1974-1975 JEFFREY MACDONALD CASE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT
August 12-13, 1974: Jeffrey MacDonald
I, Mary M. Ritchie, being a Notary Public in and for the State of North Carolina, was appointed to take the aforesaid matter which was heard before the Grand Jury, Raleigh, North Carolina, commencing at 1:00 p.m. on August 12, 1974.
Mr. Samuel S. Epperson, Foreman, was presiding; and the following Jurors were present:
Gialda G. Smith
Mary L. Green
John Sutton, III
Brenda H. Ayscue
Samuel H. Cannady
Howard T. Edwards
Eugene F. Brown
Hartwell C. Whittington
William E. Roebuck
Hobart M. Singletary
Advil M. Wallace
Larry R. Cartrette
Dorothy S. Thaxton
Zollie E. Winfree
Maxine S. O'Connell, Deputy Foreman
Joan F. Van Giesen
Katie O. Durham
William T. Arnold
Whereupon, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Will you state your name, please, sir?
A Dr. Jeffrey Robert MacDonald.
Q Where do you live, Dr. MacDonald?
A Huntington Beach, California.
Q Can you give us a street address?
A 16052 Marina Drive.
Q Dr. MacDonald, this federal grand jury is investigating possible violations of various criminal statutes which are a part of the United States Criminal Code. These violations include perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, murder and assault on a government reservation. This is an investigative grand jury. This grand jury is conducting an investigation to ascertain whether in fact during the course of an investigation conducted by the CID, the MPs, and the FBI beginning February 17, 1970, there was criminal misconduct on the part of any of the personnel involved in the investigation or involved in an Article 32 Board of Inquiry proceeding that resulted from that investigation.
It is also investigating to ascertain, if it is possible to ascertain at this time, who committed murder with respect to Colette MacDonald, Kristen MacDonald, Kimberley MacDonald, and who committed a felonious assault on Captain Jeffrey MacDonald on a military reservation where the federal courts have jurisdiction to inquire into such matters.
Now, as you know, there are a number of possible suspects with respect to each of these offenses. With respect to perjury and possible obstruction of justice, certain individuals have been pinpointed in the past. With respect to the murders, the finger has been pointed at various individuals; and one of the persons who has been a suspect in the past and who must be considered a suspect for the purpose of this grand jury proceeding is you, yourself, since you are the only survivor of the incident that occurred on the night of February 16, 17, 1970.
And no one up to this point has been identified as the person who committed murder, person or persons that committed murder and assault on that occasion.
Now, under the circumstances, in view of what I have just told you, it is my duty to inform you that you have a constitutional right to refuse to answer any questions if you believe that a truthful answer to that question may in any manner or any wise tend to incriminate you.
Further, you have a right to counsel. You may not have counsel in the grand jury room during the course of the grand jury proceedings; but you may have counsel nearby, and upon request, you may leave the grand jury room and consult with your counsel as to any matter that is asked of you during the course of the grand jury inquiry.
Do you understand what I have stated to you, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you have counsel?
A Yes, I do.
Q What is his name?
A Bernard L. Segal.
Q Is he here at this time?
A Yes, he is.
Q Do you know where he is?
A In an adjacent room. Sir, I would like to request that he be allowed to be in the room just to hear the testimony.
Q That is not permissible, Dr. MacDonald, under the federal criminal rules. He may not be in the room. The only persons that are permitted to be in the room are the members of the grand jury, themselves, the government attorneys who are working with the grand jury, the official reporter of the grand jury, and if necessary, an interpreter. But I take it that you don't need an interpreter?
A No, sir.
Q But counsel is not permitted to be in the grand jury room.
A This would not be for purposes of raising objections or a matter of saying anything but just to hear the questioning.
Q You may consult with your attorney and you may recount to him, once you leave the grand jury room, what happened during the time that you were in the grand jury room, but he is not permitted to be present during the course of the grand jury session.
Have you discussed this with Mr. Segal?
A At some length.
Q Did he tell you that he would not be permitted to appear before the grand jury while you are in the grand jury room testifying as a witness?
A Yes. He said that probably would be the case.
Q So you are not surprised by what I am telling you?
A Are you going to start questioning me now?
Q Yes, sir.
A May I just have one minute with him then?
Q Yes, indeed.
At this time, Mr. Segal requested of Judge Franklin Dupree a motion hearing which was taken in the courtroom.
Present at this hearing, were Judge Dupree, counsel for the government: Victor Woerheide, Thomas McNamara, and James T. Stroud, Jr. Also present was counsel for Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald: Bernard L. Segal and Michael J. Malley.
COURT: The Court recognizes Mr. Segal, counsel for the witness called to testify before the grand jury.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, your honor.
COURT: I understand that you have some motions to make and I'll hear you.
MR. SEGAL: Does the Court desire me to speak from counsel table?
MR. SEGAL: Thank you, Your Honor. If Your Honor please, the witness whom I represent is Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald who was summoned before the grand jury this afternoon, shortly after lunch.
COURT: How do you spell MacDonald?
MR. SEGAL: M-a-c-D-o-n-a-l-d.
COURT: All right, sir.
MR. SEGAL: At that time, Mr. Woerheide, attorney for the Justice Department, now, one of the three counsels here for the government, made certain statements in the nature of advice as to the defendant's rights in connection with the grand jury proceedings.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Your Honor, I may point out at this juncture there is no defendant. This is simply an investigative grand jury proceeding. There is no defendant before the grand jury.
COURT: I had understood that. There is a witness and Mr. Segal represents this witness. Is that correct?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir, Your Honor. And I understood that also and had made no reference to any defendant.
COURT: All right, sir.
MR. SEGAL: I did say that Mr. Woerheide had advised Mr. MacDonald of what purported to be certain rights that be applicable in the proceedings such as being held today.
In response to those statements or warnings, if you will, Dr. MacDonald advised the government's counsel that he wished the presence of his attorney, myself, in the grand jury room during the proceedings. He also explicitly stated at that time that he recognized that only for the purpose of hearing his testimony and not for the purpose of objecting or raising any questions of any sort. There follows some other colloquy which I would like to discuss in a second motion that I will defer at this time.
Dr. MacDonald was advised at that point by government's counsel that they would not accede to his request for my presence in the grand jury room at that time. At that point, there followed a conference between counsels for both sides where the government reiterated its position; and furthermore, the government rejected an alternative suggestion which I think might have accommodated or obviated the issue. At that point, we requested a right to appear before the Court at this, Your Honor, on behalf of Dr. MacDonald, the witness before the grand jury.
I am requesting that he be given the right to have his counsel present during the taking of his testimony only in these proceedings.
If I may be heard briefly for reasons in support of that, perhaps it may be clearer. First of all, if Your Honor pleases, I am not--I stress, I am not asking for the right to represent Dr. MacDonald in the grand jury proceedings because I recognize full well the cases which have held to this juncture. The defendant does not have the right to be represented. That is not what we have asked of this Court or of the government at this time. It is to the rights to my presence to hear firsthand my client's testimony before the grand jury and that is necessary, Your Honor, not so that I might represent him but so that I might fulfill and the defendant may have fulfilled for him his sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution to the effective assistance of counsel. That is, if Your Honor pleases.
COURT: You spoke of him that in terms of defendant. I understand that he is still a witness.
MR. SEGAL: Forgive me, Your Honor. I must state for the record that four years ago Dr. MacDonald was the defendant in a full military court proceeding covering almost the identical issues at which, at the conclusion of the longest military hearing of this sort ever held, the military grand jury concluded there was neither a legal or a factual basis to accuse him. I unfortunately am unable to shake that from my memory but I am talking about him in the role of a witness.
My point is, if Your Honor pleases, that representation which is prohibited and to which we acquiesce to be the standard of law would involve the right to question, to perhaps offer evidence, and to participate in the proceedings. This is not what the defendant asks in this case. But the defendant has the continuing right under the constitution--The witness has the continuing right under the constitution at all times, if Your Honor pleases, assistance of counsel. He cannot in this case because of the anticipate length of the witness's testimony before the grand jury be effectively achieved by having the witness come out after each question and attempt at for a lay person to recite the questions that were put to him so that his counsel may at least know what is being asked.
Secondly, it is even less possible, feasible, or desirable to have the witness come out from the grand jury after each answer; and for the benefit of counsel repeat verbatim the answer.
And yet, absent my opportunity to know simply what my client, the witness, is being asked, what the witness is answering, I cannot render the constitutional guaranteed right which goes on outside of court, ongoing and throughout these proceedings and any related matters. I cannot provide him with the effective assistance of counsel. And in this case, the assistance of counsel requires in my judgment, Your Honor, and requires in the witness's belief and judgment, the right for his attorney to be present.
There are some special circumstances which further highlight the necessity for this assistance. The subject matter of this grand jury, if Your Honor pleases, deals with an episode that took place some four years and five months ago. That without a doubt was a long time to bring a witness in and ask the witness to go over in great detail which is necessary and desirable to further this investigation all the facts of that episode.
We fully expect upon being advised by government's counsel and based upon our experience in the military grand jury proceeding in which this witness testified at length under oath and under cross examination, that his testimony took then a day and a half.
We are being asked, if Your Honor pleases, to provide the effective assistance of counsel to Dr. MacDonald without knowing and being able to counsel him based upon the questions and answers being put to him.
You have the delay of four years as being a serious impediment to his memory; but, secondly, it isn't with just ordinary memory that you are dealing with. The subject of this grand jury is the slaughter of this witness's family and the near fatal assault upon his person by a group of individuals. And that slaughter is a matter and I do not think it requires much for any of us to appreciate is not something that one is able to live with easily except trying to accept the reality but not trying to make it the only and ever present issue in one's life. It is, in fact, the kind of thing that one has to accept; but put back a little so one can go on in life.
The government, now four years later, wants this witness to remember four years ago, to deal with the deep emotions of the slaughter of one's family; and at the same time, deny him the right of his attorney to simply hear all the things that are being asked, be dredged out of his mind, not to interrupt, not to question, not to participate, not to represent in that word, which is prohibitive to him, but to really have my assistance.
It seems to me those are special circumstances. Those are unique circumstances and those require my judgment, Your Honor. The simple relief of permitting me to hear what is going on. I want to submit to Your Honor that it is within your power, it is within your discretion, if it is not, in fact, the matter of right, it is certainly within your discretion under the rules to allow this to take place.
There is no case and there is nothing in Rule 6(d) which prohibits. It merely authorizes if Your Honor please. The government has the right to be present and represented in the grand jury proceeding. That there is a right to have a stenographer and it does not make that exclusive nor does it prohibit any other persons from being present.
The cases that have talked about that issue are the defendants who have appeared, not the witness or even witnesses who have appeared who have all asked to have counsel have all dealt with a different issue. That is those persons that wanted to be represented; and we say that what we are asking for here is not representation.
That represents the argument and my request at this time, Your Honor.
I do have a second motion, but I think perhaps best that I delay that until perhaps you hear the government's response.
COURT: Very well.
MR. McNAMARA: If Your Honor please, when you charged the grand jury this morning, you told them of the secrecy element that surrounds them. I reminded them of that when I went to the grand jury room.
We go back to Rule 60 and it specifically says who can be in the grand jury and it does not say an attorney for a witness. It says government attorneys, court reporter, the witness, himself or herself. We are merely operating under a federal statute that Congress has established and there are many cases. You can pick out Wright's Book on Procedure that we have here and find many cases supporting that position.
We had this very point come up in a case of ours. It is not a reported decision where Judge Larkins wrote, “William Worthington Russell, IV, the counsel for the witness before the grand jury asked to be present during the testimony of his client before the grand jury.” Judge Larkins ruled that he cannot be present. This is just June 10, 1974. I have a copy of this order here and I will be glad to hand it up to you.
COURT: I don't need to see it.
MR. McNAMARA: Basically--
COURT: You say that's what he held?
MR. McNAMARA: Yes, sir. He did hold that.
COURT: But he didn't have these special circumstances that Mr. Segal called attention to.
MR. McNAMARA: I don't think there are any special circumstances. Time has gone by but surely this witness, if he has been through this procedure before has gone back and reviewed his testimony now that he gave at the Article 32 hearing. It is not unusual that the man can't recall what occurred on the events. He is one of several witnesses that we intend to call before the grand jury. He probably will be able to aid the grand jury.
Now, if we allow him to have his counsel, we will have everybody calling for attorneys to go in before the grand jury. Granted, Judge Larkins probably didn't have--
COURT: He doesn't want to counsel with the man though or represent him or cross examine the witness. He just wants to hear. He just wants to hear firsthand.
MR. McNAMARA: But that violates the federal statute. You put a lawyer in the grand jury, and the witness will be looking at the lawyer for answers, vice versa. The attorney there, it is an outside element that you are introducing into the grand jury room. I don't think that you get the true picture that we want the grand jury to see. We want them to just examine the witness, all witnesses before the grand jury. I don't think that's the true nature of the federal statures.
I am sure Mr. Woerheide has something to add to this.
COURT: All right, sir, I'll hear him.
MR. WOERHEIDE: There is no reason why Mr. MacDonald cannot fully inform and fully brief his counsel as to each and every matter transpires before the grand jury. We have informed him that he has the right upon request to leave the grand jury room and confer with his counsel whenever he so desires.
Your Honor, if we were to establish a practice in this jurisdiction of permitting unauthorized persons to appear before the grand jury, the grand jury proceedings would be vitiated. If this grand jury, which at this juncture is an investigative grand jury, simply inquiring into the facts and circumstances to see if there was some criminal law violation--but if this grand jury were to vote an indictment against any person as a result of the grand jury inquiry and there were unauthorized persons before the grand jury, it would be grounds for dismissing that indictment. And if it was not dismissed and it went to trial--
COURT: That wouldn't be so if this witness should be indicted and that person should be his counsel who was allowed in there by virtue of a motion made for that purpose and allowed. Certainly, he wouldn't be able to attack the indictment on that ground.
MR. WOERHEIDE: The witness was informed at that time that he first appeared before the grand jury, although he was a possible suspect, there were a number of other possible suspects with respect to the crime of murder.
Furthermore, Your Honor, we are investigating other violations, allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice; and if the indictment were to be returned by this grand jury and the secrecy of the grand jury were violated, I have no doubt that the indictment would be subject to dismissal.
COURT: All right, sir. Mr. Segal, you want to be heard further on this?
MR. SEGAL: Without belaboring the subject, Your Honor, I ask your indulgence very briefly.
COURT: Very well.
MR. SEGAL: If the government concedes, Your Honor, that the witness has the right--and they have to concede it--to come out after every single question and repeat the question to me and go back in and give the answer and then come out again after the answer then repeat that to me, once he concedes that, it seems to me that the procedure or their insistence that I not be permitted to hear it for myself is such an absurdity. And one, of course, is called to mind. That for four hundred years lay people continue to quote Shakespeare, “The law doth make an ass of itself.” Why am I not entitled to hear it directly?
As a matter of fact, the very proof of why this procedure that I have asked you to allow this afternoon is necessary is tied to the second motion that I make because I suspect when I state the reason for my second motion Mr. Woerheide or Mr. McNamara will leap to their feet and deny precisely that that is what they said to my client in the grand jury and we are going to have an argument over what, over the ability of a lay witness to come out and repeat to his counsel immediately thereafter correctly certain statements because I am prepared to make certain representations to Your Honor. Why should that be necessary? Why should we engage in this certain absurd procedure which says I am entitled to know what goes on but not accurately. For those reasons, sir, I submit that our motions be granted.
COURT: Also you have a second motion?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir.
COURT: I'll hear you on that too.
MR. SEGAL: That will be somewhat briefer, sir. If Your Honor please, during the initial questioning of Dr. MacDonald in regard to purportedly warn him of his rights conducted by Mr. Woerheide before the grand jury. At that time, Dr. MacDonald warned the government's counsel that he wished the presence of his attorney. He was then asked by the government's counsel whether or not he had discussed the issue of the right of his attorney to be present in the grand jury proceedings and whether or not I had advised him in regard to such a matter. That is the best recollection that my lay client was able to give me of that discussion. And I submit now, Your Honor that that is totally and grossly improper, for the government to go into the question of what advice counsel has given to the witness. I suspect it was more unintended than deliberate. That counsel for the government, I trust, is aware that he may not inquire as to what legal advice was given to a witness by his or her attorney through the course of the attorney-client relationship. Just precisely--
COURT: I didn't understand you to say it was contended that they had asked the nature of the advice but just whether or not the question had been the subject of some conversation, not what the conversation was.
MR. SEGAL: My understanding--Again, my problem is that I am dealing with secondhand repetition of what the client lay person has said, relates to the conversation dealt with, and was he told something about those rights by me. In effect, the question which sought to elicit the nature of counsel's advice--
If Your Honor would indulge me for one moment, I want to confer, refer to a note here. I think that I can further add to the record by saying that apparently, Mr. Woerheide, government's counsel, after making the statements that I have given so far then said to the witness, “So this, his decision not to agree to my presence, doesn't come as a surprise to you.” That is a characterization and stating of record the nature of advice that I have given and that I think is grossly improper. And for that reason, I would ask, Your Honor, to instruct the government's counsel to refrain from either directly or indirectly seeking to find out the nature of legal advice given to the witness in this case.
By the way, again, Your Honor, to apprehend the needless difficulty we are struggling with to understand precisely the words, if I can be present, I think that I can separate the difference of a general question which can deal with this area.
COURT: What would you have done if you had been there?
MR. SEGAL: I would have made notes to that effect and reviewed what area it would have gotten into. I would not--and I represent this to the court--attempt to signal the witness, to show any kind of emotion, any kind of feelings, any kind of signals. I am a professional, Your Honor. That's not my function; I don't behave that way. I don't think that any counsel that has ever known me would have known me to somehow subvert the grand jury proceedings.
I must say to the court, Your Honor, I have been in state court permitted where special circumstances were shown to appear before a grand jury. Take the case of the Commonwealth vs. Carrera and Garcia; the case ultimately went before the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania in regard to representing the witness in the grand jury room proceedings for the purpose of adequately getting the witness to express her rights. The court simply thought it was expedient and desirable for counsel to be present for that brief time. It served a purpose. It is not unheard of in that regard.
COURT: All right, sir.
MR. McNAMARA: If Your Honor please, on this latter motion of counsel in regard to the impropriety on the part of the government's counsel, I emphatically deny that, that such did take place there. I listened as Mr. Woerheide was asking Dr. MacDonald these various questions and Dr. MacDonald brought up the fact that he would like to have his counsel in, in the grand jury room. So Mr. Woerheide went ahead and asked him if he had discussed this with his attorney, this fact. He didn't ask for any type of disclosure on what they discussed, just when this particular point had been discussed.
Now, if we get into a shooting match over words, we'll have to go back to the court reporter; but it did not strike me anywhere near being any question of impropriety there. So I think that motion--
COURT: Well, does the government recognize that it has no right to inquire into the nature of advice obtained by a witness or anyone else before the grand jury, advice from his attorney? Do you recognize that?
MR. McNAMARA: Yes.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Your Honor, we recognize that a witness who appears before the grand jury has certain privileges. One is the privilege not to testify as to any matter that might tend to incriminate him. The other privilege--it is not a right, a privilege--relates to confidential communications between attorney and client. It is not the privilege of the attorney. It is the privilege of the client. If the client is a witness before the grand jury, he may be asked questions; he may assert the privilege; he may refuse to answer the question; but there is no prohibition with respect to asking the question.
MR. McNAMARA: Your Honor, if I may add one point further with regard to Mr. Segal's request to be in the grand jury room. After every question that Dr. MacDonald is asked, if he still has to confer with Mr. Segal, as he probably will, they are going to go out of the grand jury room anyway. So we are going to have so much traffic going back and forth, I can't see how anything is going to be accomplished by allowing Mr. Segal to be in there.
COURT: You don't think a logistical problem will be solved by having him in there?
MR. McNAMARA: I definitely don't think so. I think it would be most distracting.
MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor please, I made my statement to the court in absolute good faith, and I have the advantage over both the government counsel, if Your Honor please, that I participated in that, fully and completely in the military proceedings, that precede. Sir, I have some intimate knowledge of the details of this case and I further have experience in representing witnesses in grand jury matters. I think that I can safely and honestly, hoping that the court will respect my word, say to you that I think that we will solve a substantial logistical problem by granting our first motion. That I have no reason at all to anticipate that if I am able to be present that there will be any need for assisting, frequent adjournments, so that the witness can counsel with me. Perhaps if that were to occur and did not solve the logistical problem, I see no reason why Your Honor might not want to reconsider your decision.
If Your Honor will permit me to be present, I think, Your Honor, would find as a practical matter that that would not be necessary; and it would obviate the government's position. I am appreciative, Your Honor, in your indulgence to hear me out; but I do not think that I would be serving my client properly if I did not respond or call attention to what I heard in Mr. Woerheide's remark. And that is that he wants an un-counseled layman to make the decisions to whether or not he is supposed to discuss with the grand jury and with the government's attorneys the nature of the advice I gave him and that is precisely the kind of thing that privileges are supposed to protect. You don't give the government lawyers to ask in areas that they know they can stop in a second. And that is why I have asked Your Honor to rule and to advise the government to not play games with fundamental rights. They have no business going into legal advice and say, “Well, the lay person, he can decide to waive that.” That's provided the witness knows enough to go out and find out whether this is a critical area or not. It is simply a charade. And I say, Your Honor, deal with this issue summarily and say the government ought not to go into the question of rights. I am frankly surprised that Mr. Woerheide takes the position the government can fool around with the attorney-client privilege and see whether they can't find out legal advice the lawyer gives to a witness. That to me, sir, is unworthy to this case.
COURT: All right, sir, anything else?
MR. SEGAL: No, Your Honor.
COURT: Very well, let the record show that each of the motions of the witness MacDonald made through his counsel are denied.
Anything else to come before this court this session?
MR. McNAMARA: Not that I know of, Your Honor.
COURT: All right, we will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.
END MOTION HEARING
(The investigation of the grand jury continues.)
(Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald resumes the stand.)
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Mr. MacDonald, you stated your present address. Where are you employed, sir?
A St. Mary's Hospital in Long Beach, California.
Q Do you have an office in that hospital, a private office?
A No. I am a member of a group of eight physicians that run the emergency department.
Q Does the hospital have a telephone number?
A Yes, it does.
Q Or the emergency room?
A Yes, it does.
Q Can you tell us what it is please?
A 435-4441, area code 213.
Q And how about your residence telephone?
A Area 213, 592-2303.
Q Now going backward from the present time to December 4, 1970, which I think is the date of your discharge from the Army, can you tell us the various places that you have resided during that period of time?
A From December 4, 1970?
Q Yes, sir.
A Initially I was at a friend's house in New Hope, Pennsylvania; and then I was at my mother's house in Patchogue, Long Island.
Q Was your friend Robert Stern?
A That's correct.
Q And what's the address there, sir?
A At that time, it was 1 Great Oak Road, New Hope, Pennsylvania.
Q And thereafter you stayed at your mother's house?
A For a brief period of time.
Q What's that address?
A She doesn't live there any more. 68 Mount Vernon Avenue, Patchogue, New York.
Q I want to ask you where Mr. Stern lives at the present time.
A I believe it is South Hampton, Long Island.
Q Do you have a street address?
A No, I don't.
Q How about your mother? What is her current address?
A 189 Washington Avenue, Patchogue.
Q When you left your mother's house, where did you go to live?
A To an apartment in New York City.
Q Can you give us that address?
A It was on 69th Street. I don't remember the address.
Q And where did you move from there?
A To California.
Q Did you occupy the quarters that you now occupy?
A Initially, I stayed with one of my partners. A man who is now my partner. The address at that time was B-7 Surfside, California.
Q And what's his name, sir?
A Dr. Jerry Hughes.
Q And then you moved to the place where you now reside, is that it?
Is that an apartment or a house, sir?
A It's a condominium.
Q And do you own the condominium?
A I am in the process of owing it, yes.
Q Now, since you were discharged from the Army, what employment have you had, sir?
A I am a physician.
Q Specifically? You are not in private practice for yourself?
A No. I was--
Q You are employed by an employer?
A That's correct.
Q And who is or the employers who have employed you since your discharge from the Army?
A I worked at the--I was a clinic physician at the World Trade Center in New York at the Industrial Clinic for approximately six months.
Q And that was in 1971, I take it?
A Right. The director of the clinic was Dr. Gilbert--Benjamin--Dr. Benjamin Gilbert. His main office was on 45th Street in New York. I don't know the address.
Q Who was your next employer?
A Essentially, Dr. Hughes in California.
Q Are you still working for him?
A It's not really. I don't really work for him. It is a group of physicians. It is more like a partnership.
Q Have you been associated with the partnership since you've been in California?
A Yes, I have.
Q So you are a whole partner in this partnership, I take it?
A Yes. A junior--more junior member of the partnership but I am not employed by them, yes.
Q Now, how long did you live at Fort Bragg?
A You mean exact dates?
A It would be August of 1969--August of 1969 until my discharge from the Army.
Q Which was December 4, 1970? Is that correct?
Q Did you leave the same date?
A I don't remember.
Q Now, prior to coming to Ft. Bragg, where did you live?
A The prior few months I was in the Army, in July of 1969, I would have been at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas; and in August, I was in jump school at Ft. Benning, Georgia.
Q I take it your family was not able to live with you while you were at Ft. Sam Houston or while you were at jump school. They joined you after you arrived at Fort Bragg?
A That's correct.
Q So there was a period from July through August when your family was living somewhere else?
A That's correct.
Q Where were they living?
A In Patchogue.
Q With her parents or your parents?
A My parents.
Q Is that the same address you gave us?
A No. It was across the street.
Q Now how long did you live there?
A Where, sir?
Q In Patchogue, or were your wife and children just visiting there?
A They were just visiting there while I was on my way.
Q That was not a permanent abode for them at all?
Q That was just a temporary--
A That's correct.
Q Prior to the time when you went into the Army, where did you live?
A That was my internship year. I was living in some little town in New Jersey. Fort, I guess, Bergenfield. Bergenfield, New Jersey.
Q Do you recall the address?
A No. It was a big apartment complex.
Q And you were interning where at that time?
A Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York.
Q Prior to living in Bergenfield, where did you live?
Q Did you live in several places in Chicago?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was that during the time that you were a student?
A Medical student then, yes.
Q Do you recall the various addresses that you had there at that time?
Q Did you live in the city proper or the suburbs?
A Three different apartments within the city.
Q Were they in the loop area or near the loop?
A One was right next to the medical school which is just north of the loop. Two were a little further out of the city.
Q And prior to going to Northwestern, you were a student at Princeton University. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did you live on campus or off campus?
A Off campus.
Q Now you and Colette were married when?
A September 14, between my sophomore and junior years in college. It's I guess 1963.
Q Now, Dr. MacDonald, in preparation before the grand jury here, have you gone over any records that you retained?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you tell me specifically what records you have gone over?
A The Article 32 hearing that was held at Ft. Bragg.
Q Do you have a complete transcript of that?
A Yes, I do.
Q All right, what other records?
A A copy of an interrogation held by the CID of me on April 6th.
Q What other records?
A Really, you know, there were news clippings mixed in with this stuff but that was really the formal reading that I did.
Q Do you have a file of news clippings?
A My attorney asked me to keep it in conjunction with the case.
Q Did you bring any of this material with you?
A I have some in my briefcase.
Q Now, is there any other material that you referred to?
A You mean other than loose papers that were associated with the Article 32 hearing?
Q You specifically mentioned the transcript of the testimony of the Article 32 hearing?
Q Transcript of an interrogation of which took place on April 6, 1970?
Q And you mentioned news clippings?
A Uh-huh (yes).
Q Now, was there anything else?
A There are a lot of loose--You know when I was referring to the Article 32 transcript in my box that includes--there is a lot of loose papers that I looked at.
Q What do these loose papers consist of? Correspondence?
A Some correspondence, some of the court motions that we filed in conjunction with the Article 32 hearing. I don't even know what they mean. Interviews taken of other witnesses.
Witnesses that the CID was badgering on Long Island. Things like that.
Q Now, what witnesses are you referring to on Long Island?
A Friends of mine. You know, friends from the past.
Q Can you specify any individuals?
A People like Harold Leon. People that I haven't seen for years and years. There is a whole list of old friends.
Q Can you mention any others besides Harold Leon?
A Carol Leon.
Q Carol Leon.
A Karen Perry. They really weren't very important. This is part of the--As I was leafing through this, I saw these things. I am trying to give you a full recollection.
Q Did you have copies of any interrogations of these witnesses such--or did you just have a memorandum reflecting the fact that they were contacted by the CID, any certain questions?
A I think there is some of those. I didn't specifically read any formal statements.
Q But you have copies of interrogations that were turned over to you by the CID, I take it?
A I don't know. I am a little confused. I don't know if it was them. I read the MPs interviews on post. This is all in a great big file, about six years worth of reading.
Q Do you also have a file of the transcript of interrogations of Mr. Ivory, Mr. Grebner, and Mr. Shaw by your counsel?
A I certainly do.
Q Did you participate in any of those interrogations?
A No, I did not.
Q Is that in part of the material that you referred to?
Q Did you prepare material to be furnished to other persons concerning the investigation or the consequences of the investigation?
A I don't understand what you mean.
Q For example, did you furnish any material to any Congressman or any government officials?
Q Do you have copies of that?
A I have copies of a press release that was issued when I got out of the Army that one of the Congressmen asked me to prepare.
Q Was that the only one?
A That was furnished to Congress?
Q Well, is this the only document of that type?
A No, I have copies of Mr. Kassab's allegations that he sent to Congress.
Q Did any other persons make such allegations and send it to any member of Congress or any officials to your knowledge?
A One of my military attorneys did.
Q What is his name?
A Not to Congress. Pardon me. I didn't hear the full question.
Q Or to any official?
A Sure, officials being Army. Right. Lt. Michael Malley. Now, it's Michael Malley.
Q And that's one of your attorneys present here in Raleigh at this time?
A That's correct.
Q Representing you and acting on your behalf. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, do you have any other, let's say, memoranda or summaries that you prepared for the benefit of newspapermen?
A I have copies of long newspaper articles but I don't have memoranda in preparing them.
Q How about radio interviewers or television interviews?
A Do I have copies of those?
Q Do you have copies of any material that was prepared in connection with, let's say, your participation in a TV program or a radio program or an appearance that you may have made as a lecturer or as a speaker before any bodies, any student bodies, or any other groups that might be interested in hearing concerning the matter that we are discussing?
A No, sir.
Q Mr. MacDonald, when you were graduated from medical school, where were you admitted to the practice of medicine?
A I had my internship first in New York, following which I was admitted to the practice of medicine in New York and North Carolina, since then California.
Q Did you take a state board examination in New York?
A No. I had national boards that are accepted by both states.
Q And when were you admitted to the practice of medicine in New York City or in New York itself?
A I believe the date on the license is June 15, 1969. I think that coincides with the graduation from internship.
Q And when were you admitted to the practice of medicine in North Carolina?
A It would be a few months later. I honestly don't know.
Q Did you have to take a state board examination here?
A No. I had to appear before a medical board for a conference, essentially, in, I guess, Raleigh.
Q And submit copies of your credentials from New York?
Q And while you came to Ft. Bragg in August, now about when was it that you went into practice in North Carolina?
A I honestly don't remember. I don't know. I presume it was early in the fall. I really don't remember.
Q When were you admitted to practice in California?
A I don't know that either. I applied sometime--I applied sometime when I was in the Army because the national board reciprocity runs out at five years after graduation from medical school and I applied sometime while I was in the Army.
Q And was the entire matter handled by mail?
A The California application?
Q Yes, the application and any action taken by the state board on your examination or notification to you of your acceptance or your licensing as a medical practitioner in California.
A Yes, it was.
Q So you didn't have to appear personally in California in order to obtain your license there?
Q Mr. MacDonald or Dr. MacDonald, where were you born?
A In Jamaica, New York.
Q And did you grow up in Jamaica, New York?
A No, I grew up in Patchogue.
Q And did you attend elementary and high school there?
A Yes, I did.
Q And will you tell the grand jury please about your school activities and your school standing, any honors, positions, that you held, any activities such as athletics or honor society or anything of that sort?
A I played on football, basketball, baseball teams; was president of my class and was in the Kiwanis, not Kiwanis but Key Club, the Varsity Club, band orchestra. I was president of my class and several other little things.
Q What was your standing when you graduated?
A I would guess top five, three, or four in the class. Something like that.
Q As a result of your scholastic excellence, did you a scholarship?
A Yes, I did.
Q And who awarded this scholarship?
A Initially I received two. I received a very large one from Colgate and a smaller one from Princeton University and I accepted the Princeton one.
Q And what did you study there as an undergraduate?
Q And this was in preparation for further study of medicine at a later date?
Q What were your activities as a student at Princeton University?
A I worked to help pay my way. I was in the boxing club for a while, some intramural sports, nothing very dramatic at Princeton.
Q What was your scholastic standing at the end of your third year?
A It was relatively high. It wasn't super high. I think it was the upper third. I think they did it in thirds at that time. I think that I was in the upper third.
Q And did you then apply to the Northwestern University Medical School?
A I did.
Q Is it unusual for Northwestern University to accept in medical school students, persons who do not have an undergraduate degree?
A Yes, not really unusual. They accept more than most medical schools did. They believe in it. So I was one--out of a hundred and thirty-four people in the class, there were probably I would guess there were twenty or twenty-five of us who were three-years undergraduate students. Some schools don't accept them at all.
Q Did you have a scholarship to Northwestern?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was that for scholastic excellence?
A Well, they say, yes, but really it is for need. If you don't have need, you don't get it no matter how smart you are, if you follow me.
Q Yes. That scholarship continued over the period you were a student at Northwestern University Medical School which was four years. Is that correct?
Q Now, what is your family situation, Dr. MacDonald? You referred to your mother as still being alive. Is your father still alive?
Q When did he pass on?
A When he was forty-eight. I was a sophomore in medical school.
Q Do you have any siblings?
A I have a brother, older, eighteen months older than myself and a sister, younger, about eighteen months younger.
Q What is your brother's name?
Q And what is your sister's name?
Q Where does your brother live?
A In New Hope, Pennsylvania.
Q Where does your sister live?
A Schenectady, New York.
Q Have you always had a good family relationship with your father, your mother and brother and sister?
Q Have there been any problems?
Q Have there been any family crises?
A Yes, there have been family crises.
Q Have these family crises had any effect on you and your life?
A Yes, I lost my family at Ft. Bragg. That affected my life.
Q I am referring to your family, consisting of your father, your mother, your brother, and your sister.
A Sure, my father died. That affected my mother and affected us. My brother used drugs and that affected us. My sister is mildly anxious, a young married female and has her crises and calls in the middle of the night but nothing spectacular.
MR. WOERHEIDE: I see it is after four o'clock, Mr. Foreman, I know some of us have to travel quite a distance; and I know the judge said you would be excused at four o'clock. And I suggest that you may wish to adjourn at this time and return tomorrow morning. I understand your schedule starts at 9:30 in the morning; and if it is agreeable with you and the grand jurors, I am going to ask that Dr. MacDonald be excused for the day and directed to return tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. for further testimony before the grand jury.
FOREMAN: Very well.
Dr. MacDonald is excused at this time.
The following testimony was taken on Tuesday, August 13, 1974, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Grand Jury Room, Federal Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. All Grand Jurors were present at this time. The following proceedings were held to wit:
(Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald resumes the stand.)
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Dr. MacDonald, you are the same Dr. MacDonald who was testifying before this grand jury yesterday, are you not, sir?
A Yes, I am, sir.
Q And you understand that your testimony at this time is given under the oath that you took yesterday when you first came in as a witness?
A Yes, I do.
Q I just have a couple of additional questions regarding the matters that we covered yesterday. You mentioned that your brother is now living in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Can you give us an address for him, sir?
A I don't know the exact address. He just moved recently.
Q Does being there have anything to do with Bob Stern, as you mentioned him as living in New Hope?
A No, he is living with a girl.
Q Do you have the address for your sister?
A 1010 Highland Park Road, Schenectady, New York.
Q When you were a resident surgeon at Columbia Presbyterian, who were you working with there, under whose supervision and direction?
A I was a surgical intern for twelve months. I didn't always work in the department of surgery but my superior was the chief of the department of surgery. Each month you rotate on a service.
Q I am just trying to ascertain who your close associates there were, people who might know you well.
A The people who know you best are the residents you work immediately under.
Q Could you mention a few names, people that you would give as a character reference, say?
A Dr Howard Bellin, B-e-l-l-i-n, who lives, I think, Park Avenue in New York now. The names of my residents escapes me right now.
Q Were you always in physician status while you while you were at Columbia Presbyterian or did there come a time when you were a patient there?
A I think I--I think I had pneumonia when I was an intern.
Q Did that require you to be hospitalized?
A Right, it did, right.
Q For a period of some weeks or an extended period of time?
A I think it was some days anyway.
Q Was there any surgical intervention for this pneumonia, condition to tap the lungs or drain the lungs or anything like that, sir?
Q When you were living here in Ft. Bragg, did you maintain a bank account?
A At Ft. Bragg?
A I'm sure we did.
Q When you were living there, did you have a bank account?
Q Do you remember the name of the bank?
A No, sir.
Q Was this a joint account that you had with Colette?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Was it a bank on base or in town?
A On post.
Q On post. Was it a bank or a saving and loan?
A We had a checking account. I don't know what kind of bank it was in.
Q Was this a bank maintained as part of the post facilities? I don't know what they have set up for the members of the military.
A It was like First Bankers Trust Company. It was a regular bank but they had a branch on the post.
Q Where you are living now, do you maintain a bank account?
Q Where do you bank?
A I have two bank accounts.
Q What are the banks?
A Bank of American is my corporate bank account and the American City Bank is my personal account.
Q They have branch banking in California, do they not?
Q Could you specify the branches?
A The Bank of American is the Huntington Harbor branch and the American City is, I guess, just the Long Beach branch. I don't know if it's a specific branch name to it.
Q Before I get into a different area of questions, Dr. MacDonald, as you know from the Article 32 hearing a couple of hairs turned up, specifically on the body of Colette, which have not been positively identified; and an effort has been made in the past to obtain hair samples from various individuals including yourself and hair samples were obtained from you and hair samples were obtained from some other people but not everyone from whom it was desired to have hair samples. And in the course of this, as a result of the hair samples that were taken from you, laboratory reports was submitted by the CID lab at Ft. Gordon. As I understand this laboratory report, the final conclusion was that they could neither state that one of the hairs corresponded to a hair sample obtained from you nor could they say it could not have been a hair sample that came from you.
A That is incorrect information.
Q As I read the report, Capt. MacDonald, I don't have it here.
A Mr. Woerheide--
Q Dr. MacDonald. As I read the report, they say that the hair that was taken from you did not come from enough points.
A That is incorrect, sir.
Q On your body.
A They have twelve hair samples from the head, armpits, pubic, legs, and chest. Where else do I have hair? The initial laboratory report stated without any question that the hair was dissimilar from my hair.
Q How many points on your head did they take hair samples?
A I don't know.
Q Was it more than one point?
A Yes, it was.
Q Can you tell me how many points?
A I don't remember. I was standing naked in my room while they were cutting hair from me.
Q Did they use scissors?
A Yes, they did.
Q Who removed the hairs?
A A physician from Special Forces. I don't remember--or the hospital. I don't know which one.
Q And where else did they obtain hair from you?
A Armpits, pubic area, legs. I don't know if they did my arms or not, and chest.
Q Well, we are advised, Dr. MacDonald, and we have to rely upon the information that is furnished to us at this time that in order to make a positive statement with respect to whether or not one of these hairs came from you, they need additional hair samples from you.
We also need a--
A I'd like to respond to that, sir, if I may at this time.
A That hair report was very, very clear when it was initially issued from the laboratory at Ft. Gordon. The laboratory technician issued a specific decision that the hair was dissimilar. There is no question what that means.
Q To the hair taken from you which they did examine, but in the second report--
A In the second report asked for by the prosecutor.
Q They said they needed additional samples. They needed hair from additional points on your body. Now, the report is clear in that respect, Mr. MacDonald; and I am not here to debate the matter with you. I am telling you what the situation is.
In addition to that, we are going to need footprints from you. In addition to that, we are going to ask for a photograph of your body that will reflect the scars or any marks or signs that indicate the injuries that you suffered as a result of the assault upon you or as a result of the medical treatment that resulted from that assault.
You did have medical treatment, did you not, that requires the insertion of two tubes?
A I did.
Q In your body?
A I did.
Q To eliminate the pneumothorax?
Q And the insertion of these tubes presumably would leave some sort of a mark on your body. Isn't that correct?
Q So at this time, I am asking you whether you will voluntarily agree to give additional hair samples, to give footprints, and to permit the making of the photographs that I have indicated to you.
A You are asking me four years later to give hair samples, footprints, and photographs?
Q That is correct, and we are not only going to ask you, but we are going to ask other persons who will be summoned to appear before this grand jury. You are just one of the number of individuals of whom we will make this request.
A I don't see any reason why not. I have to obviously speak to Mr. Segal.
Q If you wish to consult with Mr. Segal about this, you are at liberty to do so; and I would like to resolve this matter now because if after consulting with Mr. Segal, you inform us that you will not voluntarily cooperate in giving us additional hair samples, then we will have to go before the court and request a court order. And that will take a little time. And, if possible, I would like to obviate that.
A Can we have a two-minute recess?
Q Of course.
Q Mr. MacDonald, have you conferred with your attorney?
A I have, sir.
Q And are you prepared at this time to voluntarily agree to permit us to take the hair samples that we require for the further testing of the hair found on Colette's body and the footprints and the photographs that are requested of you?
A Sir, the delay was my lawyers, essentially writing a memo and Xeroxing a copy of it. The jury foreman has a copy of that. It really answers the question.
Q Will you pass that down here and permit me as counsel for the grand jury to examine it?
FOREMAN: Yes. It is five hand-lettered legal sheets.
MR. WOERHEIDE: This is an original and a Xerox copy of it?
FOREMAN: There are three addendums attached on the back.
A This is the original letter and the addendums. Just one single copy of it.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Ms. Reporter, will you mark that as MacDonald Exhibit #1 this date?
(MACDONALD EXHIBIT #1 IS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q Did your attorney give you any advice as to whether you should consent or refuse to comply with the request that I have made?
A He requested that my reply is essentially what is in that note. If you would like for me to read it, I will be glad to do that.
Q I'll read it to the members of the grand jury. It says:
“To the Foreman and Members of the Grand Jury.
I assume this is from Mr. Segal and not from you, sir?
A That is correct.
Q Because it does not say it, at least at the heading; but it is signed at the bottom, “Bernard L. Segal and Michael J. Malley, attorneys for the witness, Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald.”
“1. It is impossible for me to adequately advise Dr. MacDonald as to the appropriateness of the prosecutor's request for hair samples from him on the basis of a few minutes consultation. I would like to request that the decision on this matter--”
Well, there is a footnote here which I will read.
“Delay in Dr. MacDonald returning to the grand jury room was caused by my having to hand write this memo and make photocopies of the attached documents.”
The text continues:
“I would request that the decision on this matter be deferred until after the jury reconvenes from the lunch recess.
“Dr. MacDonald does agree now to have footprints taken of him and he also agrees to body photographs being taken.
“I apologize for any slight inconvenience that might result from my request to be able to consider further the hair matter. But I know of no legitimate reason the government's attorney did not advise Dr. MacDonald or myself last night that they intended to make such a request. It would have allowed us a reasonable opportunity to consider this issue and we could have been able to supply the grand jury with a prompt answer this morning without needless delay to your work.
“2. I want to make clear that my request for this opportunity to consider the hair matter further does not arise from any reluctance to cooperate fully with the grand jury. But, it does arise from the fact that government attorneys in the prior military grand jury investigation (that is the Article 32 proceedings you have heard referred to) did attempt and partially succeeded in altering the report of laboratory analysis of hair samples taken from nine different parts of Dr. MacDonald's body.
"I am attaching to this memo the report of Army Crime Lab Technician Janice Glisson, identified as Unit Case No. MPR 1277-70, carrying dates of July 20 and July 29, 1970, which evaluated the nine hair samples taken from Dr. MacDonald and compared with samples of hair found in the right and left hand of the body of Mrs. Colette MacDonald. That report states on the top of page 2 that: 'Comparative examinations of the hairs from exhibit E-4 and E-5 revealed same to be dissimilar to the hairs from Exhibit E305 through E313.'”
The word dissimilar is underscored and at the bottom of the quoted sentence I read, it reads, “(Emphasis added).”
“That is Ms.”, it says here, “Glisson concluded the hairs in the hands of Mrs. MacDonald were dissimilar to those from nine different parts of Dr. MacDonald's body.
"I am also enclosing a copy of a letter under date of August 25, 1970, by government attorney Capt. Clifford Somers asking for a so-called ‘clarification' of the perfectly clear report of Ms. Glisson.
"And finally, I am enclosing the reply of September 2, 1970, of Ms. Glisson.”
For the benefit of the Reporter, it is G-l-i-s-s-o-n.
“Among the things I am troubled by in the government's present request are the following:
“1. The fact that the government's attorneys today attempted to deny the categorical conclusions of Ms. Glisson's original report, and the failure to tell the grand jury of the letter by Capt. Somers asking for change in the way Ms. Glisson wrote her report.
“2. There are to our knowledge no meaningful areas of Dr. MacDonald from which hair samples were not taken. The samples were taken from several different places on his head, armpits, both arms, both legs, chest area, public area.
“3. The Army investigations negligently failed to take samples from the body of Mrs. MacDonald and Kimberley MacDonald. Therefore, there was no way in 1970 and no way in 1974 that the hair found in Mrs. MacDonald's hand can be checked to see if it was from her own body or from the body of her daughter Kim.”
Now, there are three attachments. One is a report; a lab report which I think is made under the date of 29 July 1970. It lists as exhibits pill vials, two of which contain hairs found in the right and left hands of Mrs. MacDonald. And eleven of which refer to pill vials containing hair removed from various points of then Capt. MacDonald's body. The concluding statement is, “Comparative examinations of the hairs from Exhibits E-4 and E-5 revealed same to be dissimilar to the hairs from E-305 through E-313." The report is signed by Janice S. Glisson, Arthur Boyd Conners, Joel L. Leson.
I wear trifocal glasses and sometimes I have trouble focusing.
The second attachment is a letter or a memorandum--well, memo or a letter. It is dated 25, August 1970. It's captioned. “Subject: Clarification of Lab Report.” Referring to the report by its number. It is addressed to the chief chemist of the criminal investigation division laboratory at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
The first paragraph refers to the report that I just read to you. The second paragraph reads as follows:
“It is of critical importance to the government to know and be able to show the meaning of the language.” That is the comparative examinations of the hair from exhibits E-4 and E-5 revealed same to be dissimilar to the hairs from exhibits E-305 through E-313.
Second sentence of second paragraph:
“Does this mean that the hair in E-305 through E-313 is so dissimilar to that in E-4 and E-5 that the source of the hair in E-305 through E-313 is positively eliminated as a possible source of the hair in E-4 and E-5? Or alternatively, does it mean that the source of the hair in E-305 through E-313 can neither be identified nor eliminated as the source of the hair in
E-4 and E-5?”
“If possible, I request that a written reply be afforded directly to me clarifying this point.
Thank you for your time and consideration.”
And the letter went out with the signature of Clifford L. Somers, Capt. JAGC, Government Counsel.
The final attachment is a memo responding to the letter that I just read. It's signed by Janice S. Glisson, Arthur B. Conners, and James P. Ryan.
The first paragraph refers to the preceding letter.
Paragraph 2: “The following statements are to be added to page 2 of subject report for clarification:
“a. Therefore, it is the opinion of the examiners that the hairs of exhibits E-4 and E-5 probably did not originate from the same point” and the words “same point” are underscored, “sources”--I'll read it in context--“did not originate from the same point sources as the hairs of E-305 through E-313.
“b. However, it must be pointed out that the requested opinion regarding positively eliminating the subject as a possible source of the hair cannot be given without first examining numerous other point sources of body hair from the subject.”
Capt. or Dr. MacDonald, I'm sorry, I read these materials and it refers to you as captain.
A I understand.
Q And I don't deliberately use the military title.
In view of the fact that you, as I understand it, on advice of your counsel, are consenting to have the footprint made and have the photographs made, and I will at the break, the noon recess, contact the local FBI office and arrange for them to take the footprints and make the photographs. And we will hold in abeyance--I understand you are neither refusing nor consenting at this time, but you and your attorneys wish the matter to be given further consideration. And I am going to hold in abeyance the matter of taking additional hair samples.
Now, I might say, Dr. MacDonald, that I don't think there is any misunderstanding on the part of the grand jury or on the part of myself concerning the sense or meaning of the documents that are attached here. And I'll explain what my sense is; and if you question that, you may so state.
The sentence in the first attachment that goes to the substance is the following:
“Comparative examination of the hairs from exhibits E-4 and E-5”, that is the hairs taken from Colette's body, “revealed same to be dissimilar to the hairs from exhibits e-305 through E-313.”
The sense of my understanding of it is they couldn't say that they matched the hair that was taken from your body which was included in the E-305 through E-313 and that's the way that I understand it. They couldn't say, “Yes, we can identify this as Mr. MacDonald's--Dr. MacDonald's hair.” That's all it says.
A Sir, it reads to me that it is different.
Q You are entitled to interpret it in your own way but that's the way that I interpret it.
It doesn't say we eliminate Dr. MacDonald entirely as the source of the hair found in Colette's hand but we can't say that he is the source of the hair. So the government says does that mean--in substance, does that mean that you have eliminated Dr. MacDonald entirely? Can you say positively that the hair found in Colette's hands did not come from Dr. MacDonald?
They come back and say, “No, we can't say positively. All we can say is that we didn't have enough samples to arrive at a definite determination of that particular matter.
"That we need hair samples from other parts of his body.”
Now, I might say, Dr. MacDonald, just for edification that I discussed this matter with a technician in the FBI laboratory in Washington; and it is my opinion based upon what this technician told me--This is a technician independent of the CID lab at Ft. Gordon that made the comparison--It is my opinion that not enough hair samples were taken from you at that time by inexperienced personnel who were not engaged in the type of work that involves making hair comparisons. That not enough hair samples were taken at that time and I was told with the passage of time, with the aging process, with the change in climate, with you living in a different climate now than you lived then, with the change in diet, it becomes difficult to make--it becomes increasingly difficult with the passage of time to make a positive identification. But what we are trying to do, as you know, in this grand jury, it is an investigative grand jury. We are trying to run out all the logical leads. I have informed you that we are not only asking you but we will ask other witnesses who are summoned to appear before the grand jury to give hair samples.
We feel that this case is of sufficient importance. You have lost your family. You've lost your wife and your two children. To make a complete, thorough, exhaustive investigation, to attempt to correct the mistakes that were made in the past, to attempt to overcome the deficiencies of the previous investigation, and out of--as a matter of justice to you and Colette and Kimberley and Kristen and to anybody whose finger is pointed at by you or anybody else as a possible suspect of this. So we are going to go all the way. That is why we are asking you to accede to this request.
A Sir, this is not easy for me to appear here. You know this is my family that I lost. I get accused of it. They don't even interview me.
Q We are not accusing you of it.
A I am talking about back in 1970. They don't interview me for six weeks. Although I go to their office and ask don't you have any questions; don't you want to talk to me. No, no, no, we have suspects in custody. Six weeks go by. Fourteen MPs tramping through the house. Then I have to spend four years reliving this and I come back here in 1974 and you ask me for hair samples. We have testimony under oath, sir, those investigators in any other hair case have never asked for a rewording. Never. Under oath. That is not a routine procedure. That is changing evidence.
Q Dr. MacDonald, you have complained--
A I asked for a civilian investigation in 1970. The Army investigated itself.
Q You have had justification. I have no doubt from my own review of what happened for making certain complaints as to the investigation.
A You could never reconstruct the initial hour of that crime scene.
Q Dr. MacDonald, we are going to do the best that we can; and all I am asking you is your voluntary cooperation.
A I am here to cooperate, sir. I want--
Q I understand that and I expect after the noon recess--
A I have never refused to talk--to talk to anyone. I have never pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
Q I understand that.
A Until my lawyers got to me, I offered to give a polygraph examination.
Q On the basis of what has happened heretofore; I expect that you will consent to give us hair samples. Now, you say you offered to give a polygraph examination. At this time, in aid of the present grand juror investigation, will you agree to submit to a polygraph examination?
A I don't want another recess, sir. Let me talk about that with my attorney at lunchtime.
Q And another thing while we are discussing these examinations, would you consent--now I am just throwing this out, raise the question with your attorney--I understand at the time that Dr. Sadoff examined you, there was some consider--and the doctors at Walter Reed examined you, there was some consideration given to asking you to take a sodium amytal, truth serum, and submit to an examination under the influence of this truth serum. So I am going to ask you to consider and discuss with your attorney cooperating with the grand jury to the extent--in aiding the grand jury to the extent of taking both the polygraph and the sodium amytal examination.
A Let me make a comment about the sodium amytal interview. This was discussed with Dr. Sadoff and it was discussed at the Article 32 hearing and Dr. Sadoff's recommendation was that unless there was an overriding need for sodium amytal interview, unless there were facts, and I repeat the word facts, that there was a need for an amytal interview--that an amytal interview recreates--
Q May I assist you by saying that it causes you to relive the experience concerning which you are being examined and that would constitute a painful ordeal for you. And in his opinion at that time, you should be spared the experience?
Q Dr. MacDonald, the event happened four years ago. I think you will agree that it is high time that the matter was resolved.
A But resolved in what fashion, sir, to cover up the CID investigation again?
Q I am not trying to cover up the CID investigation.
A The second Army investigation was finished a year and a half ago. Now, this is unbelievable.
Q This case came to me a month ago.
A Sir, I'm not blaming you. I'm saying the Army reinvestigation, this alleged ten thousand or three thousand page reinvestigation of the Army--a reinvestigation of the Army's handling by the Army--
Q We are going to go into that. We are going to afford you an opportunity. That is one of the reasons why you are here. To inquire into acts connected with the investigation in the subsequent handling of the case that might constitute a criminal offense. And I am going to go into that with you. As a matter of fact, we are going to go into that with a number of other people; and we will go into that in detail. But I don't think that this is the time that we do want to go into it. I am mentioning these things at this time so that you can discuss them in depth with Mr. Segal and Mr. Malley and make your own decisions with respect to these matters.
A Okay. Can I discuss with them at lunchtime the polygraph and the sodium amytal?
Q Yes. I might say if you decline to give the hair samples, we will seek a court order. With respect to the polygraph and sodium amytal, I will not seek a court order. That has to be voluntary upon your part.
MR. WOERHEIDE: My clock says almost 11:30. Do you want to go on with further questioning at this time or do you want to recess until 1 o'clock?
FOREMAN: We lost so much time; I'd just as soon go ahead for at least another half hour or so.
A By the way, sir, I'd like to state on the record that these recesses of such length are not my idea at all. I'd like to make that clear that I'd like to come here and testify.
Q I understand, Dr. MacDonald--I understand that you were sitting there alone and your attorneys had taken off and you were--informed Mr. McNamara that you would like to proceed with the matter but you, of course, had to wait the return of your attorneys.
Dr. MacDonald, while you were at Ft. Bragg, I think you said that you came there about sometime in August. Who were your closest and most intimate associates? I've heard certain names: Lt. Harrison is one that I remember.
A Lt. Harrison was not a close friend until the mid-winter, actually just before 17 February 1970; and thereafter, he became a better friend. I hate--It really sounds derogatory. I don't mean derogatory but sort of a hanger on after that.
Q Is his full name Ronald Harrison?
Q Do you have an address for him now?
A I do not.
Q Do you know whether he has been discharged from the Army?
A I presume he has not been discharged. The last communication I had with him was about a year ago. He was going to a school at Ft. Benning, Georgia; and it was a type of school that leads to career type opportunities. So I presume that he is in the Army.
Q Now, you say he came late into your circle of friends. Let's go back to August. Who were your closest friends?
A I believe Capt. Frank Moore. I met him immediately.
Q Is that M-o-o-r-e?
A Correct. Formerly, he lived in Fayetteville. I don't know if he still lives there.
Q Was he a medical officer?
A No, he was a medical service corps officer. There will be a lot of that mentioned; the medical service corps officer is an officer attached to medical detachments. And normally what they do is shepherd the doctor through the Army. The doctor comes in the Army and he doesn't know the Army and the medical service corps handles a lot of administrative matters while the physician handles the medical matters. So Capt. Frank Moore was initially my medical service corps officer.
Q Now, will you give us some other names please?
A I don't know actually how soon I met Capt. James Williams who was another medical service corps officer. Lt. Thoesen. He was a lieutenant.
Q That's T-h-o-e--
A T-h-o-e-s-e-n. There were lots of physicians. Not lots, but initially two or three physicians involved. But they were leaving the service as I was entering and then a new group sort of came in. Capt. Robert Butner, B-u-t-n-e-r. Capt. Charles Probst, P-r-o-b-s-t. I believe he now resides in Philadelphia. He was a medical officer. That was probably my closest circle of friends.
Q Were they your personal friends or were they family friends in the sense they'd come to your house? They knew Colette. They knew your way of life. They knew the family environment?
A Right, both. They were friends at work. They were friends of the family. They knew Colette and the children.
Q Did Colette have any special friends while she was there? I know that she was going to extension classes and I know that you were out of town occasionally; moonlighting. You had one car. She would depend on other people for transportation I assume. She had companions at school. She had neighbors.
A Right. She associated. She would see more of the neighbors that were home during the day than I would. The people next door, the Kalins. He's the chief warrant officer, Donald Kalin, and his wife, Mrs. Kalin. I don't know her first name. She was relatively friendly with Capt. Butner's wife, Carol Butner. She went to school with a girl who testified at the Article 32 hearing who I never met. I believe her name was Krystia, K-r-y-s-t-i-a. I don't know that individual. Apparently Colette drove to school with her.
Q Do you recall any other special friends that she had?
A Not offhand, sir.
Q Now, from the time that you were first sent to Ft. Bragg, on how many occasions did you have to leave there for any reason at all because of some training or emergency or anything of that sort?
A How many total times?
Q If you can recall them. I am asking you for your best recollection.
A You mean up until February 17?
Q Yes. I assume you didn't leave Ft. Bragg after February except to go to--
Q Philadelphia and Washington, D. C. to Walter Reed.
A Correct. I went to Texas. I went to Puerto Rico. I went to the North Carolina mountains, I don't know, once or twice, on training exercises. I moonlighted and that meant several nights away from home.
Q When did you start moonlighting?
A I remember it was sometime in the fall. I don't remember what month I started at Cape Fear Valley Hospital.
Q You moonlighted two hospitals, Cape Fear Valley and--
A Hamlet Hospital.
Q Did you moonlight at any other place?
A I don't think that I ever worked--There was a third place that I had received privileges at. I was getting privileges at Lumberton but I don't think I ever worked there.
Q Now, when was it that you went to Texas?
A I was--I was the medical coverage for jump, an airborne jump of Special Forces medics who were training down there; and it was a weekend, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. I guess Sunday in November, December of 1969.
Q Would it be early in December?
A I don't know. I guess.
Q Sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Can you place it in relationship to those two holidays?
A It must have been in early December. It wasn't right next to Christmas.
Q As a matter of fact, you had some house guest over Thanksgiving did you not?
Q Did your mother come down?
A I don't know if my mother was there. I think the Kassabs were there. My in-laws were there.
Q The Kassabs were there--Weren't the Kassabs there around Christmas? Wasn't your mother there around Thanksgiving?
A I thought the Kassabs were there Thanksgiving. I think you are right. You are right. Okay. Right. My mother was there for Thanksgiving. We had a big dinner. The Butners were over. Ron Harrison was over and the Kassabs were down for Christmas. That's correct.
Q All right, now when your mother was there for Thanksgiving, what were the arrangements in your house? Did the girls sleep together and your mother occupy one of the beds, say, Kimberley's bed?
A I don't remember, sir. I don't remember.
Q She stayed with you, did she not?
A Yes. She could have slept on the couch or she could have slept in Kimberley's bed or Kristy's bed.
Q Now, when the Kassabs were there what were the household arrangements?
A I don't remember.
Q Did they stay with you or did they stay in a motel nearby?
A I assumed they stayed with us. I don't think I would let them stay in a motel. I would presume they stayed with us so they probably used Kimberley's bed and Kimberley would either sleep with Kristy or on the couch or with us.
Q Kimberley had a double bed didn't she, or what you call a queen size bed?
A A double bed. I don't think it was a queen size.
Q And Kris had a somewhat smaller bed?
A Yes. The bottom half of a set of bunks.
Q Do you recall how long your mother was there on her visit over Thanksgiving?
A She was working so I am sure it was just Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving weekend.
Q That would be a long weekend?
A Wednesday to Sunday I would presume unless--
Q How about the Kassabs?
A I don't know. I would guess four or five days.
Q Do you recall a Christmas party or a New Year's party during this visit?
A They weren't there at New Year's, I don't think. No, I think we went to the officers club, Pope Air Force Base for New Year's. So the Kassabs were not there at that time.
A Yes, Christmas for the opening of the gifts.
Q How about Puerto Rico now? When did you go there?
A Sometime in--I am trying to think who my commanding officer was and that would make it easier. I don't know. I would guess September. It wasn't in August I don't think. September or October, somewhere in there.
Q And that was a training exercise?
Q You flew down in a military plane?
Q And you were in fatigues?
Q Did you carry much gear and equipment with you?
A Sure. We carried I guess a big duffle bag and whatnot.
Q Were you carrying medical gear, medical kit, or were you carrying jump gear or survival gear or--
A We didn't carry our own jump gear. That was transported. I had a large duffle bag with my own gear. The medical gear was transported separately. I may have had a small kit, an M3-8 kit. I'm not sure. I probably just had my personal gear for the actual transportation.
Q And the necessary clothes that you would use and they were sort of clothes that you would use out in the field rather than around the base. In other words, not a Class A uniform but fatigues?
A I had a khaki uniform with me. I think we were told to bring one for off duty time or something. I think we were told that we would have a day off in Ponce or San Juan before we left. I think--I know that we had a separate khaki uniform with us.
Q Now during this period of time, did you go on emergency leave? Was this some sort of family crisis that took you away from the training?
A Yes, it was.
Q Was that while you were in Puerto Rico?
A Yes, it was. I wasn't actually--Yes, at that point, I don't think I was in Puerto Rico. I was on an island off Puerto Rico and I received notification of a need for emergency leave.
Q And what was the nature of the emergency?
A At the time, I didn't know. I was just told--I believe I was told that my brother was hospitalized. I subsequently found out that he was in a state hospital. He had a bad reaction to drugs and apparently beat up some policemen, was put in a strait jacket and was taken to the state hospital with handcuffs on. I think he had a broken wrist or something and then he dove through the window of the state hospital.
So I arrived there like a day and a half later and he was still sort of--I don't think he was still in restraints. He wasn't in restraints. He had been medicated with something called Thorazine which is a heavy tranquilizer.
Q Where was the state hospital located, Dr. MacDonald?
A On Long Island. I guess it was Islip State Hospital.
Q I am told there is a Pilgrims State Hospital in that area. Could it have been that?
A Yes, probably was. That's right.
Q You think it is more likely to have been Pilgrims than Islip?
A Yes, I think so.
Q Is that very near to Patchogue?
A It's very--I guess twelve to fifteen miles.
Q Now, when you proceeded from this small island off the coast of Puerto Rico, how did you travel? Did you have military orders that permitted you to go up there or did you have to go commercially?
A I landed at JFK so I must have taken a commercial flight. I don't remember where I hooked up to the commercial flight. I took a flight back to--I think I took a military flight either back to Atlanta or directly to Ft. Bragg and then got a civilian flight. I honestly don't remember but I landed at JFK on a civilian jet.
Q Did you come back with all your gear or did you leave it down there because you were leaving on an emergency basis?
A I left some of it down there.
Q Do you remember what you were wearing?
A When I came back?
A The best I can say is if I came back on a military plane I was probably still in khakis, sort of jungle gear and then I changed at Ft. Bragg if I came back all the way civilian from San Juan. I honestly don't remember. If I came back from San Juan, I would have put on the khakis.
Q When you got up to Kennedy where did you go?
A I'm not sure I landed at Kennedy. Yes, I landed at Kennedy and I drove out to the Island, Long Island.
Q No one met you?
A I am confusing that trip in my mind. I remember I arrived at Kennedy one other time in Class A's and my brother picked me up. Obviously, this is not this time. So I am trying to remember. I presume my mother would have picked me up. I really have no recollection of this.
Q Did you stay with your mother?
A I'm sure I did.
Q How long were you there?
A Two and a half, three days. Something like that.
Q Did you succeed in helping with the problems your brother was having then?
A Well, yes. I mean they weren't resolved. I helped. He was eventually discharged from the state mental hospital, yes. The problem wasn't resolved.
Q Do you recall whether or not at the time he was arrested and apparently reacting in a very violent manner that your mother was somehow involved in that?
A I was told bits and pieces of that by, I believe, a psychiatrist that I talked to at the state hospital and by my mother; but my mother didn't ever really fill me in on the entire episode. She was present apparently when he was handcuffed and I can't figure out from the conversation whether she was trying to prevent the handcuffing or whether she was allowing the handcuffing and Jay, my brother, James, was being violent. I don't know whether she was really preventing the police from their actions or not preventing them.
Q Well, the sum and substance of it is, did she suffer any bruises or abrasions or injuries? Was she slapped or kicked during the course of this incident whether it was by Jay or somebody else?
A I don't think so. I don't think so.
Q Did you visit with any friends while you were at Patchogue at that time?
A Not that I remember.
Q You don't recall seeing any friends at all?
A Friends of my mother probably would have stopped in the house but I don't that that--
Q I think I have the name correct and this is a name that has cropped up. I am going to throw it out to you at this time. How about Carol Larson?
Q Do you know who I mean?
A She is an old girlfriend of mine.
Q And you didn't see her on that occasion?
A No, sir.
Q Now, you mentioned another trip when you were picked up by your brother. Do you recall what that occasion was?
A Yes. I was coming back home. I had finished jump school at Ft. Benning, Georgia; reported in--I believe I reported--Let me get this straight. I was--It was between reporting to from Ft. Benning, Georgia, to Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, I think. Because I don't think that I had my green beret yet.
Q That was probably before Colette and the kids came down to Ft. Bragg then wasn't it?
A That's correct.
Q You mentioned a couple of trips to the North Carolina mountains. Was that in the fall of 1969?
A Yes, it was.
Q Or was that in the winter of '69-70?
A In the winter of '69-70?
Q Yes. I am trying to place the time. Was it in November?
A It was in the fall, sir.
Q October or November?
A There was no snow yet.
Q Or maybe early December or late December or January?
Q Early February?
A No. I don't think it was in the winter. It was in the fall.
Q The best we can place it is sometime around October, November, or possibly early December. Is that it?
A I initially--Actually I know when I went once. I went shortly after I got to Ft. Bragg. So one was in September.
Q I believe one was--I don't remember if there were two, but if there were two, the first one was about a week. I distinctly remember was a long training trip. I was up there probably about a week.
Q And the second one was of shorter duration?
Q Now, I know there has been some talk about this famous jump party down in Texas. I won't go into that at this time.
A Feel free, sir.
Q I'll save that for a later point but I just want to know whether there was any social activity when you went down to the North Carolina mountains comparable to the so-called jump party?
A No, sir. There were some--There were some unusual events but it wasn't a similar type of party.
Q Well, I don't quite know what you mean by unusual events. Maybe you better just elucidate briefly. I don't want you to go into any detail.
A We met some moonshiners.
Q That's not unusual down in the North Carolina mountains is it?
A It was to me. I thought that my medical service corps officer was kidding me. They just came out of the woods with a brown paper bag and squatted down next to the campfire. It was unbelievable.
Q With a jug?
A With a jug.
Q In the bag?
A They didn't say a word for twenty minutes. I kept looking at them and finally he said, “Take a sip.” And this went on for a long time. To make a long story short, we ended up about 4 a.m. in his mother's house. I was taking a piece of shrapnel out of his wife's shoulder that he had put there when he discharged the gun into the floor. It really got a little unusual. It was an old shrapnel wound, not that night. And he got absolutely roaring drunk, this moonshiner; and he kind of demanded that I take it out. So I looked at my medical service corps officer and he said, “If he says take it out, you take it out.” So I took it out. We then departed. Got back to camp about four-thirty a.m. and got up at five a.m.
Q Now, going back to the occasion when you took the emergency leave and traveled from down near Puerto Rico up to Patchogue, you remember at that time you were short of funds and had to borrow some money?
A You mean from Puerto Rico?
A I don't distinctly remember it, no. I am sure it was offered by the guys that were with me but I don't know if I took it or not.
Q Do you remember borrowing some money up in Long Island?
Q Now, during the Article 32, you were asked a series of about four questions that opened up an area but they didn't close it. The matter was not resolved. I don't have the transcript here but you were asked, did you at that time go to a certain bar which was a bar that apparently your brother Jay frequented.
A The Shortstop Bar.
Q Shortstop Bar. Where is that bar located?
A I don't remember. I have been into a lot of bars to bail my brother out. It was either in New York, in Greenwich Village. I think that's where it is actually.
Q So while you were there you went down to New York, Greenwich Village, and you went to this bar?
Q What was the purpose in going to this bar?
A To find out who had been selling by brother drugs.
Q What drugs was your brother using?
A He stated that he had been taking amphetamines, uppers; and then the night of this bad trip, he told me that someone had given him two capsules; typical drug abuser comment.
And I said, “What were they?” And he said he didn't know. He presumed they were mescaline or LSD. Actually I presume that because he was in this tremendous hallucinatory state.
He was having wild hallucinations, but when I questioned him, it was apparent that he had been speeding, taking amphetamines, for a long time that I hadn't been aware of. And on reflection then, some of his prior actions seemed a lot more in tune with his speeding.
For instance, he used to drive from New York to Chicago non-stop. And I use to wonder how the hell can anyone do that. It's a long drive. And he used to stay up all the time. He used to party day and night. It never occurred to me that my brother would be taking amphetamines.
Q All right, now you were asked this, when you were at the bar, you had seen certain people, referring to four people that your brother associated with?
Q Tell us about that.
A I don't believe I was asked that. That was indirect. I am not, you know, disagreeing with you.
Q I say they opened a certain area but they didn't pursue it; and from reading the file, from reading the--
A The implication was that I may have seen these people.
Q Reading Article 32, I know they are referring to a group of four people who allegedly frequented that bar. Now tell us about it?
A Okay. The implication that was gotten through a lot of other testimony that was really third-hand and fourth-hand hearsay. It was unbelievable. My brother knew a group that corresponded roughly to this group of intruders that I had seen in my house on 17 February.
Q You went to this bar?
Q You saw people in the bar?
Q Now, tell us about them.
A I spoke to a couple of individuals, Caucasian males. At that point, I had absolutely no reference to this other group until a CID agent, Bennie Hawkins, walks into the Article 32 with this wild bizarre story about another group of four people, including a black male and a blonde female. But at the Shortstop Bar I was unaware of this other group.
Q Well, tell us--describe to us the people that you saw in the Shortstop Bar.
A They were just bums. A bunch of guys that don't work for a living. A lot of my brother's friends are that way. They live with girls or they live--one of them goes on welfare and six or eight of them live together. One gets welfare; two gets welfare; one works construction.
Construction is good money so they share the money. They are just bums. They sit and drink all night and now I find out are taking a lot of drugs.
Q All right, what did they look like? How old were they? How tall were they? Give us a physical description.
A I tell you the truth, Mr. Woerheide, I'm really dragging--This is hazy stuff that I am trying to tell you now and make it sound positive. I had an argument in the Shortstop Bar with a couple of guys who said they knew Jay. And I had been told that the bartender was one of the guys supplying Jay with speed. So I guess I got a little pushy with them and there was a little scuffle thereon and I hit the guy or something like that. And I honestly don't--He was a Caucasian male, brown hair. I'd say probably about six feet tall.
Q All right, you are referring to the bartender?
A I don't know if he was a bartender or not. He was sitting at the end of the bar. There was another bartender. But I was told he was a bartender. I don't know if he was a bartender at the Short--you know. I come flying in from Puerto Rico and find my brother in a mental institution. Get him out. And I am really mad. And I went to New York City and spent about an hour talking to some people. “Where's Jay?” “Oh, he's out on the island.” “I heard he had some trouble,” type thing. So I got into sort of a shooting contest with this dope.
Q You say shooting contest. You were shooting off your mouth and he was shooting off your (sic) mouth.
A Yeah, I asked him--
Q There was a little pushing and shoving?
A I went up to him and I said, “Do you know Jay MacDonald?” “Yeah, I know Jay.” I said, “Do you know he is in the state hospital,” words to that effect. And the guy said, “Well, no, I didn't know that.” I said, “Yeah, he had a bad reaction to some pills someone gave him.” And he said, “Oh,” or something. And I said, “Yeah.” And I probably told him he was an ass-hole. And I heard that he had given him the pills. And he said he didn't. You know, who the hell did I think I was sitting in a public bar accusing him of that. So the words got a little heated and I pushed him and he pushed me and I hit him.
Q Was there a blonde woman there, a girl?
A Not that I remember. I am sure there was in the bar at some point but I don't remember.
Q Did this fellow have a mustache?
A I don't think that the guy that I had the action--There were several people there but the guy that I was talking with had--did not have a mustache I don't think.
Q Was there a black man there?
A No, not that I remember.
Q One man that stands out in your mind is the bartender who was at the end of the bar that was about six feet tall?
A If this is the same bar that I am thinking of, yes. It is a triangular shaped room and the bar down at the window at the point of the triangle, that end of the bar, if this is that episode. I've bailed my brother out of a lot of trouble on a lot--He is an older brother. I've bailed him out a lot.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Mr. Foreman, my clock says twelve o'clock.
FOREMAN: All right, let's take a lunch recess to about--
MR. WOERHEIDE: When do you want to reconvene the grand jury? Do you want to make it 1:15?
FOREMAN: 1:15, all right.
The afternoon session of the grand jury reconvened at 1:15 p.m. The following proceedings were held to wit:
(Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald resumes the stand.)
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Dr. MacDonald, you realize that your testimony at this time, as on any occasion when you are recalled before the grand jury after a recess, is under the oath previously administered to you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Dr. MacDonald, have you had an opportunity to consult with your counsel, Mr. Segal and Mr.--
Q Malley concerning our request as to the taking of hair samples?
A Yes, I have, sir.
Q And what is your response?
A Can I refer to some notes?
A I don't--I am willing to give hair samples to a qualified technician, hopefully from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and not from the Army.
Q I have consulted with Special Agent Don Murray of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and he has told me that he will arrange with a qualified physician or doctor to take those hair samples under the Federal Bureau of Investigation's supervision.
Q Is that a satisfactory arrangement with you?
A Yes, I'd just like to make some comments in reference to that.
Q And we will also, I might say, probably have present a technician who specializes in the examination of hair samples.
A Fine. I'd just like to make some comments for on the record reference to the hair samples.
I'm agreeing and will give whatever hair samples are requested or taken by the alleged expert that will be at the hair sample procedure. But, I'd like to make several comments.
One is that we have been led to believe by the CID agents themselves and the Fort Gordon laboratory that the hair samples found in my wife's hands were two to three inches in length. I'd just like to remind the grand jury that I was an Airborne Green Beret physician at this time. And, I had no hair, except possibly armpit hair, of two to three inches in length.
It's just absurd to say that I did.
The second thing is that personally my counsel and myself see absolutely no problem with the original wording of the hair sample report from Fort Gordon, Georgia. It sounds very clear.
However, I'd also like to state and get it on the record that even if these hair samples taken now, four years later, were found somehow to match up beautifully with the hair samples in my wife's hands, I would not consider that as a very significant finding in view of the testimony taken under oath in the Article 32 hearing, that not only I moved her hands but several other people moved her hands before the hair samples were taken, including another physician.
And I'd just like that to be understood. This hair sample became a tremendous problem at the Article 32 hearing. And the problem should be obviated by what I just said. The physician who came in to pronounce death didn't even wash his hands before he went from Kimberly and Kris to Colette. And her hands were moved several times before these alleged samples were taken.
Q Dr. MacDonald, all these facts will be brought to the attention of the grand jury.
A I just felt that if--
Q And you, of course--I'm not objecting to your expressing your views. You are free to express your views and I'm perfectly aware of the various considerations that you have stressed and emphasized in the remarks you have just made. They are matters of concern to me and they are matters within my knowledge, too. And, as I explained to you previously, I doubt if this examination will be definitive for various reasons. Nevertheless, I feel, in view of the fact that it became such an element of controversy so far as the investigation was concerned, the Article 32 hearing was concerning, and I believe it was made an element of controversy not so much by the submissions made by the government in connection with the case but by the cross-examination and the arguments that were presented by your counsel at the time, that we have to go into it now and attempt to resolve some of these questions.
Now, that's as far as I care to make a statement on these hair samples. I appreciate your cooperation. We will notify the Federal bureau of Investigation and the Federal bureau of Investigation will make the necessary arrangements.
Q Now shortly before the break, we were talking about Patchogue and your visit to this bar in Greenwich Village.
A Sir, can I say two things with reference to the prior conversation that I remember.
Well, what I do when I leave here, by the way, is I get debriefed. I have to try to remember what was said in this room and then tell them my answers. So, that's what I do for the last hour and a half. And things come up. Your memory is jogged again.
You asked me--I believe you asked me, when I got to the airport who picked me up. And, I said, Jay.
Q On one trip?
Q Now, your memory has been refreshed by talking to your attorneys and giving the matter further consideration?
A That it was Jay and Colette and Kim and Kris that was there. Jay was driving. That's why I responded, “Jay”.
I just wanted to make the record more complete.
In addition, I believe my brother was a sometime bartender at the Shortstop also. I don't think that I ever mentioned that. I don't know in fact that he was, but I think he was a bartender on and off at the same bar. I think that's how I got there.
Q Well, I thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Now, when you left Patchogue to return to Fort Bragg, or did you go back to Fort Bragg after that emergency leave?
A Surely, back to Fort Bragg.
Q You didn't go back to Puerto Rico?
A No, I don't think so.
Q Just came back to Fort Bragg?
A I believe so.
Q Do you remember how you left Patchogue?
Q Did you take a train?
A I could have. That would have been an unusual occurrence. I don't remember taking a train. It's much more likely that my mother drove me to the airport.
Q You don't remember going to the train station?
A I took a train one trip back to the island, but I don't remember when it was. I don't know
--I don't distinctly recollect it was this time.
Q Well traveling from Patchogue to Manhattan, Greenwich Village, would you have taken a train for that trip?
A No. Usually not. No.
Q How would you make that trip?
A You drive. It's sixty miles.
Q Isn't there a commuter service train between Patchogue and Manhattan?
A There are some trains. It's not really a good commuter service.
Q Is that where the Long Island Railroad runs?
Q The train station at Patchogue is Long Island Railroad train?
Q And people use that for going back and forth to Manhattan?
Q Isn't that more expeditious than going by car and trying to find a place to park in Manhattan?
A No. The train trip is two hours and driving is an hour because of the number of stops.
Q Do you remember on this occasion using the train?
Q Do you remember that you did not use the train?
Q You remember on one occasion that you did travel by train?
A Yes. The only distinct recollection I have was going--I don't know how I would get from an airport to a train station, but I think I went out to the island by train one time. I don't really remember the other way. It may have happened. I honestly don't remember.
Q Dr. MacDonald, I'm going to ask you at this time to try to recall as best you can every person to whom you made a statement recounting the events of the night of February 16, 17, 1970. At this juncture I'm not going to ask you what you said to them. I'm just going to ask you if you recall talking to various people, who I will mention by name, if you recall talking to other people on various occasions and giving them some statement, however brief, however lacking in detail, concerning the events of that night.
Now, among the first people that arrived at your house on that morning were a Lt. Paulk, a CID agent named Mica, and a CID agent named Tevere.
A Mica and Tevere were MPs.
Q They're MPs.
Q Did you make a statement to them concerning what had transpired upon their arrival?
A Not a statement.
Q I'm not talking about a formal statement.
A I know. I understand that.
Q Did you give some information to them?
A I listened to their testimony, and they told me they were the ones I was talking to. I was not aware of it at the time. I didn't know it was Mica, Tevere and Paulk. I talked to some MPs in the house that night. Yes.
Q And you told them what transpired prior to their arrival?
Q I mean the fact that there were intruders, that you had been assaulted, after you recovered awareness following an interlude, certain things that you observed?
A That's right.
Q Certain things that you did?
Q And they came to your house approximately four o'clock, is that it, or slightly before four o'clock?
A That's what the testimony was. I don't know that, sir. I don't know if you want my answer to be what I know now to be considered a fact, like times and stuff. I wasn't aware when they arrived that it was four o'clock. Do you follow me?
Q Yes. But it was somewhere within that time frame?
A It was nearly morning.
Q And it was during the night and before dawn at that time of the year?
Q Now, there were certain medics that I am informed came to the house. Names that I have are: Nuchereno, Gillespie, (unreadable) and Yaeger.
A I have no knowledge of any of them.
Q When the medics were there did you make certain statements to the medics or certain statements in the presence of the medics?
A Not that I am aware of.
Q Recounting what had transpired before they arrived?
A You mean like laying on the stretcher I said something, but I don't remember talking to anyone. No.
Q All right, now, the medics took you to the hospital. When you arrived at the hospital, there was a corpsman named Newman. Do you recall him?
A Only from his testimony.
Q He did testify at the Article 32?
A I believe that he testified that he saw me.
Q At the time he testified, did you remember that he had seen you and given you the initial treatment that was given to you in the emergency room?
A No, I do not.
Q Well, do you remember that when you arrived there you were put in the emergency room?
A First thing I remember, upon arrival to the hospital, was a nurse asking me my social security number. That's what I remember.
Q Was that the nurse in the admitting department?
A I don't know, sir. I was on a stretcher and she was demanding to know my social security number.
Q Were you in the emergency room or were you in the corridor leading to the emergency room?
A I don't know.
Q Did they take you to the emergency room?
A There were doctors there and there were people running around and they were starting an IV in my arm. I presume that I was.
Q You were talking to a what?
Q I thought you said something about IV or--
A An IV – intravenous.
Q You did see Newman testify?
A Yes, I did.
Q You don't recall having seen him that evening?
A I do not.
Q Do you recall making any statement to a medic, whether or not you recall the medic?
A No, sir.
Q Dr. Jacobson?
A Yes, I remember talking to Dr. Jacobson.
Q Was he the first doctor that you saw?
A I don't know that. I honestly don't know that. There were a lot of people it seemed to me. Dr. Jacobson asked me some medical type questions. And, I asked him how my wife and kids were--but you don't want to know that. But, I remember talking to him.
Q Do you recall telling him anything about what occurred that night in your house?
A No, sir.
Q Dr. Straub?
Q Do you remember talking to him?
A Not really. I think only because--honestly only because I re-read his testimony. I don't remember. I can't picture myself there talking to anyone other than Dr. Jacobson.
Q How about Dr. Gemma?
A Dr. Gemma, what I first remember is much later. I don't know in hours, but I'm talking about a later time.
Q Was this prior or subsequent to the time when they took you upstairs and inserted tubes?
A I don't know who inserted the first chest tube. I believe he inserted the second chest tube. I'm not sure.
Q The two were not inserted at the same the same time?
A No, they were not.
Q How much of an interval was there before these two surgical procedures?
A I know from the medical records. It was hours; it was a period of hours.
Q But you don't recall it yourself?
A Actually, the only clear recollection was of how much it hurt when he was putting the second chest tube in.
Q How about Major Ryder or Dr. Ryder?
A I remember a visit sometime in the hospital. This is days later. Apparently, he visited me earlier, but I wasn't aware. I don't remember that.
Q You just don't recall it?
Q Well, as a matter of fact, do you recall making spontaneous statements--
A Yes, I do.
Q To the doctors who came in contact with you during the first interval of time that you were in the hospital?
A Yes, I remember saying things. Right.
Q You were not just talking about the treatment they were giving you at the time they were treating you, but you did talk to them about what happened earlier that night in your house?
Q Now, remember on the morning of February 17, after you had been in the hospital for two or three hours, being visited by CID agents and FBI agents?
A If you want my honest answer, I don't now remember it. I know I was being questioned, but I don't remember when that was.
Q You know it was on the morning of the 17th, but you don't know what time it was?
A It was shortly after something to do with the chest tubes or one of the chest tubes. Right around that time there was someone talking to me.
Q Do you remember who it was?
Q Do you remember an agent named Connolly, Paul Connolly?
A No. Only from a statement that I've seen that he made.
Q Was that statement a part of the Article 32 hearing?
A No, it was not.
Q Do you remember a--talking to Lt. Paulk at the hospital?
A Lt. Paulk? No, sir.
Q Did Ron Harrison visit you that morning in the hospital?
A Yes. I was under the impression it was later that day.
Q What time would say later that day?
A I don't know.
Q Would it be before lunch or after lunch?
A Sir, I was in intensive care. I didn't get lunch. I don't know.
Q “Later” is a relative term. Can you tell me how much later?
A There was a constant stream, it seemed like to me, my commanding officer--
Q That's Col. Kane?
A I believe it was.
Q He came to visit?
Q And Ronald Harrison, who was a friend of yours at the time, came to visit?
Q And you remember there was an agent there named Con--whether or not the name was Connolly, you remember an agent coming there and talking to you.
A I remember someone asking me what sounded like more official questions. He was asking questions. Right.
Q Now, do you remember an FBI agent named Caverly?
A Yes. He's pretty hard to forget.
Q Do you remember him coming there on the 17th?
A Not specifically without saying that I read his interview. And re-read it.
Q That could serve to refresh your recollection now?
A Yes. But I don't remember talking to Mr. Caverly on the 17th. I do remember on the 18th and 19th.
Q Do you remember he was accompanied, when he came to see you, by a gentleman named Hodges?
A There was someone with him on the last two interviews. I was not aware of that on the first.
Q Now, on the 17th early in the morning--I'm not asking whether this is your personal knowledge, but do you know as a fact that your mother was notified and Mr. and Mrs. Kassab were notified?
Q Did they come to Fort Bragg?
Q Did they come on the 17th?
Q Did they visit with you?
A They did.
Q Did you inform them concerning the matter?
A I did.
Q Now--By the way, how long did they stay down there? I supposed they visited with you frequently over the period of time that you were in the hospital and they were there? Now, how long did they stay there, your mother and the Kassabs?
A I don't remember. My mother was a significant length of time, a couple of weeks I think.
The Kassabs, I don't remember. I really don't; it would be a guess.
Q You've already testified you remember being visited by FBI Agent Caverly?
Q And a CID Agent on the 18th and 19th?
Q Do you remember on the 19th there was a second FBI agent by the name, Crawford Williams?
A No, I do not.
Q Now, I assume, between February 19 and April 6 that you talked about this incident to a number of people other than those whose names I have mentioned.
A No, sir.
Q You didn't talk about it to anyone?
A I talked about it to some people, but it was probably some reference to it with Captain James Williams. I don't think you mentioned him.
Q Can you tell us who he is? He's a friend of yours?
A He visited me in the hospital also.
Q Did he visit you on the 17th?
A Yes, I think he did.
Q And the 18th and 19th?
A I don't remember that, sir.
Q Depending on the closeness of the friendship and the interest and concern that he had, can you--
A But that's not the same as remembering. It seems logical that he would have been there every day for the next couple of weeks, yes.
Q So, you can say, with some confidence, that you saw him frequently during this time?
A Yes. But that isn't what you asked me. You asked me if I remember.
Q That's true.
A I'm not sharp shooting you.
Q You'd make a very good lawyer, Captain MacDonald.
A That isn't what my lawyers tell me.
Q Well, between February 19 and April 6--that's the month of March, that's a period of between 6 and 7 weeks. Can you inform us of the names of various and sundry people that you talked to about this thing? I assume the newspaper men were trying to interview you whether you responded to those interviews or not, I do not know. I assume that persons who had personal acquaintance with you, friends of yours, your associates and so on and so forth were also speaking to you about it. And, I would like, as best you can recall, the names of these various persons.
A Are you referring to any comment in reference to this or are you talking about discussing it?
Q No. Which you recount briefly.
A (No response)
Q Or, in detail. Either one. The incidents that are covered by the various statements that you have made from time to time.
A Okay. It would only be some comments to Captain Williams. Probably comments, discussion type, with Lt. Harrison and my mother. I mean, people don't walk up to you and talk about it.
Q The reason I'm asking you these questions, it's--You pointed out that four years is--have elapsed and that you have refreshed your recollection to a certain extent by re-examining certain documents that are available to you. And I am trying to find out who you may have talked to who may have some fragments of information that you recall at that time and that you may not necessarily recall at this time. It would be helpful to us in developing and pursuing leads that will result in solving this case.
A Sure. An additional one would be Captain Probst. Charles Probst.
Q We have Williams, Harrison, your mother and Probst. Is that it?
A Right. This is excluding comments other than, “Gee, I'm really sorry about what happened” type thing.
Q Now, on April 6, you did go to the CID office and spend a morning there and then an afternoon there. And the thing was gone over in detail at that time.
A I went there several times before April 6 and they didn't want to talk to me. I'd like to make that very clear. April 6th was the first long interview I had with the CID. That's correct.
Q Do you recall when you went there on previous occasions?
A You mean the dates?
Q Yes. Approximately.
Q Were they closer to April 6 or closer to February 19th?
A I talked to Mr. Grebner, who is chief of the CID investigators, by phone many times and was re-fingerprinted because they told me they lost my fingerprints twice. And I was foot-printed two or three times because they said they lost them. And I was at the office I would say, without exaggerating, I would say two or three times aside from the phone calls. Do you follow me? In other words, I called several times. In addition, there were several visits, two or three visits.
Q But on these occasions they didn't explore the matter in depth. It was just sort of casual conversation relating to the talking of footprints and other examinations?
One--There was another visit to the CID office when I went to the CID office to pick up my wallet which had been stolen from the crime scene.
Q By an ambulance driver?
A I don't have any information to that regard. Nine months after the fact, Mr. Grebner said he had no idea who took it.
Q Now, when you contacted the CID office in the interval between February 19th and April 6th, who was the individual that you contacted? Was it always Mr. Grebner?
A You mean by phone, now?
Q Either by phone or by personal visit to the office.
A I honestly don't remember. I think, only because I think I recognized him when he walked in and testified, Bennie Hawkins who I think one of the prior visits was handled by him.
Q And can you tell us who Bennie Hawkins is?
A He's allegedly a CID investigator.
Q Now, On April 7 you contacted a JAG attorney. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And that was Lt. Douthat?
A Right. I think it was Captain Douthat.
Q Captain Douthat.
A James Douthat. D-o-u-t-h-a-t.
Q The reason that you contacted him at that time was because--I would say a double reason. One is that you had been requested to cooperate in submitting to a polygraph examination. And second was that certain accusatory statements had been made to you by the CID agents?
A Yes. That's right.
Q I'm not asking you what you said to Captain Douthat, but I am going to ask you why you went to see him?
A I didn't go to see him specifically. Captain Williams, my medical service corps officer--When I went back to the office on April 6th in the late afternoon after the interview, I called him into my office and I said, “Jim, the CID just questioned me for six hours.” And he said, “I wondered when they'd get around to doing that.” And, I said, “What do you mean?” And he said, the rumor is that you've been followed for weeks.” So, I said, “Thanks, for telling me.” He said, “Look, you're my friend, you just lost your family, you didn't need to know that they were tailing you around. Big deal!” And I said, “They finished the interrogation investigation by asking me if I'd take a polygraph, and I said I would. He said, “What do you mean you said you would?” And I said, “I told them I'd take a polygraph. I said ‘get your goddamn polygraph expert and let's do it' or something to that effect.” And he said, “You've got to be crazy.” And I said, “What do you mean crazy?” And he said, “You're going to let the army give you a polygraph in the homicide of your family?” or words to that effect. And I said, “Yes. That Mr. Shaw, or Mr. Ivory or one of them stated that if I passed the polygraph, they would wash their hands of the matter, wish me bon voyage and I could be on my way to Vietnam or something like--words to that effect. If I didn't pass the polygraph that they would proceed with the investigation. He said to me, “I don't want to get into this, but if I were you I'd get a lawyer.”
I said, “I don't need a lawyer." I said, “I need my family back.”
So, at that time the phone rang and it was my commanding officer, Colonel Kane. He said, “Perhaps you and Captain Williams should come over to my office. There's something I want to tell you about.” So, the two of us went over to his office and he said, “The Public Information Office of Fort Bragg is going to issue a statement in about one hour that you are the primary suspect in the homicide.” So, I said, “Oh, that's great. That's really terrific. The Public Information Office is going to hold a news conference and state that I am the primary suspect in the homicide of me family.” I said, “That's terrific.”
He said, “In conjunction with that I've been asked to restrict you to your quarters. Put you under”--I've forgotten what they call it, house arrest essentially. “So, Captain Williams, you are hereby detailed to be Captain MacDonald's escort officer. You will see that he does not leave his room except meals and the PX” or something like that. And we left.
And on the way back to my quarters, he said, “I told you. You need a lawyer.”
Captain Kane, before I left--Colonel Kane--Excuse me. Colonel Kane, before I left, said, “I would advise you most strongly that you are in need of military assistance counsel.”
Q You are recounting an incident that occurred on the evening of April 6th?
A I think so.
Q After you spoke with the CID agents?
A That's correct.
Q Now, the following morning, did you proceed to the JAG office?
A No, I attempted to, but I was intercepted by the CID. They said that Mr. Grebner wants to see you. And I said, “I don't want to see him.” And they said, “Well, we have direct orders that you are to come to the CID office.” And I said, “Well, Captain Williams' orders are to escort me to my room and I'm allowed to go to the PX. I'm not allowed by Colonel Kane's orders to go to the CID office.”
And, I don't remember whether Captain Williams was with me or not with me at this point.
It was about 7:30 in the morning. But, in essence what happened, the two CID agents took my arms and escorted to the car and I arrived at Mr. Grebner's office shortly thereafter.
And, he said, “Now, do you wish to take a polygraph?” And I said, “No. I don't wish to take a polygraph. I wish to see a lawyer.” At which time he shook--his hands were shaking; he spilled coffee all over his hands.
Q Did you then proceed to the JAG office? I'm trying to get you to the JAG office one way or another.
A Yes, I did. I went over to the JAG office with Captain Williams. I think it was Captain Williams. I don't even remember.
During this time, my mother had retained counsel, Bernard Segal. And, I didn't know this.
They had called the BOQ where I was living and the MP guard outside my door stated that I was not to receive phone calls and hung up so I didn't know that I had this phone call with private counsel.
So, I went over to the JAG office and I walked in and I said, “I'm Captain MacDonald and I would like to see about getting a military lawyer. There are some matters that are apparently going to have to be cleared up.” And I was ushered into the office of Major Wold. And Major Wold, I said just exactly the same thing. “I'm Captain MacDonald and I'd like to request a lawyer.” And he said something like, are you requesting the presence of military counsel? I said, “It's perfectly apparent from what I just said I want a lawyer.” So he said, “We have just the man for you.” And he brought me into another office at which time I met Captain Douthat.
Q And did Captain Douthat then and there become your counsel?
A Yes, he did.
Q Now, at that time--I'm not asking you what you said, again, but I'm asking you did he ever have a discussion with you in which you recounted to him your observations and your recollections of your actions on the night of February 16, 17?
A Mr. Woerheide, I'm honestly not sure if I'm supposed to answer that, only because allegedly--
Q I'm not asking you what you said.
A I know that. I understand that. But, allegedly attorney-client relationship are not to be discussed.
Q If you will--
A The answer is--The answer to that question is, I don't think at that time there was a real discussion of the events of February 17.
Q That came at a later date?
Q Now, how soon thereafter did you get in contact with Mr. Segal?
A I don't know. I don't know if it was later that day. I think later that day. I--either Captain Douthat called, got a call or something. I wasn't allowed a phone call for a period of days. The MP apparently had orders not to allow calls through and wasn't aware that counsel was supposed to be allowed to talk to me or something. I think it Tuesday afternoon, April 7, that first contact was made, that I was aware that I had civilian counsel.
Q You say Mr. Segal was retained by your mother?
A That's who made the initial phone call. The actual down payment of money was placed by Bob Stern.
Q Didn't Mr. Stern initially contact Mr. Segal on your behalf?
A I guess he did.
Q Did your mother have any prior knowledge or acquaintanceship with Mr. Segal?
A No. As a matter of fact, Bob Stern told my mother about Mr. Segal. Right.
Q And when this matter came up and you were in this difficult situation at this time and it was apparent that you needed a lawyer to give you assistance with respect to these problems, Bob Sterns, on your behalf, contacted Mr. Segal and he and your mother were also in contact with one another and your mother was in contact with Mr. Segal. Is that correct?
Q Did you agree that Mr. Segal--to accept Mr. Segal as your attorney as of this telephone conversation that you had with him on April 7?
A That's correct.
Q How soon thereafter did you see Mr. Segal?
A I don't remember. I believe it was about a week. About a week later I believe.
Q Where was that, Fort Bragg or in Philadelphia?
A Fort Bragg.
Q Did he come alone?
A No, he came with an associate, Dennis Eisman.
Q Do you remember how long they stayed there at that time?
A Most of the day, I believe.
Q Was this your first opportunity to discuss the matter at length with Mr. Segal and Mr. Eisman?
A Yes. But it wasn't really--Yes.
Q Once again I'm not going to ask what you said to them or what they said to you, but I'm going to ask you generally: Did you discuss with them in detail your recollection of your observations, your actions of the night of February 16, 17?
A Not in detail, no. They asked sort of a general outline. It wasn't a special blow-by-blow account, so to speak. It was a much more general type thing.
Q They came down there about a week later, you say? So, that would place it somewhere around the 14th of April. In the meantime had you had opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Douthat or was that reserved until the time Mr. Segal would arrive?
A You know I was in communication with Captain Douthat.
A Not constantly. No.
A Intermittently. Right.
Q In that weekly interval?
Q And going over the facts of the case so that he would have some knowledge of what the situation was?
A No, that's not exactly what was happening.
Q Again, I'm not asking you what you said but what was happening?
A He gave a letter legal pad like you are writing on and told me to write down whatever I remembered whenever I remembered it. “If you wake up in the middle of the night and remember something, write it down.” And this went on. It went on for a month.
Q And you did that?
A That's correct.
Q Now did you do that for both Captain Douthat and Mr. Segal?
A Not separately. No.
Q In other words, what you compiled in the way of information was given to both of them jointly for their joint use as your counsel. Is that it?
A Effectively, yes.
Q Do you remember how long this, this statement was, or this compilation of data, this narrative?
Q Was it sort of a legal pad that you were using?
Q Have you seen that statement lately?
A I've seen it. I haven't read it.
Q Can you tell me who has possession and control of it?
A My attorneys.
Q Do you know of any reason why that should not be shown or made available to the grand jury? Is there anything in there that you think might be harmful or detrimental to yourself as against being helpful to the grand jury conducting this investigation?
A I doubt it. It would reflect severely upon the CID.
Q My question--I'm not asking you to give us an answer at this time but I am asking you to consult with your attorney and give us an answer when you come back before the grand jury at a later time. I'm not asking you to consult with them at this moment; we can do it tomorrow. But, I am going to request that you make available to us, for the benefit of the grand jury in conducting its intensive and exhaustive investigation of this matter, the notes that you have compiled back in April, possibly in May, for the information of Captain Douthat, Mr. Segal, Mr. Eisman.
A With all its irrelevancies and meaningless comments?
A As I understand it, that's an attorney-client product.
Q It is privileged and you are at liberty to refuse to make that available to them.
A The statement itself has nothing in it except what I recollect.
Q I'm telling you it's privileged communication to your counsel. This is a privilege that is personal to you. You can, if you wish, waive the privilege and make this information available to the grand jury.
A Mr. Woerheide, are you setting me up for the fall guy?
Q No, I'm not.
A I've got instructions from an attorney that gets five hundred dollars a day, and he says, you will not ever divulge attorney-client relationships. And here I am divulging them.
Q I have not asked you question one.
A I understand that.
Q As to any privileged statement that you made to him or any privileged statement that he made to you--
A The implication is--
Q But, I'm asking you to consult with him and give us an answer as to whether or not you are willing to give us this statement either in whole or in part. If you wish to Xerox it and excise portions of it, you are free to do so. And, I'm going to ask you to consider and respond to my request that you make this material available to the grand jury.
A That's fair. The problem is, the only unfairness is if I respond in a negative fashion through attorney--
Q We'll be aware that you are doing it on the advice of your counsel and might not necessarily agree with the answer. But, it's your decision, not your counsel's decision, and you can accept his advice or you can reject his advice. That's up to you.
When did Mr. Malley enter the matter?
A He wrote to me sometime during this juncture. He was in the army.
Q Where was he stationed?
A Somewhere in Texas. El Paso or whatever base is out there near El Paso.
Q Is he an old friend of yours?
A Yes. We were roommates in college.
Q That's at Princeton?
Q Was that your freshman year before you were married?
A Freshman and sophomore.
Q All right. Once again, I'm not asking you for any privileged communications but I want to know about your engagement of Mr. Malley and how he became involved in this.
A He wrote to me and expressed his dismay at the turn of events and wanted to make sure that I was obtaining civilian counsel because he told me that military counsel have a problem because if the prosecutor is a Colonel or Major and the defense is a Captain that there's a difference. There's not supposed to be, but in fact there is. And he said, you'd better make sure you have civilian counsel. It makes a difference.
And, I don't remember what transpired next. I think he was on leave and he came to see me. And, Captain Douthat had already mentioned he was going to need help. I don't really know how it came up, but it came up – we were sitting around and I said, “Well, how about Mike Malley? He graduated very high in Harvard Law and was acting as a trial lawyer for the army anyway.” And I said, “Why not get him? It's someone we know and trust and wouldn't pass on information to the prosecution,” as another was. So, to make a long story short, he applied for orders to be attached to Fort Bragg for the duration of an Article 32 as my trial counsel, assistant trial counsel. I don't know if that's the correct word – a lawyer for me. And the orders were granted.
Q Now, how long prior to the commencement to the Article 32 did he arrive in Fort Bragg?
A I don't remember. It was--I don't remember.
Q Well, when did the Article 32 commence?
A Well, you mean literally or--allegedly it commenced like June 1st--not the Article 32 but the orders were formal, something like that. It was a charging ceremony where my commanding officer had to read the charges and I had to have counsel present and whatnot. And that was adjourned until July.
Q Did he come prior to that date?
A He was there for some period of time, but it was leave time. It wasn't on orders; he was using up his leave time.
Q Do you recall when he took some leave the first time and came to visit you, approximately?
A No. Sometime--
Q It would be sometime about May wouldn't it?
A Yes. Sometime in May. And then I think he was there for a while in June. And then he was there for the Article 32 until September when he got orders to Vietnam.
Q When was it you went to Philadelphia?
A I would say in late April. Late April or early May. It must have been April. It must have been April. I think it was April because Mr. Segal wanted to go further into my recollections and begin essentially preparing for the defense, I guess.
Q Did Captain Douthat accompany you to Philadelphia?
A Yes, he did.
Q Anyone else?
A I don't think so.
Q Now, when you went up there, were you informed in advance that they would employ a psychiatrist and make an examination of you?
A That who would employ?
Q Were you informed in advance, by Mr. Segal or anyone else, that they would employ a psychiatrist, a forensic psychiatrist--
A No, they did not.
Q --to make an examination of you?
A Lawyers like to spring things. With about three seconds to go they tell you things. So, I didn't know until I got there. No.
Q Did they ask you to agree to this?
A Sir, I really think that we are treading on communications between the lawyer and the client.
Q Well, I'll ask you this: Did you agree to it?
A Did I have psychiatric--
Q Well, I know you had a psychiatric examination. I know Dr. Sadoff testified at the Article 32 of his examination of you.
A Yes, I agreed to a psychiatric examination.
Q Well, let me ask you this. Did you have any reluctance to agree to it?
A Sure, I had reluctance to agree to it. Who wants to lay on a couch for three or four days and talk to a psychiatrist, especially in the emotional state I was in at the time? As a matter of fact, defense attorneys sometimes don't have much feelings. As a matter of fact, Mr. Segal said that we have to look into your sanity, we have to see if it's conceivable no matter what the evidence shows, what's your life, who you are, what you're capable of.
Q Do you recall the approximate date when this psychiatric examination was performed? I assumed it extended over several days.
A It did. I don't know the dates.
Q Now, besides seeing Dr. Sadoff, did you also see a psychologist who gave you certain tests?
A Yes, I did. But I think we're going to have to stop talking about attorney-client relationships.
Q I'm not asking you what you said to him.
A Yes, you are.
Q I'm not asking what the psychologist said to you. I'm just asking you were you examined by a psychologist who gave you certain tests,
A Yes. And all the results were forwarded to the army. The army had it all for their psychiatric examination.
Q Now, when you say, “all the results”, what are you referring to, sir?
A The results of the examinations that I had in Philadelphia.
Q Was this some sort of a report, some sort of document? Or series of documents?
A I presume a series of documents. There was a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
Q Have you ever seen the documents?
A Just summaries by my lawyers.
Q When were you sent to Walter Reed?
A At the end of the Article 32 hearing in August of 1970.
Q Was testimony still being taken at that time?
A I believe when we returned it had effectively been closed, and when we returned there were rebuttal witnesses or something. There were a few more witnesses when we came back. I think the effective testimony, prosecution, defense had been finished.
Q How long did you stay in Washington?
A At least a week.
Q How many people examined you there?
A Three psychiatrists.
Q Was there any further testing done there by a psychologist?
A I don't remember. I had electroencephalogram, brain waves. I don't know. I don't think there was any--You mean the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality type test?
Q Yes. And the Rorschach test?
Q That sort of thing.
A I don't think so.
Q The only tests of that type that were made were made in Philadelphia by the psychologist there?
A That's right.
Q The results of those tests were made available to the psychiatrists at Walter Reed Hospital?
A I believe the psychiatrists at Walter Reed wanted to review those to see if they had to redo them, and they decided they didn't need to do their own. I think that's the way it worked out. They found the results--I don't know, well done or accurate. I don't know how you would tell. But, they said they didn't feel they had to repeat them.
Q And neither at Philadelphia nor at Walter Reed were you given a sodium amytal type test?
You've explained that previously because it required you to relive the incident and it wasn't done either place, I take it?
Q How long did you spend with Dr. Sadoff as distinguished from the psychologist?
A I don't remember.
Q Do you recall?
A I honestly don't remember.
Q Was it part of one day or more than one day?
A Oh, it was more.
Q How many days?
A I don't remember. I don't know. I would guess--
Q Could it have been more than three days?
A I would say that would be the upper limits. It was parts of two or three days. The army, I believe, was five.
Q Now, do you know a man named--As I recall, you said that these tests were made by Dr. Sadoff probably about the end of April, possibly the beginning of May. I think you said the end of April. The Walter Reed test or examination was made in August. Now, between those intervals, did you talk to anyone--not a lawyer, not a psychiatrist, not a psychologist--concerning the incident of February 16, 17?
A No one except reporters.
Q Who were the reporters?
A I really don't remember, sir. There were hundreds of them. You know, they were all over the place all the time.
Q Did you give a full description of the matter to any of those reporters?
A I gave a statement, a long statement to one of the reporters.
Q What was his name?
A John Cummings.
Q And he was a reporter with--
Q And where did you give the statement?
A Fort Bragg.
Q And was this in your quarters at Fort Bragg?
A No, it was in a room in the Article 32 building.
Q Was there anyone else present besides you and John Cummings?
A I don't remember.
Q Was this done with the knowledge of your attorneys?
Q How long did it take to give the statement to John Cummings?
A I don't remember.
Q Was it tape recorded?
A I believe it was.
Q Was it published?
A Yes, it was.
Q It was serialized in Newsday wasn't it? A period, over a period of time?
A Two days.
Q I take it this was a voluntary statement that you made?
Q Was the entire interview published or only excerpts from it?
A I don't remember. I don't know.
Q Were you furnished with a copy of the tape of the interview?
Q Do you have any objection to our obtaining from John Cummings a copy of the tape of the Interview?
A You'll have to talk to Mr. Cummings. It's not my property.
Q Would you personally have any objection to it?
A Only that—that my experience with government prosecutors in the past has not been very good. And, you would have to view the tape with the understanding that that was a statement to a reporter. It was not the same thing as I--
Q Well, I understand you were not under oath, you were not--
A It isn't even that. It's--This was a duty for me to--you know--to sort of try to equalize all the bad things my family had to read up on Long Island and stuff. And the Kassabs at that time. My in-laws.
Q Well, let me ask you this. Is there anything that you said in that statement that you feel at this time you would like to retract?
A I'd have to re-read it.
Q I'll get a copy of the statement. I'll give it to you. I'll afford you an opportunity to re-read it tonight. I'd like to know--
A Sir, in other words what you're saying is that you're viewing the statement as a statement of fact from me; otherwise, you wouldn't be interested in it.
Q Well, it is a statement by you recounting your recollections of the events of February 16, 17, and also certain events that took place slightly before that time; for example, the 24 hours you spent at Hamlet, conversation that you had with Ron Harrison in your quarters on Saturday preceding, and--
A You know, this wasn't even really with thought. This is just talking to the reporter. And if there wasn't an answer to a question, you'd tell him it could be vaguely correct. It's not at all like--
Q That's what I would like you to tell us. I would like you to examine the statement actually and tell us--We have a copy of the statement as it is printed.
A You know, I should turn this around and say, do you want me to bring Colonel Kriwanek's news clippings, what he said in the press.
Q Sir, I'm not interested in what Colonel Kriwanek said.
A Well, you should be.
Q I'm interested in what you as a witness, having knowledge of certain facts, had to say.
A But, the newspaper isn't facts. That's the thing. And this is an interview sort of arranged by high-powered defense attorneys who wanted sort of a story told publicly. You know, if I had it my way I wouldn't even have given the interview. That's not a legitimate thing to me.
Q Well, this is a statement that you made for the benefit of anybody who chose to read the statement and the statement is attributed directly to you.
A Sir, I think there's a much fuller, better account of this in the Article 32 investigation taken under oath.
Q But, this was prior to the Article 32. You were not under any pressure. You were not under any strain.
A I beg to differ with you.
Q It was done voluntarily and it purports to cover the same territory.
A To imply that I wasn't under pressure at that time in my life is outrageous. I was under tremendous--
Q Did Mr. Cummings put you under pressure?
A The interview was to me, yes.
Q You were tense?
A Yes, I was tense, Mr. Woerheide.
Q You think you said anything you should not have said?
A I don't know. I'd have to re-read it. I don't re-read newspaper clippings.
Q I'll give you a copy of it before we close today and afford you an opportunity to re-read it.
And, we'll discuss it further tomorrow.
Did you give a comparable statement to any other reporter, any other interviewer?
A Not that I'm aware of. That means no.
Q Now, have I covered all the statements that you may have given that you can recall between February 17 and December 4 to anybody that we might obtain for the purpose of seeking out leads or other helpful information that might resolve this matter?
A I can't think of any other long formal type statements or interviews that we haven't mentioned.
Q All right, we come to December 4. Do you recall after December 4 you did make a number of statements, not about the incident of February 16, 17, but about the conduct of the investigation and the Article 32 proceedings?
A I sure did.
Q Well, I would like to ask a preliminary question before I get into this. Did you and your counsel or anyone else for your benefit or on your behalf employ any private investigation in connection with the Article 32 proceedings?
A Yes, I'm sure that occurred at some points.
Q Can you tell us who employed them and who they were?
Q What knowledge do you have of the fact that there were certain private investigators employed?
A Just conversations with my attorneys.
Q Did your attorneys employ private investigators?
A You'll have to ask them.
A You'll have to ask them, Mr. Woerheide.
Q Did you have any voluntary investigators acting on your behalf?
Q Who were they?
A I don't know.
Q Were any investigative reports submitted which you saw?
A You mean formal investigative reports like a detective?
Q Formal, informal.
A I never saw any. No, sir.
Q To your knowledge, did your attorneys receive any investigative reports of any nature, formal or informal?
A I don't know. Honestly, I don't know.
Q Well, did anyone tell you that information had been supplied by any individuals?
Q That might be helpful to you?
Q Who told you that?
A Sir, we had hundreds of pieces of information supplied to us constantly every day.
Q That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to ascertain the identity of any individuals who felt that they were in a position to furnish useful information in this matter, useful information that might help you to resolve the matter that was the subject of the Article 32 proceeding. I want to pursue any investigative leads that we can come up with.
A Sure. What was the question?
Q The question is: What were you told--You said you didn't see any documentation--but what were you told, if anything, about such information that had been volunteered and submitted by--
A What I am aware of is mainly verbal communications from reporters. I heard comments about investigators. I don't know if in fact paid investigators were retained. We received a lot of things in the mail without ever knowing who sent it to us. We received copies--
Q Did you keep those things, retain those things?
A Certainly. Usually, it was something the army was trying to hide.
Q What did you do with it? Do you still have it?
A Yes. Sure.
Q Will you make it available?
A It depends.
Q I'm requesting that you make it available.
A Some things I will not make available.
Q I am requesting that you make available to us what you are willing to make available to us.
A I'll have to discuss that with Mr. Segal, sir. If it's germane and relevant, absolutely.
That's what I'm here for. But, you know we're talking about--
Q You said some of it you would not make available. What will you not make available to us?
A Well, for instance, when my lawyers were assaulted by the MPs and the CID. There are photographs available of my attorney flying through the air, landing on his head. The official FBI report stated: “My lawyer wrenched himself violently to one side, threw himself to the ground and knocked himself out.” This was witnessed by 4 newsmen and a Lt. Spahn from the public information office. And the FBI and the CID investigation concludes that it was staged by my attorneys. When my car was surrounded by four MP cars, an army MP in a car pulled up behind us, pulled us out of the car, knocked my lawyers to the ground, took me to my room, took the hair samples. The FBI report states--I repeat, it states that this was staged by my attorneys. I will not give you those pictures of that. No. The FBI had been trying to get them for four years. That's what I will not give you.
Q If you won't give them to us, that's your privilege.
A That's right. And if that's the kind of investigation, we're talking about--
Q I'm asking you to make available for the benefit of this grand jury any specific information
A That doesn't have any relationship.
Q --that you have in your possession that might throw some light on this.
A I'll discuss that with Mr. Segal and if there's something relevant, that is--Sure. But, you know I have to discuss it with Mr. Segal.
I am not aware of formal, written statements from paid or volunteer investigators. No.
Q All right, sir. I have a Newsday article that was published 20, 1970, and the headline is, “Beret Freed in Family Deaths” and it says in part: “MacDonald and his attorneys expect to conduct their own investigation. 'The army never followed up on some of the leads that we turned up', MacDonald said. ‘I plan to do a lot of writing and investigating.'”
Now, did you in fact turn up and turn over to the army leads resulting from your investigation?
A Yes. Yes.
Q Will you be specific?
A What specifically I am referring to now is testimony reference to a female individual and a male or males in Fayetteville that was testified to in the Article 32. That was brought, apparently, to the CID's notice by us by luck. We lucked onto this information purely by what my attorneys tell me, absolute chance. And that was turned over on multiple occasions.
And we have sworn testimony that it was allegedly reinvestigated. I'm sure you're familiar with that testimony.
Q All right. Now, that's one item. Now, tell me about the other leads that you turned up.
A When I left the army, sir, I asked for a civilian, not an army, reinvestigation. It became very apparent at this time that an army reinvestigation of the army was a little ludicrous. And I went to the justice department in December and banged on a desk, and they even refused to interview me. I had a congressman with me. Okay, they wouldn't even talk to me; they wouldn't even give me the courtesy of saying hello. It was by a phone from down the hall. They rejected any information we could give them.
Q You went to the Department of Justice in Washington, D. C.?
A That is correct.
Q Who was the congressman?
A Congressman Allen Lowenstein.
Q Do you remember the date?
A No, I don't. It was in December.
Q Do you remember where you went?
A To the Justice Department.
Q Well, do you remember where you went in the Justice Department?
A No. I'm sure it's logged in.
Q Did you go to the criminal division?
A Yes, we did.
Q Did you go to the office of the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division?
A I'm sure that's what it was.
Q Whom did you see there?
A I don't know. Will Wilson pops into mind. I don't know if that's correct.
Q Will Wilson was the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division. Did you see him?
A I believe we talked to him on the phone. Or, I talked to him on the phone.
Q Now, Henry Peterson was then the first assistant to Will Wilson. Did you see him?
A Okay. The first phone call from the lobby was to Mr. Wilson. He referred me to--I guess it was Mr. Peterson, wasn't it. I believe it was either that order or vice-versa order.
And both of them categorically refused to even discuss the case with me. Absolutely refused categorically to discuss anything about the case with me.
Q All right. Where did you go then?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you go to the office of a Mr. Belcher?
A I don't remember. I don't remember a Mr. Belcher.
Q Did they refer you to the FBI?
A I don't think they referred us to the FBI. We had already seen letters from the FBI, the state police, the Fayetteville police, the state bureau of investigation and the justice department refusing responsibility in the case. None of them would reinvestigate the case. I had already seen these letters. It seemed a little futile.
Q You said you banged on a desk. Whose desk did you bang on?
A I don't know. I honestly don't know. It was a secretary-type desk. It wasn't on Mr. Peterson's desk.
Q Now, were you carrying with you at that time, to turn over to the department of justice, any information, any leads that you had turned up as a result of your investigation?
A I don't remember. I think it was probably--It was sort of an information sheet that I had put together for that purpose. And also Lt. Malley's letter who was now in Vietnam.
Q Do you have a copy of that information sheet?
A I believe I do.
Q Do you have a copy of Lt. Malley's letter?
Q Will you make those available to the grand jury?
Q All right. I'll quote further from this article. “We hope to get either the appropriate civilian agency or to get our own investigators so we can find the real killers.”
Did you in fact hire your own investigators?
A I never hired investigators. No. My lawyers cost me $30,000 up to that point. My mother had to sell her house to pay for it. Plus I was trying to rebuild a life and it became a little, it became a little bizarre. And--No, I didn't. That's one of my great sins apparently.
Q It says, “Both attorneys have criticized army investigators for their methods of obtaining evidence against MacDonald.” That's a very general allegation. What are the specifics behind that?
A For obtaining evidence?
Q “--their methods of obtaining evidence against MacDonald.”
A I'm sure they're referring to the crime scene. Back on 17 February. I'm sure that in their mind they're referring to the way they finally achieved their desired goal of getting hair samples.
I'd like to state, sir, that you may or may not know that I never refused hair samples. All I said to the army was that I requested an order from my commanding officer. I was a good army officer. All I ever said to them was tell Colonel Kane to give me an order and I'll give him hair samples. And they didn't. So, they ran our car off the road. That's how they got hair samples. There was never a refusal.
There was a motion filed in a federal court by my attorneys.
Q To enjoin the taking?
A To enjoin the taking of hair samples which I vehemently opposed. But, the point was when that court, the federal court, denied that they didn't have jurisdiction, leaving it hanging, because that means no one has jurisdiction or something like that. And I told them I would give them a hair sample if Colonel Kane would issue a direct order for me to do so. You know I was still on active duty. The orders that I followed out were by my commanding officer. He is the one who signed orders about who would visit me, where I could go, what I could eat, everything I could do.
Q Well, he didn't order you not to give hair samples?
A That isn't the point. I just asked that he be informed of this and if he agreed and ordered me to submit to the CID investigators and a laboratory technician, I would be willing to do so. And that's what happened.
Q Let's go back to this Newsday article. It said: “Segal said yesterday, ‘Captain MacDonald and I want to express our thanks to Representative Otis Pike, Democrat, River Head and Senator Charles Goodell, Republican, New York, for their very great help in this matter. Both men worked with us and with officials in the Pentagon to see that MacDonald's rights were--'” and apparently the bottom of the page, the last line on the page were omitted, but I assume the word is something like safeguarded or preserved or honored, something to that effect.
Now, tell us about that. What was Mr. Otis Pike's role and Senator Goodell's role?
A Ex-senator Goodell, Ex-congressman Lowenstein. I don't know if Pike's still in.
Q It doesn't make any reference to Lowenstein here.
A I believe that most of this was in reference to two things. One was the, the assault on my lawyers, alleged assaults on my lawyers which in fact occurred but obviously now can't be proven because the FBI said it didn't occur. That was one reason. That was argued very vehemently by many members of congress. They had seen it on television. It was very hard to argue. That was one reason they were interested in the case.
They were also interested in the--they speeded up my process of getting out of the army in November, really, so I got out before December.
I don't even know if they made inquires during the Article 32 to the Department of the Army reference the hearing. I think there was a lot of communication going on at this time like Senator Javits, Senator Sam Ervin. A lot of them were aware of the case and had gotten letters--
Q I take it nothing was submitted to them at that time that might be helpful to the grand jury at this time.
A Documents? Not that I am aware of.
Q The next article that I have is dated October 29, 1970. It's from the Raleigh, North Carolina, newspapers – just two items. You said that you were over $30,000 in the hole.
This quotes you as saying: “I am also $20,000 in debt to my lawyers without being guilty.”
How do you go from $20,000 to $30,000?
A The figures don't mean much, Mr. Woerheide. We're talking about--
Q Ten thousand dollars means something, to me it does.
A First of all, the statement really doesn't mean much. It's a matter of paying expenses all along. You know that's not legitimate. I can't say to you, here's check for fifteen thousand dollars. That was half of my bill. That wasn't how it was done. There were expenses paid.
My lawyers were on post for almost four months. And everything, all expenses were paid.
There were motels, there were phone bills. It just went on and on and on. Essentially, most of this was absorbed by my mother.
Q The article further states; “He talked about revenge against the killers he said murdered his wife, Colette, and children, Kristen and Kimberley. ‘I'd like to get these people. I can't understand why the army didn't try harder.'”
Now, what did you mean at that time by the term, “revenge”?
A It's pretty self-evident. You could probably come to the point more directly, Mr. Woerheide, what you're leading up to, what we'll get into shortly. But, at this point, it would be nice if the perpetrators were caught.
Q Were you personally seeking out the perpetrators?
A Only in a very ineffectual manner.
Q That's not being very definite. Now, be explicit.
A It was the same type of thing as, you know, when you went into some bars, you talked to some people. I tried to track down Helena Stoeckley. It just isn't like Kojak. It doesn't work that way.
Q But you were making an effort?
Q On your own?
A Yes. But, I'm talking about a--You know it was very difficult at that time for me to walk into a bar in Fayetteville and play undercover agent. This thing had been on the front pages for six months.
Q Well, you had friends. Were they helping you?
A Not specifically. No.
Q Were they helping you in a nonspecific way?
A Yes. My lawyers still got leads. We still got phone calls. We still had things like that. Nothing great. No.
Q Well, when you went into these bars around Fayetteville--and I've been to Fayetteville and I've seen from the outside a street with a few bars on it. I believe I know the type of locale that you are talking about. Were you alone or did you have someone with you?
A I believe usually I was alone. I probably had some friends with me occasionally.
Q You were looking for people who might be the perpetrators you described?
Q Let me quote from this article a little bit further. “If the killers were caught, tried and found guilty and sentenced to death, how would he feel, he was asked? ‘I think it would be fine, the death sentence. They made their decision when they killed my family. They should pay for it.' The captain said he had some leads but he didn't want to elaborate on them.”
Now, is this a reference to the investigation you were making at the time?
Q What leads did you have?
A Look, Mr. Woerheide, I can't come in here four years later and make it sound like I was some sort of avenging hero going through Fayetteville. That isn't what happened. You know I went to bars. I questioned people. I asked some things. There were, you know, probably occasional little pushing matches. This isn't a big deal, this thing.
Q What do you mean by “pushing matches”?
A Well, you know, I would get upset. You know with some doper.
Q And then what would happen?
A Usually nothing.
Q When something did happen, what would happen?
A You mean you want me to recount every little fist-fight? Is that what you want?
Q If you can recall, yes. When you say, “every little fist-fight,” how many were there?
A Couple. I mean, you know, I--I was a very visible person in the community at that time. I could walk into a bar and 50 people would stop and say, “Hey that's Captain MacDonald.” You don't really get much information that way unless someone wants to come up to you and give you information.
Q How does the situation develop that would result in a fist-fight?
A I was sitting in a bar in Fayetteville and I was watching these kids buy little bags of pills right out in the open. They weren't even making any attempt to hide it. So, I went over and sat down next to them. On reflection it's really stupid.
Q What happened then?
A I asked some questions about Helena Stoeckley, which is what I was essentially doing at the time.
Q What happened then?
A People would either say--at this particular time, what happened then? They said--the guy said to me, it's none of your business.
Q What happened then?
A I said, the hell it isn't my business. And I kicked his chair out.
Q And there was a little scuffling and the thing ended up?
A Yes. You leave before the MPs get there.
Q This happened several times?
MR. WOERHEIDE: Mr. Foreman, for the record, Dr. MacDonald has handed the foreman a document. And, I'm going to ask our reporter to mark it as MacDonald Exhibit 2 of this date.
Q Dr. MacDonald, did you prepare this statement?
A It was prepared actually by attorneys.
Q And they prepared it for you?
A That is correct.
Q And this is a communication by them to the grand jury?
A That's correct.
Q Have you read the communication?
A Yes, I have.
MR. WOERHEIDE: All right. I will read this to the grand jury.
“We have just been advised by Dr. MacDonald concerning the most serious matter of the attempts of the government's attorneys to question and obtain information from Dr. MacDonald about matters concerning the attorney-client privilege. Despite the denial by the government's attorney that he was attempting to invade the privacy of these discussions, it is perfectly clear that relying upon the secrecy of your proceedings he has conducted nearly one hour of questioning in this area.
“We must respectfully call to your attention that these are matters which the government cannot legitimately pry into. The government knows it and realizes that even this very memorandum to you will be embarrassing to Dr. MacDonald. The government knows that some persons may view our objections to this area of questioning as keeping evidence from the grand jury. This is absolutely untrue, but it is the unfortunate affect of the procedure being followed by the government's attorneys.
“We therefore respectfully request that you (a) direct the government's attorneys (and it is your absolute right to do so) to refrain from any direct or indirect attempt to question Dr. MacDonald about his discussions with his attorneys and those assisting them; or, in the alternative, (b) request that Judge Dupree give you further instructions in regard to your duties on this matter.”
This is signed by Bernard L. Segal, Michael J. Malley--or it's initialed by them--and underneath it says, “Attorneys for Dr. MacDonald.”
I might say, Dr. MacDonald, that you may inform your attorneys that as of this time they are not witnesses before the grand jury and it is not their function or duty or responsibility to advise, or give legal advice to the grand jury. That is my responsibility and my function and that of Tom McNamara, the United States Attorney, and Mr. J. Stroud, the Assistant United States Attorney.
Now if they have any further statements to make, they may make it to us as counsel for the grand jury. And, I ask you to tell them that they should cease and desist from sending in such memoranda.
And, I'm going to tell you this. I will afford them an opportunity to appear before the grand jury, not as attorneys giving legal advice to the grand jury, but as witnesses who may be able to provide some useful information to the grand jury.
Do you understand what I said?
A I couldn't miss it, sir.
There seems to be some discrepancy there, sir. Between what the different attorneys say between the attorney-client privilege.
Q I'm not going to get into a controversy with you at this time concerning this matter. If they wish to file a motion with the court, they are privileged to do so.
Dr. MacDonald, over what period of time did you engage in the investigative activity that you have referred to?
A I don't specifically remember. It was a period off, I guess, weeks to months. I don't specifically remember dates.
Q Tell us when initially and when you finally gave up on it?
A When I was released from custody.
Q When was that?
A In October of 1970.
Q All right. And you remained in this area through December 4, I take it?
Q Thereafter, you went to live in the area around Long Island. Is that correct?
Q Did you continue the activity while you were there?
A No, I did not.
Q Subsequently, you moved to California?
Q Did you continue the activity while you were there?
Q Did you remain in contact and communication with Mr. Segal, Mr. Eisman and Mr. Malley after the Article 32 was concluded?
Q How long did that continue?
A Up to the present, except for Mr. Eisman.
Q Well, there has been a lapse of several years now. Last year how many times did you see Mr. Segal?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you see him at all?
A I saw him--I don't know if it was late last year or early this year I saw him.
Q Was that a social visit?
A No, not really.
Q Have anything to do with this case?
A Yes, it did.
Q I'm not going to ask you for any confidential communication that you made to him or that he made to you seeking legal advice. Let me ask this. Did you seek legal advice?
Q Did you seek legal advice with respect to the CID investigation in 1970 and the court martial or the Article 32 proceeding in 1970?
A That would come under communication there.
Q No, I'm not asking you what you said to him but I am trying to fix the topic.
A The major topic that we talked about, if you're going to press me, is Mr. McNamara's press release regarding the convening of the grand jury six months ago.
Q I'm not going to go into any details and ask you for what you said to him and what he said to you. I'm just trying to ascertain the subject of the conversation. Now, that was either late 1973 or early 1974?
A I really don't remember, Mr. Woerheide. I honestly don't remember.
Q Let's go back to 1972. Did you have communication with him then?
A It was infrequent communication.
Q Well, was this just social – an exchange of a postcard or a letter or a visit or was it attorney-client relationship?
A That's between he and I.
Q Did you pay him any legal fees in 1972? That's not a confidential communication.
A Yes, that's part of our work.
Q Did you pay him any legal fees in 1973 and 1974?
A That's still part of our work it seems to me.
Q Are you refusing to answer my questions?
A You really have a way of trapping people, Mr. Woerheide. I've been given instructions not to discuss the attorney-client relationship. That is obviously attorney-client relationship.
Q As counsel for the grand jury, I will tell you what is covered by the attorney-client privilege.
A Sir, I've been lectured by many government lawyers. They're almost always wrong.
Q Let me tell you what the attorney-client privilege is. If Mr. Segal disagrees with me, he can file a motion in court.
The attorney-client privilege covers a confidential communication by a client to an attorney and by an attorney to a client where the client is seeking legal advice. It does not protect disclosure of who the attorney is, for what purpose the legal advice is sought without getting into the details of the communication.
Q Whether or not the attorney submitted a bill for the services rendered, whether or not a fee was paid, there is the--The payment of a fee is not covered by the attorney-client privilege.
Now, you asserted that you consulted him for legal advice, as I understand it, at the end of 1973 or 1974. I have not explored that. You have said there was some consultation with him in 1972. I did not explore that. My question is: Did you pay him a fee then for legal services that he was rendering to you at that time? And that is not privileged communication.
A I paid him legal fees in the past several years. I don't remember the dates. There have been bills rendered and fees paid.
Q Does that relate back to the service performed in 1970?
A You mean the actual hours in 1970 that he spent?
Q Fee payment that you made to him in 1972 and 1973 and 1974, is that for services rendered in 1972, 1973 and 1974?
Q Or does it relate back to 1970 when he was acting as your counsel of the Article 32 hearing?
A It's all the same case, you know, 1974, we're still talking about the same case.
Q All right. That answers my question.
Now, during the court martial or the Article 32 rather, did Mr. Kassab come down here and testify as a witness on your behalf?
A Yes, he did.
Q What was your relationship with Mr. Kassab?
A He was my father-in-law. Colette's stepfather.
Q Apart from the legal aspects of the relationship, what was your personal relationship with him?
A It was very good. It's not so good now.
Q Did he visit you from time to time prior to the time that you were discharged from the army?
A During the Article 32 but not after the Article 32 was ended.
Q Would you call him up and talk to him from time to time?
Q Would he call you up and talk to you?
A Sure would.
Q How frequently did you have these communications?
A It seemed to me fairly frequently.
Q And, were you holding anything back from him?
A No. Unfortunately I made some things up.
Q What did you make up?
A The extent of my investigation, my own investigation.
Q All right, tell the grand jury now what it was you made up.
A Let me just say that I was trying to rebuild my life and I was doing--I was trying to get out of the army and our communication at the time was relatively good. We, I say, my attorneys, my mother and myself had begun to feel a little uneasy about Freddy, Mr. Kassab. Mr. Kassab kind of took over the Article 32 hearing and a lot the publicity surrounding it. He would hold news conferences up at La Guardian Airport. He was writing letters and firing off telegrams to anyone that would listen. It was all--
Q Was this public officials, congressmen, senators, things like that?
A Anyone who would listen. New York Times, Newsweek, magazines, radios, whoever he could talk to. And it was all in regards I was the greatest guy that had ever lived, the army was absolutely hosing me, giving me a bad deal.
Q You didn't disagree with that, did you?
A No. That in fact is what happened.
Q All right. Go ahead.
A He was aware of the Article 32 investigation. He heard--You know, except for little things, he knew the substance of all the testimony, he knew all the witnesses who were there, he came and testified. But, what I was leading up to was there was a, really a sense of uneasiness. Freddy became a media freak if you want me to be honest. Freddy became a true media freak. He would call us up and he'd say, “What do you want me to do now?” And Bernie would say “We'd like for you to--” I don't know. Just, you know, “Has the CID been up there questioning any of Jeff's friends or Colette's friends? Could you ask them? Fine.” Now, Bernie would--Mr. Segal would say, “Now Freddy, that's all I want you to do right now.”
That night we'd be looking at TV and he'd be holding a nationally covered news conference.
And Bernie said many times, as did a lot of people, you know he's really kind of a fanatic. So, I said, “Well, look, it's his stepdaughter and grandchildren.”
Okay. So, now we're up to I'm being sort of discharged out of the army. I say “sort of” because it was sort of a battle. It was a lot of letter writing, phone calling, congressmen calling down trying to speed up the discharge type thing.
I was in a funny situation. I'm still in the army. I had not been court martialed. I had an Article 32, which is non-judicial. So I wasn't subject to double jeopardy. And I was being counseled just to get out of the army. Just do your job, show up for work if your commanding officer wants you to and apply for your discharge. And, Freddy's communications were to the effect, don't do anything dangerous. You don't know what they'll do. Your room's bugged. This whole thing. And, I'll take care of all the public statements now. Fine. And, he started talking to me frequently and writing me frequently. It was always in reference to when we get our private investigation going.
So, then I said--Well, I told him: Well, I've been in some bars and, you know, I've got some leads. Critical mistake in my life, tell him that I got some leads. And that started it. And then it was incessant. “What do you have?” “Who have you found?”
And I'd lost my family and I'd been through the hearing. I'd been wrongfully accused.
Colonel Rock's statement at the end of a five-month grand jury is: the charges are not true. He didn't say, there was lack of evidence. He said, the charges are not true. Right? So, I'm trying to get out of the army. I'm trying to figure out what's going to happen. And, what do I do? Do I drift? Do I go into my residency? Do I spend the rest of my life prowling around looking for these people? And Freddy's hammering away, you know, about this investigation that we're going to--Cumming, John Cummings was driving me absolutely nuts. Day and night phone calls. Not day and night literally, but frequent communications: “When are we going to get together for the book?” Then the authors started calling. “When are we going to do a book on this?” “I can hook you up with William Morrow in New York.” Lawyers from Long Island say, “I have a good friend who is a writer.” And it became this unbelievable public thing.
So, I sat down and talked to my military lawyers; I talked to my civilian lawyers. I said, “What do I do?” And they said, “Do formal things. Do what you can do. You're a physician.
Go to Washington.”
So, when I got out of the army I went to Washington. Allen Lowenstein takes me around and introduced me to Sam Ervin. Can you imagine going to a cocktail party and talking about a homicide? So, I go to the justice department, try to do things like that. Congressmen and lawyers advised me to go on TV talk shows. So, I go on the TV talk show. I got sick to my stomach. After that, I said I wasn't going to do it anymore. They didn't have a right. Meanwhile, Freddy's driving me crazy. What have you found out? So, I told him I'd found other people. So, he asked--To make a long story short, I implied that I killed the person.
Absolute insanity. So, his wife wants to know the details. Did they scream? Were they in agony?
Q What did you say?
A I told him, “I can't talk about it.” My mother is over for dinner at their house, just to give you an example. My mother-in-law has another son. They have two kids. We were eating dinner. She says: I wish Bobby's kids were killed, not yours. I said, “Mildred, how can you say that?” I said: That's really perverse. She says: I want revenge. I said: I want revenge, too. So I left for California. What the hell was I supposed to do?
So, I played along with this stupid game with Freddy. Freddy was an ex-intelligence officer in the Canadian secret service, or so he says, and he lives this day and night. He was in bars all through World War II listening to secret conversations. He was in D-Day.
He was on the battleship on it on V-Day. He was everywhere at all times. So, I played this game. And, finally I gave it up and I wrote him a 10-page, 15-page letter. And I said: Freddy, I didn't do it. I didn't do this.
Q When did you write that final letter saying I didn't do it?
A I don't know.
Q Dr. MacDonald?
A When I got to California. It was crazy.
Q How long did you play the game?
A I don't know. Months, verbally, with him. It was always the one incident. It was always the one thing. Mildred wanted to hear the details, did they scream, were they in agony.
Q Mildred is Colette's mother?
A So-so mother. She's been bizarre for a long time. How can you sit at dinner and say that you wished your other grand kids were killed.
So, I made this tremendous mistake, this fantastic error. I tried to be a doctor. I tried to rebuild my life. And I moved away. And that's my three crimes.
Q Tell me, Dr. MacDonald, you were in fact investigating this matter, were you not?
Q Had you found one of these persons, what would you have done?
A I don't know. I don't know.
Q Would you have done what you said you did?
A Who knows, Mr. Woerheide? I may have. When I think of giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to my wife and my kids, I think, yeah. It doesn't seem so hard to visualize.
Q From your knowledge of psychiatry and psychology, would you not say that that's a perfectly normal reaction?
Q And would you not say that you're a normal human being?
A I would.
Q And if you encountered one of these people under the appropriate circumstances, would you have done what you said that you did do?
A It's conceivable. There's a time lapse. I had been through this. It was different then. Like, you know, in April before I'd been questioned, that's a different time frame. It's conceivable, sure. I still think about that. I still get a flash when I see something. I see a lot of dopers in my practice. And it crosses my mind, but I always think later--
Q What crosses your mind?
A How can I work so goddamn hard saving an addict's life for overdose? What the hell do I care?
Q Does it cross your mind that perhaps you should do them in instead of--
A Not specifically, do them in.
Q --helping them?
A No, not specifically do them in. It crosses my mind, yes. Why the hell do I break my butt and break my nurses' butts and the whole emergency room to save this creep who's got twenty thousand dollars, ten thousand dollars cash in his pocket from a recent sale. And he shoots up some fresh heroin and he dies and I resuscitate him. What the hell do I do that for? But, I always do it and I've thought about that. I always do it. My nurses think I'm a good physician. And then I think I carry it to the extreme. What would I do if I had to testify in a trial against these people? Would I sneak a gun in and shoot them?
Q Well, you know yourself best. Do you think you would?
A Probably not.
Q But at least you think about it?
A Sure. Wouldn't you?
Q And you might come in with a gun in your pocket whether you used it or not?
Q I have a letter dated 11-19-70 which I take is November 19, 1970. I won't read the whole letter. It's signed, Jeff, and there's a postscript with “J” on it. It's addressed to Fred. And it talks in the early part about certain material that is to be furnished Lowenstein who I think is Congressman Lowenstein. It says: “You can send full news clippings reminding me of transcripts, taped interviews with Shaw, Ivory, Grebner and other intercepted official stuff.”
What is that reference to “other intercepted official stuff”?
A We had the official army version by telegram of the hair incident on the post. I don't know who sent it to us. Someone in--whoever intercepts army telegrams Xeroxed it and sent us a copy without signing a name or anything.
Q How did it come to you? Through the mail?
A Through the mail.
Q And there were other items of that nature. Is that correct?
A Yes, I would suppose--There are a lot of loose notes and stuff and handwritten notes and stuff. That's all part of my attorney-client relationship I have been told.
Q It says that you are beginning work on your speech for a news conference when you get out. And you say you can deliver mimeos. I suppose that means mimeographs of the speech and photos if necessary to Newsday, Post, Long Island Advance and Times. The morning of the news conference, then you talk about the timing of the conference and where it should take place. And then there comes this paragraph. Page 4, “I will deny our phone conversation of today if anyone even asks.” Is that the phone conversation you are referring to when you said you killed one of the--
A I don't know if I said “killed.”
Q --one of the intruders?
A I don't know if I said “killed.” I probably used the stupid phrase that we used to use in the army for the assassination teams, you know, where you used terms like “eliminate with extreme prejudice.” Cops and robbers stuff.
Q And you add, “I'm sure you can figure out why what must be done, must be done.”
A You know what's interesting, Mr. Woerheide. You're not the only person that has that. Every news person that ever talked to Freddy has a copy of that letter.
Q I have a copy of another letter. It's dated November 6, 1971. So that's approximately a year later.
It reads, in part, as follows: “It was obvious the only way for justice to be met is for me to do it. I am doing it. Have been doing it. (Four trips to North Carolina and Florida in the last three months.) And will continue to do it as long as my strength holds up. (Broken hand last trip. Two thousand dollars spent.) The only legit help I see is private eye type, most of which I have found is no more competent than local cops. My next major goal is a large sum of money. (Via an advance from a publisher for this purpose.) The first chap of my book”--I assume that refers to chapter of my book--“has been written. The outline is done and still we are only dickering with publishers. They just won't come across fast. Plus John Cummings mouthing off to publishers have hurt the book. That's another story. He wanted the story. When he failed to produce, I went elsewhere. But he got so resentful he has been sandbagging our efforts.”
Now, referring back to this paragraph, tell us about these four trips to North Carolina, Florida in the last three months and the broken hand.
A That was all part of this.
Q There were no four trips?
A I was keeping Freddy happy. He's crazy. He's--This is absolutely insanity. The man is a fanatic. He's an alcoholic fanatic. He has sat in that house and re-read every single thing on this case for four years. That's a bizarre reaction to a tragedy. They haven't seen a friend. Friends come over to their house and try to take them out to dinner and they slam the door in their face. The guy is a fanatic. At that point in time--
Q Let's talk about your statement.
A That is sort of the beginning of the end. It was already obvious when I would go back to New York to see my mother and see, briefly, Mildred and Freddy that there was a whole different thing going on. And this is just--This is really continuing that stupid game until I finally go up enough nerve to write him a letter and tell him the truth.
Q What was your purpose in making this statement at this particular time? This is November 6, I believe the date is--November 9th, rather, 1971.
A You mean the letter itself?
Q This statement to him about making four trips to North Carolina and Florida in the last three months and you were going to continue to do this. And you had a broken hand on the last trip.
A I didn't have a broken hand.
Q And it cost you two thousand dollars.
A I'm telling you Freddy--I was telling Freddy this great detective story that I was doing all this work on the case because that's what he says he was doing.
Q Well, why all this explicit detail and color like the broken hand? Were you implying you broke your hand slapping somebody?
A I suppose. Mr. Woerheide, you know--my actions during that period of time, I apologize for them. Jesus, that doesn't mean I murdered my wife and kids. It was stupid. I regretted it every single day since I wrote the letter to Freddy. I regretted it the day I started it. How do you tell your father-in-law that you've been leading him on about this investigation?
Q At this time were you involved in--You talk here about writing a book. At this time were you involved in the writing of a book?
A It's never been written. There were a lot of interviews with authors and publishers. The publishers want to see advance material from an author. The authors want advance money from the publisher. It's sort of a catch 22 type situation.
And, all these supposedly helpful friends of mine want me to write a book. I didn't want to write a book. So, you keep putting them off, you know. I had interviews with William Morrow Agency in New York and Ernest, Cain & Gitlin, something like that, some firm in New York. And, several people wrote beginning chapters, like, and tried to get front money.
When it became apparent that I was going to have to sit down with this person for a period of months, go over the whole thing and sort of live with an author, I said, screw it! I'm not going to do it. I was trying to rebuild a life. And that's when I decided I've got to clear this up. So, I wrote Freddy a letter, and I said: Freddy, what I told you in the past is not true.
Q That's a later letter?
A Yes. But, at this time, we were talking to publishers.
Q Did you have any contract with John Cummings?
Q Did you sit down with him and make preparation for the writing the book?
A No. Cummings is an oily newspaper man and he assumes all these things and made grand statements to everyone all the time that he was the author of the MacDonald story for a book. And, unfortunately, my attorneys felt that I should give him that other interview down in Fort Bragg because Newsday, you know, it was my mother's home town, my home town, the Kassab's area and that they should get a more legitimized version of what happened. That's all. But, Cummings was never my choice. I don't like that man.
Q By the way, I think it's appropriate to mention at this time, Dr. MacDonald, I have put in front of you, and you have it before you at this time, a Xerox copy of the Cummings story as it was printed in Newsday. And this is the--I told you that I would furnish you with a copy of it. And, tomorrow I will ask you further questions about it.
Now, the next paragraph of this letter and say: “The one difference between you and I is that I don't think, you see, the fact that justice will not bring back my family. I want revenge. Preferably, brutal revenge, and don't care about justice anymore. There is no justice in case you haven't noticed.
“You act as though you were on a noble cause. I think the cause is ugly, brutal, but necessary. I will do it. I have done some (one-fourth or one-fifth) of it.”
Now, let's talk about that statement. Is that again an allusion to the statement that you made back in November about having knocked off or--
Q --whatever the term you used was?
Q One of these alleged assailants which you told Freddy that you had run down?
What I was trying to tell Freddy is that he was on a soapbox all the time. He made it sound like this was some sort of glorious thing to do. He didn't understand--He didn't understand them.
I never heard Freddy and Mildred say, I want Colette back. Never. They said they wanted to see someone hurt. What the hell does that do?
Q This is a letter on the stationery of Jeffrey R. MacDonald, M.D., 16052 Mariner Drive, Huntington Beach, California, 92649. The date is 3-22-73, which I take to be March 22, 1973.
It's addressed: “Dear Mildred:” Is this the letter you were referring to and when you referred to it you said you'd sent it to Freddy. A later letter?
Q To place this in context, let me just read a part of it. “I did tell Fred some things after I left the army that were not 100% true. It (these things) were partially true. I magnified them to (I guess) help my own feeling of inadequacy and also I hoped to isolate myself with these comments and allow my mental status to clear. Unfortunately, Fred has misread the importance of these comments.”
Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not this is the letter that you are referring to?
A I remember it as being--I addressed it to Freddy, Mildred and I believe Helen.
Q So, there's another letter along this line. Is that correct?
A I think there is. I'm sure I addressed it to all three. Helen was living with them. Helen is Colette's aunt. She was living with them. And she was closer to Colette than Colette's mother.
Q Well, here's another portion of the letter that might serve to refresh your recollection. “I truly hope those absurd tales Fred told me on the phone about ‘girls' are daydreams. They certainly are not true facts. I never lied to you about extramarital affairs. I never had an affair, but I did see, (date, sleep with) a very rare girl away from home. You know that because we discussed it. Freddy knew it also. The rest is complete garbage.”
A That's true. That's what I said to her.
Q All right, now, why were you saying this at this time in this letter?
A There had been a phone call from Freddy, that he had called me up, he was drunk, it was the middle of the night and he was ranting and raving that he had--maybe I'm exaggerating, okay, but I recollected him as saying that he had just come from Fort Bragg and he had 15 affidavits that the MPs were supplying me with girls while I was locked in my BOQ room. So, I said, Freddy, that's the most ludicrous comment I've ever heard in my life. It's obscene, perverse and it's incredible. He said--I don't know. He said he had sworn affidavits from 15 girls in Fayetteville that the MPs or the CID or someone was supplying me with females while I was locked up in my BOQ. I said, Freddy, you're crazy.
Q Did you have any females in your BOQ?
A After I was released from custody, sure.
Q While you were in custody?
A While I was in custody? Females in my BOQ room?
A You mean other than friends and relatives?
Q I mean, was there a girl who would come in and have sexual relationships with you during the period that you were in custody in your BOQ?
A No. Afterwards.
Q Now, during this time period, there was no such girl?
A There was a girl that used to--I used to sit outside with the MP guard and do some reading outside and she was a BOQ clerk or something in another BOQ office. And it started out, she walked by and she said, “Hi. Aren't you Captain MacDonald?” And, I'm standing there with an MP guard behind me. So, I said, “Yes, I'm Captain MacDonald.” And it started out--Then like a month later she'd come by and give me a tuna fish sandwich while I'm sitting out there. And after--I dated her after I--You know, I took her out on a double date with one of my escort officers as a matter of fact.
Q While you were in the BOQ under escort and guard?
A No. One of my escort officers who became sort of a friend after I was released from custody. She got another girl and we went on a double date. We went to a movie and had dinner or something.
Q What was her name?
A I don't know. I think McPherson or Raniery.
Q What was the girl's name?
A I don't know.
Q You don't remember her name?
A (Nodded negatively)
Q How frequently did you see her?
A I probably dated her several times after--before I left, before December.
Q At this time, you say Freddy purported to have affidavits from 15 girls?
A That's the sense of the conversation, fifteen--
Q You say that is completely erroneous?
Q There were not 15 girls? Will you say there were no girls?
A You mean in regards to having sexual relations in my BOQ room while I'm under guard with an MP outside the door?
A Yes, I would say that is erroneous.
FOREMAN EPPERSON: Mr. Woerheide, its four ten, thereabouts, and we have some people that want to get on the highway.
MR. WOERHEIDE: I'm sorry I wasn't watching my watch and went on so long.
I suggest that we excuse the grand jury and we commence tomorrow morning at nine thirty. Is that--
FOREMAN EPPERSON: Right, sir.
WITNESS: Do you have any idea of length of testimony, any idea at all?
MR. WOERHEIDE: Yes. As you can see, we have a long way to go. And, I know it's going to take all day tomorrow anyway and it might run into the following day.
WITNESS: If at all possible, Mr. Segal has things he can't break Thursday. He'd really like to finish tomorrow.
MR. WOERHEIDE: You have Lt. Malley here, don't you?
WITNESS: Michael Malley? Yes.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Or, Captain Malley or whatever he is. I still refer to--
WITNESS: He's a civilian, Mr. Woerheide.
MR. WOERHEIDE: But, when I see his name on these documents that give him a military title. Well, we'll keep that in mind and do the best we can.
WITNESS: Are you looking forward to testimony on Thursday? Do you actually see that as a strong possibility?
MR. WOERHEIDE: I see it as a strong possibility, Dr. MacDonald. I know it's an inconvenience to the grand jury as well as an inconvenience to you and Mr. Segal, but I foresee that as a possibility. But I can't absolutely say at this time because actually we've gone into some matters that don't relate to February 16, 17.
WITNESS: For sure.
MR. WOERHEIDE: We really haven't started on February 16, 17.
FOREMAN EPPERSON: You're excused.