January 31, 2005: Lucia Bartoli's e-mail re: the Jeffrey MacDonald case
Lucia Bartoli is a former friend of Jeffrey MacDonald's and
was an investigator for the defense
I needed to do this for you, for your chat people, and for me...
Can u explain or set forth briefly that the reasons I would like to see a new trial are that I - like you - believe that at least an evidentiary hearing would be the ONLY way that ALL of the evidence pro and con, would HAVE to be brought forth ONCE AND FOR ALL. Also, the hearing would be conducted properly in the way the U.S. Justice system is SUPPOSED to work. The trial - regardless of the defendant - must be in accordance with the rules of LAW. Most trials, for the benefit of your groups, are NOT ABOUT JUSTICE. They are about LAW. Anything submitted must have a chain of custody, it must stand as never having been presented before. For example, if a photo is submitted in trial and discussed for whatever reason...that is the ONLY time that anything about that photo can be brought up. That is, five years later the defense notices that something very relevant is IN the photo that was NOT noticed before...too bad! The photo was already in court, in trial and that was the time to be "noticing".
The defendant is merely the "prize", the "pawn". The judge is a sort of referee and the lawyers are the players. Now it all can make sense.
My status changed for a number of reasons.
A) First of all, I met the defendant BEFORE his trial.
B) I am not the type of woman who gets all gooey over looks. I have traveled the world, probably peed in better places than Jeffrey ever saw. As a matter of fact, my idea of good looks consists of more of a "raw" or "imperfect" face.
C) I had a relationship of friendship and love with the defendant, but that was NOT pursuable due to his imprisonment. I never had any romantic relations with him when he was free. I would NEVER have entered into a marital relationship with ANYONE incarcerated. One never knows the long term damage or problems that will have to be resolved because of that. So marriage and love in that way were not really options. I left because the defendant no longer cooperated with his team's efforts. ALSO, HE BETRAYED OUR FRIENDSHIP WITH GOSSIP, INNUENDO AND A HIDDEN AGENDA. For an Italian from Chicago, that is the absolute END. He had Kathryn on his visit list long before I left the case. I knew this and that was none of my business. At least not until she began to insinuate herself into other aspects of the case. She was NOT an official defense member, and so forth. MacD. had a lot of females on his visit list, most were platonic friends that I knew well. Some had "designs" but nothing usually came of it or there HAD been something while he was out and it was simply a weird sort of "after glow"
D) I maintained my spot on the team while I began another research into psychiatric ops on Ft. Bragg as they applied to THIS CASE. All that I am still researching point to this. So, in fact, the defendant may be "not guilty" but not "innocent". That is something I prefer not to delve into at this time as info is pending.
E) the DNA specimens to be tested were at 15 almost from the beginning. The defense's original request was for 50+ The judge, after deliberation and back and forth stuff with defense and prosecutors, selected the 15 to be tested. The lawyers at the time were pro-bono, but filing fees, copying, tel. calls, etc. had to be paid. This is why the fund was established. The defendant has a knack for always undermining his own defense, I believe because of his ego. That is, he talks about his case to people he doesn't know and has even mailed them vital case material, against the constant caveats of his legal defense.
F) The AFIP was agreed to by the defense because originally the prosecution, it was known, would choose LAB CORP, but there were reports that that lab was "faulty" in certain ways. Thus a specific number of labs was agreed upon and the defense was allowed to choose it.
G) The judge waved the fee for DNA testing. Why? Because imagine if you or I were depending upon that to prove our innocence yet we didn't have the money for it... But it may be ONE of the reasons that the number of exhibits for DNA testing was restricted to 15. Judge Fox also noted for the attorneys that even if the results would be FAVORABLE to MacD., this would ONLY MEAN that he was not alone. So Fox was indeed very foxy.
H) ONLY an evidentiary hearing will END this nonsense. I should think that BOTH sides would desire that so that it would end.
I) Sadly, the gov't. is NOT comprised of honest, altruistic persons alone. There are corrupt, ambitious people there too. I know too many of those, including a couple of FBI special agents. I ask your audience to remember that the prosecutor and the judge are paid by the same side.
J) I do know other things about the case that I can reply to, but the important thing here, is that I did a specific job and that job got the client back into court. THAT was not an easy task. I did it for more than MacD. I did it to glean a new sort of sideline for myself and have obtained several assignments as an investigative researcher. I also kept the "game" alive because I was studying a new facet of this, much larger than I had thought possible. I also was searching for who the "mole" on the defense team could be. (I did find out and have kept that to myself and two other persons only).
K) When I initially started the saran wig search, I approached the task as if to prove the prosecution CORRECT. Within 10 minutes on the first day of a 3 year compilation time (followed by 2 for depositions, etc.) I discovered that saran wigs existed. That, unfortunately, was not enough. Find a wig, find a company that made them, find someone who sold them -- something to corroborate the find. I even spoke to the same people the FBI spoke with, but their stories were very different from what the FBI notes said. The SARAN stuff was a constructed lie by the prosecution in the person of the FBI "experts". This is what is meant by overkill. Sometimes you may have a perfectly good case, but a cop or a DA "crosses the line" and "adds" a little here and there, "lies a little" to justify the end, and so forth.
L) If MacD. ever is forced to face what I now believe to have been the scenario, he probably would not survive the knowledge.
M) For the record I am a happy, normal woman - a grandmother of 4 kids, a public relations and business development specialist. I speak and translate 4 languages. I am single, reasonably decent looking and enjoy a good laugh. I am Italian from Chicago and I love my hometown. My own personal web site has Frank Sinatra singing on it with neat Chicago images on it. I am neither gullible nor shallow. My idea of a great fantasy party would include Mel Brooks, Dom DeLuise, Carl Reiner, Ann Bancroft, Bob Newhart, Bill Cosby and Tony Bennett. The food would be strictly Arnie Morton's all the way. I am definitely a "city rat".
MacD's mother was a gem of a person and a good friend to me. In any case, I chose to exit the scene gracefully. Now I'm being accused of thievery. Is there no end? You can see my reply posted thru Christina's generosity. You can take a lot away from me, but NEVER NEVER my integrity or my good name.
In addressing his money, etc. - MacD's last income (outside prison) including ALL ASSETS was less than $100,000. For a doctor, that's not all that much. In fairness, his home was simple and not terribly pricey. His car was a "special" that he got at an auto show. His boat came after a couple of years of ridicule by his colleagues. He used to have a little green dinghy sort of thing and everyone laughed at him. He bought the boat after saving. He took excellent care of his mother, but I think in a rather "detached" way. But then I am Italian-american and our family style is very different. He also tried to help his brother and his sister. His finances were not that impressive. He spent generously on his friends and those who worked for him. But he was/is an extreme micro-manager and control freak. I don't think that doctors with nice homes and expensive cars are unusual, after all. I learned about something called a "ghostly lover" syndrome and I believe that sort of happened to his current spouse. If he ever is freed, I don't believe she could or would tolerate the relationship. Or she couldn't tolerate the relationships HE has with others. She hasn't been in the trenches long enough yet. I knew him as a friend for over 20 years.
I hope this addresses some of the stuff I've seen in the chat section. I think that most of the folks on there are pretty decent people, but PLEASE remember that any law enforcement agency that performs a "rush to judgment" does the greatest disservice to the agency represented, to the defendant, to the accused and to the taxpayer.
Lastly, MacD. has aged tremendously. He is not what I would personally call good-looking. I do not get mesmerized. However, I have female friends who also are "friends" of MacD., who have forfeited friendship with me because of their need, desire or whatever to remain "in the loop" of his own life. Or should I say "triple life"?!
Thanks for allowing me this. I will happily answer any questions that I can, but I will not get into arguments about things that I know because I've been so involved. I will state what I know and that can be that.
I feel bad for Bobby Stevenson. I think he has been through a very rough life regardless of anything or anyone else. I always keep him in prayer. By the way, I did at one time invite those in cyber land to pray for MacD. He went absolutely ballistic and was totally irrational. I am a devout Catholic and keep myself busy and active in things relative to my faith, charities, and active church involvement.