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 Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate
and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald

(See Kassab's allegations following scanned pages)

ALSO RELATED, SEE the following:  December 6, 1970: Letter from First Lieutenant Michael Malley to Lieutenant General John Tolson re: Request for investigation of Captain Clifford Somers, Captain William
deF. Thompson, CID Investigators Franz Grebner, Robert Shaw and William Ivory

December 9, 1970: Letter of Additional Inquiries from Senator Sam Ervin to Honorable Stanley Resor, Secretary of the Army with Attachment

January 5, 1971: Colonel Henry Tufts Reply to the Kassab-Malley Allegations and Senator Sam Ervin's Inquiry re: CID Misconduct

January 20, 1971: Reply/Findings of Department of Defense re: Freddy Kassab's allegations - Appeal to Congress


The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, cover page

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. i

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 1

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 2

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 3

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 4

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 5

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 6

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 7

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 8

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site: December 1970: Freddy Kassab writes to the Senate and Congress in support of Jeffrey MacDonald, p. 9

Kassab's Allegations with Refutation, Substantiation and Comments

Alleged that Jeffrey MacDonald was unjustly placed under house arrest and deprived of his freedom of coming and going at will. All of his activities were closely monitored by guards assigned to guard him.


Refutation:  MacDonald was allowed to visit the PX, go anywhere on the base with a guard.

The list of individuals authorized to visit MacDonald including his military counsel, his two civilian lawyers and his friends and family. He had access to a telephone.

Civilian counsel, Bernard Segal and Dennis Eisman, expressed relief that CPT MacDonald would be allowed to remain in the BOQ, which was air conditioned, had a television, radio, and other obvious comforts, and not be put in the post stockade.

No complaint was ever made by MacDonald or any of his counsel pertaining to his status of restriction.


Alleged that Colonel Kriwanek suggested to Colonel Daniel Lennon, SJA, Fort Bragg, he phone MG K. J. Hodson, TJAG, to close the Article 32 hearing to the public and news media.

This was based on information received from an unknown officer of the military police detachment that during questioning of witnesses it was obvious that the military police and CID had been negligent in their duties and much bungling had occurred.


Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek played no role in any decision leading to initiation of the Article 32 or the conduct of the Article investigation.

Colonel Kriwanek did not suggest to Colonel Lennon that he ask MG Hodson, TJAG, to close the Article 32 to the public and news media.


Alleged that Colonel Robert Kriwanek made an excess of news releases concerning the MacDonald murders.


Refutation:  All news conferences and news releases pertaining to the MacDonald murder case were staffed through the Information Officer, Fort Bragg.

The Fort Bragg decision to release information was based on the belief that the Fort Bragg and local civilian community should be kept informed of developments in the case. It was also hoped that publicity of the case would generate help from the public in getting information to the CID.

Substantiation:  Robert Murphy, FBI SA in charge, Resident Field Office, Charlotte, N.C., stated that he contacted Colonel Kriwanek on February 18, 1970, advising that additional press conferences might possibly be detrimental to the investigation of the murders.


Alleged that Colonel Kriwanek claimed the Army had primary jurisdiction in this case and dispensed with the services of the FBI.


Refutation:  Mr. Murphy, FBI SA in charge, FBI Field Office, Charlotte, N.C., visited with Colonel Kriwanek and CW3 Joe Grebner a few days after the murders, advising them that the FBI was reducing their investigative support, pending the development of any further information which would indicate primary jurisdiction should belong to the FBI. The FBI subsequently sent a letter to LTG Tolson, Fort Bragg, dated February 25, 1970, wherein reasons for the FBI termination of the investigation were enumerated. FBI SA Lacey Walthall, Fayetteville, N.C., indicated that the main reason the FBI withdrew from the case was because all physical evidence from the crime scene had been processed by the CID, adding the observation that the FBI considered the case belonged to the Army, not to the FBI.


Alleged that Colonel Kriwanek was secretly replaced and sent to Korea as a result of his actions in this investigation.


Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek was selected for assignment as Provost Marshal, 8th Army, on January 19, 1970 and officially nominated for that assignment on January 20, 1970. Assignment instructions were forwarded to the Commanding General, Third US Army, on March 4, 1970 and official written orders were published in paragraph 46, Special Order 57, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, N.C. on March 13,1970.


Alleged that during an interview, Colonel Kriwanek told MacDonald he was under house arrest, under guard, and incommunicado, and did not allow MacDonald to call a lawyer.


Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek did not participate in any interview of MacDonald, nor did he announce that MacDonald was under house arrest, under guard, and incommunicado.

The person who advised MacDonald that he was under restriction was his group commander, Colonel Kane.


Alleged that Colonel Kriwanek's action in holding a news conference and announcing to the world that MacDonald was a suspect in the triple murders committed the Army to prosecution.


Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek did not hold a news conference announcing that Captain MacDonald was a suspect.

The news release was made by the information officer at Fort Bragg for the purpose of informing the public of the development in this case. The Army was not committed to prosecuting MacDonald because of the news release.


Alleged Colonel Kriwanek informed him (Kassab) that the base had been immediately sealed off and everyone leaving the base questioned on the morning of February 17, 1970, when in fact it had not been done.


Refutation:  Colonel Kriwanek does not recall mentioning to Mr. Kassab during their telephone conversation that Fort Bragg had been sealed off the morning of February 17, 1970. He does recall telling Mr. Kassab that everything that could be done was being done.

Colonel Kriwanek stated that is not possible to seal Fort Bragg to vehicular traffic without a major, carefully planned effort by several hundred men.

Colonel Kriwanek did give an order to the Military Police Desk Sergeant to place all available patrols on the major roads of Fort Bragg and to stop vehicles and to check occupants to see if they fit the description of assailants given by Captain MacDonald.

None of the Post patrols found any people fitting the description of the assailants given by MacDonald.


Alleged about an hour after the murders, CID agents allowed an unknown civilian, with long hair and wearing dungarees to wander through the house and did not know when he arrived or left.


Refutation:  The "unknown civilian" was identified as Private James Paulsen, ambulance driver, Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg.


Alleged MacDonald's wallet appears in an Army photograph taken at approximately 0500 hours, but had disappeared by 0600.


Substantiation:  Investigation by USACIDA Inquiry Team revealed that Private James Paulsen, an ambulance driver, Womack Army Hospital, stole Captain MacDonald's wallet; removed six one-dollar bills and discarded the wallet in the vicinity of Womack Army Hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970.

The wallet was recovered by CID and subsequently returned to MacDonald.


Alleged CID agent Robert Shaw when questioned during the Article 32 hearing as to why unidentified prints found in the MacDonald house were not forwarded to the FBI, replied "I didn't know the FBI performed that service."


Refutation:  This statement was taken out of context. WO1 Shaw relates that prior to the Article 32 hearing he was questioned by counsel for the defense, Captain James Douthat, Bernard Segal, Dennis Eisman, and 1LT Mike Malley. During this questioning, he was asked if he had sent the latent, unidentified, single fingerprints to the FBI for identification.

WO1 Shaw replied, "I am not aware that the FBI performs this service; in fact, I know they do not." Later, during the Article 32 investigation, Mr. Shaw had an opportunity to explain further why he did not send single latent fingerprints to the FBI for analysis. He stated that he knew the FBI would not perform a fingerprint record check based upon a single fingerprint. A letter sent by the FBI, and the statement of SP7 Hilyard Medlin substantiate this conclusion.


Alleged it was apparent from the footprints found in the master bedroom that Kimberley MacDonald was there when her mother was being attacked, yet she was found in her own bedroom. In regard to this, the following fantastic statement was made by a CID agent, "When hippies kill someone, they let the body stay where it falls, they don't move it."


Substantiation:  CW3 Grebner made a statement to this effect to Captain MacDonald during the interview of April 6, 1970.

Grebner recalls that Captain MacDonald was questioned on many aspects of the crime scene, among them the fact that Kimberley MacDonald had been injured and bled in the master bedroom and then had been carried back to her own bed and covered up.

Mr. Grebner was using an investigative technique to set forth his theory of the scene being staged by the assailant.

He referred to the sheet bearing the blood of Colette and Kimberley and a pool of Kimberley's blood in the bedroom.

He drew attention to the fact that the sheet was probably used to carry Kimberley's body from the master bedroom back to her bed, and in this context said, "Hippies let bodies fall where they may" to which MacDonald replied, "Right, I agree with you."

There were no footprints found in the master bedroom.


Alleged the Army's fingerprint expert admitted many photographs he took of fingerprints did not come out which necessitated they be re photographed.

When he removed the tap covering, these prints were inadvertently destroyed.


Comment:  Eighty-seven latent fingerprints in the MacDonald quarters were photographed, then clear plastic tape was placed over the latent prints in order to preserve them.

When the pictures were developed, seven exposures were of such poor quality that they prevented clear identification.

It was necessary to re-photograph the seven prints. However, in the meantime, dusting powder had adhered to the protective tape, thus distorting some of the characteristics of the latent prints. They could not be further identified.


Alleged the Army's fingerprint expert's qualifications as an expert consisted of a six-week correspondence course.


Refutation:  During the Article 32 hearing, MSG Medlin offered the following qualifications: He was assigned to the Criminal Investigation Laboratory in October 1963, attended the eight-week Criminal Investigation course, trained for two years under the guidance of a fully qualified fingerprint technician and has been a fingerprint examiner since 1965.

MSG Medlin completed the Institute of Applied Sciences Fingerprint correspondence course in 1957. Medlin is a qualified fingerprint expert and has been an expert in numerous other judicial proceedings.

Medlin presented a paper to the annual conference of the International Association for Identification in 1967, and he had articles published in other professional magazines.


Alleged that only after much prodding by the defense did the Army admit that blood and unidentified fingerprints were found on Mrs. MacDonald's jewelry box.


Comment:  MSG Medlin said that examination of the jewelry box produced two latent prints, both located inside the box and a stain that was not blood.

One print was positively identified as Captain MacDonald's fingerprint; the other was a partial edge of a print, which to date has not been clearly identified.

During the Article 32 hearing MSG Medlin testified that the prints on the jewelry box were unidentified.


Alleged that during the Article 32 hearing it was established that no one had taken an inventory of the contents of the house, and at the end of the hearing, it still had not been done.

Two family heirloom rings are missing.


Comment:  Items of evidentiary value were inventoried, but no complete inventory of the quarters was made.

According to Colonel Lennon, a complete inventory was not necessary. Except for MacDonald's TV and other items which MacDonald requested the CID to obtain for his BOQ, nothing in the house was disturbed, except for items sent to Fort Gordon Laboratory for analysis.

MacDonald submitted a claim against the United States in which he included the loss of two heirloom rings; a claim is presently being processed in the US Army Claim Service Office, Fort Holabird, MD.

CID agent Shaw made an informal inventory of items located in the quarters considered to have high intrinsic value, or resale value. A formal inventory was made by Agent Shaw of the drugs and medical equipment maintained in the quarters by Captain MacDonald.


Alleged that the CID did not follow up leads furnished by neighbors that voices of at least two males and a female were heard going in the direction of the MacDonald's backyard immediately prior to the murders.


Refutation:  The FBI and CID interviewed 39 neighbors of the MacDonalds in an attempt to determine if anyone heard or saw suspicious actions on the morning of February 17, 1970. All leads of substance were explored.


Alleged that many people called the defense with information on possible leads to the murders who stated they all had called the CID offering the information but no one had ever come to question them or asked them to come to the CID office.


Refutation:  There are no indications that the CID failed to explore substantive leads. The publicity generated many calls and letters, some helpful and others useless. It appears that an honest attempt was made by the CID and FBI to follow-up all useful leads.


Alleged that the defense produced a witness who identified a female living next door who fits the description given by Captain MacDonald of the female assailant, and that the CID did not adequately pursue the investigation of the lead.


Refutation: The female identified by witness William (Bill) Posey as meeting the description of the female assailant was Helena Stoeckley, Fayetteville, N.C.

She had been questioned early in the investigation by members of the Fayetteville Police Department, FBI agents, and later by Criminal investigator Bill Ivory. She was useful to the investigation in that she provided information on "hippies" living in the Fayetteville area.

She was never considered a suspect in the MacDonald murders by an investigative agency.


Alleged the Army refused to give protection to the defense witness who identified the female fitting the MacDonald description of the female assailant on grounds these people were civilians and did not come under their jurisdiction.


Substantiation:  A request was made by the defense counsel to the Office of the Provost Marshal, Fort Bragg, that the Army furnish protection for witness Posey. The request was referred to civilian authorities as the Army did not have jurisdiction to protect civilians in a civilian community.

Upon contacting the FBI with a similar request, the defense counsel was advised to hire a private security officer.


Alleged MacDonald described the female assailant as carrying a lit candle during the murders but the CID admitted, only after the insistence of the defense, that candle drippings had been found in various rooms of the house.


Refutation:  A small quality of candle drippings were found in three places in the MacDonald house; the arm of an overstuffed chair in Kimberley's bedroom, a bedspread in Kimberley's bedroom, and the top surface of the coffee table in the living room.

This fact was related to the defense counsel; however, there was a delay in the receipt of the laboratory analysis of the drippings. The final laboratory report of the drippings was received by government counsel on about August 15, 1970. None of the drippings matched candles found in the MacDonald house.


Alleged that in the middle of the Article 32 hearing, it was imperative to the Army's case that samples of MacDonald's hair be taken due to fact that examination of samples of MacDonald's hair at the Fort Gordon Criminal Laboratory turned out to be "horse hair."


Substantiation:  Hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's fist was sent to the US Army Criminal Investigative Laboratory for examination.

In order to obtain a comparative analysis it was necessary to obtain hair samples of other people.

Defense counsel objections prevented the taking of hair from the body of Captain MacDonald, so hair samples were obtained from his clothing located in his quarters. One hair sample which was obtained from a sweatshirt was subsequently determined to be a horse hair. MacDonald owned a horse at that time.


Alleged that in order to obtain additional samples of MacDonald's hair, seven jeeps and two civilian cars full of MPs and CID agents ran MacDonald's car off the road, beat up one of the civilian lawyers, and slammed the other against the car.


Refutation:  An investigation by the US Army CID Agency revealed no substantiation of the charge by the defense civilian attorneys, Segal and Eisman that they were beaten by MPs and CID agents on July 20, 1970.

The report states that Colonel Lennon ordered Captain MacDonald to be apprehended for the purpose of obtaining hair samples from his body.

MacDonald was spotted riding on the Fort Bragg military reservation in an automobile containing the civilian defense attorneys. The car was pursued by MPs and CID agents, and stopped after a short chase.

While attempting to block access to the open door of MacDonald's vehicle, Attorney Eisman was set aside by a CID agent and fell to the ground.

Preponderance of evidence suggest no excessive force was used by the CID agent to move Eisman.


Alleged that Franz Grebner, head of the Fort Bragg CID, admitted he received the laboratory report on the hair August 5, 1970, but did not produce the results of the examination until it was demanded by the Article 32 hearing office, Colonel Warren Rock, claiming it had been misplaced and he had forgotten about it due to other pressing matters.


Substantiation:  CW3 Grebner received the laboratory report of the hair samples on July 30, 1970, and filed it with other laboratory reports.

On August 17, 1970 Lieutenant Ossman inquired if the hair samples had been received. Grebner told him he could not recall having seen it but, upon checking his files, discovered that it had been received. He immediately notified Lieutenant Ossman that he had found the report.


Alleged that the CID contends the scene in the MacDonald living room was staged by MacDonald because it was an impossibility for the coffee table to be upset and land on its side as claimed by MacDonald when the same table was upset by the Article 32 officer, Colonel Rock, it did land on its side.


Substantiation:  Dr. Fisher experimented with the coffee table in the living room of MacDonald's quarters to determine if it would land on its side, the position in which it was found on the morning of February 17, 1970. There was a suspicion that the living room scene had been deliberately staged by someone who wanted the MPs and CID investigators to think that a struggle had taken place in that room. He found that each time he kicked over the coffee table it landed on its top.

Other items such as magazines, slippers, and a flower pot were scattered as a result of this upset, and never in the course of these experiments did these items fall in a configuration remotely close to the original scene on February 17, 1970.

Colonel Rock reported that on his second visit to the MacDonald quarters, he knocked over the coffee table, and it landed on its edge.

CW3 Grebner was present during this experiment and he contends the test was faulty because the adjacent chair was turned broadside to the table, thus effectively preventing the coffee table from tumbling onto its top.

Photographs taken during the morning of February 17, 1970 show the adjacent chair sitting at an angle
of approximately 30 degree to the coffee table.

CID agents Shaw and Ivory also conducted numerous controlled experiments and they determined that the table would land on its edge only if it struck the adjacent chair flush, and along its entire length.


Alleged CID agents maintain that MacDonald could not have seen the faces of the murderers as he claimed; but when the Article 32 hearing officer, Colonel Rock visited the MacDonald house and assumed the same position that MacDonald stated he was in at the time he saw the murderers, Colonel Rock could clearly see the faces of two men who were in the murderers' position as indicated by MacDonald.


Substantiation: Colonel Rock did see the features of a person standing at the foot of the couch during this experiment. It should be noted, however, that additional lighting was available during this experiment.

It should also be noted that Captain MacDonald related that he was awakened from a sound sleep, and he has defective vision.


Alleged that the perjured testimony and suppression of evidence by the CID and the prosecution has brought disgrace to the Army.


Refutation:  Captain Somers offered the professional opinion that no perjured testimony was made by CID agents during the Article 32 hearing.

He further stated that Shaw and Ivory were extremely competent investigators, their conduct at all times proper, and the US Army fortunate to have them assigned to the case.





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  - 
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