ARTICLE 32 HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
September 10, 1970: Second Lieutenant Joseph Paulk (MP)
Note: When Joseph Paulk testified July, 6, 1970, he was a First Lieutenant. This time he is referred to as a Second Lieutenant. Perhaps it was a typo, or since First Lieutenant is a higher rank than Second Lieutenant, he received some sort of disciplinary action that resulted in him being demoted
COL ROCK: In a letter to Captain Clifford Somers, counsel for the government, dated 26 August, copies of which were given to both counsel, I requested certain information to be presented to me this week for presentation at the hearing. Among the items are sworn statements of Specialist Four David Dickerson and of Mrs. Janice Pendlyshok. Is the government now prepared to present that to me?
CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, in fact I believe your legal advisor, Captain Beale, now has it.
COL ROCK: Let the record reflect that Exhibit R-3 is 17 February sworn statement of Specialist Four Dickerson. R-4 is 25 June sworn statement of Specialist Dickerson, and R-5 is 22 June statement of Mrs. Janice Pendlyshok. Can you tell me, counsel, why are two witness statements from Specialist Dickerson?
CPT SOMERS: Well, the only thing I can say was that he was interviewed twice, sir.
COL ROCK: You don't know the reason? It is evidence that he was interviewed twice. I just want to know why.
CPT SOMERS: Right offhand, no I don't.
COL ROCK: Would counsel please call Lieutenant Paulk for me.
(2LT Joseph Loy Paulk was called, reminded of his oath, and testified as follows.)
COL ROCK: I'd like to announce to both counsel the reason for calling Lieutenant Paulk is to have entered into evidence an item that I had requested quite some time ago. That is whatever notes or report that he made as a result of his trip to the hospital to interview Captain MacDonald on the morning of the 17th, and I am confining my remarks strictly to that particular subject matter.
Questions by COL ROCK:
Q Lieutenant Paulk, previously you testified that on -- and I am not using your exact words, I'm just summarizing it.
A Yes, sir.
Q That on 17 February, at the direction of Colonel Kriwanek, then Post Provost Marshal, that you went to see Captain MacDonald at the hospital. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q I believe you further stated that you were instructed to try to get a better description of the alleged assailants from Captain MacDonald. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q There were other matters which you were requested to question him also, were there not? Or was it for that one sole purpose that you went there?
A Yes, sir, more or less, it was just to obtain as much information that may be -- have some bearing on the case.
Q Well, I will confine my remarks specifically to that portion about the assailants.
A Yes, sir.
Q I believe you also testified that you took some notes in your own hand and then later gave them to the CID, or thought you gave them to the CID. Is that also true?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have a copy of those notes with you?
A I have the copy that was typed in the CID, sir.
Q All right. Would you read those notes to yourself and see if those are the notes that you remember having typed at the CID on whatever date it was?
A Sir, I have already had an opportunity to read them, and they are.
Q And they are?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you show that document to counsel for the government and also counsel for the accused?
(The document was examined by counsel for both sides.)
COL ROCK: Mr. Segal, we will certainly provide you with a copy of it. I'm sorry we didn't have one to present to you right at the moment.
Q Now directing your attention to this particular document, Lieutenant Paulk, specifically I'd like to direct your attention to the notes reference the alleged assailants and I will read this. It says "Suspects description. (1) Two male Caucasians, young. (2) One male Negro, field jacket with Sergeant Strips which did have a rocker. (3) One girl, boots, large hat." Reviewing your notes, does this help you remember the conversation you had with Captain MacDonald at that time?
A Yes, sir, I recall it fairly well.
Q Does this represent everything that Captain MacDonald told you at that time about the assailants?
A Yes, sir, it does.
Q It does. And had there been anything significant beyond what is listed here, you would have written it in here?
A That's correct, sir.
COL ROCK: At this time I will introduce into evidence Exhibit R-6, Lieutenant Paulk's interview notes, 17 February 1970, with Captain MacDonald. I have no further questions of this witness. Does counsel for the government desire to question him concerning this matter?
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q There is some verbiage on this sheet written in pen. Can you tell us the source of that?
A Yes, sir I wrote that after the CID located the typed portion.
Q Is that in fact a certification that it is a copy of your notes?
A Yes, sir, it is.
CPT SOMERS: No further questions.
COL ROCK: Counsel for the accused?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Lieutenant Paulk, when you -- can you indicate to us about what time it was you took this interview?
A I think, Mr. Segal, it was between six and seven, somewhere in that area. That's a.m. I'm not sure exactly. It was early in the morning.
Q On the 17th of February?
A That's correct.
Q Did that interview take place in the emergency room at Womack Army Hospital?
A No, sir, it took place on one of the upper floors. I don't recall what floor it was at this time.
Q Did you observe at that time whether there had been inserted in Captain MacDonald's chest a chest tube, a long medical tube?
CPT SOMERS: I object. That's outside his scope.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, the time, place and circumstances of any interview are always relevant to determining factual situation --
COL ROCK: Objection overruled. Let's try to make it brief, please.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir, we will.
Q Did you notice whether the chest tube had been inserted at that time?
A No, sir, I didn't.
Q What -- was Captain MacDonald crying part of the time that you were talking to him?
A I'm not sure, Mr. Segal. It seems to me that he wasn't crying. Maybe teary-eyed would be a better characterization.
Q How would you characterize his emotional state at the time you talked to him on the morning of the 17th?
A He was -- at this particular time he was aware of the fact that -- that his wife was not alive and that the -- he did not know the state of his children, and he was -- he was being treated, or had been treated, and did not look to be in a normal state that he was to the point where he could talk to me about the -- and he -- I'd say -- I don't know whether he's been given any pain killer or anything of this nature, but I didn't spend a long amount of time with him.
Q How long did you spend with him?
A I'd say from five to ten minutes, not very long.
Q Were there medical personnel in attendance with the Captain at the time you were there?
A Yes, sir, there was one nurse, whose name I don't recall at this time, I believe I noticed the name tag on the doctor as being Doctor Jacobson.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you very much, Lieutenant Paulk. I have nothing further, sir.
COL ROCK: Lieutenant Paulk, you advised that you will discuss your testimony with no person other than either counsel. Do you understand, sir?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: You're permanently excused. Thank you.
(The witness saluted the 10 and departed the hearing room.)
COL ROCK: We will take a temporary recess.
(The hearing recessed at 1417 hours, 10 September 1970.)