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

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

SEE: February 19, 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 before Diane Scarangelli, Court Reporter.


Colonel Jack G. Pruett and Peter E. Kearns,
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division.

Bernard L. Segal, ESQ
Counsel for Jeffrey MacDonald

MR. KEARNS: Before we start, I would like to introduce myself. Peter E. Kearns, CID Agency in Washington, D.C.
Jack G. Pruett, also a Criminal Investigator for the United States Army.
Prior to any discussion or asking you any questions, of course, I have to advise you that you are a suspect in this murder of Colette, Kristen and Kimberly MacDonald on or about February 17, 1970. Prior to asking you any questions or asking you to say or do anything, I must inform you of your constitutional rights. You have the right to remain absolutely silent. You must know and understand that anything you say or do will be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before you are asked any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before questioning, if you wish, and the services of this lawyer will be free, at no expense to you. If you decide to answer questions without a lawyer being present, you still have the right to stop answering questions at any time. You also have the right to stop answering questions at any time in order to consult with a lawyer.
Do you understand your rights as I have explained them?


Q Do you have any questions at all?
A No.
Q I have in front of me a waiver of the rights which I am required to have you read, and acknowledge that you understand it.
The waiver reads, "I have read the statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are. I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I am represented by a lawyer, Bernard Segal, but I do not want to have him present during this questioning, and I freely dispense of his services for reasons stated on an attached document."
If you want him present, then cross out that statement and put a period after "Bernard Segal."
"No promises or threats have been made to me, and no pressure of any kind has been used against me."
A Directly.
Q Pardon me?
A Directly.
Q What do you mean?
A Nothing. Go ahead.

MR. SEGAL: There is pending from our last get together, and pursuant to a number of phone calls I received from Mr. Kearns, a request to make available to Mr. Pruett and Mr. Kearns the Rorschach test results that were prepared as a result of an examination by the defense psychologist, and then given to the defense psychiatrist. We have reviewed this question medically, and we are of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to release that type of record to any person other than to medical persons, since they can be use of no value to any other persons except a qualified psychiatrist.
Further, in view of the fact that this material was turned over to Colonel Bailey of the Medical Corps, who is the chief psychiatrist assigned at the Walter Reed Army Hospital, to review, examine, and report on the medical health of Captain MacDonald and that those documents, along with all psychological testes, were made available to Colonel Bailey. They were in his possession for approximately four weeks.
It is our conclusion after reviewing this -- as I said initially on a medical basis -- that it would be inappropriate to release these.
I might say, it is our view based upon, again, the medical review, that it could not conceivably in any way aid anyone in the investigation of the murders of the MacDonald family, other than be an assistant among many tools to a psychiatrist, but no other persons.

MR. KEARNS: Notwithstanding what you have said, I will hold open the request for the tests. We do have a need for them. I presume in the future, if we have a qualified forensic psychiatrist who would like to look at them, I will resubmit the request. Since it was a medical person making the request, you might at that time decide differently.

MR. SEGAL: You should feel free to renew the request. It would be independently reviewed again at that time, based upon the purpose or the person who the data is to be used by.

MR. KEARNS: Rorschach tests were given?

MR. SEGAL: Yes. I say yes, among many tests given in the course of extensive psychological series of examinations.

MR. KEARNS: Prior to asking Dr. MacDonald any questions, I wanted to point out that initially, when we met in February, you interposed an objection to Dr. MacDonald discussing the events of the evening of 16th, and the early morning of 17th February, 1970.

BY MR. KEARNS: I will start the interview, doctor, by asking you a general question in this matter that we are interested in as criminal investigators, in discussing in detail this morning your activities during the weekend preceding 16, 17, February, and then your detailed recollection of the activities of the late evening and early morning of 17 February. I am making the question general because I know that Mr. Segal interposed an objection previously. This is what we want to discuss this morning.

MR. SEGAL: We understand your purpose. I want to make it very clear, and you ought to recall my specific request to you, which was, you have to accept our position, that is, that we consider it to be an enormous personal tragedy that has taken place to Dr. MacDonald, and that it represents an enormous personal effort to review that. And what I said to you then and what I say to you now, to the extent that you need not either prolong it or there are things that do not really mean anything significant to your investigation, that need not needlessly be developed into matters. There is a lot of other data that you have and nothing new can be added to it.
What I am saying to you, some consideration we request, be given to the circumstances as we know to exist. You need not feel that you are limited in any way to questions. What am saying to you is, we want you to have something in your mind. I can't make you consider it. I can just tell you.

COLONEL PRUETT: A step in the bounds of restraints that you are talking about. Let us know. We will change the questioning.

MR. SEGAL: Let's proceed.

Q Well, the general question again was, I would like Dr. MacDonald to recall generally his activities from the 15th, 14th, that is, the weekend, 13th, 14th, 15th?
A Yes, that's the weekend.
Q Start there.
A Well --
Q Take from Friday, from the preceding Friday. You were actually moonlighting during that weekend, right?
A Right. Sunday morning, 6:00 a.m.
Q This goes back into the record. That's about the time we would like to start from.
A I went from Hamlet at 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., Monday. I am sure you have seen the medical records and the patients I have seen. I told the story 15 times.
Q Do you recall any other names, any other people that you may have seen, bumped into that were in there, that were not recorded in the medical records, that haven't been seen?
A Not at time, no.
Q How about from the standpoint of the hospital personnel? I am talking about employee types, maintenance types, engineer types, clean-up types, nurses' aides, anything unusual in the staffing that night at the hospital?
A No. I don't recall anything unusual right now, no.
Q Only you and the nurse and the patients?
A There were shifts of nurses. I worked 24 hours.
Q What were the shifts of the nurses that night?
You went on and the nurse came on at the same time?
They worked on an 8-hour basis?
A They worked on 8-hour shifts, but I don't.
Q You do recall the ones that you worked with?
A No.
Q You drove to work?
A That's right.
Q In your car?
A That's right.
Q And nothing happened on the way to work?
A No.
Q Just a straight 30-minute drive out to the hospital, and that's it?
A It is a little more than that. It took about 50 minutes.
Q You drove alone?
A Right.
Q No one with you?
A No.
Q When you got there, did you sign in?
A No, I don't think so.
Q You just assumed your duty?
A Right. We sign in sometimes. I think there is a sheet there we sign in and put 24 hours.
Q Whom did you relieve, or the doctor over there that departed?
A There was a Dr. Sheepley. He left later. I stayed down in the emergency room for a while. He left a couple of hours later, I didn't see him. He left from the room that they slept in.
Q All the doctors, were they all civilian types or military types?
A Emergency rooms were military.
Q They are in Hamlet, right?
A Right; they just started in the program fairly recently, the military doctors.
Q How did you come about getting the moonlight -- the job there?
A I heard about it when I was working at Cape Fear.
Q Where did you take your interview? Did you go out to Hamlet, the hospital or how did it happen that you were employed?
A I don't know. I probably did it mostly on the phone. I was out there once before I started working, but I don't remember where or what. I really don't remember.
Q Let's go back even before that. When you planned for your medical license in the State of North Carolina, how did you go about that?
A You had to write letters and get verifications of your medical license, write to the national boards in Philadelphia. I had to go to Winston Salem for an interview.
Q Does anyone in the state have to get verification from you other than the interviewer in Raleigh?
A They kept all my records. I am sure they do some checking on the records.
Q But not to your knowledge?
A Nothing direct that I know of, now.
Q What were you getting paid for your work out there?
A At Hamlet?
Q Yes.
A I think it was $100 a night. I think it was $100 a night and $25 traveling expenses. So it came to $125, something like that.
Q Then nothing unusual happened. I am rehashing some of this. This isn't the 32 and other records, but I am trying to clean up in my mind some things. Nothing unusual happened during your tour of duty, during that 24-hour period?
A Nothing in particular stands out, no. Emergency room work, it gets to be the same after a while.
Q When you left the hospital, you drove alone?
A Right.
Q Back to your quarters?
A Right.
Q When you got home, was your family awake?
A I don't specifically remember. I don't think they were. Probably Colette was awake when I got there.
Q Then you all had breakfast together?
A Right.
Q Then you went to work?
A Kristy probably didn't have breakfast. Then I went to work.
Q As far as you can recall, that was a normal duty day then?
A Right.
Q Nothing unusual?
A No.
Q Do you recall interviewing anyone who had a drug abuse problem during that tour?
A No, I think the last one I had interviewed was the Friday before, Badger.
Q You know of any other referrals you had -- not speaking of any drug abuses -- any of the troops that were referred to you during that day for resolution of whatever the problem may have been?
A I am sure I saw some. I just don't happen to remember who they were.
Q Did you always make a record of the referrals?
A No. We have no medical records like that at all.
Q In a group surgeon's office of that type, a man would be referred to you and be complaining that the doctor mistreated him?
A No, every once in a while you put something in his medical records.
Q But nothing in a group?
A No.
Q Did you keep a personal file?
A No.
Q No diary, no record of any outstanding cases?
A No.
Q Some doctors do keep a running record. You do not know whether you did or not?
A No.
Q Where did you get the pony? Where did you purchase the pony?
A Someone [who] lived [in] downtown Fayetteville.
Q What happened to the pony?
A I gave it to Captain Moore. Frank Moore.
Q That was in a person-to-person purchase, nothing from a horse farm?
A It was a purchase.
Q The reason I am asking is because of the so-called horse hairs, because there is still some hair that has not been fully identified. Again, I say there are many loose ends, doctor. Whom did you buy the pony from?
A I don't know. The kid was -- I don't remember the name. I could probably look through my canceled checks and find out. I don't remember who it was.
Q In making their search of your clothing to find pony hairs, of course, they came across that sweatshirt. Not being horse hair experts, they sent that to the lab. The horse hair expert said it was horse hair.
A That's not a bad assumption to me. Fortunately, it was a horse hair and not someone else, not another human. Then you would really be confused.
Q Not really. I wanted to ask you about the cat. What time did you let the cat out of the house that night?
A I have no idea.
Q Who fed it, you or Colette?
A Either one of us. Usually Colette did. That night?
Q Yes.
A I don't remember. Usually Colette.
Q What door does the cat usually go out of?
A Either the one in the kitchen or the front door.
Q Is it a female cat?
A Yes.
Q Was it home when you were eating? I presume you do not let it out at night?
A Sure I do.
Q All night?
A Sometimes she goes away for a couple of days.
Q You do not know who let it out this night?
A I don't remember at this time, no.
Q Had it been in the house that night?
A I am sure it was.

Q Where did the cat stay normally when it was in the house, the children's room?
A When it was sleeping?
Q Yes.
A Either on Kimmy's bed -- any of the three beds really.
Q Who did you give the cat to, do you recall?
A Someone's secretary called me up and asked if they could have it. I put it at the pound. They called and I don't know who it was. Someone's secretary, some colonel, general's secretary on the post, a neighbor. They took it just over the phone. They went to see it at the pound and accepted it.

Q Going back to this evening, do you at any time recall the cat being in the house either before the intruder came in, while they were there, or afterwards?
A No, I don't specifically remember. Well, if it was there, I am sure I wouldn't have noticed anything later.
Q This may seem to you to be a small, innocuous point. When was the last time you saw the cat?
A I am not sure.
Q You have indicated that it would go for periods, two or three days, take off?
A Right.
Q Did it ever have kittens while you were at Fort Bragg?
A No, we thought it was pregnant several times, but nothing ever happened.
Q What would happen when the cat returned after these periods of absence? How would it make itself known around the house? Would it scratch on the door?
A Yes. Not really. Usually she jumped on the screen on the front door.
Q So it would be normal for you to come home and find that the cat wasn't there, right? You wouldn't ever give it any thought, right?
A Right.
Q Then came from Hamlet, went to work. You went over to the gym; did you, that afternoon?
A Which gym? You mean for basketball?
Q Yes.
A Right. I always went to the other gym. I think that was the day. I didn't think about it until a long time afterwards. I think that was the day when I spoke with the boxing coach at the boxing gym.
Q Was the boxing team going to Russia?
A Right.
Q Were you going to go with them?
A I told Sergeant Morgan, the boxing coach -- he wanted me to go. I was to hear shortly.
Q Were there any other doctors that were going to go?
A Not that I know of.
Q Did you think you had a good chance to go?
A The guy said there should be no problems, as long as my group commander cleared it.
Q Colonel Kane?
A Right.
Q And you discussed it with him?
A I don't think I did directly. It was -- I am not sure how it happened. The conversation came up at a staff meeting or something one day. I am not even sure I did. It might have been Captain Williams for me. One of the Lieutenant Colonels, said there shouldn't be any problem.
Q This is all conversation? You didn't make any formal application?
A No.
Q Did Colette know that you might go to Russia?
A Right.
Q Was she going to have the opportunity to accompany you?
A No.
Q What was any of the wives going on the trip at all that you know?
A No. I mean, I assume none were.
Q Did the team go?
A I don't know. I just dropped off me boxing gear before I got discharged.
Q How long was the trip going to be?
A 30 days.
Q Were you going to travel inside Russia or just going to be against Russian athletes or Russian soldiers?
A I don't know. I wasn't going to have battle. I was going to work out with them and be the team physician.

Q After you left the gym --
A Which gym now?
Q The second time.
A Basketball?
Q Yes. Where did you go from there?
A I think I went home and got the children and went and fed the pony.
Q You took both children with you?
A Yes.
Q How long did that take?
A Half an hour.
Q Did you see anybody while you were there, other than the children?
A No, the weather was bad.
Q Was it raining?
A Misty.
Q Did they ride at all or just feed the pony?
A I don't think they rode that day. It was too wet.
Q After you fed the pony, what happened?
A We went home.
Q You went back home?
A Yes.
Q Then you had dinner?
A Right.
Q Just the family, no guests?
A Right.
Q Did you receive any phone calls during this time from anyone that you know of, from the time that you left the pony and went home for dinner? Did you get any phone calls at all?
A No, not that I remember.
Q You had no conversation with anyone outside the house then from the time you went back from feeding the pony until later or early in the morning? No phone calls outside of the house?
A Not that I specifically remember right now.
Q Do you recall whether got any calls or talked to anyone on the telephone?
A Not that I am aware of.

Q Did Colette ever complain to you about obscene telephone calls going to your residence?
A No.
Q Had you heard of any obscene telephone calls going to the residence?
A No.
Q Anyone else in the neighborhood that you have heard about getting obscene phone calls?
A No. I don't know if Pendlyshok has obscene phone calls or not. Her house was broken into and her lingerie was streamed about one time. She was very scared.
Q Did she come over and talk to you about this?
A Right.
Q And Colette knew about it?
A Not to me, she talked to Colette.
Q Let's go from there, doctor. You finished supper. Your wife goes to school, correct?
A Yes.
Q There was a big to-do in the Article 32 about whether or not Kristy's bedwetting has any significance in your family discussion. Of course, you pointed out on numerous occasions that it did not. Kristy, I presume, wasn't enuretic? She wasn't a child that had a continuous problem with bedwetting, and it started after three?
A She wasn't a continuous bed wetter. She wet her bed when she had too many bottles that night. There was no problem.
Q It has been verified that this was a problem to Colette.
A That hasn't been verified. That's an assumption by two idiots.
Q It has been verified. It has been verified by the FBI, by us, at least to the point that she made it known in a psychology class. That's all. Whether it was a problem or not, I don't know. At least she uttered it.
A That doesn't make it a problem.
Q I just want to say that she at least uttered it. She was looking for a solution.
A Right. That's true.
Q Now she returns from school, did she mention the solution at all?
A Did she mention the solution?
Q Right, or the discussion she had at class?
A I think she mentioned that it was brought up. They had brought up bedwetting. I think it was something very, very casual, like she mentioned bedwetting to a professor, something like that. It was not very significant. It is a big point being made about this.
Q There are just a couple things I want to clear up, too. Whether or not it was a problem, it doesn't really make much difference. Since it was brought up, there were a couple of questions in my mind. Colette is home from school, as I recall. Let me see if I recall what took place. She changes clothes, and you watch TV?
A Right.
Q Both children are now in their own beds?
A Right.
Q Would you start from the time she went to bed again, and recall the events when Colette indicated to you that she was going to bed?
A Well, do you have any specific questions? I mean, it has been written up multiple times. You have the whole record.
A I am interested in you discussing it with me.

MR. SEGAL: I think it would be helpful --

COLONEL PRUETT: Let's walk through it one time.

Q She came home and you spoke to each other. The conversation, I am sure, you don't recall in detail. Then she went in to change clothes?
A That's right.

Q After she had changed her clothes and put on her pajamas, she came back out and sat with you?
A Right.
Q You are unsure about the consumption of any liquors or sherry?
A Right. She usually had something. One at the most, before she went to bed. I assumed, I seem to recall that she was sitting on the couch having a liqueur.
Q And you also had a drink, right?
A I think so. I am not sure about that.
Q That is your normal habit, right?
A Right.
Q To have a drink?
A Not every night, no.
Q I don't say every night, but before retiring, occasionally you do take a liqueur or something?
A Right.
Q And you were watching the Johnny Carson Show at the time?
A When she went to bed?
Q Yes.
A Right.
Q There is a time fragment here of your reading, and we were interested in this part, as to how long you really read. I know what the record says. Have you thought back about it any more, as to how long you read, or the time you went to sleep is what I am getting at.
A I would say that I really don't remember checking the clock. I just assume from finishing reading, I know it was a while after the Johnny Carson was off. Then I did the dishes. I just assumed it was around 2 o'clock, 2:15, that kind of thing.
Q No phone calls during this time period?
A No.
Q After Colette went to bed, you did not answer the telephone?
A No.
Q Did you make a call?
A No.

Q You recall any activities going on around the neighborhood during this time, when Colette went to bed until you dropped off to sleep?
A No.
Q Any cars speeding, racing, any neighbor quarrels, squabbles, any of this nature?
A No.
Q What was the name of the book you were reading that night, do you recall?
A No, I don't remember the title.
Q Is this your own personal property or something you drew out of the library? Did you normally take books out of the library?
A I bought them.
Q Or else someone will pass one on to you?
A I usually bought them.
Q And you finished the book that night?
A As I remember, yes.
Q You are usually a pretty sound sleeper, are you not?
A At home?
Q Yes.
A Not at work.
Q No, but when you are home, when you go to sleep, you are asleep, period?
A Right.
Q You are not a light sleeper?
A No. At home I am. The reason I keep saying that, is because it is totally different at work. I am on the edge at work. When the nurses call, I am up at the first ring.
Q Do you think it would take a lot to wake you up then?
A Right.
Q Either shouting at you --
A Not shouting at me.
Q Shaking?
A Right, several times.
Q Many of your friends say you are a real solid sleeper. Of course, you had worked a shift, and your last patient you saw was somewhere around 0030 hours; about 12:30?
A Right. I had already been asleep when I went to see that patient, and I had slept until 6:00 a.m.
Q Which gave you the night's sleep?
A For me, yes.
Q Would you mind going through what actually occurred to you on the altercation there in the living room? You were lying asleep on the couch, and pick it up from that point for us.
A Well, the first thing I remembered was my wife was screaming. That's what awakened me. She was screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" I tried to sit up and I noticed people. At the same time, I was hearing Kimmy, and Kimmy was yelling, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." So I tried to sit up and I saw people. I never said anything; I just heard what I took to be a female's voice saying, "Groovy. Kill the pigs."
I saw this group of people at the further end of the couch. Before I said anything, the Negro male to my left kind of moved, I guess like between the table and the couch and swung something at me. After that, I don't remember. I am sure you can ask me did the screams stop. I really don't remember anything about screams from then on. A blow knocked me back down on the couch. I got back up again, and I was hit again and then we were struggling. I was basically holding on, trying to get up, pushing back. It didn't work real well.
Q Do you recall anything about the girl, as to where she was during these struggles?
A She just seemed to be behind the middle, behind the middle male. Behind the shorter, the Caucasian male, sort of. I think I first saw her between the shoulders of the two Caucasian males, but it was -- I can't impress upon you how brief it was.
Q I can understand how it might have been exceptionally brief. You said she was holding a candle?
A I never said that.
Q Or a light?
A You people said that. I said I saw a light on her face. I had the impression -- just because it seemed to be a light coming up on her face. I just had -- I don't even know why I originally said candle. I had an instantaneous impression. I never saw the light in her hand. I never said I did.
Q That is the point I'm getting to, as to whether she might have been holding something in her right or left hand.
A I don't know
Q You don't know then?
A No. Colonel Kriwanek said she was holding a candle. Maybe he knows.
Q That's the purpose of talking to you, doctor, as we are not too interested in what the others said. I want to take it first hand, both from you and the other people at the scene. Then you passed out?
A Yes.
Q Either unconscious or semi-conscious? In other words, you were incapacitated, unable to do anything other than --
A That was very well said, Colonel Pruett.
Q I want to hear it from you. I am not trying to put words in your mouth.
A I understand that. I wouldn't use the word "passed out." I would say I was knocked unconscious.
Q Well, that's exactly what I would like to hear.
A I have been through this before. Mr. Grebner says, "No you passed out. You fainted out."

Q What knocked you unconscious?
A I would assume the blow on the head.
Q How many?
A I don't know. I know I had lumps later, which didn't seem that exciting, but I had multiple lumps on my head.
Q From the lumps that you had, you presumed this is the source of the assault that caused you to go unconscious?
A I didn't have a severe pain in my neck. A blow across the neck could knock you unconscious, but I had blows on the head. I assume one of the blows, probably the one on the rear that knocked me down, was the one that knocked me unconscious.
Q That is a major point. You maintain that you were struck on the head two or three times. From your medical records, and the physicians that looked at you, this is not substantiated.

MR. SEGAL: That's not correct. It is substantiated by Dr. Manson and it is substantiated by another surgeon who testified at the 32. It is not accurate [in] terms of sworn testimony of people who I think are credible in the extreme. What you do have is a couple of the treating military physicians who were concerning themselves with what they thought was a life threat [sic] injury, namely the chest injuries, and never made specific notations or observations in the early stages, why we are trying to make sure that the man did not die. There is no indication to them that he was dying from any neurological type injury, or they --

DR. MACDONALD: If I wrote that medical record, I would be ashamed. That's the worst. That's a horrendous medical record from anyone's point of view.

Q What do you object to as a physician?
A There was no history and physical on the chart. The history and physical on the chart is an emergency room workup that's always repeated by someone else. It was never repeated.

Q You mean someone --
A Someone else goes in and does a complete history and physical; ask you questions about your parents, diabetes. That was never done. That's inexcusable. No physician should ever sign that chart.
Second of all, there should have been notations about a neurological follow up. It was never done. A diagnosis of the injuries, in any medical case -- you can go look at Columbia's records from my own charts. You always diagnosis the injuries.
Third of all, bruises come out after a while, as you know very often. For three or four days you don't see things. "How are you feeling?" and you walk out again. But you know that's not an evaluation.
Q There is no controversy over the head blows, and I don't think you were asked. Perhaps you were asked in the 32 to discuss -- I don't think you discussed it this fully in the 32 which I have read. If we attribute your unconsciousness to head blows, you must agree that some doctors either didn't examine you or made a wrong evaluation of what your head injuries were?
A I never said that. Who is the guy, the first guy in the emergency room? Jacobson is an emergency room evaluator. He treated what he thought was the most threatening thing. I never said what he did was incorrect. He never tested my range of motion or stuff in my arms, but he wrote it in. That's a minor point. The question is that he is wrong.
Second of all, that should have been -- I then should have had a complete workup. You know, you start at head to toe. It isn't in there. It was never done. No one ever tested my reflexes for instance. No one ever came in every two hours to shine a light in my eyes to check my pupils for size. I am not saying that I had, you know a fractured skull. All I am saying is I was never evaluated for it. I seen people die with absolutely nothing wrong on the exterior of their head, or they have fractured skulls or bleeding inside the skull from a head wound.
Q Then you sustained three or four blows, possibly more?
A Right.
Q Most probably from the wooden weapon that was utilized?
A Correct.

Q How about the other injuries, doctor?
A What about them?
Q The stabbing and so on. There was only one, correct?
A Only one what?
Q One stab wound that penetrated?
A Only one stab wound?
Q I am asking you. Is there only one or were there more? Are those records incorrect?
A Yes, but I am sure you know that.
Q That's why we are asking you. Do you say those other records are incorrect? We would like to know actually what were the injuries.
A There was a puncture wound on the right chest, not where Dr. Fisher thought it was. It was in the midclavicular line of the anterior part of the chest, on inch below where my liver begins. That's a little significant. I had some puncture wounds in the left upper chest which appeared to be ice pick wounds. I can't say they were ice pick. I would say off the cuff they are ice pick, but physicians never say that. They say a penetrating wound. There was a scratch on my left upper chest. There was one, what I would guess to be a knife stab wound, two or three ice pick wounds in the left bicep. There was an ice pick wound in the right bicep. There was an incision type wound in the left rectus muscle, left quadrant, which is not the same quadrant that is listed in the medical record. Just another example of how sloppy it was. In an assault case, you can't possibly have the wrong part of the abdomen diagnosed for a wound. He had the one quadrant on my abdomen.
There were a series of small puncture wounds. Ice pick wounds don't bleed much. So this they overlooked and the nurses already had bandaged it, he never picked up my bandage and looked at it. I had a series -- I don't know how many -- eight or ten. I think I counted nine or ten. The day after, when Manson and McGann were in there and asked me, I looked down and counted. There were eight or ten on the abdomen.

Q Then your description of them is in conflict with what is in the medical record at bit [sic]?
A In the number of wounds, right.
Q The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?
A Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple.

Q On the morning of the 17th, after they took you to the hospital, you recall talking to a criminal investigator Connolly when he came up there?
A No.
Q Do you recall talking to any criminal investigator?
A Right, I didn't know their names.
Q Connolly went to the hospital and talked to you. Did you display your chest area to Connolly? Do you recall doing that?
A Not that I remember.
Q You just do not remember?
A I don't recall it, but I don't recall much from that morning.
Q How about your hand; there was discussion about your hands because you had fingernail scratches.
A There was some cuts on my hands and he did look at those. He picked up both of my hands.
Q Based upon your previous discussion, we have to then presume, if you are telling the truth, that these records are in error. Did you have any wounds on your hands?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you tell me what they were?
A They were blade wounds in both webbed spaces between the thumb and forefinger on both hands. They weren't big, but they were there and he looked at them. I do remember that.
Q This is Dr. Jacobson?
A One of the investigators looked at my hands.

Q You do not know if it was Connolly?
A No, I don't.

Q How about any pricks from the prick marks or stab wounds from the ice pick similar to the ones that you described?
A No, I don't remember any on my hand.
Q I presume that you would feel these are defense wounds in here that you sustained during your struggle?
A Right.
Q Were these wounds bleeding?
A My left hand was, but not -- it was a scratch really. It wasn't -- it didn't require sutures.
Q Not a real laceration?
A Right.
Q Were there any wounds that haven't been brought up in the Article 32 or haven't been discussed before that you know you sustained, that you might have thought were not relevant?
A There was a lot of bruising that was never mentioned. Then they tried to make it sound like they weren't there later, but they were there.
Q It appears that everybody was interested from say your stomach area to the top of your head. How about below your hips or your hips area?
A I don't remember any. No. There were a lot, for instance, on my left arm. My left upper arm was very swollen. There was a bruise on this side of my forearm.
You know, you see a patient in the emergency room. You don't write that down. The follow-up examination is supposed to.
Q How did they dress you when you woke? How were you dressed, in regular --
A Just pants, I think initially. I had BandAids on the left upper chest; BandAids covering the little puncture wounds. I had a large dressing across here, BandAids on the puncture wound here, and dressing encircling this arm.
Q Let's go back then. You sustained these blows. You lose consciousness, and when you awake in the hallway where the stairs are; is this correct?
A Right.
Q This is when you regain consciousness. Are the intruders in the house when you awakened?
A No. My first impression was -- well, I had two instantaneous impressions. One, that my teeth were chattering. The other, that the house was silent.
Q What do you attribute your teeth chattering to?
A Here again, the thing like -- I don't know.
Q Possibly shock?
A Possibly, but more likely adrenalin, and being in a fight, and fear. Your teeth chatter. I don't know; I would say probably a combination of your body has been assaulted, and I end up with a pneumothorax. My initial blood pressure there, notwithstanding -- but I would say the larger element would probably have been fear. That type of thing. Having been in a fight. Have you ever been in a fight? You shake afterwards.
Q That's right.
A That kind of thing. On April 6, I didn't specifically think of that reason. I said I was cold, which was a stupid comment to make. I was crying, being accused of this thing for the first time.
Q Then you awaken and started checking --
A Right.
Q Where did you go first?
A Colette.
Q After seeing Colette's condition, where did you go?
A Kimberly.
Q Then to Kris?
A Yes.
Q You made two phone calls?
A That's right. I made one phone call. She was still on the line when I picked up the second phone.
Q But you utilized both instruments?
A Right.
Q You have testified, and you told the criminal investigators before that you pulled the knife from Colette's chest and threw it away?
A Right.
Q Did you wipe it off?
A No, not that I remember.
Q Could you have wiped it off?
A I don't see how. My impression is of reaching down and picking it -- picking it and just throwing it. I don't think so. I would have to say really not.

Q After you made your first check, you said you were not sure of the time frame. It is understandable you are not sure of the time since you are back again to check your family, right?
A Yes.
Q Do you know what actions took place on the second trip? I am interested in the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That is what I am interested in.
A I -- none of this is 100 percent.
Q I understand.
A I would say it more likely for some reason, I think I gave Kristy brief mouth-to-mouth on the second one and didn't give it to Kimmy on the second one. It's almost meaningless to say that because I just am not sure of that at all. I just have an impression. I have a feeling that the second time around I gave Kristy mouth-to-mouth. I am washing my hands. I don't remember. I don't honestly know. I just don't know. I am led into a lot of things. They say, "could it have been?" I say "Yes." They put it down that you said this.
Q We are after some other things in conjunction with the crime scene itself, as opposed to what you did, how the scene actually presented itself to the people after they arrived. I don't know how much knowledge you have of the actual scene itself from the time that the authorities arrived, what it looked like to them as opposed to how you left it when you went to the hospital, when they took you out of the house. This is one of the main reasons for asking this. I am not trying to persecute you on the point.

MR. SEGAL: The problem here, Mr. Pruett, is that simply at some points someone claimed to have secured the crime scene, and that the crime scene was not, in fact, secured. It continued to change, I think, in some details; how many, no one knows. It is very difficult to perceive how anything could ever be said about the crime scene, except that when investigators really started to work, they had the crime scene in front of them. It is probably impossible to find out what happened between when Captain MacDonald was first found by Specialist Mica, and when the first, real investigators started to work as opposed to MPs.

COLONEL PRUETT: At one point in time we know how it existed, because when this individual approached the scene, Mica, for example, and described the scene as he saw it, some ten, twenty minutes later when the agents arrived, they know what the scene appeared to be at that time to them. What had transpired in the ten to twenty minutes, if we could resolve it, we certainly will. I agree with you, that once one person gets on the scene, two get on the scene, then there is a highly probable -- or very difficult to answer, and that is the scene as the individual committed the crime, is that the way he left it?

MR. KEARNS: That's why your description, doctor, must be presumed to be the most accurate.

COLONEL PRUETT: As opposed to -- and we talked to each of the MPs, each one of the investigators. We take it from where they see it. There are some differences and variances in the scene. For example, if you gave your daughter mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, then the crime scene as they found it, the scene in that room, certain things would have been moved and transposed from where they were normally found. We are talking about the baby bottle. This the funny thing, you see.

Q Did someone put it back, or did you through an inward fatherly instinct, do it just out of habit?
A I am sure that didn't occur. It is inconceivable that in the middle of August -- I think the problem is that you are making the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation a more vigorous thing than it really is. Mouth-to-mouth on a baby, you just pick up the neck, lay the head back, and breathe through the nose and mouth.
Q If the baby is holding a bottle across his arm, it would fall on the floor?
A No.

Q We know from the distribution that the baby was moved. One thing, it wouldn't flow from where the baby's head was lifted up if you held it up like that. I am not saying you didn't. Do you recall the bottle being there?
A No, I do not. I could not recall at all.
Q Then it would have to be attributed to the reflex action of lifting her up and staying there, probably leaning her against your chest, and if it just fell back, or one put it back.

MR. SEGAL: A reflex action of one of the very, very distraught military policemen in the early stage. I meant to add this as a parenthetical comment, not to interfere with your inquiry, but to say to you, having seen these witnesses at first hand and having seen them under cross-examination, having listened to what they did, having known what was involved here, that they were as probably shaken by the crime scene almost as much as the persons who were involved, Captain MacDonald. They were obviously -- as an experienced interrogator of individuals, I consider anything that they might say to be in the unreliable range, not because they don't try to be reliable, but simply they were emotionally shaken. There wasn't one of them who was accurate, even in details among themselves -- not because they couldn't be, but because there was a factor here of a horror scene. They didn't respond professionally. They responded as human beings. I don't see much of an investigation out of that.

COLONEL PRUETT: The primary point to bringing up this bottle is just to impress upon the doctor, we want to get into the minutiae in order to get to the picture of the puzzle -- not only his viewpoints, but all the others taking into account the stress and views of the people on that scene. They are certainly going to be emotionally disturbed.

MR. SEGAL: Lieutenant Paulk recollects picking it up. I have that kind of reflex myself, walking in and just being appalled. He was appalled when he stood on the witness stand. He was there shaking at the thought of what he had seen. What do you do when you see a baby incredibly mutilated? The secure thing that a child has, a bottle --

DR. MACDONALD: I can't believe no one checked vital signs on my kids. Someone checked vital signs. Many people, including corpsmen, didn't go in there and not at least check the pulse. According to the statement, no one checked vital signs until the doctor came in there. Someone didn't reach over and at least take a pulse.

Q If they did, we haven't gotten it yet. That is all part of talking to you. There is more to talking to --
A Many people would look at the scene and not for life signs.

Q It could have been a military policemen. It could have Mica, because he is not supposed to disturb the crime scene.

MR. SEGAL: You act reflexively.

A The guy who picked up the phone, the same guy, is still wandering around the house touching things. It is going to get more difficult to admit that the crime scene was touched in any way.
Q In additional to the baby bottle position and the blood distribution, we are interested if there were four intruders, six intruders, what they did at the scene? If we sit four people down at interrogations, we want to know what they did before we sit them down. We have to talk to everyone on the scene, so we have at least 75 percent of the knowledge as the person who did the killings.
Let us go to the threads and fibers, which were a big contention. The basic criminal investigator on the scene, he starts. The struggle takes place in the living room. Therefore, if the pajama top is torn, it is torn in the living room. Therefore, we should have fibers, which are absent. This is going back to your initial interviews, where you were of the opinion, and they couldn't find an explanation, they asked you. You didn't have the explanation, then you know you were guilty.
A Right.
Q Please don't take my questions in the same vein as that. I want to know from your actions how all these fibers got to the living room [sic], how they were carried there?
A To the living room?
Q To the master bedroom, because you carried the pajama top in there.
A Right.
Q If you can recall, when you went back to Colette's body, what was she leaning against, if anything?
A The green chair. Her right shoulder, initially.
Q Was she seated in a sitting position?
A No, she was lying on the floor. She was just a little bit leaning against the green chair, her right shoulder, but she was up a little bit. I think all I did was, I kind of moved her shoulder up a little bit and over a little.
Q Where was the pajama top during this action?
A I don't know. I had already thrown it away.
Q Do you know where you threw it?
A No.
Q When you came into the bedroom, you awoke with it around your arm, as I recall your testimony.
A Right. I don't know if it was ripped. As I told them initially, ever since, I don't know if that was ripped to get around my arm. I never even looked at the shirt, seen how it was ripped. I don't know if it was ripped or pulled over my head in the struggle. I don't have a recollection of it going over my head.
Q Did you rip it taking it off in the master bedroom?
A I don't know.
Q Do you recall the ripping sound in the master bedroom?
A No, I don't. I am sure I wouldn't have any way of knowing 100 percent for sure if I was ripping it. You have to -- I just can't imagine what the scene looked like.
Q Do you recall placing it on the body?
A I just remember covering her, really. I was reaching around and I think I picked it up and put it across her chest.

Q At that time, was the light on in the bedroom?
A Yes, I could see real well. I assume that I had put it on. It was either on or it wasn't on. I must have put it on because the room was not well lit as I was walking down the hallway. I must have slipped it on as I walked in, because it was lit when I was there.
Q When they arrived, of course, it was?
A Right.
Q To the best of your knowledge, you turned it on?
A Yes.
Q I want to throw something at you a little bit different than what we talked to you about. Was it possible in your mind that you could have had an altercation in the bedroom, not speaking about Colette, with Colette?
A An altercation in the bedroom?
Q Could you have been -- has it ever occurred to you that you might have gotten into an altercation? Part of the fight may have taken place in that bedroom?
A I don't -- I really have no recollection of that occurring.
Q I am just asking because people do funny things when semi-conscious, as you well know.
A I can't imagine -- well, I can't imagine the whole thing. I can't imagine struggling down the hallway without me being aware of bumping against the wall or something. I have no recollection of it.
Q Going back to the threads, the preponderance of those, where they were -- and all the business is in the record as to how they got there. The rip of the pajamas was in the sleeve.
A So it didn't rip around my back?
Q It did not rip around your back. Those threads are readily identifiable with your pajama top.
A That lends more weight to I was ripping it as I was taking it off my hands. Great.
Q Possibly. Anything is possible.

Q In the description of the four people that you gave initially, would you tell me how you described them to the artist that drew these composites? Is this an accurate depiction of the people you saw in the house?
A Of the two of the people, the Negro and the middle Caucasian, the shorter of the two white males. You know, accurate are relative terms. I mean, when I did this I remembered it much more as he was doing it and I was looking at it. It looked relatively accurate to those two. I feel as though I can identify these two.
Q If you saw them again?
A Right.
Q How about the girl?
A That's the weakest. It is the hardest one because that was such a brief thing. I never really saw the full face. Without eyes it is hard to identify. I never really got a full view.
Q Now, in discussing -- when you were looking at her during the assault, you see the white? Is this your recollection, the white of the knees?
A That was at the end. That was going down. I never saw the knees at the same time I was looking at the whole person. I don't know if the knees were the same person. I never said they were. I said that I saw a bare knee. I just assumed in piecing things together that it was the knee of the girl that I had seen. That's all.
Q My only interest is the color of the boots.
A I don't know the color of the boots.
Q I would like to know the color of the boots.
A So would I. I don't really know. I was kind of led into saying everything. You could say, "It could have" to anything. Under the lighting conditions and the struggling and falling and not really being aware of what is going on, the color could have been anything. I was under the impression that they were darker red than lighter, the boots.
Q It could have been the lighting effects in the room?
A It could have been wet or it could have been the vinyl-type thing. That was just again an instantaneous impression, similar with the candle thing. I don't know if they were wet.
Q I want to show you five photographs.

COLONEL PRUETT: Do you want to identify them, Mr. Segal?

MR. SEGAL: How do you want them, individually, one at a time?
We are looking at three and a half by four and a half glossy prints. The first one I will show you, handed to Captain MacDonald, is a Polaroid photograph, which appears to have the numbers on the back, B915S5A, what appears to be a white Caucasian female.

DR. MACDONALD: I don't specifically recognize this person.

Q Is there anything about her familiar to you?
A (No response.)

Q Have you seen her before?
A I don't think so. I don't remember, as far as I know.

Q The second Polaroid photograph contains the same number on the back, of a white Caucasian, an open neck, button-down shirt, white T-shirt showing.
A No, as far as I know, I didn't see this person. This is the same shape of face, and the same type of look as the middle Caucasian male. I don't have the impression that this [is] him. It is definitely the same facial characteristics and kind of look, but nothing more than that.

MR. SEGAL: Can you identify that in any way for the record?

COLONEL PRUETT: The photo itself? Put another series on it. Do the same thing for those two.

MR. KEARNS: The first photo that Dr. MacDonald viewed was that of Annette Cullity. The second one he looked at was that of Kenneth Barnett.

Q I am going to show you, Captain MacDonald, another Polaroid photograph with the same number on the back of a white Caucasian male, longish hair, with a mustache, dark shirt, like a T-shirt, but laced in the front.
A No, I don't specifically recognize him.

MR. KEARNS: That was a photograph of Gary James Burnett.

Q I am going to show you another Polaroid photograph with the same serial number stamped on the back. A Negro male, light mustache with turned up collar and some kind of beads around his neck.
A This is the same facial-type person as the Negro male. The same square type look and everything. Same type of hairdo.
Q Did he appear as old as the person you described?
A He looks younger.
Q He does to me, too.

Q That fellow you are looking at is 21 now.
A I would guess the guy in my house would have been roughly that age, but he looks older than this. I would guess this kid is 17 or 18.

MR. KEARNS: Dr. MacDonald is looking at a photograph of Joseph -- no middle initial -- Lee.

Q I show you a three and a half by four and a half double photograph, one showing left side, showing a profile, right side showing a full face. New York Police Department photograph No. 12357, date January 4, 1971, identified on the back as John Charles Hampson.
A No.

Q Have you ever heard the name Joseph Lee before, doctor?
A At the hearing from Bennie, Mr. Hawkins.
Q What did Bennie say about Joseph Lee when you talked to him?
A At the hearing?
Q When he testified.
A Right.
Q I thought you meant that you and he discussed something?
A No.
Q When you looked out the back door after discovering the murders, did you see the murder weapons outside?
A No.
Q Now, in testifying, and in furnishing information to investigators, you have indicated that in your opinion none of the weapons came from your home. However, there is a possibility that the piece of wood could have been in your storage area or around your house?
A Right.
Q In painting Kimberly's bed or Kristen's bed, did you do the painting or did Colette do it?
A Colette.
Q Were you present when she painted the bed?
A Some of it, right.
Q Did she rest the bed on a piece of wood?
A Yes.
Q Now, in your master bedroom, either the children's bedrooms or any place in the house, did you have a utilitarian use for a piece of wood about this size?
A No.
Q To prop open the door?
A No.
Q Was your dryer also in the utility room?
A Right.
Q When in use, did it give off heat where Colette had to open the windows?
A No.
Q Did you ever notice that it was really hot?
A No.

Q Was it ventilated?
A Ventilated.

Q We know it was used in the murders, and I am trying to find out whether or not it was brought from your storage room or whether it was found inside the house and utilized.
A Judging from the aging process, when we compared it to other pieces of wood that were present in the house, I would guess it was from the pile behind the window.
Q Which window?
A Behind Kristy's bedroom in the well there. I kept wood for the barbecue. Right outside. The well that they kept pretending doesn't exist when we kept wood for the fire. We had the kids come around for marshmallows and stuff. We had wood there.

COLONEL PRUETT: We have a picture of the wood actually in the well.

Q Was there any window in the house that required wood to prop it open?
A No.

MR. SEGAL: It was never actually clarified in the 32 proceedings, but we are aware that the windows are in good shape.

Q At the foot of your bed near the dresser, the bed is here. Near this dresser that was hers there was a valise or suitcase that was empty, but it was there. Can you recall anything about this when it was there?
A Was it the little brown one?
Q I am not sure.

Q I think it is brown.
A I used it for a gym bag sometimes, that's all. Your boxing gear is pretty bulky, so I used the headpiece and the jock and stuff.
Q Wasn't there another bag there, also, about something like this? Do you own a bag about that size, do you recall?
A I have a black suitcase about that size,
Q No, not black. Brown.
A No.
Q We were looking and searching for any foreign items, articles that might have been in the house, assuming that before the people came in and they may have left something in the house. I am not talking about footprints and grass and water, I am talking about an article. The property that you did get back, everything you received was either yours or Colette's or was not foreign to the house, to best of your knowledge?
A Right.
Q Were your personal items --
A The things that I got back?
Q Yes.
A Geez, I didn't look through everything. But what I saw was mine, ours.
Q We are proposing that either you or in conjunction with us and Mr. Segal, we would like to get you to go through --
A Well, most of it gone.
Q Some of the stuff has been given away?
A Given to a hospital. It is all gone.
Q It is all gone now?
A Yes.
Q Everything you have now belongs to you?
A Right.

Q I have four or five things that I want to clear up. One is the origin and background of this.
A That was from the Kingston's. That's Mrs. Kingston, Jo, Colonel Kingston's wife.
Q Had you read this before?
A This?

MR. SEGAL: We have been handed six pages of Xeroxed material, legal size. The top page is a Xerox copy of what to appears to be a business size envelope, postmarked Honolulu, February 14, 1970, p.m., handwriting to Captain J. R. MacDonald, Surgeon's Office, registered mail number 1248830.

Q What is that?
A That is an envelope from Mrs. Jo Kingston.
Q Colonel Kingston's wife?
A Right.
Q Do you recognize her handwriting?
A Not specifically, but I recognize the --
Q The Xerox pages, approximately a four inch by nine inch reproduction of what looks like, I suppose, a greeting card, what appears to be renditions of lipstick prints all over the pattern.
A Right. That's the Valentine card she sent.

Q Was that a printed card?
A Right.
Q The third page is the same lipstick imprints with the words, "Thinking of you" printed and the words, "Love, Jo" written at the bottom. Do you recognize that as Colonel Kingston's wife's handwriting?
A Right.
Q The fourth page is a copy of that. The fifth and sixth pages are Photostats of an article, "A Problem in Making Connections" by Joan Didion. The second page is that of -- being the sixth page of the Xerox photographs -- a youngish woman with the identification of Joan Didion. Why don't you read it, doctor?
A It sounds like something I would like. I don't specifically remember it. It sounds familiar, but I don't specially remember it. It sounds like something like I have read before, but I really can't tell you what it is. It soundss like something out of Esquire.
Q Did you receive this card?
A Yes.
Q But you haven't read the article before?
A I don't know. I am not sure.
Q It was in the envelope with the card. Maybe you overlooked it. You don't know? The first time I looked through it I didn't see it either.
A It was in the envelope with the card?
Q But I missed it the first time, too.
A It doesn't sound like something she sent me. I must have put it in there.
Q You think it originated with you rather than the person?
A Yes, they sent me a lot of clippings, but she wouldn't sent me a clipping like that.

MR. SEGAL: Can you identify the magazine that was from?

MR. KEARNS: I'm sorry. Mr. Segal. I will research it.

DR. MACDONALD: That doesn't sound like her at all.

MR. KEARNS: I would like to take a guess. Is it Esquire or Life?

MR. SEGAL: It is from a ladies magazine. I read that article. The only ladies magazine I have ever seen in the doctor's office is McCall's. My doctor gets it. It is doctor's office reading material. It is in the last year or so.

COLONEL PRUETT: I have a feeling it is out of Life.

MR. KEARNS: We will find out. I will give you a call and let you know if you are right.

DR. MACDONALD: It might be from Jo, but I don't think so. She sends me political stuff. She is a soap box artist, investigations and stuff.

Q A lot of these questions look pointed at you, doctor, you have to realize.
A They are pointed at me?
Q Of course, we have to ask you questions. I have to have them cleared up, regardless of what other people have asked you. We didn't ask you, and we are interested. I want to talk about the champagne. Do you remember when you were in the hospital with a drink of champagne?
A Cold Duck.
Q Could you talk to me about that a little bit?
A I think Ron Harrison brought in it in one night.
Q Any particular reason?
A Yes, everyone was down. He thought he was doing a nice thing. We all had a half of glass and I threw the rest out. The nurse, apparently, brought it to the administrator of the hospital. The nurse, the orderly found it in the wastepaper basket, brought it to the nurse. She panicked and then told the CID we were having champagne in the room, celebrating.
Q It is in your medical records. They didn't tell the CID.
A It was from the hospital administrator that it got over to the CID.
Q In fact we know he visited you that day. Does the name Cathy Perry mean anything to you? 18 years old, Caucasian, from Fort Bragg?
A Cathy Perry? Caucasian?
Q Right.
A No.
Q I might be in for a lawsuit. She is a common-law wife or either married to a person named Warmbrod. Warmbrod is a dependent of a retired Army Colonel in the Fort Bragg area. Did you treat him or somebody else named Warmbrod?
A I don't remember. I remember that name, that's all.
Q Can you recall the treatment?
A No.
Q Male or female named Warmbrod?
A I am not sure it was a male; I assume it was a male. I don't know why, but I seem -- I get the feeling it was about a problem that he had at the hospital with his wife or something. I might be totally wrong. I just have a feeling that he was the guy that came into my office and was complaining about something. I am not sure. I don't even know why I am even saying that. I know the name. I know I treated a patient with that name. It is an unusual name.
Q Was it for a drug abuse problem?
A I don't know. I would probably say not.
Q Caucasian, Warmbrod.
A I don't know. I really don't know. I know the name. It is an unusual name. I know I treated a patient with that name in the Army with that name. I remember mentioning to Sergeant Violetta, I think. Someone in the office -- I mentioned I had a patient by the name of Warmbrod.
Q How about GI Spec 4 by the name of Wolverton?
A That sounds familiar, too. That sounds familiar, but again, I don't know what for or what. The name sounds familiar.
Q I will get some more details when it comes up again. You had an OD on heroin that came in one of the civilian hospitals, where you had to do a lot of work on him because he almost died. How was this particular person dressed when he came in?
A Oh, geez, I don't know.
Q I am going at, was he in a field jacket, do you recall?
A Geez, you know, I think he was. I don't know. I think he was. We took it off to treat him. So he had nothing on while I was treating him. He might have been. I think he was. I think, at least his buddy was, because I went up and talked to his buddy.
Q The fellow you treated, was he Negro or Caucasian?
A Caucasian.
Q Does he meet --
A It is a long time ago.
Q Could he have been one of your assailants?
A I don't know, but let me clarify that a little. He was lying down, and he was not a well person when I saw him. He was dead, really. He had a respiratory arrest. People are totally different lying down than sitting up. It is a phenomenon you don't get used to. After you get a patient lying down in bed, they look totally different standing up. I remember his face as being all pock-marked, kind of an ugly guy, as I remember. But that's just a rough guess. I would say probably not. I don't remember him being -- I remember him being kind of thin, and pock-marked face, pimply and stuff. I might be wrong, but that's my impression of him.
Q Now, the Article 32, without pulling out specifically -- I don't know who asked you the question, but you were asked the question -- I believe it was Colonel Rock -- were you ever threatened by any of these people that you either treated or discussed their drug problems with you, and you said yes. This terminology used was, "I will get you. I will kill you or I will take care of you for that." Can you recall specifically the identity of anyone who made such a threat?
A No. I can picture the instances, some instances of it actually occurring, but I don't know any names.
Q How about the hospitals; would it have been down in the Fort Bragg area? At Hamlet did it occur, or Cape Fear?
A I know it occurred at Cape Fear. I can think of at least one specific instance where the guy was sitting up on the stretcher and shouting at me.
Q Do you recall what the treatment was?
A Yes, I gave him Thorazine. He was hyper. I thought he was on speed or something. I think he was given Thorazine, and after a while I think he was discharged, but might have been admitted to mental health. That's where we admitted those problems
Q Caucasian?
A Fairly wealthy. He had -- his buddy came in well-dressed and they had been to a party.
Q Did he have any alcohol on his breath?
A Yes, his buddy was drunk, as well as having taken something, which is unusual, by the way.
Q So he was treated with Thorazine. He may have gone to mental health. Caucasian and well-dressed?
A Right.
Q And also the smell of alcohol, particularly his buddy was intoxicated?
A I am not sure about him, but I am sure his buddy was. He was obnoxious.
Q There are, of course, medical records?
A Not about his buddy.
Q But about this guy?
A Right.
Q Do you recall when this was, generally?
A I don't know. I would say January, most of the night. I worked every night. I worked there in January and a couple of nights in December. So I would guess it was probably in January.
Q Let's go back. I know I am jumping around. There are just certain things that I want to clarify. Have you ever made a telephone call to Mrs. Kane, or did you ever, prior to the murder?
A To who?
Q To Mrs. Kane?
A Colonel Kane's wife?
Q Yes, for any reason? For your wife or to answer a question she wanted you to answer?
A Not that I know of.
Q Did you call Mrs. Kane or attempt to call her on the morning of 17 February?
A No.
Q Now do you remember the orange jacket, suede jacket that Mildred Kassab gave Colette?
A Right.
Q Do you have it in your possession now?
A No, I do not.
Q Can you recall when you last saw it?
A No, not really. It was, you know, it is a spring or fall-type jacket. So it would have been like months before then. I am fairly sure it was hanging in the living room closet. I used to see it in there when I was putting clothes away, but not on Colette for a while. I don't specifically remember when.
Q Well, without going back and looking at the crime scene, write-ups and receipts, did you normally keep your winter stuff -- this the coat that is missing, by the way. That's what is generally my interest. Was the winter stuff normally kept, and fall stuff, in the front?
A Most of the clothes were. All that kind of clothes were. We didn't store our clothes anywhere else.
Q Outside of the buckles on it and --
A No, don't confuse a vest. There was vest that I gave Colette, a suede vest with buckles across the vest.
Q I am talking about the orange, pumpkin-colored jacket. That, in fact, I have a photograph of. She was wearing it once at one of the parties?
A Right,
Q It has the buckle here, and one here.
A All right, go ahead.
Q Just fasteners, not similar to the vest.
A Yes.
Q Did it have anything else unique about it? I am just looking for a little idea about it.
A Little pockets right here, didn't it, straight across?
Q Tapes or anything?
A Most of her clothes had names in it. I think when she went to college she had that done.
Q Was it written in or embroidered in, name taped?
A It wouldn't have been written in. It would have been a name-tape of thing, I think.
Q Now, I am sure she had it long enough to have it cleaned two or three times; laundry marks and this sort of stuff would be in it?
A I am not sure if that was ever cleaned. It was suede. Yes, it was. Mildred had all of our suede stuff cleaned at least once.
Q Was it down at Bragg?
A No.
Q She indicated that more than likely it had been cleaned, which would necessarily give us a mark for identification?
A Yes.
Q Let's go back to the two rings. Now, Pep Stevenson has the original of the maternal grandmother's ring?
A Right.
Q The other ring was missing. Is this the one that Bernie Kelley made down in the Village? Is that the one that's missing?
A That's one of the two.
Q Now, when you had this made up, did you design it or did Bernie design it?
A No, it was there when we got there. We had it made. He made it, but it was there on a rack when we walked in one day, and we bought it from him. It wasn't commissioned. We didn't have him make it. You know that ring was confusing, but not really very confusing if anyone would listen to the sequence of events.
Q It is not confusing to me. The main thing we want to find is Bernie up in Boston, get a picture of it, and continue to search for those rings -- a further accurate drawing, for example, the design configuration of it. Of course, this entails, as Mr. Segal knows, one heck of a lot of checking.
A You can check on the jeweler who made it up.
Q Sometimes you have them engraved. You did not have initials cut in or remarks made on these rings?
A No.
Q Some personal identification make we are interested in.
A Both of them are distinctive.
Q They are. The description we have been given --
A That's why there shouldn't be any confusion with the other investigator on the case. There should be no confusion on those rings. It is a very simple thing. We asked for two rings, we got one of them, and we got another cheap one in place of the heart-shaped one, and the one Bernie made. They claimed we got them. Now he has been claiming it ever since.
Q You signed for the dinner ring, the square dinner ring, and that's her ring
A The one --
Q Shaped like an arrow?

MR. SEGAL: It is called teardrop. We have clients who deal with other people's merchandise, who learn about these things.

COLONEL PRUETT: They are critical to us. We want to find them. Those, and also we would like to find this suede jacket. The other thing I want to ask you, you might want to look through your photographs for a picture of the ring on Colette's finger, and so on. I think we may have one.

MR. KEARNS: I have one, but the light hits it. Actually, Pep Stevenson's ring -- we can get a photograph of that.

COLONEL PRUETT: Not only that, we would like to get an actual photograph of the specific rings that are missing. Even if they are slides, some of them we are able to blow up, and get a better description.

DR. MACDONALD: I know one photograph where they might show up. We were down at Nassau. Four of us were in a motel room. She was dressed for dinner, so she might have had one or both of them on for that.

Q Those photographs we are interested in, did you get a chance to look through the photographs?
A Yes. Now, there is a section still I haven't gone through, but I don't think they are going to be in there. That's a section that my mother has already gone through. I haven't personally viewed every photograph, but I am 99 percent sure they are not going to be in there.
Q Is there a possibility she might have put them in for reprint?
A Who?
Q Colette, or anyone?
A She didn't even know I put them back in the regular file.
Q That interests us too. Where are they?
A I have my own idea about that, but there is no use going over it again. Mr. Shaw or Mr. Ivory probably has them. I can't conceive of them being lost in any other fashion. Certainly, the people in my house didn't go through the photograph albums and go through them and take out the nudes. They were in there because I put them in there myself.
Q Really. We have two rings, a jacket and some photographs missing.
A Minimum.
Q Was any of your clothing missing?
A I never took inventory. Nothing I have noticed, nothing valuable that I would have spotted right away. All my clothes were there, all my suit jackets and sport jackets.
Q How about your liquor bottles; can you recall looking at that when you went back?
A No, not really. You know, the unopened bottles that I knew I had as a gift, which is still there, and the other stuff, half bottles and stuff. I didn't even count.
Q How about your records or tapes?
A There doesn't seem to be any records missing. "Hair" is covered with fingerprint dust, but there are none missing.

Q Did you lend your car out, doctor, to anyone?
A Geez, I really don't know. I know I offered it to anyone who needed it. I can't specifically remember down on the post.

Q The lawyer?
A Yes, that was after.
Q The court officer?
A Not that I recall.

Q Did you ever pick up any hitchhikers?
A Sure.
Q Just soldiers around the post?
A Going down town I always pick them up.

Q Did you have sexual intercourse with that WAC down in Texas?
A No.
Q Did she masturbate you?
A No.
Q Did she fellatio [sic] you?
A No.
Q Have you seen her since this incident?
A No.
Q Has she written you or called you?
A No.
Q Do you know where she is?
A No.
Q I am speaking of Dewitt now.
A Right.
Q In your initial interview with Captain Dalphid, you indicated that you pointed out that a good way for a witness to recall an incident was to sit down and write it?
A Yes. He got them and I think he has probably destroyed most of the file.

Q If he has them, would you release them?
A No.

Q Now, I understand Colette had a problem with birth control pills. I am not sure of this. I think it was varicose veins or something?
A Right.
Q Who was her physician at that time, that she discussed this problem with, do you know? Or was it you?
A She always had an OBGY man. It was my decision to stop the birth control pills, simply because I had looked into it quite extensively and it wasn't worth the risk for her. She had one of the very few contraindications to it. Her legs were getting worse on pills. So if you have blood vessel problems, and it is getting worse, you have got to stop them. There is just no question. I made the decision.
Q You understand that is someone suspects you of these murders, necessarily he has got to look for a motive. One motive, if you are looking for it, would be marital discord of some type.
If she stopped birth control pills, and if she became pregnant, I presume on one occasion at least, there was no preventative measures taken?
A Right.
Q Did she, after you told her, "Look, I don't want you to take these pills any more," did she resort to anything else?
A No. We wanted one more child anyway, which she was probably going to have by Caesarean section, which at that time she would have her tubes tied. So there was no problem.
Q I have read your testimony in the 32 regarding putting Krissy back to bed in her wet clothes. Did you always do this when you found her wet?
A No.
Q Why did you do it this particular time?
A I did it a lot. She was past -- she wasn't wetting her bed every night. She only wet the bed if she had like two bottles in the evening or something like that. She wasn't a routine bedwetter anymore. She had been trained. You know, she had mildly damp -- she had a wet spot that had seeped through and wet the sheet, not her. She wasn't in soaking diapers or anything. I put her back in bed. That wouldn't injure her anyway.
Q I also moved wet babies, and I am not a doctor. I am not the best father in the world, but I always get something -- either change their underclothing or put a protector underneath them.
A She wasn't going to wet again, and that just didn't seem to have any sense to it. I did this once in a while. It wasn't a big thing. She never had a diaper rash.
Q What was your normal procedure if you found one of the kids wet? I presume this wasn't normal for you to always put her back wet?
A No, I often changed her. Most of the time she wasn't wet. The few times that she was wet, sometimes I would and sometimes I wouldn't. Knowing that she wouldn't wet again makes it a lot easier. She wasn't going to be wet all night. She didn't have plastic pants on that kept it wet, it would dry. It isn't the same thing. She wasn't a baby anymore, really.
Q It is just something I wanted to know.
A She didn't have a diaper on. She usually wore panties.
Q How about Dr. Donald Alkema; do you know him?
A No.

Q Have you authorized John Cummings to prepare a series of articles for you?
A No.
Q You gave him an exclusive interview, right?
A Right.
Q For him to run in the paper and so forth. Do you know if he copyrighted that in his own name?
A He did copyright it.
Q In his own name?
A Right.
Q You did not give him permission for a series of articles for publication?
A That's right. I have not given him that. My instructions were he wasn't ever to write another word about me, but that doesn't mean anything to a newspaper man.
Q That is the reason I am asking.
A Is he writing a book about me?
Q I can't confirm it.
A That creep. No, I did not authorize him to do that. I did submit to his initial interview.
Q Did you place any restrictions on him at this time?
A It was a verbal-type thing which he aggravated, sort of.
Q But you haven't taken any legal action to prevent him?
A You can't do it. I would do it if I could, but it is almost impossible to do.
Q You can always institute them.
A That's what he wants.

MR. SEGAL: I am not sure I understand the problem. John Cummings got an interview, and he reviewed that story. He got that interview because of certain things he said to me that he never followed through with.

Q You have never given him anything, and we have never given him anything since that time?
A Right.

COLONEL PRUETT: He had an interview. He had a complete exclusive on it. We read all this in detail. My main interest is if Dr. MacDonald is collaborating with Cummings to publish anything --

MR. SEGAL: We never saw the story before.

DR. MACDONALD: Cummings is to newspapers as Ivory is to investigators.

MR. SEGAL: We never saw the story after it was written. We knew about the interview, but the copy was not submitted to us for approval for correctness or incorrectness, for accuracy, interpretation, or anything like that. The fact that he was allowed --

Q Did Cummings release the tapes to you or did he keep the tapes?
A He has them.

Q Did you ever strike your wife?
A No.
Q At any time in her life?
A No.
Q I mean, when you were going together or anything?
A No.

MR. KEARNS: I don't have anything else.

COLONEL PRUETT: The last thing I wanted to ask -- and I know Mr. Segal will want to think about this -- both times we have gotten together with you, we advised you of your rights, and you were at one time offered a polygraph examination, initially accepted and later declined to take it. We want to leave that avenue up to you, that we would like to offer you the same, to take a polygraph, either now or at some future time, if you so consent.
We are interested in doing several things, Mr. Segal. One is -- of course, you know the value of the polygraph and where it stands as far as evidence is concerned. You know its value as an investigative aid in any type of case, as to what weight is placed upon the results of the examination. Generally, that weight is the weight an investigator or the responsible person wants to put upon of it. We would like to explore each and every avenue that is possible for us to either totally eliminate the doctor, or we will have to continue, as you know, operating in the same place we are now.
If you don't want to answer now, it is fine with us. If you made up your mind -- and you do have a decision -- I would like to know.

MR. SEGAL: Let me put it this way. I will say that is in exactly the same category as your original request for the Rorschach, that is, we will consider it from scratch. I hadn't thought about the possibility that you want to reinstitute that at all. I thought about the Rorschach. We have medical consultation decisions, based upon the kind of advice that I have described to you originally, and our conclusions about what is appropriate. I am perfectly willing to review the whole thing in light of our relations in these two interviews we have had, which is different than our relations with anyone else. It doesn't necessarily put you behind the same 8 ball, that certain other CID investigators might be behind, to ask for any kind of information from me. I want to think about it, and will advise you appropriately about it.
I will say this, I must comment, I am the author of a good bit of legal materials about the use of polygraphs and investigations in terms of a number of matters before the courts now, which has involved my writing about the subject to the extent that I have said I think its primary use in eliciting an interrogation is that it is a coercive device. I use it myself at times. I never even get as far as getting -- I think it is in my best interest to have them tell me more than what they have said. I am not really concerned about the polygraph readings because of the inherent limitations of the polygraph system. This is what I really think of it.

COLONEL PRUETT: You are philosophizing now. I agree with your philosophy. The intent here is not for the purpose of pressuring the doctor into making a statement, admissions, concessions, and so on. The sole purpose is -- and I am leveling with you -- is to get to the facts. Of course you know it has no evidentiary value. It has investigative value.

MR. SEGAL: That's correct. I commend to you --

COLONEL PRUETT: And to your own cause as his counselor.

MR. SEGAL: In depth, in detail, I commend to you Dr. Smith, psychologist at the University of Virginia Medical School as to his philosophical comments. We are talking about the investigative aids. I am aware of what you know you feel that might do in this particular case. I am just simply going to take it under active consideration, and let you know what we think about it.

COLONEL PRUETT: I do not know that it would clear Dr. MacDonald. I don't know if it would implicate him. It might clear some questions we have in mind. That's the sole purpose of suggesting that you consider taking one. The other thing that I would like to get -- and that is a touchy one, because I know how you feel -- Is we do need additional hair specimens from the doctor. Additional hairs were removed from the house.

MR. SEGAL: I know that. I wasn't aware that you wanted hair specimens. What part of the anatomy do you want to get them from?

COLONEL PRUETT: If you will agree to allowing to obtaining the specimens, we will certainly pick the points of the human body that we think they should come from to compare with the sample.

DR. MACDONALD: You have had 12 samples.

COLONEL PRUETT: Someone else collected those. We are redoing the investigation. You questioned a lot of it.

MR. SEGAL: The hair samples?

COLONEL PRUETT: Incidentally, Mildred's and Fred's did not match up with the hair. I don't know if Fred told you or not.


MR. SEGAL: There is a professor of physical anthropology here that you know of, who is prepared to testify on the case as to the fact as far as we know, the most thorough scientific studies do not lend much weight to the use of hair examination. As I said, at that time we had prepared to have that witness testify from Maine where he was having vacation. I am hesitating to come forward and offer an opinion which has been -- I think probably I know of no one who has greater qualifications. I want you to know that. In my judgment, I used to think it was a pretty good thing. In my case, which can be found in the legal literature of the State about cases involving hairs. I use to think maybe there was something to be said about it. But a little bit later I saw it as probably even more dubious than the polygraph. You know, you put it in a relative scale.

COLONEL PRUETT: Are you speaking from a positive viewpoint or negative?

MR. SEGAL: It is dubious as to whether it can produce any kind of conclusive --

MR. KEARNS: From a negative standpoint it is usually --

MR. SEGAL: You might distinguish an animal hair from a human hair. Again, I would like to know -- and you don't have to do it now if you don't want to -- give us what are of the human body. I think that makes some difference.

MR. KEARNS: There is something we can find out if it makes a difference.

MR. SEGAL: Maybe. I hate to think about the whole procedure.

MR. KEARNS: How about, Dr. MacDonald, I got word to you about an interview with your mother and brother. Can you set that up for us in the near future, do you think? I got the word back.

DR. MACDONALD: Who told you that, Freddie?

MR. KEARNS: Not that you would discuss it with me.

DR. MACDONALD: Apparently, Freddie said that I would give them an answer today.

MR. KEARNS: I may have misunderstood. Let me tell you what happened. I didn't want to call you at work. I was out on the Island. I tried to call you at home, and there was no answer, so I asked Mr. Kassab if he would let you know that I would like to talk to your mother and Jay, and see if you could set it up for me. Then he called back and said, "Dr. MacDonald said he is going to see you Saturday." So he assumed that we were going to discuss it.

COLONEL PRUETT: We would like to get your mother's fingerprints, doctor. I know it is a delicate thing to do.

DR. MACDONALD: I will tell you, she is very, very rocky right now. I am having a tough time holding her together. I really mean it. I am talking about a nervous breakdown.

MR. KEARNS: That is why we are asking you.

MR. SEGAL: What is it? You want an interview with Mrs. MacDonald, and you want Captain MacDonald's brother? Prior to you mentioning it now, we never heard that request, and I will have to advise you now, I won't decide myself. You understand that I obviously have to talk to people about it, how they feel.

COLONEL PRUETT: I will give you a call.

MR. SEGAL: Yes, give us at least a week, though.

COLONEL PRUETT: I also asked previously if you have any letters or investigative leads. When you get the chance to, would you get something together?

MR. SEGAL: All right.

MR. KEARNS: Would you make a note on those photos of the ring, also?

MR. SEGAL: I have already made a notation.

COLONEL PRUETT: Now, the Rorschach tests, if you want to obtain them, we will send it to you in writing. The purpose, and who is going to review them.

MR. SEGAL: Yes, please, if you are going to have a qualified psychiatrist, I would like him to send us a letter in writing.

DR. MACDONALD: That's already been done. I don't understand it.

MR. SEGAL: I am willing to see what a physician has to say about it.

DR. MACDONALD: Three of them, including a dream researcher, whatever the hell that is. He testified at the -- I was watching. The dream surgeon testified down at Mai Lai.

COLONEL PRUETT: I don't have anything else at this time that I would like to ask, unless you do.

MR. KEARNS: Do you have a drawing of the wounds on Dr. MacDonald?

MR. SEGAL: We have a sketch in the files.

COLONEL PRUETT: That would help us clarify some of the testimony. In our whole investigation, all these questions come up. If we have the most accurate investigation, we could do the job. Even if you don't want to give it to us, we have to ask you for it.

MR. SEGAL: We will consider a request for making available to you the drawing of the wounds.


NOTE FROM CHRISTINA MASEWICZ: The original stenographer's misspellings of Connelly, Christine, Christy, Chris, Caine, Qwanik, Gremlin, Fish, McGinn, Mika, Polk, Korman, Benny, Joe, DiDion, Violeta and Dalphid were corrected to Connolly, Kristen, Kristy, Kris, Kane, Kriwanek, Grebner, Fisher, McGann, Mica, Paulk, corpsmen, Bennie, Jo, Didion, Violetta and Douthat, 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