Jeffrey MacDonald's Article 32 investigation hearing: 1970 - Volume 13
Professor William G. Wolfgang; Elizabeth Ann Krystia; Marjorie Murdock;
Susan Chester; John W. Chester; Doctor Robert L. Sadoff and Jan Snyder
MR. SEGAL: Sir, at this time, we wish to call as a witness, Doctor Wolfgang, a professor of--at the Textile Institute in Philadelphia in regard to certain technical evidence. If we'd be allowed a few minutes to make that call, we'll have him available forthwith.
(A telephone conference call was placed to Doctor William G. Wolfgang, who testified as follows.)
COL ROCK: Doctor Wolfgang, this is Colonel Rock. Can you hear me?
WITNESS: Yes.
COL ROCK: Please raise your right hand.
WITNESS: Yes.
(Doctor Wolfgang was sworn.)
COL ROCK: The next voice will be that of Mr. Segal, counsel for the accused.
WITNESS: All right.
MR. SEGAL: Doctor Wolfgang, can you hear me?
WITNESS: Yes, just fine.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Would you be good enough, please, to state your full name and your home address for the record?
A My name is William G. Wolfgang.
Q And your address, sir?
A 407 Belmont Drive, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Q And what is your profession, Doctor Wolfgang?
A My profession is Professor.
Q And where are you presently employed?
A I am presently employed by the Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science.
Q And where is that located?
A It is located in Philadelphia, School House Lane and Henry Avenue.
Q And what department of the college are you working as a member of the faculty?
A As a member of the faculty I work in the Textile Department.
Q And would you indicate to us what are your educational qualifications in regard to that work and your teaching position?
A I have a Bachelor of Science Degree from the--College in Chemistry; a Master of Arts degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and I have all but the dissertation written for the Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania.
Q May I ask what are your present duties at the Philadelphia College of Textiles?
A My presents are, one, to teach textile engineering courses, and my primary duties, however, are to be Director of Textile and Apparel Research.
Q Under that capacity of Director of Textile and Apparel Research, do you have a number of persons that you supervise in the laboratory there?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what is involved in that direction of that laboratory?
A Well, my major job is to negotiate contract with outside companies, plan the work which has to be done, and then assign people either on the faculty or on out textile staff--technical staff to perform whatever duties are necessary, collect the data and the information which is derived from these other individuals, write the reports, essentially be the contact with the contractors.
Q And this research work you are referring to with the contractors, does that all relate to research and dealing with textile materials?
A Almost of it will be either textile material or dying and finishing, almost all textile materials and in the manufacture of apparel.
Q And may I ask how long you have been a member of the faculty of Philadelphia Textile College?
A I came in 1951.
Q And what position did you hold then, and if you would tell us what your career at the college has been?
A My first position at the college was to teach mathematics, which I did for a year. Then I went to the chemistry department and began to teach courses in textile chemistry. I then started teaching courses in textile fibers, the properties used in identification, and most recently I have been teaching courses in textile testing fiber identification, and the engineering approach to textile design.
Q Doctor Wolfgang, prior to coming to Philadelphia Textile College, what was your employment in related textile fields?
A None. I taught mathematics at the Altoona Center at Pennsylvania State College, and prior to that I was student.
Q Do you belong to any professional organizations or societies dealing--
A I am a member of the American Association of Textile Chemist--American Association of Textile Technologists, Franklin Institute, Pattern Recognition Society. Those are the major ones.
Q Have you had occasion to be called upon in the past to testify as an expert witness in legal matters?
A Yes.
Q Would you indicate on how many occasions you have testified as an expert witness in legal matters?
A Well, on three to date.
Q And have you had occasion to be called upon at various times to make laboratory experiments or investigations of materials and fibers in connection with investigations with criminal cases?
A Yes.
Q Can you indicate on how many occasions you've done that?
A Oh, there's at least four or five, where I have been involved either directly or indirectly.
Q All right, if you would bear with me.
MR. SEGAL: At this time, Colonel Rock, we would offer the prosecution an opportunity to ask any questions of Doctor Wolfgang about his qualifications, because otherwise we intend to offer him as a witness to give certain expert opinions about the report made by Mr. Browning and matters relating to fibers in this case.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, this is Captain Somers. Can you hear me, sir?
A Not very well.
Q Okay, how about now?
A That's fine.
Q Okay, good. Do I understand, sir, that you have not yet been awarded the Ph.d degree?
A That is correct.
Q But you have been working in textile chemistry since 1951?
A 1952, that is correct.
Q Now you say you've worked in the criminal fields on fibers on four or five occasions. Is that correct?
A At least that number.
Q And in what connection with fibers?
A Well in some of the cases the--Philadelphia Police Department has brought in fiber and fabric samples for us to attempt to a--to identify for them, give them some specific identification, and in two cases I've been in contact with one through the local Philadelphia lawyers on the other side of the fence to look at fibers and fabrics samples that were involved with a--two murder cases.
Q I see. In your work, normally in research or in the laboratory, the textile laboratory, do you do microscopic work on fibers?
A Yes.
Q Is this common?
A Yeah, we've done that at least two or three times a week.
Q And have been doing this for some years?
A Yeah.
Q Okay, as I understand your position now, you've reached the point of being primarily an administrator?
A Well, my time is divided about 60-40 between administration and still in the laboratory. We are not that big an organization yet.
CPT SOMERS: I see, sir. I am going to turn the microphone back over to Mr. Segal now.
WITNESS: Surely.
COL ROCK: Does the government offer any objections to accept this witness as an expert, recognizing the fact that the individual is coming in on the horn?
CPT SOMERS: The government has no objection to the offer of Doctor Wolfgang as an expert in the fields of textiles. I presume that's what he's being offered as.
MR. SEGAL: That's right, sir, the analysis of fibers and the sources from which fibers can be found, threads, the sources of threads that are used in production of textiles and related matters.
CPT SOMERS: I would presume that's the case.
COL ROCK: It is so noted.
MR. SEGAL: Doctor Wolfgang, your qualifications have been accepted for the purpose of our hearing this afternoon.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Have you have submitted to you and had an opportunity to examine the testimony given in these proceedings by Mr. Dillard Browning, a chemist employed at the laboratory of the Provost Marshal General's Office at Fort Gordon, Georgia?
A Yes.
Q And have you had a chance to examine that testimony of Mr. Browning?
A Yes.
Q And have you also had it submitted to you and had a chance to examine the laboratory report which Mr. Browning has testified he compared?
A Yes.
Q Have you had a chance to read that portion of Mr. Browning's testimony in which he testified that--as to his qualifications as to textiles and fabric and fiber analysis--he had approximately two months training in the course at Fort Gordon?
CPT SOMERS: Now I object to this. The defense has accepted Mr. Browning as an expert.
MR. SEGAL: That, I believe, is incorrect. Bear with us just a moment, Mr. Wolfgang. I will--I believe the record will reflect that Mr. Eisman did not agree to the qualifications, and among other things, there is always the question of relative weight to be given the qualifications of one expert as opposed to another. An expert who might be accepted, although he is just beginning--
COL ROCK: Now let's address our self to what's in the record there. I would like to see that.
MR. SEGAL: I would hand up to the examination of the investigating officer, page 396, with reference to the lower half of the page and the top of 397, which I think accurately states the position of counsel for the accused in that regard.
COL ROCK: I wouldn't consider this an objection. I would consider and so acknowledge at the time certain caveats which were rendered at that time.
CPT SOMERS: Well, sir, I think the qualifications, whatever they may be, of Mr. Browning, are before this hearing, and can be decided upon as to the credibility to be given Mr. Browning's testimony. I do not think that it is improper for one witness to be asked to comment on the qualifications of another witness, since the witness was accepted as an expert. If he wishes to testify concerning the report, the laboratory report, that's fine. If he wishes to testify as to technique, as to his theories and opinions, as an expert, that's fine, but he has
--it is not his place and it is not, in the view of the government, permissible to permit this witness to comment on the qualifications of another witness.
CPT BEALE: Captain Somers, your objection to this particular line of questioning until it goes a little bit further is overruled.
Q All right, Doctor Wolfgang, we are back with you again.
A Yes, I think better for the record if you gave me the proper title.
Q Professor Wolfgang.
A Yes.
Q All right, would you be good enough in regard to the portion of the testimony by Mr. Browning which indicated the extent of training that he had had in textile and fiber analysis--would you, in your opinion, consider that to be a sufficient amount of educational background and training to qualify him to render expert opinions about fibers, fiber analysis and threads?
A Well, without actually knowing exactly what his courses of study were, how many hours spent, and exactly what was covered, it's very difficult to render an opinion.
Q Based upon what you read in the testimony given by Mr. Browning, which is, in fact, all that we have before us in these proceedings, in your judgment and experience, would you be satisfied to accept Mr. Browning's testimony on the subject I have mentioned as expert testimony?
CPT SOMERS: I object to that.
MR. SEGAL: Mr. Wolfgang, hold on one second, please.
CPT SOMERS: He had just answered that question as to whether he can decide on whether or not this is an expert witness, and now the defense is attempting to ask the same question again, and put the answer in his mouth.
CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained. Move on.
Q Professor Wolfgang, if we may--
A Yes?
Q I want to ask you, please, if you can tell us, based upon the information that you have read in Mr. Browning's testimony, as to whether he could or any expert could validly make a determination as he is purported to make in his testimony and in his report as to sources from which the fibers came from?
CPT SOMERS: I object to that. That is too vague and not specific.
MR. SEGAL: There is occasionally an objection made here in the courtroom, which you cannot hear, so if you will hold on, one moment, we will be able to advise you whether you can answer that question or not.
WITNESS: All right.
CPT SOMERS: That question is too vague and unspecific.
MR. SEGAL: I might say, sir, in dealing with an expert witness whose knowledge of the area which we are talking about is probably by far exceeds the sum total of the knowledge of all the laymen here, I think he is uniquely in a position to indicate whether he understands the ambit of the question and what is covered. If he does not, either his answer is not responsive and can be stricken, or he will so indicate. But I do not think that we are dealing with expert judgment. We are in the same area of questioning the clarity of the question because the hearer of the question knows better whether he understands what we are talking about.
CPT SOMERS: He asking a question as to whether this conclusion drawn by the laboratory technician could be drawn on the basis of some unspecified information which is contained in a transcript, which I did not understand was to be released in the first place, and he's not relating it to any specific characteristics or any specific identification of the characteristics.
He's relating it to--in general. Now I object to the form of this question.
CPT BEALE: The point that has been raised--it is going to be necessary, probably to hang up the telephone and call the professor back, because I have a feeling the problem we are going to discuss is going to take a few minutes.
MR. SEGAL: Let me withdraw the question, put some other questions, and maybe we can proceed.
COL ROCK: There is another issue that's been raised that I am concerned about. That is the issue of releasing the transcript to persons other than the defense counsel himself. I believe I specifically stated at the time that they were released that they were to be used only for the convenience of the counsel themselves and not for any other distribution and I consider this a gross oversight on someone's part in releasing this to someone else.
MR. SEGAL: If you wish to, sir, I'll address myself to that issue. I'll ask Doctor Wolfgang to--would you talk to him?
(The conversation with Professor Wolfgang was ended by Captain Douthat.)
MR. SEGAL: Sir, in regard to this question--in regard to the question of Doctor Wolfgang's examination of the transcript of Mr. Browning's testimony, the accused in this case could not possibly be afforded a fair hearing if he could not bring to this hearing the testimony by telephone or in person of any witness who had knowledge of the same material that the government experts have, so that he, in turn, could comment upon the findings of the government witness. The only two ways in which he could accurately obtain, or three ways rather, that he could accurately obtain that information, first of all, sir, in the normal circumstances, generally, is to have the opposing expert witness present in the courtroom to hear the testimony of the other side. In this case that could not have been possible, because no allowance was made for any other person to be present at these hearings other than the parties here, with the exception of Mrs. MacDonald as the only outsider of the legal personnel.
Secondly, sir, the other alternative would be for Professor Wolfgang to have been given--by the government for the purpose of him conducting his own examination, and to be given and have made available to him the pajama tops that were available here in the courtroom.
The government has never made those available, and has not indicated they will make them available to be taken to Philadelphia and be properly analyzed in the laboratories of Philadelphia Textile College.
The third method in which we can properly and adequately represent the accused in this case in regard to contradicting the testimony of the government's expert, is to tell and transmit to Doctor Wolfgang--Professor Wolfgang--the testimony of Mr. Browning, and in view of the length of the testimony dealing with technical matters, it is obviously unfair, it is unsafe to rely upon the recollections or even the notes of lay people in that regard. The words of Mr. Browning speak for themselves. The transcript has not been released to any outsider. It has been examined by Professor Wolfgang solely for the purpose of discussing here in this proceeding his opinions of the conclusions arrived at by the government, the accuracy of the opinions arrived at by the government's expert, and whether or not he has any contradictory comments to make to that; and unless Professor Wolfgang was afforded the opportunity to be either here in person, to have these fibers, or read the transcript, the accused in this case would have been denied the only possible way to present expert witnesses in this case. I think under those circumstances neither the spirit, not the letter of these instructions by the investigating officer have been violated. Certainly not the spirit in any way, because Professor Wolfgang, as you will learn, I am sure, if you desire to inquire of him, has not circulated, given to other people, discussed with other people, other than for the purpose of technical information, comparing notes and interest contained therein. It seems to me that there is no one who is offended by his examination, other than the defendant because if he was not allowed to examine it he could not have had Professor Wolfgang testify for him, no other expert come forward before this tribunal for that purpose. I think under the circumstances and in view of the general instruction given to counsel for the accused by the investigating officer, that it was for the use of counsel for the accused, and it was for the use obviously for the legitimate purposes pertaining to this case, not for general notoriety. The transcript was used in this particular interest, and I suggest, sir, that under those circumstances, in view of that background, that it was an appropriate use, it was a fair use, it was not one intended to offend either the government or the investigating officer in this matter, but intended simply to advance the inquiry of knowledge in this matter and finding of the truth, wherever it may lie.
COL ROCK: In how many other instances has the same procedure been used?
MR. SEGAL: None.
COL ROCK: This is the only one?
MR. SEGAL: The only one, sir, because it was the only peculiar circumstance that required it.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, may I speak?
COL ROCK: Please do.
CPT SOMERS: First, I think the ruling of the investigating officer was clear as to what was to be done with this record, and it is also clear that Doctor Wolfgang is not one of the people who was cleared to be present here or to receive testimony from this hearing. Now, it might have been possible for the defense to request permission for an exception for this purpose, but the defense did not see fit to do that. Instead, it went ahead and did it anyway.
Secondly, the alternatives listed by the defense are certainly not the only ways it could have achieved its objective. Mr. Browning works at the Criminal Investigation Laboratory at Fort Gordon, Georgia. There is nothing to prevent the defense from using one of its favorite techniques, i.e. a conference call, and calling Mr. Browning and having Mr. Wolfgang speak to Mr. Browning on any subject concerning his evaluation that he wanted to speak on. And I hesitate to mention this, but I feel compelled to--this may be the only violation of the investigating officer's instruction by the defense, but there is an indication from Mr. John Coit of the Charlotte News and Observer, that he has seen parts of the transcript of this hearing, have been shown them by the defense. Now I don't have that article but I can produce it, so I suggest that this is a matter which the investigating officer should ponder.
MR. SEGAL: Let me just respond to the last matter. I repeat my answer to you, Colonel Rock, that the transcripts of this matter have not been made available by counsel, either directly or indirectly, or knowingly in any fashion to anybody other than the staff of counsel and to Professor Wolfgang for the particular and unique situation. Counsel for the government, if they are of the opinion that they are to believe everything they read in the newspaper, ought to reflect upon the correctness and the accuracy of the reports as they are made from time to time in the investigation of this case and what the government had and do not have as evidence. It's quite obvious the newspaper articles are not to be given any credence. We would be delighted to have Mr. Coit called, but I do not feel that necessary. I am satisfied without any question that there is no substance, even the suggestion, and I am personally offended that the suggestion would be made without investigation, without the slightest attempt to do so, because this makes it a personal matter between counsel for the government imputing the character and responsibility of counsel for the accused; and I trust we have not conducted ourselves in any manner in here, sir, at least intentionally, that would indicate that we'd take this as a personal matter in which we'd question the character of anyone else. We do raise questions about the procedure. As to the way it's been handled, there are disagreements about matters, but I am not in any way suggesting the government's counsel need fear for its integrity. I would wish that we'd be afforded the same kind of approach by the government.
CPT SOMERS: Because of the nature of the response, I do feel compelled to reply. The government does not contend that what Mr. Coit says in the news paper is necessarily true. It has, however, come to light that he did say this in the newspaper.
Secondly, I have no current motive to impute any counsel here. I simply bring to the investigating officer's attention a matter which has come to mine, and I think that they should be considered. I am glad that the defense counsel gets on the record with respect to his denial to this, however, I feel and felt obliged and responsible to this hearing officer, as representative for the government, to bring this to his attention.
COL ROCK: This hearing will be recessed for fifteen minutes.
(The hearing recessed at 1440 hours, 11 August 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1504 hours, 11 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those parties who were present at the recess are again in the hearing room.
(Telephone conference was again placed to Professor William G. Wolfgang.)
COL ROCK: Professor Wolfgang, this Colonel Rock. I'd like to remind you again that you are under oath.
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: During this recess certain procedural matters were brought up which obviously did not involve you, and we will now proceed with the questioning again by Mr. Segal.
WITNESS: All right.
COL ROCK: Let the record reflect that the motion by counsel for the government was denied.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Professor Wolfgang?
A Right.
Q This is Mr. Segal, again. There was a question put to you but I am going to withdraw that and propose a new question to you, if I may.
A All right.
Q Referring now to men's pajamas, is it the normal procedure in the textile industry for the bottoms of pairs of pajamas to be made of the same material as the top?
A Normally it would be the same material, yes, or at least similar material. There is no guarantee it would be the same piece. It usually, however, is.
Q In regard to that, if the textile laboratory had only the top of a pair of pajamas, and it did not have the bottoms, and it was given certain fibers, is there anyway that a scientific determination could be made as to whether the fibers came from the top which was had by the laboratory, or from the bottoms which was not available to the laboratory?
A No, the only thing which you could tell would be that the fibers were similar fibers.
Q Similar to what?
A Not tell actually where they came from.
Q Without having the bottoms of the pajamas, could any positive identification be made of fibers that would indicate or eliminate the possibility that they had come from those bottoms?
A No, unless you knew something about the bottoms. For instance, if you knew for example, that they were made from something different, then you can eliminate them. Knowing nothing about the bottoms and knowing that they were made of a similar material, then there is no way to identify precisely where the fibers that you had came from.
Q Now in regard to the threads that are used to sew, again referring to pajama bottoms and tops, would the same fiber threads be normally used in sewing together of the parts of the top of pajamas as well as sewing together of the bottoms of the pajamas?
A Normally they would be the same type of thread, yes.
Q Would there be any way to ascertain if a given piece of thread had come from the bottom of men's pair of pajamas, without actually having that pair of pajamas available, the bottom pair, available for examination and comparison?
A Even having the bottoms available, you couldn't tell exactly where this piece of thread came from.
Q Why would you not be able to tell exactly where the treads did come from?
A Well, because most sewing threads are rather similar in their construction and size. The major difference between sewing threads used in apparel is size and type of fiber. Given two sewing threads nearly the same size and the same fiber, it's pretty difficult to say exactly where it came from. It's easier to say where it didn't come from.
Q During the course of the manufacture of an item such as men's pajamas, could you give us any idea of the number of operators using different machines who would have occasion to sew together the portions of the tops and bottoms of such as a pair of pajamas?
CPT SOMERS: I object to that.
MR. SEGAL: Would you hold on--there's an objection.
CPT SOMERS: First, it's irrelevant. Second, it's far too vague and generalized. We don't know what pajama tops and what pajama bottoms, what process, what manufacturer. He's given him nothing to go on. Even if it were not irrelevant--
MR. SEGAL: Professor Wolfgang has exactly the same amount of information and considerably more background than the government's witness. I think in the same regard, to be asked to testify of either one or more operators who would have different threads of different machines applied to a fabric to sew it together, and therefore, can Mr. Browning's conclusion be accepted that the particular thread was obviously from the top of the pajamas as opposed to the bottom, since he did not have access to any other item that might have been found in the MacDonald house?
COL ROCK: Counselor, I assume this is going to come down to some specific point relating to matters at hand?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir, this is the only question in this particular area I have.
COL ROCK: The objection is overruled.
Q Mr. Wolfgang, would you answer that question in regard to the--in the normal manufacture of pajamas, how many operators would--different sewing machines--would have occasion to work on a pair of pajama tops and bottoms?
A Well, that depends on the shop. Some shops are set up where one operator will make one entire portion of a garment; in other words, one operator might make tops exclusively--another operator might make bottoms exclusively. Other shops are set up were one operator sews only one kind of a seam, and then it will, the garment will be passed on to another operator who will sew another seam. So the worst it could be would be count the number of seams in a garment and this is the number of operators and number of machines that were used to sew the garment. The best it can be will be two operators and two machines, one sewing tops and another sewing bottoms.
Q Professor Wolfgang, assuming that certain fibers from a garment such as men's pajamas were found, some on a rug, some on bed sheets, some in other places in contact with the house, is there ways of determining from an examination of the fibers themselves, how they came to be on the rug and sheet and other places?
A No.
Q Is there any way of determining from the examination of the fibers as to whether they were torn from the garment or they had fallen from the garment, or had merely just disintegrated after considerable wear?
A No. There are some extenuating circumstances in which it might be possible. In general, however, no.
Q Was there anything in the report prepared by Mr. Browning that you examined, or in his testimony that you read, that indicated that such extenuating circumstances were present and that he testified to in his examinations?
A Not that I noticed.
Q Is there any way of telling from the examination of fibers that there were found, again in the same places as I described a moment ago, how long those fibers had lain, or been in the position that they were prior to being collected?
A By examination of the fibers, no.
Q Professor Wolfgang, again based upon your examination of the materials that we have submitted to you in writing, did you find that there was any basis upon which Mr. Browning could testify to reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the fibers and threads being definitely from the tops of the pair of pajamas that he had submitted to him?
A No. There are--perhaps, I don't know whether you want this qualified or not--
Q Go right ahead.
A A number of problems in identifying merely textiles, yarns and sewing threads as far as their origin is concerned and as far as saying they are similar to or identical to some other material.
Q Would you identify for us what those problems are?
A Well, the problem is that textile materials are not uniform. We don't--we cannot actually make them to as rigid a specification as other structural material can be made. So therefore, when you refer, for example, to the size which would be the denier of the yarn count, or the twist in the yarn or thread, you are talking about an average value, and normally when we identify size and twist in the laboratory, we have to work with a very, very large, relatively, sample of material; and if you are dealing with small bits and pieces of a yarn, both as a standard and as a--something to which you are going to compare the standard, the probabilities are against it. For example, a common standard sewing thread such as might be used in a man's pajama would be what would be listed as a--steak, depending on where you buy it from. In terms of denier, this is equivalent to around 106 denier. This is the size. The 50's is an indirect number. The bigger the number the smaller the thread. Denier is a direct number, or the bigger the number the bigger the thread is. A very, very good sewing thread, very high quality one will have a causation of variation in size of around, around 5% and most of them considerably greater than this. But what this will mean is that you will have a range of sizes in that thread which will range in denier number anywhere from as large as 123 denier down to as small as 75 denier, and this range overlaps the next standard size; the next standard size is 60, and that so that you could get a sample of 60, a small piece of it, which is exactly the same size as a similar piece of 50, so that just with those pieces you couldn't tell if you had 150 or you had 160.
Q Now in regard to your statement that it is necessary to have a large sample in order to make some kind of reasonable judgment as to whether a piece of fiber had come from a garment, based upon the lab reports that you saw and the testimony you read, did it appear that Mr. Browning had available to him what you would consider to be scientifically a large sample?
A Well, actually his testimony doesn't indicate, really, how he made his determination in order to give me any numbers. I have no way of knowing how his determinations were made but based on where these materials were found, and the descriptions of the exhibits, they couldn't have been very large pieces.
Q What would you consider to be a minimally requisite large sample in order to make adequate fiber comparison with the sample material?
A Fiber comparison or yarn comparison?
Q Well, if we may take each one separately, I would like your answers on both of these questions.
A All right, with fiber comparison, strictly to identify the kinds of fibers, whether it is cotton or cotton polyester, or whether it is nylon, the particular kind of fiber, this we could do with just a few fibers. As long as we are dealing with a material that is pure one fiber or the other. On the other hand, if you are dealing with a fabric which is a mixture of fibers, and you only want to know is Fiber A and fiber B present, but in what percentage, then you have to start talking about a sample which will weigh at least a gram and preferably more than this. Now pertaining to yarns, to try to say whether this yarn is the same size or the same type of yarn, then we have to start talking about, oh, pieces of yarn which are at least a yard long or more. We'd prefer them longer than this to get some answers, to get some determination of the yarns.
Q Now in regard to your testimony that textiles are not uniform within the same garment, that is the same--that is the fibers are not uniform could you clarify that somewhat further and indicate how much variation there might be in the size of fabric taken from one in a garment and a fiber taken from another place in a garment, again addressing yourself to garment such as a man's pajama top or bottom?
A Let me clarify something for myself again. Are you talking fibers or are you talking yarns?
Q Well, first again fibers, and then if we may discuss yarns.
A All right. The variation in fibers size is not going to really be as great as long as it is one kind of fiber, although there will be some variation and depends on the fiber cotton and size.
When you are talking about size, you almost have to be talking diameter or thickness. Length doesn't mean much of anything, once it's gotten into a garment. But in cotton, depending on the grade of cotton, you'll have a variation on either side of the average of--oh--25% in a fairly good grade of cotton. If you had some idea of what the fiber size is, you could find quite often fibers in the same garment which are 25% smaller. You can find fibers in the same garment which are 25% larger with a reasonably high degree of probability.
Q Professor Wolfgang, let me interrupt for one second to ask you to comment upon the variation in the sizes of fiber where the garment is indicated to be one that may have been polyester cotton blend. I assume that's not a single material, but is actually a mixture.
A No, this fibers mixed together.
Q Now would there be a greater or lesser or similar variation than the one you've described?
A Well, there would be a variation in the cotton component. The polyester component would be more uniform, although this depends on the manufacturer and the source of the fiber. But you could if, for example--oh--a common blend of cotton and polyester, the polyester fiber will be usually around 1½ denier in its size, and you could conceivably find some polyester fibers in there that are as fine as one denier. You could find some as course as two denier, and everybody would still be happy, but this is a fairly--material--
Q But would that make the problem of identification of a single fiber or several fibers, comparing it to a larger garment difficult or easy?
A It could make it difficult in that supposing another garment or another yarn existed which would--say a blend that contained two denier fiber, and you happened to pick out your sample some of these fibers which would be fairly common, which measures two denier, then you could mistakenly identify the fibers of your samples which actually came from a nominal 1½ denier fiber as belonging to this larger sample which is two denier.
Q Professor Wolfgang, if the sample with which fibers were being compared were a garment, a man's pajama top which had possibly been subjected to a considerable number of washings and gave the appearance of being somewhat old, would that make the problem of comparison of a fiber to that sample difficult or easy in any way?
A It wouldn't really modify that much, unless during the wearing and the washing, it got something on it that would make it unique.
Q In the absence of any external matter being applied to that fiber, or to the sample, without it, would that make the difficulty of the identification of a fiber with that large sample?
A It wouldn't make it any more difficult. It wouldn't make it any easier. In other words, you're going to have the question as to where the material came from.
Q Professor Wolfgang, I want to advise you at this time that the transcript that was previously provided to you and the other reports that were previously provided to you, are not to be shown to any person or discussed with any person or revealed to any other person, and that we will make arrangements with you shortly for the return of those to us. Is that clear, sir?
A Yes, sir.
MR. SEGAL: At this time I'm going to turn the over the telephone to Captain Somers, who is counsel for the government. He may have some questions he'd like to put to you.
WITNESS: All right.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Can you hear me, sir?
A Yes, sir.
Q This is Captain Somers. When comparing a thread or yarn with another thread or yarn, there are a number of characteristics which could be compared, are there not?
A Yes.
Q These include the type of fabric, the color, the denier, the twist and the fiber bundle to name a few, do they not?
A Yes.
Q Now if a yarn thread, if you'll pardon the redundancy, seems to be the same in all of these characteristics, is that an identification of the two as being identical?
A No, for the simple reason, as I pointed out before, these things are variables, and they are not independent variables. The--almost all sewing threads and, as well as yarns, which are used in weaving fabrics will have about the same degree of twist in them, because our machinery is built to handle this sort of thing, so they--they are pretty much standard twist for each one of these kinds of things, and you would be very, very unlikely to find say, two sewing threads which have really different twist in them; so that what happens is when you get the variability in size, the mechanics of the twisting operation causes this twist to even out so that the degree of twist in the thinner area is going to be the same as the degree of twist in the correspondingly thin yarn or thick yarn. So that what you are doing is you're piling up what appears to be more positive points of similarity, yet you are still measuring the same doggone variables. You are just repeating it five different times, so that it's not like fingerprint identification where each little point of similarity adds to your conclusion that you are dealing with a similar object.
Q Very good, sir. Now is it impossible to say that a yarn sample is identical in any given characteristic?
A You can say that the sample that you have has similar or even identical characteristics to another sample. This does not say, however, that the two are representative of the same type relation.
Q Yes, sir, I understand that.
A In other words, as I said, you could have a sample of 50's yarn and a sample of 60's yarn which by all, in any measure you want to give them, are the same, but therefore you can't come up and say with any statistical certainty that these two are representative of the same population.
Q I understand that, sir. If, however, in the examination of two pieces of yarn, you come up with what appear to be identical characteristics of type, color, denier and twist, is it not possible to say that one could have originated from a garment that the other originated from?
A You could say it could have, yeah, but when you start to try and attach numerical probability into it, the numerical probability is not approximately at hand, which would mean that you've got just as much chance that it didn't.
Q I see.
A And in textile identification we can actually say a lot more about where things didn't come from than where they did.
Q I see. However, isn't it also possible, sir, that there are inferences which can be drawn which are not particularly in your area? For instance, where this particular garment might have been found, and whether there were other garments of similar type nearby. In other words, what I am saying is, the inference that it could have come--that an unknown could have come from a specific garment can be strengthened by factors in which you are not particularly expert.
A When you are dealing with textiles, I would doubt this in that unless you had a, say, the entire population of fibers and yarns within a given area, and I'd say that--but one particular item or say similar origin, if you've got one that sticks out like a sore thumb, then you can identify, you haven't really proved anything. As I say, the--it's much more--it would be much easier to prove where a sample did not come from than to conclusively prove where it did, no matter what your surrounding circumstances are, because you have that reasonable doubt available. When you are dealing with probabilities, you'd be taking a chance.
Q Thank you, sir. I gather you are saying that it's possible to say that a fiber could have come from a garment, but in your opinion not possible to say that it did or must have come from a garment?
A That's right. You could say that it could have come from a particular source, but you cannot say with any degree of certainty that it did come from it.
Q Now let me ask you this, doctor. As fibers are washed, if they have color on them, this color may fade. Isn't that correct?
A It will depend on the dye stuff.
Q It can fade?
A It can fade, yes.
Q And if the garment shows signs of fading, would this not be a characteristic to look for in any yarn which might have come from it?
A Again, if you have large enough sample, yeah. If you are dealing with just a few individual fibers, you again bring in a reasonable doubt, because if you take actually a new garment and separate out individual fibers, you will find quite a bit of shades and colors within those.
Q Now when comparing two fibers, sir, and using the different characteristics that we've talked about to compare them, aren't the odds increased that one came from the other as more and more characteristics seem to match?
A If you are comparing fibers themselves?
Q If you compare a particular fiber, or fibers of a given garment--
A In a cotton fiber, I would suspect that all other cotton fibers are going to be similar to it as any set of tests will make. In other words, if you take any population of cotton fibers, they are going to be similar to almost any other population of the same kind of cotton. Now if you add to it a color, it will increase your probabilities as long as you have some way of accurately identifying that these two colors are themselves the same.
A Very fine, sir. Then the addition of color is a characteristic to match which may increase your probability of matching. If you can follow that.
A It depends on how the match is done.
Q Yes, sir, I understand that.
A If, for example, this match is done under an ordinary optical microscope you can foul that up as well, because there are some colors which under some light that will look identical, and under daylight they will be as different as night and day.
Q I see, sir. Excuse me just a moment. As I understand it then, sir, it is your testimony that it is possible from a fiber or a set of fibers to determine that they could have originated from a garment. Is that correct?
A Yes, with a rather low probability, yes.
CPT SOMERS: I understand that, sir. No further questions, sir.
MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions.
COL ROCK: Professor Wolfgang, this is Colonel Rock. Can you hear me?
WITNESS: Yes.
COL ROCK: Sir, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any other person other than counsel for the government, that is Captain Somers, or counsel for the accused, Mr. Segal and his associates.
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: The next voice you will hear will be that of Captain Douthat who will thank you for your services this afternoon.
COL ROCK: Is counsel ready for the next witness?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, we are.
COL ROCK: Please proceed.
MR. SEGAL: Call Mrs. Krystia.
COL ROCK: Mrs. Who? I don't see her name on this list.
MR. SEGAL: She has previously been interviewed by the government, sir.
COL ROCK: Is she a resident of Fort Bragg?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, she is, sir.
(Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Krystia was called as a witness for the defense, was sworn, and testified as follows.)
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mrs. Krystia, would you state your full name and please spell your last name for us.
A Elizabeth Ann Krystia, K-r-y-s-t-i-a.
Q And your home address?
A 301 Spear Drive.
Q And where is that located?
A Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Q And is your husband connected with the United States Army?
A Yes, he is.
Q And what is his name and his rank and organization?
A You want his full name, too?
Q Yes, please.
A Theodore Alexander Krystia. Rank, Captain. He works for Headquarters Company, JFK Center.
Q How long have you lived on Fort Bragg, Mrs. Krystia?
A About a year and a half.
Q And did you live at the address you've given us all that time?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you know Mrs. Colette MacDonald, the wife of Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you tell the investigating officer, please, when and under what circumstances did you meet Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes, I met her at a night course in child psychology at the University of North Carolina, on post.
Q When did that meeting take place?
A I don't know the exact date.
Q What month and year?
A Around January of 1970.
Q Now, Mrs. Krystia, how often did that class meet?
A Twice a week. On Monday night and Tuesday night.
Q Did you see Mrs. MacDonald on the evening of Monday, February 16th, 1970?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where did you see her?
A I saw her at the class and we drove together to the class and from the class.
Q And when was it that you said goodnight to her on February 16th, about what time?
A It was about a quarter to ten in the evening of that day.
Q Was there any particular circumstance or circumstances that caused you to be drawn to Mrs. MacDonald or her to you that brought about your friendship and resulted in you driving back and forth to class?
A Well, yes, we were both pregnant and we were both due in June, approximately the same time.
Q June of 1970?
A Yes.
Q Did you have your child in June of 1970?
A Yes, I did.
Q As a result of this, did it cause you to establish some relationship with Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes, we seemed to have not only that in common, but we seemed to have our interest in children in common and our interest in our families.
Q Did you ever know Captain MacDonald prior to today?
A No, I didn't.
Q Have you ever seen Captain MacDonald prior to today?
A No.
Q Your entire knowledge of the MacDonald family was through your meeting with Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes, it was.
Q In regard to Mrs. MacDonald's pregnancy, did she indicate to you that she had any other children?
A Yes, she spoke of having children.
Q Did she ever indicate to you any anxiety concerning fright, nervousness or fear over this pregnancy that she was in at the time you first met her?
A No.
Q Did Mrs. MacDonald ever discuss her husband, Captain MacDonald, in your presence or with you?
A Yes, she did.
Q What was the attitude that she manifested or her feelings toward her husband?
A Well, she showed--she had a great deal of respect for what he did and she indicated that she cared for him very much, from what she said.
Q Were there any specific things that caused you to arrive at that conclusion that she may have said or done in your presence?
A She had told me that she felt her husband was dedicated to his work, because I had complained about the treatment I had gotten at the OB clinic and she--I said that I didn't feel that the doctors were very interested in their patients, and she had said her husband seemed to enjoy his job and he took an interest in all patients.
Q Did she indicate whether her husband, Captain MacDonald, in her view, showed genuine, sincere interest in her welfare?
CPT SOMERS: I object to that. He's conducting direct examination. He cannot lead the witness that way.
MR. SEGAL: The question was did she ever--she simply can tell us what she knows. It doesn't imply what the answer should be or what form it should take.
CPT SOMERS: The question was did she ever indicate a certain thing.
MR. SEGAL: Did she ever indicate her feeling whether her husband took an interest or was concerned about her?
CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled.
MR. SEGAL: You may answer, Mrs. Krystia.
A Would you repeat the question, please?
Q Certainly. Did Mrs. MacDonald ever indicate to you or do anything in your presence that would indicate that she felt her husband was concerned or interested in her welfare and her well-being? Let me put it another way, if I may. What, if anything, caused you to hold the opinion that Mrs. MacDonald had respect for her husband and held him in that regard?
A Well, she bragged about his moonlighting and said that--well, she was telling me about one time, that weekend, they had gone to this little village that he was going to work that weekend, and that he'd showed her the hospital and everything, and then when he had come home, he told her about the staff of the hospital, the respect they had, they treated him like a lord because he'd come and helped them.
Q And in talking about her husband in that fashion, what, if anything, did that indicate to you?
A It indicated to me that she felt proud of what he had done, that she was enthusiastic because he enjoyed going there.
Q Now at the class on February 16th, 1970, was there some discussion in that class which involved Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes. She brought up the question to the class in general, and to the professor of what to do about their youngest child coming into bed with them at night.
Q And what, if anything, transpired as a result of the question she put to the class? Did she say anything further after she heard their comments or the professor's comment?
A Well, we discussed it on the way home from the class and the professor had suggested that they return the child to her own bed after reassuring the child, you know, talking to it a wee bit and putting her back in her own bed, because she shouldn't be encouraged to stay in bed with them.
Q Did Mrs. MacDonald indicate that she was satisfied with that advice or tempted to follow that advice?
A Yes, she did.
Q Did she indicate that she and her husband had any disagreement over the subject of what should be done about the child when it crawled into her bed?
A No, she didn't.
Q Did she indicate that she'd been confronted with this particular problem at any other time?
A Yes. She said that when their first child was about the same age or a little older, maybe, and they were expecting the second child, that the first child had crawled into bed with them.
Q Did she indicate that that had caused any disagreement or argument? Or anything unpleasant between herself and her husband?
A No, she didn't. They were just a wee bit concerned about the child coming into bed with them, didn't think it was a good idea.
Q Mrs. Krystia, on the trip home from the class, how would you characterize Mrs. MacDonald's attitude and her feelings at that time?
A She seemed relaxed and calm.
Q Did she seem depressed or unhappy in any way?
A No, not at all.
Q Did she ever indicate to you what she felt her husband's attitude was toward his service in United States Army?
A Yes. She said that he enjoyed the Army life and she even said at one point that they had never had so much money as they had in the Army.
Q Had she indicated any special feeling on the part of Captain MacDonald about his being a member of the Special Forces, Green Beret?
A Yes. She said that he was proud of being a Green Beret. In fact, that was one of the things that I noticed about her the first evening in class, was her talking about--we were talking about how people felt about their jobs and she volunteered that her husband was a Green Beret and that he felt proud of the fact that he was and wore a special uniform, was in special service.
Q Now on that trip home from class, what time did you leave the University on February 16th?
A Between 9:20 and 9:30.
Q PM?
A Yes, PM.
Q Did you proceed directly home or did you make any stops?
A We stopped at the little market and she went into the little market and got some things. She said she got milk because her family drank a lot of milk.
Q Did you do any shopping?
A No, I stayed in the car because it was raining.
Q Did she bring one or more packages to the car?
A She brought one bag.
Q After that stop, did you proceed on home?
A Yes.
Q When Mrs. MacDonald left--was it your car you were driving?
A No, it was her car.
Q When you left the car, and you said--did you say anything to her or did she say anything to you, as she left?
A We just said goodnight.
Q Was there any indication that you observed any unhappiness or sadness on her part as she departed from you?
A No.
Q Was there anything at all out of the ordinary in her conduct or behavior, which you observed that evening, in your prior experience--
CPT SOMERS: I object to that. It calls for a conclusion.
MR. SEGAL: It certainly does. We asked the witness, did you--compared to the prior evenings together, she had a standard which--by which she can measure and say whether there was anything different that night from prior nights. It is an opinion she's entitled to offer.
CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled. Answer the question.
MR. SEGAL: What is your answer, Mrs. Krystia? Was there anything different or unusual about her behavior when you left her on the night of February 16th, than you'd noted before?
A I'd say I didn't observe anything different.
Q How would you characterize her frame of mind that night?
A She seemed to be in a fairly happy frame of mind.
Q Did you have any plans in regards to seeing Mrs. MacDonald after February 16th?
A Yes. In regard to her question about the little girl coming into bed, I had some psychology books at home and I had planned to go within the next day or so and take the books over and just talk about it.
Q Did Mrs. MacDonald ask you to bring those books over to her?
A No, I told her when I was in the car with her, that I had some books, she may be interested to read and she expressed an interest in reading the books.
Q Were you interested in pursuing your relationship with Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes, I was.
Q Why was that?
A Well, I felt that we had a lot of things in common and we were both interested in child psychology and I--that's one of my big interests, is children, and she seemed to be very interested in children and problems with children. And also she was experienced in being a mother and I wasn't, so I wanted to talk to her.
MR. SEGAL: Cross-examine.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, this witness is not on the witness list. The government counsel was not alerted that this witness would testify and the prosecution has not seen any statements made by this witness and we would request about ten minutes before it proceeds with its cross-examination. We feel we can finish before 4:30.
COL ROCK: This hearing will recess for ten minutes.
(The hearing recessed at 1552 and reconvened at 1609 hours, 11 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that all parties at the recess are currently in the hearing room. I'd like to remind you, Mrs. Krystia, that you're under oath. Proceed, counselor.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Mrs. Krystia, you say that at the class on the 16th, Colette MacDonald spoke of a problem with the children or child getting in bed with them. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Would you explain that for me, precisely what was the problem?
A Well, they were concerned because the younger child, Kristen, came into bed with them at times and she wanted to crawl up next to her Daddy and push Mommy out; this sort of thing.
Q And it was reference to this problem that you were going to lend her some books on child psychology. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you said that she seemed happy with respect to her pregnancy. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did she ever indicate to you whether this was a planned pregnancy?
A Yes, she did.
Q What was her indication?
A It wasn't planned. She said she'd forgotten to take her pill all the time.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions, sir.
COL ROCK: Mrs. Krystia, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accuse. Do you understand?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: You are permanently excused. Thank you.
(Mrs. Krystia departed the hearing room.)
MR. SEGAL: We have another witness, sir, and my question is whether you wish to start. This witness will be brief. I'm perfectly willing to start or recess, whatever you believe will be appropriate.
COL ROCK: It will be necessary for me to be out of here by quarter of the hour. This will give you about half an hour. Can you accomplish what you want to?
Mr. Segal: I certainly think I could start the direct examination.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, if I may, I would prefer that we not start a witness if we aren't going to finish today. If that makes any difference to the investigating officer.
COL ROCK: For any particular reason?
CPT SOMERS: Who is the witness?
MR. SEGAL: The father of Colette MacDonald, Mr. Kassab--and the father-in-law of Captain MacDonald.
COL ROCK: I think, in view of the hour, we should wait until tomorrow. They will still be available, I assume.
MR. SEGAL: Very well, sir.
COL ROCK: This hearing will be recessed until 0830 tomorrow morning.
(The hearing recessed at 1612 hours, 11 August 1970.)
(The hearing reconvened at 0837 hours, 12 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that all parties that were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room. Proceed, counselor.
MR. SEGAL: Miss Marjorie Murdock, please.
(Miss Marjorie Murdock was called as a witness for the defense, was sworn and testified as follows.)
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Miss Murdock, would you please state your full name and home address?
A Marjorie Murdock, 425 W. 21st Street, New York, New York. Do you want the zip code?
Q No, thank you, Miss Murdock. Are you related in anyway to Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald?
A Not at all.
Q What is your occupation?
A I am now a legal secretary.
Q And how long have you been so employed?
A I've been doing this about ten years, about eight years on a freelance basis.
Q Do you know the accused, Captain MacDonald, in this case?
A Not in a social way. I met him when I was hospitalized in Presbyterian, where I've had a number of rather heavy operations.
Q Excuse me, when you say you met him at Presbyterian, do you mean that you know Captain MacDonald in a professional way?
A Oh, yes, he was simply a member of a surgical team who worked on me.
Q When he was at Presbyterian and what is that institution?
A That's Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, otherwise called Medical Center.
Q When was it that you met Dr. MacDonald at Presbyterian Hospital?
A September of 1968.
Q He was not actually your attending physician, was he?
A No, he was the intern on the team.
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer, please, the circumstances under which you came to know Captain MacDonald?
A Well, you know the teams were, well, 4 or 5 doctors at the beginning, with the top surgeons and two residents and so on, down to the intern, which was then Dr. MacDonald. I believe there are other lesser students below that grade, and he was on the team. He examined me not too minutely. I had a long history in the hospital, but he did take care of me. He put in my feedings, he helped me with my tubes and you know the apparatus that was necessary.
Q How did you actually meet Captain MacDonald?
A Well, he came in and introduced himself and asked me how I felt and did I know what was the matter with me and the usual questions. Evidently he had read the chart enough that he didn't have to go through stripping me and asking about every little scar and when I got it, the usual things which interns do. But he was very active.
Q Was there anything that was particularly notable in his care and treatment of you, Mrs. Murdock?
A Everything.
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer in some fashion what brought Captain MacDonald's treatment to your attention?
A Well, the intern is not the most famous person, but he is definitely the hardest working man. I think they have to cover everything the other doctors cover, you know, for the particular period of the--you know, the intern is on top of everybody and everything he did, he did as though it really mattered. He wanted to do it efficiently, properly, quickly, but definitely gently, which they do not all care about or can't even if they want to be. They are too nervous, too impatient, I don't know.
Q May I ask you what was the nature of the operation you were in the hospital for?
A Well, we didn't know. I had four days of exploration where I was taken off all food and fed intravenously with a tube down helping to go through where nothing would move and they just took me up and down to X-rays. One of the things that caused me liking this young man was that I know I was in extremely good hands--well, I've never been in bad hands in the hospital and this is my fifth trip there. When I went to X-ray, the day before, it turned out that I went to surgery in the middle of the night and I had my picture taken. I was getting off of the table and Dr. MacDonald came into the room and asked the man who was hoping to go off duty if he had five or ten minutes and the man who was going off duty wasn't crazy about it, but he said, “yes, what did you have in mind” and then Dr. MacDonald said, he had an idea that if he could do so and so and such and such while I'm here, I want to see it, I have an idea. I don't know what went on upstairs to get him down here, but the man did it and whatever it was, Dr. MacDonald observed, and the customers, when you have left the X-ray room, you are put out in the hallway and some attendant will take you back, as they can.
Dr. MacDonald didn't quite do that. When he put me in the chair, he also took me all the way back to my bed and saw that I was put in it, which was quite unusual.
Q Let me ask you. You indicated that you've been in the hospital for a number of serious operations. I gather that you have been attended by various physicians. Am I correct in that regard?
A Yes, sir. All these different teams, because they do circulate. I think it's enough--I couldn't go into the actual figures, but I know that the interns put their month in in each part of the hospital, different service.
Q From the standpoint of having observed on these various occasions, what would you say and how would you characterize Dr. MacDonald's concern for human life?
A Well, he was an intern, but you have various--I see doctors, quite a few of them have technical skills and in a big hospital you accept skills, you hope to find them and they're always there. But Dr. Herter, who's a very good surgeon--
Q Excuse me. We're not talking about Dr. Herter. You're talking about the chief surgeon at Presbyterian.
A I don't know what his title is. He's handled me since the 16th, and Dr. Herter has that quality of definitely being interested in you, not only performing the work, but help your morale, encouraging you, gaining your confidence and let you know that you're going to make it and there are times when you really don't know whether you are or not. Some doctors try to do it and they never quite get it over.
Q How does Dr. MacDonald fit in that category?
A He was comparable to Dr. Herter in that relationship. With these young men when they appeared, you knew that somebody was going to give you a lift to carry whatever you were aiming for.
Q Did you have an opportunity to observe Dr. MacDonald when he was not treating you, but treating other patients, other persons?
A Oh, constantly. I had about 4 days--well, I can't see without my glasses and it wasn't worth putting on the glasses, because the tube was in the way, so I had nothing to do between X-rays but watch what was going on around me, and I watched him quite a bit and among the things I saw was a little lady I don't think spoke much English and she had also a mysterious thing that they were researching and couldn't locate, but she wasn't as lucky as I was. She couldn't express herself and she wasn't interested in food, she wasn't interested in anything, I guess, including getting well. Finally one day she kind of huddled up in bed to take a nap and Captain MacDonald came in and I don't know what he did, but he called through the ward and he stopped at her bed and looked at her and the first thing, I thought, well, is she gone, you know, we wonder these things and he looked at the foot of her bed, looked around the top and in the locker behind and he left the ward. I thought, gee, you know, must be going to get a screen, but he didn't go for a screen, he went for a blanket and covered this little old lady, simply because she was lying on the bed uncovered.
Q Again, what was the significance or why did that episode stand out in your mind?
A Well, it wasn't his duty, to begin with, technically. He could not have been prompted by ambition in his career and I've watched a lot of teams making it. He could have been concerned for a sad little old lady who didn't care and otherwise might not have gotten covered.
Q Did Dr. MacDonald ever discuss with you--
A The lady never knew it, never knew it.
Q Did Dr. MacDonald ever discuss with you his entry into the United States Army?
A Yes. The day after he followed me to X-ray, he had told me at the end of that day, that he was going to go down for his physical the next day, and we made a few jokes about it and he was right there. He was not there when we went to surgery, but he came back the next day and said he had passed and he was definitely going, he was simply delighted, crazy about it. Well, I wasn't so delighted, because it was quite likely I'd be going back there again some time. I don't stay out very long, and when he moved onto another service, said his good-byes, the usual things, he said he would come back and see me some day and I thought, well, they all say that, but he did come back and I asked him repeatedly, how about your service and he said, well, my wife wants me to--I can either go, I think, to Europe--I don't know what part, whether it's a European country for three years and she can join me or I can go to Vietnam for two years. And I said well, that's fine, then you'll go to Europe and he said no, he wanted to go to Vietnam. So I tried to persuade him you know, just what I would want to persuade my husband to do and I suggested that he give his wife a break and stay with his family. He said, well, Vietnam, I am a doctor and I will be practicing and if I'm--if I wanted to be of use, that's where I'd be the most use and I think that's where I ought to go. So we parted and I felt so strongly about it and I don't usually. I don't like men who weasel out. I wanted to ask him if there was a way that he could not remain just as he was and just continue his career, but I didn't have the nerve to do it. However, I did follow him and I asked him if he did not feel or care about breaking up his career, had he ever thought that he had, obviously, a nice wife, he was with her, he had a child because he had mentioned that she had used the child to coerce him into going to Europe instead of Vietnam, and just give his wife a break and go to Europe. He looked at me, sort of, you know, you have a nerve, and I said, well, look, you know, a certain percentage of these guys that go just don't come back and nobody knows who's going to fall on which side, like that, have you thought about you might be one who does not come back. How about that, that wife, how about that child and other children. Well, I think Dr MacDonald liked me because I liked him, you just can't like anyone who hates you, but he did very much squelch me and he looked me squarely in the face, and he said, “Miss Murdock, there must be thousands of men in Vietnam who all have a wife and children,” so I dropped the subject.
MR. SEGAL: Cross-examine.
CPT SOMERS: No questions.
MR. SEGAL: Sir?
COL ROCK: I have no questions. Do you wish the witness to be excused?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: Miss Murdock, you're requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. You are permanently excused. Thank you.
(Miss Murdock departed the hearing room.)
MR. SEGAL: At this time, sir, Mrs. John Chester, and of course she's in Baltimore, Maryland, will be called.
(Mrs. Chester testified by telephone as follows.)
COL ROCK: Mrs. Chester, this is Colonel Rock. How do you hear me?
A I can hear you fine.
COL ROCK: Please raise your right hand.
A Yes.
(Mrs. Chester was sworn.)
COL ROCK: The next voice you hear will be that of Mr. Segal, counsel for the accused.
MR. SEGAL: Mrs. Chester, will you try and speak directly into the handset there in a good, clear voice, so that our court recorder here will be able to pick up your voice, on the loudspeaker. Will you state your full name and your home address?
A My name is Susan Chester and my present address, I will have to say it would be Pinehurst, North Carolina.
Q From where are you speaking at the present time?
A From Keysville, Maryland.
Q In February of 1970, where did you live?
A On Fort Bragg, at 306 Castle Drive.
Q That's 306?
A Castle Drive.
Q Was your husband ever or at that time a member of the United States Army?
A Yes, he was.
Q What was your husband's rank at that time and his full name?
A He was Captain and his full name is John Wayne Chester.
Q Were you at home on February 17, 1970?
A Yes, I was.
Q And on the morning of February 17, 1970, after you awoke, what did you do?
A I went to work.
Q Where were you employed at that time?
A I was employed with the United States Army Command Intelligence Center on post.
Q And did you know or learn anything that morning about the deaths that had taken place at the MacDonald house?
A Yes, I did. As soon as I had gotten to work, I learned of these murders.
Q Did you have occasion to leave work at any time that day?
A Yes, at lunch time, I went home.
Q Was that usual or unusual practice for you to go home for lunch?
A No, that was usual.
Q When you arrived at home, did you see any other person at that time?
A Yes, I saw my neighbor, Mrs. Snyder.
Q Do you know Mrs. Snyder's first name?
A Jan.
Q J-a-n?
A As far as I know, that's how it's spelled. It could be a nickname, but that is how I knew her.
Q And at what address did Mrs. Snyder live at that time?
A Mrs. Snyder lived at 308 Castle Drive.
Q And how old a person would you estimate Mrs. Snyder to be?
A Twenty-five.
Q And what rank and what was the name of her husband?
A Her husband was a Captain and his name was Kenneth Snyder.
Q Did you have occasion to have some conversation with Mrs. Snyder when you arrived home on the 17th of February?
A Yes, I did.
Q By the way, was there any person present at the time that you and Mrs. Snyder talked or she talked with you?
A Well, my husband.
Q Was your husband at home that day or had he gone to work and come back for lunch also?
A He had gone to work and come back.
Q Now will you indicate to the investigating officer, loudly and clearly as you can, the nature of the conversation you had with Mr. Snyder?
CPT SOMERS: I object.
MR. SEGAL: Will you hold on please, one second. We have an objection here in the courtroom. We'll have to have a discussion which you won't be able to hear and I'll get back to you in a moment. All right?
A All right.
CPT SOMERS: This is, of course, rank hearsay, which is not necessarily the only basis of this objection, but when we're going to have hearsay of this nature with witnesses who are themselves absent, then I see no reason why the conversation can be entered, Mrs. Snyder could not be heard directly and I do object to this unless there's a very good reason for it.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, the defense has expended what I would consider extravagant efforts to bring the witness to this court, Mrs. Jan Snyder, who was known to the government and interviewed by the government, whom the government, I believe, would testify if she, herself, Mrs. Snyder, were here, that on the morning of 17 February 1970, that she was awakened because of a group of two or three men and a woman with long blonde hair was running down her street, in the direction of 544 Castle Drive and that they entered a car in front of the residence of Mrs. Snyder, that Mrs. Snyder saw this and then related this information at noontime on the 17th, to the Chesters; and that, in fact, she was interviewed thereafter by Army investigators and the government has neither noticed nor made available or assisted in any way to let the court know of the existence of this witness, whom, in my judgment, has information of the most critical nature in regard to whether or not Captain MacDonald's allegations of the way in which this crime took place are true. It is clearly obvious, through the testimony of Mrs. Chester and Captain Chester is hearsay--well, it is hearsay, at least, the kind that we all know about.
We also intend to prove further that there were subsequent events which took place involving Mrs. Snyder, which other personal knowledge of other witnesses who will testify, indicating there is considerable significance to outside persons--as to Mrs. Snyder having repeated her accusation and what she said she saw that morning, seems to me to make this critical in this proceeding.
CPT BEALE: Where is Mrs. Snyder?
MR. SEGAL: The defense has attempted, in seven states of the area, through investigators and other persons, to locate this woman, and we cannot. We have constant reports carried back to us at present that she is in this area, but she was ordered off post because I understand her husband is in service in Vietnam, and she was no longer entitled to have access to post housing. But this woman has not been able to be located by us, because we have had, number one, difficulty locating people who knew her and would admit to knowing her whereabouts and I will say again that this is a witness that the government has known of and has interviewed and, I assume, gotten statements from since about 17 or 18 February, because Mrs. Chester and Captain Chester will verify that other agents came to them, that they advised the government agents about what Mrs. Snyder had seen. The government agents went immediately next door and interviewed Mrs. Snyder and she reported repeatedly that she had been interviewed and given this information. So I suggest Mrs. Chester can give us
--
COL ROCK: Has anybody written to Captain Snyder in Vietnam to determine the location of his wife? It seems to me that would be simpler.
MR. SEGAL: If you will permit, Captain Douthat will indicate to the investigating officer what efforts were made to locate Mrs. Snyder.
CPT DOUTHAT: I came by this information, sir, by way of rumor, which I--informers had tracked. I could offer proof that to my knowledge, Mrs. Snyder is now divorced from her husband. Her husband was in the Air Force and is now stationed in Thailand. I cannot contact him. It is also my understanding, from talking to his old commanding officer, who I might add is also an associate of Mrs. Snyder, because he lived around the corner from them and the ex-Mrs. Snyder had his wife's wigs and other apparel that he has been trying to locate for a couple of months. That Captain Snyder does not know where his wife is. His wife is a Lumbee Indian, from Lumberton, North Carolina. Her parents are Lumbee Indians, however, as a stepfather; the name is not the same as Mrs. Snyder. I can estimate they live on a farm outside of Lumberton. I've done everything within my capabilities to locate Mrs. Snyder. I'll be glad to turn all of my information over to the Criminal Investigation Division, as I am certain they'll be glad to bring this--for your edification, the statements that they took from Mrs. Snyder.
COL ROCK: What information does the government have on this Mrs. Snyder?
CPT SOMERS: Sir, first let me say I've never heard of Mrs. Jan Snyder. Secondly, I do strenuously object to any testimony from Mrs. Chester with respect to any conversation with Mrs. Snyder. I will be glad to make available all of the resources of the Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI, to the extent that I can motivate the FBI, to find Mrs. Snyder, effective right now. But I certainly do object to any testimony of this nature from Mrs. Chester, and I suggest, sir, that we take a break now and put this apparatus to work on this question.
MR. SEGAL: May I make a statement, sir, that may help in this regard. One, as I said, I think we ought to establish with this witness the fact that I've indicated to you, that this witness knew the government investigators spoke to Mrs. Snyder, because they first spoke to the Chesters and went immediately next door and Mrs. Snyder was seen by them and she indicated she was interviewed. Secondly, sir, we have other witnesses who can testify to certain subsequent events on the Saturday after the killing, of their own personal knowledge, indicating--well, I'll indicate now, sir, the witness, Captain Chester, who on the morning of 21 February was awakened from his sleep by Mrs. Snyder pounding on the adjoining wall saying there's a man pointing a gun from across the street and Captain Chester went to the window and there were two men sitting in a car with a high-powered rifle with a scope on it, pointing in the direction of the house which Mrs., Snyder lived in. Now, this was reported to the military police at that time, this episode and that surely should be on someone's record somewhere, and I would suggest to you that Mrs. Chester's testimony can be received, not necessarily to prove the truth of the accusations made by Mrs. Snyder, but it sets the ground-work for Captain Chester's testimony of what he saw on Saturday. It's unusual, I think, extraordinary episode and secondly, I think you should receive this testimony, sir, so that you may ascertain whether in fact the government does know whether the prosecution counsel personally know whether government investigators do know of the existence of this witness, who would seem to have material information that should go before this investigation.
COL ROCK: Well, the government has just indicated, I believe, while you were conversing with Mr. Eisman, that it's willing to place the CID and if it can motivate the FBI, to track down Mrs. Jan Snyder, if there is such an individual.
MR. SEGAL: Well, the witness will indicate that the government investigators on the 17th of February interviewed this witness. Now, it's possible it's some fault of communication between investigators and counsel. I don't hold counsel responsible. The government, in any case, consists of all the investigators and the prosecution and, up to this time, the investigators have not finished this information. The government was given the name--they know of Captain Chester, because he was on their witness list and he heard the conversation also, the words of Mrs. Snyder. And so therefore, it is another method which the government could have been aware or should have been aware of what Mrs. Snyder had to say and there's a written statement of Captain Chester, although I don't believe this written statement had put down the substances of the conversation with Mrs. Snyder, but Captain Chester is here himself this morning and he would likewise testify to his recall of the conversation.
CPT SOMERS: I think perhaps, sir, it is now incumbent upon me to say that my co-counsel, Captain Thompson, has spoken to Captain Chester at some length, who has never mentioned Mrs. Snyder to any of us. Counsel for the government has never heard of Mrs. Snyder. Certainly, we do not contend that she may not have been interviewed; however, I feel sure she didn't give that information to our agents. But I reiterate, I am willing at this point to put the apparatus of the United States Government, to the extent that it's available to me, and that can be a rather large extent, to work on finding Mrs. Snyder. I think we now do come down to very, very critical testimony and I object in the extreme to having it come out through Mrs. Chester.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, I think--
COL ROCK: Just a moment. The government objection is going to be sustained at this particular junction, with the caveat that if Mrs. Snyder is not located, hereafter we will reconsider the offer of even using this gross hearsay to establish it.
MR. SEGAL: Well, if I may, I did not choose to mention during it during the original argument of this matter, but I believe the government has been permitted to use a considerable amount of hearsay the whole of the testimony of the investigator who went to Long Island, repeating these incredible conversations that he had been there, but were nothing more than hearsay, and that was ruled upon. I cannot understand when we get to something which is much more germane than the conversations in Long Island, and for the first time we have imposed upon us a rule which says you can't receive the testimony of a witness which can be offered for two reasons. Mrs. Chester's testimony came in not only to indicate, under our rules, to permit hearsay, what Mrs. Snyder said, but we need to have her testimony as the background for eyewitness testimony of Captain Chester as to what happened on Saturday, the 21st. That testimony will be taken out of context and will not have any meaning in the record of this case, unless it is clear what were the incidents that happened on the 17th. In addition, we expect to ask Mrs. Chester and Captain Chester, did numerous people speak in the neighborhood about hearing Mrs. Snyder say this. Now, not again, to say that numerous people believed her or that they knew the truth or falsity of what she said, but as a result of having heard her statements, we believe an attempt was made on her life, only thwarted because Captain Chester or other persons responded. Now that testimony can't come into this record with any meaning, unless we have the foundation testimony of what Mrs. Snyder said to her neighbors, and I do not understand why the defense is not permitted to have hearsay at this point. If the government wants to put its machinery into operation, I think you should permit them to do it after you've heard what Mrs. Chester has to say, but if you do not hear it anticipatorily, it's cut off. There's no basis for the government to go and see--they don't know what she'll say, they have no report of what she says, why should they go and look for this particular individual, merely because I said so? I doubt that that's sufficient, sir. Because Mrs. Chester said so seems to me is a proper basis because she is a person who was talking to the elusive Mrs. Snyder.
CPT SOMERS: I think the remarks of the defense counsel might conceivably be apropos provided the government were not now offering to make Mrs. Snyder available, if humanly possible, and also provided--were not the caveat on the ruling of the hearing officer that they will be permitted this testimony if this is not done. I feel certain that the ruling of the investigating officer at this time is correct and should be adhered to.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, this means that Mrs. Chester is to be cut off now and perhaps if we don't find Mrs. Snyder, we can put her back on. It would seem to me the other way around; Mrs. Chester's testimony ought to be received now. If Mrs. Snyder is found, she most obviously is going to be brought before this tribunal. If she's not found, we still have Mrs. Chester's testimony. If for some reason, after you hear Mrs. Snyder, the investigating officer believes that we ought to strike the testimony of the Chesters from the record that may be appropriate at that time, although again, I do not think that would be appropriate. In view of our other consistent rulings that hearsay testimony that appears to be germane should be allowed in this proceeding--
CPT BEALE: Mr. Segal and Captain Somers, Colonel Rock has again batted back and forth this question in light of--going back to the testimony of the CID investigator who made the trip to Long Island, the nature of the gross hearsay which he testified to. In an effort to save money and not have to bring the witnesses down here--of course, the relative weight to give to that testimony, is any, is solely within the discretion of Colonel Rock--because the presence of this Mrs. Snyder is not presently known and cannot be immediately ascertained, although it is gross hearsay, he has reconsidered the question of whether or not Mrs. Chester will be permitted to testify and has decided--reversed himself and decided to go ahead and let her testify, although it is extremely gross hearsay, just as is Mr. Hodges' testimony, I believe.
MR. SEGAL: Hawkins.
CPT BEALE: Hawkins. Again, this is received with the same caveat, that Mr. Hawkins' testimony was received and might be stricken completely from the record, if it is determined not to be of any weight at all. Do both sides understand?
COL ROCK: In addition, I desire that the government use all haste to attempt to locate the alleged Mrs. Jan Snyder or former Mrs. Snyder.
MR. SEGAL: May we resume the examination, sir?
COL ROCK: Please.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mrs. Chester, this is Mr. Segal again. We are ready to resume. I'd like to ask you again, please, will you tell us what Mrs. Snyder told you on the last time, at lunchtime on February 17th, 1970?
A Yes. Mrs. Snyder said that--
Q Excuse me. I think we've lost a little bit of your voice. If you could speak directly into the mouthpiece. We'll try to turn the volume up in here, but do your best to project your voice.
A Mr. Snyder told me when I came home for lunch that day, that that night she had occasion to get up out of bed because her daughter was crying, and when she did get up, she heard a car running outside of our house, so she went to the window and looked out and there was a car with the motor running and then she saw a girl running down the sidewalk. She got into the car and that it took off.
Q Did she indicate to you anything about what she noticed about the girl? Any particular physical features or clothing items?
A She said the girl had long blonde hair.
Q Did she indicate whether she noticed how many people? If any were in that automobile with the engine running?
A I can't remember her mentioning that. Just that there was someone, you know in the driver's seat. Other than that, she didn't say.
Q Did she indicate whether or not the person she saw running, the girl that is, from what direction she was running?
A She said she was running from the direction of the MacDonald house.
Q Did she indicate what time she had observed that incident?
A Sometime after 3. She didn't give an exact time, but it was something after 3 o'clock in the morning. Between--you know 3-4.
Q Did she give you any other information as to what she saw or heard in that particular, in regard to this episode that you're now telling us about?
A She said something about the car, and from what I remember, she said the car was red or maroon in color and it was a convertible, I believe, but--that's the description she gave for the car.
Q Was there any other information that you can recall Mrs. Snyder imparting to you in this conversation at lunchtime?
A Not about that particular incident.
Q Did she tell you anything else that appeared to be related to anything unusual on the morning of February 17th, or in regard to the MacDonald episode?
A Not that I can remember.
Q Now did you have occasion to talk to other people during the course of that week of February 17th, 1970, in which anything that Mrs. Snyder said was repeated?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us what, if anything, you heard from others, that is not what they actually said, but did they indicate that they had also spoken to Mrs. Snyder or that she had spoken to them?
A Well, Mrs. Snyder was questioned and she related her story to, I believe it was the FBI, and she had also told, I believe, the neighbors on the other side of her, that would be the McGowans. Whoever else she told, I wouldn't know.
Q Let me ask you, to your knowledge; did she also repeat her observations to the McGowans?
A Yes.
Q Would you give us the full name and rank of Mr. McGowan?
A Captain John McGowan.
Q Do you know how McGowan is spelled, please?
A M-c-G-o-w-a-n.
Q What is Captain McGowan's address?
A 310 Castle Drive.
Q To your knowledge is Captain McGowan still stationed at Fort Bragg?
A Yes, he is. But he's now England on TDY.
Q Was the fact that Mrs. Snyder was telling people about her observations that she made, common knowledge in the neighborhood in which she lived? Is the question clear?
A Yes, I heard the question. I would say in our immediate unit, it would be common knowledge. Now I don't know how many other people she told besides the people that were immediately, you know, on the right and left of us.
Q Mrs. Chester, you indicated that Mrs. Snyder has been interviewed by the FBI. How did you know that?
A They came to our house first and then they went next door and she wasn't home, but they returned and talked to her.
Q You say they came to your house. When you say “they”, who are you referring to?
A There were two gentlemen.
Q Did they show identification indicating that they were special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A Yes.
Q And did you have occasion or did you relate to the FBI agents what Mrs. Snyder had told you?
A Yes.
Q And did they express or show any interest in finding out what Mrs. Snyder has actually seen?
A Well, they wanted to know where she lived and we told them she lived right next door.
Q Did you observe them going to Mrs. Snyder's house?
A Yes, sir.
Q And I gather you said that you also became aware that when they didn't reach her then, they returned at another time?
A Yes.
Q Did they, in fact, to your knowledge or what you were told by Mrs. Snyder, ever see her or interview her?
A Yes, they did.
Q Do you know whether any investigator from the Provost Marshal's office, the military police, or the CID talked to Mrs. Snyder?
A Yes, I believe they did also.
Q Did they talk to you about the same episode?
A No, I never talked to the MPs.
Q Mrs. Chester, were you home in the early morning hours of Saturday, February 21st?
A Yes, I was.
Q Was there anything unusual that happened that morning that you saw or heard?
A Well, I didn't see it, but that morning after I'd gotten up, I was told, again by Mrs. Snyder, that there had been a car parked in front of the house.
Q Mrs. Chester, I think that your husband can tell us--was he home that morning on Saturday, February 21st?
A Yes.
Q Now at this time Mrs. Chester, I think the attorney for the government, Captain Somers, will want to ask you a couple of questions. Will you bear with us while I switch over to him?
A Yes.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Can you hear me, Mrs. Chester?
A Not very well.
Q Is this any better?
A Yes.
Q Okay, I'll try to speak up good and loud for you. Now, as I understand it, you went home for lunch on the February 17th. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you subsequently had this conversation with Mrs. Snyder. Where was this conversation held?
A It was probably in my house. Either that or on the front steps, my front porch, just as we entered the house.
Q You're not sure which?
A No, I'm not, really.
Q Did she come to you or did you run into her or how did this happen, come about?
A No, she came over to me.
Q Where did she first come up to you? Do you remember that?
A As I was coming up the walk.
Q And what were her first words to you?
A I'm sorry; I can't remember what her first words were. Only that she related her story.
Q Did this all just come tumbling out of her or did you ask her questions? How did this happen?
A No, I didn't ask her questions at all. I had just come home myself, and she was the one that began the conversation about it.
Q Do I understand that you first told her about what had happened in the MacDonald residence and then she told you this?
A I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
Q Do I understand that you first told her about what had occurred at the MacDonald house and then she related this story to you?
A Oh, no. No. She already knew it. I didn't tell her about it at all.
Q What was her apparent emotional state during the time she told you this?
A Well, she was rather excited.
Q Did she show any fear or was upset?
A Yes, she was afraid that--I guess more so than anyone else in the neighborhood.
Q Would you repeat for us, as closely as you can remember the words of this conversation?
A Mrs. Snyder said that she had gotten up that morning and I believe she said it was because the baby was crying and when she was up, she heard a motor running outside, so she went to the window and looked out and there was a car parked--I don't know whether it was immediately in front of my house, our house, or between her house and ours--then she saw a girl running from the direction of the MacDonald house and she had long hair, long blonde hair. She was running down the sidewalk and she got in the car and it pulled away.
Q How many people were in the car? Did she say?
A No, she didn't really say.
Q Now you mentioned something about there being a driver. Did she describe the driver in any way?
A No.
Q Did she say anything else about this incident?
A Not that I recall.
Q What was your response to this information?
A Well, merely--I had no response. I didn't know whether to believe her.
Q Why?
A Why?
Q Why not? Why didn't you know whether to believe her?
A Well, I thought it mighty convenient that she would come up with that story after she heard about the murder.
Q Had she ever given you cause to disbelieve her before this?
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to.
A No, I can't say that she had.
MR. SEGAL: It's still a bad question.
Q Just a moment, please. What color did you say this automobile was?
A I believe she said it red or maroon in red.
Q Red or maroon?
A Yes.
Q Describe again this woman for me?
A She said there was a girl running down the sidewalk who had long blonde hair. They got--and got into the car.
Q She didn't mention anything about a hat or how she was dressed?
A No.
Q Did the FBI people who interviewed you identify themselves by name?
A I'm sure they did. I don't remember them at this time.
Q Can you describe them?
A They were two young men, I'd say in their late twenties. That's about all I can remember. They were dressed in plain clothes.
Q Do you remember their hair color?
A I believe they both had dark hair.
Q Do you remember anything about their wearing apparel?
A Just that they were wearing suits, sir.
Q Did either of them wear glasses?
A Not that I can remember.
Q Now you say you never talked to the military police. Is that correct?
A No, I didn't.
Q When were you interviewed by the FBI? What day?
A I can't remember what day, but it was a while after the murders happened. I would say it was two weeks after it happened.
Q And specially what did you tell the FBI about Mrs. Snyder?
A They asked my husband and I if we had heard anything--I forget--that could be used as evidence and so on, and I told them exactly the same story that I have told you and Mr. Segal.
Q Did you tell the FBI anything about your feelings as to the story?
A No.
Q Did Mrs. Snyder ever repeat this story to you again?
A Yes. I don't exactly remember when, but I heard it more than once after I heard it the first time.
Q How is it that you know that she told this story to the McGowans?
A I don't know for certain, but knowing Mrs. Snyder and the fact that she is a frequent visitor over at the McGowans, I feel certain that she would relate this story to them.
Q How well did you know Mrs. Snyder?
A Fairly well.
Q Did you know what her permanent home address was?
A Well, I knew her family lived somewhere near Pembroke College, and that's where they visited every weekend.
Q You mean the Snyders visited there?
A Yes.
Q Do you know what the current marital status of the Snyders is?
A No, I don't. I assume they're still married.
Q Ma'am, have you volunteered this information to anyone since you talked to the FBI?
A Not that I know of.
Q Has your husband?
A Really, I can't speak for him, but I don't believe that he has.
Q Why not?
A Well--
MR. SEGAL: Excuse me, please.
CPT SOMERS: Wait just one moment. I think this goes to her credibility. The reason why her husband did or did not do something. I'm interested in why she didn't?
MR. SEGAL: That's not the question. You can ask her that.
CPT SOMERS: I'll ask her that specifically. Ma'am, why is it that you haven't brought this up again?
A I'm sorry?
Q Why is it you have not reported this again yourself again?
A I have not reported it again?
Q Since you talked to the FBI men, why is it that you have not reported it again?
A I didn't feel that was necessary. My husband and I were interviewed and at that time they asked us if we had heard anything and we told them.
Q I see. Just a moment. Did you hear anything the morning of the 16th or the 17th, particularly the early morning of the 17th?
A No, I didn't.
Q Do you know whether your husband was awake during that period?
A Yes, he was awake.
CPT SOMERS: Thank you very much. I have no further questions, but wait on the line, please.
MR. SEGAL: We have nothing further, sir.
COL ROCK: Mrs. Chester, this is Colonel Rock. Did Mrs. Snyder indicate what time she saw this alleged incident?
WITNESS: She said it was after 3 o'clock. But I can't remember a more specific time.
COL ROCK: Now in your previous testimony, you said sometime between 3 and 4?
WITNESS: Yes, it was, but I can't remember it--I can't pinpoint the exact time.
COL ROCK: But it does stick in your mind that it was between those hours?
WITNESS: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
COL ROCK: It does stick in your mind that it was, the time period was between 3 and 4 and it could not have been after 4?
WITNESS: Yes, it does stick out in my mind that that was the time. That's when she called us.
COL ROCK: When you say you called us, who was the “us”?
WITNESS: My husband and I.
COL ROCK: You were both together at the time she told you this?
WITNESS: Well, originally I think I was by myself and then she told us both together.
COL ROCK: I see. Your husband came home for lunch also on that date?
WITNESS: Yes. He came home for lunch.
COL ROCK: How did you first hear the news of the murder while you were at work?
WITNESS: As soon as I got to work, I heard of the murders from one of the girls that live directly across the street or catty-corner across the street from Captain MacDonald.
COL ROCK: Prior to the time that you talked to Mrs. Snyder, had you heard any information concerning the description of the alleged assailants?
WITNESS: No.
COL ROCK: You said you spoke to FBI agents. Have you also spoken to CID agents?
WITNESS: I've only spoke to agents on one occasion.
COL ROCK: And you are certain that they were FBI agents and not CID agents?
WITNESS: I believe they were FBI agents. My husband was present at the interview, too, and perhaps he could clarify that. But as far as I can remember, they were FBI agents.
COL ROCK: If you can, would you characterize Mrs. Snyder's reputation in the neighborhood? Was she a neighborhood gossip or a pretty solid citizen or how would you describe her?
WITNESS: Mrs. Snyder was an extrovert and she usually made friends with people. As soon as someone would move in, that day she would be over there, introducing herself and so on.
She was talkative.
COL ROCK: All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. Wait one moment, please. Have you any further questions?
MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions.
COL ROCK: Mrs. Chester, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. Do you understand that, ma'am?
WITNESS: Yes, I do.
COL ROCK: Thank you very much. The next voice you hear will be that of Captain Douthat. Thank you very much for talking with us this morning. I'm going to cut off our loudspeaker system.
WITNESS: All right.
COL ROCK: The hearing will be recessed for 15 minutes.
(The hearing was recessed at 0955 hours, 12 August 1970.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1029 hours, 12 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that both parties--all parties who were present at the recess are again in the hearing room. Proceed, counselor.
MR. SEGAL: Mr. John Chester, please.
(Mr. John Wayne Chester was called as a witness for the defense, was sworn and testified as follows.)
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Chester, would you state your full name and address for the record, please?
A John Wayne Chester, Box 767, Pinehurst, North Carolina.
Q In February of 1970, where did you live?
A 306 Castle Drive, Fort Bragg.
Q And were you a member of the armed forces of the United States at that time?
A Yes, I was.
Q What was your rank and your organization at that time?
A I was a Captain assigned to G-3 section of the XVIII Airborne Corps.
Q Did you have a neighbor by the name of Mrs. Jan Snyder?
A Yes.
Q Where did Mrs. Snyder live?
A Directly next door to me.
Q And that address is?
A 308 Castle Drive.
Q Did you have occasion to learn on or about 17 February, of the killings that took place at the home of Captain Jeffrey MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where did you learn that?
A Tuesday morning as I was going to work.
Q From whom did you learn it?
A A refuse collector.
Q And did you have occasion to return to your home that afternoon at any time?
A That morning, yes. At lunch.
Q And who was home or who did you have occasion to talk to when you got home?
A My wife, I think, was already there or was coming home and I arrived and met her and Mrs. Snyder was talking to my wife.
Q Did you have occasion to hear what Mrs. Snyder had to say at the time? At lunch or at any time?
A Yes.
Q What subject was she speaking about?
A About Captain MacDonald's family--and--
Q Did she make any indication that she had seen anything that appeared to her to have some possible connection with that episode?
A Yes, she did.
Q Would you tell the investigating officer what Mrs. Snyder said in your presence?
A She said that there was a disturbance in her house, her children were yelling and she had occasion to be up at 3 or 3:30 in the morning and heard a commotion outside, in front of the house, and went to look out the window and saw some people. She was kind of vague--a woman and some of men get into an automobile and the automobile drove away.
Q Do you recall any of the details of that--did she indicate whether she had seen anything about the appearance of clothing, physical characteristics of any of the people that she saw in front of her house?
A She said that the woman had long hair. She didn't say what color it was, she merely said it was long and she wasn't specific as to the men.
Q Were you there for the entire conversation on the subject of what Mrs. Snyder had to say?
A No.
Q Did you have occasion to repeat to anyone else what Mrs. Snyder had said to you?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you repeat that information?
A Yes, an FBI agent who came to the house about ten days or two weeks after that.
Q Did you ever have occasion to give that information to any CID investigator or PMI?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you know who you gave it to?
A I don't know the individual's name. I can describe him. I don't know his name. It was 3 weeks after the incident occurred.
Q In other words, do I understand that about ten days or two weeks after the incident occurred, you spoke to the FBI agents?
A Right.
Q And then approximately a week or ten days later--
A That is correct.
Q You spoke to another person whom you believed to be a CID agent or PMI?
A I went to the CID officer at the Provost Marshal's office on Fort Bragg.
Q What were the circumstances of your going to that office?
A They called me up and asked me to come in and give them a statement.
Q At that time, did you speak to the investigator?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you give him the information about what Mrs. Snyder had been stating to you and to your wife?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you have occasion to learn whether Mrs. Snyder told any other person the same description of what she said she saw on the morning of February 17th?
A Yes.
Q Do you know who it was that had reported hearing these same statements from Mrs. Snyder?
A No one reported it. I was present when she told other people, the same story she had told my wife and I.
Q And who were the other persons that you recall?
A Several people in the neighborhood. The McGowans, for one, that lived next to them, at 310 Castle Drive, she told them. I was present when that happened. The people that lived on the other side of me, the Roysen's (phonetic) at this time, she told them, and the people that lived down the street from them, whose name I forget. I think it was Richardson.
Q Was what you heard her telling these other people consistent with what she told you and your wife?
A Yes, sir, it was the same or substantially the same.
Q Did you have occasion to be in contact with Mrs. Snyder on Saturday, February 21st?
A Yes, I did.
CPT SOMERS: I object to this. I know the direction that this is going in. I think there is no showing of relevance whatever to this case and I object to the whole line of questioning.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, I--
CPT BEALE: Mr. Chester, if you would just step outside back there in that back room again while we discuss this legal matter, then we'll be right back with you.
(Mr. Chester withdrew from the hearing room.)
MR. SEGAL: There are two significance's to be given to the statements given by Mrs. Snyder. First, whether or not she saw what she said she saw. The second significance, to which the question we are now placing before Mr. Chester is addressed, is whether or not she even saw what she thought she saw. She did, in fact, repeat it to other people and we believe we can show through his testimony that someone else apparently took it seriously enough to be involved in an episode on Saturday morning which involved pointing a high-powered rifle with a sniper scope at her home, in which she reacted and called then Captain Chester for assistance and to make him aware of this episode, that it happened. So therefore, even if in fact, her story was not true, her repeating it widely, apparently, at least to a number of people, caused some incident to happen a few days thereafter, which seems to be related to a person--to give it great credence or some credence to what she said. It's offered for that purpose and it seems to me, under those circumstances, it is clearly germane to the fact that there were persons other than Captain MacDonald who were responsible for the killings.
CPT SOMERS: I don't think that defense, in any part of its explanation, has shown any causal relationship between this incident on Saturday and anything that Mrs. Snyder said. Furthermore, I think it's also an attempt to bolster the credence, number one, of a witness who has not testified and number two, of a witness whose credibility was not attacked.
MR. SEGAL: There's no question of bolstering credibility. Did an action take place which could be reasonably inferred as connected to the statements that this person made to her neighbors? It seems to me that only after you hear it, sir, can you evaluate the weight to be given it. There's always the question of assigning weight to a given piece of evidence, but the fact is I think we're entitled to have it in the record so that it may be reflected upon and given its appropriate weight. We again request that this is going to tie together with further evidence. This is an ongoing chain of events, involving the actions of a number of persons which are consistently--the explanation which has been given from the very first by Captain MacDonald as to what happened in his home, which the government has elected to disbelieve and we intend to show that there are substantial reasons to believe Captain MacDonald.
COL ROCK: Did Captain Chester allegedly see the sniper?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir. I think we'll also identify Captain Chester as having some special competence in regard to weapons and the ability to specifically indicate that there was rifle and there was a sniper scope. He has some qualifications in that regard. He went into his--and as a matter of fact, got a weapon of his own, and then he'll describe this incident which was reported to the military police authorities.
CPT SOMERS: Even if it can be shown by the defense, which I doubt, can be shown that there was rifle, it is not connected with Mrs. Snyder. We know nothing, under the current state of facts, about Mrs. Snyder's personal life or if anybody else might have had occasion to point a rifle at her. I suggest again that this evidence is in no way shown to be causally connected with the incidents on the 16th and 17th or with the story that Mrs. Snyder had been telling or had allegedly been telling.
MR. SEGAL: It seems to me that statement is clearly contrary to the government's theory, since the government apparently said they couldn't find anyone that they could understand had a motive against Captain MacDonald to kill his wife and children and injure him. They chose to charge him on just that inference. Now, sir, the same thing applies here. I don't say that it's proof positive; nobody except the persons involved can say that, but it is a reasonable inference that may be drawn after you hear it, weigh the credibility of the witness's ability and testimony, after it's been received, and then put it in proper perspective.
It seems to me that the whole Saturday episode raises a very serious problem as to whether or not there is not substantial corroboration that could be believed and accepted, in regard to one portion of Captain MacDonald's situation, to be taken together with the testimony of other witnesses who have not been heard and who will be heard on the same theory.
CPT BEALE: Reference to your objection, Captain Somers, this witness will be permitted to testify as to what happened on 21 February. You may recall the witness.
(Mr. Chester was recalled and testified further as follows.)
COL ROCK: Mr. Chester, I remind you again that you're still under oath.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Prior to the interim, Mr. Chester, I asked you whether something unusual happened on the morning of February 21st of 1970.
A That was early in the morning?
Q Saturday morning.
A Yes.
Q Would you tell the investigating officer what happened and the circumstances that you saw or heard or observed that morning?
A I slept in that morning. About quarter to eight, eight o'clock, Mrs. Snyder beat on the wall that divided our apartments, so I got out of bed and went to the wall. I asked her what was wrong and--
COL ROCK: So you went where?
A The wall she was beating on that divided our apartment and asked her what was wrong and she said there was somebody out front with a gun.
Q Excuse me. What did you do at that time?
A I went to the front bedroom and looked out. There was a car out there. There were two individuals in it. One of them, one driving, had a rifle pointed in the direction of the--our house.
Q You say “our house.” How close--
A This is a 6-apartment complex.
Q Did you, in fact, observe the weapon?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you describe to the investigating officer what you saw?
A I saw a weapon with a telescope sight.
Q Do you have any particular competence in the area of weapons?
A I like to think so, yes.
Q What is that, sir? What is the basis of your--
A I'm a professional shooter, now that I'm out of the service.
Q What, if anything, did you do when you saw the weapon with the scope that you described?
A I went into the back bedroom of my house to get a shotgun.
Q Then what did you do?
A I went to the front window and at that time--
Q Was the vehicle still there?
A It was in the act of leaving. It was maybe a hundred yards from the house, moving away from the house.
Q Was this vehicle parked when your attention was drawn to it by Mrs. Snyder's call?
A Not in the parking spaces. It was pulled up to the curb and the engine was stopped. It was pulled close to the curb and the engine was running.
Q Did you--could you estimate how far the side of the vehicle that was next to the curb was away from the curb?
A Two feet, three feet.
Q Was the person holding the weapon the driver or the passenger?
A He was the driver.
Q Was the driver's side closest toward the house where you lived and Mrs. Snyder lived adjoining you?
A Yes. The car was headed up the street.
Q Could you indicate anything you observed about the elevation of the barrel?
A It was higher than perpendicular. It was aimed directly toward the second story area.
Q Did you have occasion to report this incident to any authority?
A Yes. As I went to get a shotgun, I told my wife to call the MPs. She never got around to it and by this time the car had left and Mrs. Snyder came over to my house and from my house we called the MPs and made a formal report of it.
Q Were you ever subsequently interviewed by CID agents or PMI's, in regard to this episode on Saturday morning?
A No, I wasn't.
Q Who did you talk to in regard to making a report of this episode?
A The desk sergeant, I believe. We called the central number for the military police.
Q Were you, yourself, home on the evening hours of February 16th and the morning hours of February 17th, 1970?
A Yes, I was.
Q Were you home the entire evening and the entire morning until you went to work?
A Yes.
Q What time did you leave home to go to work that morning?
A About 8 o'clock.
Q Did you hear anything that you would characterize as out of the ordinary at that particular time?
A No, I didn't.
Q Where were you in the house between the hours of 2 am and 4 am on the morning of the 17th?
A I was in the back bedroom, upstairs.
Q What back bedroom is that? Is that the bedroom that faces Castle Drive?
A No, it faces the opposite, away from Castle Drive. It's where the storage area is attached in back.
Q There would be a hallway and front bedroom between your bedroom and Castle Drive?
A Correct.
Q Was the window in which--the bedroom in which you were in, open or closed?
A They were closed.
MR. SEGAL: Cross-examine.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q When Mrs. Snyder was telling the story, how did she describe these people?
A She really didn't describe them. She said she saw some people, one of which was a woman, get into a car, she heard them running and then she heard them get into a car. She didn't really describe them. The only one she described was the girl. She said she had long hair.
Q She heard them running. Did she see them running?
A I couldn't say if she said that or not.
Q Did she indicate from what direction they were running?
A She said down the street.
Q Which means what to you?
A Down the street, downhill.
Q Is that on a hill?
A Yes, it is.
Q In what direction is the top of the hill?
A East.
Q Was that toward the higher or lower numbers on Castle Drive?
A The hill runs uphill toward the higher numbers.
Q Did she indicate how many of these people were there?
A She said four people.
Q Did she describe the automobile?
A No, she didn't.
Q Did you say that she said this automobile was running?
A No. She never mentioned the fact of whether or not it was running.
Q She said it parked where?
A In the parking area, right on Castle Drive, across the street from our house, supposedly, according to her.
Q And this was what time of the night?
A She said about 3:30.
Q You mean 0330?
A AM, right.
Q Now, as I understand it, you subsequently talked to the FBI or to some FBI agents about this story that Mrs. Snyder told. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Two people?
A Two, right.
Q The initial information with regard to this information was given to the FBI by your wife and against your will?
A Yes, it was.
Q Why was it that this was against your will?
A It--
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to.
CPT SOMERS: I think it relates to his credibility.
MR. SEGAL: His credibility? I don't know of any relevance at all to Mr. Chester's credibility.
CPT BEALE: Well, your objection is overruled, Mr. Segal.
Q Why was it against your will?
A It was my opinion that any facts drawn as a result of this investigation should be gotten without any help from anybody else. Without any help from people who might give hearsay evidence. Just like me, because all I could tell was what I heard somebody else say.
Q Why were you unwilling to do that?
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to. He's already answered the question.
CPT SOMERS: I don't think he has. I think he said he was unwilling.
CPT BEALE: He has answered the question, Captain Somers.
Q Now this incident on the 21st, what kind of automobile were these people in?
A It was a late model car with a hard roof. It was not station wagon; it was a sedan, light in color. I didn't stop to see what make it was or what year it was. I'm not really an expert on the make and model of cars. I really couldn't say.
Q Now you've described this rifle as high-powered. What was its caliber?
A I have no idea.
Q Why do you describe it as high-powered?
A It was bigger than a .22, so that makes it a high-powered.
Q How could you tell it was bigger than a 22?
A The thickness of the barrel, the weight of the stock, the fact that it had a telescopic sight with light-ocular lens on it.
Q Is it possible to have a thick barrel and still have a small caliber weapon?
A On a target rifle, yes. This was not a target rifle.
Q And how do you know that?
A Small scope--it wasn't fitted with the accouterments of a target rifle.
Q I see. Isn't it possible to have a rifle specially built or the stock of the rifle specially built?
A Anything is possible, but this was a standard rifle.
Q All right. What make was it, what model?
A I have no idea.
Q Then you--how do you know it was a standard rifle?
A It had a small swivel forearm like a model 70 Winchester would have, for instance. It wasn't a sniper rifle, nor was it a custom made rifle, because the bluing on it was the standard job that didn't shine in the sunlight. It was a newly-finished rifle.
Q How long did you look at that rifle?
A Five seconds.
Q Did you see the driver of that car?
A I could see part of the driver of the car.
Q Describe what you saw.
A A man with hair about your length, perhaps. He appeared to be looking through the scope sight of the rifle. I couldn't--wouldn't swear to the fact that he was looking through it. It appeared he was looking through it. I couldn't see the passenger of the car. I could only see him from the waist down.
Q Well, now to pin this hair down, for the record. How do you describe my hair? Short, long?
A Short.
Q Did you see the driver do anything?
A No, I didn't. He made no movement while I was looking.
Q And there was another man in the car, you say?
A There was another individual in the car. I couldn't see if it was a man or woman.
Q How much of this individual could you see?
A From the waist down, approximately here down.
Q What kind of clothing was this individual wearing from the waist down?
A Pants, slacks.
Q Now if you saw this man's hair, did you see any part of his face?
A Like I say, he appeared to be aiming the rifle. The majority of his face was masked by the scope sight of the rifle, and by the weapon itself.
Q Was he looking through the scope of the rifle?
A He appeared to be, yes.
Q How long did it take you, again, to get back to the room, to the window, once you left it to go for the shotgun?
A Perhaps ten seconds.
Q And what did you see with reference to that automobile when you got back?
A The rear end of it, moving up Castle Drive toward North Dougherty.
Q In what direction was that car facing, east?
A It was facing up Castle Drive, yes.
Q Now, if you're looking up that street toward Castle Drive and you're in front of your house, or where you were living then, which side of the street was this apartment complex of yours on?
A Looking at North Dougherty, it was towards North Dougherty. It was on the left side of the street, our house was. The same side as Captain MacDonald's, because the numbers were even.
Q Do you have the perpendicular, parallel parking spaces in front of the apartment complex?
A No, not in front.
Q I mean perpendicular to the street?
A No, ours faces the apartments, directly across the street; the odd numbered apartments had the perpendicular parking slots.
Q Now as I understand it, you were called to the Provost Marshal's office and talked to them at one time about this? And did you tell them about the statements of Mrs. Snyder?
A No, I didn't.
Q And did you tell them about this--I gather this would have been after the incident with the man in the automobile?
A That's correct.
Q Did you tell the CID about that incident?
A No, I didn't.
Q Were those people outside your building, at the time you saw--I mean people other than in the automobile--outside the building when you saw people, the men I the automobile with the rifle?
A Yes, there were.
Q How many?
A Well, directly across the street from our apartments, there was a--the other apartments kind of went away from it a little and they made a little courtyard. There were always several children out there playing, children from the area always played ball and whatnot out there. There were several children out there. There was probably an adult or two. I wasn't immediately aware of--I was aware of people. I didn't take a head count.
Q What kind of a person was Mrs. Snyder, as far as you know?
A Female person, that's all I know about her.
Q Was she a talkative person?
A Yes.
Q As I understand it, your apartment was next door to the Snyder's?
A That's correct.
Q Did the Snyders have any fights that you ever heard?
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to. What has a fight between Captain Snyder and Mrs. Snyder got to do with this case?
CPT SOMERS: Well, the witness has indicated that he knows only Mrs. Snyder was a female person. I'm trying to discover if he knew anything else about her, about her personality, because it's relevant as to what she's apparently been saying.
MR. SEGAL: There may relevant questions, but whether she ever had an argument with her husband; it escapes me how it is addressed to the issue.
CPT SOMERS: I think perhaps we will discover she did and I think it's also relevant to whether she may or may not be divorced and whether we can find her.
MR. SEGAL: I still think that can be done outside the hearing officer's presence and get in--in one of the interims and I'm sure Mr. Chester will gladly give me all the information and this will be developed without going into it again.
CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained.
Continued questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Did you have occasion, Mr. Chester, in the last 3 or 4 weeks, to speak with Captain Thompson, my co-counsel?
A Yes, I believe I did.
Q At the time you spoke to Captain Thompson, what was the subject of that interview?
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to. If he has a statement that was taken from this witness, it should be shown to him that he may examine it and discuss it more intelligently, pursuant to all rules of this case.
CPT SOMERS: No, there's no statement and I can ask him without any interview without showing him a statement, even if there is one, which there is not. I'm attempting now to go to the credibility of the witness. This is a perfectly good procedure.
MR. SEGAL: I don't object to that, sir. I'd say it's been a procedure throughout these hearings, that if a statement is taken from a witness, that the witness be allowed to see it so that he may be questioned about it and I must point out that the government has constantly misunderstood the meaning of the word “statement.” That does not mean only the statement taken in the witness's home and used by the CID. It means any document which purports to be the words of the person who is testifying. The fact that he was not asked to swear to it, or even necessarily sign it, does not mean that it does not represent his words.
He should be permitted to see his words and then indicate whether not when questioned he did, in fact, say those things. Whether the statement refreshes his recollection, is consistent with what he says, or is not consistent.
CPT SOMERS: Well, the government is glad to have the explanation of the defense counsel on what he feels is proper procedure in this case. However, I say again, there is no statement in this case. I also say that the procedure set forth was one that was set forth with the government's witnesses and it also related to sworn statements. I don't think that this is in any way related to what we are about to do and I say again there's no written document in my hands on this subject.
CPT BEALE: Objection is overruled, Mr. Segal.
Q What was the subject of that interview?
A I went to see Captain Thompson about 3 or 4 weeks ago, at his office in JAG Headquarters, Corps. The only thing we discussed was the fact that I was awake the night this happened and that the CID had--I had come back from a three-day pass on Sunday night, rather 3 o'clock Monday morning--the CID had confused the issue and thought I had come back the night the murders occurred. We discussed that. We discussed the facts of what I saw the night I was awake. I wasn't awake the subsequent night. That was the only thing, to my knowledge, that we discussed.
Q So you were not awake the subsequent night?
A I said I was awake.
Q Do I gather then, that you did talk about the subject with reference to the MacDonald case?
A Yes.
Q And did you at that time volunteer the information, with respect either to Mrs. Snyder or to the incident with the rifle to Captain Thompson?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A As I said before, at that time I didn't see any connection between the affair with the rifle and the MacDonald case at all. As to Mrs. Snyder's verbosity, I thought when we told the FBI that she had made these statements, or my wife told them that these statements had been made, I thought that this would be followed up on. I didn't connect it to them.
Q Did Captain Thompson give you an opportunity to add anything else you might have known about this case?
A Yes, he did.
Q But you did not add that?
A That didn't have anything to do with the case.
Q Mrs. Snyder's testimony doesn't?
A Not what she told me. At least, in my opinion it doesn't. No. Not in the context that he used the word additional information about the case, the facts bearing on Captain MacDonald's innocence or guilt, didn't have anything to do with what Mrs. Snyder said, I didn't feel at the time.
CPT SOMERS: No further questions.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q There's some question you said about the statement that was made by you to the CID, that it was misinterpreted. Could you please clarify what you're referring to in that regard?
A When I was first interviewed by the FBI, I told them that I'd come home from a 3-day pass Sunday night, Monday morning. I think it was misconstrued when I was interviewed by the CID, subsequent to the FBI investigation, they had misconstrued that I had come home Monday night or Tuesday morning.
Q How did you get the impression that the CID had misconstrued or misunderstood when you actually arrived home?
A The agent asked me exactly what day I came home and I told them it was Sunday night late, that is Monday morning, a.m. He said that his information was that I had come home the morning the murder occurred.
Q Did you correct him in that regard?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, did Captain Thompson ask you whether you had any neighbors or other persons that you had heard who had discussed seeing any people or hearing them, themselves, anything unusual on the morning of the 17th?
A No, he didn't.
Q He did not seek from you any information about what other people might have told you?
A No, he didn't.
Q Now, you might help us in regard to where this automobile was located that you had seen on the morning of Saturday. If you would locate--I must apologize for this being a very crude diagram. How about having the witness come up her and everybody see around the IO's desk.
CPT BEALE: If we may, before we mark this, just ask him whether this even resembles the area.
MR. SEGAL: I have prepared here, on a piece of white lined paper, a rough drawing. Can you orient yourself in any way and indicate whether this perhaps is representational of the area in which your building is located.
WITNESS: Except for one thing. The parking lot or area didn't extend as far down. It ended right about here.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Chester, during the interim here, you have prepared for us on a piece of white lined paper, a rough drawing representing the location of Castle Drive and of the residence in which you lived and Mrs. Snyder lived and the McGowan family lived, and the position of certain parking places and this has been marked A-34. Am I stating correctly what you have done here?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now if you would, using a red pen, please mark this drawing the location of the automobile in which you said the driver was pointing this high-powered rifle with a scope. Circle it, please.
(Witness complied.)
Q And the dot that you've made for the vehicle is pointed in an easterly direction?
A That's correct.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further on this, unless Captain Somers wants to--
CPT SOMERS: I think that's clear.
MR. SEGAL: May we have this marked, sir, as Accused Exhibit 34, a sketch of the area surrounding 306 Castle Drive?
COL ROCK: Proceed.
MR. SEGAL: I have no further redirect. Captain Somers?
CPT SOMERS: Yes, I do. Excuse me just a moment.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Mr. Chester, I understand that you are saying that you did not tell the FBI that you came home on the morning of the 17th?
A That's right. I did not.
Q Mr. Chester, you do not now and did not ever want to be personally involved in this case, did you?
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to, sir.
CPT BEALE: It's sustained. The witness is here, he's present and he's already testified as to that particular matter here. Move to another area.
CPT SOMERS: No further questions.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, sir.
Questions by COL ROCK:
Q Mr. Chester, how would you describe the general atmosphere of the neighborhood in the immediate days after 17 February? Was there apprehension or were people worried? Was there any concern for the safety of homes, or how would you describe it?
A I wouldn't say that. There was an on camp atmosphere, sir, in which there was a certain amount of apprehension, of course, that such a thing had happened close to you, but the neighborhood didn't arm itself. I wouldn't go that far, no. I'd say, yes, a certain amount of tension was present--of course, I'm only one member of the neighborhood.
Q I realize that. Was this during the hunting season?
A Quail hunting, I think. Yes, sir, I believe it was.
Q Did it occur to you that these could be shooters, people interested in checking rifles out on a Saturday to either go hunting or go shooting?
A No, sir, it didn't occur to me.
Q Do you think that was a possibility, the reason why people might have a weapon in the car?
A I don't think so, sir.
Q How do you carry your weapon in your vehicle?
A Broken down in the case.
Q Could that particular weapon be broken down?
A No, but it could have been cased.
Q Could someone reasonably have been examining the weapon, do you think?
A The reason I didn't think it was a case of examination of the weapon is you seldom pull a car over to the side of the curb and leave your engine running and point a weapon out the window.
Q But you don't know who, or do you know who the occupants were of the vehicle?
A No, I don't.
Q Could one of them have been a neighbor?
A Possibly, yes, sir could have been.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions.
MR. SEGAL: No further questions.
COL ROCK: Mr. Chester, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. You are permanently excused.
MR. SEGAL: I'd like to call Dr. Sadoff, please.
COL ROCK: Well, wait a minute; don't call him now, it's 11:15.
MR. SEGAL: I would suggest we could start, sir, because it doesn't make much difference in interruption of the statement of qualification of the witness. The government might want to contemplate that or decide whether they want to question him in the interim. I would like in view of the fact, in view of the fact that Doctor Sadoff is under some pressure because of patient commitments, to take advantage of our regular time, at least as fully as possible, in this regard.
COL ROCK: What time is his flight scheduled for return?
MR. SEGAL: He's driving, sir.
COL ROCK: We will go through that procedure then, but I do wish to have our normal break.
(Doctor Robert L. Sadoff was called as a witness by the defense, was sworn, and testified as follows.)
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Doctor Sadoff, would you state your full name?
A Robert L. Sadoff, S-a-d-o-f-f.
Q And your address?
A The Benjamin Fox Pavilion, Jenkins, Pennsylvania.
Q And what is your profession, sir?
A I'm a physician.
Q Have you a specialty?
A Yes, I am a psychiatrist.
Q Would you please state for the investigating officer what you education is?
A Yes, I went to the University of Minnesota and I received a Doctor of Medicine Degree in 1959. I followed that with internship at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Los Angeles, California for one year, after which I spent three years at the UCLA Neuro-psychiatry Institute in psychiatry residence and training.
Q Now are you certified by any medical board?
A Yes, I am, by the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology.
Q And how long how you been certified?
A Since May 1966.
Q Did you serve in the Armed Forces of the United States?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when and to when, and what was your assignment?
A I was stationed at Fort Dix, New Jersey from 1963 until 1965 and my assignment was a Captain in the Medical Corps as a psychiatrist in charge of outpatient military working in courts-martial psychiatry and stockade psychiatry.
Q How many cases did you have occasion to make examination for that were related to court-martial proceedings while you were a Captain in the Army?
A I would say that I examined about fifty people or more as specifically for court-martial work.
Q In your capacity of civilian position since being in the Army have you had occasion to examine members of the Armed Forces in connection with other court-martial proceedings?
A Yes, I have.
Q And on how many occasions have you made such examinations, this including?
A I don't have the exact number. I'd say it's over ten, more like twelve or fifteen.
Q Now would you state to the investigating officer what positions you have held as a psychiatrist?
A When I came out of the Army in 1965 I became a Fellow in forensic work, legal psychiatry at Temple University in Philadelphia, and during that year I was also the Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Clinic--that was about a year when I saw about 150 patients, half of whom were involved in criminal legal matters, and the other half in civil matters. Following that year I served as the first Clinical Director of the State Maximum Security Forensic Diagnostic Hospital at Holmesburg County Prison in Philadelphia. I might say that that entailed setting up a 100-bed hospital within the prison to examine for sixty days individuals referred to us by the Court of Philadelphia, and I had that position from November 1966 until May 1968. I also have served as Consultant to the Norristown State Hospital in forensic psychiatric matters. I have done that from 1966 to the present time. Following my termination as the Clinical Director, I had resigned that position to become training supervisor in forensic psychiatry at Temple which meant that I had charge of training the young psychiatrists who were coming in to study legal psychiatry, which I still hold.
Q Doctor Sadoff, have you been engaged in any teaching or educational activities in psychiatry?
A Yes, I am on the staff at Temple University. I'm an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry and lecturer in law at the Law School of Temple. I have taught at the Norristown State Hospital; I have taught at Friends Hospital in Philadelphia; I have just been appointed to the Einstein Hospital in Philadelphia to teach, especially in law psychiatry; I am on the staff at Philadelphia where I serve as a Group Psychotherapist for the Sex Offender Project, which has been going on for three or four years now. I have taught in other capacities, for example, the Crime Commission has held Judicial Sentencing Institutes.
Q Who are the participants in the Judicial Sentencing--
A These are the judges of the State Courts in Pennsylvania. I have served to teach one course or one seminar activity at various universities, at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Buffalo in New York, the Rutgers University, Villanova, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Q Now do you hold any research positions at the present time?
A I'm a Research Associate in Unit in Law and Psychiatry at Temple University, and also on the Research Staff at Philadelphia General Hospital.
Q Are you in private practice of psychiatry?
A Yes, I am.
Q And what portion of your time is devoted to private practice?
A I would say between half and two-thirds.
Q Have you held license as a doctor from various states of the United States?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer in what states you are licensed to practice medicine?
A First in Minnesota in 1959, and then in California in 1960; New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey in 1965, and Pennsylvania in 1965.
Q Do you hold any memberships in professional associations?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you state what those are, please?
A I am a member of the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, the State, County and local chapters of each of these in Pennsylvania. I'm also actively involved as Membership Chairman of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, and I've just been inducted as a Fellow in the American College of Legal Medicine.
Q Have you received any fellowships or awards in connection with your study?
A I have had two; the first was when I was a medical student. I had a fellowship in Pediatrics and also in Psychiatry as a student Fellow. I had the fellowship of Forensic Psychiatry in 1965 at Temple.
Q Who awarded the fellowship?
A The National Institute of Mental Health.
Q And have you had any occasion to present the findings or research you have done at psychiatric meetings or--national nature?
A Yes, I have.
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer some of the principal papers that you have presented?
A I presented papers to the American Group Psychotherapy Association, two of them, one of which was “On Changing Therapists” on the research at Philadelphia General Hospital. I was interested in stuttering, having been a stutterer, and I presented a paper on “Group Psycho-therapy for Stutterers” to the national meetings, and I presented papers to the American Psychiatric Association about five times. One had to do with military matters; that was “Psychiatric Testimony in Military Courts” which I wrote when I was an officer at Fort Dix. Others have been more in the area of law and psychiatry, advising other psychiatrists as to their role, or possible rolls in psychiatry and law.
Q Have you published any articles or matters that you have written?
A Yes, I have.
Q And how many have you published altogether?
A I think I have in print now about thirty-five with five accepted, and three that I've been waiting to hear from, and four or five--
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer how many of them have to do with forensic psychiatry?
A I would say about, possibly out of thirty-five, maybe twenty-five.
Q Do any of them have to do with psychiatry in the context of military court proceedings?
A Yes, one of them had to do with psychiatric testimony in military courts. One was an evaluation of the psychiatric role in the search for truth, an examination of the use of lie detection, hypnosis and truth serum, or sodium Pentothal injections, which I have used.
Q Did any of the articles deal with court-martial proceedings in which you have participated?
A Yes, there was one recently. I had been involved in a matter in Vietnam in January of last year, 1969. I wrote a paper on the court-martial proceedings, not the legal aspect but what occurs when a psychiatrist goes to Vietnam to testify in a military proceedings there; the anxieties that I thought I would share with my colleagues, I had that published.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further at this time. I'm sorry; I have one other question, if I may, before you go, Captain Somers.
Q In how many cases have you been involved with making psychiatric examinations that dealt with criminals--homicides?
A I would say several hundred, and the bulk of which were those that I had seen as a Clinical Director of the State Maximum Security Hospital in Philadelphia that the judges had sent to me for examination, and I would say at least over one hundred privately.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, as I understand you did both your undergraduate and medical school work at the University of Minnesota. Is that correct?
A That's right.
Q Do you consider yourself a forensic psychiatrist?
A Yes, I do.
Q And can you tell us what that term means to you?
A To me it means a person who has had special training and experience in the adaptation of his tools of psychiatry to legal procedures, both in criminal and civil nature. It is some specialty, in my opinion, in the field of psychiatry.
Q Your internship, was this a general rotating internship?
A Yes, sir.
Q And by putting the figures together you've been involved in practice of psychiatry in one form or another for ten years now?
A That's right.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
COL ROCK: I have one question, doctor. Why is it necessary to have a subspecialty in this particular field? What are the aspects of the profession that require this sub-specialization, if you will?
WITNESS: I think that's a very good question and a lot of my colleagues ask it also, and that's one of the things that I can speak on for a long time, but if I can very brief about it, I think that psychiatry has become so complex with its involvement in so many fields, that a general psychiatrist does not have the proper training or background to be involved in a legal situation to the highest degree. I think there is room for this kind of sub-specialization and not perhaps on a full time basis but in a way that--well, as an example, when I examine a person whose involved in a criminal offense, the average psychiatrist that I have spoken to will do an average psychiatric examination, which is good. But I will also get as much information as I can from the arresting officer, family members, his attorney, anybody who has anything at all to do with the evaluation of his mental state as close to the time of the alleged offense as possible, and I think that is a complete examination than a one-time or two-time psychiatric examination six months later could never provide. That's an example.
COL ROCK: Thank you.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, at this time I would move for an acceptance of Doctor Sadoff's qualifications as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry, and also ask for leave to, after lunch, mark as an exhibit a full statement of the papers and articles and publications that have been delivered by Doctor Sadoff which I do not think it necessary to have it read into the record but which should be appended as an exhibit.
CPT SOMERS: I have no objection to either of those requests.
COL ROCK: It will be accepted as an exhibit and I believe that would be A-35. This hearing will be recessed until 1330 this afternoon.
(The hearing recessed at 1134 hours, 12 August 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1335 hours, 12 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those parties that were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room to include the witness, Doctor Sadoff. Sir, I remind you again that you are under oath. Proceed, counselor.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Doctor Sadoff, in regard to the testimony you are about to give this afternoon, it would be helpful to me, to the extent that it is possible, if you would try and phrase your answers in perhaps more common or general language as opposed to specific medical and scientific terms. I think that I would find it helpful and perhaps would be more clear in my understanding of it, the information you are going to give to us. Is that satisfactory to you, sir?
A Yes, it is.
COL ROCK: And also, if you do use technical terms, please spell them for the benefit of the recorder.
WITNESS: Yes, I will.
Q Have you had occasion to examine the accused in this case. Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was the objectives or purposes of that examination?
A First of all, as in any examination, it's a general psychiatric examination, mental state, take a history, find out as much as I can about him, as I would about any patient. In the specific instance here, you outline what the problems were, and the goals of the examination as I saw them were to determine whether or not Captain MacDonald possessed a type of a mental state that would be likely to result in the kind of tragedy or killings that occurred in his family.
I felt that there were any number of mental abnormalities that could lead to a person being capable of this kind of behavior and I outlined them, I thought, in my own mind before I examined Captain MacDonald, and my specific goal was to search for evidence for types of mental state that would be conducive or would even allow for this kind of behavior.
Q And the behavior referring to is the behavior that is supposedly the killing of his wife and two children on the specific facts of this case?
A That's right.
Q Now would you describe for the investigating officer the procedures and techniques that were followed in conducting the examination that you made of Captain MacDonald?
A First of all, Mr. Eisman, accompanied by Captain Douthat, came to my office with Captain MacDonald. Captain MacDonald waited in the waiting room while I was briefed about the nature of the problem and the killings or the deaths of his children and his wife, and as much as they knew about the situation that I should know. I do this because I did not have any official record of what had happened and what I wanted was as an official record as I could have, that is a statement from an outside source, prior to my talking with Captain MacDonald. Following that, I examined Captain MacDonald individually, that is by himself, I would say a period of about three hours. I asked him about the situation, why he was there, what was the specific reason for him being there, and to have him go over the details of the night in question, so that I could have specific data from him and also to compare with what I had previously gotten from Mr. Eisman. As he tells, as any patient tells about the specific present illness, you might say. Or reason for being examined, I have a technique of interrupting and testing and observing affective that his feeling tone responses to specific points made in the contents of what he's telling me, and I may relate some of this back to historical patterns; I may observe response--there are several of them--a gesture, a twitch, or a nervous moment, during the course of the examination. We also notice, of course, if there is any obvious reflection of happiness or sadness, or anger, a flush of the face, for example. One can sometimes note a heightened pulse, one can look at the temple pulse; one can note dilation of the pupils, that is, widening of the pupils. If one gets angry there is a sympathetic response, that is, the nervous system response. One can notice sweating, shaking, observing these things and the more obvious things as laughing, crying, walking about the room, not being able to sit still. That's the second part. Then we go into a history of previous behavior, pattern of adjustment to stress in the past; historical data such as family relationships and school and accomplishments and his feeling about what has happened to him in the past.
Following that, I try to go back to the present and relate things, the present to the past, and note whether there is a consistent pattern, or whether there is an inconsistency. I also take the information that I have received previously, and compare it to what he tells me, and also go back and get details about what he told more in a narrative, so that I have full understanding of what he is saying, and also to use in ways of testing orientation, testing his mental state. This is the next part of your examination. All of this kind of goes on simultaneously, but when I consider it I put it into some logical sequence of order, this is about the way I do it. And on the mental state, I look for evidence of anxiety, evidence of disorientation, evidence for intelligence or lack of it, his ability to abstract, conceptualize, to communicate effectively, whether he's random or whether he tends to loose the train of thought. I will purposefully take him off the central point of what he's presenting to see if he can spontaneously come back. Some people have more difficulty with that than others; whether can abstract a proverb; whether he can calculate. Sometimes I will ask specifically whether one can add a series of numbers, but with Captain MacDonald, of course, I didn't have to do that. He showed me evidence of his intellectual ability spontaneously by his talking. Following this, I always make it a matter of part of the examination in a serious matter as this, to have comprehensive psychological testing conducted by a competent--usually a Ph.D. in psychology, clinic psychologist.
Q Did you have this done with this particular case?
A Yes, I did. I had Doctor James Mack, who at that time was assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, and associate professor of psychology at Temple University, examine Captain MacDonald and that I used as also part of my overall comprehensive examination of him.
Q Could you indicate to us, before leaving the subject of Doctor Mack, about how extensive or how long Doctor Mack's testing encompassed?
A Yes, I know he saw him for three two hour periods, that he was with Captain MacDonald, following which I know he took the data that he had received and put it in some meaningful order, which must take him another couple of hours, and then prepared his consultation for me.
Q Were there any other techniques involved or procedures involved in your examination of Doctor MacDonald in addition to the psychological test?
A Consultation with you, further examination of him. In this case I did not get a chance to examine his family or talk with them, or interview them, which I would have wanted to. I did this morning, a bit; we talked out in the waiting room. It wasn't in the form of an examination. It was more of an informal conversation which I guess I usually use to--one can't get away from his background and training--and I usually perceive, if I want, from that kind of informality as well.
Q May I ask you, Doctor Sadoff, did you take into consideration the fact that the man you were asked to examine was a person whom himself had medical training and presumably may have some psychiatric knowledge and background himself?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you take into consideration any attempts by a person of that type of that background to perhaps disguise or hide from you true facts about his mental emotional condition?
A I took that into consideration and I was also aware that he would be very much able, as able as anybody I've ever examined, to do this, and I did not feel in my examination that he was holding back. I felt he was cooperative fully and did not, after the first few moments, seem guarded. I think he had a normal amount of resistance and guarding and discomfort at the beginning, as I find in everybody that I see who comes to see a psychiatrist for the first time, that I noted, but after the first few moments, and certainly well into the second or third hours he was calm and able to express very spontaneous feeling, affect, and I did not feel that he held back.
Q Do you regularly in the course of your work in examination utilize or develop techniques for attempting to determine whether a patient or a subject was hiding information or attempting to disguise the nature of his condition?
A Yes, I usually do, especially in the kind of work that I do. This is a very important part of the examination. Some are better at it than others, and some it is very obvious when they are attempting to mislead or confuse or deny. Others very subtly can do it and I don't like to think of myself as an adversary trying to outwit or uncover falsehoods, but what I do is if I feel that a person is misleading or vague or not as open or honest as he might be, I take this into account as a part of my examination of him, part of my evaluation; occasionally if I feel it strongly enough I will confront him with this and I have said to patients at times during examinations things such as “That's a pack of lies,” or “I don't believe a word of what you've said.” or “How can you expect me to believe something like that?” Sometimes mostly to get their reaction but also to see whether or not they are solely lying or whether or not this kind of candor will unnerve them sufficiently so that they come clean, and some of them do.
Some of them maintain their façade.
Q Now, based upon your examination of Doctor MacDonald and your examination of the consultation by Doctor Mack, and your evaluation of this data, and the other information received, did you form any opinion as to the state of mind of Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you indicate, of course, first for us--when did your examinations of Captain MacDonald take place?
A I saw him on the morning of April 21st, 1970.
Q And did your, did you also take into consideration in the formation of your opinion, the fact that the crime which Captain MacDonald was then being considered as a suspect for what happened--had happened on February 17th, 1970?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q Did the opinion that you formed cover not only the state of mind at the time you made your own personal examination and Doctor Mack made his examination, but also cover the period back to February 17, 1970?
A Yes, it did, and even before that.
Q What was the opinion that you formed as to the state of mine of Captain MacDonald?
A At the time I examined him I felt he was depressed as a reactive depression. This means that his sadness, more than sadness, but actual depression which was accompanied by difficulty sleeping, some problems in eating, some irritability, certainly sadness, and prone to tears in discussing the events of the night of February 17th, especially the death of his wife and children. I felt he was reacting to the deaths in his family by what I would consider to be a normal reactive depression.
Q Did you find as a result of your examination that Captain MacDonald was suffering from any mental illness?
A Except for the reaction to what happened to him and his family, I would say that there was no serious mental illness that would be classifiable, I'll go into that, that I could label him with. In psychiatry we are trained, as all physicians are trained to find illness. One doesn't look for health usually. What we have is a statistical manual published by the American Psychiatric Association which outlines and labels three basic types of mental and emotional states or illness. These are always psychological. One is psychosis, neurosis, and character and behavior disorders. These are outlined in the military manual also. So when you ask me if I found a mental illness in him I would go by the book, as you might say, and say that I did not find Captain MacDonald to be suffering from a psychosis. I did not feel he had a history of ever having a psychosis, nor was he showing any evidence for a residual psychotic situation at this time, at the time I examined him. I did not feel that he had a psycho-neurosis in a sense of the labels that are given that is anxiety reaction. He had reactive depression which one could call a reactive psychoneurotic depression, but it isn't the kind that is repetitive that he's had throughout his life which comes up under stress; so I didn't give him a label of psychoneurotic reaction depressive reaction, which I suppose I could have, and said acute type, not pattern. He didn't have the obsessive compulsive neurosis. He didn't have an anxiety neurosis. He didn't have a phobic neurosis. These are the classic psycho-neurosis. As far as character and behavior disorders, he didn't have identifiable ones such as inadequate personality, passive aggressive personality disorder, and the one that I was looking for specifically was a sociopathetic personality disorder. If one had, one could explain in some part the destruction and destructive behavior that we know existed at his home on that night, and yet have a fairly bland response to it, not showing conscience or remorse. I did not see any evidence for sociopathetic personality disorder or psychopathy, or character and behavior disorders in Captain MacDonald.
Q Now would you agree or disagree with the finding reported in the hospital records that were made during Captain MacDonald's stay at the Womack Army Hospital, which has been previously referred to in this case? In those records it was revealed that Doctor Ryder, a Major in the Medical Corps, noted on February 19th, 1970, in regard to the emotional state of Captain MacDonald, and I think I quote him correctly, “Normal grief process continues.” Would you find your observations consistent with that, and would you consider it to be a continuation of the same process observed by Major Ryder on the 19th?
A Certainly on the 19th, it would be much more acute. He would be really involved in what had happened forty-eight hours previously or less than forty-eight hours, and I would say in my observations of him as much diminished form of the same normal response, yes.
Q Now is the grief, or reactive depression you've described in Captain MacDonald, was it necessarily indicative of merely remorse at the loss of his wife and children, or might it have been indicative that he felt a guilt for having actually committed those crimes and was fearful of having been perhaps implicated?
CPT SOMERS: I object. The defense counsel is again leading the witness to great extent.
CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled. You may answer the question.
A I feel that the depression that he felt had a guilt element with it, but I don't think it was guilt for having participated in the killings of his wife and children. I think Captain MacDonald felt guilty that he was not able to save them. I think he felt that his whole life was geared toward a strong element of survival, that he has shown evidence in his past, football co-captain, playing baseball, that he was athletic, that he was strong; he would express his needs in a healthy masculine fashion; took boxing, ran track, had every--he was a para-chute, parachutist, and a Green Beret, but he was the epitome of the one who could take care of himself and protect his family when it came down to it. I think he felt guilty because he was not able to do it, and such a tragedy did occur.
Q Did you find any evidence in your examination of Captain MacDonald to indicate that he had ever suffered from an acute toxic psychosis or an organic brain damage, and I would appreciate it if you would define the terms I have put to you?
A Yes, one can suffer a psychosis, that is a break with reality under the influence of various chemicals such a alcohol, LSD, other drugs, methyl amphetamines, and behave in a fashion which is totally foreign to his usual way of behavior, and break with reality. One would call this a toxic psychosis. I have no indication of any evidence that Captain MacDonald ever suffered from a psychosis due to the ingestion or taking in of any of these substances. As far as having an organic psychosis, usually we speak of a functional psychosis which is not related to actual brain tissue damage; that is one can become confused, disoriented by a blow to the head which would cause confusion and organic problem, that is a contusion to the head. Or one could have a systemic infection, an infection that involves the whole body and system causing encephalitis, that is inflammation, an infection of the brain, which could cause a psychotic reaction, a break with reality, which would allow for unusual--accompanied by violent behavior. I did not have the evidence that he had suffered from either of these two types of illnesses.
Q Did you have any evidence to indicate that Captain MacDonald suffered from seizures, epilepsy or other types of violent fits?
A I had no evidence to indicate that he ever suffered from any form of epileptically seizures disorder.
Q Did you find any evidence in your examination of Captain MacDonald of any emotional instability of a psychoneurotic nature in which outside stress might be so great that it would overwhelm him and cause him to commit the murders in the fashion in which his wife and children were killed?
A I did not see in Captain MacDonald the type of psychoneurotic reaction which one might fashion if one were trying to come up with a psychoneurotic diagnosis, that one could conceive of--a poor ego strength, that is a poor ability to cope or adjust with outside stress, that could break down. One might see this in a very brittle obsessive compulsive neurotic; for example, one with very serious phobic symptoms where the outside stress of if one had to fly for example, if one were afraid of height or afraid to fly, one could panic, one could become hysterical, and acute anxiety would over take him and he would likely be violent, unless he was calmed by medication. I did not see any evidence of this type of brittle psychoneurotic illness in Captain MacDonald.
Q Did you find any evidence in Captain MacDonald of a character disorder or behavior disorder of the type in which he would be capable of the kind of destructive acts that were inflicted upon his wife and children without him showing remorse or conscience after those acts that he might have committed?
A I did not see any evidence for that type of character and behavior disorder, nor evidence of sociopathic behavior or personality configuration, no evidence of psychopathy.
Q Based upon all the observations you made of Captain MacDonald and the reports that you had, Doctor Mack's evaluation, all the data before you, did you form a conclusion as to whether Captain MacDonald was capable of committing the kind of murders and kind of crimes that were committed on his wife and children?
A I have come to a conclusion, yes.
Q And would you state to the investigating officer what is your conclusion in that regard?
A Based on my examination of him and all the data that I have, I can see or feel that Captain MacDonald is not--does not possess the type of personality emotional configuration that would be capable of this type of killing of his wife and children with the resultant behavior that we see now, that I saw in him on the 21st.
MR. SEGAL: Cross-examine.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q What kind of a report did Doctor Mack render to you?
A He sent me a review of what he had done, the tests that he had performed, Captain MacDonald's responses to those tests and his interpretation of those tests, with the specific response to the questions that I asked, that I posed to him, which were the same questions posed to me, as to why we were seeing him.
Q And what are--what tests did you run? Do you know of any?
A Yes, I do. He has a usual battery of tests that one gives in a situation like this. The first test is the intelligence test; I think he used the Shipley Hartford. He gives a personality inventory. He used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and he uses projective tests which arrive at feelings and underlying patterns of emotional reaction that one cannot get from a clinical interview. It goes deeper than the surface, and these are the Rorschach, the ink blot test and the Apperception Test.
Q Doctor, would you spell those?
A Thematic apperception, t-h-e-m-a-t-i-c a-p-p-e-r-c-e-p-t-i-o-n, and the other was Rorschach, R-o-r-s-c-h-a-c-h.
Q And how long total did you speak to Captain MacDonald?
A I spoke to him three hours.
Q And is that the only time you spoke to him to analyze him?
A Prior to today that's the only time I've examined him, yes.
Q Now how was this crime described to you? What information were you working with?
A I was told by Mr. Eisman that on the night of February 17th, at his home, Captain MacDonald's wife was stabbed and his children were stabbed and beaten, and Captain MacDonald himself was stabbed in the chest and required hospitalization, and had a--I think he said a pneumothorax, that is a collapsed lung; that the government was holding him as a suspect, and were going to charge him with the crime if they had sufficient evidence; and the concern on the part of his attorneys was to obtain as much evidence, information, as they could to show that this is not the case, that he was not involved. That is, would I see him to see if he possessed that type of personality configuration which would be capable of such violence to one's own wife and children?
Q I'm not quite sure I understand, but you are not saying, are you, doctor, that the--you were told what results they would like you to produce?
A Well, I guess I didn't have to be told that. I could understand what their situation was, but what they wanted was my evaluation of him. Of course, what they wanted was evidence that he did not possess this type of personality, which would be capable of violence. They don't have to tell me, I know what the situation was. If I had found that he had sufficient psychiatric problems, emotional disability, then I would have told them.
Q As I understand it now, your source of information with respect to this crime was Mr. Eisman and Captain Douthat and Captain MacDonald?
A That's right.
Q Did you have any documentation outside of that given to you by Captain MacDonald with respect to his family's history, or are you interested in that sort of information?
A The history of his family--you mean his mother and family?
Q Yes.
A Sister, brother? I did not get a chance to substantiate it or document it by examining them, no.
Q Do you normally get such information and is it relevant?
A When it's available and sometimes it is very relevant. I do get it. Sometimes it's not available and I can't get it.
Q What sort of psychiatric history did Captain MacDonald display? Can you answer that?
A When you ask that, to what do you refer? The history of his past or the history of what happened?
Q As I understand, the second process, interest that you had is to take a history.
A That's right.
Q And this is what I am interested in.
A Yes, he told me about growing up in Jamaica, Long Island; told me about his getting a scholarship to Colgate and Princeton. He told me about being co-captain of his football team and being on the baseball team, his interest in athletics, and his academic achievements and abilities. He told me about meeting his wife while she was at Skidmore and while he was at Princeton. He told me about the birth of their children and his feelings about them and his wife. He told me about having a brother, James, who's 28 and he told me about his sister, Judy, who's 25, and his feelings about them as they grew up, and his father being an electrical contractor engineer, having dies in '65 or '66. He told me about his mother; he told me about her, how they got along. Is that what you mean?
Q Yes.
A This kind of history, yes.
Q As I understand, you do make an analysis of the ability of the individual to communicate with you. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And how did you rate Captain MacDonald in this respect, and why?
A I felt he had an ability to communicate effectively, openly, and I felt honestly; and the reason I felt this way was because he verbalizing his feelings. He did not hold back on what I asked him. I would ask him some very intimate personal questions which could have been embarrassing and were embarrassing, and were also personal to him, which is part of my usual examination, and I felt that he answered honestly even though some of them caused him to break down in tears, and something which he is, I know, ashamed of. I felt that he was open and wanted to communicate and I felt that he sensed a feeling of relief to be able to talk to somebody about these inter-intimate feelings that he could not share with others.
Q The defense has questioned you with respect to your consideration of the ability of Captain MacDonald because of his training and intelligence to--to either hide something or to deceive you, and as I understand it, you felt that although he was capable of it, he was not doing this?
A This is correct. I checked for it. I talked about things that I didn't think he would know to hide and that he would not know the significance of it.
Q Can you give us an example?
A I will, I will, yes, and also I checked for things that were obvious to see how consistent he would be. I asked him about his dreams. I asked him whether he had nightmares following the tragedy and I asked him what they were, and dreams are something quite personal and intimate, and he had had some nightmares and he told me something about them and the contents, which had to do with his inability to save his wife and children. This taps the unconscious which one cannot say--one cannot hide the--this. He would not know how to describe the contents of the dream that would present me with information about his underlying feelings of shame without having been able to say them. That's one area that I examined. Another was the consistency when he reported the story and I questioned him about things that perhaps he wasn't clear about or could not remember. He was not defensive about it. He accepted the idea that he could not remember some things or that things were very hazy, difficult for him to put together. Also, I think when ask about that, I think one of the greatest tools in psychiatry is the ability to perceive sensitively a person whose unconscious responses, reactions, and that is verbalizations about how he--body language, if you will, or emotional responses, effective or feeling tone responses that one cannot control, because they are controlled unconsciously; similar kinds of things one can see when one doesn't see any automatic response. On the lie detector test you can note certain things, varying scientific objects and needles and things, but you can also note some of these responses which occur without control, just by observing.
Q I gather, then, that the responses that you would note--would sweating be one of these?
A Sweating. When it was appropriate, I felt when he was under the tension of his feeling of inability to do anything to help his wife, he felt impotent.
Q And this you considered to be a factor which seemed consistent with his telling the truth.
A Absolutely.
Q Doctor, if, in fact, Captain MacDonald had committed these crimes, would he normally--would it be normal for him under those circumstances to be depressed?
A If he had committed the crime, it would be difficult for me to conceive of the circumstances that would precipitate such a crime in a person such as he is. Also, he would have a likelihood, as most people that I see who have committed crimes of this type, would repress the actual nature of the crime, of the resolution of the actual physical appearance of the bodies, et cetera. Would he be depressed? I think if he had committed the crime and had a realization that he had done this, I think it would have had to have been when he was out of control. I don't think, as he says, he's capable of doing this type of thing. I don't think--see any reason of why he would have lost control, any precipitating or underlying personality disorder that would lead to such a loss of control, but if he did, he realizes that it was under control, I think you would find that he would not only be depressed, but he would be unable to compose himself. I think he would be so disruptive within himself that it would be such a trauma for him, he would be so--that he might become psychotic. If he could not repress, one of the things that aids people who do kill is to repress the severity of what they've done
--to repress means to push down--that if one cannot--if one can describe it as clearly as he has described the way his wife and children looked after they were killed, I think he would become psychotic.
Q Might it be a natural reaction for somebody like Captain MacDonald, if it is possible to conceive this question, sir, if he had done this, that is committed this crime, for him to repress the memory of having done it, and convince himself that he did not do it?
A Is it possible that this could have happened?
Q First, is it possible, then if you care to qualify your answer, feel free to do so.
A First of all I don't think it's possible, knowing him as I do, that he could have done this. But assume that he did, given all the circumstances of his makeup, could he repress the memory of having done it and convinced himself that somebody else had done it? He would have had to hallucinate or fabricate four people who had come in and describe them in detail. Usually that would be hallucinatory and that's why I say that would have been his break with reality. When one sees that it isn't limited to just hallucination. I think the break would be more extensive than that. He would have a delusional system, he would have a much wider break and it wouldn't stop at just a fabricated hallucination, that somebody else that he could even describe could come in and deal with him in the way he did. Also, if that's the case, one would tend to see distortions in the consistency of his repeating the story again and again. I did not get any indication that there was this kind of invalidation of the consistency.
Q Is it possible--again I want to talk in a context of a person such as Captain MacDonald--for a person to, assuming for the moment that he did commit such a crime, to have such complete self-control as to be able to present the picture that he presented to you?
A Of course, I asked myself that also, and my answer is no. That if he were capable, and which I don't think he is, of doing this, I don't think he would have been able to control himself and regain the composure that he has. One can see that in a person with great sociopathic tendencies, that is a person who doesn't have a conscience, doesn't have remorse, that one could commit destructive acts and still not feel guilt, not feel remorse, and compose himself. I don't see evidence for this in Captain MacDonald and I don't think he could have done it and still be in control.
Q Doctor, you said that Captain MacDonald was not suffering from any serious illness that could be labeled, from any mental illness that you felt that you could label; and of course you draw an exception around the reactive depression you speak about and explain that?
A Yes.
Q Did you find any other abnormality or--let me rephrase that question. Did you find any abnormality other than that reactive depression?
A I didn't find an abnormality but I found a variety of defense mechanisms which he used, all of which I would consider to be within healthy normal limits. That is, we are all prone to anxiety and insecurity no matter who we are or what we are, and we all have our adaptational techniques and defense mechanisms that we use. I have had the privilege of examining Captain MacDonald, so I am aware of the defense mechanisms that he chooses to use, but I will call these adaptational techniques to ward off anxiety which is prevalent around us all. And he has used it fairly successfully throughout his life so I don't consider these to be abnormal. They have not given him difficulty and they are well within the normal limits.
Q Could you tell us what these techniques that you are describing are?
A I think one of them might be very significant--you mean the adaptational thing? I think one of those that he uses, and he uses quite effectively, as a lot of people do, is masculine strident that is, if one feels at times that one does and he needs to express himself as a--let's say a super masculine person--that's a bad word but--let's say more masculine than the average, and we have in our society ways of obtaining such a label; we have athletics; we have military prowess; we have all kinds of things that men can feel proud of doing, and that's healthy, that's normal. But all the same, for some people this does not tend to ward off any underlying feelings that they may not be as masculine as they present themselves to the world, and it may be ironic but it may be that the lack of taking, according to the way I have the problem presented to me as to what happened that night, it may be ironic that he did not choose to use his super masculine techniques or boxing or fighting back or trying to take on the whole lot of them, that he may have despaired--so that basically underneath he chose not to, to express himself in a way that may have been self-expressive to him.
Q Were there any other particular adaptive techniques with respect to Captain MacDonald which you noticed?
A One other one which again is very socially acceptable and proving and many of us use and that is he has social charm that is he is pleasant and witty and uses graceful techniques that allow him to communicate effectively with other people in a way that people would tend to like him. Again, it is a socially acceptable adaptive technique which many of us have.
Q Doctor I'd like to ask you about a term which you may or my not accept. I'd like to get the term out first and see where we stand with respect to--I'd like to ask you about the, if you will, the ego of Doctor MacDonald, the strength of his self identification. Perhaps that's the best way for me to put it. Can we talk in those terms?
A If you like.
Q Would you describe Captain MacDonald to me with regard to those terms?
A Let me try to form my points about this. The ego is the adaptational part of the three parts of our psychological makeup, just so we put it into proper perspective, and one doesn't think we are speaking of egotism rather than egoism. The ego, as oppose to id and super ego, is a form--the id is that part of our psychological makeup, and again, according to Freudian theory, that partakes in the pleasures, destructive and otherwise, killing, hostility, anger, sexuality, et cetera, without any thought of civilization or sophistication, but just get what you want and it don't matter who is in the way. The super ego comes out. The super ego is a conscience that says “Hey, thou shall not do that. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not have relations with thy neighbor's wife,” et cetera. I think they use other words in the Bible, but that is the origin or one of the origins of our super ego, not that it came from the Bible, but we use it as a reflection of the internal super ego by ascribing it to the external one. All right, these two are there battling. One says yea, one says nay, the ego comes in to resolve as a media and the ego is that part of the personality that says yes, it's OK to have sexual relations, but at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place with the appropriate person. That's an example of what the ego may do to mediate the battle that goes on within all of us, between our ids and super egos. I think that Captain MacDonald's ego is fairly well formed. I think he has a good ego strength. The point that--and nobody is perfect. Nobody, I can say that anybody I've ever seen, again because I'm trained to see what is not perfect, where is the flaws? But basically his ego has been able to help him adapt to most situations in his life and successfully so, so that we don't find him failing in things. We don't find him using poor judgment. We don't find him getting arrested for a lot of little things as he's growing up. We don't find him using poor judgment and having people dislike him.
Again, his ego is well suited to the needs of his environment to adapt and overcome his id, when necessary, and to allow the super ego some strength when that's necessary. I would see him as having a fairly healthy ego.
Q Now, if I may move on to a slightly different question, and again, if we can't talk in these terms, just tell me. Each of us has a certain amount of pride in self, and I move into a little different area I think, and in my opinion as a layman, I think probably the more successful the person, sometimes the stronger this is; but at any rate, if we can, can you describe Captain MacDonald's feeling toward himself in these terms?
A You see, I think that's still with ego strength. I think that he certainly does have pride with his accomplishments and I think he recognizes--I didn't feel that he was being offensively arrogant about them, but I think he recognizes that he has been successful in many of the things that he has set out to do, and is proud of his achievements. I think one of the factors that I noted and which might be specific is that here is a physician who has to serve two years in the service. A lot of physicians tend to react with some rebellion, some acting out of their conflicts, et cetera. I saw in Captain MacDonald an ability to say, all right, I've got to be here, let's make the most of it, and I feel that for him, he was making the most of it. He was enjoying what he was doing and he was proud of his accomplishments within the military, and I did not feel that he reflected any bitterness, anger or resentment for having to serve, whereas a lot of physicians I know do. I think that's the kind of ego, adjustment and pride that we are talking about. I don't think we can separate the two.
Q Now with respect to your opinion as to the capability of Captain MacDonald to have committed these murders, first, you are not saying, are you, doctor, on the basis of your evaluation that it is mathematically impossible that Captain MacDonald did committed these offenses?
A Yes, I am saying that as I know him psychologically, it would appear to me to be remotely possible only, but primarily unlikely. Certainly you always have to leave certain room for the ascending curve as it comes up for something mathematical to happen, that never touches the line on the right, as I learned in mathematics, and I think the same is true with human behavior which is much more complex. But there is the slightest possibility, but in my opinion it is extremely unlikely, and I'll tell you why. I think it's more likely that if he had a fight with his wife, I don't think this would have happened, but it is more than just--an infinitesimal amount that he might have lost control and harmed her; or if one of the children might have nagged him and bugged him on a hard day, it's possible, but remotely so, that he might have lost control with one child; but to take all three together and lose control against the world, against all three of those who were around him at that time, would have to be either that complete loss of control which I think is most unlikely and near impossible for him, as I know him, or it has to be a cold calculated homicide, which, again, I don't feel he is capable of doing and reacting the way he is today.
Q Now, doctor, as I understand it, you've worked with many homicide cases. Is that correct?
A Yes, I have.
Q It is not, is it, doctor, unusual in other cases which you have seen for a husband to kill his family?
A It is not unusual for a husband to kill his whole family?
Q Well--
A It is more usual that he might kill one member of the family, but to kill the whole family is pretty rare. It is a lot rarer than killing one member of the family.
Q Doctor, you are familiar, are you not, with the test for legal sanity in the military that is the M'naughten Test with the variation requirement for the ability to adhere to the right?
A Yes.
Q As I understand your testimony here today, you are saying that Captain MacDonald is and was legally sane?
A If we to apply my evaluation of his mental state to those legal tests of insanity that exist in the military, I would say that he knew the nature and quality of his acts, and was able to adhere to the right.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Doctor, just a couple of very brief matters. Is there any indication that Captain MacDonald is a self-destructive person, that is, a person who holds a capacity to be able to inflict or take his own life?
A I did not find any evidence for his having self destructive tendencies and I felt that he would not be likely to attempt suicide or to harm himself in anyway. I might add that I see rather the opposite that his whole goal in life was to try to make himself as strong and virile and effective as possible, not the other way around.
Q Is there any indication that Captain MacDonald would, assuming for a moment that he had allegedly committed the crimes with which he is charged, attempt to salve his conscience or otherwise repress his remorse by destroying himself?
A If he had lost control to the point of doing what he is charged with doing, it would have to be such a loss of control that it's possible that he would attempt to destroy himself, but I think it would be a frenzy type thing where there is complete loss of control. If it came and he had a realization of what he did, and it was so remorseful that he had tried to kill himself, I think he would have been successful.
Q Is there any indication at all in any of the examinations that you made to show that there was a frenzied rage or other loss of control on Captain MacDonald's part?
A There is no history of it. There's no indication on clinical examination. There's no evidence for it on psychological examination that he has or is capable of expressing such loss of control and rage response, but in my opinion it is most unlikely that it happened, that he has or had this kind of loss of control.
Q Would Doctor MacDonald's training in medicine, through medical school and internship, have on his likelihood of losing his control, losing his self-restraint in such a fashion to permit him to commit the crime with which he is charged?
A I don't know if training in medical school is specific enough to keep him from doing that. I think it's more the kind of person he was that would be consistent with, would be going with his medical school in order to heal. I think this was important, I think, for him, and again was consistent with his way of dealing with his environment, rather than destroy it. But just going to medical school certainly there are doctors who have destroyed, so I would have to not say that was a factor.
Q Is Doctor MacDonald a person who possessed the quality of outrageous rage, great outburst of violence--would stresses and strain of medical school and internship have been as such to perhaps give him opportunity for that to have occurred prior to some later time?
A Very likely, because the stress that we all go through in medical school, especially internship, is so vigorous that it would likely have shown up under stress by this time.
Q Would the observations of fellow medical students and interns and supervising physicians of patients you've observed be of some value in indicating to us whether he has a background that would indicate a possibility of violent outburst?
A Sure, I think if we could talk with some of the people that he went to medical school with or had internship with, and they were to either document that he had or had not had violent episodes, that would be helpful. I would expect that their testimony would be that he had not.
Q Why would expect that?
A Because I think if he had shown it, I think one, I feel he would have told me because we went into this very carefully; and secondly, if he did tell me, I think I would have found some indication from it clinically, and if not clinically, I think it would have shown up on the Rorschach, at least that's the kind of test for disorder material.
Q Would gentleness and kindness expressed to Captain MacDonald's family to his wife and to his children over a period of years, without any evidence of prior violent outbursts or fits of rage be of any significance in arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not he might have been capable of, or did in fact do on February 17th?
A Alone, it's very difficult to say. I can think of instances in some people where one is holding back anger by being gentle and kind and the frustration of whatever happened might have happened, could allow this to erupt. I didn't see--and, I have examined people in this situation--but knowing Captain MacDonald as I do, I don't think that's there, in fact, I am sure that it's not. I think it's a fact that, in a sense, that he was holding back, like a bottle of gas ready to explode hostility that he was expressing only by his gentleness earlier in his life. I don't see that as a factor.
Q If Captain MacDonald felt any sense of anger or emotional disturbance, what outlets appear to be ones he'd pursue to vent them?
A Well, I think he could express much of this through the activities that we described earlier, that is playing ball, for example; it is one way of really getting out all tension and anger, knocking heads as we sometime say about football. Certainly some of the activities that he engaged in as a Green Beret: he could express feelings of anger, feelings of internal tension and hostility by the kinds of activities that are required for one to have the privilege of wearing the green cap or beret.
Q Doctor Sadoff, would you indicate to the investigating officer the total amount of time you spent, both in your preliminary preparation and interview of Captain MacDonald, and the ultimate evaluation in arriving at your conclusions, so that we might have some idea of the total amount of time you have devoted to preparation of your conclusions in this case?
A Well, if I include Doctor Mack's time spent I would estimate that he had to spend between nine and ten hours, and I know that I spent five to six; I would say it would be roughly about fifteen.
Q Now would that include the time for preparation of your analysis?
A Preparation, consultation and thinking about it, putting it together to a meaningful consultation.
MR. SEGAL: Nothing further.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, you've said several times that Captain MacDonald, as you know him, would not do a specific thing, and this leads me, if you will excuse me, doctor, to the question of your own reaction to the man. How do you feel about him personally?
A Well, it is a difficult question, because I rarely think about how I feel about a person personally when they are patients. But if I allow myself that indulgence today, he's very gracious. He's a very warm person whom I must admit I like. I--for example--when I came up today he had his hand out with a smile. But that's characteristic of him. It's hard to always put people's behavior in clinical terms. It sounds kind of cold and detached. Sometimes we have to do that, but he is likable, yes, and I found working with him was a great more pleasure than working with many of the people I have to.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, sir.
COL ROCK: I have several, doctor. On the average, when you interview patients, how many sessions, hour wise, would you prefer to interview them?
WITNESS: That depends upon the problem. There have been many matters that I could adequately cover with one hour or two hours. I have one sitting. There are times when it's available, I prefer to see a person at a second sitting to try and see the changes in him, and also to compare notes with what I had the first time. I would prefer to do it twice, if I could. As far as the time spent, I would like to spend more than one hour certainly, and I would like to spend four to five hours.
COL ROCK: Did you have sufficient time, as far as you are concerned, and the proper conditions with your interview of Captain MacDonald?
WITNESS: Yes, I feel very comfortable with that.
COL ROCK: Do you consider that religion is a factor in his life, or do you even consider this in your evaluation of the individuals?
WITNESS: I do consider religion to be a factor in my examination of many people. Sometimes it's a problem, more than just a factor. I didn't feel it was especially a significant factor with him, nor a problem.
COL ROCK: What do you think of a lie detector test in general as a tool in police work?
WITNESS: In general, I think that the lie detector test is as good as the lie detector individual who is using it, and I haven't had the experience that very many of them are as well qualified as I would like to see, that is, to take into consideration that unconscious factors can be reflected on the skin galvanic response machine, and the interpretation of certain distortions in the needle is an interpretation of--if it occurs in making the test--and if they are not sufficiently apprised of the internal motivation or unconscious factors, they may come to an erroneous conclusion. I guess I'm saying I'm not terribly happy with them.
COL ROCK: Well, yes, I read through your comments. Doctor, have you ever examined a patient accused of murder; you then find that he's okay and you don't think that he did commit it, and subsequently the individual was found guilty?
WITNESS: No, I haven't.
COL ROCK: Okay. Now, we've asked, or I've heard asked some questions posing certain situations, and I have one that may seen a bit unusual, but I think perhaps is a valid one since this is an unusual case. Let's assume that Mrs. MacDonald lost control of herself and that she killed the children. Could Captain MacDonald then have killed his wife? Does this add any new ingredient to the situation?
WITNESS: Yeah, I would say that again that he is capable, as any one of us is capable, under stress, and would, I think, for him, horrible stress, losing control to the point where one could kill another person. I think that's a possibility, yes.
COL ROCK: Now, in describing some of these other possibilities, you used the ascending curve diagram. Would you think it's a greater possibility under these conditions than when you described the ascending curve, under the other situation?
WITNESS: In the situation of what actually occurred. I think that what would have actually occurred, as we've had presented to us, there is the most remote possibility that that could have happened with Captain MacDonald. I think what you've described has a greater possibility; however, I don't think it's a great likelihood. I think the possibility is a little bit low on the curve.
COL ROCK: Did you notice any significant or distinguishable differences in Captain MacDonald's responses to questions concerning his wife, as compared to those concerning his children? Was there anything of any significance that would be of interest to the hearing?
WITNESS: The only difference I can recall, I assume was normal, but in talking about his wife and his feelings about her, there was a loss of his wife, had kind of a--a depression that had to do with love for another adult; and the warmth and tenderness and concern about his children came through very strongly, and the loss of them I think he showed a higher feeling tone for. But we had discussed his wife and I couldn't decide whether it was that we were talking about the children, or you are talking about the children compounded in talking about the wife just afterwards. But I did note that there was a tenderness, a warmth, that I would have expected in most anyone under this kind of a circumstance.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. Does either counsel have?
MR. SEGAL: If I may.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q In regard to just a couple of matters raised by the investigating officer, assuming the hypotheses put by Colonel Rock, that the MacDonald children were killed by Colette MacDonald and that Captain MacDonald, in turn, killed his wife, would there have been any indication or sign in various examinations that were made of him to show that this was a likelihood or likely event to have taken place?
A I didn't get any indication from examining him that this was even remotely likely, but the question was possible, and I can answer that I think it's highly unlikely, most extremely unlikely from my examination.
Q The investigating officer has asked you your view about the results of polygraph or so-called lie detector, and I gather that you did not place a great value on it. Am I correct in summarizing in this fashion?
A That's right.
Q Do you place any great value on any other techniques or the development of fact finding independent of the person's ability to restrain or hide facts?
A Yes, In the right hands, and I modestly acknowledge that there have been times when mine have been the right hands, sodium amytal injections under proper circumstances is a very effective tool in aiding in the direction of truth, and I'm not saying it's going to get everything. In many instances, I could describe where it added or extended the information we had, but it didn't get everything that I had hoped it would, but it does allow for a greater examination. Now possibly it's reflected in the paper I wrote on psychiatric involvement in search for truth, which was a part of my credentials. I had studied the effects that others had noted in the use of various types of truth detecting devices and again, others have found, and I have also found this, that there are certain kinds of people who can break through the effectiveness of the sodium amytal, the sodium Pentothal effect and lie anyway. Some will distort even more so under that. I think one has to know, again, the kind of person he's dealing with, matched with the tool that he's using for detection of truth before we make the blatant statement about whether it is effective or not. It's effective in certain individuals by other well qualified individuals.
Q Would you indicate whether you consider the use of sodium amytal a much more reliable technique in this pursuit for fact than the use of polygraph in your judgment as a psychiatrist?
A In my judgment it is much more effective.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, sir.
COL ROCK: Does counsel for the government?
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, since we raised this, did you use this technique on Captain MacDonald?
A I did not feel it was necessary, so I did not.
CPT SOMERS: No further questions.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. I assume you desire this witness be permanently excused. Doctor Sadoff, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. You are permanently excused, sir.
CPT SOMERS: Excuse me, sir. With respect to this witness, I think it is possible, is it not, that questions may arise subsequent that we may wish to put to him on the telephone or in some other fashion.
COL ROCK: I assume you have discussed that with him in conjunction with any other examination.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, I have indicated there may be this other examination shortly which may require further information of Doctor Sadoff, and I assume he will be available to us, at least by phone, if not in person.
CPT SOMERS: I bring this up to be sure of the nature of the excusal.
COL ROCK: Yes, you are correct in doing so.
COL ROCK: This hearing will be recessed for fifteen minutes.
(The hearing recessed at 1455 hours, 12 August 1970.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1545 hours, 12 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Those parties who were present at the beginning of the recess are currently in the hearing room. I'd like to announce at this time that Mrs. Jan Snyder has made herself available as a witness and this has been called to my attention.
As you counsel will recall this morning, I stated that I wanted her here if at all possible and she has come of her own volition, apparently as a result of listening to a radio broadcast. I am introducing Mrs. Snyder as my witness. Both counsel will have right of cross-examination, beginning with counsel for the government followed by counsel for the accused. Would you please ask Mrs. Snyder to step in?
(Mrs. Jan Snyder was called as a witness by the investigating officer and testified as follows.)
Questions by COL ROCK:
Q Please state your name and current address.
A Jan Snyder, Fairmont.
Q Is that in North Carolina?
A Fairmont, North Carolina.
Q Did you and your husband reside at Fort Bragg in February 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q At what address?
A I've forgotten. It was on Castle Drive. I've forgotten the number.
Q Would a number like 300 or 306 or 308 be in the area? Does that refresh your memory?
A Yes. 308 Castle Drive.
Q During the night of 16-17 February, do you recall anything unusual occurring?
A Yes. I was awakened very early or sometime during the night by an unusual--I guess a car or something. It was enough to arouse me that I did get out of bed and go to the window and look.
Q And what did you see?
A Nothing. It was just--I think it was car by, down--and I saw the tail lights, and I thought perhaps it was just, you know, someone turning around or--real fast, or something. It was enough that I did get up out of bed.
Q I see. Approximately what time was this?
A I have no idea.
Q Did you hear any voices at that time?
A I don't remember. I can't say.
Q Did you hear any people running?
A I really don't know.
Q Did you see anyone?
A No, sir.
Q Had you previously been awakened at night by similar noises?
A Yes, anything obvious loud or obvious unusual.
Q And do you normally go to the window to look out if it is an outside noise?
A No, sir.
Q Was your husband at home that evening?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you awaken him?
A I don't recall.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. Cross-examine, counsel for the government.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Is this the only incident that woke you that evening?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have an occasion to relate the details of this incident to CPT Chester or Mrs. Chester? Well, first let me ask you, did you know Captain and Mrs. Chester?
A Barely.
Q Did you have an occasion to relate the details of this incident when you were awakened to either of those people?
A I don't recall.
Q Did you ever tell Captain and Mrs. Chester, or anyone else, that you were awakened that night and looked out and saw a young woman getting into an automobile?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever tell that to anyone?
A No, sir.
Q As I understand your testimony, you say you have no memory of hearing voices or people running. Is that correct?
A I don't recall.
Q You have no memory of it?
A No, sir.
Q As I understand it, now, you say you saw a car's taillights, you think when you did look out?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you identify the make of the car?
A No, sir.
Q Do you remember what this noise that awakened you was? Whether it was a car or--what it was?
A No, sir. I cannot really say.
Q Let me draw your attention to a matter on a different day. If that's permissible with the investigating officer, I wish now to direct her attention to the 21st.
COL ROCK: Yes, go ahead.
Q I draw your attention to the 21st of February, which would have been Saturday. Do you remember an incident which occurred on that day involving your calling the attention of Captain Chester to a specific incident?
A My calling him?
Q By any means. For instance, did you bang on the wall and ask for Captain Chester's help on that day?
A No, absolutely not.
Q Did you on that day, or any other day, have occasion to see an automobile outside your building in which you observed a weapon of some sort?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that?
A I think perhaps it was not a Saturday, but on a Sunday morning. We were having a late breakfast and I was just sitting there and I could see through the window and I saw a car and I thought it was or I thought I saw a gun, with two young boys in the car. I walked over to the window and looked and I turned to say to Ken, “Please come look,” you know--
Q Who is Ken?
A Kenneth is my husband. And right away, I said well, I think we better call the military police or someone.
Q What did you do?
A I did. I called and just in a matter of seconds, the military police were searching around and they did come straight to the house, very fast.
Q What kind of a car was this?
A It was a small Buick convertible with a light--with a light car--I don't exactly remember, but I think the top was also light; it was white or a very light blue.
Q Did you have occasion to see that car before or after?
A Yes, I did. I did see the car.
Q Where?
A Outside. The same place.
Q Had it ever been in that area before?
A Yes. As matter of fact, I saw the car parked on the street, sometimes as I was driving through, perhaps going to the commissary or something.
Q You think it belongs in that area?
A Yes, because there was sticker on the car.
Q Can you relate the Sunday, in time, to the 16th and 17th of February when the incident at Captain MacDonald's house happened now?
A No.
Q When you called the military police, did you call them because you were afraid for your life?
A No.
Q Then for what reason?
A I was concerned why two kids were sitting out in front of that house, just playing around.
Q In other words, you made that call as a law-abiding citizen?
A Yes, I did.
MR. SEGAL: That's objected to. That's characterizing what she did, not a question.
CPT BEALE: Counselor, you know how to phrase these questions.
CPT SOMERS: I'm cross-examining.
MR. SEGAL: That's characterizing. It's not a question, sir.
COL ROCK: You're cross-examining, but you're introducing original testimony here, so be careful.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
COL ROCK: Counsel for the accused?
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Is your first name Jan? Or Janice?
A Yes, Janet.
Q Janet?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Snyder is your married name?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what is your maiden name?
A Locklear.
Q Locklear? Would you spell it for us, please?
A L-o-c-k-l-e-a-r.
Q When you say your residence is Fairmont, North Carolina, could you be for us a little more specific as to where you live in Fairmont?
A A rural area.
Q I know, but what I'm asking you for is a house number or street name, or an RD box number.
A Route 3, Fairmont.
Q Route 3, Fairmont?
A Yes, sir.
Q At whose house do you reside?
A My parent's.
Q And what is the name of your parents?
A Lucius Locklear and Lizzie Locklear.
Q Who were your neighbors in the particular block of dwelling that you lived in on Castle Drive back in February 1970?
A The Chesters and Judy and John, next door--
Q What was their last names? Is that the McGowans?
A Yes.
Q And who else lived in that particular block of houses, besides the Chesters?
A I have no idea.
Q Were you friendly with anyone else on that block besides just the family?
A Just ordinarily--I mean, “Hello, how are you,” and just talk.
Q Do you know the names of people in that block?
A No. I don't recall.
Q What was the nature of your relationship with Captain and Mrs. McGowan? Were you friendly with them?
A Just when I saw them or a brief conversation.
Q Did you know Mrs. McGowan better than you did Captain McGowan?
A I don't recall. I mean--no.
Q I'm not sure I understand your answer. Do you know what your relationship with Captain and Mrs. McGowan was?
A Do I know what my relationship was? Just ordinarily--just ordinary, hello and just discussing anything that might be there to talk about.
Q Were you friendlier with Mrs. McGowan that you were with Captain McGowan?
A I never thought about it.
Q How about Captain and Mrs. Chester? What was your relationship with them?
A Nice people.
Q Would you say that you were friendly with them or just strangers to her or them?
A Just friendly, just say hello.
Q Weren't you on a first name basis with Mrs. Chester?
A Yes.
Q What was her first name?
A Sue.
Q Did you have occasion to go over to their house sometimes?
A Yes. My little girl was very interested in her birds and we would take her over.
Q And would you go over to the Chester's house with her?
A Not frequently. A couple of times.
Q A couple of times the entire period that you lived there, a couple of times a week, or a couple times a month?
A Probably just a couple of times that we lived there, which was very short.
Q Did you consider Mrs. Chester to be a friend of yours?
A She was friendly.
Q To your knowledge, did either Captain or Mrs. McGowan have anything against you in the nature of some grudge or some dislike that you were aware of?
A None whatsoever.
Q To your knowledge, did either Captain or Mrs. Chester have any grudge or dislike of you that you were aware of?
A No.
Q Would there be any reason for either the McGowans or the Chesters to say something unfriendly or unpleasant about you that you are aware of?
A No.
Q Are you telling us that this was or was not an unusual incident that caused you to be awakened on the morning of the 17th?
A Please repeat that.
Q Was it an unusual incident that caused you to be awakened on the 17th?
A Unusual. As I said, I was awakened by the loudness of what happened, the car or something, and I was concerned.
Q What were you concerned about?
A The noise.
Q And was that noise something that was out of the ordinary, as far as that time of night, that place?
A I really can't answer that. It's out of the ordinary--
Q Well, let me ask you this. Had it ever happened before or after while you lived on Castle Drive?
A Well, I don't recall.
Q Did you have occasion to talk with me and Mr. Eisman a few moments ago in the room adjoining this courtroom?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did either one of us ask you that question a few moments ago as to whether or not this had ever happened before?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall the answer that you gave us a few minutes ago?
A It was unusual enough that I did get up and look out the window.
Q Do you recall saying that it had never happened before or afterward, while you lived on Castle Drive?
A No.
Q You don't recall that?
A No. Not exactly that way, no.
Q Isn't it a matter of fact that you had never before been awakened out of your sleep by some episode involving the starting or moving of automobiles during the period of time you lived on Castle Drive?
CPT SOMERS: I object. She's answered that.
MR. SEGAL: She's not answered it to the extent that she will confirm or deny that she's indicated it never happened before.
CPT SOMERS: She did answer it. She said she didn't recall.
MR. SEGAL: I suggest to the witness, sir, that she may have said differently a short while ago and she's allowed to reflect upon that and to be followed up again by the request to answer that question. This is cross-examination. I think we are entitled the same latitude.
CPT SOMERS: Reasonably. Not to prolong it unnecessarily.
CPT BEALE: Your objection is overruled, Captain Somers. Answer the question if you can, Mrs. Snyder.
MR. SEGAL: To your recollection, had it ever happened before while you were at Castle Drive?
A I do not remember.
Q You do not remember whether it had ever happened or not?
A Definitely not.
Q Did you not tell Mr. Eisman and myself, less than five minutes ago, Mrs. Snyder, that in fact it had never happened before and that's why it was such an unusual episode for you?
CPT SOMERS: Object. She has definitely answered that question.
CPT BEALE: Sustained.
Q Now, Mrs. Snyder, had you ever had occasion to get out of bed in the middle of the night because of some sound or noise emanating from the outside of your house while you lived on Castle Drive, up until that time?
A I really don't remember.
Q How about after that time?
A Yes, I'm sure after that time.
Q What happened after that time that caused you to be awakened out of your sleep?
A I have children. I'm sure I've gotten out at times to see about them.
Q Now you understood me, did you not?
A Yes, I did.
Q You understood me to ask you whether you were awakened by noises coming from the outside. I did not suggest the children.
A I do not recall.
Q What did you see about the rear of the car as it was going away?
A As it was pulling away, the car was going down the road when I glanced at the back of the tail lights and they were--well, like round Ford lights, because I distinctly remember that they were large,
Q And they were round?
A Yes, they were.
Q In which direction were they going when the car pulled away?
A Down--they were coming down Castle, down from my home.
Q Would it be going toward the lower numbers on Castle Drive or toward the higher numbers on Castle Drive?
A I guess the lower.
Q And what else did you observe about the car? Other than the size and shape of the tail lights?
A I could not see the car, only just the lights. I just glanced at the lights.
Q What was the sound that you heard? Was it tires squealing, roar of the engine?
A (To Colonel Rock) Sir, I cannot answer directly whether it was the roar of the engine or tires or what. It was just a noise.
Q You got up and went to the window?
A Yes.
Q And when you looked out, how far was the car from your house?
A I don't know--just in sight enough for me to see the tail lights, to glance at them.
Q Are you such a light sleeper that normally the sound of a car in the street would awaken you from your sleep?
A No, I don't think so. Just not a car passing by.
Q Would you say that normally you are a light sleeper?
A Normally am I a light sleeper? No.
Q Did you ever have occasion to tell any person who was identified to you as an investigator about what you heard or saw in the early morning hours of February 17th?
A The next morning, an investigator did come by and he questioned me and talked to me.
Q Let me ask you--you say the next morning. The morning of February 17th, after the night was finished?
A Yes.
Q Can you indicate to the best of your knowledge about what time you were interviewed by an investigator?
A I think perhaps around 10:30 or 11.
Q AM?
A Yes.
Q And how did you know he was an investigator? Did he show you some identification?
A Yes, he did.
Q What did his credentials indicate to you that he was connected with?
A Well, perhaps at the time--I don't know. I really don't know. He just told me his name and he said he would like to talk to me.
Q Did he say he was an investigator from the Criminal Investigation Division?
A I don't remember.
Q Was he in plain uniform or plainclothes?
A He was dressed in a suit.
Q What race was he?
A He was colored.
Q And how old a man was he?
A I would say perhaps in his early twenties.
Q Did you tell him what you had observed on that night, about the car causing you to be awakened? And you observed the lights as it went down the street.
A Yes.
Q Did you tell him anything else, other than that, about what happened that morning?
A I don't recall.
Q Is it possible that you told him anything else beyond that?
A I would think not.
Q Did he have occasion to write down what you were saying as you were talking to him?
A He did, yes, sir.
Q Did he indicate to you that he might have occasion to talk to you again thereafter?
A I'm sure he did.
Q Did he tell you what it was about at that time?
A No, sir.
Q That caused him to ask these questions.
A When he came in and asked me--he stated that he wanted to talk to me and then he proceeded to ask me if there was any unusual sound or did I hear people or anything during the night. He did not relate what had happened.
Q Did you know that there had been a killing at the MacDonald house at that time?
A No, I did not.
Q When did you learn about that?
A Later, around lunchtime.
Q Now the investigator in no way indicated to you why he wanted to ask you about what had happened in terms of unusual sounds or noises, is that right?
A He did not relate to a murder, no.
Q Did you have any idea?
A I had none.
Q Yet even though you didn't know he was coming to talk to you about a triple murder, you still thought the noise you had heard that night was important enough to relate them, didn't you?
A It was the next morning after I had heard the noise that night. Yes, I related it to him about the noises, yes.
Q Did you ever have occasion to tell anyone else about it besides that one investigator, about what you saw and heard that night?
A I'm sure I probably talked about it.
Q Would you say you talked about it to many people?
A I do not remember.
Q I think you had occasion to talk to Captain and Mrs. McGowan about it?
A I don't remember.
Q Do you know whether you might have talked to them about it?
A No.
Q Do you know whether you had occasion to talk to Captain and Mrs. Chester about what you saw that morning?
A No.
Q Do you know whether you might have talked to Captain Chester?
A No.
Q Did you talk to anyone else that you can recall, specifically about what you saw that morning?
A No, sir.
Q Did you have occasion to mention it to your husband?
A Yes.
Q When did you mention it to him?
A He came home for lunch.
Q At lunch time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have occasion to be in the Chester's house at lunch time on the 17th?
A No, sir.
Q How did you learn about the MacDonald killing? At lunch time you learned, how did you learn?
A I really don't recall if it was news or from my husband.
Q Did you talk to Captain and Mrs. McGowan at all on that day?
A I don't recall.
Q Did you talk to Captain and Mrs. Chester on that day?
A I really do not recall if it was that day.
Q Did you tell anybody at all about being interviewed by an investigator that morning?
A I don't recall.
Q Did you talk to somebody else a few weeks later about what you saw on that evening?
A I don't recall.
Q Did you talk to anybody ever who identified himself as being a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A After the first time, the morning after?
Q That's right. It's your testimony here under oath today that as far as you can recall, you never talked to another person, who was at least--other than your neighbors--about what you saw that morning, other than the MP, the investigator that came to your door.
CPT SOMERS: I object. That's clearly not what she said.
MR. SEGAL: I'm asking her whether that's what she said. She can either admit it or deny it.
CPT BEALE: Mr. Segal, why don't you rephrase the question. Make it more clear.
Q Mrs. Snyder, I would like to know and I would like you to tell the investigating officer, whether you ever told any person, as to the morning of February 17th, what you had seen or heard on that morning, other than your neighbors?
A Would you clarify--what I had seen and heard?
Q Yes.
A I don't recall. I can't definitely say whether I discussed it with anyone or not. I do not recall.
Q Do you ever recall being interviewed after February 17th by a person who identified himself in some way to you as being an investigator with some law enforcement agency?
A I don't recall. I really don't.
Q Is it such a commonplace thing for you that it would not stand out in your mind to be interviewed by an FBI agent or Criminal Investigator?
A I don't ever remember anyone coming over discussing.
Q Aside from that investigator talking to you on the morning 17th, have you ever been interviewed by any kind of law enforcement in connection with the investigation of the crime?
A I honestly don't think so.
Q Now you were asked about an incident that took place on the weekend of the 16th and 17th. Do you recall that?
A I don't recall if it was the weekend after the 17th.
Q Oh, I see. Well, can you indicate how many days it was after that?
A I cannot. I don't remember. It was some during--after the time of the accident.
Q Now the car that you described, what makes you so sure it was a convertible?
A Because I remember looking at the car.
Q And what did you see about it that made you so certain it was a convertible?
A I don't remember what made me so certain, but I do know that it was a convertible.
Q Might it have been some--a hard top with some sort of special cloth finish that you saw out there?
A No.
Q Are you sure about that?
A Positive.
Q What about the person who had the gun?
A The guy on the right.
Q Now would that be where the steering was or would that be the passenger seat?
A The passenger seat.
Q Any doubt in your mind about that?
A No, sir.
Q You're positive about that?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long were you looking at the persons sitting in that car?
A First, just for a few minutes, because I did not walk over and look out the window and I wondered in my mind what they were doing there.
Q In what direction was the gun pointed?
A It was--he was holding it up in front of him. I'm not sure.
Q Could you indicate, if that's your answer, how it was being held?
A In front of his face, looking straight--
Q Did he have the stock of the gun on the right shoulder?
A I have no idea. I could not see them that clearly.
Q Where was his cheek in regard to--
A I do not--
Q Wait a minute. Let me finish the question. Where was his cheek in regard to the weapon he was holding?
A I do not know.
Q Did he seem to be looking down the barrel of his rifle?
A I would say yes.
Q In what direction was he looking?
A He was just holding it up, looking.
Q Was he pointing it up into the sky or pointed in the direction of your building or any other building?
A I don't know if he was pointing it to a building. He was sitting out front and he had a gun up and he was--just holding it up.
Q Had you ever seen any of these people before?
A Not that I recall.
Q Did you see that car before?
A I seen the car after that.
Q After that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Had you seen it prior to this?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you tell the CID or call the MPs and advise that that you saw the vehicle in which the gun was being--that you thought was being handled--mishandled enough to call the police about it?
A Yes.
Q You did call them?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A As soon as I saw it.
Q Now you mean as soon as you saw the car the second time or as soon as you saw it the first day, that Saturday or Sunday?
A As I say, I saw it that Sunday. I don't know, but I did call.
Q What I am asking, you say you saw the car the second time.
A I saw the car after, or one that resembled it, yes.
Q Oh, then, you are not sure that it's the same car that you saw thereafter?
A (No response.)
Q What is your answer?
A I don't think I can answer that, not--
COL ROCK: Just answer, if you will, Mrs. Snyder, to the best of your ability. We're just trying to determine whether or not you are certain that it was the same car or whether it appeared to be the same.
A It appeared to be the same car, yes.
Q Did you ever report that fact, that you saw what appeared to be the same car to the MPs?
A I don't think so.
Q You mean you are not certain whether you called them again?
A No, sir.
Q Mrs. Snyder, did you ever tell Captain and Mrs. Chester that you saw a young woman and several men running toward and get in the car that was parked across the street from your house on February 17th in the early morning?
A No.
Q You did not?
A Absolutely not.
Q You're positive about that
A I am positive.
Q Did you ever tell Captain and Mrs. Chester that the young woman had long hair?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever tell anybody that you had seen a young woman getting into that car that you saw across from your house?
A No.
Q Do you know any reason why Captain and Mrs. Chester should lie in regard to what you said to them?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have any bad relationship with either one of them?
A None whatsoever.
Q Mrs. Snyder, did you in fact, go around the neighborhood telling many people that you had seen a girl with long hair get into that car, for the purposes of attracting attention to yourself?
A No, sir.
CPT SOMERS: I object. She's answered that.
Q Mrs. Snyder, didn't you, in fact, see that night--
COL ROCK: Just a minute. We have an objection first.
CPT BEALE: Mr. Segal, if you would, just rephrase your question.
Q Let me put it to you this way. If I were to tell you that Captain and Mrs. Chester have, under oath, stated that you told them you saw a girl with blonde hair get into the car on the, morning of the 17th, would you say they were stating what you told them correctly or incorrectly?
A What I told them about what?
Q All the questions I now put to you, Mrs. Snyder, will relate to what you told other people about what you supposedly saw on the morning of the 17th that awakened you from your sleep. First of all, is that part clear? I am only talking about what you said that got you out of bed on the early morning hours of the 17th, is what I am referring to now?
A Yes.
Q Now are you telling us that if Captain and Mrs. Chester testified here that they heard you say that you saw a girl with long hair, were they lying or were they telling the truth about what you said?
A I would say a lie.
Q That they are both lying?
A Yes, sir.
Q If I were to tell you that Captain and Mrs. Chester say that you told many people about having seen the girl with the long hair get into the car, would you say that they were lying or telling the truth?
A I would know that they are lying.
Q If I was to tell you that Captain Chester testified that you banged on the wall on the weekend after the 16th to call his attention to the people with the gun outside, would you say he was lying or telling the truth?
A I would say he was lying.
Q Could you tell the investigating officer any reason why either Captain or Mrs. Chester would lie about you in that regard?
A Definitely not.
Q You know of no reason?
A Definitely not.
Q You think you have a very very clear memory about all of the episodes on the 17th and the 18th of February 1970?
A Yes.
Q Of what happened early in the morning on February 17th?
A Yes.
Q You are clear about that?
A Yes.
Q Very positive about that?
A I am sure, yes, sir.
Q Mrs. Snyder, are you fearful of your life as a result of this episode with the people with the gun outside you house?
A No, sir.
Q You are not?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason at all why anyone should suggest that you know more about what happened on that morning than you have told us here?
A No, sir.
Q You do not. Did you ever have occasion to go by the name of Janice Dobbs?
A Sir (to Colonel Rock), do we have to go into my personal life?
Q I asked you a question. Do you go by the name of Janice Dobbs?
CPT SOMERS: I object to this.
COL ROCK: I'd like to--Captain Thompson, would you escort Mrs. Snyder to my office? We want to discuss some technical details here. If you will please remain, we will go into this a little further later on.
(The witness and Captain Thompson departed the hearing room.)
COL ROCK: What is the rationale behind this?
MR. SEGAL: I think we can show that this young lady has had occasion on a number of occasions to pass herself off as being different people. In other words, that she has misstated as to who she is, because I suggest that in view of the contradictory testimony of Mr. Chester and Mrs. Chester, that either she has lied to us under oath here today or that she lied to the Chesters and other people on February 17th, and that we are entitled to confront her with other independent lies as to how she has held herself out. I don't intend to pursue this any great length, sir, but I think that that question and a couple of questions about her present marital relationship will conclude my examination of her.
CPT SOMERS: I think if there is something which relates to her credibility with respect to this specific testimony, then it is relevant. I think the defense is not permitted to apparently impeach a witness by going into her marital life or whether she has used a different name because I fail to see that this has anything to do with her credibility at this point. I think they are trying to go into specific acts of some sort of misconduct or something to impeach her. I don't think they are permitted to do that, and furthermore, I think it's clear that as a witness--well, let me withdraw that. I think that this is totally improper, impermissible and should not be permitted. I do object. I do not think that this is in any way the proper way to proceed to impeach this witness.
COL ROCK: The hearing is recessed temporarily.
(The hearing recessed at 1642 hours, 12 August 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1653 hours, 12 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those parties that were present at the beginning of the recess are currently present in the hearing room to include now, again, Mrs. Snyder, the witness. Mrs. Snyder, I advise you again that you are under oath.
Let the record reflect that counsel for the accused was asking certain questions. I requested that both counsel for the government and counsel for the accused submit their questions to me as I felt it was more appropriate, as investigating officer, that I should ask these questions.
Questions by COL ROCK:
Q Mrs. Snyder, because of the fact certain other witnesses, who have appeared as witnesses in this hearing room, have testified to certain information which is at variance with information that you have presented, it is necessary for me to ask certain additional questions in an effort to try to clarify this matter, and I hope you will bear with me in this.
Mrs. Snyder, have you ever divorced Captain Snyder in Reno?
(Witness hesitated.)
Q I beg your pardon?
A Our marriage was never legal.
Q Your marriage was never legal?
A Right.
Q Then are you currently married?
A To Bill--William Dobbs? No, I am not.
Q Now why is it that you think you were never legally married to Captain Snyder?
A Because, where Ken and I were married--I am Indian--and it's really awful to say--they do not recognize a mixed marriage.
Q I see.
A And they do not tell, they just--I found out about it--and it just--I can't talk about it.
Q Yes, well, I can certainly understand that. Are you currently married to anyone?
A Through the Air Force, yes, I am, because they have said that they would take the case into court and would--perhaps make it legal, because of the situation where I--because we are not legally married because of my race.
Q And was the Air Force going to help you in your case with Captain Snyder? Is that it?
A When Bill and I were married, and Ken--I wrote to Ken and told him--he--
Q Excuse me. Bill who?
A William S. Dobbs.
Q Dobson?
A Dobbs.
Q D-o-b-b-s?
A Right.
Q Please start over again, because I now know who William Dobbs is, and the other is Ken Snyder?
A Right.
Q I'm sorry, I'm a little bit confused. Start over again please with your explanation.
A When I met Bill, I was going to get a divorce. I have to start from the beginning.
Q Right, surely.
A So I went down to South Carolina to see about the marriage there and we discussed it, the secretary, the judge and I, and she went and when she came back from lunch she said, it was as though the ceremony wasn't performed, because if it was performed it is not legal because this is South Carolina and it doesn't recognize a mixed marriage. Therefore--and I asked her, “Then I'm not really married?” And she said “No.” Then I married Bill.
Q Well, then you did marry Bill Dobbs?
A Yes, I married Bill.
Q And where was that?
A Bill and I were married in Wichita, Kansas on May the 21st.
Q Of this year?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that state legally recognizes the marriage. Is that correct?
A Yes, but the Air Force will not.
Q Because you were still, so far as they were concerned, legally married to William--to Kenneth Snyder?
A Yes.
Q And could you tell me where William Dobbs is currently? Is he in the states?
A Yes. He's at McConnell Air Force Base.
Q And where is that?
A Wichita, Kansas.
Q Have you had occasion to go to the Pope Air Force Base Officer's Club within the past two weeks?
A I was there--last night was two weeks ago.
Q Did you tell anyone in confidence at the club that were working on the MacDonald case? Do you remember making that statement?
A No.
Q How did you learn that you were wanted here today to testify?
A On the news today.
Q Over the radio or TV?
A Over the radio.
COL ROCK: Okay, those are the questions that I have in this connection. Does counsel for the accused have further questions at time or other matters?
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, thank you, sir.
COL ROCK: Counsel for the government?
CPT SOMERS: Well, I would just like to expand a little bit on one question asked by the investigating officer.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Did you come here of your own volition, ma'am?
A I heard my name on the--I guess the 11:45 or 11:55 news, and when I heard that--I don't know if it was Mr. Eisman or who, had been looking for me over seven states, I was shocked, and I sat down. I thought, gee, what should I do. Contact the lawyers or what? So then I just sat down and I thought the best thing for me to do is to go over to Fort Bragg and go from there and that's exactly what I did. I did that within thirty-five or forty-five minutes after I heard it.
COL ROCK: So you came here of your own free will?
WITNESS: Yes, I did, I came straight on my own.
COL ROCK: Does counsel have any further questions?
CPT SOMERS: No, sir.
COL ROCK: You are requested, please, not to discuss your testimony with any other person, other than counsel for the government, counsel for the accused, or myself. Do you understand that?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: Thank you very much. You are excused.
(Witness departed the hearing room.)
COL ROCK: I believe counsel for the accused has a statement at this time.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir, at this time I would request that counsel for the accused be provided with a copy of the statement the government has indicated exists which represents an interview with the witness that was just excused, Mrs. Snyder.
CPT SOMERS: I've already said I would provide that and I will as soon as I can.
MR. SEGAL: Very good, sir.
COL ROCK: This hearing is recessed until 0830 in the morning.
(The hearing recessed at 1703 hours, 12 August 1970.)
Previous volume
Next volume
|
