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

January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab-Malley
Allegations and Senator Sam Ervin's Inquiry re: CID Misconduct

ALSO RELATED, SEE the following:  December 1970: Freddy Kassab's Letter and Appeal  to U. S. Senate and Congress in Support of Jeffrey MacDonald

December 6, 1970: Letter from First Lieutenant Michael Malley to Lieutenant General John Tolson
 re: Request for investigation of Captain Clifford Somers, Captain William deF. Thompson, CID
 Investigators  Franz Grebner , Robert Shaw and William Ivory


December 9, 1970: Letter of Additional Inquiries from Senator Sam Ervin to Honorable Stanley Resor, Secretary of the Army with Attachment


January 20, 1971: Reply/Findings of Department of Defense re: Fred Kassab's allegations - Appeal to Congress

<<<<>>>>

Note: The first 2 pages of Kassab's Allegations missing when I received the document.

There is three different sections of the allegations. Translations is located after each section following the scanned pages

Section 1:  Kassab Allegations starts below

 

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p.

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 4

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 5

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p.  6

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 7

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 8

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 9

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 11

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 12

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 13

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab allegaions, p. 14

Note: Translation of the above document, Freddy Kassab's allegations as I read it to be
Spelling, punctuation and grammar preserved

I was able to locate the beginning of No. 4, starting on page 3 directly below
 

(4)    That Jeffrey MacDonald was unjustly placed under house arrest and deprived of his freedom of coming and going at will. All of his activities were closely monitored by guards assigned to guard him.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  MacDonald was allowed to visit the PX, go anywhere on the base with a guard.

The list of individuals authorized to visit MacDonald including his military counsel, his two civilian lawyers and his friends and family. He had access to a telephone.

Civilian counsel, Bernard Segal and Dennis Eisman, expressed relief that CPT MacDonald would be allowed to remain in the BOQ, which was air conditioned, had a television, radio, and other obvious comforts, and not be put in the post stockade.

No complaint was ever made by MacDonald or any of his counsel pertaining to his status of restriction.

<<<<>>>>

(5)    That Colonel Kriwanek suggested to Colonel Daniel Lennon, SJA, Fort Bragg, he phone MG K. J. Hodson, TJAG, to close the Article 32 hearing to the public and news media.

This was based on information received from an unknown officer of the military police detachment that during questioning of witnesses it was obvious that the military police and CID had been negligent in their duties and much bungling had occurred.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek played no role in any decision leading to initiation of the Article 32 or the conduct of the Article investigation.

Colonel Kriwanek did not suggest to Colonel Lennon that he ask MG Hodson, TJAG, to close the Article 32 to the public and news media.

<<<<>>>>

(6)    That Colonel Robert Kriwanek made an excess of news releases concerning the MacDonald murders.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  All news conferences and news releases pertaining to the MacDonald murder case were staffed through the Information Officer, Fort Bragg.

The Fort Bragg decision to release information was based on the belief that the Fort Bragg and local civilian community should be kept informed of developments in the case. It was also hoped that publicity of the case would generate help from the public in getting information to the CID.

Substantiation:  Robert Murphy, FBI SA in charge, Resident Field Office, Charlotte, N.C., stated that he contacted Colonel Kriwanek on February 18, 1970, advising that additional press conferences might possibly be detrimental to the investigation of the murders.

<<<<>>>>

(7)    That Colonel Kriwanek claimed the Army had primary jurisdiction in this case and dispensed with the services of the FBI.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Mr. Murphy, FBI SA in charge, FBI Field Office, Charlotte, N.C., visited with Colonel Kriwanek and CW3 Joe Grebner a few days after the murders, advising them that the FBI was reducing their investigative support, pending the development of any further information which would indicate primary jurisdiction should belong to the FBI. The FBI subsequently sent a letter to LTG Tolson, Fort Bragg, dated February 25, 1970, wherein reasons for the FBI termination of the investigation were enumerated. FBI SA Lacey Walthall, Fayetteville, N.C., indicated that the main reason the FBI withdrew from the case was because all physical evidence from the crime scene had been processed by the CID, adding the observation that the FBI considered the case belonged to the Army, not to the FBI.

<<<<>>>>

(8)    That Colonel Kriwanek was secretly replaced and sent to Korea as a result of his actions in this investigation.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek was selected for assignment as Provost Marshal, 8th Army, on January 19, 1970 and officially nominated for that assignment on January 20, 1970. Assignment instructions were forwarded to the Commanding General, Third US Army, on March 4, 1970 and official written orders were published in paragraph 46, Special Order 57, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, N.C. on March 13,1970.

<<<<>>>>

(9)    That during an interview, Colonel Kriwanek told MacDonald he was under house arrest, under guard, and incommunicado, and did not allow MacDonald to call a lawyer.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek did not participate in any interview of MacDonald, nor did he announce that MacDonald was under house arrest, under guard, and incommunicado.

The person who advised MacDonald that he was under restriction was his group commander, Colonel Kane.

<<<<>>>>

(10)    That Colonel Kriwanek's action in holding a news conference and announcing to the world that MacDonald was a suspect in the triple murders committed the Army to prosecution.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek did not hold a news conference announcing that Captain MacDonald was a suspect.

The news release was made by the information officer at Fort Bragg for the purpose of informing the public of the development in this case. The Army was not committed to prosecuting MacDonald because of the news release.

<<<<>>>>

(11)    Colonel Kriwanek informed him (Kassab) that the base had been immediately sealed off and everyone leaving the base questioned on the morning of February 17, 1970, when in fact it had not been done.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek does not recall mentioning to Mr. Kassab during their telephone conversation that Fort Bragg had been sealed off the morning of February 17, 1970. He does recall telling Mr. Kassab that everything that could be done was being done.

Colonel Kriwanek stated that is not possible to seal Fort Bragg to vehicular traffic without a major, carefully planned effort by several hundred men.

Colonel Kriwanek did give an order to the Military Police Desk Sergeant to place all available patrols on the major roads of Fort Bragg and to stop vehicles and to check occupants to see if they fit the description of assailants given by Captain MacDonald.

None of the Post patrols found any people fitting the description of the assailants given by MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(12)    About an hour after the murders, CID agents allowed an unknown civilian, with long hair and wearing dungarees to wander through the house and did not know when he arrived or left.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  The "unknown civilian" was identified as Private James Paulsen, ambulance driver, Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg.

<<<<>>>>

(13)    MacDonald's wallet appears in an Army photograph taken at approximately 0500 hours, but had disappeared by 0600.

(True)

Substantiation:  Investigation by USACIDA Inquiry Team revealed that Private James Paulsen, an ambulance driver, Womack Army Hospital, stole Captain MacDonald's wallet; removed six one-dollar bills and discarded the wallet in the vicinity of Womack Army Hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970.

The wallet was recovered by CID and subsequently returned to MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(14)    CID agent Robert Shaw when questioned during the Article 32 hearing as to why unidentified prints found in the MacDonald house were not forwarded to the FBI, replied "I didn't know the FBI performed that service."

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  This statement was taken out of context. WO1 Shaw relates that prior to the Article 32 hearing he was questioned by counsel for the defense, Captain James Douthat, Bernard Segal, Dennis Eisman, and 1LT Mike Malley. During this questioning, he was asked if he had sent the latent, unidentified, single fingerprints to the FBI for identification.

WO1 Shaw replied, "I am not aware that the FBI performs this service; in fact, I know they do not." Later, during the Article 32 investigation, Mr. Shaw had an opportunity to explain further why he did not send single latent fingerprints to the FBI for analysis. He stated that he knew the FBI would not perform a fingerprint record check based upon a single fingerprint. A letter sent by the FBI, and the statement of SP7 Hilyard Medlin substantiate this conclusion.

<<<<>>>>

(15)    It was apparent from the footprints found in the master bedroom that Kimberley MacDonald was there when her mother was being attacked, yet she was found in her own bedroom. In regard to this, the following fantastic statement was made by a CID agent, "When hippies kill someone, they let the body stay where it falls, they don't move it."

(True)

Substantiation:  CW3 Grebner made a statement to this effect to Captain MacDonald during the interview of April 6, 1970.

Grebner recalls that Captain MacDonald was questioned on many aspects of the crime scene, among them the fact that Kimberley MacDonald had been injured and bled in the master bedroom and then had been carried back to her own bed and covered up.

Mr. Grebner was using an investigative technique to set forth his theory of the scene being staged by the assailant.

He referred to the sheet bearing the blood of Colette and Kimberley and a pool of Kimberley's blood in the bedroom.

He drew attention to the fact that the sheet was probably used to carry Kimberley's body from the master bedroom back to her bed, and in this context said, "Hippies let bodies fall where they may" to which MacDonald replied, "Right, I agree with you."

There were no footprints found in the master bedroom.

<<<<>>>>

(16)    The Army's fingerprint expert admitted many photographs he took of fingerprints did not come out which necessitated they be re photographed.

When he removed the tap covering, these prints were inadvertently destroyed.

(True)

Comment:  Eighty-seven latent fingerprints in the MacDonald quarters were photographed, then clear plastic tape was placed over the latent prints in order to preserve them.

When the pictures were developed, seven exposures were of such poor quality that they prevented clear identification.

It was necessary to re-photograph the seven prints. However, in the meantime, dusting powder had adhered to the protective tape, thus distorting some of the characteristics of the latent prints. They could not be further identified.

<<<<>>>>

(17)    The Army's fingerprint expert's qualifications as an expert consisted of a six-week correspondence course.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  During the Article 32 hearing, MSG Medlin offered the following qualifications: He was assigned to the Criminal Investigation Laboratory in October 1963, attended the eight-week Criminal Investigation course, trained for two years under the guidance of a fully qualified fingerprint technician and has been a fingerprint examiner since 1965.

MSG Medlin completed the Institute of Applied Sciences Fingerprint correspondence course in 1957. Medlin is a qualified fingerprint expert and has been an expert in numerous other judicial proceedings.

Medlin presented a paper to the annual conference of the International Association for Identification in 1967, and he had articles published in other professional magazines.

<<<<>>>>

(18)    That only after much prodding by the defense did the Army admit that blood and unidentified fingerprints were found on Mrs. MacDonald's jewelry box.

(Unfounded)

Comment:  MSG Medlin said that examination of the jewelry box produced two latent prints, both located inside the box and a stain that was not blood.

One print was positively identified as Captain MacDonald's fingerprint; the other was a partial edge of a print, which to date has not been clearly identified.

During the Article 32 hearing MSG Medlin testified that the prints on the jewelry box were unidentified.

<<<<>>>>

(19)    That during the Article 32 hearing it was established that no one had taken an inventory of the contents of the house, and at the end of the hearing, it still had not been done.

Two family heirloom rings are missing.

(True)

Comment:  Items of evidentiary value were inventoried, but no complete inventory of the quarters was made.

According to Colonel Lennon, a complete inventory was not necessary. Except for MacDonald's TV and other items which MacDonald requested the CID to obtain for his BOQ, nothing in the house was disturbed, except for items sent to Fort Gordon Laboratory for analysis.

MacDonald submitted a claim against the United States in which he included the loss of two heirloom rings; a claim is presently being processed in the US Army Claim Service Office, Fort Holabird, MD.

CID agent Shaw made an informal inventory of items located in the quarters considered to have high intrinsic value, or resale value. A formal inventory was made by Agent Shaw of the drugs and medical equipment maintained in the quarters by Captain MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(20)    That the CID did not follow up leads furnished by neighbors that voices of at least two males and a female were heard going in the direction of the MacDonald's backyard immediately prior to the murders.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  The FBI and CID interviewed 39 neighbors of the MacDonalds in an attempt to determine if anyone heard or saw suspicious actions on the morning of February 17, 1970. All leads of substance were explored.

<<<<>>>>

(21)    That many people called the defense with information on possible leads to the murders who stated they all had called the CID offering the information but no one had ever come to question them or asked them to come to the CID office.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  There are no indications that the CID failed to explore substantive leads. The publicity generated many calls and letters, some helpful and others useless. It appears that an honest attempt was made by the CID and FBI to follow-up all useful leads.

<<<<>>>>

(22)    That the defense produced a witness who identified a female living next door who fits the description given by Captain MacDonald of the female assailant, and that the CID did not adequately pursue the investigation of the lead.

(Unfounded)

Refutation: The female identified by witness William (Bill) Posey as meeting the description of the female assailant was Helena Stoeckley, Fayetteville, N.C.

She had been questioned early in the investigation by members of the Fayetteville Police Department, FBI agents, and later by Criminal investigator Bill Ivory. She was useful to the investigation in that she provided information on "hippies" living in the Fayetteville area.

She was never considered a suspect in the MacDonald murders by an investigative agency.

<<<<>>>>

(23)    The Army refused to give protection to the defense witness who identified the female fitting the MacDonald description of the female assailant on grounds these people were civilians and did not come under their jurisdiction.

(True)

Substantiation:  A request was made by the defense counsel to the Office of the Provost Marshal, Fort Bragg, that the Army furnish protection for witness Posey. The request was referred to civilian authorities as the Army did not have jurisdiction to protect civilians in a civilian community.

Upon contacting the FBI with a similar request, the defense counsel was advised to hire a private security officer.

<<<<>>>>

(24)    MacDonald described the female assailant as carrying a lit candle during the murders but the CID admitted, only after the insistence of the defense, that candle drippings had been found in various rooms of the house.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  A small quality of candle drippings were found in three places in the MacDonald house; the arm of an overstuffed chair in Kimberley's bedroom, a bedspread in Kimberley's bedroom, and the top surface of the coffee table in the living room.

This fact was related to the defense counsel; however, there was a delay in the receipt of the laboratory analysis of the drippings. The final laboratory report of the drippings was received by government counsel on about August 15, 1970. None of the drippings matched candles found in the MacDonald house.

<<<<>>>>

(25)    That in the middle of the Article 32 hearing, it was imperative to the Army's case that samples of MacDonald's hair be taken due to fact that examination of samples of MacDonald's hair at the Fort Gordon Criminal Laboratory turned out to be "horse hair."

(True)

Substantiation:  Hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's fist was sent to the US Army Criminal Investigative Laboratory for examination.

In order to obtain a comparative analysis it was necessary to obtain hair samples of other people.

Defense counsel objections prevented the taking of hair from the body of Captain MacDonald, so hair samples were obtained from his clothing located in his quarters. One hair sample which was obtained from a sweatshirt was subsequently determined to be a horse hair. MacDonald owned a horse at that time.

<<<<>>>>

(26)    That in order to obtain additional samples of MacDonald's hair, seven jeeps and two civilian cars full of MPs and CID agents ran MacDonald's car off the road, beat up one of the civilian lawyers, and slammed the other against the car.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  An investigation by the US Army CID Agency revealed no substantiation of the charge by the defense civilian attorneys, Segal and Eisman that they were beaten by MPs and CID agents on July 20, 1970.

The report states that Colonel Lennon ordered Captain MacDonald to be apprehended for the purpose of obtaining hair samples from his body.

MacDonald was spotted riding on the Fort Bragg military reservation in an automobile containing the civilian defense attorneys. The car was pursued by MPs and CID agents, and stopped after a short chase.

While attempting to block access to the open door of MacDonald's vehicle, Attorney Eisman was set aside by a CID agent and fell to the ground.

Preponderance of evidence suggest no excessive force was used by the CID agent to move Eisman.

<<<<>>>>

(27)    That Franz Grebner, head of the Fort Bragg CID, admitted he received the laboratory report on the hair August 5, 1970, but did not produce the results of the examination until it was demanded by the Article 32 hearing office, Colonel Warren Rock, claiming it had been misplaced and he had forgotten about it due to other pressing matters.

(True)

Substantiation:  CW3 Grebner received the laboratory report of the hair samples on July 30, 1970, and filed it with other laboratory reports.

On August 17, 1970 Lieutenant Ossman inquired if the hair samples had been received. Grebner told him he could not recall having seen it but, upon checking his files, discovered that it had been received. He immediately notified Lieutenant Ossman that he had found the report.

<<<<>>>>

(28)    That the CID contends the scene in the MacDonald living room was staged by MacDonald because it was an impossibility for the coffee table to be upset and land on its side as claimed by MacDonald when the same table was upset by the Article 32 officer, Colonel Rock, it did land on its side.

(True)

Substantiation:  Dr. Fisher experimented with the coffee table in the living room of MacDonald's quarters to determine if it would land on its side, the position in which it was found on the morning of February 17, 1970. There was a suspicion that the living room scene had been deliberately staged by someone who wanted the MPs and CID investigators to think that a struggle had taken place in that room. He found that each time he kicked over the coffee table it landed on its top.

Other items such as magazines, slippers, and a flower pot were scattered as a result of this upset, and never in the course of these experiments did these items fall in a configuration remotely close to the original scene on February 17, 1970.

Colonel Rock reported that on his second visit to the MacDonald quarters, he knocked over the coffee table, and it landed on its edge.

CW3 Grebner was present during this experiment and he contends the test was faulty because the adjacent chair was turned broadside to the table, thus effectively preventing the coffee table from tumbling onto its top.

Photographs taken during the morning of February 17, 1970 show the adjacent chair sitting at an angle
of approximately 30 degree to the coffee table.

CID agents Shaw and Ivory also conducted numerous controlled experiments and they determined that the table would land on its edge only if it struck the adjacent chair flush, and along its entire length.

<<<<>>>>

(29)    CID agents maintain that MacDonald could not have seen the faces of the murderers as he claimed; but when the Article 32 hearing officer, Colonel Rock visited the MacDonald house and assumed the same position that MacDonald stated he was in at the time he saw the murderers, Colonel Rock could clearly see the faces of two men who were in the murderers' position as indicated by MacDonald.

(True)

Substantiation: Colonel Rock did see the features of a person standing at the foot of the couch during this experiment. It should be noted, however, that additional lighting was available during this experiment.

It should also be noted that Captain MacDonald related that he was awakened from a sound sleep, and he has defective vision.

<<<<>>>>

(30)    That the perjured testimony and suppression of evidence by the CID and the prosecution has brought disgrace to the Army.

(Unfounded)

Refutation:  Captain Somers offered the professional opinion that no perjured testimony was made by CID agents during the Article 32 hearing.

He further stated that Shaw and Ivory were extremely competent investigators, their conduct at all times proper, and the US Army fortunate to have them assigned to the case.

 

 

 

 


Section two: 1st Lieutenant Michael Malley's Allegations
Translation of the above document following the scanned pages

 

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 1

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 2

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 3

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 4

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 5

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 6

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 78

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 8

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Malley allegations, p. 9

Note: Translation of the above document, 1st Lieutenant Michael Malley's allegations as I read it to be
Spelling, punctuation and grammar preserved
 

(1)    CID agents gave possible perjured testimony.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Captain Somers offered the professional opinion that no perjured testimony was made by CID agents during the Article 32 hearing.

<<<<>>>>

(2)    CID agents were grossly negligent.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Colonel Kriwanek and other senior officers formed a high opinion of the performance of the military police and CID personnel during the investigation of the MacDonald murder case.

It was felt they conducted the investigation in a highly professional manner using the best available practices and techniques.

Outside experts called in to evaluate the investigation gave the MPs and criminal investigators high marks in all categories.

COMMENT: This inquiry has determined that some errors and omissions occurred during the course of the initial phase of the investigation. Example:

(1) Security of the crime scene was inadequate.

(2) No photographs of Captain MacDonald's wound were taken.

(3) Captain MacDonald's pajama bottoms were destroyed by hospital personnel.

(4) Fingerprints taken of the victims were later determined to be inadequate.

(5) Hair samples were not taken from the bodies of the victims.

These errors are indicative of poor organization of investigative effort. However, considering the complexity of the crime and the magnitude of effort expanded to solve this crime, the term gross negligence is inappropriate.

<<<<>>>>

(3)    That other conduct on the part of prosecutor(s) and CID agents constituted possible conduct unbecoming of officers and/or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

(Unfounded

COMMENT:  The government counsel and Provost Marshal praised the competence of the criminal investigators.

On the other hand, defense counsel, Captain Douthat holds the opinion that CID agents and others committed illegal, unethical or wantonly derelict acts.

The data given into the inquiry team by Captain Douthat includes the following:

                              (1) Defense counsel interview of Grebner, Ivory and Shaw.

                              (2) Notes taken during the testimony of Medlin.

                              (3) Petitions to the Court of Military Appeals.

                              (4) A motion filed by the US District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina.

                              (5) Three photographs depicting persons who allegedly surveilled Douthat and Malley.

The petitions and motions were denied by the respective courts, thus determining that these complaints were without foundation.

Examinations of the remainder of the data failed to substantiate the charges that CID agents were guilty of conduct unbecoming of officers, or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

<<<<>>>>

(4)    That CID agents did not take ordinary investigative steps to determine if and how the crime scene had been changed prior to their arrival.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION:  Not all of the persons present at the crime scene were interviewed by the CID to determine if the crime scene had been changed prior to the arrival of CID agents.

<<<<>>>>

(5)    That CID agents failed to interview MPs who had been at the crime scene to develop this information.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION: All MPs who had been at the crime scene were directed to prepare written summaries.

These summaries were reviewed by CID agents. However, not all of these MPs were interviewed.

<<<<>>>>

(6)    CID agents failed to submit numerous identifiable finger and palm prints to the FBI.

(True)

Comment: The CID did not initially submit prints to the FBI for identification as they were aware that the FBI could not check single latent prints in their main fingerprint file.

Later, at the request of Colonel Rock, 50 prints were submitted to the FBI. This submission was made in spite of the known fact that the FBI could not conduct a search in the main fingerprint file since a search of this file is based on a classification of all ten fingers of an individual.

<<<<>>>>

(7)    CID agents failed to inventory the crime scene.

(Unfounded)

COMMENT: According to Colonel Lennon, a complete inventory was not necessary. Except for MacDonald's TV and other items which MacDonald requested the CID to obtain for his BOQ, nothing in the house was disturbed, except for items sent to Fort Gordon Laboratory for analysis. An inventory of these items were maintained.

During the week of November 30 - December 4, 1970, all the items in the house were returned to MacDonald, except those held for evidentiary purposes.

MacDonald submitted a claim against the United States in which he included the loss of two heirloom rings. Whether or not he had the heirloom is a matter known to MacDonald and Kassab alone.

The claim is presently being processed in the US Army Claim Service Office, Fort Holabird, MD.

<<<<>>>>

(8)    CID made the erroneous conclusion that nothing was missing from the house and that no unidentified persons could have been in the house.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: CID agents who arrived at the crime scene observed no signs of ransacking or vandalism which would lead them to believe that theft had occurred.

To the contrary, expensive items were left untouched.

There was no evidence of forced entry into the quarters, and laboratory findings revealed no evidence of the locks being picked.

<<<<>>>>

(9)   That at least one man's wallet was stolen from the MacDonald house while CID agents were presence.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION: Investigation by USACIDA Inquiry Team revealed that Private James Paulsen, an ambulance driver, Womack Army Hospital, stole MacDonald's wallet; removed six one-dollar bills and discarded the wallet in the vicinity of Womack Army Hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970. The wallet was recovered by the CID on February 17, 1970, and subsequently returned to MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(10)    That it appeared some woman's jewelry was stolen.

(Inconclusive)

COMMENT: No evidence exists to support the claim that jewelry was stolen.

Private Paulsen, who admitted stealing the wallet, denied stealing anything else from the MacDonald quarters.

WO Ivory released two rings to Captain MacDonald at his request. One was a square diamond-type ring, and the other was a heart-shaped ring.

Whether or not heirloom rings were stolen is known to Kassab and MacDonald alone.

<<<<>>>>

(11)    Numerous fingerprints in the MacDonald house are still unidentified.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION: Eighty-seven latent fingerprints in the MacDonald quarters were photographed. Seven exposures were faulty, and subsequent efforts to re photograph these prints were prevented because dusting powder had distorted the prints.

Of the remaining 80 prints, 47 were identified with known persons, and 33 were unidentified. However, 26 of these 33 prints are "partials" and could easily have been made by the victims. Unfortunately, full rolled impressions of the victims hands were never made.

<<<<>>>>

(12)    CID agents failed to preserve MacDonald's pajama bottoms.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION: Captain MacDonald wore his pajama bottom to the hospital where they were removed by hospital attendants, placed into a waste container and dumped into an incinerator.

By the time CID investigators arrived at Womack Army Hospital later in the morning of February 17, 1970 to retrieve the pajamas, they discovered the pajamas had been destroyed.

<<<<>>>>

(13)    CID agents assumed positive identification of some of the weapons thought to have been used in the assault upon Captain and his family.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION:
The CID had sufficient reason to believe that the weapons found under the bush and in the master bedroom did come from the MacDonald quarters and had been used in the assault on the victims.

The statement of Pamela Kalin and Captain MacDonald (both later refuted); plus the comparison of paint splashing found on the sidewalk, storage bin, and club; plus the laboratory reports which revealed that blood found on the knives and club matched blood of the victims, led the investigators to presume that they had identified the murder weapons.

<<<<>>>>

(14)    CID agents failed to interview MacDonald before he was a suspect to obtain a coherent story.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Three interviews of Captain MacDonald were conducted at Womack Army Hospital on February 17, 18 and 19, 1970 by joint FBI/CID investigative team.

<<<<>>>>

(15)    That if Captain MacDonald was a suspect prior to April 6, 1970, Colonel Kriwanek lied when he denied this.

(Unfounded)

COMMENT:
A question was asked of Colonel Kriwanek during his February 18, 1970 press conference as to whether the Army considered Captain MacDonald a suspect.

Colonel Kriwanek did not define MacDonald's status during this press conference other than to state that he considered MacDonald a witness.

<<<<>>>>

(16)    CID agents failed to determine the seriousness of MacDonald's wounds or the impossibility of the consequences of self-inflicting such wounds.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Interviews with Womack Army Hospital medical doctors convinced CID personnel that although the stab wound to the chest resulting in a pneumothorax was serious, it was not a critical wound.

All other wounds were superficial.

CID agents Ivory and Shaw visited the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC, and solicited the advice of experts in an attempt to determine if MacDonald's wounds could have been self-inflicted.

The opinions expressed by these medical personnel was to the effect that a medical doctor could very well have self-inflicted the primary wound as well as the superficial wounds, knowing that in all probability that the results would not be fatal.

<<<<>>>>

(17)    That CID agents recklessly conducted interviews into MacDonald's background using character assassination techniques and never evaluated the results of such investigation.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION:
A principle reason for the extensive inquire into the backgrounds of Captain and Mrs. MacDonald was to determine any possible motive anyone might have for murdering Colette and the children while leaving the strongest member of the household alive.

The background investigation was necessary in order to determine the character, reputation, and way of life of the MacDonalds.

The purpose of the investigation was to discover favorable as well as adverse information.

Evaluation of the information received from these background inquiries led the CID to the conclusion that Captain MacDonald possessed a good reputation.

No evidence has been found indicating CID agents used character assassination techniques, were reckless in their interviews, or failed to evaluate results of their inquiries.

<<<<>>>>

(18)    CID agents never developed a motive and assumed that this was not significant to the investigation.

(Unfounded)

Comment:
To date no motive has been found for the murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald.

The absence of a clearly discernible motive supports one of the leading theories of how the crime occurred, namely that it was a crime of passion.

However, CID agents have continued to search for a motive.

<<<<>>>>

(19)    CID agents placed Captain MacDonald in the position of having to explain facts for which the CID could find no explanation, and because MacDonald was unable to provide such explanation, he was assumed to be guilty.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Although Captain MacDonald did not give adequate answers to questions concerning certain aspects of events in his story, this alone was not the basis for the suspicion that he murdered his family.

<<<<>>>>

(20)    CID agents recklessly represented to the SJA and Colonel Kane that a thorough investigation had been conducted which in fact was not true.

(Unfound)

REFUTATION: The CID continuously briefed Colonel Kane, Colonel Kriwanek and other senior officers concerning process of the investigation, laboratory examination results, and other developments in the case as they occurred.

Colonel Kriwanek briefed LTG Tolson and MG Flanagan daily, and visited Colonel Kane several times a week concerning process of the case.

Captain Somers believes that the CID thoroughly investigated the case.

<<<<>>>>

(21)    CID agents performed a "ludicrous experiment" in tipping over the coffee table in the MacDonald living room to demonstrate that the living room had been staged.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: The experiment with the coffee table was a genuine effort on the part of Dr. Fisher and CID agents to determine the probability of the living room scene being staged.

<<<<>>>>

(22)    A prosecutor told an MP witness, SP4 Mica not to volunteer information to the defense that he had seen a female matching the description of one of the assailants.

(True)

SUBSTANTIATION: SP4 Mica said that Captain Somers and Captain Thompson instructed him not to volunteer any information to defense counsel during defense counsel interviews, but rather to answer truthfully all questions asked of him.

<<<<>>>>

(23)    Prosecutor(s) in conjunction with CID agents failed to produce laboratory reports concerning wax samples found in the MacDonald house.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Wax samples from the MacDonald quarters were analyzed by the US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Fort Gordon, GA; however, the analysis report was not received by government counsel until on or about August 15, 1970
.

<<<<>>>>

(24)    Samples forcibly taken from MacDonald because the laboratory report was written to cast doubt on the exculpatory nature of the first report.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: Captain Somers was not satisfied with the wording of the initial laboratory report and asked for clarification.

An addendum was eventually sent by the laboratory and when this was received the report was given to the Article 32 officer.

The control presentation of the government's case is solely in the hands of the government counsel.

<<<<>>>>

(25)    CID agent Grebner testified that the long delay in submitting such reports was due to the fact that these reports were lost which was probably not true.

(Inconclusive)

COMMENT:
CW3 Grebner received the laboratory report of the hair samples on July 30, 1970, and filed it with other laboratory reports.

On August 17, 1970 Lieutenant Ossman inquired if the hair samples had been received. Grebner told him he could not recall having seen it but, upon checking his files, discovered that it had been received. He immediately notified Lieutenant Ossman that he had found the report.

<<<<>>>>

(26)    The prosecutor(s) and CID withheld the identity of a female resident of Fayetteville who may have been iinvolved in the crime; did not pursue the investigation of this obvious lead and withheld this information from the defense.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION: The identify of Helena Stoeckley was known to CID agents prior to the MacDonald murders, primarily because she had served as an informant to the Interagency Bureau of Narcotics, Fayetteville, NC. She was interviewed shortly after the murders because she was a hippy.

No evidence was produced linking her to the crime. Nothing indicates that the CID deliberately withheld this information from the defense counsel.

<<<<>>>>

(27)    CID interviewed this female only after her discovery by the defense and then solely to cover up government misconduct.

(Unfounded)

REFUTATION:
There is no indication that the re-interview of Helen Stoeckley following the testimony of witness Posey was done for the purpose of covering up government misconduct..

 


Section 3: Senator Sam Ervin Inquiry

Note: Translation of document following scanned pages

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to Senator Sam Ervin inquiry, p. 24

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to Senator Sam Ervin inquiry, p. 25

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to Senator Sam Ervin inquiry, p. 26

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to Senator Sam Ervin inquiry, p. 27

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to Senator Sam Ervin inquiry, p. 28

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to Senator Sam Ervin inquiry, p. 29

Note: Translation of the above document, Senator Sam Ervin Inquiry as I read it to be
Spelling, punctuation and grammar preserved
 

(1)    Did the MP and CID agents stop the car carrying Captain and his civilian lawyers, seize Captain MacDonald and forcibly obtain samples of hair from various part of his body?

Findings:  An investigation by the US Army CID Agency revealed that the civilian lawyers were not assaulted by CID agents during the taking of hair samples from Captain MacDonald on July 20, 1970.

The report states that Colonel Lennon ordered Captain MacDonald to be apprehended for the purpose of obtaining hair samples from his body.

MacDonald was spotted riding on the Fort Bragg military reservation in an automobile containing the defense lawyers, was pursued by military police and CID personnel, and stopped after a short chase.

While attempting to block access to the open door of MacDonald's vehicle, lawyer Eisman was set aside by a CID agent and fell to the ground.

Preponderance of evidence suggests no excessive force was used by the CID agent to move Eisman.

Captain MacDonald was transported to his BOQ. LTC Himma and MSG Dupree took hair samples from Captain MacDonald's body in the presence of Captain Somers, Captain Rainer, and CID agent Hodges.

The order to obtain hair samples was issued by government counsel, Captain Somers, on June 3, 1970, and Colonel Lennon issued the pick-up order on July 20, 1970.

Defense counsel elected not to be present in the BOQ when hair was taken from MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(2)    Did the Army or any of its agents eavesdrop on the conversations of Captain MacDonald and his lawyers?

Findings:  When MacDonald was initially placed under restriction, no private telephone was at his disposal. He used the telephone located in the hallway near the security guard's post. Security guards overheard MacDonald's portion of some calls. Later, a private telephone was installed in MacDonald's room.

Colonel Kriwanek directed that tapping and eavesdropping would not be employed in this case.

There is no evidence to indicate that electronic surveillance of any form was used during the MacDonald investigation.

<<<<>>>>

(3)    Did Colonel Kriwanek claim prime jurisdiction for the Army in this case and dismiss the services of the FBI?

Findings:   No. FBI SA in charge Murphy, FBI Field Office, Charlotte, NC visited with Colonel Kriwanek and CW3 Grebner a few days after the murders, advising them that the FBI was reducing their investigative support pending the development of any further information which would indicate primary jurisdiction should belong to the FBI.

The FBI subsequently sent a letter to LTG Tolson, CG, Fort Bragg, dated February 25, 1970 wherein reasons for the FBI termination of the investigation were enumerated.

FBI agent Lacey Walthall, Fayetteville, NC, indicated that the main reason the FBI withdrew from the case was because all physical evidence from the crime scene had been processed by the CID, adding the observation that the FBI considered the case belonged to the Army, not to the FBI.

<<<<>>>>

(4)    How could the CID "forget" that they had received the laboratory report of hair samples taken from Captain MacDonald?

Findings:  CW3 Grebner received the laboratory report of the hair samples on July 30, 1970 and filed it with other laboratory reports.

On August 17, 1970 LT Ossman inquired if the hair samples had been received. Grebner told him he could not recall having seen it but, upon checking his files, discovered that it had been received. He immediately notified LT Ossman that he had found the report.

Captain Somers was not satisfied with the wording of the report and asked for classification. An addendum was eventually sent by the laboratory and when this was received the report was given to the Article 32 Officer.

The control of presentation of the government's case is solely in the hands of government counsel.

<<<<>>>>

(5)    Did the military police officer in charge on the morning of the murders refuse a request by one of his sergeants to seal off Fort Bragg and question everyone leaving?

Findings:  No. Colonel Kriwanek stated that it is not possible to seal Fort Bragg to vehicular traffic without a major, carefully planned effort by several hundred men.

Colonel Kriwanek did give an order to the Military Police Desk Sergeant to place all available patrols on the major roads of Fort Bragg and to stop vehicles and check occupants to see if they fit the description of assailants given by Captain MacDonald.

None of the post control found any people fitting the description of assailants given by MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(6)    Was a long haired civilian observed wandering around the MacDonald quarters at approximately 0500 February 17, 1970?

Was he ever identified?

Findings:  There was no unidentified civilian at the crime scene. The "unknown civilian" was identified as Private James Paulsen, ambulance driver, Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg.

His hair at that time was longer than the average military cut, and he wore a blue jersey under his Army field jacket.

To the casual observer, he could easily have been mistaken for a civilian. He was interviewed by the Inquiry Team.

<<<<>>>>

(7)    Was Captain MacDonald's wallet stolen?

Findings:  Yes. Investigation by USACIDA Inquiry Team revealed that Private James Paulsen stole Captain MacDonald's wallet; removed six one-dollar bills and discarded the wallet in the vicinity of Womack Army Hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970.

The wallet was recovered by CID on February 17, 1970, and subsequently returned MacDonald.

<<<<>>>>

(8)    Did CID agent Shaw declare that he did not know the FBI performed the service of comparing unidentified fingerprints with prints in their files?

Findings:  This statement was taken out of context. Shaw's complete statement was, "I am not aware that the FBI performs this service; in fact I know they do not."

The FBI cannot conduct a search of its main fingerprint file for the purpose of identifying a single latent print unless it has: (a) all ten fingerprints of the subject or (b) possesses a name and identification data of the person suspected of having made the fingerprint impression.

<<<<>>>>

(9)    Did the Army's fingerprint expert destroy many fingerprints when he removed the covering tape in order to re photograph the prints after the original photographs did not come out?

Findings:  Eighty-seven latent fingerprints in the MacDonald quarters were photographed, then clear plastic tape was placed over the latent prints in order to preserve them.

When the pictures were developed, seven exposures were of such poor quality that they prevented clear identification.

It was necessary to re photograph the seven prints. However, in the meantime, dusting powder had adhered to the protective tape, thus distorting some of the characteristics of the latent prints. They could not be further identified.

<<<<>>>>

(10)    Did the Army's fingerprint expert admit that his qualifications were limited to a six-week correspondence course on fingerprinting?

Findings:  During the Article 32 hearing, MSG Medlin offered the following qualifications: He was assigned to the Criminal Investigation Laboratory in October 1963, attended the eight-week Criminal Investigation course, trained for two years under the guidance of a fully qualified fingerprint technician and has been a fingerprint examiner since 1965.

MSG Medlin completed the Institute of Applied Sciences Fingerprint correspondence course in 1957. Medlin is a qualified fingerprint expert and has been an expert in numerous other judicial proceedings.

Medlin presented a paper to the annual conference of the International Association for Identification in 1967, and he had articles published in other professional magazines.

<<<<>>>>

(11)    Was an inventory taken of the contents of the MacDonald quarters?

Findings:  No. Items of evidentiary were inventoried, but no complete inventory of the contents of the quarters was made.

According to Colonel Lennon, a complete inventory was not necessary.

Except for MacDonald's TV and other items which MacDonald requested the CID to obtain for his BOQ, nothing in the house was disturbed, except items sent to Fort Gordon Laboratory for analysis. An inventory of these items were maintained.

<<<<>>>>

(12)    Was an effort made to ascertain if jewelry was missing, even after the jewelry case was found to have blood and unidentified fingerprints on it?

Findings:  No evidence exists to support the claim that jewelry was stolen.

No latent prints appear on the exterior of the jewelry box, and of the prints inside the box, one has been positively identified as being made by Captain MacDonald.

The other is a partial print that reveals only a few ridges and has not been identified. It could have been made by Mrs. MacDonald.

Unfortunately, no record exits of full rolled impressions of Mrs. MacDonald's fingers and palms, thus obviating a comparison in this case.

The stains on the jewelry box were determined to be organic substance, not blood.

Whether or not heirloom rings were stolen is known to Kassab and MacDonald alone.

<<<<>>>>

(13)    Did the CID fail to follow up leads? Specifically, did the CID fail to interview two neighbors who heard voices of two males and a female going in the direction of the MacDonald backyard immediately prior to the killings?

Findings:  There are no indications that the CID failed to explore substantive leads.

The publicity generated many calls and letters, some were helpful and others useless. It appears that an honest attempt was made to follow-up all useful leads.

The FBI and CID interviewed 39 neighbors of the MacDonalds in an attempt to determine if anyone heard or saw suspicious actions on the morning of February 17, 1970.

This extensive investigation included interviews with persons who heard voices outside their quarters. Each lead was pursued diligently.


 

 

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  - 
Polygraphs
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