ARTICLE 32 HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
August 12, 1970: Dr. Robert Sadoff (Psychiatrist)
MR. SEGAL: I'd like to call Dr. Sadoff, please.
COL ROCK: Well, wait a minute; don't call him now, it's 11:15.
MR. SEGAL: I would suggest we could start, sir, because it doesn't make much difference in interruption of the statement of qualification of the witness. The government might want to contemplate that or decide whether they want to question him in the interim. I would like in view of the fact, in view of the fact that Doctor Sadoff is under some pressure because of patient commitments, to take advantage of our regular time, at least as fully as possible, in this regard.
COL ROCK: What time is his flight scheduled for return?
MR. SEGAL: He's driving, sir.
COL ROCK: We will go through that procedure then, but I do wish to have our normal break.
(Doctor Robert L. Sadoff was called as a witness by the defense, was sworn, and testified as follows.)
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Doctor Sadoff, would you state your full name?
A Robert L. Sadoff, S-a-d-o-f-f.
Q And your address?
A The Benjamin Fox Pavilion, Jenkins, Pennsylvania.
Q And what is your profession, sir?
A I'm a physician.
Q Have you a specialty?
A Yes, I am a psychiatrist.
Q Would you please state for the investigating officer what you education is?
A Yes, I went to the University of Minnesota and I received a Doctor of Medicine Degree in 1959. I followed that with internship at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Los Angeles, California for one year, after which I spent three years at the UCLA Neuropsychiatry Institute in psychiatry residence and training.
Q Now are you certified by any medical board?
A Yes, I am, by the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology.
Q And how long how you been certified?
A Since May 1966.
Q Did you serve in the Armed Forces of the United States?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when and to when, and what was your assignment?
A I was stationed at Fort Dix, New Jersey from 1963 until 1965 and my assignment was a Captain in the Medical Corps as a psychiatrist in charge of outpatient military working in courts-martial psychiatry and stockade psychiatry.
Q How many cases did you have occasion to make examination for that were related to court-martial proceedings while you were a Captain in the Army?
A I would say that I examined about fifty people or more as specifically for court-martial work.
Q In your capacity of civilian position since being in the Army have you had occasion to examine members of the Armed Forces in connection with other court-martial proceedings?
A Yes, I have.
Q And on how many occasions have you made such examinations, this including?
A I don't have the exact number. I'd say it's over ten, more like twelve or fifteen.
Q Now would you state to the investigating officer what positions you have held as a psychiatrist?
A When I came out of the Army in 1965 I became a Fellow in forensic work, legal psychiatry at Temple University in Philadelphia, and during that year I was also the Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Clinic -- that was about a year when I saw about 150 patients, half of whom were involved in criminal legal matters, and the other half in civil matters. Following that year I served as the first Clinical Director of the State Maximum Security Forensic Diagnostic Hospital at Holmesburg County Prison in Philadelphia. I might say that that entailed setting up a 100-bed hospital within the prison to examine for sixty days individuals referred to us by the Court of Philadelphia, and I had that position from November 1966 until May 1968. I also have served as Consultant to the Norristown State Hospital in forensic psychiatric matters. I have done that from 1966 to the present time. Following my termination as the Clinical Director,
I had resigned that position to become training supervisor in forensic psychiatry at Temple which meant that I had charge of training the young psychiatrists who were coming in to study legal psychiatry, which I still hold.
Q Doctor Sadoff, have you been engaged in any teaching or educational activities in psychiatry?
A Yes, I am on the staff at Temple University. I'm an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry and lecturer in law at the Law School of Temple. I have taught at the Norristown State Hospital; I have taught at Friends Hospital in Philadelphia; I have just been appointed to the Einstein Hospital in Philadelphia to teach, especially in law psychiatry; I am on the staff at Philadelphia where I serve as a Group Psychotherapist for the Sex Offender Project, which has been going on for three or four years now. I have taught in other capacities, for example, the Crime Commission has held Judicial Sentencing Institutes.
Q Who are the participants in the Judicial Sentencing --
A These are the judges of the State Courts in Pennsylvania. I have served to teach one course or one seminar activity at various universities, at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Buffalo in New York, the Rutgers University, Villanova, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Q Now do you hold any research positions at the present time?
A I'm a Research Associate in Unit in Law and Psychiatry at Temple University, and also on the Research Staff at Philadelphia General Hospital.
Q Are you in private practice of psychiatry?
A Yes, I am.
Q And what portion of your time is devoted to private practice?
A I would say between half and two-thirds.
Q Have you held license as a doctor from various states of the United States?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer in what states you are licensed to practice medicine?
A First in Minnesota in 1959, and then in California in 1960; New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey in 1965, and Pennsylvania in 1965.
Q Do you hold any memberships in professional associations?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you state what those are, please?
A I am a member of the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, the State, County and local chapters of each of these in Pennsylvania. I'm also actively involved as Membership Chairman of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, and I've just been inducted as a Fellow in the American College of Legal Medicine.
Q Have you received any fellowships or awards in connection with your study?
A I have had two; the first was when I was a medical student. I had a fellowship in Pediatrics and also in Psychiatry as a student Fellow. I had the fellowship of Forensic Psychiatry in 1965 at Temple.
Q Who awarded the fellowship?
A The National Institute of Mental Health.
Q And have you had any occasion to present the findings or research you have done at psychiatric meetings or -- national nature?
A Yes, I have.
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer some of the principal papers that you have presented?
A I presented papers to the American Group Psychotherapy Association, two of them, one of which was "On Changing Therapists" on the research at Philadelphia General Hospital. I was interested in stuttering, having been a stutterer, and I presented a paper on "Group Psychotherapy for Stutterers" to the national meetings, and I presented papers to the American Psychiatric Association about five times. One had to do with military matters; that was "Psychiatric Testimony in Military Courts" which I wrote when I was an officer at Fort Dix. Others have been more in the area of law and psychiatry, advising other psychiatrists as to their role, or possible rolls in psychiatry and law.
Q Have you published any articles or matters that you have written?
A Yes, I have.
Q And how many have you published altogether?
A I think I have in print now about thirty-five with five accepted, and three that I've been waiting to hear from, and four or five --
Q Would you indicate to the investigating officer how many of them have to do with forensic psychiatry?
A I would say about, possibly out of thirty-five, maybe twenty-five.
Q Do any of them have to do with psychiatry in the context of military court proceedings?
A Yes, one of them had to do with psychiatric testimony in military courts. One was an evaluation of the psychiatric role in the search for truth, an examination of the use of lie detection, hypnosis and truth serum, or sodium Pentothal injections, which I have used.
Q Did any of the articles deal with court-martial proceedings in which you have participated?
A Yes, there was one recently. I had been involved in a matter in Vietnam in January of last year, 1969. I wrote a paper on the court-martial proceedings, not the legal aspect but what occurs when a psychiatrist goes to Vietnam to testify in a military proceedings there; the anxieties that I thought I would share with my colleagues, I had that published.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further at this time. I'm sorry; I have one other question, if I may, before you go, Captain Somers.
Q In how many cases have you been involved with making psychiatric examinations that dealt with criminals -- homicides?
A I would say several hundred, and the bulk of which were those that I had seen as a Clinical Director of the State Maximum Security Hospital in Philadelphia that the judges had sent to me for examination, and I would say at least over one hundred privately.
MR. SEGAL: Thank you.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, as I understand you did both your undergraduate and medical school work at the University of Minnesota. Is that correct?
A That's right.
Q Do you consider yourself a forensic psychiatrist?
A Yes, I do.
Q And can you tell us what that term means to you?
A To me it means a person who has had special training and experience in the adaptation of his tools of psychiatry to legal procedures, both in criminal and civil nature. It is some specialty, in my opinion, in the field of psychiatry.
Q Your internship, was this a general rotating internship?
A Yes, sir.
Q And by putting the figures together you've been involved in practice of psychiatry in one form or another for ten years now?
A That's right.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
COL ROCK: I have one question, doctor. Why is it necessary to have a sub-specialty in this particular field? What are the aspects of the profession that require this sub-specialization, if you will?
WITNESS: I think that's a very good question and a lot of my colleagues ask it also, and that's one of the things that I can speak on for a long time, but if I can very brief about it, I think that psychiatry has become so complex with its involvement in so many fields, that a general psychiatrist does not have the proper training or background to be involved in a legal situation to the highest degree. I think there is room for this kind of sub-specialization and not perhaps on a full time basis but in a way that -- well, as an example, when I examine a person whose involved in a criminal offense, the average psychiatrist that I have spoken to will do an average psychiatric examination, which is good. But I will also get as much information as I can from the arresting officer, family members, his attorney, anybody who has anything at all to do with the evaluation of his mental state as close to the time of the alleged offense as possible, and I think that is a complete examination than a one-time or two-time psychiatric examination six months later could never provide. That's an example.
COL ROCK: Thank you.
MR. SEGAL: Sir, at this time I would move for an acceptance of Doctor Sadoff's qualifications as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry, and also ask for leave to, after lunch, mark as an exhibit a full statement of the papers and articles and publications that have been delivered by Doctor Sadoff which I do not think it necessary to have it read into the record but which should be appended as an exhibit.
CPT SOMERS: I have no objection to either of those requests.
COL ROCK: It will be accepted as an exhibit and I believe that would be A-35. This hearing will be recessed until 1330 this afternoon.
(The hearing recessed at 1134 hours, 12 August 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1335 hours, 12 August 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those parties that were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room to include the witness, Doctor Sadoff. Sir, I remind you again that you are under oath. Proceed, counselor.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Doctor Sadoff, in regard to the testimony you are about to give this afternoon, it would be helpful to me, to the extent that it is possible, if you would try and phrase your answers in perhaps more common or general language as opposed to specific medical and scientific terms. I think that I would find it helpful and perhaps would be more clear in my understanding of it, the information you are going to give to us. Is that satisfactory to you, sir?
A Yes, it is.
COL ROCK: And also, if you do use technical terms, please spell them for the benefit of the recorder.
WITNESS: Yes, I will.
Q Have you had occasion to examine the accused in this case. Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was the objectives or purposes of that examination?
A First of all, as in any examination, it's a general psychiatric examination, mental state, take a history, find out as much as I can about him, as I would about any patient. In the specific instance here, you outline what the problems were, and the goals of the examination as I saw them were to determine whether or not Captain MacDonald possessed a type of a mental state that would be likely to result in the kind of tragedy or killings that occurred in his family.
I felt that there were any number of mental abnormalities that could lead to a person being capable of this kind of behavior and I outlined them, I thought, in my own mind before I examined Captain MacDonald, and my specific goal was to search for evidence for types of mental state that would be conducive or would even allow for this kind of behavior.
Q And the behavior referring to is the behavior that is supposedly the killing of his wife and two children on the specific facts of this case?
A That's right.
Q Now would you describe for the investigating officer the procedures and techniques that were followed in conducting the examination that you made of Captain MacDonald?
A First of all, Mr. Eisman, accompanied by Captain Douthat, came to my office with Captain MacDonald. Captain MacDonald waited in the waiting room while I was briefed about the nature of the problem and the killings or the deaths of his children and his wife, and as much as they knew about the situation that I should know. I do this because I did not have any official record of what had happened and what I wanted was as an official record as I could have, that is a statement from an outside source, prior to my talking with Captain MacDonald. Following that, I examined Captain MacDonald individually, that is by himself, I would say a period of about three hours. I asked him about the situation, why he was there, what was the specific reason for him being there, and to have him go over the details of the night in question, so that I could have specific data from him and also to compare with what I had previously gotten from Mr. Eisman. As he tells, as any patient tells about the specific present illness, you might say. Or reason for being examined, I have a technique of interrupting and testing and observing affective that his feeling tone responses to specific points made in the contents of what he's telling me, and I may relate some of this back to historical patterns; I may observe response -- there are several of them -- a gesture, a twitch, or a nervous moment, during the course of the examination. We also notice, of course, if there is any obvious reflection of happiness or sadness, or anger, a flush of the face, for example. One can sometimes note a heightened pulse, one can look at the temple pulse; one can note dilation of the pupils, that is, widening of the pupils. If one gets angry there is a sympathetic response, that is, the nervous system response. One can notice sweating, shaking, observing these things and the more obvious things as laughing, crying, walking about the room, not being able to sit still. That's the second part. Then we go into a history of previous behavior, pattern of adjustment to stress in the past; historical data such as family relationships and school and accomplishments and his feeling about what has happened to him in the past.
Following that, I try to go back to the present and relate things, the present to the past, and note whether there is a consistent pattern, or whether there is an inconsistency. I also take the information that I have received previously, and compare it to what he tells me, and also go back and get details about what he told more in a narrative, so that I have full understanding of what he is saying, and also to use in ways of testing orientation, testing his mental state. This is the next part of your examination. All of this kind of goes on simultaneously, but when I consider it I put it into some logical sequence of order, this is about the way I do it. And on the mental state, I look for evidence of anxiety, evidence of disorientation, evidence for intelligence or lack of it, his ability to abstract, conceptualize, to communicate effectively, whether he's random or whether he tends to loose the train of thought. I will purposefully take him off the central point of what he's presenting to see if he can spontaneously come back. Some people have more difficulty with that than others; whether can abstract a proverb; whether he can calculate. Sometimes I will ask specifically whether one can add a series of numbers, but with Captain MacDonald, of course, I didn't have to do that. He showed me evidence of his intellectual ability spontaneously by his talking. Following this, I always make it a matter of part of the examination in a serious matter as this, to have comprehensive psychological testing conducted by a competent -- usually a PhD in psychology, clinic psychologist.
Q Did you have this done with this particular case?
A Yes, I did. I had Doctor James Mack, who at that time was assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, and associate professor of psychology at Temple University, examine Captain MacDonald and that I used as also part of my overall comprehensive examination of him.
Q Could you indicate to us, before leaving the subject of Doctor Mack, about how extensive or how long Doctor Mack's testing encompassed?
A Yes, I know he saw him for three two hour periods, that he was with Captain MacDonald, following which I know he took the data that he had received and put it in some meaningful order, which must take him another couple of hours, and then prepared his consultation for me.
Q Were there any other techniques involved or procedures involved in your examination of Doctor MacDonald in addition to the psychological test?
A Consultation with you, further examination of him. In this case I did not get a chance to examine his family or talk with them, or interview them, which I would have wanted to. I did this morning, a bit; we talked out in the waiting room. It wasn't in the form of an examination. It was more of an informal conversation which I guess I usually use to -- one can't get away from his background and training -- and I usually perceive, if I want, from that kind of informality as well.
Q May I ask you, Doctor Sadoff, did you take into consideration the fact that the man you were asked to examine was a person whom himself had medical training and presumably may have some psychiatric knowledge and background himself?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you take into consideration any attempts by a person of that type of that background to perhaps disguise or hide from you true facts about his mental emotional condition?
A I took that into consideration and I was also aware that he would be very much able, as able as anybody I've ever examined, to do this, and I did not feel in my examination that he was holding back. I felt he was cooperative fully and did not, after the first few moments, seem guarded. I think he had a normal amount of resistance and guarding and discomfort at the beginning, as I find in everybody that I see who comes to see a psychiatrist for the first time, that I noted, but after the first few moments, and certainly well into the second or third hours he was calm and able to express very spontaneous feeling, affect, and I did not feel that he held back.
Q Do you regularly in the course of your work in examination utilize or develop techniques for attempting to determine whether a patient or a subject was hiding information or attempting to disguise the nature of his condition?
A Yes, I usually do, especially in the kind of work that I do. This is a very important part of the examination. Some are better at it than others, and some it is very obvious when they are attempting to mislead or confuse or deny. Others very subtly can do it and I don't like to think of myself as an adversary trying to outwit or uncover falsehoods, but what I do is if I feel that a person is misleading or vague or not as open or honest as he might be, I take this into account as a part of my examination of him, part of my evaluation; occasionally if I feel it strongly enough I will confront him with this and I have said to patients at times during examinations things such as "That's a pack of lies," or "I don't believe a word of what you've said." or "How can you expect me to believe something like that?" Sometimes mostly to get their reaction but also to see whether or not they are solely lying or whether or not this kind of candor will unnerve them sufficiently so that they come clean, and some of them do. Some of them maintain their fašade.
Q Now, based upon your examination of Doctor MacDonald and your examination of the consultation by Doctor Mack, and your evaluation of this data, and the other information received, did you form any opinion as to the state of mind of Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you indicate, of course, first for us -- when did your examinations of Captain MacDonald take place?
A I saw him on the morning of April 21st, 1970.
Q And did your, did you also take into consideration in the formation of your opinion, the fact that the crime which Captain MacDonald was then being considered as a suspect for what happened -- had happened on February 17th, 1970?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q Did the opinion that you formed cover not only the state of mind at the time you made your own personal examination and Doctor Mack made his examination, but also cover the period back to February 17, 1970?
A Yes, it did, and even before that.
Q What was the opinion that you formed as to the state of mine of Captain MacDonald?
A At the time I examined him I felt he was depressed as a reactive depression. This means that his sadness, more than sadness, but actual depression which was accompanied by difficulty sleeping, some problems in eating, some irritability, certainly sadness, and prone to tears in discussing the events of the night of February 17th, especially the death of his wife and children. I felt he was reacting to the deaths in his family by what I would consider to be a normal reactive depression.
Q Did you find as a result of your examination that Captain MacDonald was suffering from any mental illness?
A Except for the reaction to what happened to him and his family, I would say that there was no serious mental illness that would be classifiable, I'll go into that, that I could label him with. In psychiatry we are trained, as all physicians are trained to find illness. One doesn't look for health usually. What we have is a statistical manual published by the American Psychiatric Association which outlines and labels three basic types of mental and emotional states or illness. These are always psychological. One is psychosis, neurosis, and character and behavior disorders. These are outlined in the military manual also. So when you ask me if I found a mental illness in him I would go by the book, as you might say, and say that I did not find Captain MacDonald to be suffering from a psychosis. I did not feel he had a history of ever having a psychosis, nor was he showing any evidence for a residual psychotic situation at this time, at the time I examined him. I did not feel that he had a psychoneurosis in a sense of the labels that are given that is anxiety reaction. He had reactive depression which one could call a reactive psychoneurotic depression, but it isn't the kind that is repetitive that he's had throughout his life which comes up under stress; so I didn't give him a label of psychoneurotic reaction depressive reaction, which I suppose I could have, and said acute type, not pattern. He didn't have the obsessive compulsive neurosis. He didn't have an anxiety neurosis. He didn't have a phobic neurosis. These are the classic psychoneurosis. As far as character and behavior disorders, he didn't have identifiable ones such as inadequate personality, passive aggressive personality disorder, and the one that I was looking for specifically was a sociopathetic personality disorder. If one had, one could explain in some part the destruction and destructive behavior that we know existed at his home on that night, and yet have a fairly bland response to it, not showing conscience or remorse. I did not see any evidence for sociopathetic personality disorder or psychopathy, or character and behavior disorders in Captain MacDonald.
Q Now would you agree or disagree with the finding reported in the hospital records that were made during Captain MacDonald's stay at the Womack Army Hospital, which has been previously referred to in this case? In those records it was revealed that Doctor Ryder, a Major in the Medical Corps, noted on February 19th, 1970, in regard to the emotional state of Captain MacDonald, and I think I quote him correctly, "Normal grief process continues." Would you find your observations consistent with that, and would you consider it to be a continuation of the same process observed by Major Ryder on the 19th?
A Certainly on the 19th, it would be much more acute. He would be really involved in what had happened forty-eight hours previously or less than forty-eight hours, and I would say in my observations of him as much diminished form of the same normal response, yes.
Q Now is the grief, or reactive depression you've described in Captain MacDonald, was it necessarily indicative of merely remorse at the loss of his wife and children, or might it have been indicative that he felt a guilt for having actually committed those crimes and was fearful of having been perhaps implicated?
CPT SOMERS: I object. The defense counsel is again leading the witness to great extent.
CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled. You may answer the question.
A I feel that the depression that he felt had a guilt element with it, but I don't think it was guilt for having participated in the killings of his wife and children. I think Captain MacDonald felt guilty that he was not able to save them. I think he felt that his whole life was geared toward a strong element of survival, that he has shown evidence in his past, football co-captain, playing baseball, that he was athletic, that he was strong; he would express his needs in a healthy masculine fashion; took boxing, ran track, had every -- he was a parachute, parachutist, and a Green Beret, but he was the epitome of the one who could take care of himself and protect his family when it came down to it. I think he felt guilty because he was not able to do it, and such a tragedy did occur.
Q Did you find any evidence in your examination of Captain MacDonald to indicate that he had ever suffered from an acute toxic psychosis or an organic brain damage, and I would appreciate it if you would define the terms I have put to you?
A Yes, one can suffer a psychosis, that is a break with reality under the influence of various chemicals such a alcohol, LSD, other drugs, methyl amphetamines, and behave in a fashion which is totally foreign to his usual way of behavior, and break with reality. One would call this a toxic psychosis. I have no indication of any evidence that Captain MacDonald ever suffered from a psychosis due to the ingestion or taking in of any of these substances. As far as having an organic psychosis, usually we speak of a functional psychosis which is not related to actual brain tissue damage; that is one can become confused, disoriented by a blow to the head which would cause confusion and organic problem, that is a contusion to the head. Or one could have a systemic infection, an infection that involves the whole body and system causing encephalitis, that is inflammation, an infection of the brain, which could cause a psychotic reaction, a break with reality, which would allow for unusual -- accompanied by violent behavior. I did not have the evidence that he had suffered from either of these two types of illnesses.
Q Did you have any evidence to indicate that Captain MacDonald suffered from seizures, epilepsy or other types of violent fits?
A I had no evidence to indicate that he ever suffered from any form of epileptically seizures disorder.
Q Did you find any evidence in your examination of Captain MacDonald of any emotional instability of a psychoneurotic nature in which outside stress might be so great that it would overwhelm him and cause him to commit the murders in the fashion in which his wife and children were killed?
A I did not see in Captain MacDonald the type of psychoneurotic reaction which one might fashion if one were trying to come up with a psychoneurotic diagnosis, that one could conceive of -- a poor ego strength, that is a poor ability to cope or adjust with outside stress, that could break down. One might see this in a very brittle obsessive compulsive neurotic; for example, one with very serious phobic symptoms where the outside stress of if one had to fly for example, if one were afraid of height or afraid to fly, one could panic, one could become hysterical, and acute anxiety would over take him and he would likely be violent, unless he was calmed by medication. I did not see any evidence of this type of brittle psychoneurotic illness in Captain MacDonald.
Q Did you find any evidence in Captain MacDonald of a character disorder or behavior disorder of the type in which he would be capable of the kind of destructive acts that were inflicted upon his wife and children without him showing remorse or conscience after those acts that he might have committed?
A I did not see any evidence for that type of character and behavior disorder, nor evidence of sociopathic behavior or personality configuration, no evidence of psychopathy.
Q Based upon all the observations you made of Captain MacDonald and the reports that you had, Doctor Mack's evaluation, all the data before you, did you form a conclusion as to whether Captain MacDonald was capable of committing the kind of murders and kind of crimes that were committed on his wife and children?
A I have come to a conclusion, yes.
Q And would you state to the investigating officer what is your conclusion in that regard?
A Based on my examination of him and all the data that I have, I can see or feel that Captain MacDonald is not -- does not possess the type of personality emotional configuration that would be capable of this type of killing of his wife and children with the resultant behavior that we see now, that I saw in him on the 21st.
MR. SEGAL: Cross-examine.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q What kind of a report did Doctor Mack render to you?
A He sent me a review of what he had done, the tests that he had performed, Captain MacDonald's responses to those tests and his interpretation of those tests, with the specific response to the questions that I asked, that I posed to him, which were the same questions posed to me, as to why we were seeing him.
Q And what are -- what tests did you run? Do you know of any?
A Yes, I do. He has a usual battery of tests that one gives in a situation like this. The first test is the intelligence test; I think he used the Shipley Hartford. He gives a personality inventory. He used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and he uses projective tests which arrive at feelings and underlying patterns of emotional reaction that one cannot get from a clinical interview. It goes deeper than the surface, and these are the Rorschach, the ink blot test and the Apperception Test.
Q Doctor, would you spell those?
A Thematic apperception, t-h-e-m-a-t-i-c a-p-p-e-r-c-e-p-t-i-o-n, and the other was Rorschach, R-o-r-s-c-h-a-c-h.
Q And how long total did you speak to Captain MacDonald?
A I spoke to him three hours.
Q And is that the only time you spoke to him to analyze him?
A Prior to today that's the only time I've examined him, yes.
Q Now how was this crime described to you? What information were you working with?
A I was told by Mr. Eisman that on the night of February 17th, at his home, Captain MacDonald's wife was stabbed and his children were stabbed and beaten, and Captain MacDonald himself was stabbed in the chest and required hospitalization, and had a -- I think he said a pneumothorax, that is a collapsed lung; that the government was holding him as a suspect, and were going to charge him with the crime if they had sufficient evidence; and the concern on the part of his attorneys was to obtain as much evidence, information, as they could to show that this is not the case, that he was not involved. That is, would I see him to see if he possessed that type of personality configuration which would be capable of such violence to one's own wife and children?
Q I'm not quite sure I understand, but you are not saying, are you, doctor, that the -- you were told what results they would like you to produce?
A Well, I guess I didn't have to be told that. I could understand what their situation was, but what they wanted was my evaluation of him. Of course, what they wanted was evidence that he did not possess this type of personality, which would be capable of violence. They don't have to tell me, I know what the situation was. If I had found that he had sufficient psychiatric problems, emotional disability, then I would have told them.
Q As I understand it now, your source of information with respect to this crime was Mr. Eisman and Captain Douthat and Captain MacDonald?
A That's right.
Q Did you have any documentation outside of that given to you by Captain MacDonald with respect to his family's history, or are you interested in that sort of information?
A The history of his family -- you mean his mother and family?
A Sister, brother? I did not get a chance to substantiate it or document it by examining them, no.
Q Do you normally get such information and is it relevant?
A When it's available and sometimes it is very relevant. I do get it. Sometimes it's not available and I can't get it.
Q What sort of psychiatric history did Captain MacDonald display? Can you answer that?
A When you ask that, to what do you refer? The history of his past or the history of what happened?
Q As I understand, the second process, interest that you had is to take a history.
A That's right.
Q And this is what I am interested in.
A Yes, he told me about growing up in Jamaica, Long Island; told me about his getting a scholarship to Colgate and Princeton. He told me about being co-captain of his football team and being on the baseball team, his interest in athletics, and his academic achievements and abilities. He told me about meeting his wife while she was at Skidmore and while he was at Princeton. He told me about the birth of their children and his feelings about them and his wife. He told me about having a brother, James, who's 28 and he told me about his sister, Judy, who's 25, and his feelings about them as they grew up, and his father being an electrical contractor engineer, having dies in '65 or '66. He told me about his mother; he told me about her, how they got along. Is that what you mean?
A This kind of history, yes.
Q As I understand, you do make an analysis of the ability of the individual to communicate with you. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And how did you rate Captain MacDonald in this respect, and why?
A I felt he had an ability to communicate effectively, openly, and I felt honestly; and the reason I felt this way was because he verbalizing his feelings. He did not hold back on what I asked him. I would ask him some very intimate personal questions which could have been embarrassing and were embarrassing, and were also personal to him, which is part of my usual examination, and I felt that he answered honestly even though some of them caused him to break down in tears, and something which he is, I know, ashamed of. I felt that he was open and wanted to communicate and I felt that he sensed a feeling of relief to be able to talk to somebody about these inter intimate feelings that he could not share with others.
Q The defense has questioned you with respect to your consideration of the ability of Captain MacDonald because of his training and intelligence to -- to either hide something or to deceive you, and as I understand it, you felt that although he was capable of it, he was not doing this?
A This is correct. I checked for it. I talked about things that I didn't think he would know to hide and that he would not know the significance of it.
Q Can you give us an example?
A I will, I will, yes, and also I checked for things that were obvious to see how consistent he would be. I asked him about his dreams. I asked him whether he had nightmares following the tragedy and I asked him what they were, and dreams are something quite personal and intimate, and he had had some nightmares and he told me something about them and the contents, which had to do with his inability to save his wife and children. This taps the unconscious which one cannot say -- one cannot hide the -- this. He would not know how to describe the contents of the dream that would present me with information about his underlying feelings of shame without having been able to say them. That's one area that I examined. Another was the consistency when he reported the story and I questioned him about things that perhaps he wasn't clear about or could not remember. He was not defensive about it. He accepted the idea that he could not remember some things or that things were very hazy, difficult for him to put together. Also, I think when ask about that, I think one of the greatest tools in psychiatry is the ability to perceive sensitively a person whose unconscious responses, reactions, and that is verbalizations about how he -- body language, if you will, or emotional responses, effective or feeling tone responses that one cannot control, because they are controlled unconsciously; similar kinds of things one can see when one doesn't see any automatic response. On the lie detector test you can note certain things, varying scientific objects and needles and things, but you can also note some of these responses which occur without control, just by observing.
Q I gather, then, that the responses that you would note -- would sweating be one of these?
A Sweating. When it was appropriate, I felt when he was under the tension of his feeling of inability to do anything to help his wife, he felt impotent.
Q And this you considered to be a factor which seemed consistent with his telling the truth.
Q Doctor, if, in fact, Captain MacDonald had committed these crimes, would he normally -- would it be normal for him under those circumstances to be depressed?
A If he had committed the crime, it would be difficult for me to conceive of the circumstances that would precipitate such a crime in a person such as he is. Also, he would have a likelihood, as most people that I see who have committed crimes of this type, would repress the actual nature of the crime, of the resolution of the actual physical appearance of the bodies, et cetera. Would he be depressed? I think if he had committed the crime and had a realization that he had done this, I think it would have had to have been when he was out of control. I don't think, as he says, he's capable of doing this type of thing. I don't think -- see any reason of why he would have lost control, any precipitating or underlying personality disorder that would lead to such a loss of control, but if he did, he realizes that it was under control, I think you would find that he would not only be depressed, but he would be unable to compose himself. I think he would be so disruptive within himself that it would be such a trauma for him, he would be so -- that he might become psychotic. If he could not repress, one of the things that aids people who do kill is to repress the severity of what they've done -- to repress means to push down -- that if one cannot -- if one can describe it as clearly as he has described the way his wife and children looked after they were killed, I think he would become psychotic.
Q Might it be a natural reaction for somebody like Captain MacDonald, if it is possible to conceive this question, sir, if he had done this, that is committed this crime, for him to repress the memory of having done it, and convince himself that he did not do it?
A Is it possible that this could have happened?
Q First, is it possible, then if you care to qualify your answer, feel free to do so.
A First of all I don't think it's possible, knowing him as I do, that he could have done this. But assume that he did, given all the circumstances of his makeup, could he repress the memory of having done it and convinced himself that somebody else had done it? He would have had to hallucinate or fabricate four people who had come in and describe them in detail. Usually that would be hallucinatory and that's why I say that would have been his break with reality. When one sees that it isn't limited to just hallucination. I think the break would be more extensive than that. He would have a delusional system, he would have a much wider break and it wouldn't stop at just a fabricated hallucination, that somebody else that he could even describe could come in and deal with him in the way he did. Also, if that's the case, one would tend to see distortions in the consistency of his repeating the story again and again. I did not get any indication that there was this kind of invalidation of the consistency.
Q Is it possible -- again I want to talk in a context of a person such as Captain MacDonald -- for a person to, assuming for the moment that he did commit such a crime, to have such complete self-control as to be able to present the picture that he presented to you?
A Of course, I asked myself that also, and my answer is no. That if he were capable, and which I don't think he is, of doing this, I don't think he would have been able to control himself and regain the composure that he has. One can see that in a person with great sociopathic tendencies, that is a person who doesn't have a conscience, doesn't have remorse, that one could commit destructive acts and still not feel guilt, not feel remorse, and compose himself. I don't see evidence for this in Captain MacDonald and I don't think he could have done it and still be in control.
Q Doctor, you said that Captain MacDonald was not suffering from any serious illness that could be labeled, from any mental illness that you felt that you could label; and of course you draw an exception around the reactive depression you speak about and explain that?
Q Did you find any other abnormality or -- let me rephrase that question. Did you find any abnormality other than that reactive depression?
A I didn't find an abnormality but I found a variety of defense mechanisms which he used, all of which I would consider to be within healthy normal limits. That is, we are all prone to anxiety and insecurity no matter who we are or what we are, and we all have our adaptational techniques and defense mechanisms that we use. I have had the privilege of examining Captain MacDonald, so I am aware of the defense mechanisms that he chooses to use, but I will call these adaptational techniques to ward off anxiety which is prevalent around us all. And he has used it fairly successfully throughout his life so I don't consider these to be abnormal. They have not given him difficulty and they are well within the normal limits.
Q Could you tell us what these techniques that you are describing are?
A I think one of them might be very significant -- you mean the adaptational thing? I think one of those that he uses, and he uses quite effectively, as a lot of people do, is masculine strident that is, if one feels at times that one does and he needs to express himself as a -- let's say a super masculine person -- that's a bad word but -- let's say more masculine than the average, and we have in our society ways of obtaining such a label; we have athletics; we have military prowess; we have all kinds of things that men can feel proud of doing, and that's healthy, that's normal. But all the same, for some people this does not tend to ward off any underlying feelings that they may not be as masculine as they present themselves to the world, and it may be ironic but it may be that the lack of taking, according to the way I have the problem presented to me as to what happened that night, it may be ironic that he did not choose to use his super masculine techniques or boxing or fighting back or trying to take on the whole lot of them, that he may have despaired -- so that basically underneath he chose not to, to express himself in a way that may have been self-expressive to him.
Q Were there any other particular adaptive techniques with respect to Captain MacDonald which you noticed?
A One other one which again is very socially acceptable and proving and many of us use and that is he has social charm that is he is pleasant and witty and uses graceful techniques that allow him to communicate effectively with other people in a way that people would tend to like him. Again, it is a socially acceptable adaptive technique which many of us have.
Q Doctor I'd like to ask you about a term which you may or my not accept. I'd like to get the term out first and see where we stand with respect to -- I'd like to ask you about the, if you will, the ego of Doctor MacDonald, the strength of his self identification. Perhaps that's the best way for me to put it. Can we talk in those terms?
A If you like.
Q Would you describe Captain MacDonald to me with regard to those terms?
A Let me try to form my points about this. The ego is the adaptational part of the three parts of our psychological makeup, just so we put it into proper perspective, and one doesn't think we are speaking of egotism rather than egoism. The ego, as oppose to id and super ego, is a form -- the id is that part of our psychological makeup, and again, according to Freudian theory, that partakes in the pleasures, destructive and otherwise, killing, hostility, anger, sexuality, etcetera, without any thought of civilization or sophistication, but just get what you want and it don't matter who is in the way. The super ego comes out. The super ego is a conscience that says "Hey, thou shall not do that. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not have relations with thy neighbor's wife," etcetera. I think they use other words in the Bible, but that is the origin or one of the origins of our super ego, not that it came from the Bible, but we use it as a reflection of the internal super ego by ascribing it to the external one. All right, these two are there battling. One says yea, one says nay, the ego comes in to resolve as a media and the ego is that part of the personality that says yes, it's ok to have sexual relations, but at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place with the appropriate person. That's an example of what the ego may do to mediate the battle that goes on within all of us, between our ids and super egos. I think that Captain MacDonald's ego is fairly well formed. I think he has a good ego strength. The point that -- and nobody is perfect. Nobody, I can say that anybody I've ever seen, again because I'm trained to see what is not perfect, where is the flaws? But basically his ego has been able to help him adapt to most situations in his life and successfully so, so that we don't find him failing in things. We don't find him using poor judgment. We don't find him getting arrested for a lot of little things as he's growing up. We don't find him using poor judgment and having people dislike him.
Again, his ego is well suited to the needs of his environment to adapt and overcome his id, when necessary, and to allow the super ego some strength when that's necessary. I would see him as having a fairly healthy ego.
Q Now, if I may move on to a slightly different question, and again, if we can't talk in these terms, just tell me. Each of us has a certain amount of pride in self, and I move into a little different area I think, and in my opinion as a layman, I think probably the more successful the person, sometimes the stronger this is; but at any rate, if we can, can you describe Captain MacDonald's feeling toward himself in these terms?
A You see, I think that's still with ego strength. I think that he certainly does have pride with his accomplishments and I think he recognizes -- I didn't feel that he was being offensively arrogant about them, but I think he recognizes that he has been successful in many of the things that he has set out to do, and is proud of his achievements. I think one of the factors that I noted and which might be specific is that here is a physician who has to serve two years in the service. A lot of physicians tend to react with some rebellion, some acting out of their conflicts, etcetera. I saw in Captain MacDonald an ability to say, all right, I've got to be here, let's make the most of it, and I feel that for him, he was making the most of it. He was enjoying what he was doing and he was proud of his accomplishments within the military, and I did not feel that he reflected any bitterness, anger or resentment for having to serve, whereas a lot of physicians I know do. I think that's the kind of ego, adjustment and pride that we are talking about. I don't think we can separate the two.
Q Now with respect to your opinion as to the capability of Captain MacDonald to have committed these murders, first, you are not saying, are you, doctor, on the basis of your evaluation that it is mathematically impossible that Captain MacDonald did committed these offenses?
A Yes, I am saying that as I know him psychologically, it would appear to me to be remotely possible only, but primarily unlikely. Certainly you always have to leave certain room for the ascending curve as it comes up for something mathematical to happen, that never touches the line on the right, as I learned in mathematics, and I think the same is true with human behavior which is much more complex. But there is the slightest possibility, but in my opinion it is extremely unlikely, and I'll tell you why. I think it's more likely that if he had a fight with his wife, I don't think this would have happened, but it is more than just -- an infinitesimal amount that he might have lost control and harmed her; or if one of the children might have nagged him and bugged him on a hard day, it's possible, but remotely so, that he might have lost control with one child; but to take all three together and lose control against the world, against all three of those who were around him at that time, would have to be either that complete loss of control which I think is most unlikely and near impossible for him, as I know him, or it has to be a cold calculated homicide, which, again, I don't feel he is capable of doing and reacting the way he is today.
Q Now, doctor, as I understand it, you've worked with many homicide cases. Is that correct?
A Yes, I have.
Q It is not, is it, doctor, unusual in other cases which you have seen for a husband to kill his family?
A It is not unusual for a husband to kill his whole family?
Q Well --
A It is more usual that he might kill one member of the family, but to kill the whole family is pretty rare. It is a lot rarer than killing one member of the family.
Q Doctor, you are familiar, are you not, with the test for legal sanity in the military that is the M'naughten Test with the variation requirement for the ability to adhere to the right?
Q As I understand your testimony here today, you are saying that Captain MacDonald is and was legally sane?
A If we to apply my evaluation of his mental state to those legal tests of insanity that exist in the military, I would say that he knew the nature and quality of his acts, and was able to adhere to the right.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Doctor, just a couple of very brief matters. Is there any indication that Captain MacDonald is a self-destructive person, that is, a person who holds a capacity to be able to inflict or take his own life?
A I did not find any evidence for his having self destructive tendencies and I felt that he would not be likely to attempt suicide or to harm himself in anyway. I might add that I see rather the opposite that his whole goal in life was to try to make himself as strong and virile and effective as possible, not the other way around.
Q Is there any indication that Captain MacDonald would, assuming for a moment that he had allegedly committed the crimes with which he is charged, attempt to salve his conscience or otherwise repress his remorse by destroying himself?
A If he had lost control to the point of doing what he is charged with doing, it would have to be such a loss of control that it's possible that he would attempt to destroy himself, but I think it would be a frenzy type thing where there is complete loss of control. If it came and he had a realization of what he did, and it was so remorseful that he had tried to kill himself, I think he would have been successful.
Q Is there any indication at all in any of the examinations that you made to show that there was a frenzied rage or other loss of control on Captain MacDonald's part?
A There is no history of it. There's no indication on clinical examination. There's no evidence for it on psychological examination that he has or is capable of expressing such loss of control and rage response, but in my opinion it is most unlikely that it happened, that he has or had this kind of loss of control.
Q Would Doctor MacDonald's training in medicine, through medical school and internship, have on his likelihood of losing his control, losing his self-restraint in such a fashion to permit him to commit the crime with which he is charged?
A I don't know if training in medical school is specific enough to keep him from doing that. I think it's more the kind of person he was that would be consistent with, would be going with his medical school in order to heal. I think this was important, I think, for him, and again was consistent with his way of dealing with his environment, rather than destroy it. But just going to medical school certainly there are doctors who have destroyed, so I would have to not say that was a factor.
Q Is Doctor MacDonald a person who possessed the quality of outrageous rage, great outburst of violence -- would stresses and strain of medical school and internship have been as such to perhaps give him opportunity for that to have occurred prior to some later time?
A Very likely, because the stress that we all go through in medical school, especially internship, is so vigorous that it would likely have shown up under stress by this time.
Q Would the observations of fellow medical students and interns and supervising physicians of patients you've observed be of some value in indicating to us whether he has a background that would indicate a possibility of violent outburst?
A Sure, I think if we could talk with some of the people that he went to medical school with or had internship with, and they were to either document that he had or had not had violent episodes, that would be helpful. I would expect that their testimony would be that he had not.
Q Why would expect that?
A Because I think if he had shown it, I think one, I feel he would have told me because we went into this very carefully; and secondly, if he did tell me, I think I would have found some indication from it clinically, and if not clinically, I think it would have shown up on the Rorschach, at least that's the kind of test for disorder material.
Q Would gentleness and kindness expressed to Captain MacDonald's family to his wife and to his children over a period of years, without any evidence of prior violent outbursts or fits of rage be of any significance in arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not he might have been capable of, or did in fact do on February 17th?
A Alone, it's very difficult to say. I can think of instances in some people where one is holding back anger by being gentle and kind and the frustration of whatever happened might have happened, could allow this to erupt. I didn't see -- and, I have examined people in this situation -- but knowing Captain MacDonald as I do, I don't think that's there, in fact, I am sure that it's not. I think it's a fact that, in a sense, that he was holding back, like a bottle of gas ready to explode hostility that he was expressing only by his gentleness earlier in his life. I don't see that as a factor.
Q If Captain MacDonald felt any sense of anger or emotional disturbance, what outlets appear to be ones he'd pursue to vent them?
A Well, I think he could express much of this through the activities that we described earlier, that is playing ball, for example; it is one way of really getting out all tension and anger, knocking heads as we sometime say about football. Certainly some of the activities that he engaged in as a Green Beret: he could express feelings of anger, feelings of internal tension and hostility by the kinds of activities that are required for one to have the privilege of wearing the green cap or beret.
Q Doctor Sadoff, would you indicate to the investigating officer the total amount of time you spent, both in your preliminary preparation and interview of Captain MacDonald, and the ultimate evaluation in arriving at your conclusions, so that we might have some idea of the total amount of time you have devoted to preparation of your conclusions in this case?
A Well, if I include Doctor Mack's time spent I would estimate that he had to spend between nine and ten hours, and I know that I spent five to six; I would say it would be roughly about fifteen.
Q Now would that include the time for preparation of your analysis?
A Preparation, consultation and thinking about it, putting it together to a meaningful consultation.
MR. SEGAL: Nothing further.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, you've said several times that Captain MacDonald, as you know him, would not do a specific thing, and this leads me, if you will excuse me, doctor, to the question of your own reaction to the man. How do you feel about him personally?
A Well, it is a difficult question, because I rarely think about how I feel about a person personally when they are patients. But if I allow myself that indulgence today, he's very gracious. He's a very warm person whom I must admit I like. I -- for example -- when I came up today he had his hand out with a smile. But that's characteristic of him. It's hard to always put people's behavior in clinical terms. It sounds kind of cold and detached. Sometimes we have to do that, but he is likeable, yes, and I found working with him was a great more pleasure than working with many of the people I have to.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, sir.
COL ROCK: I have several, doctor. On the average, when you interview patients, how many sessions, hour wise, would you prefer to interview them?
WITNESS: That depends upon the problem. There have been many matters that I could adequately cover with one hour or two hours. I have one sitting. There are times when it's available, I prefer to see a person at a second sitting to try and see the changes in him, and also to compare notes with what I had the first time. I would prefer to do it twice, if I could. As far as the time spent, I would like to spend more than one hour certainly, and I would like to spend four to five hours.
COL ROCK: Did you have sufficient time, as far as you are concerned, and the proper conditions with your interview of Captain MacDonald?
WITNESS: Yes, I feel very comfortable with that.
COL ROCK: Do you consider that religion is a factor in his life, or do you even consider this in your evaluation of the individuals?
WITNESS: I do consider religion to be a factor in my examination of many people. Sometimes it's a problem, more than just a factor. I didn't feel it was especially a significant factor with him, nor a problem.
COL ROCK: What do you think of a lie detector test in general as a tool in police work?
WITNESS: In general, I think that the lie detector test is as good as the lie detector individual who is using it, and I haven't had the experience that very many of them are as well qualified as I would like to see, that is, to take into consideration that unconscious factors can be reflected on the skin galvanic response machine, and the interpretation of certain distortions in the needle is an interpretation of -- if it occurs in making the test -- and if they are not sufficiently apprised of the internal motivation or unconscious factors, they may come to an erroneous conclusion. I guess I'm saying I'm not terribly happy with them.
COL ROCK: Well, yes, I read through your comments. Doctor, have you ever examined a patient accused of murder; you then find that he's okay and you don't think that he did commit it, and subsequently the individual was found guilty?
WITNESS: No, I haven't.
COL ROCK: Okay. Now, we've asked, or I've heard asked some questions posing certain situations, and I have one that may seen a bit unusual, but I think perhaps is a valid one since this is an unusual case. Let's assume that Mrs. MacDonald lost control of herself and that she killed the children. Could Captain MacDonald then have killed his wife? Does this add any new ingredient to the situation?
WITNESS: Yeah, I would say that again that he is capable, as any one of us is capable, under stress, and would, I think, for him, horrible stress, losing control to the point where one could kill another person. I think that's a possibility, yes.
COL ROCK: Now, in describing some of these other possibilities, you used the ascending curve diagram. Would you think it's a greater possibility under these conditions than when you described the ascending curve, under the other situation?
WITNESS: In the situation of what actually occurred. I think that what would have actually occurred, as we've had presented to us, there is the most remote possibility that that could have happened with Captain MacDonald. I think what you've described has a greater possibility; however, I don't think it's a great likelihood. I think the possibility is a little bit low on the curve.
COL ROCK: Did you notice any significant or distinguishable differences in Captain MacDonald's responses to questions concerning his wife, as compared to those concerning his children? Was there anything of any significance that would be of interest to the hearing?
WITNESS: The only difference I can recall, I assume was normal, but in talking about his wife and his feelings about her, there was a loss of his wife, had kind of a -- a depression that had to do with love for another adult; and the warmth and tenderness and concern about his children came through very strongly, and the loss of them I think he showed a higher feeling tone for. But we had discussed his wife and I couldn't decide whether it was that we were talking about the children, or you are talking about the children compounded in talking about the wife just afterwards. But I did note that there was a tenderness, a warmth, that I would have expected in most anyone under this kind of a circumstance.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. Does either counsel have?
MR. SEGAL: If I may.
Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q In regard to just a couple of matters raised by the investigating officer, assuming the hypotheses put by Colonel Rock, that the MacDonald children were killed by Colette MacDonald and that Captain MacDonald, in turn, killed his wife, would there have been any indication or sign in various examinations that were made of him to show that this was a likelihood or likely event to have taken place?
A I didn't get any indication from examining him that this was even remotely likely, but the question was possible, and I can answer that I think it's highly unlikely, most extremely unlikely from my examination.
Q The investigating officer has asked you your view about the results of polygraph or so-called lie detector, and I gather that you did not place a great value on it. Am I correct in summarizing in this fashion?
A That's right.
Q Do you place any great value on any other techniques or the development of fact finding independent of the person's ability to restrain or hide facts?
A Yes, In the right hands, and I modestly acknowledge that there have been times when mine have been the right hands, sodium amytal injections under proper circumstances is a very effective tool in aiding in the direction of truth, and I'm not saying it's going to get everything. In many instances, I could describe where it added or extended the information we had, but it didn't get everything that I had hoped it would, but it does allow for a greater examination. Now possibly it's reflected in the paper I wrote on psychiatric involvement in search for truth, which was a part of my credentials. I had studied the effects that others had noted in the use of various types of truth detecting devices and again, others have found, and I have also found this, that there are certain kinds of people who can break through the effectiveness of the sodium amytal, the sodium Pentothal effect and lie anyway. Some will distort even more so under that. I think one has to know, again, the kind of person he's dealing with, matched with the tool that he's using for detection of truth before we make the blatant statement about whether it is effective or not. It's effective in certain individuals by other well qualified individuals.
Q Would you indicate whether you consider the use of sodium amytal a much more reliable technique in this pursuit for fact than the use of polygraph in your judgment as a psychiatrist?
A In my judgment it is much more effective.
MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, sir.
COL ROCK: Does counsel for the government?
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, since we raised this, did you use this technique on Captain MacDonald?
A I did not feel it was necessary, so I did not.
CPT SOMERS: No further questions.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. I assume you desire this witness be permanently excused. Doctor Sadoff, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. You are permanently excused, sir.
CPT SOMERS: Excuse me, sir. With respect to this witness, I think it is possible, is it not, that questions may arise subsequent that we may wish to put to him on the telephone or in some other fashion.
COL ROCK: I assume you have discussed that with him in conjunction with any other examination.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, I have indicated there may be this other examination shortly which may require further information of Doctor Sadoff, and I assume he will be available to us, at least by phone, if not in person.
CPT SOMERS: I bring this up to be sure of the nature of the excusal.
COL ROCK: Yes, you are correct in doing so.
COL ROCK: This hearing will be recessed for fifteen minutes.
(The hearing recessed at 1455 hours, 12 August 1970.)