he comes around. They help me out of a jam. So, I did a lot of that. I never had a bad reaction in the Army. I had a couple at Columbia Presbyterian, that always happens. In the Army, I never specifically came on that.
Q You had one in Columbia where you had called the police and they came in?
A That happens a lot there. Yes, I can think of a couple right offhand. One time an NAACP lawyer brought his girlfriend in for a twisted ankle. It was about 12 o'clock. It is right on the east side of Harlem -- west side of Harlem. I had gunshots and stab wounds and people going into shock all around me. I had stretchers full of people. He came up demanding that I treat his girlfriend for a sprained ankle. I said politely as I could that I would when there was time. He started shouting and screaming about his right; it was obvious that I was taking care of the white people ahead of the black people. So I told him to get the hell out. There were words, and eventually the guards came. I can think of three situations -- hey, that's good. I just thought of something. I never even told you. The guard came and took this guy. When he was yelling and screaming, the hospital administrator got a call from the NAACP. I told him, and I never heard anything about it.
The other case was a soldier in Columbia Presbyterian. This was a long time ago when I first got there, who had just got back from Viet Nam. I was busy. I had 30 -- 40 patients this time in the emergency room. Not like theses places when I was moonlighting. I sent him over for an x-ray. I think his brother was the patient. He was a soldier, about 22 years old. They were walking back and they were and they were standing around talking.
Entirely innocent I said to him, "Will you boys have a seat over there? I am going to get your x-rays."
This guy jumped and started screaming, "Don't call me boy."
I said -- you know, I was really taken back -- "I didn't mean to call you boy. I was just asking you to sit over here. I am getting your x-rays."
He was yelling and screaming. Eventually, we have a closed circuit TV. The guards came running up, and they had a fight and threw him head first into the elevator, and this kind of thing. I don't think I ever told you that. He said he had fought for his country, and who the hell was I. I was wearing my glasses at the time. He said something about I was a four-eyed intellectual. He said, "How the hell can you call me boy?" The third one was --

Q Let's stay with this fellow. Do you recall his name?
A No. I will tell you, it was on the third floor, which is a surgical emergency room in the Vanderbilt Clinic, Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. I am trying to think of the month. It sounds like October, but I am not sure that was it. It would be the year of my internship, which would have 1968. You know, I mean this is really far out. This kid is a city kid. I left a year later.
Q Was he in uniform?
A No, but he was screaming that he just spent a year and fought for his country and who the hell was I to call him boy. He was a white guy.
Three kids came. I treated the brother, and this kid was responsible for his brother because the kid was under 18. I had to get his permission to get sutures or something. There was no problem. Then when he came back from x-ray, we had this fantastic scene.
Two or three guards really gave it to him, threw him on the elevator and stuff.

Q How about the third incident now?
A The third incident was a medical student. This one created some consternation. This was the only thing I have been through that was unpleasant all through my military career. I was in the emergency room, and we had a lot of emergencies all at once, bad emergencies, people really going out.
I had this guy -- I really don't remember what it was -- I know what it was. It was a 13-year-old kid who was swinging on a swing in a playground, and another kid walked up behind him and put a .22 next to his head and shot him in the head. They brought this 13-year-old colored kid in. He was obviously going out. We were doing things like innovating and putting a tube down in his lungs. We were doing this emergency medical treatment. You know, when the sirens occur and stuff, a lot of people come in, a lot of nurses come from the first floor, a lot of doctors come. Unfortunately, there was a whole -- like five or six are medical students walking around at the time. They saw the excitement and they came over and they were watching. I am sure you have seen emergencies, and you know who it gets.
So the nurses were clearing the way for the stretcher and everything. I was at the foot of the stretcher. His head was up there. I was at the foot and the surgeon who was in charge was taking control of the situation for me. He said, "Let's get in the operating room," which is about 20 yards away, across the hall. I was standing sort of in the doorway. I turned around -- I know this stuff makes me sound great. I don't mean to make it sound that way. It is really the facts -- I turned around and the kid was standing there in my way. I said, "Would you excuse us?" Really, there wasn't any more. I said, "Would you excuse us."
He said, "No."
I looked at him and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Here is this emergency; three doctors were waiting for this guy. I am trying to pull the stretcher. Another surgeon was up the other end and saying, "Let's go. What do you mean no? Get out of the way."
He said -- this was in the middle, just 30 seconds for background. There was a lot of trouble at Columbia right then. A lot of the radical students were sitting in, passing out pamphlets. Black people, everyone gets equal treatment at Columbia. Some of these kids were very militant. You don't be militant in an emergency room when someone's life is at stake. There was no reason for this kid to be standing in the way.
Then I said, "Well, get out of the way."
He said, "No."
I pushed him aside and he punched me. Another guy grabbed him. I kept going with the stretcher. We went into the operating room, and operated on the kid and the kid died. I came out later and the nurse said, "Hey, you better go see the chief of surgery. That kid is making a complaint that you wouldn't teach him. You weren't using this as teaching experience." So, I went up to the chief of surgery, and I told him what happened. He went down and asked all of the other doctors that were there. He said, "Dr. MacDonald, I am very pleased about the way you handled the situation. You didn't punch the guy back and you should have. You got the patient to the operating room as fast as you could under the circumstances."
At this time, I was getting more upset. It was just outlandish. I told the chief, "Hey, not only am I upset about what happened, but this kid ought to be thrown out of medical school. If this is how he responds in an emergency -- "
Q You don't recall the name?
A No.
Q What about the boy that died?
A I used to see 70 patients a day in this emergency room. He was a 13-year-old colored kid, and that's all I know. It was a month that I worked at Vanderbilt Clinic. I only worked 12 months, during July of 1968 to June of 1969. So it is relatively easy to find -- there was this big thing for a couple of days. I was getting called in and I eventually told them that I really thought this kid should either be psychiatrically examined and cleared for further study or kicked out of medical school.
We had this big confrontation and they assured me that they were going to see that he had psychiatric care, my chief of surgery. I never saw the kid again. Of course, I got different stories from other people --
Q You always do.
A That the intern turned around and punched a student who was trying to learn, which was not true. These were the only three incidents.
Q What about in Chicago now?
A No, people in Chicago had trouble with the cops. I am not a cop-hater. I mean, Bernie can you that. It isn't that at all. I seen cops beat up patients in the emergency room. The patient would call the cop a MF. This is the kid's normal language. So the cop would hit him with a nightstick. You don't hit a guy with a nightstick when he is already chained to a wheelchair.

Q He was just trying to get his attention.
A He got it.
Q He got his undivided attention, huh?
A Yes. Never anything like that. I had a fight one time, which was brought up at the hearing. It was no big deal.
Q You never heard from this junior med student again?
A No.
Q Did you ever know what happened to his career?
A I honestly don't know what happened to his career. I never saw the guy again so it never came up. I felt very strong about it at the time, and I made my feelings known. I went to see people about it, which I am not a chronic complainer. I normally don't do that. I really thought it was outlandish in the medical situation. So, there was this big -- it wasn't the chief of surgery, it was the dean of the medical school that ended up talking to me about it. He agreed something should be done, and said he would call in the student, and that's where we ended.
Q Let's shift gears, and go back to whatever you can recall in reference to social activities during this period prior to the 17th.
Now, either involving you, how long, or in conjunction with your wife and other members of the parties, other associates?
A Well, we had our circle of friends. We didn't do much. We went to the club to eat. Sometimes we went downtown, and had people over for usually a couple drinks, as I told the other investigators. Our best friends were Captain Rock who is in Viet Nam, and several couples, Captain Moore and his family. Captain Thoesen and his wife, Captain Butler and his wife. Really, that's what happened.
Q How about other associates? I am talking now in terms of military or any of the enlisted personnel that may have visited you during this period. I am talking about Harrison, and so on.
A Harrison was a friend, yes. This is really funny, because he wasn't a good friend that everyone thinks. He became a friend basically after the press conference that he held in February.
Q That was quite a conference.
A That's right. I will say this; he was a very good friend through the whole thing. He was all there. After ten days later, a lot of people couldn't really remember what happened, but Harrison was always ready to take me out for a drink, or bring me over to the pizza place, something like that. We weren't that good friends. He came over maybe once a week to eat. But this had only been very recently, actually. I had met him. He is a very unusual guy, as you might know. He is a little weird, but he is also very funny. He is a very hilarious guy when he gets going, in a morbid sort of sense, but sometimes it is funny.
He would come over once a week to eat and we saw him shortly before this. That was Saturday night, I guess. He was over until about 10:30. He just had a snack, and that's when we talked. That's when we had this infamous thing about Esquire, which Ivory and Schofield say it is the key to the case. It is just ludicrous. If there was one person in this country who got Esquire and didn't comment on those articles, then they didn't even look at it, because it was an incredible set of articles.
It was there, and it was new, and Ron and I talked about five minutes about it. You know Harrison. You know what I mean. The conversation was basically about the article on Lena and her black swan. Apparently she was fornicating with a black swan. So Ron and I were making some comments about this, and that's how it ended.
So, on his own, he came to me and said he had just had a news conference and I said, "So what."
Basically, at the time, I didn't care. Then, of course, from then on every time there was a story about the case, the last line in the story was, "And two days before the murder, Captain MacDonald was discussing the Sharon Tate murders with his best friend," but none of that was entirely true.
Q Did he offer to stay as a character witness?

MR. SEGAL: He was held by the prosecution at Fort Bragg all the way through it. Then they released him and off he went to 'Nam. As he said, to groove down his sight, to find some VC officer to pop off as he lay four days in the grass.

COLONEL PRUETT: Very dramatic.

DR. MACDONALD: Very, very melodramatic.

Q Is he corresponding with you now?
A Yes.
Q Is he giving you a score sheet?
A Yes. As a matter of fact, he is really a funny guy. He said some of my more stupid associates went down a road into a VC camp, and one guy got killed. He said, "Boy, I got five of them." His latest one said -- well --
Q Did you anticipate he was in Saigon running the officer's club?
A No, he is not that kind of guy. He is not a manipulator of goods and services, not a guy that makes fun of other people. He is a guy who loves action. I really believe him. I never saw him in the circumstances but he lives that totally. He really does.
Q What kind of outfit is he in now?
A He is in the 75th Rangers, supposedly long range patrol. He tells me that, but other people say they are really not in action anymore. His latest letter says he is placing acoustics in the base camp. Time magazine had it.
Q Have you ever seen him when he exhibited any violence at all in your presence, an argument, extensive argument with anyone, a really strong display of anger towards any particular person?
A No. I will tell you, he gets very emotional when he argues, but it is usually like against things --
Q It is all verbal though?
A All verbal. He will practice karate chops on a door frame to show you what he wants to do. I would say his greatest anger is directed against hippies and things like that, that are disrupting the system. You got to realize -- you probably again don't believe me because we are on the opposite sides of the table. I am a believer in the system. I went as a Green Beret. We talk now always as opposites. I am not trying to say that he was saying one thing and I was saying another. We would sit around and talk and talk how the country is going to pot. He would get much more verbal, and say they should line them up and shoot them. I never saw any trouble. I always heard. Every time he went away a weekend, and he came back, he had trouble in a bar. He stuffed a cue-ball in the guy's ear, broke a cue stick over his head.
Q How about some of his associates, others who were visiting with you?
A He had another unusual guy, a friend, who I would say was trying to help. He and his wife were both having a lot of problems. You are not going to believe this but I really don't remember the guy's name. He is an E-7 in the 7th -- this is terrible. He was a fighter. This guy was always in fights. He was a bouncer at one of the --
Q Local gin mills in town?
A Not in town, on post. He would put guys out with one punch and this kind of thing. He was having a lot of trouble because of an irregularity in his back pay when he was in Viet Nam. He claims he didn't know what he was getting. They claim that he knew what he was getting and didn't tell them that he was getting overpaid. So he was running into a lot of problems. His wife was ready to leave him. I did a lot of counseling for these two for a period of weeks.
Q In your home?
A Not in my home. I don't think they ever came to my home. I was at my home once with Ron. Ron brought me down to meet the two of them in their circumstances.
Q On post?
A No, off post, downtown Fayetteville. I saw him several times in my office and we had rather lengthy phone conversations. But this is the guy, like in the preceding two months before February, the stories were -- now again, these are not my documentations -- the stories were that he fractured a guy's skull on a mission in Florida. He punched the guy in the head and fractured his skull, which I hard to believe, but it can happen. He put a guy down and out. I think it is an E-4, E-9 club he works on. But he was called in to see Colonel Monger because he broke his ribs. The colonel in charge of the 7th Specialist Forces, now in charge of one of the missions. I forgot his name, but the colonel he was called in by said, "I understand you are the bouncer in the club." He said, "Yes."
"I understand you knocked down one of our men."
He said, "Yes."
"I understand you kicked him and broke his ribs when he was down."
He said, "Yes."
He said, "Why did you kick him when he was down?" This guy said, "I kicked him because he was down." This is the kind of guy he is.
Q These are stories that are coming to you from Harrison?
A Both Harrison and this guy.
Q And he was telling them?
A Yes, from what I can understand it was relatively unknown. The guy claims he had 60-some-odd semiprofessional fights. He apparently is very strong.
Q You never worked out with him?
A I never worked out with him.

Q Was he on the boxing team?
A He said, "No." I asked him why not, and he said he couldn't put in the time to train for it.
Q Were you strictly a bag man?
A I only worked out briefly with the boxing team. Again, the prior month before this occurred, I worked out with the whole team when they worked out. I would leave work and I would go to work out for about an hour like 12:30 to 1:30, then go back to work. I worked out with a whole team. Then I started giving them physicals, doing prescription work and treating their cuts and stuff, and injecting. They had to be checked by a doctor before each round. I checked the teams.
Q Did you ever have any problems among the team?
A They kind of got a kick out of a Captain and a doctor boxing with them. They cleaned me up. One time I got in the ring. After we got out of the ring, they were all laughing, and apparently the guy -- I think his name was Perris -- had just won like 19 straight or something. He was runner up in the 3rd Army. I had never boxed in the ring with him.
Q Is it a little unusual for a doctor, particularly your hands, to be engaged --
A Right. I did a little bit.
Q Of course, they can unleash a little of their pent up feelings, too, a commissioned officer, once they get them in the ring.
A Yes. That's what I think this kid did. But there was no big deal.
Q So really, across the board in reviewing those previous couple of weeks, and even going back to your internship, you really don't have too many incidents when you had problems with your patients or civilians or even the soldiers?
A No.
Q On the social activities, how about enlisted men at your home?
A I am trying to get a time frame.
Q Going back further than two weeks.
A I am just trying to think. I was very friendly with Sergeant Major Rylett. That was purely a business type thing. I don't think he came to the house. I saw him at Captain Moore's house, he and his wife. I don't think he ever came to the house. I had enlisted men to the house for Thanksgiving, some of my medics. We had two or three, I remember, real nice kids. There was nothing there, and they stayed a couple of hours and enjoyed it and left.
Q Do you know who they were?
A Yes, sir, they worked in the office with me in the 6th group, but I don't remember their names. I really don't know.

Q How long a dinner are we talking about?
A About five hours. It was a long thing.
Q Mixed drinks and so on?
A Mixed drinks and so on.
Q Anything unusual?
A The Butlers were there, and a couple enlisted men. I think my mother was there. It was Thanksgiving.
Q That is quite nice, to have some of your people in when they have no place to go.
A Right. They told me they were going to eat in the mess hall. They made me feel real bad.
Q I must admit, our indicators are that you had a soft heart for a lot of other people, too.
A On the contrary. The intimations that Grebner and Ivory throw around are completely unfounded. I sound like I am defending myself, but it is not true.
Q Take some of that with a grain of salt. As Mr. Segal indicated some time earlier: techniques in asking questions sometimes.
A They intimated things like homosexuality, looseness of affairs, that I beat my kids and my wife and I had these raging arguments, and it isn't true. It just isn't there. They are doing it again. This upsets me. My friends have already been through it once and now they are going back on the same things.
Q Let me say this. As we have talked about, we are not inferring that this is true or not true. It is a means of ascertaining the truth.
A Let me say this --
Q We must do something.
A If you can ask a legitimate question, fine. But that is not what they had on Long Island. On Long Island they said things -- they definitely said things that were not just leading or intimations. They were saying things like, "Did you like Captain MacDonald?" They would answer, "Yes."
"Did you know him well? What kind of a guy was he? But you haven't seen him for two years?"
They said, "No."
"Well, you don't know what drugs can do to a person."
The person would look at him and say, "Well, no, I really don't."
Then the guy would say, "Does that change your mind about Dr. MacDonald?"
I have 27 affidavits to that effect. I am not against you guys going around, saying you know --

Q Let's be honest with you. Things can be taken out of context. They can also -- even in the interview of the Stevensons the other day, I am sure you were misinformed.
A Yes, we were.
Q We started the story here in the room. Before it gets back to the end it is not the same as when you started it. If you have any question whatsoever in the investigation, please call us and let us know. We will clarify it for you.

MR. SEGAL: The current investigation?

MR. KEARNS: What transpired before.

DR. MACDONALD: I have a question for you then.

MR. KEARNS: If we answer it, we certainly will.

DR. MACDONALD: I got a call two days ago from a newspaper reporter. He said, "I understand the CID has linked Captain MacDonald having an affair in Hamlet with Gerry Brown."
I counseled her on her daughter's problems. She is a friend of the nurse who testified for me which is how I met her at dinner. I had dinner at her house twice. So, obviously I said, "How did this occur?" To make a long story short, Gerry got back to Newsday, which is the newspaper I am talking about. We found out it came from John Cummings, who is a reporter who had done a lot of stories on the case. Through an editor, Cummings said he got this story from Freddie Kassab, and Freddie hasn't even talked to him for three months. So it turns out that someone had told John Cummings the day after Gerry Brown was questioned -- but her neighbors were questioned, which is even nicer. You go to the neighbors and never even go to the person. This was last week. Gerry Brown's neighbors were being questioned. Someone tells John Cummings that they linked Captain MacDonald in an affair with Gerry Brown.

Q Gerry Brown was interviewed. She was asked certain questions about her associations, knowledge of you, you or your wife or your associates, habits, that she knew of. The questions that we have gone over, which we will intend to ask -- and doctor, we can't control how we relate them. If we can get them all tape recorded, you can listen to them, but we can't control what they say, how we ask questions. I gave out the instructions.
A Who told a newspaper reporter --
Q John Cummings, as you probably know, has a number of informants. I know several of his sources.
A Do you realize he got a copy of Colonel Rock's report?
Q He probably has a couple of your April 6th statements.
A He got it from the Pentagon. He said specifically the Pentagon.
Q We do know some of his sources of information, which they twist the truth and the technique that they use.
A No one knew Gerry Brown was being interviewed, and these CID --
Q Her interview. What does she look like? Is she heavy set?
A That's Bobby Sue Evans. Gerry Brown is tall and thin.
Q By the way, she says she hasn't lifted her rump in 25 years for anybody but her husband. The man that is doing the interviews is --

Q We will not slander you under any circumstances.
A I believe you two guys. That doesn't control guys like Bennie Hawkins.
Q There is nobody else running those leads down there except people from the CID. Mr. Ivory is in there.
A He should be court martialed, as you well know.
Q That's a matter of opinion.

Q We heard on the Island -- I flew from Washington, and he was on the next plane out. The purpose behind this, is not --
A I am sure you read his testimony.
Q I read every word of it.
A If you read his testimony, it is just inconceivable. Get yourself out of the investigators' role and be a defendant. You can assume whatever you want about guilt or innocence, but look at it from my viewpoint for a minute. How do you think I feel when Mr. Ivory appears on Long Island again, which is the most incredible set of lies and perjury under oath for an officer. It is just unbelievable. He makes this girl sound like she is a little flower child to dispense his daisies and then in his next breath he said she is a paid drug informant.
Q Let's be a little more fair with you. In that, concurrent with the conduct of the investigation, we have since the 14th of December gone through for a total reevaluation of the case. We have responded to -- and as I mentioned to Mr. Kassab, all of the allegations and comments that he made, those of which I am sure you are aware of; those replies have been prepared and answered. Those are -- I can't tell you this morning exactly where the replies are. We will go back to the Hill, to the comments, and comments, and individual senators and representatives who have written, and give of their constituents who have also written to them and written to us and we have replied directly in many instances to various individuals that have written. Some of them may be friends of us, I don't know. However, in view of your real strong feelings about Ivory and some of the other investigators, and so on, that's part of the reason to believe we have established this agency at the headquarters in Washington to detect any areas in procedure, law, training, in order to preclude a situation such as you are describing from recurring again.
A You realize they go on for about two hours?
Q You feel extremely strong about it?
A The three chief investigators in the case testified under oath they questioned six people.
Q I realize you can, and also know --
A You guys have probably done four times that already.
Q I assure you there are many, many people.
A You two alone, I am talking about. These guys ran a six-month investigation. They only questioned six people.

MR. SEGAL: While we are here, I don't know if you have ever seen the deposition that we took of the investigators.


MR. SEGAL: You read those?

COLONEL PRUETT: Yes. I talked to Captain Daily, and he offered them to us. I refused to accept them unless Dr. MacDonald authorized the release. He called you that evening, I think, at your mother's.


COLONEL PRUETT: And you informed us that you had authorized him to release them.
The next day or so they were produced and we signed for them. I particularly wanted them because of the other aspects of the case as opposed to the actual case, the investigation.

MR. SEGAL: You see in there things that were never asked in court. You had to be there at the deposition of Mr. Shaw, for instance, to ask him to explain his theory of the case, as to how Captain MacDonald was supposed to have killed Kimberly at the doorway, standing there with a backhand swipe, with a 30-inch pole or stick of wood. The transcript will reflect how it was done with persons going into the proper places. Captain MacDonald wasn't even there, but this was done. When it gets done, of course, it doesn't work physically, with him controlling the facts as to how it happened. Yet he has proceeded on with the investigation and he has never attempted to physically check out the scene of the crime, or place persons in the appropriate positions for a reconstruction. That's his theory.
Then we make the reconstruction with him controlling the facts, "How far do you say, Mr. Shaw, it should be?"
He said, "Oh, yes, I guess it doesn't work."
These things trouble us enormously.

COLONEL PRUETT: I understand that they do. We have no theories for you, Mr. Segal. Today there are many questionable areas needing to be totally explored. We offer no theories as to what occurred, prematurely on our part. There are too many unexplained circumstances at this point.

MR. SEGAL: I totally understand, but I was referring to an allegedly trained investigator to make the theories almost ludicrous in its explanation. You try out everything where you have a difficult case to solve. You try, you explore. If you think a reconstruction will prove your theory, that's fine, and never do you know it until you are confronted with it by the accused person. "Oh, yes, it doesn't work." But it doesn't change anything that has been done. That requires the utmost kind of reevaluation about whether that person is appropriately assigned as an investigator, in my book.

COLONEL PRUETT: I only offer this, and not as an explanation. I really would prefer not to debate the 32. I only offer this in explanation. Something may surface as you go back and you look again from the standpoint that the trial counsel only introduced what he wanted to introduce, which is his prerogative under the terms of the Article 32 -- what was sufficient or insufficient procedure-wise and so on. I really don't think we are at the point in time where we should discuss it, to be quite frank with you. I take your comments with a real open mind. We have reviewed the 32. You asked me, and we have gone over the affidavits, depositions, and so on you have taken. We have gone through the mass of testimony that has been given.
Doctor, you remain under suspicion because we are not clear in our own minds just what has totally transpired in the last year. We would be less than frank if we didn't tell you that you can't assimilate in a matter of four to five or six weeks data which we acquired over a period of ten, eleven months.


Q The cloud of suspicion remains. We need your help in other continuing investigations.
A I will answer the questions.
Q You have been totally frank with us. We don't want to prolong it for any length of time. We asked for a couple hours this morning, and we are willing to break anytime because I realize you are extremely busy. Mr. Segal, we would like to have several sessions with you. I realize that you may take the position in New York; is that correct, Dr. MacDonald?
A Yes. I took the position in New York.
Q You realize that our time is 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We start early and we work late, and the holidays. What I am suggesting is that at your convenience, anytime, any place, under whatever circumstances.
A Is this for today?
Q No, I am leaving it entirely up to you. When we called, you asked approximately how long. I wanted to get together with you this morning, and get on the legal basis on a totally frank and honest discussion of what and who we are. We particularly wanted to meet you, Mr. Segal. Certainly you sized us up and we sized you up. Whether you believe us or not, you will make your judgment. Whether you desire to continue under the circumstances, I am sure you will give him the proper advice. But we would like to continue. We don't want to cut it off. But I realize you have other matters.

MR. SEGAL: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

Q Shortly before you left Fort Bragg, you had a conversation with General Emerson?
A Right.
Q Either face to face with him or you made sure he was aware of certain information. Now, this is all second-hand to me, so this is what I heard, so the effect you knew the identity of two of the assailants, the intruders to your house on this night. This is second-hand-hand, now. You weren't going to furnish the information, number one; or, number two; you wouldn't talk to the CID about it. In any event, CID learned of this through General Emerson. Arrangements were made to try and get a hold of you to see who these people were that you identified. Contact was made with Captain Douthat and he said, no, he would have no interview with CID regarding anything.
Can you at this time clarify this conversation with General Emerson for me, and what you stated during this interview?
A It wasn't words to that effect at all. What it was was there were witnesses who had -- or a witness who had identified two: Helena Stoeckley and her boyfriend. Basically, I said at the time I was ranting and raving about them not having been picked up and questioned which at that time was my latest information. We were talking about what is going to be done on this case. I said it looks to me as though nothing is going to be done, but these two people are at least more legitimate suspects than I am. I don't understand how the CID has 18 guys sitting over there in the office, having coffee all day, and these two people apparently are available to be picked up and questioned. That was the context.

Q So this is who you referred to?
A It was not anything more exciting than that, although I think it is quite exciting in itself.
Q They were under the impression, the way we got it was that it was someone other than Helena?
A No, this was --
Q Of course, Hammering-Hank were quite upset and excited at the time.

Q I don't know if he was privy to the personalities involved in this, whether he could recognize Stoeckley and the boyfriend.
A We didn't even use names, but the reference was made. It was "possible suspects," as I was raising it. It wasn't at all anything more than that.
Q General Emerson may have told whoever told us the same thing, that there were two possible suspects?
A Right.
Q In addition, I have some photographs here, some you have seen before. But I would like you to go through them and I am interested in those people you could identify as having some resemblance, regardless of how remote, or that you can possibly identify as being one of the intruders. Again, anytime we have a break, by the way, you are still aware of your rights?
A Right.
Q Regardless if it is five minutes or three hours?
A Right.
Q I understand that perhaps some of the people you have probably seen in photos before. I would like to know again, along with Mr. Segal, if you can look through, starting with this. You can look through all of them, but these are just ID photos. Look through, and see those people you know.
A Yes.
Q I am sure that you have seen some of the photos. By the way, that's another thing I want to discuss before we leave today.

COLONEL PRUETT: There seems to be some misunderstanding on photographs. Again, generally, I know what these are, but if you have anything else, suspects now, and people that may have any information, or any information regarding any of these people that you recognize as having a relationship with the family at all.
A This girl, Judy, from San Antonio.

MR. SEGAL: Let me just describe something. Captain MacDonald is looking at a large three-ring green loose leaf binder without any identification. It contains about 20 black sheets of paper, with plastic folders. On page 1 there are approximately five photographs that are turned face up, color photographs, and he is indicating --

A (Continued) Well, it looks as though she is in some other ones.

MR. SEGAL: He is indicating identification from page 1.

A (Continued) This looks like her. That's all I would --

MR. KEARNS: We got these from various police departments. If you would like to see any of these again, I could probably go and get a better one.

COLONEL PRUETT: You realize, of course, they are not taken under the ideal laboratory conditions.

Q Can you identify her as one of the assailants?
A I probably sound like I am avoiding the issue, but not from this photograph, I can't do that. I just can't do that. There are a number of reasons. Assuming just for the sake of argument that she was there, the shortness of my being there, she was the least likely for me to be able to identify. I would say out of the four that I saw, the four people, she is the least likely. I said this at the hearing. You know, it was really quick. It is hard to -- it is really hard to get across how quick this occurs and how little I saw of her. This is not a case of looking at someone's face like I am looking at you and thinking of her. It was just like that. That's all it was. I know I was seeing blonde hair. For instance, it really does, when you look at the face -- I would say probably not from this -- the nose looks really prominent here. It looks like you would remember the nose right away.

(Handwritten to the side indicates this picture was Stoeckley.)

MR. SEGAL: Let me indicate they were talking about a page that contains three black and white photographs, approximately two by three inches, which each one pictures a white female holding a card, police identification card with the following information, "City, county, ABC, Bureau of identification, Fayetteville, N.C."
Underneath it appears the numbers, "36607," followed by the date, "8/10/70."

A (Continued) I got a weird feeling. I get an uncomfortable feeling looking at her face. I don't know.

Q We will get some more photos.
A I just have the impression that I was looking at a much smaller, narrower nose. This is very bulbous. It looks very prominent.
Q We don't know why she was busted here. She may have come off the street in a fight or something.
A Boy, he looks different. That's Badger. I don't remember him looking like that. That's funny.

MR. SEGAL: Let the record reflect, Dr MacDonald is looking at page 2, a black and white photo, approximately two by three inches. One is a full head to about ankles, and the other one is a profile of the same white male holding an indication board with the name Badger, followed by a date, 17th of February, '70. Underneath that the words, "David Edward," underneath that the number "92 36 7246."

Q What is your reaction?
A I don't particularity recognize him. I am just looking at his appearance and the look in his eyes. This guy got a penetrating look. He looks like Charles Manson.

Q The eyes attract you?
A Yes. This guy looks a lot like the guy that was in the middle.

MR. SEGAL: Dr. MacDonald is making a reference to a single Polaroid black and white photograph, approximately two and a half by four inches, of a white male, with a mustache, standing against the door. Is there identification on the back of some other --


MR. SEGAL: This contains the name on the rear of it, Wayne Eshelman, Jr.

Q What strikes you about him, doctor?
A The face, and the outline, and stuff. I am not sure. I don't think it is the same person. I am saying it is very similar. The eyes, you know, they are closed here. I am not saying the eyes. I don't want you to catch me. The impression I get from the eyebrows and the eyes is the same sort of kind of a foreboding look, not a pleasant look. It is -- I don't remember. Of course, we are getting very small details, a cleft in the chin like that. It would narrow the chin.

Q He is a Fort Bragg man.
A Is he?
Q Yes. Have you ever seen him before? Take a look at the back and the description, and see if there is anything you remember about him.
A Wayne Eshelman. Geez, I can't.

Q You can't recall that name?
A I can't recall the name. He looks familiar but he also partially looks like the guy I saw in my house that night. I am not saying they are the same. He looks familiar.

Q Some similarity?
A Right. This is the kind of a thing the artist had first. Then with some changes we ended up with the drawing that we ended up with.
Q Those composites?
A Right, exactly. This is close enough. In other words, that you know it is that kind of thing.
Q We have other photos that I will bring at the next session that are being mailed to us.

COLONEL PRUETT: There is considerable number of photographs that have been checked, and are being checked, and so on, that we would like him to go through, mug shots from a large number of places.

MR. SEGAL: It is a help; ultimately, a personal viewing might be in order for those people.

COLONEL PRUETT: Certainly, we would run a lineup, and this sort of thing. Then you get an eyeball to eyeball without a direct confrontation.

Q Let me go into one area that I would like to cover that you probably do not have to discuss with Mr. Segal.
In the psychiatric evaluation that you received or the psychiatric examination or discussions that were held with Dr. Sadoff from Temple, and those that were at Walter Reed, was there a Rorschach test given?
A Yes.
Q Did the Army do one?
A No.
Q Can we get the results of Dr. Sadoff's Rorschach test?
A They are forwarded to the Army psychiatrist. It was all forwarded.

MR. SEGAL: All of the psychological testing that were ordered by Dr. Sadoff and they were completely submitted to him. Every bit of that was sent to Walter Reed. Every exam, every finding, all the papers were sent. That was all made available.

A (Continued) That's partly why Bailey came down and testified on that, based on his viewing, supposedly.

MR. KEARNS: We are interested in the Rorschach tests. Do you know how we can find the results of that?

MR. SEGAL: I don't have any of those papers. I will be glad to contact Dr. Sadoff to discuss it.

COLONEL PRUETT: Could you authorize a release for us to have them?

MR. SEGAL: At this juncture, I don't have any problem. I want to talk to Dr. Sadoff about it. They are made available. I can't see any problem at this level, but I would have to talk with Dr. Sadoff.

COLONEL PRUETT: I think it might help us in our investigation.

MR. SEGAL: Let me consult with him, and by the time we set up another meeting, we will have an answer. As I said, again, I am sure that went down to Washington to Walter Reed.

MR. KEARNS: If you can find out those two things, whether it is feasible to let us have a copy of them which we would return.

DR. MACDONALD: It would be a lot easier to get it from Bailey. He has no privileged communication.

MR. SEGAL: You were asking me --

MR. KEARNS: Those psychological tests are to include the Rorschach tests that were done by Dr. Sadoff, for our limited use, say, 10 days. We just want to get them, look at them, and turn them back to you. That's all.

Q I am interested in knowing how Posey contacted the defense, if possible, the initial contact?

MR. SEGAL: Dr MacDonald doesn't know anything about this at all.


MR. SEGAL: I got a telephone call at the motel, having just come back from a hearing from a man who thought he saw certain things happen on the night of the 17th of February that seemed to him to be related to the MacDonald case that he had been reading about in the Fayetteville paper. This is quite well into the Article 32. The Article 32 must have been on for at least a month, a month and a half. We were having the interruptions. As a matter of fact, I can tell you the first contact we had with Posey was during the week he actually testified at the Article 32. I never heard of him, never knew of him prior to that week. I asked him where I could come to see him and he said that he would be glad to stop by the motel, because he worked for the linen service that serviced that motel. They came in there -- I don't know -- every morning, or that it would be the next morning.
I couldn't get any more specific information from him as to where he lived, and he wasn't anxious to give it to me. He said he was a little bit apprehensive but he did know something that would be of some help.
The next morning, he sure enough knocked on my door and in walked Mr. Posey.

MR. KEARNS: Well, I know the information he furnished. Is there anything else that he testified to in the 32 or other than what he testified to that he told you that you think would be of aid to us, or that was brought out in the 32? I understand you bring out what you want brought out and that's it. Is there something else that we can use?

MR. SEGAL: I haven't read Posey's testimony since August or September, right before the conclusion of the 32, and I wanted to review it for purposes of oral argument in the court. I probably should read it before I give you a definitive answer, but let me say that everything that he was aware of, that Posey knew -- good, bad, indifferent -- came out at the 32. Now, maybe on rereading I will find that there is more. I will assure you, for whatever my word is worth; there is certainly nothing negative, nothing different, nothing contradictory. The story never changes in any way at all.
As a matter of fact, you know, it was one of the things that impressed Colonel Rock in interviewing him when he examined him, the man's story. It is just an odd matter. You have to deal with the man. He is not given to say things in a flip matter. I don't know whether you talked to him or met him at all.

COLONEL PRUETT: I haven't personally, no.

MR. SEGAL: I cannot recall anything that was not brought out. As a matter of fact, many more things were said, actually at the 32, than were ever said in our interviews. Actually, he was on much longer, and he was telling as much as he apparently knew, but I had no recollection of a single thing he omitted. Maybe there was -- I would have to reread it.

MR. KEARNS: Did you get an opportunity to get to Helena Stoeckley?

MR. SEGAL: No, I have never seen her to my knowledge. Just the photograph that was told to us as being her photograph.

MR. KEARNS: Do you know where Posey is now?

MR. SEGAL: No. You know the episode when that whole stupid thing -- the name getting out. He was terrified, frightened to death, wanted protection. We drove by his house the minute we came out. We started driving by to check the whole neighborhood. He didn't have a car. We used to go through the neighborhood in different cars, checking side streets and back alleys.

DR. MACDONALD: Wasn't his wife pregnant or something like that, too? I ended up giving him some money to go away. I gave him $250.00. I heard later that it was $100.00 that Posey got.

MR. SEGAL: He wanted to get away. His house was broken into. At least, he felt there was a forcible entry.

DR. MACDONALD: Two or three nights after his testimony. The whole thing was incredible. It really was.

MR. SEGAL: Nothing was taken although there were some things a petty thief would have found some value and would remove. And he was very upset. I saw at the motel, you know the morning I was leaving to go to the 32. I saw him standing on the linen truck. I stopped and talked to him, and he was very upset.

COLONEL PRUETT: Let me ask you a frank question. I know what is in the 32 and I know what transpired. I assume my understanding is that you felt he was totally truthful at the time. Do you still feel that he was totally truthful with you?


COLONEL PRUETT: Since that time, have you given rise to feel, well, possibly maybe Posey was not telling the truth or did not give us all the information, anything of that nature?

MR. SEGAL: Absolutely no. I never heard --

DR. MACDONALD: We have had no contact, absolutely, since he left that day.

MR. SEGAL: I actually never found anything, because as a lawyer, I would be troubled with calling a witness --


MR. SEGAL: This is the kind of thing that happened to Garrison in New Orleans. He called this lunatic accountant from New York. He never bothered to check him out. We did some checking of Posey through the employer and others who had contact with him at the motel -- every conceivable person. We would ask, "Is he a storyteller? Is he the kind of guy who is trying to be the center of attraction?"
We were also concerned that we might have an exhibitionist, in a sense, who wanted to get known. Nothing was ever offered to him, I mean, at all. We were always afraid that he, because of his own impressed fears -- from the very beginning, he was very loath to talk about the whole thing -- that we would lose him. But we offered him nothing. Only after the whole thing was over and he got terrified and wanted to leave town, and told us about the break-in episode, I felt a lucid obligation. The guy wanted to get out of town for a couple of days. I said, "I think I owe you a great deal," and we gave him some traveling money.
Anything else about Stoeckley?

MR. KEARNS: No, the only other question I want to clear up before we break, was that the majority of the names that have been indicated as possible investigative leads we have, from Helena Stoeckley all the way to somebody out in Boise, Idaho. Those remote leads are from a little old lady that saw a hippie. Every day we get calls like that.
Do you have names of suspects -- probably even your case aside, because of what we just mentioned about the personality involved in such an occasion -- that you can make available to us? Or maybe letters that were sent to you that they saw certain people at such and such a place? If you disregarded them and feel that it is of no investigative use, if you can make them available to us, fine. I have hundreds of these. I just wanted to ask if you had any.

COLONEL PRUETT: We had in the last few weeks an excess of over 1500 names. The Army's position would show you the extent of this thing. Before the weekend is up, I am sure it will rise to an excess of 2,000 persons who have been connected with this investigation in one way or the other. We are still looking for more.

MR. SEGAL: I did receive several pieces of information after the 32 closed. One, I received a phone call -- I shall correct that. I didn't receive it, my former partner, Mr. Eisman, received a phone call from a man who was a salesman, who was in the hospital in South Carolina, and I think I have a note of it in one of our files, who told Mr. Eisman or left a message if he didn't tell him. He got the message that he had seen some people, and he had been reading about the MacDonald matter and the very closing phases of the Article 32, and thought that they would be of some interest to us to check them out. I tried to call him back that night. He had been injured in an automobile accident, I believe. I did not make contact with [him]. I was unable to reach him.
I tried again the next succeeding days and he was discharged from the hospital without a contact. I think I can come up with that one.
In addition, I trust Captain Gattelson has told you of the information that had conveyed to the Air Force investigators, including the sergeant who spoke to the Air Force investigator about people who lived back in the woods not far away, whom he said were worth looking at. I make no representations. Those people we knew about, and their names would be available, or either Captain Douthat would have a recollection or knowledge of it, or the Air Force investigators.

COLONEL PRUETT: We have been with them. However, we have what they have. We have gone through what they have, and Douthat, of course, has spent many hours with us from December. He has given us a considerable bit of information. You as the attorney, and so forth, would receive information that we might not have.

DR. MACDONALD: I still get a lot of mail. You get a letter that is obviously written by a psychotic from Minnesota, and she says she just saw the four people. After a while, I get them written on pieces of brown paper bag, with grease stains on it. You know, you really get -- I get phone calls. I got a phone call from a lady who said they were outside of her window, and she was from Minneapolis.
After a while, after you get a couple hundred calls and these letters, and they get weirder and weirder -- this lady called me at 10 o'clock at night when I was still at Fort Bragg, after I was out of protective custody. My phone rang, and she said they were right outside the window. I said, "Call the FBI," and she said, "I did, and they won't help me." That's what happens, though, like in the Tate thing, when that girl was sitting in jail, when it was in Mississippi, or something, and she told her cellmate that she was involved in the Tate thing, and that's how the whole thing started.
Can you imagine what the deputy said, "Yes, sure, lady. I am sure you know."

COLONEL PRUETT: We need all of them.

MR. SEGAL: I will try to come up with the number of --

DR. MACDONALD: I am going to look through all my letters. I have about 1,000 left. I might have five or ten crazy ones, stuff like that. They are in my household.

Q In the first week of February, Lieutenant Miller, or Captain Miller, or Williams, picked up some clothes from the house for you. That would have been fatigues?
A Right. He brought my dress boots.
Q Some combat boots?
A In March.
Q That was February, I am pretty sure.
A The latter part of February, yes. You mean when I was still in the hospital?
Q Right, This was at your request, these were released?
A Well, he said, "You are going to need some clothes," and I said, "All right." So he went and got my uniforms.
Q I saw it in the reading file.
A Well, you see, the reason he went over was to get me dress greens for the funeral. While he was there he grabbed some other stuff. He said they had guys with guns out.
Q Well, unfortunately, we wear guns. I don't have one on.
A He said they took them out and they were holding them down next to them. I don't -- he said three guys were watching him, and he went in and took out my dress greens.
Q The photographs we were asking you about, we touched on this the other day that he thinks some of photographs may be missing. Those were the semi-nude photographs?
A Right.
Q You had about 250 slides returned?
A Yes, I had boxes returned. I haven't gone through those. My mother went through them and said they are not in there.
Q Could you go through them and let us know? Not right away, at your leisure?
A Yes, I will go through them.
Q I can research them.
A The ones that I think are missing. I have not reviewed the whole series. My mother said she went through, that is about five or eight semi-nudes, nudes from the waist up and a whole -- I thought; now again, I assume I had taken a couple rolls of film at Christmas. We had basically none. Like one shot was me and Kimmy, and a few shots like that. But I took rolls, like two or three rolls.
Q The one that we have, I think, at this time, are copies of those that were returned to you?
A Right.
Q However, we are going to go back, as we indicated, and go through --
A I will go back through them myself. It will be much easier to talk intelligently like that.
Q Any of those that we have, any copies we need --
A All right.

COLONEL PRUETT: I don't know what else, other than time is running short, I will realize that. I think we should possibly get around to the point of when we may be able to get together again.

MR. KEARNS: We have many specific areas to go through.

(Deposition concluded)

Note from Christina Masewicz: The original stenographer's misspellings of "Dalphid," "Callen," "Christine," "Thosen," "Benny" and "Eileen" were corrected to "Douthat," "Kalin," "Kristen," "Thoesen," "Bennie" and "Helena," respectively, in this transcript.


Home  -  Contact  -  Scholarship Fund  -  New Uploads  -  Christina's Corner  -  Resource Page
Chronology  -  Claims vs. Facts  - 
Various Documents  -  CID Records  -  FBI Records
April 6, 1970 Interview  -  Article 32 Hearing  -  Psychiatric/Psychological Data  -  DNA Results
July 23-24, 1970: John Cummings' exclusive interview with MacDonald  - 
Affidavits  -  Grand Jury Transcripts  -  1979 Trial Transcripts  -  MD License Revoked
1987: MacDonald v. McGinniss  -  Mildred Kassab sues MacDonald  -  Court Records

 Parole Hearing  -  Kassab's Work  -  Bob Stevenson Answers Your Questions
Photograph Pages 


Go to top