The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site is a compendium of information about the Jeffrey MacDonald case. MacDonald was convicted in 1979 of the murders of his pregnant wife and two small daughters. He is serving three life sentences for that brutal crime.


The Murders of Collette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald
 

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

1974-1975 JEFFREY MACDONALD CASE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT
August 14, 1974: Jeffrey MacDonald

 

The following testimony was taken on Wednesday, August 14, 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 understand your testimony at this time is under the oath administered to you on Monday morning or Monday afternoon when you first appeared as a witness for the grand jury?
A Yes, sir.
Q Dr. MacDonald, I assume you have been informed by your counsel concerning the discussions that we had this morning in the -- both in the presence of the court and thereafter in the judge's law library?
A In a superficial manner, yes.
Q Well, those questions or those discussions, I should say, did relate to our further procedure in this matter and how soon your testimony would be concluded. Your attorneys indicated that they had other commitments which would require them to be away beginning tomorrow, but in the meantime I have received a note from Mr. Segal and I've read this note to the grand jury and I understand that we'll know better at noon concerning his availability --
A Correct.
Q -- as of tomorrow. And, if we are required to go into the matter further Friday, I did indicate to Mr. Segal that since your testimony concerning the night of February 16 and February 17 when you testified at the Article 32 hearing covered a period of two days that I anticipated it would take approximately the same length of time before the grand jury. I also indicated to Mr. Segal that I didn't want to get into that area and then interrupt it for a week or a substantial period of time. I wanted to carry right straight through with it. He indicated that as far as he was concerned that was satisfactory. The question was whether we should break off at the end of business today and continue next Monday and Tuesday or next Tuesday and Wednesday with Mr. Malley acting as your counsel in the absence of Mr. Segal, but I'll not get into that area today or at any time until this matter is resolved and we know what our future schedule is.
A If he's able to stay through the week, we would be able to do it?
Q If he's able to stay this week, we'll wind up this week.
A I'll wish for that.
Q Getting back to some of the visitors that you had at the BOQ, I don't have a document but there is a name of a woman that was given to me. I think it's DeWitt or something like that, is that it? Does that ring a bell with you? Or, am I thinking of someone else? Judy DeWitt or something like that?
A Judy was the name the CID told me was the girl in San Antonio, but I don't remember that.
Q I won't go into that and I don't have that document here right now. But, I do want to go into something else. How about Captain Beale?
A Captain Beale?
Q Yes.
A He was a counsel for Colonel Rock.
Q Was he a personal friend of yours?
A He was not.
Q Did he visit you at the BOQ?
A I believe he did.
Q Did he bring his wife with him?
A I believe one time he did.
Q And did he -- what was the purpose of his visit to the BOQ?
A I really don't know. I remember remarking to Michael Malley that they just stopped in.
Q Was this purely a social visit?
A It seemed to be. We talked for a while.
Q Was this just one occasion or were there more than one occasion?
A I believe it was just one occasion.
Q Was the Article 32 in progress at that time?
A I don't remember. I don't believe so.
Q Well, had it been concluded? Had the report been submitted?
A I don't remember, sir. I believe -- I would assume it had. I don't remember that. I remember he and his wife were in my BOQ room and I don't remember whether it was after the actual report was released or not.
Q Did you examine her professionally?
A His wife?
Q Yes.
A I think there was something about bronchitis and I gave her a prescription for tetracycline.
Q Did you make a physical examination of her?
A Not a complete examination. No.
Q Do you know why he brought her to you for treatment rather than take her to the army medical facilities?
A No, I have no idea. I presume from a public interest point of view. A lot of people did kind of unusual things.
Q Well, do you remember informing anyone that Captain Beale had brought his wife to you for medical treatment?
A No.
Q You didn't discuss that with anyone?
A I don't remember it. No.
Q Do you recall discussing it with Mr. Kassab or Mrs. Kassab?
A That was very possible. We talked almost every day.
Q Now, you say you talked almost every day with them. Was this by telephone or were they down there constantly?
A I know most of it was by telephone.
Q Now, while you were at Fort Bragg, after getting there in August of 1969, did you have anything to do with a boxing team?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you work out with them?
A Yes, for a short period of time.
Q And beginning when was that?
A During the winter sometime. It actually wasn't that many workouts. I didn't make it every day, and it was only a period of weeks really.
Q What did these workouts consist of?
A Exercises, sit-ups, exercises for your neck, and your back.
Q And sparring or boxing or...?
A A few times.
Q Well, you've always had an interest in boxing, I take it?
A Right.
Q And in college you were on the boxing team, or high school?
A In college. It was a very loose club. There is no college boxing, but we had a club at Princeton and I worked out with them. We never had any matches.
Q Were you pretty good at it?
A No. I usually got knocked on my butt as a matter of fact.
Q Now, was there any talk between you and the coach or anyone else about being the team physician?
A Right.
Q Tell us about that.
A I don't know if he's really -- yes, the training coach. He was in the army. Said they needed a physician, and I had just come into the gym to work out one day, and I was watching the boxers work out, and we started talking, and he said, why don't you work out with us, and I started working out with them. And then he mentioned on field trips -- not field trips but matches at other posts -- they needed a physician. So, I thought that was a great idea. So, I said, well, if it were possible I would like to do that. And he mentioned specifically there was a long trip to Russia coming up that he would like to have a physician on board for.
Q When was that trip to be made?
A Sometime in the spring.
Q Do you remember when you talked about this Russian trip?
A No. It came up on several occasions. This wasn't a long period of time that I was working out with the club. It was a period of weeks. And, again it was a loose kind of association. I didn't make all their workouts.
Q Well, we're getting into the area very close to February 16, 17. Did you -- on that day did you, did you meet the coach and discuss this Russian trip?
A I don't remember whether I did or not, sir. I've been asked that several times. And, in the middle of the summer when my lawyers were questioning me about the events, that was really the first time that it ever clicked that that may have been the day, that there may have been a discussion on that day -- one of the discussions. But I'm not sure. I don't honestly recollect that.
Q You recall Colonel Pruitt , do you not?
A I certainly do.
Q You had a meeting with your attorneys and Colonel Pruitt  and some of his associates in 1971, didn't you, on a couple of occasions?
A Correct.
Q Do you remember the approximate dates?
A No, I don't.
Q Was it about February or March of 1971?
A Probably. It sounds about right.
Q I think there were two sessions, were there not?
A One in Philadelphia, I think; and one in New York.
Q And do you recall discussing this with Colonel Pruitt  at that time?
A No, I don't, at this time. I may have.
Q And well, do you recall telling him on February 16 you had had a talk with the coach about the Russian trip -- February 16, 1970?
A I would assume that I put it the same way I just told you, that it's a recollection that came on some time during the summer -- that that may have been the day, but that was already six months past. It didn't seem very important.
Q I notice you wear glasses, Dr. MacDonald. So do I -- I wear trifocals. How long have you worn glasses?
A Since about ninth grade in high school.
Q And, do you need much correction?
A Not too much. I really don't know the numbers. My left eye is worse than my right eye.
Q And, what is the impairment that you have to correct for?
A I don't know. Most of my impairment is in astigmatism. It's not a --
Q In layman terms, is that nearsightedness?
A No. You can be nearsighted and farsighted and still have no astigmatism. I'm a little nearsighted and I have astigmatism.
Q Well, besides spectacles such as you're wearing now, do you have contact lenses that you wear?
A Yes. I don't wear them, really, right now. I have them.
Q When was it that you first obtained some contact lenses?
A The first time?
Q Yes.
A Probably a senior in high school.
Q You've had a number of pairs of them, I take it?
A Right.
Q Did you visit an optometrist or an occulist or whatever down in Fort Bragg or Fayetteville?
A In Fayetteville.
Q What was his name?
A I have no idea. I can't remember.
Q Was it Dr. Pearce?
A Yes. It sure was.
Q And did he prepare to your prescription, contact lenses?
A Right.
Q Did he do it more than once?
A I think he ended up making me two pairs.
Q And when was the second time?
A I don't remember. I had a change in prescription during this time frame, but I don't remember.
Q Well, do you remember going to Dr. Pearce's office on February 16 and picking up your contact lenses?
A No.
Q Do you remember that you did not go to Dr. Pearce's office on February 16 and pick up your contact lenses?
A No.
Q If I were to inform you that there is a record that reflects on February 16, 1970, you went to Dr. Pearce's office and obtained a second set of contact lenses that he had made for you, would that refresh your recollection?
A No. It's probably true, but I didn't remember that.
Q Dr. MacDonald, did you keep any weapons -- when I say weapons, I am referring to guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, anything of that sort?
A In the house?
Q Yes.
A Yes. I still had some rifles at that time.
Q Can you be specific? Can you tell us what weapons you had?
A I had a 30-30, a lever action 30-30. I believe I still had my -- No. I probably had a .22. and I had an old Italian like a $7 rifle that you pick up in the Army-Navy stores, a 6.5 millimeter.
Q Did you have a handgun?
A I don't believe so.
Q And, where did you keep them in the house?
A Probably in a wooden chest that I had locked in the closet.
Q And, could you describe the chest?
A If it's still there. If I'm thinking of the same one. It was not a very well made chest that I made out of plywood, 3/8ths plywood or 5/8ths plywood, something like that. It was about four feet long and had a top that lifted up on hinges.
Q Did you make that down at Fort Bragg or did you make it some place else?
A No. I had that for a long time.
Q Is the use of firearms, in any way; that is, for target practice or hunting, one of your hobbies?
A No.
Q How about photography? Is that a hobby?
A It used to be. Not a real hobby. I mean we took pictures. I wasn't any -- I didn't do any developing or anything like that.
Q What did you take mostly? Slides?
A Slides.
Q Prints?
A Slides usually.
Q What sort of a camera did you use?
A It was a 35-millimeter, Japanese-made slide -- I mean a 35-millimeter camera that took slides.
Q Well, there are a lot of them. Was it a Canon or a Nikon?
A It was a Beauty or Beauty Rest or something like that. It wasn't any brand name.
Q Where did you keep the camera?
A I don't remember. Probably in a closet up on a shelf.
Q Now, I take it as being a doctor you collected medical supplies?
A Sure did.
Q Can you tell us what you kept in that respect?
A I had a large hall closet that had a lot of medications, first aid equipment. I was preparing to make a couple of aid kits, one for the car and one for camping trips.
Q What sort of -- well, pills or other powders or solutions, whatever you want to call it, did you keep there?
A I had a lot of them. I had -- I don't even remember. I had -- I have a list of them if you would like the list. I had antihistamines and I had foot powders and lotions and creams and bandages and diuretics, I think. All kinds of samples, compazine for nausea, cold pills. I don't know if I had some pills for my mother-in-law at the time or not. She took a lot of medicines. Heart pills.
Q Did you have any pills, and I have no idea what sort of medication it is, that some people refer to as "uppers" and "downers" and so on and so forth? I think those are things that have a tendency to stimulate your bodily functions or relax your bodily functions one way or another and I assume various types of medications can produce that effect?
A There were -- There was Benadryl pills, which are really an antihistamine, but they are used for sleep a lot. But, they're not used as "downers" normally. And there was, not according to CID lists, but there was a bottle of escatrol diet pills which have some amphetamines in it.
Q Did you keep syringes there?
A I probably had some syringes for the aid kits.
Q Did you have any type of medication that goes with syringes?
A It's conceivable. I had a big box of samples of junk. There may have been some. Actually there was probably some epinephrine which is a heart stimulant that you use for cardiac arrest or anaphylaxis when someone goes -- gets a bee sting. I'm allergic to bee stings. I can't remember any other injectable medications.
Q How about Collette? Did she have any problems that required the use of any medication from time to time?
A Right.
Q Would you tell us just what she was taking or had been taking in that respect?
A She had medicine called Bendectine, which is an anti-nausea medicine for pregnancy. And she was using the Benadryl occasionally for sleep. It's not really -- It's not a barbiturate sleep medicine; it's an antihistamine like a cold pill, but it's used for sleep. A lot of pregnant women use it for that because it's safe.
Q Apart from her pregnancy, did she have any medical problems?
A No.
Q At one time had she used birth control pills?
A Right.
Q Was that discontinued on your advice to her?
A Right.
Q And what was the reason for that?
A She was getting occasional blood clots in her leg, and they were dangerous. So, I made her come off the birth control pills.
Q Had you made any repairs to the house or modifications to the house? Or, done anything around the house after you moved into it to make the house more comfortable or -- ?
A Just some shelving in the closets.
Q And you did that yourself?
A Right.
Q Did you paint the shelves?
A Did I make them?
Q Did you paint them?
A I don't know. I don't remember.
Q Did Collette paint them?
A It's possible. Either one of us could have.
Q What's your recollection? Were the shelves in the closet just bare wood or were they covered with paint?
A Sir, I don't remember.
Q We have a picture, sort of a candid shot and I assume you made it, Collette doing some painting. Do you recall that?
A Yes, that's right. She was painting a bureau, I think, behind the house.
Q And where was this bureau? What room did it go into?
A One of the children's rooms. I don't know which one.
Q You don't remember whether it was Kimberly or Kris?
A I believe it was -- I believe it was in Kris' closet. That's the same one, I believe, that we used for toys and it was just kept in a closet.
Q Do you remember buying the paint and some paint brushes?
A Not specifically. No. I probably did.
Q Where did you buy such things down there?
A Usually at the -- I guess -- I don't know if the paint was from the PX or not. Most of the shopping was done on post.
Q I take it the commissary also sells things like this, does it?
A Yes. The commissary.
Q So, it could have been either the PX or the commissary?
A Or off post. You know. I don't know.
Q More likely on post because, from what I understand, you get a little bit better deal?
A Right.
Q The prices are better on post facilities than outside.
A Right.
Q What items of particular value did you have in the house? Was anything -- I know you had hi-fi set --
A Stereo.
Q TV set? Color TV?
A Right. They were relatively new. We had a fairly expensive, I would guess, china cabinet that had some silverware. I don't think there was really any crystal worth much. We had some glasses and things. I didn't have much in the way of jewelry. Collette had several things. One was a ring that I bought her and one was a ring that was from a relative of hers. But, they're not monstrously expensive.
Q What was the ring that you bought her, Dr. MacDonald?
A It was a star sapphire.
Q Where did you buy that?
A From an artist in Greenwich Village.
Q Do you remember his name?
A No.
Q Did you design the mount or did he design it?
A He did.
Q Was it distinctive?
A Very.
Q Can you describe it generally?
A Yes. It was a gold ring, but it was -- it wasn't just circular. It was -- it's hard to describe, but from the side it was -- If you looked at the ring sideways, like this, holding the ring up, it wasn't straight up and down. It was this way [indicating a crescent shape]. And then there was a cup with little fingers coming up holding the star sapphire.
Q Was it a natural stone, or was it one of these --
A No. It was natural or allegedly natural.
Q You mentioned a sort of an antique ring, an heirloom ring. What was that?
A To tell the truth, I don't know much about that ring. I didn't pay much attention to the jewelry. That was later brought to my attention by my in-laws. It was a -- supposedly a silver ring with some diamonds set in it. A rather wide ring.
Q Did Collette wear her jewelry very frequently?
A No, not really. Not too much. Just some costume stuff. Earrings, really, that was her main jewelry.
Q Have you searched through your photographs to see if there were any photographs that might clearly depict either one of these rings, the sapphire or the antique ring?
A We have a photograph from the jeweler on the antique ring we supplied to the army.
Q Where were these items kept?
A Wherever Collette left them. She did have a jewelry box, but sometimes on top of the bureau, upper drawers, sometimes in the jewelry box.
Q I recall reading in some of the material I've seen that you bought a pony around Christmas time.
A That's right.
Q Can you tell us about that?
A Yes. I bought a Shetland pony for the kids. We kept it off post. And we went down and fed it every day twice. It was a surprise for the kids on Christmas.
Q Where did you keep the pony?
A In a little corral down off Bragg Boulevard about 3, 4, 5 miles from our house.
Q Do you remember the name of the man who owned the property where the little corral was?
A No. He owned -- He was a unique guy. He was a retired army guy, master sergeant, and he had a shoe shop, Unique Shoe Shop, that was called, at this dirt road that sort of turned into his place.
Q Did you build a structure, and little shelter of some sort, or a fence to contain the pony?
A No. A fence was up. I built a little shed. There was a shed there. I just added -- straightened it up a little, added some -- Well, really just straightened it.
Q Did you have a saddle and bridle?
A Yes.
Q And the gear that you needed for the pony?
A Right. That was hung inside the shed.
Q Who looked after the pony? You have to groom a pony once in a while to keep him clean and clean out his hoofs.
A We didn't have him long enough to have to worry about his hoofs. And, we weren't riding him very hard. But, we went down and fed him myself. And, the man that owned the place, I'm sure, like -- would have given him water or food had we not been around.
Q Now, I'm sort of skipping around because of the uncertain schedule that we have.
During your growing up period, did you ever live away from home for any extended period of time?
A Yes, I did.
Q Will you tell us about that?
A I went to Texas when I was a sophomore in high school. I lived down in Baytown for I believe it was Thanksgiving to Easter of that year.
Q With whom were you living?
A Friends of Bob and Marian Stern at the time. I don't know if they were really friends; they were business acquaintances through Humble Oil. They were friends.
Q And the Sterns were friends of your family, I take it?
A Right.
Q I didn't catch the name. What did you say the name of these friends was?
A Jack Andrews.
Q Jack Andrews?
A Right.
Q Was he, you might say, a contemporary of the Sterns and your father?
A I believe he was a little younger. He was a young engineer for Humble Oil at the time. My father and Bob were older.
Q Did he have a family?
A He sure did.
Q A wife and kids?
A A wife and a boy, Jack.
Q A boy, Jack? Was he about your age?
A Same age. That's why I went down.
Q What was the reason for your leaving home and living in Texas for this period of time?
A Well, we just met them. Jack Andrews was kind of a free-spending type Texan who at least talked big. And he asked me at one time if I would like to come down and meet his son and spend a couple of weeks. So, I asked my parents, and they talked it over with Bob and Jack and came back to me and said, if you want to go -- fine. And, so I left at the end of our football season.
Q Well, how about -- Did you transfer to a school in Texas?
A Not initially because I was just going to stay a couple of weeks. But, around Christmas time they asked me to stay. They thought it would be interesting. And I did, too. I was having a blast. So, I called home or wrote home and they said, sure. So I entered the Robert E. Lee school in Baytown, Texas.
Q Were there any family problems between yourself and your family which resulted in your living away from your family for this rather extended period of time?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q And after Easter you came back to Long Island and you resumed going to school?
A I came home in time for Easter. That was the big thing. Had a reunion in the train station.
Q Dr. MacDonald, Mr. Segal mentioned to me when he first talked to me on the telephone several weeks ago that you were consulting with and visiting with a psychiatrist at this time. Can you tell me about that?
A You mean right now?
Q No. He told me that you have been taking psychiatric treatment, I think the way he phrased it, in California.
A That's not true. What I mean is you must have misunderstood him.
Q Well, perhaps I did misunderstand him. Can you explain to me why he would make a reference to your seeing a psychiatrist in California?
A Sir, you'll have to ask Mr. Segal. I'm not seeing a psychiatrist in California. And I'm not aware that he told you that.
Q Well, let me ask you. Since you moved to California, have you had the occasion to consult or visit with a psychiatrist on your own behalf?
A No.
Q I know you've been asked this question before, and I believe I can anticipate what your answer is going to be, but I believe the grand jury should have the benefit of hearing your statement. Did you have any problems of any type within your family, specifically between yourself and Collette, regarding anything?
Now, I might preface my remarks by saying I have problems with my wife, and I'm sure most of the jurors who are married have occasional problems with their respective spouses and I'm not asking you this to embarrass you in any way. But, I think it's imperative for us to know what problems, if any, you had and what resulted so far as taking care of those problems was concerned.
A We didn't have any problems. That, as a matter of fact, has been overlooked in the past.
Q There were no quarrels or disputes?
A Nothing major.
Q Were there any minor quarrels or disputes?
A Yes, I'm sure there were.
Q Do you recall any?
A No, quite frankly.
Q Well, did Collette complain about such things as spending money without you consulting her as to what you were spending money for?
A Absolutely not.
Q I complain to my wife when she does that.
A Absolutely not.
Q You bought the stereo down there, didn't you?
A That's right.
Q How much did that cost?
A I don't know. It was a package deal with the color TV and it was on time. Like two years of payments or something and the total was seven or eight hundred dollars for the two together, stereo and TV.
Q Did she get upset about that?
A No. She liked it. It was the first time we had had nice possessions.
Q So, I take it your testimony, your marriage was serene, was calm, there were no problems of any concern.
A That's right.
Q That had troubled the still waters of your marriage?
A That's right.
Q How about the kids? Any problems with the kids?
A Absolutely not.
Q In some of the material I saw, it indicated that Collette was somewhat concerned about bedwetting. Would you consider bedwetting a problem?
A No. And she didn't consider it a problem either. The only one that considered that a problem was the CID agent.
Q Was this something that you discussed with one another?
A Sure.
Q But these discussions were -- didn't result in any arguments or disputes?
A Absolutely not.
Q Or misunderstandings?
A Absolutely not. The problem was that Kristy still had a bottle at two and a half years of age and I thought she should take the bottle away when she goes to sleep. Collette said she didn't mind getting up and getting her a bottle. And that doesn't sound like a very big problem.
Q How about Kimberly? Was she a bedwetter?
A No.
Q She had long since outgrown that?
A Right.
Q I've seen a notation in a notebook, and I think it's Collette's notebook, and the notation indicates that she was contemplating writing to Dear Abby or Ann Landers. Do you know anything about that?
A No. But, I would presume it's in reference to the -- I don't know if that would be in reference to the bedwetting thing or whether it was in reference to making Kristy stay in her own bed at night.
Q Did she discuss with you that she was planning to write a letter?
A No.
Q -- to a columnist?
A No. I was unaware of that.
Q Regarding a personal problem?
A No.
Q Would you have been offended if she had written such a letter?
A No. Absolutely not.
Q Dr. MacDonald, I gave you a copy of the statement that was published by Robert Cummings.
A John Cummings.
Q John Cummings. And I asked you to review it and inform us today whether there was anything that you felt that should be explained or modified so far as that statement is concerned.
A The answer is essentially what I said yesterday. This is not a statement under oath; it's a statement to a reporter for a news story. And I think it should be viewed as such. There are a lot of things in here that now, if I looked critically at it, aren't exactly correct. But I don't see what relevancy that has.
Q I see questions which I assume or purport to be verbatim transcript of questions asked of you by Mr. Cummings, and I see answers which I think purport to be verbatim transcript of responses that you gave to Mr. Cummings in response to his questions.
A Sir, if you took what was quoted as verbatim in a newspaper -- For instance, the justice department six months ago stating that this case would never be prosecuted -- this is totally irrelevant. A news interview by a news reporter. I mean I don't mind answering questions on it. But the grand jury should understand that.
Q I'm going to ask you. Did he ask you those questions and did you give those answers?
A I don't remember each one specifically. I get a general feeling as I read it that it's essentially, generally the interview I had with Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Q Would you say it is a doctored interview in the sense that it's been changed in any way?
A As I remember it, there are things that don't sound like me at all in here. I can't imagine me saying it. I don't know if it's been doctored or if I said it. Do you follow me?
Q Yes.
A I don't remember stating to Mr. Cummings some of the things he has me stating. Maybe you can listen to it on the tape. You know, maybe you should play the whole tape for the grand jury.
Q You don't object to our obtaining the tape from Mr. Cummings, I take it?
A That's not my property. That's Mr. Cummings' property.
Q If I were to ask your permission, will you say, "It's all right with me to ask Mr. Cummings for the tape"?
A It's all right to ask him, but I can't give you his answer.
Q I understand that. But you have no objection to our requesting it?
A No.
Q I notice on page 7, and I don't want to get into the details of this right now, there is a --
A Sir, may I say this? If this is going to be discussed, is the grand jury going to see this? I mean they should see this if we're going to discuss it. As far as I'm concerned.
Q At this point, I just wanted to ask you, did you furnish this drawing that's set forth here? On page 7.
A No, sir. I believe this was a drawing that was furnished the news media by Colonel Kriwanek, the provost marshal of Fort Bragg.
Q So, that doesn't represent your work product in any way?
A That's correct.
Mr. Woerheide, can I just take this minute. You asked for some material from me yesterday, and I have this material here for you.
I'd just like to say that I think that what I give you, if this is for an investigative grand jury, the grand jury should see it.
Q In due course the grand jury will see all of these things, Dr. MacDonald. You need have no concern about that.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Dr. MacDonald has handed to me a -- what I suppose is a memorandum --

WITNESS: It's an official letter filed by Lt. Malley to the army.

MR. WOERHEIDE: It's captioned at the top: First Lieutenant Michael J. Malley, 465-C60-1916 HHC 159th Engineer Corps APO San Francisco.
SUBJECT: Request for investigation. Lt. General John J. Tolson, Commanding General, 18th Airborne Corps in Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 28307.
It consists of five pages and there's a signature line for Mr. Malley.
I'll ask the Reporter to mark that as MacDonald Exhibit 1 of this date.

[MACDONALD EXHIBIT #1 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION]

WITNESS: These are the official presentations you asked for. You asked for each of those. This is the information sheet that I have prepared in conjunction with Congressman Lowenstein's request to do so. And this was what was presented to the Justice Department at a news conference.

MR. WOERHEIDE: All right. We'll mark this as MacDonald Exhibit 2 of this date. The caption is Information Sheet in the MacDonald Case. The first two lines state: "The following is a brief summary of events and a statement of aims I desire to achieve..." There's a signature line for Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald. It consists of three pages. Would you mark this [To Reporter] as Grand Jury Exhibit 2 of this date -- Dr. MacDonald Grand Jury Exhibit 2.

[MACDONALD EXHIBIT #2 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION]

WITNESS: This is a letter from Mr. Kassab that he prepared in conjunction with myself that he delivered, apparently, to every member of congress and the news media, reference certain allegations that he made as he saw the Article 32 hearing.

MR. WOERHEIDE: All right. Typed at the top of this exhibit it states, "Alfred G. Kassab, 22 Bonnie Lane, Stoneybrook, New York, 11790." It's addressed to, "Gentlemen of the Senate and Congress," signed by, "Alfred G. Kassab." And a part of it, and attached to it, are I count ten pages. The first of these ten pages reads: "The MacDonald Case, Prosecution or Persecution? Evidence or Theory?"
And we'll ask that this be marked as MacDonald Exhibit 3 of this date.

[MACDONALD EXHIBIT #3 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION]

MR. WOERHEIDE: You say you participated in the presentation of that?

WITNESS: Only to the extent that we were trying to keep Mr. Kassab informed of what was going on. And then he, on his own, wrote that up.
This is apparently a semi-official document that he prepared and gave to the army.

MR. WOERHEIDE: I count ten pages in this document and I refer only to the first page.
Typed at the top is: "Alfred G. Kassab, 22 Bonnie Lane, Stoneybrook, New York, 11790." It's in the form of a letter addressed to: "Mr. R. Kenly Webster, Deputy General Counsel, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 20310."
We'll mark that as MacDonald Exhibit #4 of this date.

[MACDONALD EXHIBIT #4 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.]

WITNESS: Those are -- That was in reference to your request for any documents that we had prepared.

MR. WOERHEIDE: I'll take a look at them as soon as possible for me to do so. And I assure you that these documents will be brought to the attention of the grand jury.

WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. WOERHEIDE: -- in an appropriate manner.

WITNESS: Thank you.

Q Dr. MacDonald, I have a transcript of a CBS interview of Captain MacDonald given on 11 December 1970. Can you tell us how this interview came about?
A No, I cannot. I don't remember which interview you're talking about.
Q This is a CBS interview which was a part of a Walter Cronkite news broadcast. The person who interviewed you is Schieffer. I've forgotten if it's Dick Schieffer or Bob Schieffer.
A Was that an interview on Fort Bragg, sir?
Q Well, Schieffer states at this point here, "We talked with Captain MacDonald, now a civilian, in the office of New York Congressman Allen Lowenstein..."
A I honestly don't remember that, being in an office in New York for an interview. There were hundreds of interviews like this during that time, sir. I honestly don't remember a CBS interview with Bob Schieffer.
Q Well, I was wondering, at this time when this broadcast was made, were any -- was any memorandum or account prepared and presented to Bob Schieffer or CBS for the preparation of this broadcast?
A On the major interviews that were done by major networks, for them to verify it, each of them requested that they see Colonel Rock's report and recommendations. His report is about 100 pages of the five-month Article 32 hearing. And I showed several people that. I kept it on my person, but they looked at it for verification of statements that I was making. They didn't want to publish things that weren't true. He may have seen that, but there were no memoranda, no.
Q Do you recall who arranged this interview that took place in Mr. Lowenstein's office?
A Sir, I honestly don't remember an interview in an office. It may have occurred, but I really don't remember that.
Most of these interviews were done on the phone. There were a lot of interviews at Fort Bragg where they brought TV crews to the BOQ. But, on December 11th that wouldn't have been the case.
Q You don't remember being in Alderman -- or Congressman Allen Lowenstein's office, Bob Schieffer being there, and I assume cameramen and technicians --
A Sir, that was not an unusual occurrence at the time. Honestly. I mean this was happening all the time.
Q I have here a Washington Merry-Go-Round clipping that's dated December 4, 1970. Of course the author is Jack Anderson. And he refers to the fact that he had previously published an article on July 11, 1970, which I, of course, have not seen, but did you turn over any information to Jack Anderson sometime prior to July 11?
A If it's the column I'm remembering, I'm sure he got something. I honestly don't know what. Probably a letter. Or, phone calls. I honestly don't know that.
Q Well, let me read you this phrase.
A This is from what, sir? This is from the --
Q December 14 column. He said: "We conducted our own quiet investigation into the case. We published our conclusions on July 11 that the army had botched the investigation and might be perpetrating a grave injustice." Now, he says he conducted a "quiet investigation." Tell me what you know about this.
A The only name that I know was Les Whitten, apparently his associate, and this was done mainly through my attorneys. And I honestly don't know the details of that investigation.
Q You were not present?
A I was not present.
Q And all you know about it is what your attorneys told you about it?
A I read the column.
Q But they told you they furnished certain information to Jack Anderson?
A They didn't specifically say that. They said there had been communication with Les Whitten, I believe, is my recollection.
Q What does that mean to you: "There had been communications with Les Whitten"?
A It means there had been communications with Les Whitten. I don't know whether it was written, verbal -- I honestly don't know that.
Q Now, in the December 14, 1970, column, it says: "We have seen the report prepared by Colonel Warren Rock and -- " Then he discusses the matter somewhat further, and then he says: "Meanwhile Captain MacDonald's army attorney, Lt. Michael J. Malley, has requested an investigation of the army's handling of the case." Other language that I won't quote. Did you personally have any contact with Jack Anderson or one of his employees in this matter?
A I don't believe it was personal. There may have been a phone call to Les Whitten. But I'm not really sure anymore. I never met any of the people.
Q How about Mike Malley? Was he dealing with Jack Anderson and his people?
A No. Michael Malley was in Vietnam.
Q Now, I have a somewhat more lengthy transcript. It's captioned, Transcript of Jeffrey MacDonald's Appearance on Dick Cavett Show, 15 December 1970. Do you remember that occasion, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q How did that come about?
A I believe that was Lowenstein's bright idea to push along the congressional reinvestigation that we were asking for, civilian type not CID reinvestigating itself. But his feeling was that pressure should be brought to bear from any number of quarters. That was the last -- That was when I finally said, this thing was too much and I wasn't going to do any more.
Q Did you prepare, or did some of your associates prepare a file of materials to turn over to either Dick Cavett or the people who prepared the Dick Cavett show for his use in connection with the interview that he conducted with you?
A I don't think it was ever turned over. I think they viewed Colonel Rock's report, which I had a copy of, which several other people had copies of apparently, and Lt. Malley's charges, Mr. Kassab's charges, possibly some of the testimony taken under oath by the CID agents in the Article 32 hearing, the transcript which we had a copy of. I believe it was the same type of feeling on the part of the show, that they had to view some government document; otherwise, it would just be us stating feelings.
Q All right. Here you're referring to the -- I'm sure this refers to the April 6 incident although you don't specify that date -- you are referring to interrogation of you by military personnel. You say, "It's really an interrogation, you know. They turned the light up in front of your face and have all these little tricks. And then they told me to go back to work so I left," etc. Now, tell me about this business of staring into the light and the little tricks that were --
A That's all in the Article 32 transcript, sir, under oath. It's there. I'm sure you've read it.
Q You don't wish to explain it to the grand jury at this time?
A Sure. When I was called -- I wasn't called. When I went to the CID office on Monday morning, April 6, and I walked into the room -- You know, I walked into the room and Mr. Graebner stated --
Q Tell us, how large was the room? Was it as large as this room?
A I don't remember it as that large. It seemed much smaller.
Q Was it in an old school building?
A It was in an old building on post. It was in CID headquarters on post.
Q How many desks were there?
A In that room? I believe there were two.
Q How many chairs?
A I have no idea. Mr. Graebner's, mine, probably a couple along the walls.
Q And where was the lamp?
A Sir, I don't want to --
Q Describe the layout of the room.
A Sir, I don't want to make implications that aren't true. I didn't really ever -- When I sat down, Mr. Graebner started -- Essentially we talked about several things first before allegedly he turned on his tape recorder that I wasn't aware was going. And two other agents came up behind me without their jackets on. They had white shirts and ties and guns on their hips. And it just seemed like -- you know it was -- we were allegedly discussing turning over my personal property. That's what I was at the BOQ for -- I mean the CID office that morning for, allegedly. And it just seemed funny. And then he said, there are some minor discrepancies in the case that we'd like you to clear up. I said, fine. And I said something like, I've been trying to talk to you guys for 6 weeks and nobody appears interested. And he says, "Oh, we're interested." And I said, "Well, I don't understand this, why we haven't talked." And he said, "But we're going to talk." So I sat down and at some point either Mr. Ivory or Mr. Graebner -- There was some sort of a desk lamp. I don't know if it was long. I don't know if it was short -- Obviously reached over and turned the light up. And I remember thinking, that's really stupid.
Q What sort of light was it?
A I don't remember, sir. I don't remember if it was a round one or a long one, but I remember thinking it was a dumb thing to do. If you want to talk and clear up things, I don't understand this.
Q In what way did he turn the light up?
A I don't remember. It was just a -- I don't know. I didn't stop and think and say, well, there's a long, 6-inch light, or 12-inch florescent lamp, or a round lamp; but someone, one of the three, reached over on the desk and adjusted something. And I realized from then on I was annoyed because this thing was shining in my face. That's all. That's all it amounted to.
Q Was it a well-lit room? Were there a lot of windows in it?
A I don't remember. It seemed to be probably two windows behind Mr. Graebner's desk or something.
Q Were you facing Mr. Graebner's desk?
A I believe I was sort of on the side of it. He'd be sitting here and I'd be sitting to the --
Q Where was the light located?
A It was somewhere on the desk it seemed to me.
Q Was it on the far side of the desk?
A Sir, it wasn't important to me at the time.
Q Well, it's become important by the fact that this reference to the light occurs so frequently in these news accounts that I read.
A Sir, we're not here to discuss news accounts. I can testify for three days. We haven't talked about anything that's factual.
Q We're here to discuss misconduct on the part of the CID. Now, you say "little tricks." What are you referring to?
A Oh, the little -- what's called the "Mutt and Jeff" approach that I'm sure you're aware of where someone badgers you for about an hour or two and then he leaves the room. And the other guy sort of puts his arm around you and says, I'm really a nice guy and you can kind of lean on me and we'll get this all squared away. It's a common interrogation technique. I'd just finished learning about it as a matter of fact that week.
Q You state on this interview, "I had 5 guards outside my room who had loaded 45's." Does that mean there were 5 guards standing shoulder-to-shoulder outside your room or what were you implying?
A In reference to when, sir?
Q I'll read it in context. "My commanding officer called me in and told me he was putting me in confinement so I had 5 guards outside my room who had loaded 45's."
A That's true. There was one outside my window. There was one sitting under a tree about 50 yards away in case I should apparently make a mad dash for it. There was one at each end of the BOQ. And there was one right outside my door. That's exactly what happened.
Q And how long did these continue?
A A couple of days.
Q And then it was modified?
A Yes. Then they had one sitting outside my door. Although I hadn't been charged at that point. The only thing that happened officially was I was placed under house arrest and the provost marshal announced I was a suspect. That's the only thing that had happened. That's why it was unusual there were 5 guards around me. Later they said it was for my benefit.
Q Now, you state here that the CID man, a technician I assume, took some photographs and fingerprints -- Let me read the whole paragraph.
"He then took a picture of each one," referring to the fingerprints, "and went and developed them and he came back and all of his film was bad. So he had no photographs of any of the fingerprints. However, before he left, he had covered all the fingerprints with tape, and when he came back to photograph them, and he took the tape -- and he took the tape off, he destroyed 50 fingerprints."
Now, is that an accurate statement, sir?
A That may have been what I said. The numbers are apparently not accurate, my lawyers have since informed me. The numbers were not accurate. There were a lot of fingerprints destroyed. I don't to this day know how many. Apparently the lab technician, if you read his testimony under oath in the Article 32, he doesn't know how many.
Q Was all the film destroyed?
A No. There were some fingerprints that came out.
Q Do you know how much of the film was destroyed?
A I have no idea. We asked him why the film was destroyed, and he said, maybe a truck went by and the rumbling of the ground affected the film.
Q When you said then that 50 fingerprints were destroyed, you say now that was not accurate?
A That was a common statement at that time, sir. It was -- that figure was being used a lot. It was thrown around by us, obviously, but I think it was also made under oath by one of the three investigators -- Shaw, Ivory or Graebner -- in the transcripts that were taken down by a court reporter under oath to my lawyers. I'm not sure of that, but it was just kind of a common thing in talking about it. Everyone said, "Christ, there's so many fingerprints destroyed..." And it ended up, at the Article 32, that none of us, at least on re-reading it, I can't figure out how many fingerprints have been destroyed.
Q You say a veteran of 7 years in the Criminal Investigation Division got on the stand and said under oath that he wasn't aware that the FBI checks fingerprints?
A That's correct.
Q Was that in fact his statement?
A That's correct.
Robert Shaw, seven years in the CID, stated under oath he wasn't aware that the FBI checked fingerprints.
I'll be glad to give you a copy of that. But I'm sure you have it.
Q You say further, "there was an unidentified person in the house when the police got there." Was that correct?
A That is correct. Or, at least this is testimony given under oath by MPs on the scene. That's essentially what that statement means. The testimony was that there was an unidentified male with long hair and dungarees who was in the living room when the MPs were in the living room. And he walked out between the MPs. Or, words to that effect. They asked them who he was. They didn't know. They asked them what he was doing there. They didn't know. What was his name? They didn't know. Did they stop him at the door? They didn't.
Q Who was the source of that information, sir?
A What information?
Q About the unidentified person.
A That was testimony given in the Article 32 hearing, sir.
Q By whom?
A By the MPs. I don't know which one.
Q Was that by Mr. Mica?
A He was probably one of them. Yes, I think he was one of them.
Mr. Mica was the one who was threatened by his commanding officer to recant his testimony or they would write a letter to Long Island and he would lose the police job he was applying for.
Q Now, once again, you say with regard to the proceedings, "I've watched these men and I've seen them testify and I've seen perjury."
Tell us about the perjury. Specifically, where? With respect to what matters? When? Did any person knowingly under oath make a false statement?
A I have three of them that come to mind immediately. One is a CID agent testifying under oath that he didn't know the FBI checked fingerprints. That is so incredulous it boggles the mind. That's one statement. The second statement encompasses --
Q Can you name this individual?
A Robert Shaw.
Q Robert Shaw?
A CID agent Robert Shaw.
Q All right.
A One of the three investigators in the case who also stated under oath that he personally interviewed 6 or 7 people, chief investigator in the case interviewed 6 people. That has to be perjury, sir.
Q What's his name, sir?
A Robert Shaw.
Q That's again Robert Shaw?
A That's right.
Q Now give me another incidence?
A Mr. Ivory's long, lengthy, many pages of testimony, which you can supply to these people, reference to his interviews with Helena Stokely.
Q Now, when was his testimony given and when was the interview given?
A I'm sorry. What, sir?
Q When was this testimony given under oath with respect to this matter? Was it at the time of the Article 32?
A Yes. This is the Article 32 testimony, William -- Specialist William Ivory.
Q And essentially what was the perjury that he committed at that time?
A It had come -- It just takes a minute, if I may.
Q Sure.
A It had come to our attention -- And I repeat what I said another time -- through absolute, sheer circumstance that there was this potential witness to the crime, Helena Stokely, apparently the daughter of a retired Lt. Colonel who was heavy in the drugs and who apparently the CID and the police were using as a drug informant. We found that out later. Mr. Ivory -- I'd really have to refer to the testimony, but the testimony is so unbelievable, it is so obviously perjured testimony that my attorney got up in that courtroom and he said he has done 7,000 cases, 500 homicides and he's never heard testimony like Mr. Ivory's ever. He represented that to the court.
Q With what respect did Mr. Ivory lie?
A Mr. Ivory was instructed by the prosecutors, after we found this witness, to investigate the witness. He then went to investigate the witness. He achieved the investigation by telling the Fayetteville police to pick her up. They picked her up. He interviewed her at the police station apparently, if you can make head or tails of his testimony. Apparently he interviewed her twice. He was asked, "Does she have an alibi?" And he said, "Yes." And you say, "What was the alibi?" "She was stoned on marijuana." Prior testimony had already been on the record that she had said to several people that she was stoned on LSD and mescaline. So we said since Mr. Ivory had investigated her at the prosecutor's request -- Colonel Rock's request and this prior testimony was on the record, we said, "Were you aware that she has made statements to the effect that she was stoned on mescaline and LSD?" He said, no, he wasn't. He said, "Did she tell you where she lived?" "Yes, she did." "And did she give you an address?" "Yes, she did." "Did she discuss -- did you discuss -- " This is paraphrasing words -- I'm paraphrasing now. Did you discuss drugs with her? And the answer was in the affirmative. And what was her reply? She knew nothing about it except for this episode with marijuana. What were you doing the night of February 16, 17? I was driving around in a car. Whose car? I don't know. Mr. Segal says, "Do you accept that?" And he said, "Yes." Mr. Segal said, "Do you think she was being frank, open and honest?" And Mr. Ivory said, "Yes." Mr. Segal said, "Do you mean to tell me you were driving around in a car, you do not remember where you were because of the effects of marijuana and you felt that that was a frank, open and honest answer?" Yes, I did. What was the name of the individual who owned the car? I don't know. What was his last name? I don't know. What was his first name? I think Bruce. Who were the people that lived in the house with you? I don't know. How many people lived in the house with you? I don't know. What were their names? I don't know. Have you lived with them for a period of weeks or months? Yes, I have. What are their names? I don't know. Mr. Ivory, do you think that is being frank, open and honest? Yes, I do. This went on for pages and pages at the end of which we found out, at the end of his testimony, we found out that he knows she is a drug informant. He has already testified that she didn't know anything about drugs. And I put to you, sir, that is perjury.
Q All right. We'll look into the testimony.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Mr. Foreman, I see it's getting quarter to twelve on my clock.

A I have another episode of perjury.
Q Yes.
A Mr. Graebner perjured himself at the trial at the Article 32 investigation. Mr. Graebner is the chief investigator in the case allegedly. He blames Shaw, Shaw blames Ivory and Ivory blames Graebner, to make a long story short. Each one was actually responsible for all these wrong doings. The hair incident occurred -- we've already gone over that, the taking of the hair samples which happened in July. The hair report from these hair samples was not in evidence by the end of August. This is a 6-weeks lapse here during which time my attorneys became very anxious about the results of the hair report. It became a mystery as to -- after they did this, had the big scene, and they got the hair samples, why don't they give the report to Colonel Rock. If they think it implicates me, fine, then we'll deal with it. If they don't think it implicates me, Colonel Rock should be aware of that. Otherwise, it's obstruction of justice.
Colonel Rock called in Mr. Graebner because for about a month Colonel Rock had been saying to the prosecutor, Captain Summers, Captain Summers, where's the hair report? Captain Summers kept saying he was not aware of the hair report. Colonel Rock instructed Captain Summers to check into the whereabouts of the hair report, every day or every couple days during the hearing and then a delay while I went to Walter Reed to be examined by three army psychiatrists this, you know, request for the hair report that had been such a tremendous issue with the army was requested. Finally the hair report comes into evidence in September at the direct order of Colonel Rock. He ordered them to produce the hair report and suddenly the magical hair report was produced. And it said the hair was dissimilar. This didn't set well with either myself nor my attorneys. It did not set well with Colonel Rock. Colonel Rock called Mr. Graebner back on the witness stand and he said, Mr. Graebner -- I'm paraphrasing now, okay? Mr. Graebner, we have before us a hair report. Mr. Graebner says, yes. He says, about when did you receive that? He said, Oh, the end of August. And this is during the middle of a hearing on a triple homicide that Mr. Graebner has already told us is the biggest case the army has ever handled. He has already told us that. So, Colonel Rock said to Mr. Graebner: When did you receive the hair report? I don't remember. Colonel Rock was absolutely incredulous. He said, well, try to remember, Mr. Graebner. Would you like a calendar? He offered him a calendar in court. Mr. Graebner looked at the calendar and said it was sometime at the end of August, August 29th or 30th. Colonel Rock, or my attorney, or someone said, perhaps it was about the 23rd of August, Mr. Graebner. Mr. Graebner said, yes, that was it, or something like that. I don't know whether or not they're talking about the addendum at this time or the original report. To make a long story short, it's all taken under oath in the Article 32 hearing. It's available. But it turned out that the hair report was received on Fort Bragg on about August 1st or 2nd. Colonel Rock had asked for it, we had asked for it and the prosecuting attorneys had asked for it.
Mr. Graebner came back in and it was finally put to him, where has it been for a month? He said, it was on my desk.
My lawyer got up and he said, it is inconceivable that you have misplaced this report for a month. And he said, well, I have a lot of other matters to attend to. It got lost in my files.
And I put to you, sir, that that is perjury. It is clear, blatant perjury. And that is just one of many examples of what happened at Fort Bragg in 1970.
Q All right. I have a copy of the Daily Pennsylvanian.
I don't know whether you want to knock off right now, Mr. Foreman.

FOREMAN EPPERSON: I was going to wait until Dr. MacDonald finished. First time we've heard you go ahead and explain some events. And I didn't want to interrupt you, but it's ten minutes until twelve. If you are going to go into another area, I'd just as soon we stop now and have lunch and come back about one.

MR. WOERHEIDE: All right, sir. Fine. I might say that Dr. MacDonald, as you know from the proceedings that were had yesterday, has agreed to furnish -- make himself available for hair samples, photographs and footprints. And that, I understand, is being done during the noon interlude. So, I don't know how much time that will require. You said one o'clock. It's possible that they may not be finished with that by that time. I do not know.

FOREMAN Epperson: Can you estimate a time?

WITNESS: I will hope one o'clock. We'll try to roll.

FOREMAN Epperson: How about 1:20, 1:15. Let's give it 15 more minutes and that'll give us almost an hour and a half. So, we'll be back then.

[RECESS]


The afternoon session of the grand jury reconvened at 2:20 p.m., 8/14/74. The following proceedings were held to wit:

[Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald resumes the stand.]

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Dr. MacDonald, before we resume with this matter, should we consult with your counsel as to whether or not they are going to be available tomorrow and Friday?
A They are trying desperately, sir. I just mentioned it to your associate. He doesn't have a definite answer. I presume -- I am hoping that we will be.
Q I just didn't want to get into the February 16, 17 before I knew that definitely. It is now getting close to 2:30 and so I think I'll just have to hold it in abeyance at least for a while. There are just a few more matters preliminary that I want to cover and maybe we will have to touch on those and then take a recess.
Do you recall appearing before a body of approximately a hundred law students in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on or about February 11, 1971?
A I remember the appearance. I don't remember the date.
Q Who arranged that, Dr. MacDonald?
A Mr. Segal.
Q And tell us about that. What was that all about?
A He is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania and it was one of his classes and there was some discussion about the MacDonald case at Ft. Bragg. And he asked me would I mind answering some questions from his law students.
Q Now, this was a class that was studying at that time various aspects of military justice. Is that right?
A I have no idea.
Q Well, all I have that refers to that is an article from the Daily Pennsylvanian and I assume that's a newspaper at the University of Pennsylvania. It said that Capt. Jeffrey MacDonald charged that both the military investigators and FBI agents falsified and destroyed evidence in an attempt to railroad him into a conviction of killing his family on February 19, 1970. I think what we've talked about up to this point is allegations with respect to the misconduct of the CID. Can you tell us about the FBI and can you elaborate a little bit on this falsifying and destruction of evidence?
A First of all, your propensity to use newspapers as evidence in a hearing mystifies me. Second of all, I don't actually remember ever saying that. The only thing that I could possibly be referring to in regards to the FBI is a report that was released by Mr. McNamara's predecessor, Mr. Coolidge, at a large press conference, in which he stated that the assault upon myself and my attorneys was staged by us for publicity. As a matter of fact, the headline read: "Cheap Publicity Stunt Charged by U.S. Attorney." And so my reference to the FBI, if I made it, would have been reference to their final report after allegedly interviewing witnesses of that event. I say allegedly because several people have told us that they were not interviewed.
Q Now, in looking over an interview they had with you in the Philadelphia Bar Association library in Philadelphia on February 19, there are a couple of questions and answers here that I don't quite understand.
A Sir, what interview is? I missed that.
Q It took place on February 19, 1971. The place was the Philadelphia Bar Association library in Philadelphia. There was a reporter present that made a transcript; and as appearances, it indicates Col. Jack G. Pruitt  and Peter E. Kearns of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division and Bernard L. Segal, Esq., counsel for Jeffrey MacDonald.
A Right.
Q And after discussing your assertion that -- Well, there is an allusion to Benny Hawkins. I don't quite understand at all. You say that Mr. Ivory should be court martialed as you well know and then I am trying to find what especially interested me. A Gen. Emerson refers to a conversation that you had with Gen. Emerson and it implies that you informed him that you had certain information or something of that sort. I just don't quite understand it. Do you remember the -- Do you know a Gen. Emerson?
A Not offhand.
Q You don't recall a conversation with Gen. Emerson?
A Not at this moment, no. Maybe you could tell me what it was in reference to or show me the statement.
Q It implied that you had information concerning the people who committed the intrusion into your house and murdered your family and assaulted you and that you were not going to provide this information to the CID or something of that sort. As I say, it is garbled here. It doesn't make much sense to me but that is the best that I can get out of it.
A Well, first of all, a lot of things at that time weren't making much sense. That was right after I had just gotten out of the Army. Second of all, I would assume the majority of that, the thrust of that conversation would be relative to information about Mr. Posey and Helena Stokely.
Q Well, since your activity before you left Ft. Bragg in investigating this matter which you recounted to us yesterday, have you conducted any further investigation concerning these people, that is Stokely or anyone else?
A Since I left Ft. Bragg?
Q Yes.
A Nothing direct, not down to North Carolina.
Q How about in the New York City area?
A No, not really.
Q Do you remember that letter from Fred Kassab and he sort of rebuked you because you were in the area and you had not called him or visited him? I think this is -- His letter was written on November 6, 1971, and you answered him on November 9, 1971. I referred to a portion of it yesterday and the portion I did not refer to at that time I'd like to refer to now.
You say, "I have been in Long Island on several occasions in the last three months."
A When was this now? Could I see the letter?
Q Yes. I'll show you another copy.
Do you recognize your handwriting?
A Yes, I sure do.
Q That is a letter that you wrote?
A The beginning looks like it.
Q Now, you say towards the middle of the page, "I have been in Long Island on several occasions in the last three months, usually not to see my family but continue work on finding three (possibly four, more might be added according to current stories in hippie family number two in North Carolina) fugitives." Let me read that again. "I have been in Long Island on several occasions in the last three months, usually not to see my family but to continue work on finding three (or possibly four, one more might be added according to current stories in hippie family number two in North Carolina) fugitives."
A This is in reference to what we talked about yesterday. This is my trying to keep Freddie at bay. You know you are taking it out of context. You should have read the whole letter. You probably did but you don't want the grand jury to hear it.
Q I'll ask the reporter to mark that and we'll make it an exhibit for the grand jury and make it available to the grand jury and while we are doing that, we better mark some of these other letters as exhibits.
The one you have is 11/9/71, is it not?
A 11/9/71.
Q All right, here is a letter of 11/19/70. Is that your handwriting?
A That appears to be.
Q Did you write the letter?
A Sure, if it is my handwriting.
Q Did you mail it to Mr. Kassab?
A Sure.
Q Here is one that is dated 3/22/73, appears to be on your letterhead; and it is addressed, "Dear Mildred." Is that your handwriting?
A Right.
Q Did you mail that to the Kassabs?
A Yes, I did.

MR. WOERHEIDE: I am going to ask our Reporter to mark these as exhibits. The one of them I have some marks on it that I made for my own purpose but I will get another copy and I will substitute it for the one that I have marked up (Exhibit #5) and let's have them marked. No. Just a second.
For the record, MacDonald's Exhibit #6 -- I'm sorry #5 is the letter dated 11/19/70.
#6 is a letter dated 11/9/71.
And Exhibit #7 is a letter dated 3/22/73.
And for the record, I am going to substitute for Exhibit #5 a copy on which I have not placed any marks. You will notice I have some red marks there and I want to get a copy that is unmarked. These will be a part of the grand jury record.

[MACDONALD EXHIBITS #5, #6, #7 WERE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.]

Mr. Foreman, I suggest since we do have a few questions that we want to ask Mr. Segal and Mr. Malley and we don't know right now whether they are going to be here tomorrow, that -- and whether this grand jury is going to sit tomorrow, that we excuse Dr. MacDonald temporarily and invite Mr. Malley and Mr. Segal to appear before you. I don't think it will take very long.

FOREMAN: Very well.

MR. WOERHEIDE: So you are excused temporarily, Dr. MacDonald; and I will come out with you and speak to Mr. Malley and Mr. Segal.

[DR. MACDONALD IS EXCUSED FROM THE STAND.]

 

 

Home  -  Contact  -  Scholarship Fund  -  New Uploads  -  Christina's Corner  -  Resource Page
Chronology  -  Claims vs. Facts  - 
Various Documents  -  CID Records  -  FBI Records
April 6, 1970 Interview  -  Article 32 Hearing  -  Psychiatric/Psychological Data  -  DNA Results
July 23-24, 1970: John Cummings' exclusive interview with MacDonald  - 
Polygraphs
Affidavits  -  Grand Jury Transcripts  -  1979 Trial Transcripts  -  MD License Revoked
1987: MacDonald v. McGinniss  -  Mildred Kassab sues MacDonald  -  Court Records

 Parole Hearing  -  Kassab's Work  -  Bob Stevenson Answers Your Questions
Photograph Pages 

 


Go to top