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


Prior to reading Claims vs True Facts, here are a few
other interesting things to ponder

After MacDonald was convicted, he started making tapes for Joe McGinniss to provide him with information to aid in Joe writing Fatal Vision. In all there were a total of 31 tapes with two sides. Not one of them says anything about being confidential. MacDonald referred to the tapes as act one, act two, and so forth and so on. Maybe in his mind he thought he was writing a play or movie.

MacDonald has always tried to make people think he loved Colette and the children more than anything in the world. And here I think he let his true feeling out by saying "And therefore, I have probably painted a rosier than it really was picture of the relationship between Colette and I... There were cracks in it." I think he was telling the truth about that. He always had a wandering eye and fly trouble. Too bad he never got it caught in the zipper. There were cracks before the marriage ever took place. Even the day before the marriage, he gave a black and red negligee to his former high school girlfriend, Carol Larson. The source of that information comes from Carol's grand jury testimony which I have read.

When MacDonald was asked if he had a "sexual relationship with the wife of a fellow medical student that was friends of both he and Colette," MacDonald replied "I'm embarrassed to say I did." MacDonald never identified the friend; however, her name was Jeannie Morell.

The day after Kimberley, the older child, was born, and Colette was in the hospital, MacDonald left Colette in the hospital to visit Carol Larson in Patchogue.

Holy shit, how low can one sink? When asked if he thought he was a faithful husband, he replied "Well, I certainly wasn't sexually faithful. I felt in my heart that I was emotionally faithful to Colette."

When MacDonald was asked "Now, during the internship year, didn't you have a sexual relationship with a nurse in the on-call room at the hospital where you were on duty?" MacDonald replied "I believe that occurred."

Q. Now, toward the end of the internship year you decided to enlist in the Army?

A Yes, that's true. It was actually, I believe, the middle of the internship year.

Q. Wasn't one of the motivations for going into the Army to get away from some of these pressures that you were feeling?

A. Oh, I think Colette and I both felt we needed a break, yes.

Q. "What did sound good" -- about going into the Army -- "was the year or two away from the high-pressure environment that I had been in for the last five years.

"With medical school and this horrendous year of internship, I knew that I hadn't been spending much time at home with Colette and the kids during the internship year. I was mentally worn out from that year and physically tired."

Then he said "There was a lot of pressure, but the pressure Colette and I felt was on both of us.

I was what I considered to be a faithful husband. And I was just tired and irritable and cranky -- this was a down year. We were both tired."


Included in the release that MacDonald signed with Joe McGinniss among other things, it states "You may include in the book any incidents, characters, dialogues actions, scene and situations that you desire. In your sole discretion, you can quote, you can edit, you can splice, you can rearrange, you can even fictionalize. You can combine."

On August 3rd, 1979, MacDonald signed a consent and release... In the document he says -- it's between him and McGinniss -- that he understands that McGinniss is writing a book about his life and the case, and he understands that McGinniss has the freedom to draw on all the incidents, to use what he thinks is appropriate, to have that kind of artistic discretion.

The rest of the document talks about MacDonald releasing McGinniss from any claims.

There are different paragraphs. One paragraph deals with claims for defamation. Another paragraph deals with all kinds of other claims, invasion of privacy, and everything else, all else otherwise.

In December of 1981 there's a second release. The second release deals with books, TV, movies, and is even broader than the first release, if that's possible. It was signed by MacDonald, signed by McGinniss or his representative, and says "I'm giving you a lot of interviews, you can use them for whatever purpose you want, you can use any of the information you are getting, you can even fictionalize it if you want to. You can decide which parts, you can depict me in the movie or in the book how you choose" And twice in that document MacDonald says "it is solely at your discretion, Mr. McGinniss, you are the sole source of discretion as to how you want to use the facts. I have no control over what you can write or say in your book."

There can be no doubt that he wanted a book written, but from where I stand, it is obvious that he wanted it written his way and he wanted the money it would generate. According to him, he needed the money for legal reasons. My opinion is maybe some of it, but basically I think he wanted it to finance his new lifestyle and provide all the boy toys he wanted to be able to impress people with.

Enter Joseph Wambaugh

The first contact with Joseph Wambaugh was in 1975. The contact was made by a nurse by the name of Gloria Val.

MacDonald received a letter from Wambaugh March 28, 1975. In the letter the following was stated "First of all, let me say very immodestly that you do not get an author like Truman Capote or Joseph Wambaugh to write an 'as told to' book. If this is what you have in mind, you might contact a good writer like Kurt Gentry and see if he is interested."

Then in the next paragraph he says "If you aspire to have your story told in a more 'literary work', you should understand that I would not think of writing your story. It would be my story. Just as the Onion Field was my story and In Cold Blood was Capote's story. We both had the living persons sign legal releases which authorized us to interpret, portray, and characterize them as we saw fit, trusting us implicitly to be honest and faithful to the truth as we saw it..."

The next paragraph where he says: "With this release you can readily see that you would have no recourse at law if you didn't like my portrayal of you."

Then he says: "Let's face another ugly possibility. What if I, after spending months of research and interviewing dozens of people and listening to hours of court trials, did not believe you innocent?"

MacDonald wrote a letter to Bernie Segal the day after he got the letter from Wambaugh saying, "enclosed is very interesting, what do you think? He sounds awfully arrogant to me, but it will be an obvious best seller if he writes the book. Please get back to me ASAP."

There was no further communication until 1979, when Michael Snyder, a Los Angeles police officer who knew Wambaugh contacted him about writing a book on the case. There was a phone call and a meeting was arranged. MacDonald met Wambaugh in a Long Beach, California restaurant. MacDonald told Wambaugh he was interested in having a book written about the case, the upcoming murder trial. MacDonald claims Wambaugh pulled out his checkbook and offered to write a check for $200,000.00 - $300,000.00. Wambaugh denied that and in fact stated "this $200,000.00 - $300,000.00 was a fabrication, a fantasy, pure fiction." You have MacDonald saying it happened and Wambaugh saying it didn't. You can make up your own mind as to who you believe, Wambaugh or a triple convicted murderer.

It was Wambaugh who put McGinniss onto the track of the sociopath. It was Wambaugh who said to Joe "It's not a question of good or evil, those aren't the only two alternatives, it's not a question of this man being worse than Hitler.

"...The sociopath, the man who doesn't have a conscience, the man who doesn't have the feelings that the rest of us have. He walks and talks and looks like us but he doesn't think and act like us or feel like us. Some part of his inside is missing." That's what Wambaugh explained to Joe.

Interesting Exchange About Amphetamines

MacDonald stated "I could understand taking some amphetamines. After all, they weren't so bad, just to stay up a little bit and party." When he was asked "Was it true at the time you said it? Could you understand that anyone could take amphetamines?" He then stated "I think that's a mischaracterization of what I was saying in that sentence." When asked "did you think that amphetamines weren't so bad", MacDonald replied "Amphetamines as a whole are bad drugs." But you said here they weren't so bad. Did you mean by that that amphetamine weren't so bad? MacDonald replied "In the context in which I was saying it, I did, yes." Then you say: "just to stay up a little bit and party. Did you mean by that that it was alright to take amphetamines to stay up a little bit and party?" MacDonald replied "Not exactly, no." You didn't mean that? MacDonald replied "I meant something by that, but not what you're inferring." Did you mean that it was alright, if you had to stay up all night, to take some amphetamines? MacDonald replied "Well, I don't believe it says all night. It might, but I don't believe it does. I believe I was referring to the difference between a causal use of an occasional amphetamine and LSD usage.

When MacDonald was asked if he ever took any kind of stimulant to help get through the all-nighters he had to pull for studying for exams in medical school, he replied "I probably did." When pushed further as to what it was he took, MacDonald replied "I'm not sure what it was." Asked if it was a pill, he replied "Yes. A medical student had given me two -- one or two pills, I believe." When asked if he had any reactions, he replied "I don't recall."

Dr. Frank T. Standaert On Amphetamines

"Amphetamines are very complex, many series of actions. They have actions on the peripheral body through the sympathetic nervous system. They behave like the nerves --they make the nerves of the body release epinephrine or norepinephrine, which is what you release in 'the fright or startled reaction'. They have actions within the central nervous system where in small doses they again by releasing the chemical by which nerves send signals to each other excite certain nerves and so that you get -- in small doses you would get excitation, insomnia or not going to sleep, whichever way you want to go with it, some depression of appetite and increased motor activity, more restlessness, more moving around, more jitteriness and then depending on where you go from there, as you go into the higher doses or longer periods of time, you can get frank hallucinations, you can get delusions, you can get personality changes and then you can get what's called an amphetamine psychosis.

"Amphetamine psychosis is a complex picture and which has a variety of actions in it, but basically it starts with changes in personality where the individual more or less becomes withdrawn into himself and ignores or rejects his environment and then becomes irritable, may become abusive in the sense of saying things or doing things to his surroundings and then becomes delusional, that is he can imagine that things are going on and/or misinterpret things
that the influence of the drug may see the same things that you and I see but interpret them in a way that you and I would not consider interpreting them. He may go on to get hallucinations, which means he sees things that aren't there, animals or snakes or monsters or things that no one else can see and then can go on, and depending on how all of these things are interpreted and whether the drug continues to be taken or the drug is taken away, may go on to whatever of a paranoid nature would progress to. It could just plain go away. Some people who have been chronic abusers of these drugs get used to it and they recognize that that's part of the charm of taking the drug that they will have these strange sights and feelings, other people having seen these strange unreal things get very frightened of them. They may panic, they may commit suicide, they may attack the vision or thing they see. There are a variety of outputs from this, but fundamentally the person is psychotic at this point and has withdrawn from the world and is no longer really behaving the way a normal individual would."

Is it possible for violence to result from an amphetamine -- induced psychosis?

According to Dr. Standaert, the answer is "yes."

Eskatrol is supposed to be taken in the morning.

According to Standaert "Because it's a preparation that contains an immediately released form of amphetamine plus some slowly released form of amphetamine. It's intent of manufacturers it should contain the effect of the pill for at least 12 hours, therefore if you took it later in the day it would interfere with your sleeping because amphetamine is a classic sleep -- anti-sleep material. It's -- and so if you took it in the evening you would not be able to sleep that night, so you take it in the morning so the drug has worn off and you will be able to sleep that night."

What would happen if someone took it around supper time?

"Primarily they would have a great deal of difficulty falling asleep that night. It's been known for people to stay up for several days."

Might those hallucinations include seeing members of their own family as intruders in the house?

"That would not -- that would not usually be in the category of a hallucination. That might be a delusion that they are there and they should not be there. You and I might think they should be there and the delusion is that they should not be there. Hallucination is usually visual perception of something that is not there at all."

Are both delusions and hallucinations are possible psychotic reaction to amphetamines?

According to Dr. Standaert, the answer is "yes."

Could one have a delusion of intruders in the home when it's really the family members.

According to Dr. Standaert, "There could he deluded thinking that the family members are intruders, yes."

Described Fort Sam Houston As A playground

In describing when he was at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, MacDonald stated "But Sam Houston in San Antonio was great to us, and Chuck was single and I was married with two kids, of course. But in all honesty, we lived a great bachelor life. We had rooms in motels and the motels turned out to be one of the motels used for the crews for -- one of the major airlines, but I forgot which one. But these stewardesses were there on overnight-type deals. And it ended up being this incredible time for Probst and I."

And then he goes on to say, "It was very unstressful. It was like a total release from medical school and the internship; and to be honest actually, of being family life."

Continuing on to say "Probst and I were burning the candle at both ends. We would party several nights a week, if not four or five nights a week. We took many girls out. There were several overnight episodes with people I don't remember, one of which later came back to haunt me at the Article 32 hearing, with Judy DeWitt, I believe is the person I'm referring to."

"There was a stewardess I stayed with one night."

Continuing with "To be honest, I say at least a night a week and sometimes three nights a week we really partied; and some of these parties went through most of the night. Very often there were, you know, eight or ten people involved.

"It wasn't nearly the orgy-type scene that the CID would love to have everyone believe; most of it was totally on the up and up. There were, you know, several nights spent with other women in these motels. Chuck and I both had met and dated several women, for one night only because they were coming and going. But I believe there were one or two people that we each dated for one or two nights during this time in Sam Houston."

He referred to Fort Sam Houston as "a playground." Stating there were always "12, 14, or 15 stewardesses at this motel."

As to Fort Benning, he said "We ended up doing a little partying at Fort Benning. I guess we picked up a couple of girls at different times or something. But it was a whole different thing because we were physically exhausted during jump school, and the atmosphere was different. There weren't neat stewardesses or nice looking women around Fort Benning, Georgia. It was just a whole different thing. It was a hooker's paradise, to be honest."

When asked "did you consider yourself a faithful husband at that time, he replied "No. I certainly wasn't being faithful at that time, no."


MacDonald talked about a scale of aggressiveness "on a scale of aggressiveness, I'd say he -- talking about Jay -- was about a 7 and I was about a 9.5, considerably less aggressive I believe in sport and in personal interactions than myself. For instance, Jay never really had a fight (I don't believe) in high school except as a peacemaker, whereas I was in several fights in high school.

"I always think they [were] either over a girl...some at that time [were] gang troubles with other towns and there were a couple of incidents at our high school that occurred where I really had nothing to do but suddenly was confronted with possible physical trouble and there was a fight that evolved from that. Jay never seemed to have those problems. Of course he was much bigger than me and people didn't approach him the same way, but he was a leader in his high school class and everyone felt that he would go on and do great things."

When asked about an incident where his brother had to be taken away after using violence on your mother, MacDonald replied "I believe I said that it was an inadvertent knocking down of my mother while he was being handcuffed by the police."

As To Guns He Owned

MacDonald admitted to owning

Lever-action .30-'30 rifle

A .22

A 6.5 mm Italian rifle

An old British .303 army special

When MacDonald was under house arrest, Ron Harrison loaned him a 9 mm pistol.

When arrested at his condo, he had a .44 Magnum near his bed. MacDonald said "I purchased it from a security guard at Saint Mary Medical Center." When asked what the purpose in purchasing it was, MacDonald replied "Well, I think it was probably more than one purpose. But I think, again, it was probably for personal protection." When asked why he thought he needed personal protection, MacDonald replied "Well, I think I was taking to heart Alfred Kassab's repeated statements that he was going to kill me."

Trip Across Country

MacDonald talks on the tapes about the trip across country with Marion Stern, her daughter Nina and son Danny. He stated "Marion was the wife of Bob Stern and were friends of him and his mother." And when MacDonald was asked if he had a "sexual relationship with Marion Stern", MacDonald replied "I did." He was also asked if he had a sexual relationship with Marion's twenty-two-year-old daughter Robin, MacDonald replied "Yes, that's true."

It has long been wondered who the sixteen-year-old was that MacDonald had an intimate relationship with. Well, finally the truth will be known. The sixteen-year-old was Nina Stern. The source of that information was none other than her mother, Marion Stern as told to Joe McGinniss in one of their personal conversations. Seems MacDonald bedded all of the Stern females. When asked if any feelings of deception against his friend, Bob Stern, he said "Yes, I think I did...well, they were separated."

An intimate relationship with a sixteen-year-old? Now to me, that was not normal. Surly he jests? This five pecker billygoat has no morals. His ass should have been arrested for statutory rape.

Danny Stern Incident

Joe McGinniss said that Marion Stern "in one of our conversations, she made reference to two incidents involving her son Danny. One was dangling him out of the window by his feet; and the other was the incident on a boat where Jeff had done something to frighten him, holding his head, threatening to crush it...Marion suggested that I speak to Danny about it. I called Danny Stern and asked him about it. Well, he said what I quoted him saying in the book. He confirmed and in fact went into detail about it." When MacDonald was questioned about the incidents with Danny, he replied "Alleged is the key word there."

Now Folks, Here's The real Kicker

MacDonald said "there were little streaks of hate that Colette tried desperately to hide." He stated "This was in regard, I believe, to her brother hanging her off a second story and dangling her and pretending he was going to drop her. And she used to get furious with that memory." Trying here to make it seem that Bob Stevenson was the one who did that to his sister and not him to Danny Stern.

Now, I ask you, is that not similar to what Danny Stern told McGinniss that MacDonald did to him?

Some Of MacDonald's Description Of Others

On October 16, 982, MacDonald wrote McGinniss a letter. On the back of one of the pages, MacDonald wrote Bernie Segal is "truly pathological."

When MacDonald was asked what did you mean by that, he stated "I meant that he had -- I had heard that he had made entreaties to a man in Washington to try to prevent my transfer from one prison to another for a period of at least several weeks; and I had just found out that -- I believe had just found out that for those several weeks none of the supposed entreaties to that person in Washington had been made, and I now had to get another attorney to do the same work."


When confronted about saying Brian Murtagh was a basically evil person, dumb, ruthless, I think he'll stop at nothing, but he doesn't hide it well, he replied "I don't recall those exact words, but I may have said that." When asked if he referred to Brian Murtagh as a snail spreading slime, he said "I don't recall that."


When asked do you recall saying that "I think Blackburn is essentially identical, except he hides it a little better. I think he is a face man, totally phony from the word go." MacDonald replied "Not those exact words. I expressed a feeling like that, yes."


As to Wade Smith one of his defense attorneys, MacDonald referred to him as a "candy ass in his own town."

When asked if he said that about Smith, MacDonald said "I did say that." When asked what he meant by that, MacDonald replied "That he was afraid to buck Judge Dupree, that he let Judge Dupree run all over him."


When asked if he remembered referring to Judge Dupree as an "ominous villain", MacDonald replied "Yes, I do recall saying that." Continuing on to describe him as "This ominous figure, appropriately dressed in black, looking like a decaying person, cancer-ridden or something, like a boil that should have burst." When asked if he remembered saying that, MacDonald replied "I don't recall that."


MacDonald referred to Dennis Eisman "as a grating schmuck whose immaturity outweighed his intellect."


In one of MacDonald's Defense Update Newsletters, it was written "Joe thinks he's invulnerable now because the Supreme Court ruled against me. But he's wrong. I'm going to sue to stop the paperback and the movie; and I want you to understand this. I hope the hard cover does not sell a single copy. And I'm going to sue him. Joe will pay."


And another quotation attributed to MacDonald saying "Now there's a bad book out about me, and some sleezeball who globbed on to the story to make a buck is going on every TV show in America."


MacDonald said Cleve Backster was "the biggest shyster I've ever met."

That Cleve Backster "is clearly a charlatan."

MacDonald said Backster was "unprofessional because he asked questions about his sexual habits."

That Cleve Backster "is clearly a charlatan."

Lies And More Lies

In a letter written to the Kassabs on November 6, 1971, it reads in part as follows: "It was obvious the only way for justice to be met is for me to do it. I am doing it, I have been doing it (four trips to North Carolina and Florida in the last three months) and will continue to do it as long as my strength holds up (broken hand last trip, $2,000 spent). The only legit help I see is private eye type, most of which I have found is no more competent than local cops. My next major goal is a large sum of money (via an advance from a publisher or this purpose). The first chap of my book."

"It has been written. The outline is done and still we are dickering with publishers. They just won't come across fast. Plus John Cummings mouthing off to publishers have hurt the book, that's another story (he wanted the story, when he failed to produce I went elsewhere, but he got so resentful he has been sandbagging our efforts.

When MacDonald was asked about the supposed four trips to North Carolina and Florida in the last three months and the broken hand. MacDonald replied "That was all part of this." When asked what he meant by that he replied "This attempt to give the Kassabs a way out of their grief."

MacDonald was asked "There's not too much that's true in that letter, is there?" MacDonald replied "I don't know what you mean by 'too much'."

When bluntly put to him "There were no four trips to North Carolina and Florida looking for Intruders, were there?" MacDonald replied "No."

MacDonald And Cleve Backster

For 17 years the convicted murderer covered up his flunking of the polygraph examination on April 23, 1970, and he was successful in that cover up. And that's why he didn't let McGinniss speak to Backster. That was a breach by MacDonald of the agreement to provide the exclusive story rights which covered cooperation.

In 1974 in front of the grand jury, MacDonald was asked "Now, were you interviewed or tested by anyone else during this period of time?

A. No.

Q. Well, were you interviewed or tested by anyone other than a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

A. No.

Q. Well, specifically were you given a polygraph test?

A. We had some discussion about it. But the answer is no.

Q. I don't mean a polygraph test by a polygraph expert connected with the Army or connected with the government investigators, but a polygraph test that a polygraph operator, let's say privately retained, to examine you?

A. No, I'd have to discuss any more answers on that with Mr. Segal.

Now we know he had had two polygraphs done by that time, one by John Reid and one by Cleve Backster. So he lied to the grand jury on January 21, 1975.

Being caught in a lie at a later time he said "Well, the Backster one I thought was incomplete and the John Reid one I just forgot about that." The question is, how many polygraphs he had in his life that he could forget about a polygraph when asked by the grand jury? "He was trying to sell the grand jury the Brooklyn Bridge."

Some years later MacDonald was asked "And at that Grand Jury appearance, didn't you deny having an interview during April of 1970 in Philadelphia with anyone other than a lawyer or psychologist?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you recall being administered a polygraph examination by Cleve Backster?

A. My answer is that just to keep the record straight there was an attempt at a polygraph. A complete examination was never finished by Cleve Backster.

Q. On how many occasions have you met Mr. Backster?

A. One.

Q. Okay. When did that occur?

A. In 1970.

Q. And during the time you were with Mr. Backster, he did hook you up to a polygraph machine, did he not?

A. Yes.

Q ...And he asked a number of questions of you and recorded your polygraph responses to those questions; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever been told what the result was of your -- the polygraph result...

A. No.

Q. "...You terminated that interview with Cleve Backster?

A. It was terminated. I'm not sure how I would -- it was terminated by a combination of myself and Bernard Segal.

Q. Wasn't the reason for your taking a second polygraph test because you weren't satisfied with the results of the first one with John Reid?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. ...Do you recall saying... you told Bernie that as we got out of the meeting, "I essentially canceled Cleve Backster, and once I relayed this on a break to Bernie, he then canceled Cleve Backster and that was the end of it. Do you recall saying that?

A. Again, not the exact words, but that is the feeling of what happened, yes.

Q. Did Mr. Segal say anything to Mr. Backster?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?

A. He told him to pack his bag and get out.

Now here is an example where Bernie Segal was the one person who could have corroborated MacDonald's version of the alleged termination, and the fact that he told Backster to pack his bags and get out. He never did that, because he knew Backster was telling the absolute truth.

In fact when Segal was asked what he found in Fatal Vision that was not true, he gave only two things, "the Eskatrol description and the description of the pathological narcissism." Keep in mind, this was MacDonald's attorney, and that's all he could find.

Q. Isn't it true that Cleve Backster did give you a complete polygraph on April 23, 1970?

A. That is not my recollection at all.

Q. And that this polygraph was given at Mr. Segal's offices?

A. That is not my recollection either.

Q. Where was it given?

A. I don't know.

Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Backster didn't ask you a single question about your private sex life?

A. That is not true.

Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Backster informed you immediately after the test what the results were?

A. No, that is not true.

Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Backster told you right then that the results of the polygraph were absolute, unambiguous and unmistakable?

A. No, that is not true.

Q. Isn't it true that he told you that the polygraph showed deception on your part?

A. No, that is not true.

Q. Isn't it true that when he told you that you showed no surprise?

A. No, that is not true.

Q. And isn't it true that Mr. Backster then went to inform Mr. Segal about the results right there?

A. That is not true.

Q. And isn't it true that after he gave the results to Mr. Segal, you, Mr. Segal and Mr. Backster and that there would be no written report since the results were not satisfactory for your purposes?

A. That is not true.

Q. Isn't it true that when you denied authorization to Mr. McGinniss in February 1983, you were trying to cover up the results of that polygraph examination?

A. There wasn't a polygraph taken.

In a letter written by MacDonald to Joe McGinniss on February 15, 1983 MacDonald wrote "I am obviously very uncomfortable with his results, that over the years have, I believe, found that I've self-flagellated myself too much. It is inconceivable that the results in my test wouldn't be cloudy, to say the least."

When MacDonald was asked "Do you remember writing that to Joe McGinniss?"

MacDonald replied "No, I don't."

Q. Do you recognize the handwriting on that document?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is it yours?

A. Yes, this is my handwriting.

Q. And the date says 2-15. Would that be 02-15-83?

A. I think it is, yes.

Later on MacDonald said "The agreement between he and I in writing was that It would not be divulged to anyone by him unless It was satisfactory to us."

Q. Does that refer to Backster or Reid?

A. My best recollection is I'm confusing them here in my letter. My confusion is between Reid and Backster.

Dr. Robert Sadoff

According to Dr. Robert Sadoff, he examined MacDonald formally twice, and saw him a total of four times.

The first was April 21, 1970, for about three hours in his office. That was the first formal examination. The second was on August the 13th, 1970, when he went to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to testify at the Article 32 investigation hearing, and he spoke to him there. The third time was a formal examination on June 14, 1979, in San Francisco for several hours in preparation for the trial that was coming up. And the fourth time was on August 22, 1979, when he went to Raleigh, North Carolina, where he was tried.

Bernie Segal was a friend of Sadoff and he talked to him about the case and asked him to examine MacDonald with certain questions in mind.

The questions were, what could he find in his examination of MacDonald about his state of mind? Would it be consistent with a person who could have killed his wife and two children in the way that they were killed? ...And being the way he is at the time that Dr. Sadoff examined him, did he have... .....There were three or four different kinds of mental states that would be consistent with someone who could do that. One was psychosis; another was an antisocial personality; and another was one, who became psychotic under stress and then reconstituted.

Dr. Sadoff was asked the question "What findings did you or Dr. Mack make that led you to conclude that he did not suffer from the narcissistic personality disorder?"

Dr. Sadoff replied "Because a narcissistic personality disorder is a disorder which is not normal; and it's -- a person is not just narcissistic. All of us have certain narcissistic tendencies and traits. And I don't think that's bad. It's the way we cope with, the way we adapt to the stress of our environment. It's the way we handle our lives.

"So just because one may have a little more narcissism than perhaps the average, doesn't make it a disorder. A disorder is where it's pathological, which means it's -- it gets the person in trouble. It's not helpful to the person in terms of coping and dealing with life's stresses.

"So I did not find there was any pathological narcissism in Dr. MacDonald that got him into difficulty and that harmed him, which was self-defeating for him; so as not a personality disorder. But, yes, there were certain narcissistic traits that he had, but that doesn't make it a disorder."

Dr. Sadoff was asked "have you had any experience with polygraph examinations?"

Dr. Sadoff replied "Yes, I have...The experience I've had is several. One, I have -- first of all, I have -- usually have a polygraph expert conduct a polygraph examination on people on whom I wish to conduct further testing, such as sodium amytal or hypnosis. The reason I do this is, because the only reason I would use sodium amytal or hypnosis in a criminal case if the defendant -- the person charged with the crime -- doesn't remember what happened at or about the time of the crime, it's only to bring back memory that he cannot bring back himself.

"I don't want to use these tests on people who may be lying to me about not remembering. So the only question that I'm interested in among a bunch of questions that we give to the person who doesn't know what I'm looking for, is whether he's lying about not remembering. And I have used a polygraph expert in Philadelphia who teaches the course nationally. And I have taught his course, and he has taught about polygraph to my students at the University of Pennsylvania. So those are the experiences I've had with polygraph."

Dr. Sadoff was asked "As part of your forensic psychiatry examinations, do you sit in on polygraph examinations conducted by a person who is giving the test?"

Dr. Sadoff replied "I don't usually when they do it before I do the hypnosis or sodium amytal; but sometimes we had hooked a person up to a polygraph while they were under the influence of either sodium amytal or hypnosis, because he wanted to be able to see whether people could lie under the modality of hypnosis or sodium amytal."

Dr. Sadoff was asked "Before going to the criminal trial, you said you had the opportunity on June 14th, 1979, to examine Dr. MacDonald. You said it took place in San Francisco. How long did that take?"

A. I don't recall exactly, but I think it was again several hours -- two or three hours.

Q. Where was it?

A. As I recall, it was at a hotel and maybe at a restaurant as well, but I think it was mostly at the hotel...

Q. What was the purpose of your examination at that time?

A. The purpose was to re-examine Dr. MacDonald. I had not seen him in nine years. The trial was coming up, and to find out how he was doing, what his function was, behavior, state of mind throughout the past nine years, so I could update my evaluation.

Q. Was there any psychological test administered at that time?

A. I believe there were, yes.

Q. Do you know who administered it?

A. Dr. Mack.

Q. After you and Dr. Mack consulted, did you have any conclusion as to whether Dr. MacDonald suffered from narcissistic personality disorder?

A. I had an opinion, yes.

Q. What was it?

A. Opinion was, did not, does not have a narcissistic personality disorder.

Q. Did you see any other personality disorder at work in Dr. MacDonald?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you see any evidence during the examination in 1979 that made you change your opinion as to whether there had been a toxic psychosis or a personality disorder of any kind that had led to the crimes?

A. No, I did not change my opinion; in fact, the examination strengthened my further -- my first opinion that I gave in 1970.

Dr. Sadoff was asked "And you did testify that MacDonald told you that he was -- he had a feeling of relief that Colette was gone, and that the kids are gone; and he's ashamed of that feeling?"

A. I think he was very open when he told me that, yes.

Q. And you testified about a feeling of ambivalence that people have toward loved ones?

A. I testified about that, yes.

Q. And by ambivalence, you mean a combination of hate and love?

A. That's really a mixed feeling that people have toward those they love. They're dependent on them; they don't like the dependence. They're nurturing of them; and they have responsibilities, obligations. It's a lot of different things that go on at the same time, not necessarily hate and love, but certainly mixed feelings.

Dr. Sadoff was asked "Couldn't you have been fooled by -- MacDonald's mask of sanity?

A. If you assume he has a mask of sanity?

Q. Yeah.

A. Could I have been fooled? Well, that's one of the reasons I got Dr. Mack to do the battery of psychological tests, because it's possible that I could be fooled. But his testing, which goes below the surface and taps a different source of information than what I'm getting clinically, is totally consistent with my findings. With that, I find that he'd have to be awfully good to fool both of us at different levels of functioning. So, yes, I could be fooled, but I think we took enough precautions to be sure we were not.

Q. You could be fooled by a good psychopath?

A. Look, I'm not perfect. I'm sure, you know, in all modesty, I'm sure I could be fooled, sure. That's why I take the precautions that I do.

Based on Dr. Sadoff's statement "I don't want to use these tests on people who may be lying to me about not remembering", I cannot help but ask myself the question, where did Dr. Sadoff's friendship with Segal end and the psychiatrist pickup? Which was stronger, his friendship to Segal or his duty as a psychiatrist?


From Letters/Conversations Between MacDonald And McGinniss

September 1979 MacDonald wrote a letter to McGinniss about Jay stating "He got fucked up on speed (Whites), and then he said someone slipped him acid. Four policemen, one strait-jacket, one broken wrist, one terrified brother, one scared doctor, and one destroyed brain later, Jay came down to earth as you see him. I bailed him out of an insane asylum thinking he'd be okay. I was in my Green Beret outfit. I then went down to some bar he worked at in Greenwich Village, shaped like a triangle at an intersection, 'The Shortstop' and punched the shit out of some asshole who dealt whites."


During the trial at the Kappa Alpha House, MacDonald told McGinniss that Dr. Brussel "...was 80 years old, he appeared senile, he was drooling from the corner of his mouth, he thought he was in Maryland rather than North Carolina, he lost his topcoat and his hat while he was in the office, he was -- ...he was interviewing me from the viewpoint of a prosecuting attorney rather than a psychiatrist and I did not in fact believe he was a psychiatrist. ...The interview lasted somewhere between 20 and 40 minutes. ...Roughly 35 minutes, that he did not ask any questions at all relative to psychiatry, that he was reading from a typed sheet of questions that I asked Dr. Brussel 'what are you reading from' and Dr. Brussel's reply was that 'he was reading from a list of questions typed by that little guy, the little prosecutor.'

"...That as a physician it appeared to me that this was at a minimum an incompetent interview, that if in fact a psychiatrist it was unethical. ...It was another classic Brian Murtagh move, and ...I was upset with my attorneys for having me undergo this during trial."


In early October 1980, Joe had dinner with Bernie Segal and Sara Simmons. (Simmons was an attorney who worked on the case. Segal left his wife and married her) During dinner they talked about the book. According to McGinniss, he "was asked what was he going to conclude" and he replied "he didn't know." Segal and Simmons pressed him and he said, "Look, - I have a moral obligation to the truth. I don't have a moral obligation to MacDonald."

Then on Sunday, October 12, the article in The San Francisco Chronicle when Joe was giving an interview about his Alaska book, Going To Extremes, and the last paragraph of the interview the interviewer asked him, "Well, how are you going to conclude? Was MacDonald guilty?" McGinniss replied "well, the reader will just have to wait until he finds out."

Ten days after that article appears in the newspaper, MacDonald writes a letter to McGinniss saying, "I have just finished a strange conversation with Bernie which he was telling me how he sort of confronted you with some sort of request as to how you view my guilt or innocence. I poo-pooed (sic) it with him, thinking he was exaggerating his statements and your lack of response. Reading your quotes gave his version of your meeting a new weight and sobered me significantly."


April 27, 1982 MacDonald writes McGinniss another letter. In the PS to that letter MacDonald writes "F. Lee Bailey's associate was totally aghast that I had no artistic control over the book. I said, 'You don't understand Joe.' He seemed to feel my naiveté hadn't burned out yet. 'Surprisingly so,' he said. I hope (A) I'm not naive and (B) I have no reason to be aghast at my lack of artistic control."

On May 4th, 1982, McGinniss response to the above letter stating "To be blunt, let the lawyers stick to lawyering and leave the writer to take care of the book. What lawyers know about artistic control is what I know about thoracic surgery. I never would have considered getting involved in this in any capacity if that question had ever been raised in 1979, and Bernie, whatever other foibles he may have, was able to recognize that. Not only I, but any writer of merit or integrity confronted with a situation such as yours would have to insist on complete freedom to write whatever book he finally found emerging from the entire situation. That is what Joe Wambaugh told you in 1975, it was what I told you in 1979, it is what Robert Sherrill, John Sax or any of the others would have told you in 1970."

He continues on to say "Your complete cooperation...and your full granting of all artistic rights are all that persuaded me for the first time in my career to embark upon a project where someone else received income for work I did."

A little further down in the letter, McGinniss writes "The meaning of the word 'artistic' and the commitment that any writer of quality has to freedom and independence and truth."


February 16, 1983, McGinniss writes to MacDonald telling him that he can't have an advance look at the book six months prior to publication, and he goes on to say "As Joe Wambaugh told you in 1975, with him you would not even see a copy before it was published. - Same with me, same with any principled and responsible author."

Continuing on to say "The book is not part of either your legal or public relations campaigns. My commitment to its integrity is absolute."

Later that month, MacDonald writes another letter to McGinniss stating "It was one thing not to have control over the book, contents, you. I granted you that and have lived with it, except I asked you to treat Sherry well and Jay well for very different reasons."

And this is just a smidgen of what I have found. More to come on this later.


Both William F. Buckley and Wambaugh went on record stating when writing and or interviewing "that the task is to get the story and that you do what is necessary to get the story. You lubricate the flow of conversation. You appear sympathetic and understanding.

"Truth is the goal. And you allow the subject to continue in his-belief about how you are feeling about him. That's what you're supposed to do. The mission is writing that book."

Buckley said "a writer is an artist and he wants to encourage the subject of which he is making a portrait to reveal himself.

"The personal relationship that may develop between a writer and a subject does not limit the writer's discretion." Both Buckley and Wambaugh said "sometimes you tell a subject something you may not actually believe in order to get more information. You're encouraging the subject to tell you everything."

Buckley stated he "was fooled by one fellow who he had supported and then later had committed another horrible crime."

Wambaugh said "You're supposed to allow the psychopath to believe that he is continuing to manipulate you. That's what he needs to feel, that's his reason for being."

Dr. Stanton Samenow, a psychologist states "he's been fooled as a therapist and counselor." He has written several books among them, Inside the Criminal Mind and a three-volume study entitled The Criminal Personality. I have these books and they are excellent reads as is The Mask of Sanity by Robert Lindner and Assault and Homicide Associated with Amphetamine Abuse by Everett Allenwood, Jr.



Described a "most memorable" lovemaking session with Colette, on the living room couch at the Kassab's Washington Square apartment during Thanksgiving vacation of MacDonald's freshman year at Princeton.

The Kassabs did not move to the Washington Square apartment until the following year after MacDonald claims this took place.



Described making love to Colette on the infield of the Saratoga racetrack during Happy Pappy weekend or a later spring visit to Skidmore.


Saratoga racetrack is open only during the month of August. Skidmore is not.
Colette did not date MacDonald during his freshman year at Princeton.


Described 15 days between completion of his internship and the date of his reporting to Fort Sam Houston as time spent on a vacation to an island he thought might have been Aruba.

There was only one weekend between the completion of his internship and his reporting to Ft. Sam Houston. MacDonald spent that weekend moving Colette and the children from the Bergenfield apartment to Patchogue.


Told Dr. Sadoff on April 21, 1970 that he was the first member of his high school class in 22 years to attend an Ivy League school.

According to Fatal Vision, this is a false statement.


Told CID investigators on February 20, 1970, that after Colette departed for class, he remained in the residence with Kimberley and Kristen, and put Kristen to bed at 7:00 p.m.


Rosalie Edwards, a neighbor who lived three doors down in same building as the MacDonalds, stated that Kristen came to visit her on the evening of February 16, 1970, and stayed until past 7:00 p.m. and that this was normal for her to do.


Told CID investigators on February 17, that Colette went to bed at about 11:30 p.m.

On October 24, 2003, during an interview on  Larry King Live, MacDonald said: "And Colette went to bed about 11:00 o'clock."


MacDonald claimed that he and Colette did not argue on the night of February 16 or in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.


CID investigator John Reynolds interviewed Mrs. Violet Kalin who gave the following information: She went to bed about 2200- 2300, 16 February 1970; that sometime afterwards she woke up to the sound of Colette MacDonald's voice raised in anger and it seemed the voice was in an angry rhetorical question. She did not hear the words, merely the voice tones, as if Colette was saying, "What in the hell do you think you're doing?" Or "Do you think I am going to stand here and take this?" She emphasized she could not hear the words and that the two foregoing sentences were merely examples of how the tone patterns sounded to her. She heard Colette shout or scream that one sentence or phrase, heard no other sounds, and fell back to sleep. She did not wake again until the arrival of the military police at the MacDonald residence.


On February 19, 1970, MacDonald told FBI SA Robert Caverly that Colette left for classes at North Carolina State University at Fort Bragg at about 6:20 p.m.


Elizabeth Ramage, who was in the same child psychology class as Colette, stated that Colette picked her up at her residence on the evening of February 16, 1970, at about 6:10-6:15 p.m. and they drove to their evening class.


MacDonald wrote in his reconstruction of events that he would be traveling to Russia as physician for the boxing team, and that Colette had been "pleased" about this.


Colette was not pleased about the supposed trip. She mentioned her concerns to a Long Island friend in January 1970, to her mother, and to a friend who had begun to accompany her to her child psychology class in early February. The friend told investigators that Colette had said she didn't like being away from him, and "sort of dreaded the thought of being separated again."
Two days prior to the murders, Mildred Kassab spoke with Colette on the telephone and Colette told her that she was not doing very well and was upset because her husband was going to be out of the country when their third child was born. She told her mother that she would "like to come home."
On August 22, 1979, MacDonald's mother, Dorothy testified at trial that with regard to the alleged trip to Russia, "Well, Colette was upset because it would mean a separation again."
SSG Sherriedale Morgan, coach of the Fort Bragg boxing team gave a  written statement regarding his association with Jeffrey MacDonald. He stated that there was never any information given to Jeffrey MacDonald that the team would be going to Russia for matches and he does not know how Jeffrey MacDonald obtained such information.


MacDonald claimed that it was Kristen who wet his side of the bed in the master bedroom.

When the urine stain was tested, it was shown to have come from Colette or Kimberley. Colette exhibited no sign of having urinated, Kimberley did.


MacDonald claimed that Kimberley had stopped wetting the bed at about age two.


A nurse that MacDonald had an intimate relationship with told investigators that he told her that Kimberley suffered from enuresis (bed-wetting).


On February 17, 1970, MacDonald told CID investigators that he put Kristen in bed with Colette when she went bed.


On October 24, 2003 in an interview on the Larry King Live, MacDonald stated: "And when I got up to go to youngest daughter had gotten into our bed in the master bedroom and wet my side of the bed."



MacDonald told CID investigators that at 1:00 a.m. he began to read a novel, he finished it about 2:00 a.m., then he washed the dishes, and went to bed about 2:30 a.m.


During the 1979 hypnosis session, prior to the trial he said: "I'm reading--It's Mickey Spillane--It's almost 2--2 am--and I turned the FM off--Get ready for bed..."
On October 24, 2003 in an interview on the Larry King Live, MacDonald stated: "And when I got up to go to bed somewhere probably around 12:30 or 1:00..."


During the April 6, 1970 interview, CID investigator Bob Shaw asked: "At any point during the night...did you wear a pair of gloves?"

MacDonald: Did I wear a pair of gloves?
Shaw: Yeah. You.

MacDonald: Oh, yeah, to do the dishes.

Shaw: What kind of gloves were they?"

MacDonald: She usually had two pairs laying there. A yellow, thick dish glove and - and a pair of my surgeon's gloves. I don't know which ones I used. I don't remember.
Shaw: But did you use gloves to wash the dishes?

MacDonald: "Yeah."

On January 21, 1975, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked: "Well, if you had the rubber gloves on while you were doing the dishes, how come some fingerprints were found on the dishes."

MacDonald: I have no idea.

Woerheide: Your fingerprints?

MacDonald: I didn't say I had them on. You keep asking me if I had them on, I said, I don't know. But it's logical I may have put them on



MacDonald claimed that he was not read his rights prior to the April 6, 1970 CID interview.


Joe Grebner informed him twice of his rights. Once when the interview first started and after the lunch recess prior to the questioning starting.

Grebner also stated:
"Now, you have the right to consult with counsel before answering any questions; and that can be civilian counsel or military counsel. Civilian, it would be at your own expense. If it's military, it can be of your own choosing.
Even if you decide to answer questions at this time, that doesn't mean that you can't stop at any time.

Grebner: Mr. MacDonald, now do you desire counsel at this time?

MacDonald: No.


MacDonald claimed that he did not know that the April 6, 1970 CID interview with Grebner, Ivory and Shaw was being taped.


According to CID investigator Bill Ivory, the interview was tape recorded and then transcribed. Then MacDonald later made an issue about not knowing that it was being taped, but the machine was right by his elbow and he saw Joe Grebner turn it on.


MacDonald claimed that during the April 6, 1970 interview, one of the three CID investigators reached over on the desk and adjusted something. "And I realized from then on I was annoyed because this thing was shining in my face."

CID investigator Bill Ivory stated: "The only light that was on Joe's desk was an old desk light with a green shade that wasn't even turned on."



During his Army physical examination, MacDonald denied having any back problems.


On August 16, 1970 during the Article 32 hearing MacDonald testified, "I had had a herniated lumbar disk, playing football,
and I told less than the truth on my
Army physical.


MacDonald claimed that four "intruders" attacked him and killed his family.


If there were four intruders in the living room with the three men attacking him, and the girl chanting, who was in the master bedroom attacking Colette and Kimberley?
Aside from an overturned coffee table, an overturned flower pot, with the plant dislodged from the pot, his eyeglasses under the draperies, and one lampshade in the master bedroom slightly crooked, nothing was disturbed in this small apartment.
Freddy Kassab summed it up beautifully when he wrote about the four intruders:

When I read the case the first few times, I was skeptical about the existence of the 4 intruders--as skeptical & unbelieving as have been almost all who have familiarized themselves [with] this material. But on rereading portions of the
transcripts again last nite, I have now come over to the belief that, as MacDonald has kept insisting, there were indeed "4 intruders."

MacDonald's goals from the beginning to this day have been to impress, to prove his manhood, to con, to screw--whomever he wanted, whenever he wanted, wherever he wanted. Many men want a little bit of that kind of freedom, but the normal man, the normal man [with] a wife & a family, derives enough genuine & deep & lasting satisfaction from family life, that the balance between irresponsible "freedom" & commitment to his wife & his children--whom he truly loves more than he resents--allows him to forego that kind of self centered freedom, without too much "burden" or sense of entrapment. For MacDonald the balance tilted far to the other side--to the point where the
resentment was volcanic, the love only paper thin. So there came to be specifically 4 people--not 7, not 2--who intruded most especially upon his "space," 4 people who got in the way of his being the macho celeb & playboy he needed to be in order even to feel alive. 4 intruders--three white, one black--just like MacDonald told us. Who were they? I can name 3 of them: Colette, Kimberly, Kristy. The 4th intruder--black not in skin but figuratively black: as yet unseen, dark, invisible--the half-grown baby that Colette was carrying, MacDonald's as yet unborn son, as it turned out to be--the 4th intruder.

In MacDonald's fatal blindness--blindness to the deep & genuine feelings that animate ordinary people & unite them to their loved ones--in his fatal blindness, he murdered the intruders, all 4, &
making himself free at last! Free at last--to live out his image of the big shot, the glamour boy, the stud. This is the unbridled egomania, the wanton disregard for the feelings, even for the lives, of those who intruded most heavily upon his dreams--that Joe McGinniss quite correctly labeled "pathological narcissism" in his book. And I am being flown out here 2500 miles to be asked is Joe McGinniss' interpretation/assumption a fair one! Well, my answer is that how MacDonald dealt [with] his family shows me that in one detail at least MacDonald was an honest man--for though he lied as usual [with] his mouth, [with] his brain he told the truth. Yes, there were 4 intruders in his life. And out of his pathological narcissism, he killed them. I do not know of a narcissism more pathological than this.



MacDonald told CID investigators on February 17, 1970, that he fell asleep on the sofa and woke to the screams of his wife Colette screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" He also claims that, at the same time, he heard his daughter Kim screaming, "Daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy!"

Told SP6 Michael Newman, medical corpsman his children were screaming DADDY help.



On February 17, 1970, MacDonald told CID investigators that he saw one black male,
two white males and one white female.


SGT Kenneth Gillespie, a medical corpsman on duty at the hospital, gave a written statement to the CID stating that he noted that: while he was in Jeffrey MacDonald's company he heard him say that his assailants were two Negro males, one male Caucasian and one female Caucasian...
SSG Wallace Henniger, medical corpsman on duty at the hospital, gave a written statement to the CID which said that MacDonald told him, that in addition to the female there were two Negro males and a male Caucasian...
SP6 Michael Newman, medical corpsman testified on July 10, 1970 during the Article 32 hearing that MacDonald had told him that there were two colored males, one white male and one white female.


MacDonald told MPs at the scene that the blonde female was holding a candle.


February 17, 1970 CID investigator Paul Connolly stated MacDonald related to him: "although he was not sure of this fact): that the girl may have been carrying a lighted candle..."
Sergeant E-5 Richard Tevere, MP provided a written statement that MacDonald said there was a blond haired Caucasian female who was carrying a candle.

During the March 20. 1971 interview with Colonel Jack Pruett and CID investigator Peter Kearns, MacDonald was asked about the female intruder.

Pruett: You said she was holding a candle?

MacDonald: I never said that.

Pruett: Or a light?

MacDonald: You people said that. I said I saw a
light on her face. I had the impression--just because it seemed to be a light coming up on her face. I just had--I don't even know why I originally said candle. I had an instantaneous impression. I never saw the light in her hand. I never said I did.

Pruett: That is the point I'm getting to, as to whether she might have been holding something in her right or left hand.

MacDonald: I don't know

Pruett: You don't know then?

MacDonald: Colonel Kriwanek said she was holding a candle. Maybe he knows.
Told Dr. Severt Jacobson at the hospital on February 17, 1970, that he recalled seeing a blonde female with a candle.

On September 4, 1974,
during the grand jury investigation, Mildred Kassab testified that at the hospital on February 17, MacDonald said that: "when he pitched forth off of the sofa he saw this woman carrying a candle..."
Told his friend 1LT Ron Harrison
at the hospital on February 17 that the girl was carrying a candle.


When questioned by investigators on the day of the murders, MacDonald said that the female intruder wore brown or black fake leather boots.


On February 17, 1970, MacDonald told his friend, 1LT Ron Harrison, that the female intruder wore white boots.
Told SSG Kenneth Gillespie, medical corpsman that the female wore white boots.
On August 16, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald testified: "
My impression was that they were light brown."

Segal: Do you know actually whether they were light brown?

MacDonald: No, sir. This was extremely fast and dark in the hallway. I just--that was my initial impression.
In an interview with Pruett and Kearns on March 20, 1971, Kearns asked:
"My only interest is the color of the boots."

MacDonald: I don't know the color of the boots.

Kearns: I would like to know the color of the boots.

MacDonald: So would I. I don't really know. I
was kind of led into saying everything. You could say, "It could have" to anything. Under the lighting conditions and the struggling and falling and not really being aware of what is going on, the color could have been anything. I was under the impression that they were darker red than lighter, the boots.
During the Larry King Live interview on October 24, 2003, MacDonald described the boots: "They were light in color..."


According to the first people to enter the house no puddles or any other indications of intruders with wet footgear were found anywhere in the apartment.


On February 17, 1970, CID investigator Paul Connolly interviewed MacDonald at the hospital. According to Connolly, MacDonald said that when he was knocked to floor area of the living room-hallway he noticed that the girl was wearing brown boots that so wet they appeared to be almost a black color.
According to Connolly he returned to the MacDonald residence and examined the area where MacDonald claimed the girl with the wet boots stood but he could locate no evidence in this area to substantiate that a person with wet footwear was in this area.
During the interview with Pruett and Kearns on March 20, 1971, Kearns asked MacDonald about the female intruder's boots. MacDonald said: "It could have been wet or it could have been the vinyl-type thing. That was just again an instantaneous impression, similar with the candle thing. I don't know if they were wet."


MacDonald claimed the female intruder was chanting, "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."


The word groovy was an old word at this time, and not likely to have been used.
LSD is an energy stifler.
People under the influence of LSD could not partake in such continued deliberate strenuous activity.
Per the words of Pat Reese, a newspaper reporter who covered the Article 32 hearing: "four people who are doing acid couldn't organize a trip to the toilet, let alone organize a murder of three people."


MacDonald claims that the black male assailant, (MacDonald referred to him as a "Negro") was 5' 10" to 5" 11" tall and that before he says anything, he was next to him with a club in both hands raised over his head.

The living room ceiling was too low for the attacker to have raised a 31" club to strike MacDonald without scraping the ceiling. No scrape marks were found on the ceiling.



MacDonald said: the guy on my left was a colored man, and he hit me again; but at the same time, you know, I was kind of struggling. And these two men, I thought, were punching me at the same time. Then I--I remember thinking to myself that--see, I work out with the boxing gloves sometimes. I was then--and I kept--"Geeze, that guy throws a hell of a punch," because he punched me in the chest, and I got this terrible pain in my chest. Looking down, he saw the glint of a blade, and realized he had been stabbed with either a knife or ice pick.

The stab wound was described as a small 1 cm neat, clean incision. Certainly not the type of wound likely to have been inflicted during a fight.
No cuts in
MacDonald's pajama top matched the wound which caused the pneumothorax.



During the February 17-20, 1970 interview, MacDonald referred to the weapon he was hit with as a club.

The club was a 1-˝" x 1-˝" piece of wood which came from the MacDonald apartment. No splinters were found where MacDonald said he was attacked.


MacDonald denied any knowledge of the 31" long piece of wood used as a club in the attack of his person or in the attack or murders of Colette and Kimberley.


This piece of wood was found to be identical in type, grain, and annual growth rings to a bed slat in Kimberley's bedroom. It was also found to bear paint identical in chemical composition to paint on MacDonald's sidewalk, bookshelves and other items in the residence.


During the CID interviews directly after the murders, MacDonald claimed that he fought the intruders as he was on the sofa, and continued to fight the male intruders in the hallway, during which they tore his pajama top. He claims he then lost consciousness, and woke up to find the pajama top wrapped around his wrists.


During the April 6, 1970, CID investigator Bob Shaw said: "Captain MacDonald, you told one of the other investigators earlier that you were wearing a pajama top that was pulled over your head or something like that."

MacDonald replied: Well, all I know is that is that--well, when I was struggling now--after I had been hit the first time, I was struggling with these guys; and my--somehow, my pajama top--I don't know if it was ripped forward or pulled over my head. I don't remember actually--like backing my head through it.

But all of a sudden, it was around my hands and it was in my way. And I remember that I was holding this thing in my hand--the guy's hand--that--that I couldn't maneuver very well.
My hands were kind of wrapped up in the thing.
And they were punching me, I was kind of using that a little bit, you know, holding it--right, exactly--'cause this guy, I thought, was really punching me in the chest, you know, and in the stomach 'cause I--I was getting hit across here (pointing to the mid-section of his body.)
So, in effect, I was blunting everything by, you know, holding this up; and I couldn't get my hands free out of the thing. And I remember I ended up, when I was laying on the floor--I forgot to say that--when I woke up on--it was still around my hands and everything, and I took it off as I was going in the bedroom.


MacDonald told CID investigators that as he was pushing two of the assailants toward the hallway, both assailants were tearing his pajama top.


On April 21, 1970, he told Dr. Robert Sadoff that his pajama top was ripped over his head and he grabbed the club during the struggle but, then dropped it when he was stabbed.
In an interview with Jerry Springer, MacDonald said:
"My pajama top was pulled over my head from the back, like in a hockey fight."


MacDonald claims his pajama top must have been torn over his back as he struggled with the intruders.


His pajama top was torn on the left shoulder and ripped down the front seam, as if someone had reached out, grabbing it and tearing downward.

According to his story, no intruders were behind him as he was being attacked.

No fibers from the pajama top were found where MacDonald claims to have been attacked.


There were 17 holes across the back of MacDonald's pajama top that looked as though they had been made with an ice pick.

MacDonald had no wounds in his back.



Claimed he fell off the end of the sofa during the attack, with his legs still bound in the

The afghan was found on the sofa when investigators arrived.


MacDonald claims to have struggled with intruders in the hallway and to have fallen unconscious with his body in the hallway and his legs on the steps extending into the living room.


MacDonald has never mentioned anything about falling on clothing.
A crime scene photograph shows a pile of clothing on the hallway floor exactly where MacDonald claims to have fallen.


MacDonald denied any knowledge of the ice pick used in the murders or that it came from his house.


On August 27, 1974 during the grand jury investigation, Pamela Kalin, the babysitter testified: "I remember using the ice pick that was on top of the refrigerator to get Popsicles and ice cream out of the freezer which was always very full and I needed to break the ice away in order to get the Popsicles out or whatever."

1Lt. Ron Harrison, said that in 1969 during a Thanksgiving visit, MacDonald asked: "Where's the ice pick?" That MacDonald even went outside looking for it, but came back without it.
On September 4, 1974 during the grand jury investigation, Mildred Kassab was asked:
"Recall whether there was an ice pick in the house?"
Mildred replied: Yes, I do. When I was working at the refrigerator--I took some little puff pastry hors d'oeuvres and things down with me for her for the holidays and they had to go directly into the ice compartment. And it was already loaded and I couldn't move the ice trays. So I got the ice pick out, jabbed around until I got the ice trays loose and could use one of them for the pastry, so I know I used the ice pick.
CID agent William Ivory reported on December 17, 1971, that: "Jeffrey MacDonald, when initially interviewed by a CID and an FBI agent, stated that he had an ice pick in the house, he has since denied this"


On October 24, 2003, during an interview on the Larry King Live show, MacDonald said: "When I came to, the house was silent. And my first memory, as strange as it sounds, is the smell of Johnson's floor wax. My face was on the floor, and to this day, if I walk in a room that's recently waxed, I get a very weird feeling..."


July 23, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, CID investigator Bob Shaw was asked: "In the entryway to that hallway near the living room, what was the condition of the floor there?"

Shaw: Well, it was, as I have testified, it was dirty, it was dusty. There were some minute spots that I could see with my flash- light. I didn't know what they were. I could tell they weren't waxed or that sort of thing. That about all I could tell you about that.


From the hallway where MacDonald claims he came to, you cannot see into the master bedroom.


During the April 6, 1970 interview, Bob Shaw asked MacDonald: "You said that when you woke up, you could see your wife."

MacDonald: Well, I could see--yeah.

Shaw: You could see in there?

MacDonald:  Right.

Shaw: You could see your wife. Was that because that light was on in there?

MacDonald: Well, I--I didn't say that I could see my wife when I woke up.


Claims when he went to sleep on the sofa he had his pajamas on. When he came to, his pajama top was torn and wrapped around his wrists. That he removed them as he was going into the master bedroom to check on Colette.


There were 10 blood stains on MacDonald's pajama top prior to it being torn. The stains were determined to be type A blood, Colette's blood type.
Six stains were located on the pajama top pocket which was torn from the top and found at Colette's feet on the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom.
The remaining four stains were located on the left front seam, left shoulder, left sleeve, and left cuff of MacDonald's pajama top.
15 entangled fibers were found under the flipped up portion of the throw rug. The fibers consisted of 7 pajama fibers and 8 carpet fibers which indicated that some sort of a struggle had occurred in that area.


MacDonald has claimed that the pocket from his pajama top dropped off when he opened it up to cover his wife.


6 type A blood stains, Colette's blood type were found on the face of the pajama pocket. The stains did not soak through the double layer of the pocket fabric, indicating that Colette's blood was on the pocket before it was torn from the top.


Claimed he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he examined his family.

Fibers from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas were found in all three bedrooms.


MacDonald claims he was not at the headboard and that he never saw the word "Pig" written in blood there.

A pajama fiber was found near the headboard of the master bed.


Attempted to explain the fibers found in all three bedrooms as perhaps having come from his pajama bottoms.


On August 27, 1974 during the grand jury investigation, Woerheide asked SP6 Michael Newman, medical corpsman: "Now you say they were torn, in what manner were they torn?"

Newman: The seam was ripped out.

Woerheide: This was not a tear in the fabric but the seam had ripped out?

Newman: Yes, sir. There was no tear in the fabric, the seam itself had come loose.

Woerheide: At what point was the seam opened?

Newman: Approximately mid-thigh and ...

Woerheide: That's from the crotch down to mid-thigh?

Newman: Yes, sir. On both sides on both legs of the pants.

Had the pajama bottoms shed, they would have shed sewing threads, not fabric fibers.


MacDonald claimed he never touched the master bedroom sheet or multi-colored bedspread at all during or after the murders.


When the MPs and investigators arrived, they found the top sheet and bedspread on the floor by the closet.

Bloody impressions from MacDonald's and Colette's pajama tops were found on the sheet.
Bloody hand impressions were found on the sheet.
A bloody chin impression was found on the sheet.
A bare left shoulder impression was found on the sheet.
On top of the multi-colored bedspread found on the floor in the master bedroom along with the blue top sheet, a bloody head hair from Colette was found twisted with a bloody pajama seam thread from MacDonald's pajama top.


When interviewed by the FBI SA Robert Caverly on February 17, 1970, MacDonald said that he covered Colette with a pajama top and a towel.


During the April 6, 1970 interview, CID investigator Bob Shaw, referring to the Hilton towel asked: "You don't remember seeing it?"

MacDonald replied: I don't--you know, when I covered her up, there was probably some things. There's usually a pile of laundry in that green chair right there. My wife isn't as compulsive as I am about keeping things straight, and I don't--I specifically don't remember that, no. A bath mat or a Hilton towel, but I know I was covering her up with things. I assumed it was just night clothes that were laying there or--and my pajama top. I don't specifically remember the Hilton towels.
But, if it was laying there, you know, I picked it up and put it over her 'cause I was getting her warm.

On August 15, 1970 during the Article 32 hearing, Segal asked: "Did you put that white towel or bath mat on your wife?"

MacDonald: No, sir, not that I remember.

Segal: Do you have any idea how it got there?

MacDonald: No, sir.

On January 21, 1975 during the grand jury investigation, Woerheide said:
"This is a--it's been referred to both as a towel and a bath mat. This has the name, 'Hilton' on it and was found in your house that morning over the body of Colette. Over the area, below her waist. Can you recognize this as a--as a--resembling or at least appearing to be a bath mat that was kept in your house?"

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: Where was it kept?

MacDonald: Probably, usually--if it wasn't in use, in the hall closet.

Woerheide: It was usually in the hall closet?

MacDonald: I would guess if it was not in use. That's where the linen was kept, right.

Woerheide: You didn't remember seeing it that night?

MacDonald: No.

Woerheide: You don't remember it was in the bathroom?

MacDonald: No.

Woerheide: Do you remember seeing it in the bedroom?

MacDonald: No, it could have been one of the things that was in the green chair.

Woerheide: And that you laid over Colette's body to keep her warm?

MacDonald: Nods affirmatively
On August 23, 1979 during the trial, MacDonald testified:
"I believe I, at some point, covered her with my pajama top and something else, and I don't remember what the something else was."

Segal: Do you know where it came from--this other item that you covered her?

MacDonald: Probably from the green chair. I recall reaching across her and pulling something off the green chair towards her. I do not know what it was


During the April 6, 1970 interview, Bob Shaw said: "Well, this towel was laying right across her abdomen, the abdomen and upper thighs area."

MacDonald: Well, then I must have--either I put it there or the medic put it there. But I--maybe I did as I was covering my wife. I really don't--

MacDonald claimed there were intruders, yet not one mention of the possibility that the intruders might have put it there?



MacDonald denies that he staged the crime.


The only disturbance in the living room where MacDonald claims to have struggled with three male intruders was the coffee table lying on its side, an overturned flower pot with the plant dislodged from it, and MacDonald's eyeglasses found face down on the floor under the living room window. Investigators tried many times to get the table to land as it was found. The table was top-heavy and no matter how many times they kicked it, it never landed on its side.
During the April 6, 1970 interview, Grebner told MacDonald: "There's an Esquire magazine laying there. There's a box laying of top of it. And on the edge, right underneath that box, there's blood on the edges of the pages. This whole thing here was staged."
One of MacDonald's house slippers were found with the toe on top of one of the leg of the coffee table. It is highly unlikely that during a violent struggle the slipper would have ended up that position.
Forensic evidence showed that Colette  suffered massive injuries while in Kristen's room. Based on that fact, she would have had to be carried back to the master bedroom to make it appear that she had been attacked there.
CID investigator Bill Ivory pointed out: "With Kristen, she was positioned as if she was sleeping, with a baby bottle next to her mouth. With stab wounds to her front and back we know that could not be true."
The existence of Kimberley's blood in the master bedroom showed that she received severe injuries in that area. Yet she was found lying on her left side in her bed, with the massive injury to the left side of her head being against the pillow. After being placed in her bed, she had been clubbed on the right side of her head and stabbed several times in the neck. She was found, covered with the bedclothes and had been tucked in with her security blanket that she always slept with. Only someone close to her would know she slept with the security blanket.



Claimed the operator told him he would need to call the MPs for help.


MacDonald was aware of the fact that he lived on a military base, and that only Military Police would respond to any type of trouble. Regular police had no authority on the base.
Knowing that no help was on the way, he just laid the phone down, without hanging up and dialing the Military Police.


MacDonald claimed that this blood on the outer lens of his eyeglasses must have
gotten there when he treated an automobile accident victim at Cape Fear Valley Hospital on the night of February 15-16, 1970.


First and foremost, MacDonald did not work at Cape Fear Valley on the night of February 15-16, 1970. He worked a 24 hours shift at Hamlet hospital from 6 a.m. February 15 to 6 a.m. February 16, 1970.

MacDonald's medical records reflect he had an eye examination July 7, 1969 at Fort Sam Houston and this examination determined he was near-sighted
MacDonald was seen professionally by LTC
Dr. F. W. Pierce, optometrist, on February 16, 1970, the afternoon before the murders. If there had been blood on the lens, the optometrist would have noticed it, and since optometrists routinely clean lenses during an examination, it is highly unlikely that a speck of blood would have remained there after the office visit.

Per MacDonald's attorney, Bernie Segal, during closing arguments at trial: "If anything you have learned physically about Dr. MacDonald is what--is he a sloppy man? Is he a man likely to walk around with a blood spot on his reading glasses having to read for several hours? It does not seem to me that there is evidence to sustain such a
If you are nearsighted, you have trouble seeing things that are far away. Therefore, MacDonald's glasses were not reading glasses.


Denied wearing gloves while checking his family's injuries, and that after checking his family's injuries, he used the master bedroom phone and then the kitchen phone, to call for help.

No blood or fingerprints were found on the light switches or the master bedroom
 phone. A small minute speck of blood the size of a grain of salt was found on the kitchen phone.



Claimed he was not wearing his glasses while checking his family's injuries.


A small speck of Type O blood, Kristen's blood type, was found on one of the outer lens of his glasses, found lying face down on the living room floor under the draperies.


MacDonald said: "I don't think I used the kitchen sink at all. I used the phone in there, and maybe when I was talking on the phone--"

Type B blood, MacDonald's blood type was found on the floor in front of the kitchen sink.



On April 6, 1970, MacDonald told the CID that he merely gave Colette mouth-to- mouth resuscitation: "All I did was see her and" - he cleared his throat - "take the knife out of her chest and breathe into her mouth, really."


CPR and rescue breathing are two very different things. He appeared to be confused as to what each one means.
On August 16, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, Captain Clifford Somers ask MacDonald: "Why did you pull the knife out?"

MacDonald: Well, I was going to give her artificial respiration.

Somers: What's the medical effect of removing a knife when it was stuck in her chest?

MacDonald: Well, if it's--you have to compress the chest to give artificial respiration and the knife was in the way.

Somers: But what happens if you pull a knife out of the chest? Is that the normal procedure?

MacDonald: It is not recommended or dis-recommended, if there is such a word. It has no effect that I know of. I would normally take a knife out of a wounded person.

Somers: And then you gave your wife mouth-to-mouth respiration?

MacDonald: Correct.


Claims that he pulled the dull, bent Geneva Forge knife from Colette's chest.


As a doctor, MacDonald should have known that pulling a knife from a chest wound is contraindicated. Removing an impaled object can create a sucking wound. Object should remain in until in a medical setting.
No holes in Colette's pajama top could be matched as being made by the Geneva Forge knife
No fingerprints were found on the Geneva Forge knife.


MacDonald filed a claim to be compensated for the loss and damage of his household goods arising from the events that occurred at his assigned quarters February 16-17, 1970.

In this claim, MacDonald alleged that a leather/Suede coat belonging to Colette was missing from her personal effects.


On January 7, 1971, MacDonald received communication from Department of The Army, U.S. Army Claims Service, Office of The Judge Advocate General, Fort Holabird, Maryland advising him that that his claim had been approved and he would be receiving a check for the amount of $3,171.75. Further indicating that based on the available evidence, we have concluded that items are either missing, damaged, or not being returned and therefore you are being compensated for them...

During the reinvestigation, CID investigator Peter Kearns found the coat was destroyed in a mishap at the cleaners it had been taken for cleaning and that the MacDonalds had already received reimbursement for the loss.



MacDonald denied any knowledge of the bent-bladed Geneva Forge knife found in the master bedroom.


Pamela Kalin, the babysitter denied recognizing this knife on several occasions.
However, according to CID investigator Richard Avila when he interviewed her, Pamela very readily identified the Geneva Forge knife by saying she had seen it or one exactly like it in the MacDonald residence several times in the kitchen drawers with other utensils and also on top of the kitchen cabinet sink area. She said she recognized the knife because of the bent blade.


During the Article 32 hearing, on August 15, 1970, MacDonald was asked: "How long did you try the mouth-to-mouth with Kimberley?"

MacDonald replied: Seconds.

Asked: And why did you stop?

MacDonald replied: Because the air was coming out of her chest.

Kimberley had no chest wounds.



MacDonald claimed he was not wearing his pajama top when he went to Kimberley's room to check her.


Kimberley's blood was found on the lower left panel of his pajama top.
A 20˝ inch yarn was found on top of her pillow, 1 yarn was found under her pillow, 3 yarns were found on top of her bed, and 14 threads were found under her bedcovers from MacDonald's pajama top.



During the April 6, 1970 interview, CID investigator Bill Ivory asked MacDonald: "When you went in to check Kimberly, on which side of the bed was she on?"

MacDonald: The right side. She always slept on the right side, 'cause sometimes Kimmie would go--Kristy would go with her.

Ivory: Towards the middle of the house rather than the windows?

MacDonald: No, on the window side. Her--the right side of the bed. Her right side of the bed. She usually slept on the window side.
Besides, you had to squeeze through that hi-fi and the bed to go the other way. And we just walked--you know, walked around the bed to the--the other side.

Kimberley was found with her face pointing away from the window side of the bedroom which was in total contradiction to what MacDonald said.



On August 15, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, referring to Kimberley, MacDonald said: "I remember I could see her chest and her neck and she had a lot of blood on her neck..."


This is impossible. When the MPs and CID investigators found Kimberley, she lay in a position of sleep and had the bed covers tucked around her back and under her body. The only concentration of blood around Kimberley at first sight was that which was around her face and neck and normally would have been there if she had not been moved. Upon closer inspection, and taking into consideration laboratory findings relative to blood types, it was learned that her blood was on the tips of her hair which were not close enough to any of her bleeding injuries to have bled on unless she was in an entirely different position when her injuries were inflicted. When her body was moved, on the left side of her face, that side which was down on the pillow, signs of another heavy blow were found. According to the autopsy report, she received a blow to left cheek with a blunt instrument which lacerated the skin, fractured the cheek bone, and broke her nose deviating it to the right. It was probably this injury which was inflicted in the master bedroom causing her to bleed on the rug just in front of the hallway door. She was then most likely wrapped in the sheet from the master bedroom to prevent her from bleeding onto the floor, carried to her bedroom where she was placed in her bed and the blankets tucked up and around her. This is evidenced by the fact that when the bedcovers were pulled away from her body by investigators, threads from MacDonald's torn pajama top were found on the sheets near her body.


MacDonald claimed he was not wearing his pajama top when he went to Kristen's room to check her.

1 thread and 1 yarn were found under Kristen's covers, and 1 fiber was found under her fingernail all originating from MacDonald's pajama top.


Claimed that he went to Kristen's room and saw that she was covered in blood.


There is no way MacDonald could have seen that Kristen was covered in blood. The room was completely dark.
 Large pools of blood found on the floor by her bedside were not in a location where they would have been if she had not been picked up and held over the side of the bed. This was when she most likely received the stab wounds to her back, with her chest already bleeding heavily.

Due to Kristen's blood on the floor, if MacDonald had gone to Kristen bedside to render any type of care to her, he would have stepped in her blood and carried it
elsewhere in the apartment.


Neither MacDonald nor the defense denied that the bloody footprint in Kristen's room was his, or the fact that the footprint was made in type A blood, the blood type of Colette. His take on it was that it might have been made as he entered that room after checking the body of his wife in the master bedroom.

The footprint was exiting, not entering, Kristen's room.



MacDonald claims that he was not carrying anything as he exited Kristen's room.


On top of Kristen's bed a large concentration of Colette's blood was found, and on the wall as if sprayed from an object being swung in a downward motion direction. The quantity of Colette's blood in this room which also includes a bloody footprint obviously made by MacDonald, suggest the conclusion that Colette was present in the room and was bleeding heavily onto the bed of Kristen, prior to Kristen sustaining any bleeding injuries. This is evidenced by the fact that the clothing of Colette bore none of Kristen's blood.
This does not jive with MacDonald's story that he did not carry Colette out of Kristen's room. He would have had to have been in Kristen's bedroom while Colette was bleeding and she was most likely wrapped in the sheet and bedspread from the master bedroom to prevent her from bleeding on the floor as well as provide a method of carrying her back to the master bedroom. There is no evidence of Colette's blood on the floor except for the footprint. It is obvious that MacDonald could only have contaminated the bottom of his foot with type A blood, Colette's blood type, by either stepping on the blood soaked pajamas worn by her, on a bleeding wound on her person, or by stepping onto the type A bloodstains left on the bed sheet and bedspread removed from the master bed.
On August 21, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked CID investigator Paul Connolly: "All right. Now you have a known footprint of the left footprint of Captain MacDonald taken on February 25, 1970. Can you tell me whether he was foot printed and a print made?"

Connolly: Yes sir. He was and you will notice that these prints here will match almost perfectly, except for down here you don't find any of the curls and everything of the ridges of the foot, because when you step down in your normal weight, your arch will stay up, but this here where the ridges come all the way down and the form of the foot could be caused when a person is carrying a heavy weight, your body pushes down on your feet and just like your hand, you take your hand and lay it like this here, you won't get the indentation of the middle of your hand, but if I lay my hand like that and he comes along and hits me on the top of the hand, it pushes down and you get the full imprint of the whole hand.

Woerheide: And when you juxtapose one right over the other, you get a perfect match, is that correct?

Connolly: Right.

The information given above shows that MacDonald was carrying something heavy from Kristen's room.



On August 15, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, Segal asked MacDonald: "And did you remain in the kitchen?"

MacDonald: Well, I--I--I'm not really sure. I think that--it sounds ridiculous--I think that I washed my hands at the kitchen sink, either before or after this phone call, but I'm not sure I did that, and--and I've been questioned extensively about it and I don't know. I just--I have the feeling that I was rinsing off my hands for some reason, that's the last thing that I remember, from the kitchen.

A most reasonable question put forth in Kassab's notes: "If it was before, why was no blood found in the sink? If after, why was there no blood on the phone?"



During the April 6, 1970 interview, CID investigator Bill Ivory asked MacDonald: "What is the deepest you went into the kitchen?"

MacDonald replied: Christ, I don't know. I was just--I probably just stayed there to talk on the phone. I--that's all I remember, just talking on the phone

Type B blood, MacDonald's blood type was found on the floor in front of the kitchen sink.



MacDonald claimed to have neither made nor received any telephone calls during the evening hours of February 16 or the early morning hours of February 17. He was also asked specifically if he had placed a call to Mrs. Kane, the wife of his former commanding officer. He denied making such a call.


Mrs. Joan Kane, wife of the former Commanding Officer of MacDonald executed a written statement wherein she discussed certain details of a telephone call she received at her residence at about 0320-0330, February 17, 1970. She said the caller was a male, but she could not identify his voice or recall the conversation due to her sleepy state.


MacDonald claimed he was: "thinking more like a doctor" during the checking of his family's injuries; that he was attempting to help them.


If that was the case, why did MacDonald just wander around the apartment after discovering the bodies of his wife and children checking each member of his family again, checking his own injuries, washing his hands, etc.
After discovering the bodies of his wife and children he didn't yell or scream for help. He said he did not want to bother the neighbors about it because he "didn't know them that well." You don't need to know anyone well in that kind of situation.
During the April 6 interview, MacDonald said So, then I was standing in the middle--middle of the hallway after this kind of second trip, and I didn't know what to do. I kept saying to myself, you know, "What--what comes now?"
And I remember I--it flashed through my mind to go next door to my idiot neighbor, but I realized that would be futile, and--

Ivory asked: Why was that?

MacDonald: Well, our neighbors are--she's the kind of a lady that sits in her window with binoculars and watches the girl across the street undress and stuff like that, you know. And she comes over and she says: "Now, don't leave your windows open because there's a lot of rapists and people around here."

We were at a cocktail party one night, and--and she said that and everyone stopped.
And I said to her--so I was kind of pulling her chain. So I said, "Well, how--how do you know that people look in windows?"
I mean--you know, you see types of people and right away this woman had--so, she said: "Well, 'cause I see her every night. The blonde across the street." And I says: "How do you see her every night?" She said: "I go in my window and watch." And I said: "Why do you do that?" And she said, I swear to God, she said: "Because," you know: "it's unnatural for a girl to undress with the blinds up. And I just want to"--you know: "I just want to make sure I know what's going on in the neighborhood."

But that's beside the point. So that's the type of person that--that, you know, I just--I said: "Shall I go next door or should I try to call again?" And I decided I should try to call again.


MacDonald has told many stories about how serious his injuries were even to the point of they were life threatening.


MacDonald first claimed that before calling for help he had examined himself in the bathroom mirror, and "there wasn't even a cut or anything."
MacDonald's vital signs were normal upon his arrival at the hospital. Bp 128/70 and Pulse 88. Immediate treatment consisted of a Vaseline gauze bandage for his chest wound, and some sedative medications.
A statement was made by SSG Wallace Henniger, medical corpsman that MacDonald could have walked into the hospital and it wouldn't have done him any harm.

 A chest tube was inserted in ICU on February 17, 1970 to treat a pneumothorax. He remained in ICU for 24 hours and was then moved to the regular surgical ward.

MacDonald was moved, it was noted that the chest tube was not functioning properly and a second chest tube was inserted at his bedside. The first chest tube was then removed.
A possible reason why the first tube did not function properly may have resulted from the fact that MacDonald had had pneumonia previously that caused adhesions which trapped the lower tube resulting in it malfunctioning.
Dr. Frank Gemma described the placing of the two chest tubes: "as minor surgery. ...These procedures are done at the bedside. You don't have to go to the operating room... it's done under local anesthesia. Xylonocaine was used to numb the skin and the muscles...and it, most of the time, and in this case, it was a relatively non-traumatic procedure both psychologically and physically."

On September 4, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Mildred Kassab testified that she went to visit MacDonald in the hospital the evening of February 17, 1970 and that: "He was eating dinner with apparent enjoyment and sitting up..."

On November 13, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Dr. Frank Gemma testified: "He was never in critical condition." That he, Dr. Gemma was: "never apprehensive that he might die."

Victor Woerheide asked Dr. Gemma: "Was Captain MacDonald ever placed on the seriously ill list?" Dr. Gemma replied: "No."
The biggest worry of any injury is infection. This is also true in any surgery one might have. MacDonald suffered no contraindications as a result of his injuries except some possible pain and discomfort. His recovery was uneventful.


MacDonald tried to imply that he had been confused due to the sedative medication he had been given when he was questioned in the hospital.


On August 16, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Woerheide asked MacDonald: "Well, did anyone that came to see you that first day, and I assume there were a number of people that came in that day, remark to you that you seemed to be a little bit confused?"

MacDonald replied: Oh, a lot of people.

Woerheide: Did they have any trouble engaging you in conversation or discussion?

MacDonald replied: Sure.

Woerheide: Would you tell us specifically who?

MacDonald replied: I mean I just went--I really wasn't making any sense to anyone. I was--it seemed to me that--no, I honestly can't say that someone said to me, gee, you sound confused. Is that what you're asking for?"

Woerheide: Yeah.

MacDonald replied: I don't remember hearing those specific words from anyone.


MacDonald claimed that between 3:40 a.m. when he called for help the first time and 3:42 a.m., when he picked up the kitchen phone that he looked out the back door for signs of the intruders, but did not secure the door, had gone to the hall bathroom to check his own wounds, washing his hands while there, returned to Colette and checked her again, administered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on each victim, checked for pulses at various points on both of his daughters' bodies, collapsed to his hands and knees and possibly crawled for a time, gone to the kitchen, and perhaps washed his hands at the kitchen sink.


On March 27, 1971, Freddy Kassab flew to Fayetteville to meet with Kearns and Pruett. The following day, he entered 544 Castle Drive for the first time since Christmas of 1969.
Kassab was prepared. Carrying his brief case, he had all his notes and a copy of the Article 32 transcript. He measured things, timed things, and paced back and forth, walking both slowly and quickly trying to accomplish all the things MacDonald said he did.
He did experiments with the china cabinet and the rug on the floor.
Kassab did everything MacDonald said he did in that two-minute span of time between dropping the phone in the master bedroom and picking it up again in the kitchen, and found it to be an impossibility that anyone could complete all those activities in that short period of time.
Kearns and Pruett arranged for Kassab to go to the apartment upstairs and into the bedroom that Pamela had occupied on the night of the murder. He could hear the voices of Kearns and Pruett clearly when they were speaking in normal voice tone down below.
Therefore, it was not likely that anyone would have slept through a struggle involving four people especially late at night when all were still and quite.
During the evening when it was dark with only the lighting as MacDonald had claimed it was on the fatal night of February 17, Kassab lay down on the couch, Kearns and Pruett stood in front of him, he was able to see only silhouettes of them, no facial features were visible.


MacDonald claims that one of his wounds went down to the fascia.


On July 30, 1979, during the trial, Prosecutor Jim Blackburn asked Dr. Frank Gemma: "Now, I believe you stated that you spent most of your time observing the chest wound?"

Gemma: That is correct.

Woerheide: Did you ever examine any of his other wounds at all?

Gemma: The only other significant wound--well, I shouldn't--the only other significant wound that I examined thoroughly to a certain extent was the head wound. This was a contusion, abrasion that quite possibly was enough to render him unconscious. There was another wound--probably this one--that I am embarrassed to say that I did not examine it as thoroughly as I probably should have in light of what is going on now because Dr. Bronstein said that this wound went down to the fascia. There is no record that this, in fact, is true. This is what he remembers. Dr. Jacobson, at least, in what I reviewed in the record, did not show that wound going to the fascia; therefore, I said that all of the other wounds were superficial and none of them into more than the subcutaneous tissue. In other words, none of them required any suturing. This one, in fact, might have been sutured if it were a definitely clean wound, but not knowing the contamination that was there, it was safer to leave it open and let it heal by itself.


In December 1970, MacDonald appeared on the Dick Cavett show. He stated that he was in intensive care for: "several days."




That is far from the truth as can be seen from Dr. Merrill Bronstein testimony. In 1970 Dr. Bronstein was a staff surgeon working under Dr. Frank Gemma who was the chief in the Department of General Surgery. On December 4, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked Dr. Bronstein: "Now, I take it he spent the first twenty-four hours in the intensive care unit."

Bronstein: Yes.

Woerheide: And thereafter he was transferred to the--

Bronstein: He was transferred to ward 2-A where I was ostensibly the doctor in charge. But I had asked Frank Gemma, who was the Chief of General Surgery, to take over. And so while he was on my ward, he was in a private room. And he wasn't out with the rest of my patients.
And I only saw him from then on socially and in passing. I would stop by his room and ask him how he was and chat for a few minutes.

Woerheide: Well, in making your rounds, would you say you saw him at least once or twice a day?

Bronstein: Oh, certainly.

Woerheide: Possibly more?

Bronstein: Well, in other words, you passed right by his room on the way into the ward. And I would, you know, he was a friend of mine, a doctor who was on my ward. I stopped to say hello very frequently, I certainly saw him every day he was in the hospital.



MacDonald told CID investigators that his friend Ron Harrison brought champagne to his hospital room because everyone was "down" and Harrison thought it might cheer them up.


On June 14, 1971, 1LT Ron Harrison was interviewed by CID investigators Jack Bennett and Peter Kearns. Harrison provide the following information.

"The day before Jeff's release from the hospital I was in his room with a number of visitors from out of town including his mother. And I asked Jeff if there was anything that I could do for him and he said 'Yeh' that he would like a drink of Cold Duck champagne. I said 'OK, no problem.' I said 'well I have to do some other things this afternoon and I'll stop by the liquor store and get some Cold Duck for you.' I went to the liquor store and purchased a bottle of Cold Duck in addition to some other liquor, the other liquor was to be drunk that evening by the MacDonald family and the Kassab family and their guest. I took the whole bag of booze and gave it to Mrs. MacDonald in the waiting room of the hospital. And then I left for some reason and when I came back nobody was in the waiting room they were all in Jeff's room. I went in and they were or had finished the drink of Cold Duck. That's all that I remember of the incident and the bottle was just thrown in the waste basket either empty or partially full. Then as I recall the bottle was later found by somebody and there was a big thing made about it."


MacDonald discusses his injuries at April 6, 1970 interview.


A couple of blows on the head and a lot of little puncture wounds, and a little cut on the abdomen and a couple of stab marks in the arm and--and a puncture wound in the lung.


MacDonald discusses his injuries at the Article 32 hearing on August 16, 1970.


Segal asked: "Now would you describe to the Investigating Officer what wounds you found that you had in or about your head?"

MacDonald: On the left side of my forehead, over my left eyebrow I had a large contusion. The skin was broken slightly, it wasn't a cut, it was an abrasion-type thing. In the right hairline, in the frontal temporal region, I had a smaller bruise. I do not believe the skin was ever broken.
At the left rear part, medically it is the left occipital, o-c-c-i-p-i-t-a-l region of the skull on the left side there were smaller contusions, what I think--I think there were two.

Segal: How did you observe or ascertain those wounds on the left occipital area?

MacDonald: Well, my head hurt and I felt them. They were just lumps there. It wasn't--they weren't cut or anything, but I had some lumps.

Segal: Did you have occasion to observe or note any injuries on your arms?

MacDonald: Yes, sir.

Segal: All right, would you describe those to the investigating officer?

MacDonald: I had what appeared to be a stab wound from a--a sharp instrument. My own guess would be that it was a knife, in the left biceps, and I had three puncture wounds also in that area, which I would take to be ice pick wounds, but the best you can really say, that there were four puncture wounds from a sharp instrument.

Segal: Were there other wounds on your arms that you recall?

MacDonald: Yes, sir, I had a large bruise with swelling on my left arm, roughly the same area, slightly above the stab wounds and I had a scratch on my right arm.

Segal: Now, did you have occasion to observe any wounds or injuries to your body?

MacDonald: Yes, sir.

Segal: Would you describe those, please?

MacDonald: I had a puncture wound in the right lower chest in the 7th intercostal space on the anterior part of my chest, actually in the mid-clavicular line.

Segal: Now did you have any others? Just describe each one as you recall discovering or finding on your body now.

MacDonald: Yes, sir. I had some scratches on my
left pectoral region, the upper left chest with some, again the same type of puncture wounds, two or three. Honestly, they were not very impressive to me. They appeared--I would have guessed them to be ice pick wounds, or sharp instrument. In the left upper quadrant of my abdomen, I had--it wasn't really two separate wounds, it was one wound about three inches long, but it had two--it was Y-shaped almost, with the Y pointing down, and it was what I would call a superficial wound, except that superficial is misinterpreted by lay people.

Segal: What do you understand as a physician when you describe any injury to yourself or to anyone else as being a superficial-type wound?

MacDonald: Well, in this case, I didn't think it entered the abdominal cavity.

Segal: Is that how you distinguish between what you, as a physician, would call a superficial wound, as opposed to some other descriptions for a wound that entered the body cavity?

MacDonald: That is correct.

Segal: Did you observe any other wounds on your body other than what you've described at this juncture?

MacDonald: Yes, sir. I had a series of puncture wounds across my abdomen. It was again, these were the small puncture wounds that didn't appear to be bleeding, and in my own experience in treating patients, and from what I knew about--in this case, and what the investigators told me they found, I would have guessed they were ice pick wounds, and there were approximately ten.

Segal: Approximately ten wounds?

MacDonald: Yes, sir.

Segal: Now could you indicate by pointing on your body now and describing with moderated medical terms the location of those ten wounds?

MacDonald: Yes, sir, they were to the right of, well, there were two to the left. Actually they were larger than the eight to the right, and the ones to the right were in the--on the abdomen, just superior to the umbilicus, the belly button.

Segal: Now did you observe any other wounds on your body that you noticed?

MacDonald: Yes, sir. In--I believe it was my left hand, between my thumb and my index finger, in the web, there were several small little cuts.

Segal: Did you observe any other wounds?

MacDonald: I don't remember any, no.


MacDonald discusses his injuries at the interview with Colonel Jack Pruett and CID investigator Peter Kearns on March 20, 1971.


Pruett: "That's why we are asking you. Do you say those other records are incorrect? We would like to know actually what were the injuries."

MacDonald: There was a puncture wound on the right chest, not where Dr. Fisher thought it was. It was in the mid-clavicular line of the anterior part of the chest, one inch below where my liver begins. That's a little significant. I had some puncture wounds in the left upper chest which appeared to be ice pick wounds. I can't say they were ice pick. I would say off the cuff they are ice pick, but physicians never say that. They say a penetrating wound. There was a scratch on my left upper chest. There was one, what I would guess to be a knife stab wound, two or three ice pick wounds in the left bicep. There was an ice pick wound in the right bicep. There was an incision type wound in the left rectus muscle, left quadrant, which is not the same quadrant that is listed in the medical record. Just another example of how sloppy it was. In an assault case, you can't possibly have the wrong part of the abdomen diagnosed for a wound. He had the wrong quadrant on my abdomen. There were a series of small puncture wounds. Ice pick wounds don't bleed much. So this they overlooked and the nurses already had bandaged it, he never picked up my bandage and looked at it. I had a series--I don't know how many--eight or ten. I think I counted nine or ten. The day after, when Manson and McGann were in there and asked me, I looked down and counted. There were eight or ten on the abdomen.

Pruett: Then your description of them is in conflict with what is in the medical record at [sic] bit?

MacDonald: In the number of wounds, right.

Pruett: The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?

MacDonald: Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple.


MacDonald discusses his injuries at the grand jury on August 15, 1974.


Woerheide: "Can you tell the grand jury how many times you were punched?"

MacDonald: I have no idea. It seemed like a lot. My later wounds didn't--you know--didn't really look like I had just a rain of blows on my head.

Woerheide: Do you remember a blow on your left forehead?

MacDonald: Yes.

MacDonald: When was that administered?
I would say that was probably the first blow.

Woerheide: And did you have a later--the mark of a blow somewhere on this side? (Indicating)

MacDonald: I had a mark that was in the right hairline up here.

Woerheide: Right hairline?

MacDonald: Yeah, and I think--

Woerheide: Was that made by the club again?

MacDonald: I presume so, I don't know that.



MacDonald discusses his injuries at the grand jury Investigation on August 16, 1974.


It's the first time I've ever said that, but it's true. And it's--you know--one of the two or three major reasons this case is still going on and I'm here; because of the medical record.
I was never re-examined after the emergency room. No one ever came in and looked at me and examined me.
You know, you have a chest tube, and someone normally comes in and listens to the lungs, once in a while. They didn't do that. That is inadequate medical care.
And I don't care what anyone thinks anymore. That's shitty. If I treated my patients that way, I would expect my associates to come in on me in groups.
So, when I tell you the wounds I had, a lot of them, essentially the minor ones or the more superficial ones aren't listed in the medical report.
But that medical report is not a routine medical report by any means. There is no doctor that would be proud of that medical report.
In any case, now that I have expounded, the wounds that I had--I had a fairly large--you know--contusion and abrasion type wound on my left forehead. I had a wound in the right hairline on this side (indicating) that I honestly didn't notice until two or three days later--you know--three or four days later I felt it, and when I was up and around in my hospital room, you could see it in the mirror. It was just kind of merging with the hairline, but it was kind of a large bump--

Woerheide: (Interposing) In other words, two or three days later there was some discoloration that made it conspicuous?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: Up until that time it wasn't noticeable?

MacDonald: Yeah, right, all I knew up until that I was having headaches--you know--I was getting a lot of Demerol and stuff, but despite the Demerol, I--you know--kept remarking, gee, I've got this throbbing headache type thing.
As a matter of fact at one time the nurse gave me Demerol and she said, that should take care of it.
And I said, no, give me some aspirin or something like that, because it wasn't--it wasn't the terrific pain that you need Demerol for, but it was an aching headache, if you follow what I mean, like a toothache.
So in the bathroom, I saw this thing, you know, that's all.

And there were a couple--what I thought were a couple, and again it was really just a field, really, back here, behind and over the left ear area, there were a couple of lumps in my head.
Quite honestly, you know--it wasn't that impressive. It wasn't that impressive or feel that impressive to me.
But I could also bring in a hundred neurosurgeons in a row, and every one of them would say that there was no relationship to the external head wound to what actually happened.
In other words, there's no relationship between three things: the external head wound, the level of consciousness, and severity of injury to the brain.
I mean you could never find anyone except the coroner that they brought in to testify to
that. It just isn't--it's crazy. I see people die in my emergency room every day, old winos with one little lump on their head. You know, it just isn't legitimate medical practice.
Anyway, on my left arm, I had what I would describe as a knife wound, about an inch cut in the left biceps, and there were about three, what I would say were puncture wounds.

Woerheide: Now, the knife wound, was that a slicing wound or a penetrating wound?

MacDonald: That was a penetrating wound.

Woerheide: How deep was the penetration?

MacDonald: I don't know, but it was pouting. The fatty tissue on it was pouting.

Woerheide: How deep is the fatty tissue?

MacDonald: That's just below the skin. That's just--

Woerheide: Yeah, when you say it was pouting, what does
it have to do with respect to the depth of the wound?

MacDonald: Well, it's to mean you're cut at least a quarter of an inch. But that's to say get to the fat.

Woerheide: I see.

MacDonald: You know, you don't usually probe those wounds. There's no need to probe them.

Woerheide: Did it require stitches?

MacDonald: No, he--Dr. Jacobson just bandaged it up.

Woerheide: And you have a little scar there, now, I take it--

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide:  --indicating that line?

MacDonald: Right, and there were a couple of puncture wounds in that biceps in the same area, and over the next couple of days the whole area turned black and blue. And it was sore just indicating--you know--that there was a large contusion type wound. But that's not indicated anywhere. So it all becomes very confusing.
And the CID says, how was he hurt? And the medic says, he was all right. And then six weeks later they start questioning the doctors.
I had--there was a scratch somewhere on my right shoulder. I remember it as being my right shoulder. Other people have said it was the right arm, but I really think it was the right shoulder. Nothing, really.

Woerheide: Well, that would be a fingernail-type scratch, I take it?

MacDonald: Actually that isn't how I remembered it. It was just a scratch, a linear scratch. It was like a linear scratch, you know, like a couple of inches in length.

Woerheide: Well, now, yeah, but--

MacDonald: Like you scratch yourself on wood, a nail, glass, or--you know--superficial knife scratch that--

Woerheide: Yeah.

MacDonald: --doesn't--nothing at all.

Woerheide: Well, let me ask you this, could you have picked up a scratch like that playing basketball as you did? That is a contact sport.
I assume you couldn't get a knife wound or ice pick type wound, but could you have picked it up playing basketball like this?

MacDonald: I'm sure I could have done that, I'm sure. You can get one, a scratch like that, I'm sure.
I don't remember getting one, but you could get one, sure.

Woerheide: Yeah, but as you recall when you were playing basketball, that there was contact of that type?

MacDonald: We were playing contact, sure, but no scratches.

Woerheide: All right, okay.

MacDonald: On my chest, on the right chest, there was a--what I would describe as a knife wound, about an inch, three quarters of an inch to an inch, just a little bit medial towards the mid-line of the body, and about two inches below my right nipple
, which ends up being the center intercostal space, between the seventh and eighth ribs.

Woerheide: Is that the wound when your immediate thought was, this guy carries a hell of a punch?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: And that is the wound that caused the pneumothorax condition?

MacDonald: I would presume so, yes.

Woerheide: Well, was there any other wound that you had that might cause the pneumothorax condition?

MacDonald: Not on the right chest. There were--there were other puncture wounds on the upper left chest, but--

Woerheide: But the pneumothorax was on the right side?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: And would it be safe to conclude--would you as a doctor conclude that that wound was the cause of the--

MacDonald: Oh, sure.

Woerheide: --pneumothorax?

MacDonald: Sure.

Woerheide: All right.

MacDonald: There were--there was a couple of kind of--I don't know--three or four puncture wounds --you know--I would say were ice pick wounds. But they were just circular puncture wounds.

Woerheide: Well, is there any way of making any sort of conclusions as to how deep they were?

MacDonald: No.

Woerheide: Was there any indication of internal bleeding as a result of these wounds?

MacDonald: No. On my abdomen, there was--what has been variously described as a--well, I'll give you my description. There was a laceration, kind of a superficial type that was about--it was really a total of three inches, but it wasn't three inches in one straight line.
It looked like an upside-down "Y," is what it looked like. The "Y" was like this, and then the wound extended up a little bit.

Woerheide: How do you--how do you distinguish between a laceration and a scratch?

MacDonald: Ah--

Woerheide: Or--

MacDonald: A scratch doesn't go through the skin, but a laceration is through the skin into the subcutaneous tissue.

Woerheide: Does that get into the fatty subcutaneous tissue?

MacDonald: Yeah, yeah, as they were dressing it, I could see the fat at least.

Woerheide: And what was the treatment they gave you for that?

MacDonald: They just dressed it, strapped it together and dressed it.

Woerheide: There were no stitches?

MacDonald: No.

Woerheide: You still have evidence of that wound on your body?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: Is that a scar?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: And is it a broad scar or a narrow scar?

MacDonald: It's kind of two scars running together. It's you know, relatively narrow, fairly narrow.

Woerheide: That would be indicated on the photographs that were taken the other day?

MacDonald: Yes, presuming the film comes out.

Woerheide: You seem not to have too much confidence in the photographer?

MacDonald: If I told you what happened up there, you wouldn't believe me.

Woerheide: Up where?

MacDonald: In the FBI office taking the photographs and the hair samples.

Woerheide: Well, I think that's another case. That'll come up perhaps next year, not this year.

MacDonald: Okay.

Woerheide: All right, any other wounds?

MacDonald: Yeah, there was a same type of puncture wounds that was on my chest, there was a whole series of them. There was a couple right around the stab wound--you know--in the laceration, and they were--I would say about eight on the other--you know--on this side of my right--right side of my belly button, roughly across from where the laceration was.
They did not show up as scars. They were circular, non-bleeding, and I really only noticed them a couple of days later, because there was little scabs on each one.

And--you know--in reconstructing it, you know, you know, remembered it.
Really, it wasn't--I was just laying in the hospital. I didn't really care.
Oh, there was a--one of my two hands had--I don't know which hand, I think my left hand had little--almost like paper cuts in the web space between the forefinger and the thumb.
I don't remember if it was my left or right hand.

Woerheide: What do you mean by paper cut?

MacDonald: Well, like little nicks, little lacerations that just raises the skin, like when you run your finger over a piece of paper and you get a finger cut at the end of your finger. That's what they were like, you know--

Woerheide: That is a wound that normally wouldn't--a little body fluid might flow out, but it wouldn't be a bloody wound?

MacDonald: Right, exactly, right.

Woerheide: Anything else?

MacDonald: Not that I can remember.

Woerheide: Do you recall how many wounds there were altogether? I mean, can you break them down according to type; that is ice pick type, or knife type, scratch type?

MacDonald: Okay, there was one scratch. There were--I would say--I would say four only because I have a--you know--a kind of a recollection there were two separate lumps back here; four contusions to the head. There was a much larger contusion to my left shoulder in addition to--there were three stab wounds. Actually the one on the abdomen, I always remember it as a "Y," but the scar even now is two scars running together, just running down together, so that the stab wound in the area of the abdomen, the stab wound in the left chest, and the stab wound in the left biceps, and then as far as puncture wounds, there were roughly three, six, nine and eight, about seventeen.



MacDonald discusses his injuries at the grand jury investigation on January 21, 1975.


Woerheide: "I have these pictures that were made in the FBI premises of you to show the location of the wounds that you suffered during this assault. And just to illustrate your testimony to the grand jury now, I wonder if you, since these pictures are sort of close-up and it's not all that clear without a verbal explanation, just stand up and point to the various parts of your body where you suffered certain injuries? And to facilitate this I am sure you can explain these better than I can. But I take it the first one is of a wound in your lower abdomen but above the--not the lower abdomen your abdomen but above the waist, is that correct?"

MacDonald: That's right.

Woerheide: Would that be about here? (Mr. Woerheide indicates portion of abdomen.)

MacDonald: That is correct.

Woerheide: Now, the second one is pointing to an area to the right side of your navel and that is to indicate what, a series of ice pick--

MacDonald: They were puncture wounds there, right.

Woerheide: Puncture wounds, do you recall how many?

MacDonald: No, not specifically. There was a number of them.

Woerheide: All right, this shows the wound on the left side. This shows the area in which there are ice pick wounds.

Woerheide: Now, the ice pick wounds to the right side of the navel didn't leave any scars, did they?

MacDonald: I don't think so, no.

Woerheide: And this is another view of the same area and--with a pencil out of the way or the pointer it shows the fact that there are no visible scars, is that correct?

MacDonald: That's right.

Woerheide: And these next two pictures show you indicating where the wound in your chest was at the seventh intercostal space which resulted in the pneumothorax, is that correct? And the one after that?

MacDonald: (No answer)

Woerheide: And the one after that shows the same view without a ruler and without a pointer, right?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: All right, the next view shows your left bicep where you suffered a wound that left a scar?

MacDonald: That's right.

Woerheide: Well, the reverse side is another view of the same arm, is it now?

MacDonald: Unh-
huh (yes).

Woerheide: Showing the thing on a bigger scale?

Woerheide: And the next view shows a photograph of your left hand showing the area between the thumb and forefinger and that is to illustrate the fact that you had some fine cuts in that area, is it not?

MacDonald: That's right.

Woerheide: Did they leave any scars?

MacDonald: No.

Woerheide: All right, the next photograph shows first your full face and then your upper left forehead that is to indicate where you had the--a swelling and contusion, is it not?

MacDonald: That's right.

Woerheide: All right, the next photographs show your face, the right side, and a close-up of your forehead showing the right side. Is that to reflect some lump or swelling on the right side of your forehead, sir?

MacDonald: That's right.

MacDonald: Is that abraded, too?

MacDonald: No, I don't think so. It was just a lump or bruise.

Woerheide: Skin wasn't broken?

MacDonald: No, it wasn't.

Woerheide: Just a sort of a swelling, is that correct?

MacDonald: Unh-
huh (yes).

Woerheide: All right the--now, the next two photographs show the left rear part of the head to an area behind the ear and above the ear. I take it both these views show the same area. Would you say that?

MacDonald: I can't tell what this shows. But I presume so. That's where I was holding the hair.

Woerheide: Yeah, and what was this to indicate?

MacDonald: There were a couple of lumps back there.

Woerheide: Unh-
huh (yes), how large were they?

MacDonald: I don't know.

Woerheide: Well, as large as a pea, or as large as a marshmallow, or as large as a potato, or--how big were they?

MacDonald: I would say, egg-size lumps.

Woerheide: Egg size?

MacDonald: Unh-
huh (yes).

Woerheide: The next two photographs are a back view. And show your back down to the waist and no one is pointing to anything. And I take it these were taken to illustrate the fact that you have no injuries on your back?

MacDonald: That's right, none that I am aware of.

Woerheide: The next is a view taken from the right side of your body and the pointer indicates a scar at approximately the seventh intercostal space. On the reverse side is an enlargement of that scar area. Is that the scar resulting from the surgery whereby a chest tube was inserted to relieve the pneumothorax?

MacDonald: That's right.

Woerheide: The next photo shows the upper right portion of your chest with a visible scar at about the second intercostal space, I take it. And the reverse side shows a close-up of that area. Is that where the second chest tube was inserted, Dr. MacDonald?

MacDonald: Yes, I believe it was.

Woerheide: The next photograph shows your upper left--well, your left shoulder, your upper left arm?

MacDonald: Right on.

Woerheide: And on the first one there is a pointer used to indicate something on the reverse side. I really don't see any scar there, can you tell me what you had in this area?

MacDonald: That's the right shoulder, sir, that was the scratch there.

Woerheide: A scratch?

MacDonald: And a bruise.

Woerheide: I'm sorry, it is the right shoulder. I misspoke myself. Scratch and a bruise. Was it a long scratch, or a deep scratch, or could you describe it?

MacDonald: I don't really remember. It seemed like a superficial scratch, a couple of inches long.

Woerheide: The next two photographs are of the frontal area. One being from the waist on up to the upper part of the chest. I see the scar here on the lower left side and the scar of the second chest tube that was inserted. I see the scar of the incision in the seventh intercostal space that caused the pneumothorax. Now, is there anything else in this area that you recall in the way of an injury?

MacDonald: There were some ice pick wounds in the left chest. But you can't see them. There are no scars.

Woerheide: Well, I'll hold this up to the jury. Did you indicate this area here?

MacDonald: Sir, as I remember it was a little bit higher.

Woerheide: About here?

MacDonald: About there, yeah. (Indicating)

Woerheide: And how many were there?

MacDonald: Three or four.

Woerheide: And you say they left no scars and they were superficial, is that it?

MacDonald: Well, you can't tell how deep they are. But they left no scars.

Woerheide: And the second of these two photographs is simply another photograph indicating the location of the--of the wound that you had just about here, is that correct? (Indicating)

MacDonald: That's correct.

Woerheide: Do you recall when you were in the hospital, whether you got any special treatment for this wound on the left side of your chest?

MacDonald: (No answer)

Woerheide: Did they do anything special for it? Apparently, it was not stitched or anything.

MacDonald: No, it was just bandaged up.

Woerheide: They just put a Band-Aid on it?

MacDonald: A dressing, right.



MacDonald discusses his injuries at the trial on August 23, 1979.


I remember receiving what I thought were multiple--what I thought to be not very effectual--punches to the abdomen and to the chest, some of which later turned out to be puncture wounds or stab wounds.


MacDonald denies he ever told anyone he was stabbed with ice pick.


The following exchange took place during the trial on August 24, 1979 between Prosecutor Jim Blackburn and MacDonald.

Blackburn: Did you ever tell anybody, in pointing to your wounds, that they stabbed you with an ice pick?

MacDonald: No; I was told that.

Blackburn: You never told Paul Connolly, who interviewed you in the hospital: "This is where they got me with the ice pick"?

MacDonald: No.


MacDonald stated that he told his mother and Ron Harrison about what transpired the night of the murders.


During the April 6, 1970 interview MacDonald stated: "Everyone--everyone--I mean I've talked--well, only--really, only two people know the whole story aside from you people. But in telling them, some things, you know, sound funny after a while; and I'm not sure what--you know, whether--like one time I remember, Ron Harrison, who got involved with this thing and was around all the time, he--he heard most of it, and he asked me a couple of things about it. I remember when I told him, that my mother said it wasn't exactly what I, you know--"

Shaw: Might have said to her?

MacDonald: Right. And I, you know--she--in other words, they reacted a little different. And so I really don't know how many times I've been talked into it--of course, the newspaper had such--they had me saying things that--everyone said to me, Well, now, they--they kept saying "Hit him again" and stuff like that.

I'm not even--I'm not sure. I don't think I ever heard that. I don't think I ever heard that.


After MPs and investigators arrived at the crime scene, a wallet was stolen from the living room.


Bernard Segal, MacDonald's attorney addressed this issue in his closing arguments on August 28, 1979 at the trial.

Segal: The last thing about the living room that I will mention to you so that we don't get ourselves forever and ever talking about that thing, but it does seem to me that the missing wallet is an interesting story. I have heard no witness except Mr. Ivory repeating what he heard other people think happen explaining what happened to the wallet in this room.
Mr. Ivory did say that a wallet that was believed to have belonged to Dr. MacDonald was stolen from the desk over near the door. He even mentioned a man's name. There is not the slightest word of evidence to support that. It is absolutely unsupported. We have never heard any proof of that. Was anybody prosecuted for the theft of that? Can you imagine someone stealing an officer's wallet in the Army and not being prosecuted? That is just absolutely government talk without the facts or evidence to back it up.
Besides that, although, that is what Mr. Ivory said that a man stole a wallet believed to have belonged to Dr. MacDonald, Officer Mica saw a different wallet or another wallet. You remember, we had a little piece of yellow paper put down in that picture. He said that on the floor here (indicating) near the bottom of the coffee table, there was a wallet lying on that floor. It was not shown in the photographs, yet, he saw it.


According to PV1 James Paulsen, while he was in the quarters, he had to wait for a length of time in order to remove the bodies of female MacDonald victims; that during this period he was standing in the living room, that he took the wallet, which he later determined to be that of Jeffrey MacDonald, and put it in his pocket. Thereafter, he was told to return to the hospital and wait there until called to remove the remains. Paulsen stated prior to leaving the quarters this first time the fact that the wallet was missing was discovered by the CID, who conducted searches on all those present including himself, but he had already secreted the wallet in his ambulance. The military police searched his ambulance, but did not find the wallet he had hidden behind the sun visor. He then returned to the hospital and in the vicinity of the hospital he threw the wallet, minus six dollars which he stole, from the vehicle. He denied touching or stealing anything else in the residence.


MacDonald said: "It is the most preposterous - they had no evidence that Ron Harrison was in my house...."


In the Fingerprint identification data it states quite clearly that, Exhibits L-13 and L-25 were identified as belonging to Ronald H. Harrison. Harrison was also foot printed, but his footprint did not match the bloody footprints found at the crime scene.


On August 23, 1979, during the trial, Segal asked MacDonald: "Why did you not return to your home at that time?"

MacDonald: Well, number one, I wouldn't have returned to the home.

Segal: Why not?

MacDonald: I wouldn't want to return to that scene. I wouldn't want to live in the house again. And, number two, it was apparently still being processed.

Segal: The CID was still investigating there they said?

MacDonald: That's right.

Segal: Did they tell you that?

MacDonald: They did tell me that.

 According to a conversation between Mr. Bidwell and Sergeant Wilson, CID on December 31, 1970, it was said: "Mr. Proctor informed us that at one time, and we do not know exactly when, that MacDonald was very anxious to get back into his quarters. The reason given by MacDonald was for one last nostalgic look. This prompted the Department of Justice's letter demanding that the scene and the evidence be preserved . . . . There is no theory at present as to why MacDonald was anxious to get back into the quarters, whether there is something in there that we have overlooked or whether it was just to satisfy some fear that he might have had forgotten to do something in the house to back up his story or had said something that didn't go along with something that was in the house."



On August 13, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked MacDonald: "Did you have any females in your BOQ?"

MacDonald: After I was released from custody, sure.

Woerheide: While you were in custody?

MacDonald: While I was in custody? Females in my BOQ room?

Woerheide: Yes.

MacDonald: You mean other than friends and relatives?

Woerheide: I mean, was there a girl who would come in and have sexual relationships with you during the period that you were in custody in your BOQ?

MacDonald: No. Afterwards.

During the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald, while confined to Bachelor Officers' Quarters (BOQ), had entered into a sexual relationship with Linda Mathews. Mathews first met MacDonald while he was restricted to his guarded BOQ room. She was a clerk in the same BOQ wherein MacDonald resided. She engaged in acts of sexual intercourse with him in the BOQ "as frequently as possible." She said the acts always took place in Jeffrey MacDonald's BOQ room and they occurred at lunch time and in the evening hours. She also said she was never refused entry to the room by guarding military police nor was she on the access list of his approved visitors. She advised that she did not know MacDonald prior to the murders. She advised that MacDonald left the Fort Bragg area in December 1970 after his discharge from the army and she has not seen him since but did receive one innocuous letter from him. She provided the letter to CID investigator Peter Kearns.


MacDonald claims that the Army investigated him (1970 Article 32 hearing) and then exonerated him of any involvement in the murders.


Judge (now Justice) Blackmun summed up the function of an Article 32 proceeding as: "The proceeding was what its description indicated, namely, an investigation."
 The Department of Justice noted: "The investigating officer merely recommends whether or not a court-martial should be convened and his recommendation that charges be dismissed for lack of evidence did not constitute a 'trial' which precluded civilian trial of the serviceman."
The 1970 Article 32 hearing was premature in the respect that much of the evidence was unknown, testing of evidence was not done or the results had not been determined.
Colonel Warren Rock was appointed as the Investigator Officer.
His job was not to exonerate MacDonald or find him to be guilty. His sole responsibility was to determine if a crime was committed, and, if so, could the suspect be involved, and to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a general court-martial.
On October 23, 1970, Major General Edward Flanagan, Jr. prepared his report to the Commanding General at Fort Bragg stating: "I have considered the attached charges against Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald... In my opinion, there is insufficient evidence available to justify reference of the charges for trial by court-martial. Consequently, I have dismissed the charges...."


In a telephone conversation in November 1970, MacDonald told Freddy Kassab that he had tracked down and killed one of the intruders. Kassab taped the conversation.


Shortly after MacDonald told Kassab that he had killed one of the intruders, Kassab flew to Fayetteville to check out the story. He checked the all the local newspapers and found that there was only one murder that had taken place when MacDonald said the intruder was killed. An army sergeant had been shot five times in the back.

Kassab went to the CID and told them that he had been approached and given information that perhaps this murder may have a connection with the murders of Colette and the children, and asked that they check it out. The CID checked it out and came back and said absolutely not.

MacDonald later admitted that his story of tracking down and killing one of the intruders was a lie.

In August 1970, three months prior to MacDonald telling Kassab that he found and killed one of the intruders, he told family friend Bob Stern the same story of tracking down and killing one of the intruders.
Later MacDonald would sleep with Stern's wife and dangle his son, Danny over the side of the boat.

After the telephone conversation, MacDonald lied to Kassab again. He wrote a letter to Kassab telling him he was still searching for the intruders, and he had been on a hunt for the murderers again, referring to hippie group no. 2 and that the trip had cost him two thousand dollars and a broken hand. Kassab notified the CID to check it out. The report came back that it was a fairy tale, and that MacDonald did not have a broken hand. He had been to Florida on a medical convention of some kind.


MacDonald claims that Freddy and Mildred Kassab, who had previously supported him, turned against him because he decided to move to California and start a new life after the murders.


Freddy Kassab wrote: "MacDonald's fatal mistake was made when he told me in a phone conversation which I recorded, that he had caught and killed one of the alleged assailants. That was the beginning of the end for him."
Kassab stated publicly that because the Article 32 was closed, he only knew what MacDonald told him. That until he got the transcripts and was able to read them and see all the inconsistencies in MacDonald's story, he did not know the facts.
They did not want to believe that the one Colette loved so much could inflict so much pain suffering on her and the children. It would have easier to except that hippies did it rather than someone they had come to love as their own.


On August 13, 1974, during the grand jury investigation Victor Woerheide asked: "All right. Now, that's one item. Now, tell me about the other leads that you turned up."

MacDonald: When I left the army, sir, I asked for a civilian, not an army, reinvestigation. It became very apparent at this time that an army reinvestigation of the army was a little ludicrous. And I went to the justice department in December and banged on a desk, and they even refused to interview me. I had a congressman with me. Okay, they wouldn't even talk to me; they wouldn't even give me the courtesy of saying hello. It was by a phone from down the hall. They rejected any information we could give them.

Woerheide: You went to the Department of Justice in Washington, D. C.?

MacDonald: That is correct.

Woerheide: Who was the congressman?

MacDonald: Congressman Allen [sic] Lowenstein.

Woerheide: Do you remember the date?

MacDonald: No, I don't. It was in December.

Woerheide: Do you remember where you went?

MacDonald: To the Justice Department.

Woerheide: Well, do you remember where you went in the Justice Department?

MacDonald: No. I'm sure it's logged in.

Woerheide: Did you go to the criminal division?

MacDonald: Yes, we did.

Woerheide: Did you go to the office of the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division?

MacDonald: I'm sure that's what it was.

Woerheide: Whom did you see there?

MacDonald: I don't know. Will Wilson pops into mind. I don't know if that's correct.

Woerheide: Will Wilson was the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division. Did you see him?

MacDonald: I believe we talked to him on the phone. Or, I talked to him on the phone.

Woerheide: Now, Henry Peterson was then the first assistant to Will Wilson. Did you see him?

MacDonald: Okay. The first phone call from the lobby was to Mr. Wilson. He referred me to--I guess it was Mr. Peterson, wasn't it. I believe it was either that order or vice-versa order.
And both of them categorically refused to even discuss the case with me. Absolutely refused categorically to discuss anything about the case with me.

Woerheide: All right. Where did you go then?

MacDonald: I don't remember.


Freddy Kassab wrote in: "A Denouncement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, While it may be true that his attorneys wrote the Department of Justice, requesting termination of the investigation (2 letters) MacDonald never in person went to the Dept. of Justice. In his statement he claims to have done so accompanied by (former) Congressman A. Lowenstein. Mr. Lowenstein has stated to me that no such occurrence ever took place."



MacDonald had several meetings with Newsday reporter, John Cummings. The meetings took place in a room of the Article 32 hearing building for the purpose of Cummings interviewing MacDonald for an article he was writing entitled:
I Was Awaken by a Scream, MacDonald's Story

The article released in 2 parts, first part published on July 23, 1970 included a diagram showing the interior of 544 Castle Drive with stick figures representing himself, and where the victims were found.


On August 14, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Woerheide questioned MacDonald about the article.

Woerheide: I'm going to ask you. Did he ask you those questions and did you give those answers?

MacDonald: I don't remember each one specifically. I get a general feeling as I read it that it's essentially, generally the interview I had with Mr. Cummings. Yes.

Woerheide: Would you say it is a doctored interview in the sense that it's been changed in any way?

MacDonald: As I remember it, there are things that don't sound like me at all in here. I can't imagine me saying it. I don't know if it's been doctored or if I said it. Do you follow me?

Woerheide: Yes.

MacDonald: I don't remember stating to Mr. Cummings some of the things he has me stating. Maybe you can listen to it on the tape. You know, maybe you should play the whole tape for the grand jury.

Woerheide: You don't object to our obtaining the tape from Mr. Cummings, I take it?

MacDonald: That's not my property. That's Mr. Cummings' property.

Woerheide: If I were to ask your permission, will you say: "It's all right with me to ask Mr. Cummings for the tape"?

MacDonald: It's all right to ask him, but I can't give you his answer.

Woerheide: I understand that. But you have no objection to our requesting it?

MacDonald: No.

Woerheide: I notice on page 7, and I don't want to get into the details of this right now, there is a--

MacDonald: Sir, may I say this? If this is going to be discussed, is the grand jury going to see this? I mean they should see this if we're going to discuss it. As far as I'm concerned.

Woerheide: At this point, I just wanted to ask you, did you furnish this drawing that's set forth here? On page 7.

MacDonald: No, sir. I believe this was a drawing that was furnished the news media by Colonel Kriwanek, the provost marshal of Fort Bragg.

Woerheide: So, that doesn't represent your work product in any way?

MacDonald: That's correct.
On page 7 of the article was a diagram of the MacDonald residence with following written/drawn on it:

"SCENE OF SLAYINGS, Capt. Jeffrey MacDonald drew representations of his slain wife and children on the floor plan of his house during an exclusive interview. He also marked the spot where he said he was attacked while asleep in the living room. The floor plan was supplied by MacDonald. The numbers have been added to indicate: (1) kitchen, (2) living room, (3) steps to hall, (4) hall, (5) Kristen's bedroom, (6) Kimberley's bedroom, (7) bathroom,  (8) utility room and (9) master bedroom."
MacDonald would also state that what was written in the article: "is not a statement under oath; it's a statement to a reporter for a news story. And I think it should be viewed as such. There are a lot of things in here that now, if I looked critically at it, aren't exactly correct. But I don't see what relevancy that has."
MacDonald would later referred to Cummings as an "oily newspaper man."


According to MacDonald's website, it reports: "Janice Glisson, Army CID hair and fibers examiner, she identified blond synthetic wig hairs, as well as hairs not sourced to anyone known to be in the MacDonald household. She wrote in her notes: 'This is not going to be reported by me.' Her hair and fiber examinations were never reported to the defense; she testified at trial only as a serologist (blood expert)."

You cannot take a few words out of a sentence and state it as true fact. That is exactly what MacDonald has done.

According to Janice Glisson's hand written notes, she wrote:
"did not label all the other vials cont. fibers & hairs (#1, #2, #8 but gave them #s & slides correspond to these #'s, since they are going to be reported by me."


MacDonald's defense team claimed that a piece of skin found in Colette's fingernail scrapings was lost that may have proven him innocent and that the defense did not know the skin had been lost until after trial because the government had led the defense to believe that a re-examination of the scrapings had shown that they did not contain any skin.


It has not been proven that a piece of skin ever existed. Sometime between February 28, 1970 and December 19, 1970, as the government concedes, the piece of skin, if there was one, was lost. United States Attorney Thomas P. McNamara was aware of the lost skin at least as early as March 16, 1973, for on this day he requested that the CID attempt to find the piece of skin. Despite "exhaustive attempts to determine the disposition of [the piece of skin], the evidence was never found."
MacDonald admits that either he or his attorneys were aware of the possibility that a piece of skin had been obtained from Colette MacDonald's fingernail because the defense had access to autopsy reports and heard Dr. Gammel testify concerning the autopsy findings at the Article 32 proceedings.
(MAJ) George E. Gammel, Pathologist described the wounds of Colette as three rather deep lacerations. The first at the right temple which also was evidenced by the fact that a fragment of skin was apparently missing. Also that on the left small finger what might have been a small fragment of skin was found.
According to CID investigator Bill Ivory statements, he said, on morning of February 28, 1970, he was present at the Fort Gordon chemistry laboratory and:
"I had found a box marked as fingernail scrapings taken at Womack Army Hospital. I took some vials from the box and placed them under a microscope and adjusted the microscope so that I could see through the vials and observe the contents. One of the vials I picked up and viewed in that manner contained what I thought to be a piece of skin. I drew this conclusion from seeing the oily texture of the substance. I brought this to the attention of Mr. Dillard Browning, CID laboratory technician, and he looked through the microscope, and while he did not verbally state that it is a piece of skin, his actions and utterances indicated to me that he agreed with what I said."

A second statement regarding February 28, 1970, Ivory stated:
"I picked up a plastic container which was marked as fingernail scrapings of Colette MacDonald. I inspected the contents under a microscope without opening the container or removing the contents and observed what appeared to be a small piece of skin. I brought this to the attention of Mr. Arthur Conners, Chief Chemist, who remarked that it did appear to be a piece of skin."
The question here is, if there was a piece of skin, where did it come from? Was it the missing fragment from the laceration on the right temple of Colette MacDonald, or was it from her scratching someone?

The important thing to remember is that Ivory stated he never removed the specimen from its container and was viewing it through the container under the microscope.
On March 1, 1985 the court found:
"The CID laboratory report of August 31, 1971 is not a paragon of clarity but it was at least sufficient to put the defense on notice that the piece of skin referred to in Dr. Gammel's autopsy report and testimony at the Article 32 hearings no longer existed. Furthermore, although Agent Ivory's statements would possibly have highlighted the loss of the skin to the defense, the court finds that the statements would have been of little use to MacDonald in light of the questionable exculpatory value of the evidence and their use for impeachment purposes would merely have been cumulative."


Specialist Four Kenneth Mica, MP stated and testified to the fact that he have seen a female in a raincoat and rain hat standing alone by a phone booth on his way to the crime scene in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.


In describing the female intruder, MacDonald has never said anything about her wearing a raincoat or rain hat.
August 10, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald's attorney, Bernard Segal asked MP Mica:
"Would you tell the investigating officer approximately what location you observed a person?"

Mica: Sir, I observed a person on the corner of Honeycutt Road and North Lucas.

Segal: And when did you observe that person in regard to the radio message that you received?

Mica: We observed this person as we were responding to the message. It was after we received the message.

Segal: And you were on your way to 544 Castle Drive?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: What sex was this person that you observed?

Mica: Female.

Segal: Can you describe to the investigating officer the appearance of that female, including any clothing that she may have had on that you recall?

Mica: Yes, sir. She appeared to be wearing a type of a raincoat, dark color, which came to just above her knees. Also she was wearing a wide-brimmed hat.

Segal: Was she a member of the Caucasian race?

Mica: Yes.

Segal: Did you have occasion to note anything about her hair?

Mica: What I could see--I really didn't pay that much attention to it at the time--but it appeared to be approximately shoulder length.

Segal: Do you recall what kind of foot gear she may have had on?

Mica: No, sir, I don't.

Segal: What was this female doing?

Mica: She was just standing on the corner.

Segal: Was there anything about her standing on the corner at that time that caused you to be attracted to look at her, or be aware of her being there?

Captain Somers: Object. It calls for a conclusion.

Segal: This witness has already been identified by the government to be assigned to patrol this area. It seems to me that any patrolman can testify as to whether it is usual or unusual to see a person at the time of night that is involved in that area. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Investigating Officer can give any weight to it, but he ought to know whether the, at least the patrol officer thinks this is something common or uncommon in their experience in that area.

Captain Somers: Then the question should be phrased that way. It's not the way it was phrased.

Captain Beale: The objection is sustained. I think you can rephrase your question, Mr. Segal, and get the results.

Segal: Specialist Mica, have you had occasion to patrol this particular area prior to February 17th, 1970?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: How often have you been through there on patrol?

Mica: I'd say at least fifteen or twenty times.

Segal: And have you had occasion to be in this area on patrol in the early morning hours?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: Do you often observe females standing on the corner of the street at that time of the night in that particular area?

Captain Somers: Object, unless he wants to define often.

Segal: The witness can describe it, sir, if he is allowed to answer the question, you will find out. The witness has already indicated the basis of his experience, and you will then find out has he ever seen anyone there before.

Captain Beale: The objection is overruled.

Segal: What is your answer, Mr. Mica?

Mica: No, sir, it is not usual.

Segal: Have you ever seen, in your experience, a young female standing on the corner at approximate that time of day while you were patrolling the area?

Captain Somers: Objection to word young.

Captain Beale: The objection is overruled, counselor.

Mica: Yes, sir, I would say, I would say I have.

Segal: Would you say you'd seen such a thing happen on more than one or two occasions?

Mica: No, sir, it's not very common.

Segal: By the way, if you have not already done so, would you indicate to us approximately what age you believe the female to be, that you observed standing there?

Mica: Well, sir, I can't say for certain. I don't think she was an older lady.

Segal: Did she appear to be more than 30 years of age?

Mica: Less than 30, I would say.

Segal: Did she appear to you to be in the vicinity of more than 20 years of age, or 20 years of age?

Mica: I would say probably older than twenty.

Segal: Now when you observed this female, what exactly was she doing?

Mica: She was standing on the corner.

Segal: And what was the weather condition at that time?

Mica: Well, it had been raining previously. I believe it had just stopped at this time.

Segal: What lights were there available at that location?

Mica: At that location I believe there aren't any street lights, but there's a light from the traffic signal. You have the gas station which was behind this female, and the Main Post Commissary which is across the street.

Segal: Were there lights on at the gas station at that time?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: Was the traffic light operating at that time?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: Was she standing some proximity to the traffic signal that you can identify for us?

Mica: Yes, sir, she would have been standing in some light that was cast by the signal.

Segal: You indicated that the Post Exchange building was nearby also?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: Were there any lights on there?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Segal: Is there any question in your mind that you had an adequate opportunity to observe the clothing that you've described and the general facial impression that you've described to us?

Captain Somers: Object. It calls for a conclusion of a rather generous proportion.

Captain Beale: Sustained.

Segal: Now, Specialist Mica, when you observed this young woman, what, if anything did you do in regard to having made that observation?

Mica: Well, the only thing I did, sir, was comment to my partner that, more or less a question, you know, what the heck is she doing standing here this time of the morning.

Segal: And did Specialist Morris in any way acknowledge your remark or say anything about your remark?

Mica: I believe he said, I don't know, something to that effect.
On July 19-20, 1979, during the trial, Prosecutor Jim Blackburn asked MP Mica: "While you were proceeding on that route, did you have an occasion to see anyone?"

Mica: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: Who did you see?

Mica: I observed what I feel was a female standing on the corner of--it would have been Honeycutt Road and South Lucas.

Blackburn: Would you point out to the jury where that is?

Mica: That would be right over here at this intersection.

Blackburn: And on the photograph, would you also point out where that is?

Mica: That would be right in here.

Blackburn: Where was this girl standing when you saw her?

Mica: She was standing off on the side of the road I would say ten or 12 feet, possibly more, off the corner.

Blackburn: Approximately how far from where she was were you when you saw her, if you could guess?

Mica: I don't recall.

Blackburn: Was it raining at that time?

Mica: I believe it had just stopped raining just prior to that.

Blackburn: Was your window up or down?

Mica: Jeeps don't have windows. They have a canvas side-curtain with heavy plastic.

Blackburn: Can you describe this girl that you saw for us?

Mica: To the best of my recollection, she had on a dark-colored raincoat and what appeared to be a type of a dark-colored rain hat, and I believe I could see part of her legs below the raincoat.

Blackburn: What boots, if any, did she have on?

Mica: I don't recall seeing boots.

Blackburn: What color was her hair, if you know?

Mica: I don't know, sir.

Blackburn: Can you describe the hat that she had on?

Mica: As I recall, sir, the hat was sort of a wide, like a rain-type hat that the women wear. I don't know what it is called.

Blackburn: Was it a light or a dark hat or do you recall?

Mica: It was dark. I believe it matched her raincoat.

Blackburn: When you saw this girl, was the jeep going forward or had it stopped at the intersection?

Mica: As we approached the intersection--again, I don't know the distance--but she caught my eye. We came to a slow stop and continued through.

Blackburn: How was your jeep marked? Was it marked in any way?

Mica: Right across the front window under the windshield there is a white sign with black letters approximately, I would say, five or six inches high that state: "Military Police." It has a red light mounted on the fender. It had a round plaque on the back that also said: "Military Police."

Blackburn: Was the light on or off--the red light?

Mica: I would believe it would have been on.

Blackburn: Did you have an occasion to observe this entire intersection?

Mica: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: Would you describe to the jury what is located there or what was located there in 1970?

Mica: Yes, sir. On the corner where I saw this girl, there is a gas station. Directly across the street is a small shopping center, a PX-type, and then on the opposite side is the Corregidor Courts Housing Area.

Blackburn: Approximately at what time, if you recall, did you arrive at 544 Castle Drive?

Mica: I don't think it was any more than five minutes after we received the initial call.



MacDonald claims he received a wound to his chest that resulted in a partial pneumothorax during the struggle with intruders. The wound was a clean incisional type wound with no jagged edges. He denies that this wound was self-inflicted.


On December 11, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked Dr. Russell Fisher: "Now, the key question is, could these wounds, in your opinion, all be self-inflicted wounds?"

Dr. Fisher: There's nothing about any one of them, nor the totality of them, that could not have been self-inflicted.

Woerheide: Dr. Fisher, pneumothorax conditions are not particularly uncommon, are they?

Dr. Fisher: Well--

Woerheide: When I say "uncommon"--let me ask you this question now. In the past, in treating diseases of the body such as tuberculosis, for example, has it been medical practice to induce a pneumothorax?

Dr. Fisher: Yes, indeed. Before the days when we had drugs that were effective in the control of tuberculosis, when lung cavitation would occur, we had to collapse that lung. And it was much simpler to collapse a lung by putting air in the chest cavity than to cut out the ribs and do this extensive surgical procedure. So the treatment of cavitary tuberculosis--this goes up to my day; because when I was a resident in medicine at Fort Hospital in 1943 or 44, we were still treating tuberculosis that way. And I personally cared for quite a number of patients during a period of months in which we put air in their chest three times a week to collapse the lung and keep it collapsed so that the cavity would heal and scar down and the disease abate. So--it isn't used much any more. Fortunately, they have drugs--

Woerheide: But it's a known medical procedure that has been used in the past?

Dr. Fisher: Yes, an established medical procedure.

Woerheide: Now, if you wished to induce a pneumothorax under controlled conditions, how would you proceed, sir?

Dr. Fisher: Obviously, to use some type of anesthetic to just deaden the skin a little bit. And then I'd make a little nick in the skin, and I'd push a needle through that hole. I'd stick it in the chest, connected to something to measure the amount of air that went in; because I would like to control it. But, actually, this is what we did, of course, in our pneumothorax patients.

Woerheide: All right, now, could you take a hypodermic needle, an empty hypodermic needle, and inject a controlled amount of air through an incision into the pleural cavity and thereby induce a pneumothorax?

Dr. Fisher: Certainly this could be done. As a matter of fact, all one needs to do is to insert a sharp needle through the chest wall rapidly enough that it perforates the underlying lung before the lung can contract. And this will let air out from the lung itself into the cavity and collapses the cage.
We see the same thing not at all infrequently in people in vehicular accidents who get a rib fracture. The sharp end of the rib will tear the lung, and they'll have a collapsed lung. It's treated readily, if there's not too much fracturing, of course.

Woerheide: Could a doctor, with surgical training and working towards being a surgeon, inflict a pneumothorax on himself under controlled conditions that would not imperil or endanger his life?

Dr. Fisher: Oh, I think so. Certainly

Woerheide: And from your observations with respect to Captain MacDonald, considering the point where the pneumothorax may have been made--slightly below the nipple and the seventh intercostal space--

Dr. Fisher: The incision was in the chest wall--the scar.

Woerheide: Could that have been done by him deliberately without endangering his life?

Dr. Fisher: Oh, in my judgment, yes, sir.

Woerheide: In other words, the way that pneumothorax was brought about--if it was brought about deliberately--was such that there was no immediate peril, let's say, of damage to the liver, or damage to the diaphragm, or something else?

Dr. Fisher: I wouldn't think so; no, sir. It was only--the incision was just two inches below the nipple which puts it far enough up on the chest that despite the fact that the liver is behind the chest margin here--it's above the rib margin--it's still possible to make an incision there. And regardless of how the incision came about, in this case an incision was made there, and he did get a pneumothorax. And it was of no real consequence, other than that the lung continued to collapse; and they did put a tube in and treat him for it for a couple of days.

Woerheide: From the records that you reviewed of Dr. MacDonald's treatment in the hospital, the observations that were made concerning his vital signs, his blood pressure, his respiration, his temperature, his heartbeat, etc., was he ever in serious peril as a result of whatever happened on the night of February 17?

Dr. Fisher: No, sir, not in my judgment. He was at no time in significant peril, really. He did require treatment, but the treatment was simple and successful.

Woerheide: And there were no signs of neurological damage and only a few superficial marks on his body, plus this pneumothorax condition?

Dr. Fisher: Certainly nothing according to the records, nor did I elicit anything in talking to those physicians when I interviewed them.


Jeffrey MacDonald claims that Dr. Severt  Jacobson testified at trial that he did not believe that the stab wound in his lung was self-inflicted.


On July 27, 1979, during the trial, Prosecutor Jim Blackburn asked: "Dr. Jacobson would a person, and I will add another detail which might make it a little more palatable to the Prosecution, would a doctor who inflicted a pneumothorax of this nature on himself know what the final medical consequences of that wound would be at the time he inflicted it, or could he know? Answer: 'Not this type of pneumothorax; he couldn't.' Do you recall that, sir?"

Dr Jacobson: Yes.

Blackburn: Now, Dr. Jacobson, let me ask you another question, sir. Do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself, based on your experience in medical science, as to whether a doctor who inflicted a pneumothorax of this nature on himself could reasonably estimate or guess what the final medical consequences of that wound would be at the time he inflicted it?

Dr. Jacobson: Statistically he could guess. It
would be a statistical guess.

Blackburn: Would you explain your answer a little more clearly?

Dr. Jacobson: There are a number of procedures that are done in medicine knowing that there can be side effects from doing that particular procedure--any operative procedure. We take biopsies of the liver with a needle, we take biopsies of the lung with a needle. We know that in both those cases--in fact, we take biopsies of the brain with a needle. We know that in those three cases, there is a chance of hemorrhage or secondary problem. We, however, also know that statistically the risk is relatively small compared to the possible yield. I don't know if one can honestly carry that over, but statistically, one can do--figure--that the potential for disaster is a reasonably low one.

Defense attorney, Wade Smith asked: "Dr. Jacobson, you testified, I believe at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970, didn't you?"

Dr. Jacobson: Yes, I did.

Smith: All the medical facts that you have provided the jury today were provided at that hearing by you; is that correct? That is, you said the same things there that you said today, basically?

Dr. Jacobson: Well, not really.

Smith: In what way did you change your testimony for today?

Dr. Jacobson: My opinion has changed a little bit about the questions that were pertinent to self-inflicting wounds.

Smith: All right, sir, you testified, I believe, about that subject in the Article 32?

Dr. Jacobson: Yes, I did.

Blackburn: Dr. Jacobson, on cross-examination I believe that counsel for the Defendant asked you--I can't recall the precise question--whether everything you said in 1970 was the way you felt now. You said that your opinion had changed on one thing; is that correct? I believe it was self-infliction.

Dr. Jacobson: Yeah.

Blackburn: Would you explain now what you mean by that and how your opinion has changed?

Dr. Jacobson: Well, at the time of the Article 32 I was asked, you know--I was asked a hypothetical question and I responded to the best of my feeling at that time which was like, "Okay, what's your feeling right now, Doctor?"

Blackburn: What was your feeling at that time?

Dr. Jacobson: My feeling at that time was that if one were to grab the handle of a knife and stab himself, he wouldn't be able to control the depth of how far you stab simply because you don't know how sharp the knife is, you don't know how tough your skin is, and sometimes you don't know how hard your muscles are working. Since then, I have had a chance to reflect simply because some of the procedures that we do--biopsy procedures--we can control the depth; and the way we control it, such as doing a spinal tap, is we set a little depth gauge ahead of time, and we go in that far and that is as far as we go. Reflecting on that, I thought that if one were to grab a knife carefully, one could by grabbing the handle and grabbing part of the blade, just go only up to your thumb and you would only go into as far as you wanted to go.
Your thumb would stop you.

Smith: Dr. Jacobson, you are not suggesting--are you--that Dr. MacDonald intentionally inflicted any wounds that you have described on the chart?

Dr. Jacobson: No.

Smith: As a matter of fact, you saw no evidence of that; did you?

Dr. Jacobson: I don't know.

Smith: You don't know whether you did. You didn't see anything that would cause you to believe that; did you?

Objection was made and sustained

Smith: At the Article 32 proceeding, I believe you were asked certain other questions about this subject. Let me read the question and read you your answer and see if it refreshes your recollection, Dr. Jacobson. The question was this: "If you were going to inflict a pneumothorax on yourself, would you inflict it in the area of the seventh intercostal space or would you choose some other area?" Do you remember that question?

Dr. Jacobson: Yes; I do.

Smith: I believe your answer at that time was: "I would choose some other area." Was that your answer?

Dr. Jacobson: (Witness nods affirmatively.)

Smith: I believe the next question was this: "And why would you do that?" And the answer was: "Well, as is already indicated, there are some vital structures in this area that could make the condition much more serious." Was that your answer?

Dr. Jacobson: That is correct.


MacDonald contends that the government suppressed the existence of a half-filled bloody syringe which could have proved that he did not commit the murders, and which, had it been introduced at trial, would have caused the jury to acquit him of the murders.


On March 1, 1985, the court found the only evidence that a "half-filled bloody syringe" ever existed is contained in Medlin's somewhat ambiguous statement to Agent Tool. As Medlin's affidavit indicates, when he made his statement to Agent Tool he was only summarizing the information provided to him by other members of the crime scene processing team. He had no first-hand knowledge of the contents of the closet and denies ever seeing a half-filled syringe which bore blood stains. The implication of his statement and its secondhand nature is that Medlin misunderstood what the other investigators told him about the contents of the closet. In fact this is what must have occurred, for investigative agents having firsthand knowledge of the contents of the hall closet state, or would state if called to testify at trial, that no "bloody half-filled syringe" or other half-filled syringe was found in the closet. Moreover, the chemist who processed the hall closet for blood stains, Craig Chamberlain, and the agent who inventoried the medical supplies in the closet, Hagan Rossi, state without reservation that no half-filled syringe of any kind was found during the crime scene investigation. Measured against these statements by four witnesses having firsthand knowledge of the evidence gathered from the crime scene, MacDonald's argument, based as it is upon the statement of one witness summarizing information conveyed to him by others, that the government has suppressed evidence of a "half-filled bloody syringe" is simply not plausible.

Even if the syringe had existed, MacDonald's arguments would yet fail because he has not shown that the evidence would be favorable to him. The "mere possibility that [discovery of the syringe] might have helped [MacDonald], or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish [materiality] in the constitutional sense." As counsel for MacDonald conceded at oral argument, the evidence may have well been unfavorable to MacDonald at trial. MacDonald has therefore failed to offer enough evidence from which the court could find that the syringe, assuming its existence, or evidence derived there from, would have been of value to him either before or during his trial. Similarly, even if the government suppressed Medlin's statements to Agent Tool concerning the syringe, an assumption which the evidence also does not support, knowledge of Medlin's statements would have been to no avail to MacDonald since the underlying evidence did not exist. MacDonald's argument that he could have used Agent Medlin's statement to impeach the integrity of the crime scene and attack Medlin's credibility is also unconvincing in view of the fact that these tactics were used extensively at trial and to the extent that Medlin's statement tended to prove these issues it would only be cumulative.

Medlin's statement that "a half-filled syringe that contained an as yet unknown fluid was located in a hall closet, which also contained some evidence of blood" is susceptible of two readings. Either the hall closet or the syringe, if it existed, could have been bloody. The court notes in passing that the former reading may be correct since there was physical evidence which showed that the sliding door to the hall closet was stained with Jeffrey MacDonald's blood.


MacDonald claims "...the 'cult' members remained together immediately after the murders..."

It has to be one way or the other. He cannot believe Helena Stoeckley remained with the cult and that she was seen standing alone on a street corner after the murders.


MacDonald claimed that Helena Stoeckley and her friends committed the murders.
His website states: "Helena Stoeckley made statements that suggested she had been involved in the murders."


MacDonald fails to address the claim of Stoeckley that they had sex together. He fails to address the issue that she claimed to have broken into his house two weeks prior to the murders and stole a bracelet. He fails to address the issue that in one of her confessions, she drew a sketch of the layout of MacDonald's apartment that did not match, or even come close to the actual layout.
A 1970 photograph of Stoeckley had been shown to MacDonald during the Article 32 hearing and he had stated he had not ever seen the female in the photograph. Thus, the one eyewitness, MacDonald, himself, failed to identify her as the female he claims was one of the intruders.
On February 19, 1971, in an interview with Colonel Jack Pruett and CID investigator Peter Kearns, MacDonald was shown a picture and asked by Kearns: "Can you identify her as one of the assailants?"

(Handwritten to the side indicates this picture was Stoeckley.)

MacDonald: I probably sound like I am avoiding the issue, but not from this photograph, I can't do that. I just can't do that. There are a number of reasons. Assuming just for the sake of argument that she was there, the shortness of my being there, she was the least likely for me to be able to identify. I would say out of the four that I saw, the four people, she is the least likely. I said this at the hearing. You know, it was really quick. It is hard to--it is really hard to get across how quick this occurs and how little I saw of her. This is not a case of looking at someone's face like I am looking at you and thinking of her. It was just like that.
That's all it was. I know I was seeing blonde hair. For instance, it really does, when you look at the face--I would say probably not from this--the nose looks really prominent here. It looks like you would remember the nose right away.

Information from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 17, 1985  related the following information:

Helena Stoeckley was heavily addicted to drugs. She was a witness at the trial where she testified that she was so heavily intoxicated with drugs in the early morning hours of the night in question that she had no idea of what she had done or where she had been. Before the trial, however, she had made statements to the effect that she had been, or might have been, in the MacDonald home. The statements contained internal suggestions that they were the product of fantasy. She stated, for instance, that she held a lighted candle for illumination but, "it was not dripping wax; it was dripping blood."

At the trial, the defense sought to introduce evidence of earlier hearsay statements. They were excluded as being untrustworthy, and this court affirmed the exercise by trial judge of his discretion in excluding them for lack of trustworthiness.

Helena Stoeckley has since died, apparently as the result of drug abuse. After the trial and during her lifetime, however, she continued to make conflicting statements. Sometimes she remembered nothing about what happened that night, while, apparently depending upon who questioned her, she sometimes remembered in some gory detail being with the slayers of the MacDonald mother and children. The details she gave, however, contain many inconsistencies with MacDonald's version of what occurred and with the circumstantial evidence derived from the scene. Helena Stoeckley several times denied being at 544 Castle Drive on the night of the murders, and testified to this at trial.
Fingerprints from Helena Stoeckley which were obtained by Nashville police officer Jim Gaddis did not match any prints in the MacDonald apartment.
DNA test results released March 10, 2006 showed no match to Helena Stoeckley.


MacDonald claimed that during the 1970 Article 32 military hearing, Kenneth Mica was ordered by Captain Clifford Somers not to say anything about the female Mica had seen on the street corner.

When Captain Somers was asked for advice on testimony by any government witness,
he told them the best technique was not to volunteer any information, but to be truthful and to answer questions to the best of their knowledge.


MacDonald claims that the defense located Helena Stoeckley during the trial.


This is not evidenced by the records. On August 13, 1979, during the trial at a bench conference Segal said: "We have here, under subpoena, the parents of Helena Stoeckley. We have been trying to locate her. In our effort to locate her, which has been futile up until now, we have subpoenaed them as to their knowledge of her whereabouts."
August 15, 1979, during the trial at a bench conference, Judge Dupree said, What I really got you up here for is to talk about this Stoeckley problem. I understand she is in custody. I understand that she can be kept like that for 72 hours without being let out.
Now, as far as finding her and making her available is concerned, I think the Court has done about all it can do. I suggest to you that you ought to get your evidence so scheduled as to accommodate this particular thing rather than run the risk the next time she goes that she can't be found by anybody.
So, now that she is available, I think that moots the question of whether or not we can take up secondary evidence of what she would have said,
and I don't think in this kind of case--if she is available--it ought to be done. My feeling about that is that, having made her available, that you must now avail yourself of her availability.

Segal: I absolutely agree that it is our desire to do that. We need to know, however, Your Honor--you say she is in custody. Is she in custody here in Raleigh or is she in Greenville?

Law Clerk: She is in custody in Greenville--

Judge Dupree: (Interposing) Greenville, South Carolina.

Law Clerk: And they are ready to transport her here.

Blackburn: Pickens County jail is what I have been told.

Segal: Well, Greenville is about three hours--two and a half hours.

Judge Dupree: More than that. It is three hours comfortably to Charlotte, and Greenville is almost that same distance the other side.

Murtagh: Do you know who runs the Police Department in Greenville? Paul Stombaugh.

Segal: Maybe he will drive her down for us. Your Honor, I understand she has been taken into custody pursuant to a warrant as a material witness in this case. I would request that she be brought here forthwith to Raleigh and, as soon as she is here and we have a chance to interview her, we intend to call her as a witness. That is my request and if I can be notified--

Judge Dupree: That is all we needed to know. Just tell the magistrate that there is no bond and just bring her here and make her available to the Defense counsel.



MacDonald's website reports:"a witness reported seeing three people in sheets near the MacDonald building around midnight on the night of the murders."


That witness was James Milne who came forward at the 1979 trial to tell what he claims he observed on the night of murders

On August 15, 1979, during the trial James Milne testified that his hobby was constructed radio-controlled aircraft as well as radio-controlled boats. In the construction of these things he used epoxy.  The sequence involved a setup because the epoxies that he use are time-cured, self-hardening epoxies which do have a hardening effect after a given length of time, based on the type of epoxy you use.

Milne stated: "I didn't get started on this until late, around 11:00 o'clock, the same time my wife started going to bed. She, of course, would take anywhere from 15 minutes to a half hour showering, taking make-up off and so forth. So I do recall getting into the aspect of the construction portion of the model that I had at that particular time, around 11:30.
"Now, I don't recall specifically any time sequence until I went to bed. I think it was 12:30 or shortly thereafter--within five minutes. About the best I can estimate is that it was somewhere between a quarter till midnight and 15 minutes past midnight based on the number of pieces that I had to get set up and to permanently affix with epoxies and so forth.
"The time that I was piecing these items together, as I said, was around quarter till 12:00.
"All of a sudden, I just heard voices."

Prosecutor Jim Blackburn asked Milne: "These people that you saw--I think you described them as three people?"

Milne: Three people.

Blackburn: One girl with long brown-blondish straight hair; is that correct?

Milne: Yes, sir; that is correct.

Blackburn: And each of them--were they wearing a sheet?

Milne: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: What color was the sheet?

Milne: The sheet, the best I can remember, was white.

Blackburn: Was it like a bed sheet?

Milne: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: Or like a choir robe?

Milne: It resembled a choir robe with folds in the back--that could have possibly been.

Blackburn: Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Were they wearing it, you know, like a choir robe--have them with sleeves going through the right and left arm. Was it like that type of thing? Or was it more or less a sheet draped and wrapped around them?

Milne: It wasn't really wrapped around them, no, sir. It was just draped over them. The girl's hair was out, down the back.

Blackburn: They didn't have hoods on, did they?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: What race, if you know, were these three people?

Milne: They were white.

Blackburn: No blacks?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: All three were carrying candles?

Milne: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: All three candles were lit?

Milne: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: What was the weather like--I know it was raining during part of the evening--I think there's been testimony to this. Was it raining at this particular time?

Milne: No, sir, not at the time I saw these individuals.

Blackburn: It was not drizzling or anything like that?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: Could you tell whether or not the wind was blowing?

Milne: No, sir, I really don't recall.

Blackburn: Now, I know you have stated they didn't have hoods on their heads. Did they have anything on their heads?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: The girl did not have anything on her head?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: She didn't have a floppy hat on her head?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: Well, how long--I know you said the sheet was on her but it wasn't draped.

Milne: It was draped.

Blackburn: It was draped, I'm sorry. Was it--how far down the body did it go, if you can recall?

Milne: Within six inches of the ground.

Blackburn: Now, did it cover their body completely?

Milne: Yes, sir.

Blackburn: They were not having to hold the sheet on?

Milne: No, sir; that is the reason I described it initially as a choir robe and as my reaction to the scene as, "No, this must be choir practice." I drew the vision in relationship to a choir robe but purely white.

Blackburn: Were they singing anything?

Milne: They were not singing; they were talking.

Blackburn: Could you hear what they said?

Milne: No, sir; I don't recall anything about what they said.

Blackburn: They weren't shouting or anything?

Milne: No, sir; just a monotone--almost like three monologues going on at the same time, with no really apparent indication on my part as to what they were saying. I don't recall anything.

Blackburn: Now, I know you said that they were carrying candles, and they were protecting the candles with their right hand?

Milne: Yes, sir, as they walked down the walk.

Blackburn: Right, to keep the candle lit?

Milne: Right, sir.

Blackburn: And they were protecting it with their right hand?

Milne: They were holding the candle in their right hand.

Blackburn: Protecting with the left hand?

Milne: And they were protecting with their left hand.

Blackburn: So when they faced you--not faced you; but when you saw them you could see them like that, is that correct?

Milne: The girl I could see initially with the candle and her hand cupped over. To be perfectly honest, sir, I was really looking at the girl anyway and not to the guys.

Blackburn: Was she a pretty girl?

Milne: In my opinion, yes, she had very beautiful hair; and I recall more about her than I do the other two. But I did see light coming off the other two. They rounded the building at the other end; when I glanced up and saw them crossing, I could see three flickering flames.

Blackburn: So what you are saying is that you saw one candle that you are sure of, and at least two other flickering flames?

Milne: Initially, yes, sir.

Blackburn: Now, did they have anything in their hands besides the candles?

Milne: No, sir.

Blackburn: Could you tell whether or not they had gloves on?

Milne: The girl did not, no, sir. I don't know about the other two.

Blackburn: I'm sorry?

Milne: The girl did not; I do not know about the other two.

Blackburn: Well, did they have any weapons in their hands that you could see?

Milne: To the best of my knowledge, no, sir.

Blackburn: Let me hand you Government Exhibit 307. When was the first time you have ever seen that?

Milne: This particular piece?

Blackburn: Yes, sir.

Milne: Just now.

Blackburn: Did you see any of these three people carrying this club?

Milne: No, sir; I did not.

Blackburn: Did you see any of the three people carrying any club?

Milne: No, sir; I did not.

MacDonald described the intruders and their attire they were wearing, which did not include any sheets on their person.
The only one MacDonald said was carrying a candle was the female.
Helena Stoeckley stated she was the only one carrying a night that night.
Blackburn: I believe you stated that you were fearful after learning this that this could have happened to you or your family; is that correct?

Milne: That is the way I view it; yes, sir.
I think the strangest statement made by Milne was his responses to Blackburn's questions below,

Blackburn: Did it ever occur to you then that perhaps there was a necessity to report what you had observed to a law enforcement agency regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with the MacDonalds out of fear that it might happen to you the next night or to some other family in that area?

Milne: No, sir. The thought never really entered my mind; no, sir. I just merely locked the door the next night.


MacDonald's website reports that he "passed two polygraph tests", yet they only list one.


The fact remains that MacDonald did have three polygraph tests. The first one was done by the late John Reid.

On January 22, 1975, Dr. Sadoff was questioned in his home for the grand jury investigation by Victor Woerheide. Sadoff stated: "A part of the preliminary material that was told to me by Mr. Segal was as I recall now, that there was a polygraph test. And frankly, from here it looks as if he did not do well on the test, or the test results were equivocal. My recollection is that it was equivocal. And not as I would have expected it to be, that he would have passed it with flying colors."


According to MacDonald, Reid was "not satisfied with my results...they were not conclusively proving my innocence...and...he had a consultation with Bernie, and Bernie uh, sort of abruptly dismissed him...the results were not conclusive of my innocence."
The second polygraph was done by Cleve Backster. According to Backer, he had been contacted by Bernie Segal in April 1970, for the purpose of retaining his services to administer a polygraph for his client one Jeffrey MacDonald. Backster traveled to office of Segal in Philadelphia where the polygraph examination had been scheduled; arriving on the morning of April 23, 1970. After conferring with Segal for a short time, he and MacDonald was then left alone in a room and he prepared by reviewing the questions that would asked and received no objections from MacDonald. Backster denied asking any questions regarding MacDonald's extramarital sexual actives, anything relating to homosexual actives, of any wild orgy on the night of the murders, any unusual sexual practices as sexual interactions with animals and the discussion about an insanity plea never came into question. The examination had been completed and never terminated as MacDonald claimed. Backster advised,
"the results were very unambiguous. They were not borderline at all", and in his opinion, MacDonald was being deceptive on these charts concerning the questions relating to the crime. Backster stated he informed MacDonald, "I could not be of help to him in his defense because he had failed the polygraph test." When asked what MacDonald's reactions was, Backster replied: "Again, exact reaction was not one of rage; it was not one of anger. We had a very--I would state a very dignified conversation after the end of the polygraph procedure." Backster advised that before he left Segal's office he notified him of the results "without any confusion that this was not an inconclusive test." He recalls that he was paid for his services and it is common practices "when the defense attorney has a polygraph test, and I remember this also applied on that occasion, a polygraph test administered and where the subject in the opinion of the examiner has failed the polygraph test, no written report will be submitted."
On March 18, 1986, some sixteen years after the murders took place, MacDonald took a polygraph test at Black Canyon Federal Correctional institution in Arizona by the renowned Dr. David C. Raskin.
According to Raskin, on the:
"basis of the numerical and computer evaluation of the polygraph examination, it is my professional opinion that Jeffrey MacDonald was truthful when he denied having caused the deaths of his wife and two children."
It is an interesting pattern MacDonald tends to follow. He feels the need to justify things. Dr. Sadoff stated that MacDonald "described a lot of the rumors that went around the base, such as his homosexual relationship with Lt. Harrison which of course, is ridiculous and thought that the Lt. became jealous of the family and killed the kids and wife but that is not so."

 Anything to do with the case where anyone do not believe him or voices their opinions that does not match his, he turns against them, they become liars, they have mental problems, they are inexperienced, and they asked inappropriate questions. What is this fixation MacDonald appears to have about his sex life, his virility, and his masculinity? Why is he always saying people are inquiring into it? One is left to wonder.
The public is thus left to wonder who conducted the second polygraph he claims to have passed. It remains a mystery folks.


MacDonald said on the Jerry Springer live interview, that he finally said to heck with it and he took a polygraph administered by Dr. David C. Raskin, a non-bias polygraph examiner, and that he passed it.

MacDonald made no mention that he had taken two other polygraph examinations or the results of them.
He failed to mention that the polygraph was 16 years after the murders.


MacDonald claimed on the Jerry Springer live interview that he was a practicing group surgeon in the Special Forces also known as the Green Berets when the murders occurred.


When MacDonald arrived at Fort Bragg, he was assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group. His Commanding Officer was Colonel Robert Kingston who made him group surgeon. However, Colonel Kingston was only the Commanding Officer from August 1969 to November 1969. At that time the 3rd Special Forces Group was disbanded, and MacDonald was transferred to 6th Special Forces Group. His immediate Commanding Officer was Captain Hiestand who was the group surgeon. MacDonald became the Preventive Medical Officer, but mostly he was responsible for sanitation of the camp latrines and for filling out the monthly report on venereal disease.


During the April 6, 1970 interview, MacDonald agreed to take a polygraph for the CID. Shortly after leaving the interview, he called back and said he had changed his mind and would not take the polygraph.


During the April 6, 1970, MacDonald was asked: "Don't read into this into this, but would you be willing to take a polygraph test if it comes to this?"

MacDonald spent a great deal of time asking questions about the polygraph. The CID investigators  answered all of his question.
He left no stone unturned as to the possibilities of what and how it worked and the effect it could possibly have.

MacDonald: Absolutely--sure, let me ask you a few questions here, man. ah--you guys have been posing all the questions.

Investigator: Well, that's our job.

MacDonald: What's the--what's the fallibility of this thing? You know you guys with your circumstantial evidence here, you know--ah--what happens with normal emotions?

Investigator: That's taken into consideration, of course. When people are challenged there is some nervous tension.

MacDonald: And in a case like this, ah, there's a little more nervous tension than usual.

Investigator: Absolutely. Murder is much more serious than stealing an M-16 or something.

MacDonald: I'm just trying to--ah--prevent--ah--any more things like this, that's all. I can see what's going if there is a little jig in the line. You and the Colonel are going to jump and say ah-hah, we found our man.

Investigator: The Colonel won't be reading the charts. The man will probably come out of Washington, and is very competent and is a disinterested party. He will be disinterested and won't care how it comes out. (Inaudible)

MacDonald: What does the polygraph tell you?

Investigator: It tells basically what a person believes to be true.

MacDonald: How infallible is it?

Investigator: Well, the instrument itself just measures physiological changes.

MacDonald: I know that, I understand that, that's what I mean.

Investigator: The operator--you see it's just one man now. He runs the test and he reads his charts, then he makes the determination. There are three possibilities; no deception indicated, deception indicated or inconclusive, or sometimes a person may not be a good subject, that day he might be over tired or something like that.

MacDonald: um-hum.

Investigator: So the operator, rather than--when he reads his tracings he may come-up with an inconclusive, for some reason or another, and maybe something else is bothering the individual more than what you are talking about. So he may come-up with inconclusive. The percentage figures they have had on it is that it is less than one percent that they have ever made a mistake on. I mean these are verified cases.

MacDonald: A mistake which way?

Investigator: Surprisingly, these were all saying a person had no deception indicated. This is on thousands and thousands of cases. These are the statistics that I have. The greatest percentage of people, by far, probably up in the 75 to 80 percent, there's no deception indicated.

MacDonald: 75% of the 1% who-- ah--

Investigator: 75%--say it's about four-tenths of a percent there may be deception indicated.

MacDonald: uh-hah--

Investigator: And perhaps 20% would be deception indicated.

MacDonald: You mean proves deception indicated.

Investigator: These are on the verified cases, in other words, where confessions or admissions are obtained later. You've got 80 people who didn't, and it is later verified by--

MacDonald: That they didn't do it.

Investigator: --confessions or something, or someone else is sought later.

MacDonald: But you aren't answering my question. Out of those 100 people, how many are wrong on the machine?

Investigator: How many are wrong?

MacDonald: Yeah?

Investigator: I would say that the human error involved is about four-tenths of one percent.

MacDonald: Oh, that's all?

Investigator: Yes.

MacDonald: Sounds pretty good.

Investigator: And these people, in those four-tenths, which would be four, in one thousand were called no deception indicated, and it was later found out that they were deceiving.

MacDonald: Oh, I see. Okay.

Investigator: You might call them inconclusive, where a person wouldn't take the test at a later date, and then later confessed.

MacDonald: Now what happens if this test--what is your strongest evidence? What if the polygraph backed up everything I've said and you still have all the bull shit lying around, and then what happens?

Investigator: I will be the first guy to shake you by the hand and say I'm sorry.

MacDonald: And if it comes up wrong I immediately go to Leavenworth without a trial.

Investigator: No, in the first place, a polygraph can't be used against you.

MacDonald: It can't?

Investigator: No. It is an investigative tool, Captain. We believe it.

MacDonald: You mean it is not admitted in court? Why not?

Investigator: Because of that four-tenths of one percent. Here's the real problem. There are several reasons--

MacDonald: It is not admitted in court for that? Jesus, the alcohol, the alcohol--

Investigator: We have other reasons too. We have judges in the court, sitting on the court with a jury, and it shouldn't be admitted because they wouldn't know how to evaluate this type of evidence as compared to other evidence. If you went into juries and said, well, there was deception indicated during the polygraph examination, they would overweigh that evidence, so that's why primarily it can't be used in court.

MacDonald: So if I take this polygraph test and it comes out okay, then I can--ah--you people will feel real nice towards me then? Right?

Investigator: As I said, if it comes out no deception indicated, I'll say I'm sorry I bothered you.

MacDonald: Sounds pretty good to me. What's measured on this? Heart beat, perspiration, blood pressure?

Investigator: Perspiration--all that goes into it. Blood volume.

MacDonald: Blood volume?

Investigator: Blood volume.

MacDonald: Really? Wonder how that works.

Investigator: This is the terminology used.

MacDonald: Do you have to put an arterial needle in?

Investigator: No, it is just the volume of blood and pulse rate as it goes through your--

MacDonald: Arteries.

Investigator: And then what they call galvanic skin resistance. This is basically what causes the machine to resist.

MacDonald: Jesus!

Investigator: Changes caused by the galvanic skin resistance.

MacDonald: So if a person sweats a little bit, he's had it, huh?

Investigator: Oh, no.

MacDonald: You see I've done a little medical research, you know, and I know how these things--ah--come out 92% and for the sake of the paper it is 95%, and when you go into the meeting and present the paper it is 98%, and reality the 92% was never really honest to begin with. I'm not saying this is the case with this. I've just seen a lot of medical research, and most of this stuff that is taken as gospel is not gospel at all.

Investigator: Well, there's been a great deal of thought--

MacDonald: I'm sure there has on this. Does the FBI use this?

Investigator: Yes.

MacDonald: The FBI feels the way you people do about this?

Investigator: It is not just this one operator, you know. When he finishes and gives his determination, this is checked.

MacDonald: Subject to review.

Investigator: Subject to review, right.

MacDonald: You mean I have to go through this procedure many times?

Investigator: No, you don't have to.

MacDonald: Oh, you mean the results of the readings?

Investigator: In other words he sits down and makes a determination of his charts--

MacDonald: What do they do? Have a recording of the questions and answers at the same time they have the tape running along, and that's how they check it later?
How long does it takes?

Investigator: It will take, the actual running of the paper, the chart itself on each test, approximately five minutes, basically, they will try to hold it down to a short time. So, if you are willing to take it I will call and make arrangements.

MacDonald: Why not? When is this going to be done?

Investigator: You realize you don't have to.

MacDonald: Yes, no problem, bring it on; I'm ready.

Investigator: Okay, we will set it up, we have to get our people here.

MacDonald: You mean you don't have them here all ready?

Investigator: No, Captain MacDonald, it has to be arranged. I'll have to call them--within the next day or two.

MacDonald: You mean someone is going to fly down here to do this?

Investigator: Probably tonight.

MacDonald: I thought I'd walk in here today and you'd slap some electrodes on my forehead and it would be done.

MacDonald: Oh. I suppose I'll be reading tomorrow that Captain MacDonald is taking the polygraph test sent out by the U.S. Army Post Information Agency.
You've got some real great people walking around this office.

Investigator: What?

MacDonald: You've got some real great people working over in this office.

Investigator: What? The Information Office?

MacDonald: Yep.

Investigator: We don't have much contact with them.

MacDonald: Everything I've told you guys is in the paper. You have to come in some kind of contact with them. You know what I mean?
Confidential interrogation and all that.

Investigator: This polygraph we are talking about, it will only help you, it can't hurt, because it can't be presented in court, and like we said--

MacDonald: No mention of the polygraph can be made in court?

Investigator: The element to mention that can be made is--

MacDonald: I wasn't aware of this. I had no idea that was true.

Investigator: The element that can be discussed, if it is discussed, is if the direct question is asked--did you--well, not you--but was a polygraph examination conducted. It can be answered yes or no, it was conducted, or no, it wasn't conducted.
In fact, they--don't--the court system now days don't discuss this.

MacDonald: They don't what?

Investigator: They don't discuss it at all.
It is an investigative tool.

Investigator: As he was saying, if it comes back conclusive no deception indicated then we trust it enough to say to ourselves, all right, let's forget this thing, and stop pursuing this line of investigation.

MacDonald: You mean to tell me that--that's never wrong? I find that's hard to believe, just from any instrument.

Investigator: Not never wrong. The machine itself is probably never wrong.
It is as good as any machine can be. It is simple.

MacDonald: No, I understand that, but I mean don't--you mean to tell me there aren't some people that resist and it is wrong--you follow me?
Their blood pressure changes, or their respiration changes, and it doesn't prove me guilty of a crime. I just find that hard to believe.

Investigator: There are people. I've known people who've had the test and said I beat the machine, but these tests are something that isn't important to a man, and they don't just put you on a machine--they don't hook you up to this thing and say (Inaudible)

MacDonald: No. It is an interrogation technique--

Investigator: Right.

MacDonald: Probably is the skill of the guy that's doing it, right?

Investigator: Sure, it's got to be. That's why, if he runs a test here for us, it is immediately sent up to Washington, or it goes to Third Army, where it isn't (Inaudible)--it is reviewed and you know, between these people they come up with a pretty good answer.

MacDonald: I just--ah--I don't lie the--ah--so much emphasis placed on what looks to me pretty superficial things--that's the only thing I'm scared of, to be perfectly honest with you.
I mean it seems to (Inaudible) that you guys have some pretty mild stuff and calling me a family murderer.
What happens if I am one of the some who has a little--ah--a little more seating on these answers? Then what happens? Then you guys gotta put the thumbscrews on me for the rest of my life.

Investigator: That is why I made the comment to you awhile ago; there's been a lot of thought go into this machine.

MacDonald: Uh-huh.

Investigator: There's been a lot of thought go into the techniques of using the machine, and before he gives you the test--I shouldn't explain this to you because I'm not a qualified operator--

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: But I've watched the test many times. He will know how you will react in a give situation.

MacDonald: Uh-huh--I see.

Investigator: There are some questions and control questions and you'll know exactly what he is going to ask you, before the actual test is taken--and if there is any doubt in his mind to his findings here, as he looks at them--

MacDonald: Does he know right away?

Investigator: --he'll try it again.

MacDonald: Does he know right away?

Investigator: They never make a judgment right away, no.

MacDonald: So after I take this thing--there'll be another six weeks of ah--lying around in the BOQ, and then I'll get a call saying every thing's okay

Investigator: It won't take six weeks.

MacDonald: Is this going to be released to the newspapers? Christ, I'll have my mother down here again and my in-laws, and--

Investigator: What do you mean--is this going to be released to the newspapers?
We don't release these things to the newspapers.

MacDonald: Then it's always the Colonel.
Am I waiting for something else?

Investigator: Yes, we are waiting for Mr. Grebner to come back and tell us about this test.

MacDonald: Oh, he's calling?

Investigator: I assume he's calling.

Investigator: Have you been taking any medication in the last few days or few weeks?

MacDonald: A couple Tetracycline, cold tablets, stuff like that.

Investigator: Nothing for your emotions, nerves, tranquilizers?

MacDonald: Sleeping pills.
My mother kept trying to get me on tranquilizers. She gave me a couple, but I'm afraid of them.
Sleeping pills mostly.

Investigator: What kind of sleeping pills?

MacDonald: Seconal.

Investigator: The polygraph examiner will need to know that.

MacDonald: Why is that?

Investigator: Well, because this causes changes in your pulse rate, and if you have--ah--saying you have been taking tranquilizers--

MacDonald: Keeping everything in check.

Investigator: Yeah, then you wouldn't have the same reading as otherwise.
Especially if the operator didn't know it. The operator has to know if you've been taking tranquilizers, barbiturates or other drugs so they can take this into consideration

(Long Pause)

MacDonald: Taking a long time. I think Mr. Grebner needs some tranquilizers the way his hands shakes. Is it e-b? Is that right? Greb?

Investigator: Yes.

MacDonald: I thought it was a-u-b.

Investigator: It might have been at one time. He is an American (Inaudible)
In fact I think he told us at one time that it was change from (Inaudible), which would make it German.
You ever been to Europe?

MacDonald: No.
Now, what effect does questions like, you know--I told them I didn't recognize that wood, and they tell me that wood is definitely from my house?
Now, if they ask me on that lie-detector test--do you recognize that wood--what am I supposed to say? Yes, I do, but I've been told I'm supposed to, or no--
Do you know what I mean?

Investigator: Yeah, I know what you mean.

MacDonald: You see--ah--Jesus, this scares me.
I tell you what--I don't like that.

Investigator: You'll find that you'll have--this operator, whoever he is, he'll tell you--Captain, I don't know anything about this case, accept what I've told.

MacDonald: Yea, but that's what I'm trying to tell you.

Investigator: (Inaudible) ...interview he'll formulate his questions, that he's going to ask you, and probably--probably it won't be more than five or ten at the most. They will be very specific--very specific questions, and he'll tell you what those questions are, before he ask them.
There's no surprise--no surprise.

MacDonald: I thought they went along and talked, asked you about your name and age, and all this and did you kill your wife--you know.
You mean he gives you a list of the questions ahead of time?

Investigator: Oh, verbally.

MacDonald: Verbally.

Investigator: He'll say, I'm to ask you--ah--for an example, again, I'm not a qualified operator.

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: He'll say--ah I'm going to ask you if you are in the United States Army; and I'm going to ask you--ah--if you are wearing a tee sheet. I'm going to ask you if you were actually asleep, or if you were lying on the couch and saw a number of intruders--

MacDonald: Uh-huh.

Investigator: And I'm going to ask you if you are presently sitting down in the chair.

MacDonald: Uh-huh.

Investigator: And then I'm going to ask you another specific question, and they'll be (Inaudible) here. So you'll will know the questions he will ask you, and he will tell you--ah--he'll probably give you a pre-test, if you like, and he'll tell you to write a number on a piece of paper. And you'll write on the piece of paper a number one to ten, and he'll say I'm going to ask you if the number you've written on the piece of paper, which you know---

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: I think, personally, I think it's more to that, than it is this business about weighing the evidence. You know what I mean--that's my feelings.

MacDonald: I miss--I missed your point there.

Investigator: I'll see if I can find out what the holdup is.

Would you like another cup of coffee?

MacDonald: I've had plenty.

Investigator: Anything I can do for you to make you comfortable?

MacDonald: No, thanks, I'd like to have the polygraph test right now.

Investigator: Mr. Brisentine, from our (Inaudible) office at Fort (Inaudible) will be coming in tonight.

MacDonald: Okay.

Investigator: I guess it will up to him when he wants to conduct it. Probably tomorrow and possibly, the next day.
He'll have to review certain things and get some knowledge of what occurred in the house there, and we'll get in touch with you again.
Well I think we have covered all we need at this time. We will notice you when the polygraph has been arranged.

MacDonald: Okay. Is that it?

Investigator: Yep.

MacDonald: Okay.

MacDonald left, and shortly leaving the interview, he called back and said he had decided not to take it. This was the first time that MacDonald was informed he was a suspect in the murders of his family.

 When MacDonald has been asked why he refused to take the polygraph, he states he was advised by legal counsel not to take it.
He was not charged with the crime until May, 1970. He had no attorney at that time, so one is left to wonder why he said he was given legal advice not to take it.



MacDonald claims that Jimmy Friar, who was connected to the MacDonald residence by the Army Switchboard operator accidentally had provided favorable information to the defense that supported his claim of intruders.


The defense was contacted during the trial by Jimmy Friar, formerly stationed at Fort Bragg with information claiming that in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970, he had called the MacDonald house by mistake looking for his doctor, Dr. Richard McDonald. According to Friar it sounded as if a party was going on, a woman had answered the phone who was laughing, and he heard someone in the background tell her something to the effect of hang up the God damn phone and then it sounded as if the phone was dropped with no further communication.

Friar, who suffered from grand mal epilepsy and is prone to seizures, first came to the attention of the defense team prior to the trial when he was interviewed by John Myers, a private investigator employed by defense counsel Wade Smith.

Friar had been in several mental wards at Walter Reed, Womack, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson Mental Ward, Columbia, South Carolina, South Carolina State Hospital 3 or 4 times, the Columbia VA Mental Ward 2 or 3 times, VA Mental Hospital, Augusta, GA, Pittsburgh VA Hospital Mental Ward, to name a few.

Friar admitted to having been arrested 15 or 16 times, six or seven of which has been felony charges. On one of his first arrests in Charleston, South Carolina, believed to be 1967 or so, he was charged with mail fraud and pled insanity, but was convicted.

The defense filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to enter Friar's testimony.
Judge Dupree asked Wade Smith at a bench conference if the defense wanted the writ issued for Friar. Smith responded by telling an anecdote involving a prisoner . . .
The upshot of the story was that the defense wanted more time to decide whether Friar would be needed.

Subsequently, either following a recess, or after testimony had concluded and before the jury retired, Judge Dupree, from the bench, asked Smith again had the defense reached a decision on the Friar issue. Smith standing at the counsel's table gave a "thumbs down" gesture in response to Judge Dupree's inquiry about the writ for Friar.

Therefore, it was the defense's decision not to introduce this as evidence at trial or call Friar as a witness. However, they did give the story to the press and it was printed the next day. Stoeckley was in Raleigh the day the story appeared in the newspaper, so it is highly possible that she could have seen, read or heard about it. It was more than a year later that Helena was to make it a part of one of her so-called confessions to Gunderson.


On the Larry King Live interview on October 24, 2003, MacDonald stated, that the intruders: "were so high on five different drugs, they were on barbiturates, they were on LSD, they were on heroine, they were on opium and they were on -- one more, which escapes me at the moment."

How would MacDonald know the intruders were high and what they were high on?
MacDonald had enough medical supplies to stock a small clinic in the linen closet of his house, yet nothing was taken by these intruders.


The New York Four were first mentioned in this case at the Article 32 hearing.


On July 24, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, Chief Warrant Officer Bennie Hawkins was asked by Captain Clifford Somers: "Did you have an occasion to receive a report from New York reference
the MacDonald case?

Hawkins: Yes, sir, I did.

Segal was unhappy and tried to keep any further information about the group out.

Finally after much back and forth the questioning started again.

Somers: Mr. Hawkins, approximately when did you receive that report?

Hawkins: 9 May, sir.

Somers: And from whom?

Hawkins: From a Detective Sergeant, Suffolk County Police Department.

Somers: Now what did you do as the result of receiving this report?

Hawkins: On 11 May, I proceeded to Suffolk County Police Department in New York.

Somers: What did you do there, if anything?

Hawkins: I learned upon arrival that--

Segal: That's objected to. That's hearsay.

Captain Beale: Mr. Somers, direct the witness to answer the question in terms of what he did.

Somers: I asked him what he did.

Captain Beale: And he said he learned something from somebody.

Somers: Do you understand the direction? Phrase your response to it in terms of your own actions, if you will. When you arrived there, what did you do?

Hawkins: I proceeded to identify a group which had been reported on the initial report on 9 May.

Somers: Can you describe this group?

Hawkins: Yes, sir, it was a group of four. There were three males and one female in the group. The one male, Negro, approximately 5' 9
" in height, 170 pounds in weight, black hair, brown eyes. There were two Caucasian males, one of them approximately 5' 10" in height with dark brown hair, hazel eyes, of about medium build. The other Caucasian male was approximately 5' 6" in height, blond hair and blue eyes. The female approximately 5' 5" to 5' 6" in height, 110 pounds in weight. She had blond hair and blue eyes.

Somers: Did this group have any connection with one another?

Hawkins: Yes, sir, they did. They ran together in a group.

Somers: Did you obtain any information about wearing apparel of these people?

Hawkins: Yes, sir, I did.

Somers: What was that?

Hawkins: They all were dressed with the hippie type clothing. They--the colored male was seen wearing an army field jacket or fatigue shirt.

Somers: Did you learn anything about the apparel of the female?

Hawkins: The female was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots.

Somers: Did this group you are speaking about have any connection or association with Captain MacDonald or his family?

Hawkins: They associated with Captain MacDonald's brother.
It was established that MacDonald's brother, Jay and this group had lived in a house which they had rented on Fire Island during the summer of 1969.
To completely understand, one should read Bennie Hawkins testimony at the Article 32 hearing.
The New York Four were introduced as suspects in this investigation during police checks made by representatives of CID with various police agencies in the home area of the MacDonald family in New York State. In police reports members of the Sulfork County Police, Hauppauge, New York, under that agency's file 70-88438, furnished background information regarding Jeffrey MacDonald and his brother James MacDonald. The various reports in the file make mention that certain associates of James MacDonald fit the physical description of the intruders as identified by Jeffrey MacDonald and these persons were identified as:

Kenneth Barnett, male
Annette Burnett, Nee Cullity, female
Gary Burnett, male
Joseph Lee, male

The report reflects that shortly after the murder, Barnett was observed in the Bayport, NY area in an old Pontiac sedan equipped with North Carolina license plates. At the time Barnett was accompanied by an unknown Caucasian female described as having long blonde hair and wearing a floppy hat; that a third occupant of the vehicle was a male Caucasian who spoke with a southern accent.
John C. Hampson, 59 Maplewood Avenue, Selden, New York, was mentioned as well as the fact that he frequently worn an Army field jacket and fit the description of one of the assailants as related by MacDonald.


On August 13, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked MacDonald: "Reading Article 32, I know they are referring to a group of four people who allegedly frequented that bar. Now tell us about it?"

MacDonald: Okay. The implication that was gotten through a lot of other testimony that was really third-hand and fourth-hand hearsay. It was unbelievable. My brother knew a group that corresponded roughly to this group of intruders that I had seen in my house on 17 February.

Woerheide: You went to this bar?

MacDonald: Yes.

Woerheide: You saw people in the bar?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: Now, tell us about them.

MacDonald: I spoke to a couple of individuals, Caucasian males. At that point, I had absolutely no reference to this other group until a CID agent, Bennie Hawkins, walks into the Article 32 with this wild bizarre story about another group of four people, including a black male and a blonde female. But at the Shortstop Bar I was unaware of this other group.

The files reflect that on December 18, 1970, MacDonald and an apparent legal representative, identified as Judge Rogers (William Rogers, Police Justice, Patchogue, NY) presented themselves in the office of the Chief of Police, Suffolk County. In an interview with the Acting Chief of Detectives, they were advised of the extent of the assistance they gave the CID in the investigation and were allowed to read the police files prepared by that agency which were furnished to the CID. The records detailed how the CID, with the Suffolk Police, had investigated The New York Four. The report verified the activities of the group on February 16-17. Comparisons of latent fingerprints developed at the crime scene were compared to Jay, Kenneth Barnett, Annette Burnett, Gary Burnett, Joseph Lee and John C. Hampson did not reveal matching impressions.

The question here is, why was MacDonald so interested in this group and what was released to the CID? MacDonald has never mentioned the fact of checking out that information.



MacDonald claims that through FOIA documents, it was learned that a bloody, adult palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed on the morning of the murders, near Colette's body and was suppressed by the government. The source of this bloody palm print remains unidentified and that it proves the presence of intruders.


MacDonald's contention that FOIA documents were the basis of the discovery of "a partial bloody palm print" on the footboard of the master bedroom bed, that was also compared to 125 people with no match found, is not true. Crime scene photos provided to the defense in 1970 during the Article 32 investigation, and marked for identification as Accused's exhibit A-17 and A-18, depict a blood stain on the coroner of the footboard opposite Colette's body. This stain, designated D-29, is described in the CID Preliminary Laboratory Report of April 6, 1970. Also provided in discovery in 1970 as being a "red brown" stain from the footboard of the bed in the east bedroom. In the Chemistry Division portion of the report, it reflects that this blood stain is in the International Blood Group type A, Colette's blood type or type O, Kristen's blood type. In the Fingerprint Division portion of the Consolidated CID Lab Report, provided in 1975 reflects that "examination of exhibit W-5, headboard and footboard, revealed the presence of a partial latent palm print on the footboard."

On February 12, 1975, the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division reported the results of its findings with respect to the re-examination of the latent finger and palm prints collected by the Army in 1970, as well as the comparison of known finger and where available, palm prints of 125 listed individuals. With respect to the partial latent palm print on the footboard of the master bed, the FBI report reflects that this print, and others were compared with available inked prints of Jeffrey Robert MacDonald, Colette S. MacDonald, and with the available ink prints of 125 individuals, but no identifications were affected. Conclusive comparisons could not be made in some instances because the inked prints are not fully recorded, including tip, sides, lower areas of finger and palm prints, and some copies of the prints are not completely legible. This report was also made available to the defense in 1975.

MacDonald has attempted to confuse a bloodstain, which if it had any observable ridge lines would be a patent, not a latent print, by conflating the references to the blood stain with those of the partial latent palm print. This information was made available years before the trial in 1979.


MacDonald claims that the polygraph of Helen Stoeckley, conducted by the U.S. Army, convinced the examiner that she was present in his apartment during the murders.


The Army polygraph examiner was Robert Brisentine.

On August 17, 1979, during the trial, Brisentine testified voir dire stating: "Helena Stoeckley--I interviewed her on the 23rd for a period of four hours and 20 minutes, sir; and on the 24th of April--23rd of April for four hours and 20 minutes, and the 24th of April for six hours and six minutes.
She stated on the 23rd, during that particular interview, that due to a mental block--and that is the terms Ms. Stoeckley used--she does not remember her activities or whereabouts between 00--well, that's 12:30 a.m., to 4:00 o'clock a.m. on the 17th of February; that during a period of three to four months subsequent to the homicides in the MacDonald residence, she was convinced that she participated in the murder of Mrs. MacDonald and her two children; that she presently is of the opinion that she personally did not actively participate in these homicides, but may have been physically present at the time of the murders; that prior to the homicide she had heard that the hippie element was angry with Captain MacDonald as he would not treat them by prescribing methadone for their addiction to drugs.
"Ms. Stoeckley later retracted this statement and said that she only thinks she heard of Captain MacDonald before the murders; that she had never been to Captain MacDonald's residence prior to the homicide; that prior to the homicide she had visited Castle Drive, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for the purpose of delivering illicit drugs to an officer she knows only as Bob; that approximately--12:00 o'clock a.m., 16th of February 1970, she and a man named Greg Mitchell consumed LSD and mescaline; that she was using all types of drugs--opiates, heroin, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogenics prior to and immediately following the homicides.
"That during April, 1970, she was admitted to the University of North Carolina hospital for hepatitis and drug addiction; that as a result of excessive drug use during the time of the homicides, she was not always oriented as regards to time, dates, and surroundings; that since the deaths of Mrs. MacDonald and her children, she, Helena Stoeckley, has suffered nightmares whenever she sleeps, and that due to these frightening dreams she is afraid to sleep, causing insomnia.
That her original dreams portrayed the word 'Pig' in blood on the headboard of Mrs. MacDonald's bed.
"Ms. Stoeckley described her dream by printing the word 'Pig' horizontally on the left side of a drawn picture of a bed headboard. She asserted that in her dreams the word 'Pig' is always on the left side of the headboard.
"That during the past three or four months her dream places her on the couch in Captain MacDonald's living room and that Captain MacDonald is pointing at her with one hand while holding an ice pick that is dripping blood with the other hand.
"That during February, 1970, she possessed and occasionally wore a pair of white boots, a floppy hat, white hat, and a blonde wig. That following the homicide, she discarded the boots, wig, and hat. That about the same time as the homicide, she stole some floral wreaths from the florist in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and displayed them in the front of her residence.
"That one of the wreaths had the word 'Mother' written on its ribbon while one or more of the other wreaths had the word 'Sister' written on them. That immediately following the homicide, she wore black clothing and the day of the funeral of Mrs. MacDonald and her children, she--Ms. Stoeckley--meditated and wore black clothing.
"That she desired to attend the MacDonald funerals but did not attend as none of her friends would accompany her. That she went into hiding to evade police arrest subsequent to the homicides and considered fleeing from Fayetteville, North Carolina. That she knew the identity of the persons who killed Mrs. MacDonald and her children. That if the Army would give her immunity from prosecution, she would furnish the identity of those offenders who committed the murders and explain the circumstances surrounding the homicides.

"On the 24th Ms. Stoeckley related she had been incorrect in her statements and had, and I quote: 'talked too much,' and that she only suspected some people of committing the homicides. At this time, Ms. Stoeckley stated that she suspected Don Harris, a Caucasian male, who told her after the homicide that he must leave Fayetteville, North Carolina, as he could not find an alibi for the time of the murders; Bruce Fowler, the owner of a blue Mustang automobile in which she, Ms. Stoeckley, was a passenger or a driver on the night of the homicides; Janet Fowler, wife of Bruce Fowler and who was employed as a go-go dancer in Fayetteville, North Carolina, at the time of the homicides.
"I should digress here, sir. I later learned this lady's name was Janice Fowler--not Janet Fowler.
"Joe Kelley, a Negro soldier who was assigned to a medical holding detachment at Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, at the time of the homicides; and a Negro male she knew only as
'Eddie' who introduced her--Ms. Stoeckley--to heroin.
"At one time during the interview on 24 April, Ms. Stoeckley asserted that she had been lying when she admitted knowing who committed the homicides and stated that Captain MacDonald had killed his family. Further, that her rationale was based on the fact that four hippies could not have entered Captain MacDonald's home without being observed by neighbors or causing dogs to bark.
"Ms. Stoeckley further explained that it had been drizzling rain during the night but that it did not start to rain hard until after the homicides. On inquiry from me, Ms. Stoeckley explained:
'I've already said too much.' Later, during the interview, Ms. Stoeckley again repeated her previous statement about saying she suspected hippie-type individuals of the crime.

"On the 23rd of April, sir, Ms. Stoeckley, in my opinion, was under the influence of narcotics.

"On the 24th of April,  Ms. Stoeckley would retract, and then she would again say, yes; that she was there.
'No, I was not there. I am involved. I am not involved.' Basically, though, generally speaking, on the 23rd she contended that she was involved in these homicides. On the 24th she did change originally, but then later said she did know something about it.
"She certainly changed her statements during the two days; yes, sir."

Stoeckley told Brisentine that the word "Pig" was written on the headboard horizontal when in fact it had been written vertical.

When Judge Dupree asked Brisentine did Helena honestly believed that these things were true?

Brisentine replied, I would have to say, Your Honor, that she honestly believed in her mind that what she was telling me was true.

Six witnesses were called to testify voir dire.
Five of those witnesses were recalled to testify before the jury. Absent from the recall was Brisentine.


MacDonald claims that blood of Greg Mitchell's type O was found on Colette's hand. That Helena Stoeckley confessed to seeing to Mitchell struggling with Colette and furthermore, Mitchell confessed to having been involved in the murders. That this finding was not made available to the defense or jury at the trial.


The Preliminary and Consolidated CID Lab reports show that exhibit D-256, described as "Debris from Colette's hands, including red crust" revealed the presence of human blood, and that further examinations of the same indicated same to be type A, Colette's blood type, or type O, Kristen's blood type. These reports were made available in pre-trial discovery in 1970 and 1975. In 1984 defense private investigator Raymond Shedlick discovered that Greg Mitchell had type O blood. Shedlick rejected the possibility that the blood in D-256, if it was type A blood, originated from Colette; as well as the possibility that if the blood was type O, that it originated from Kristen, and concluded that the blood came from Mitchell. This discovery by Shedlick was filed in support of the first habeas motion. The district court rejected the Motion for a New Trial, and the court of appeals affirmed.


MacDonald claims that post-trial, it was discovered that fresh wax dripping, unmatched to any candles they owned, were found by investigators, but this information was not made available to the defense or the jury at the trial.


At the trial the defense introduced testimony during the cross examination of CID Chemist Dillard Browning on August 6, 1979 that wax was found in three locations: D-123 on the purple bedspread in Kimberley's bedroom; G-131 on the chair in Kimberley's bedroom; and G-210 on the coffee table in the living room, which did not match any of the known candles in MacDonald household.
Browning stated at the trial that wax melted fresh remain soft and pliable for several weeks. The wax found seemed to be brittle and dry, which indicated that it was at least several weeks old.
There is no evidence to support the embellishment that the wax was "fresh." As the opinion of the district court denying habeas relief in the context of a similar claim reflects: At trial MacDonald introduced evidence of unidentified...candle wax found at the crime scene by government investigators. MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that the large amount of unmatched evidence in the apartment supported a conclusion that intruders committed the murders. The jury apparently rejected MacDonald's argument that unexplained household debris undermined the showing made by the government's presentation of physical evidence pointing towards MacDonald's guilt.


MacDonald claims Jimmie Proctor was a prosecutor in his case.
 He claimed on the Jerry Springer live interview that Jimmie Proctor was the first prosecutor in his case; and that he shaped the case.


Proctor had no operational control over the investigators. He certainly never prosecuted MacDonald at any stage of this case when he was a prosecutor.

Proctor's only involvement in the MacDonald investigation was he acted as a liaison between the Army CID and the FBI between the summer of 1970 and December, 1971. Proctor had no responsibility in the MacDonald case prior to being assigned to represent FBI SA Robert Caverly when he testified at the Article 32 hearing.
On July 22, 1970 during the Article 32 hearing, Captain Clifford Somers stated: "At this time, your honor, the government renews its request that Mr. Proctor of the United States Attorney's Office be permitted to be present in this hearing during the testimony of Mr. Caverly as a representative for Mr. Caverly, and as an associate to the government for the witness."

Colonel Rock: This request will be granted. It is noted that I made a ruling previously that he would not be permitted, however, having reviewed the authority and direction by the appointing authority, and in light of the nature of the testimony of the witness, and in the fact that he is being represented by his own personal counsel and is not a member of the general public, this counsel will be permitted to sit with the witness.
Proctor was employed as an Assistant United States Attorney May 28, 1969. He resigned his job in February 1971. He separated from his wife July 23, 1969 following a one year separation and the divorce from Judge Dupree's daughter was final July 27, 1972. Proctor was awarded full custody of their daughter. There was no prosecution of the case until the grand jury investigation that resulted in MacDonald being indicted on three counts of first degree murder in 1975. MacDonald was not tried until 1979, some eight years after Proctor resigned.
Judge Dupree answered the motion for recusal:
" . . . Proctor's involvement in the case was unknown to me and there were no communications between us about the case. In fact since I held hardly any criminal court during the first five years I was on the bench, I had no familiarity with the criminal docket in the Eastern District of North Carolina. During the two months he remained an Assistant United States Attorney after I came on the bench, Proctor did not appear before me in any case."


MacDonald claims that government documents showed that blood was found and collected and matched to him, from the end of the living room and hallway where he fought with assailants and was knocked unconscious. That the blood found in these crucial locations, corroborated his version of what occurred, and was left off the blood charts seen by the jury. He goes on to claim that the jury requested to view that chart during their deliberations.


 The reference to "Government Documents" is an attempt to disguise the fact that the Preliminary and Consolidated CID Lab reports that examinations of exhibit D-144 "Portions of hall floor at west entrance bearing red-brown stains" revealed the presence of human blood, of which "further examinations indicated same to be of the type B, MacDonald's blood type or type O, Kristen's blood type. In pre-trial discovery MacDonald was given another government document, which was a spread sheet which identified every serological test which each of the four chemists performed on every suspected blood stain. At trial each of these four chemists testified to the tests they performed on the stains offered in evidence by the government. As they testified the witness marked down the results on a series of matrixes. Not every possible blood stain, of which there were hundreds, was offered in evidence. If the chart in question did not contain a reference to D-144, it was because the government didn't adduce testimony about that particular stain. The government prepared their evidence, there was nothing to stop the defense from offering such testimony, recording it on their own charts, and arguing its alleged significance to the jury. However, the defense offered no blood chart into evidence. Whose fault is that?


MacDonald claims that through FOIA, it was discovered that the government crime scene investigation found, collected and studied dark black wool fibers, unmatched to any possible source within the his home. These black wool fibers were found on the mouth and body of Colette and the club used in the murder outside the apartment. Helena Stoeckley was known, pre-trial, to frequently wear dark/black clothing. The existence of unmatched black wool fibers was not disclosed by the prosecution to the defense or the jury at trial. In 1989, these fibers were examined again by the government and found to be black wool, not blue cotton from his pajama top, as stated at trial to the jury.


This is one of the claims based upon specious evidence which was rejected in the course of the second habeas petition. MacDonald has persistently sought to convey the false impression that blue cotton fibers, which government experts described at the trial matched the composition of MacDonald's pajama top, were misidentified because the same fibers are actually composed of dark wool. In fact these exhibits contain both blue cotton fibers that matched the pajama top  and dark wool which in 1990, could not be compared to any known sources in the MacDonald household.

The district court's opinion: At trial, MacDonald introduced evidence of unidentified fibers found at the crime scene by government investigators. MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that the large amount of unmatched evidence in the apartment supported a conclusion that intruders had committed the murders. The jury apparently rejected MacDonald's argument that unexplained household debris undermined the showing made by the government's presentation of physical evidence pointing toward MacDonald's guilt.

The district court further noted the fibers are unmatched to any known sources in the MacDonald household in part due to the fact that MacDonald family's possessions are no longer available for forensic comparison. Since most of the family's clothing were returned to MacDonald and disposed of after the Army charges against him were dropped, the actual origin of these fibers may never be conclusively determined. However, even allowing for this uncertainty, the court finds there is no likelihood that the jury would have reached a different verdict had it known about the existence of these few wool fibers.


MacDonald claims that through the FOIA, the defense obtained government documents describing how crime scene personnel found, collected, labeled and studied several blonde synthetic wig fibers 22 inches and 24 inches long which did not match any potential wig sources within the house. It was known, pre-trial, that Helena Stoeckley often wore a long blonde wig, and that was how he described seeing her upon resuscitation. That the discovery of the wig hairs was not disclosed by the prosecution to the defense or the jury.


This claim was raised in 1990 in MacDonald's second habeas petition. The district court rejected the claim holding: (a) evidence which MacDonald asserted the government had suppressed was insufficient to alter the verdict, (b) MacDonald did not establish that the government had suppressed the evidence, and (c) the claims were barred by abuse of the writ doctrine.

MacDonald appealed the district court's ruling and the court of appeals held that (a) MacDonald failed to show case for not raising newly discovered hair and fiber evidence in a prior habeas petition, and (b) dismissal under abuse of the writ doctrine would not result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Writing for a unanimous panel in 1992, Circuit Judge Donald Russell stated:

"...The evidence raised here, when considered with all the trial evidence, simply does not rise to a 'colorable showing of factual innocence' necessary to show a fundamental miscarriage of justice. It neither supports MacDonald's account of the murders nor discredits the government's theory. The most that can be said is that it raises speculation concerning its origins. Furthermore, the origins of the hair and fiber evidence have several likely explanations other than intruders..."

We do not find anything to convince us that the evidence introduced here, considered with that previously amassed, probably would have raised reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.

We are persuaded that this is precisely the type of collateral appeal the Court through McCleskey intended to obstruct and deter. Here over twenty years after the event of the crime, MacDonald reopens his case with specious evidence. While we are keenly aware of MacDonald's insistence on his innocence, at some point we must accept this case as final.
Additional information regarding the wig hairs

 The defense scenario alleged that at some point during the crimes, Helena Stoeckley, wearing a blond wig, had answered the kitchen telephone in the MacDonald residence. If actual unidentified human "wig" fibers, which did not originate from the MacDonald household, were found in these hairbrushes, this would tend to corroborate Stoeckley's presence and would be "exculpatory" to the government's case.

The "blond synthetic hair" and "grey synthetic hair" had been originally discovered in the clear-handled hairbrush early in the CID investigation by an Army CID laboratory examiner. The presence of these blond synthetic fibers was noted in the CID examiner's bench notes; however, they were never mentioned in the final CID laboratory reports. They had never been disclosed to the defense prior to the 1979 trial.

The first step in the re-examination of these "wig" fibers was to determine if they were, in fact, true wig fibers and then to determine their source. The grey "wig" fibers were examined using the standard light microscope, the polarizing light microscope and two of the most discriminating techniques that can be used with synthetic fibers-the microspectrophotometer and the Fourier Transform Infrared analysis. They were identified as modacrylic fibers, the most common type of synthetic fiber used in the manufacture of human hair goods.

Investigation revealed that a blond fall,  owned and worn frequently by Colette MacDonald, was still available for analysis. It found among Colette's possessions from the residence. When the fall was examined, it was found to be composed of a combination of human hair and modacrylic wig fibers. It was also found that the grey modacrylic wig fibers from the hairbrush matched the grey modacrylic wig fibers found in the composition of the fall. Accordingly, these grey wig fibers were consistent with having originated from Colette's fall.

Therefore, while "true" wig fibers were found at the crime scene, the source of these modacrylic wig fibers could be accounted for--they came from Colette MacDonald's fall.

 The source of the "blond synthetic hair" from the clear handled hairbrush posed more of a problem. Again, the same microscopic, optical and instrumental techniques were used, ultimately determining that the "blond synthetic hairs" were composed of saran fibers. Due to problems in manufacturing and the physical properties of saran fibers, they are not suitable for human wigs. They do not look like or "lay" like human hair, therefore, they are not used to make human hair goods.

One of the main uses of saran fibers during the same time of the murders was for doll hair. These "blond synthetic hairs" were very similar to the blond doll hair in the FBI reference collection. In fact the early "Barbie" dolls made by Mattel had hair made of saran fibers.

Since the MacDonald children were known to have owned dolls with blond hair, and since little girls are known to brush the hair of their dolls, it can be inferred that the "blond synthetic hair" found in the hairbrush probably came from a doll belonging to the MacDonald girls or one of their friends. Unfortunately, none of the dolls originally belonging to Kimberley or Kristen are available today for testing purposes.



On the Jerry Springer live interview from Sheridan Correctional Center with MacDonald, Jerry Potter appeared via satellite. Potter said that where Helena Stoeckley was standing, 22" long wigs hairs from her wig was found.

There was no synthetic wigs hairs found where Helena was standing.



MacDonald claims a circular wound was found on Kimberley's body, and was unmatched to any object at the crime scene. This information was never presented in any final lab report, and the jury never heard about other weapons that may have been carried away from the crime scene.


Kimberley had sustained so many overlapping stab wounds in her throat, the cluster of wounds does have a somewhat circular appearance. There is no evidence in the record to base a claim that they were not caused by a sharp single edge knife such as the "Old Hickory" brand. MacDonald has provided no documentary support for these assertions, nor cause for his failure to raise them at trial.


On October 24, 2003, on the Larry King Live show, referring to the intruders, Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell, MacDonald said, "The other two are dead. They died mysteriously in the 80's, both of them within two weeks of having been visited by the FBI."


There is no mystery whatsoever in the deaths of either Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell.

Greg Mitchell died June 3, 1982, at the age of 31 years old at Lynchburg, Virginia's General Hospital of cardiopulmonary arrest due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage and alcoholic liver disease.

Helena Stoeckley died January 9, 1983, at the age of 32 due to acute bronchopneumonia, left lower lobe with a contributory factor of post-hepatitic cirrhosis of the liver.


During the April 6, 1970 interview, MacDonald said: "What--what--no one ever had as good a life as I had. What the hell would I try to wreck it for? Christ, I was a doctor.
Jesus, I had a beautiful wife who loved me and two kids who were great. We were just over all the hard things. It just doesn't--it just doesn't make any sense." (Crying.)
Well, what do we do now?

MacDonald was speaking in past tense; his words were: "I was a doctor" as opposed to "I am a doctor." Was he trying to say he was aware that he wrecked his life and that what he did made no sense to him?



MacDonald contends that Joe McGinniss' blatant lies written in Fatal Vision were exposed in court and that he won a settlement of approximately a third of a million dollars.


When the jury deliberated the case, there was one juror hold-out, so no jury decision was reached. McGinniss' publisher's insurance offered MacDonald $325,000.00 and he accepted it—McGinniss conceded no wrongful doing. MacDonald won nothing from McGinniss in the court trial. The court awarded him nothing. He had the choice to file again and proceed with another trial.

Mildred Kassab sued MacDonald and his mother over the settlement he received from McGinniss.

Out of the $325,000, Jeff was allowed to keep $50,000. After the legal fees in the amount of $92,000, plus an additional $10,000 to $15,000 was deducted, the balance was distributed between Mildred and MacDonald's mother.
MacDonald would have ended up with more money had he not sued McGinniss.


MacDonald reports on his website that Judge Franklin Dupree specifically asked to preside over his case.


On February 12, 1975 Judge Algernon Butler sent a letter to Judge Haynsworth stating in part: "I am informed by counsel that the estimated trial time of this case is six to eight weeks. If the trial is conducted by either of our judges, it will seriously disrupt our regular court schedules and will cause further congestion in our dockets.

"I will be grateful if you know of any judge within or out of our circuit who might be available for this assignment, and will assist in procuring his services. I expect many pre-trial motions, and the trial date is uncertain at this time. Your advice will be appreciated."


MacDonald claimed to have been completely satisfied and happy in his marriage and to have loved his family more than anything in the world.


During the April 6, 1970 interview, MacDonald said: "When I woke up, the first thing I thought of was--you know, I'm ashamed to say--myself."
Dr. Robert Sadoff wrote in his notes on April 21, 1970 that MacDonald: "admits to a feeling of relief that she's gone and that the kids are gone and he's ashamed of that feeling."

On December 11, 1974, during the grand jury investigation Dr James Mack testified that during his examination of MacDonald, he began "to verbalize some awareness of how little he had communicated his feelings to his wife and family. And, furthermore, he began to verbalize some of his feelings that he had had of feeling trapped in marriage and caught up in responsibilities that he had assumed. And he was aware of the ironic quality that something that had happened, the loss of his wife and family, had both made him realize how little he had communicated to them his feelings and at the same time gave him a sense of shame because he was aware in some sense what happened provided him with relief, that he was caught up in something that on his own he was not strong, and assertive, and aggressive enough to find his way out of either by achieving a closer relationship with his wife or getting a divorce."
December 12, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Dr. Bruce Bailey testified. One of the grand jurors asked Dr. Bailey: "Did he ever say to you that he loved Colette?"

Dr. Bailey: No.

Juror: He never said that?

Dr. Bailey That word was never mentioned. That word was not used. I thought that was remarkable, too.

On August 28, 1979, during the trial, Blackburn in his closing argument referring to MacDonald said:
"He stated that the wedding ring of his wife, Colette--the wedding ring of his wife, Colette--he had never seen and been introduced into evidence--what do you think that is, ladies and gentlemen? It was taken from her left ring finger, according to the evidence in this case."


MacDonald claims a piece of skin was found on Colette's fingernail, but was lost by the Army CID. The loss of important evidence was suppressed. When affirmed, CID investigator Paul Connolly said he'd seen a long fingernail scratch on my chest. But the Army emergency physician who treated him reported there "were no fingernail scratches on me."

MacDonald's website states: "There were no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald."

In an 1990 interview on A Current Affair,
MacDonald told reporter David Lee Miller: "I had no scratches anywhere."


CID investigator Paul Connolly stated on the early morning of February 17, 1970, while interviewing MacDonald in his hospital room he observed: "what appeared to be a scratch mark front a point almost at his left shoulder diagonally downward to the center of his chest. The mark appeared to be about five inches in length and had the appearance of a fingernail scratch."

On July 8, 1970 during the Article 32 hearing Specialist Fourth Class Kenneth Mica, MP testified: "Sir, he had what appeared to be, at the time, I thought they were scratches. I'm not absolutely certain--I think it was on his--I'm not certain but I think it was on his right shoulder. He turned around on me a couple of times, but at first they seemed to be maybe an eighth of an inch, quarter of an inch in diameter, as though someone had took little pieces of skin out. I thought they were scratches at the time, where someone had dug their nails into him."
On August 16, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald stated: "There were several, what appeared to me to be small, small puncture wounds, on the left of the chest and some scratches..." He also said, "I had a scratch on my right arm."
On August 16, 1970, during the Article 32, hearing, MacDonald stated:
"...I had some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest..."
On March 20, 1971, Kearns asked MacDonald: "Were these wounds bleeding?"

MacDonald replied: "My left hand was, but not--it was a scratch really. It wasn't--it didn't require sutures."
On August 16, 1974, during the grand jury proceeding, MacDonald said: "I had--there was a scratch somewhere on my right shoulder."
This claim of alleged suppression was raised in the first habeas petition filed in 1984.
The district judge concluded that the government had not deliberately suppressed anything and had acted in complete good faith. More importantly, however, the district judge found that this evidence did not meet the materiality requirements of Brady  v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 1976). The Fourth Circuit Courts agreed.


MacDonald claims he was denied the opportunity of the calling Dr. Sadoff to testify in the 1979 trial.


At the trial in 1979, MacDonald sought to introduce the testimony of Dr. Robert Sadoff, a forensic psychiatrist. Judge Dupree's ruling that irrespective of the admissibility of proffered testimony Rules 404 and 405 FRE, the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and confusion of the issues misleading the jury.

MacDonald unsuccessfully challenged the court's ruling. In rejecting this claim that this decision abused the discretion reposed in the trial court, and we feel, as we must, the invitation to substitute our judgment for it.


MacDonald claims Helena Stoeckley was the woman described by him as being the female intruder in his house upon his resuscitation was never questioned by the military police. That she was a known drug informant who had no alibi and burned her clothing because it might incriminate her.


How would MacDonald know that the woman seen on the street corner was Helena Stoeckley? That person has never been found.
MP Ken Mica was the only person who saw the woman on the street corner as he was responding to call that was thought to be domestic disturbance at the MacDonald residence. Per Mica, if he had not been responding to a call, he would have stopped and questioned the woman as to what she was doing there that time of the morning.
Prince Beasley, a Fayetteville narcotic officer stated he saw Stoeckley and other individuals who allegedly fit the description that was given out concerning the suspects. He stated that she could have been under the influence of drugs when giving him information about the murders. She did not remember anything that happened on the night of the murders except getting into a blue car she thought was a Mustang and she had no knowledge of this night after 12:30 a.m. that she does not know for sure what happened. Beasley said that it was his conviction that she is involved with the MacDonald case or at least she thinks she is or that she is doing this just to get all the attention she possibly can.
On September 9, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, Segal drilled CID investigator Bill Ivory about Stoeckley. Segal asked Ivory:
"To your knowledge that has not been done in this particular case of Miss Stoeckley. Is it fair to say that on the basis of what has been done up to now, it could not be considered that the investigation of Miss Stoeckley's whereabouts on February 17th is complete in any fashion?"

Ivory replied: It is not complete.

It was made clear that Stoeckley was an informant. After Ivory had completed his testimony, he asked: "Sir, may I make a statement in regard to my testimony about Helena Stoeckley? I'd like to restate, most emphatically, that if it is publicized in the newspapers or in any other way that she is, or what I testified her relation with the hippie community and her relation with the police department, she is most assuredly a dead woman, and I just want to make that perfectly clear."

Colonel Rock:: How can you assure this hearing that she is a dead woman?

Ivory: Just knowing the type of people, and the people in particular specifically that she deals with.

Colonel Rock: In view of the nature of this particular testimony, and the unusual source, I would request that both counsel take into account the statement of the witness and excise due caution in the release of any information.

Segal: I want to ask Mr. Ivory one matter. If I might ask your indulgence, Mr. Ivory, with regard to the last statement that he made, sir, in regard to the hearing.

Captain Somers: I think I would object to going into this too much further. What is the nature of this question?

Segal: I want to ask--

Segal: In view of Mr. Ivory's last statement, which seem to indicate he has some knowledge of the persons with whom this young lady is an associate of or deals with, I want to ask whether he has the names of any individual whom he believes are capable of committing, you know, the act that he suggested to be committed against this young lady if her name is revealed as being involved with the police, because if he doesn't pursue it, I'll certainly pursue it as to at least obtaining the photographs to see if these people have a connection. I do not consider that to be a common episode, to say I know people capable of murdering a young lady if we discuss her activities. That's all I am concerned about. He seemed to indicate he had that kind of knowledge about people she was dealing with.

Captain Somers: I interpreted his remark as meaning the nature of those people. I think you will find that if he's asked, that's what he'll say.

Colonel Rock: This is certainly my interpretation. I think perhaps he is alarmed as a result of certain other crimes that have been committed by so-called hippies in the hippie community as reported in the paper and he is perhaps associating this individual with that same type. This is certainly the conclusion that I drew. However, I am not adverse to asking him the specific question if you wish to pursue it.

Segal: If I may, sir.

Colonel Rock: Do you have any objection to him asking this one question?

Captain Somers: What is the question?

Colonel Rock: The one that he was just raising about does he know the names of anybody in connection with this testimony regarding the MacDonald case.

Captain Somers: I think he's already testified that he doesn't know any names in connection with this girl.

Colonel Rock: Well, I think so too. So therefore, there's not going to be anything lost by asking him. Ask him to step back in and let's ask him this one question.

(Mr. Ivory returned to the hearing room.)

Colonel Rock: Mr. Ivory, if you would please be seated. I remind you again that you are under oath. In view of the statement that you made, a rather serious one, a rather serious charge implied of a potential action, counsel for the accused has one logical question to ask you now.

Segal: Mr. Ivory, do you know specifically individuals which whom Helena Stoeckley is associated with or has dealt with who are persons you believe might try and kill her if her involvement with the police were known?

Ivory: Yes.

Segal: You do?

Ivory: Yes.

Segal: Is that a number of persons that you know of in your professional judgment who are capable of such an act?

Ivory: Yes, sir.

Captain Somers: Now I object unless there's--this goes back into an area of the relationship, in the informal relationship, as being irrelevant to this particular proceeding. Sir, I know that Mr. Ivory cannot give this information. I know that he's going to have to refuse to give this information.

Colonel Rock: These names, Mr. Ivory, that you are aware of, is this in connection with threats for release of information on the MacDonald case, or is this with reference to threats for release of information having to do with drug traffic.

Ivory: The latter, sir.

MacDonald grabbed hold of this information and has been yakking about it ever since

On August 17, 1979 Stoeckley testified at the trial. She admitted at the time of the murders, she had a floppy hat, a blond wig that she wore infrequently that she kept it in the closet of her apartment and boots. Shortly after the murders she burned her wig and threw her boots away after the MacDonald murders because people kept coming up and asking her about the murders and the police harassment of her.

On February 16, 1970, at twelve o'clock midnight she remembered that she was in the driveway of her home in Fayetteville and did not have the wig on. She had six or seven injections of heroin and liquid opium, had smoked grass all day and had swallowed a hit of mescaline just before midnight.

Stoeckley stated that the first time she had ever seen MacDonald was in the courtroom. To her own personal knowledge, she had never been inside the MacDonald apartment. To her own knowledge she did not participate in the killings of the MacDonald family, and that she has "feeling of love towards children."

She did not know who tried to kill MacDonald and did not recall ever being in the MacDonald apartment carrying a candle. In fact, she never had an occasion she could specifically recall of having ever been on Castle Drive until after the murders about a year later. The reason that she went by the MacDonald apartment was to see if she could see anything familiar that would jolt something in her memory and that nothing looked familiar and nothing was jolted in her memory. What she knew of the MacDonald killings was the result of what she had been told by others. She did admit that she had some concern about her relationship to the murders, because she did not have an alibi. She did not know where she was from twelve midnight on February 16, 1970, until 5:00 a.m. on the morning of February 17, 1970.


On January 22, 1975, in the home of Dr. Sadoff, while taking his sworn statement for the grand jury investigation, Woerheide asked Dr. Sadoff: "And he describes his pajama top as having been ripped over his head and then he—things got funny and he began to laugh and fell off the couch. Is this something you had to sort of bring out of him, Dr Sadoff? The fact that he laughed and fell off the couch, or is this something he volunteered to you?"

Dr. Sadoff: Well, it's hard to remember, but I asked him to describe, as I usually ask people I'm interviewing, to tell me about it in as much detail as they can. But if I have a specific question--I would not have thought to ask, if he laughed. So, I assume this came spontaneously.

What in the world was funny about being attacked by three male intruders with weapons and hearing your wife, who is pregnant, and one of your daughters crying out for help?



During the Article 32 hearing William (Bill) Posey, Helena Stoeckley's next-door neighbor, contacted MacDonald's attorney, Bernard Segal informing him that Stoeckley often wore a white hat, boots and a blond wig.


According to Posey, sometime around 4:00 a.m. on February 17, 1970, he got up to use the bathroom and heard a car whip into the driveway next door and lots of laughter. The car was a blue Mustang and Stoeckley emerged from it and walked into the apartment.

Continuing on Posey said a few days later he was told by Stoeckley that she had been questioned by the police about the murders. He told Helena he could be an alibi witness for her, because he saw her when she drove into the driveway. Upon telling Stoeckley that he could be an alibi witness for her, she backed away from him. That about the time of the funeral, Stoeckley dressed herself in black and set funerals wreaths near her door and sat there all day. Segal called Posey as witness.
Based on a polygraph examination by Robert Brisentine, CID, conducted on June 13, 1971, it was concluded that Posey was not truthful when he denied giving false information in his testimony at the article 32 hearing and when he made statements to CID investigators.
On August 17, 1979, Posey testified at the trial on voir dire and in the presence of the jury on August 20. Segal asked Posey, "And what length was that wig?"

Posey: It come to about right here (indicating).

Segal: About shoulder length?

Posey: Yes, sir.
Posey testified at the Article 32 hearing that Helena Stoeckley was not wearing the floppy hat when he saw her coming home in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970
Posey Testified at the 1979 trial that Helena Stoeckley was not wearing the floppy hat when he saw her coming home in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970

On July 12, 1989,  BBC documentary, False Witness,aired on television. Posey had changed his story. Now he was claiming that he heard Helena ask the prosecutors for immunity and that they refused her. Seems he also had another revelation. In the beginning he had never stated that there was anyone with him who could back up his story, now he was saying that his brother, Jim had been with him and awake the early morning of February 17, 1970, and witnessed Helena coming home. Jim Posey stated:
"Due to the lighting situation I was only able to observe Helena with her hat on, that she was with her boyfriend Greg Mitchell and the other guys in car had on their field garb." This was in direct contradiction as to what Bill Posey had alleged previously.


MacDonald claims based on detailed post-trial confessions of Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell and in addition of more than 22 witness that at the time of the murders Helena associated with Cathy Perry. That Perry's statement constituted a confession to participation in the murder and corroborated Stoeckley's post-trial statements. He also claims that Cathy Perry never recanted her confession.


MacDonald was shown Cathy Perry's photograph in 1971. He did not recognize her.
MacDonald never said there were two females intruders.
Cathy Perry, an alleged former associate of Stoeckley's and a schizophrenic, confessed that she was one of the intruders that attacked MacDonald and murdered his family. Her details of what occurred varied widely from the known physical facts, MacDonald's version of what occurred as well as from Stoeckley's numerous confessions. Perry's statement would have had two females among the four intruders, that she had to go up stairs to get to the bedroom. And the children were boys. Add to fact that Perry claimed she was kidnapped, taken there, forced to participate in the murders of MacDonald's family and that MacDonald was injected with a drug to subdue him.
Perry's fingerprints did not match any prints found in the MacDonald residence.
Perry did recant her statement.


MacDonald claimed that in early 1971, by way of Mrs. Garcia, the CID came into possession of bloody clothes and beige boots belonging either to Helena Stoeckley or to Cathy Perry Williams. MacDonald alleged that the government never disclosed any information regarding the bloody clothes and boots to the defense team.


The "bloody clothes and boots" fell into the hands of the CID by way of Jackie Don Wolverton, a soldier stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who claims he awoke on the morning of December 29, 1970 to find that he was being stabbed by his roommate, Cathy Perry (now Cathy Perry Williams). Wolverton threw Perry out of the apartment and gathered some of her belongings which he took to Mrs. Betty J. Garcia, another friend of Perry. Mrs. Garcia accepted the items and Cathy Perry moved in with her for a few days sometime shortly after the stabbing. After living with her a short time Mrs. Garcia concluded that Perry was suffering from severe mental problems created by drug addiction because she suffered from hallucinations and wore the same clothes every day for as long as she stayed with Mrs. Garcia. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that Perry had previously stabbed her own puppy to death while under the influence of drugs and had attempted to stab Mrs. Garcia's son shortly after the stabbing incident involving Wolverton.

FBI SA Lacy Walthall attempted to interview Mrs. Garcia on January 5, 1971, but she refused to open her door and told him that she had given all of Cathy Perry's possessions to her lawyer, Charles Kirkman. Kirkman in turn turned over the items to an associate, James R. Nance, who had represented MacDonald in a civil action before Chief Judge Algernon L. Butler following the dismissal of charges against him by the military. Nance went to the office of Captain James Douthat, MacDonald's appointed military counsel at the Article 32 hearing, the afternoon of January 6, 1971 and released Perry's belongings to CID investigators Bill Ivory and Peter Kearns. In return CID investigator Ivory prepared a Military Police Receipt for property listing the articles received from Nance, and signed by Ivory, Nance and Douthat. Included among the items turned over to the CID for evidence evaluation was a "Pair of Woman's boots, beige, w/tag THE GREAT BOOTS by GOLD SEAL." There were no clothes listed on the receipt nor was there any indication that the boots or any of the items were bloodstained.

Routine laboratory analysis failed to provide any link between the boots and the MacDonald case and no blood or debris was found from which a comparison could be made to evidence gathered from the crime scene. The boots did not match the description that MacDonald had given to CID investigators on April 6, 1970 because he said that he "never saw white, muddy boots . . . they were brown . . . ."  Failing to find any connection between the boots and the murders, the CID on February 2, 1971 returned the boots and other articles to Mrs. Garcia who signed the same receipt indicating that she had received the items. Copies of this receipt apparently languished in the files of both Douthat and the government, since the record does not show any further mention of the receipt or the "bloody clothes and boots."

There is no evidence to support that any items other than those listed on the military property receipt were given to CID investigators Ivory and Kearns. The receipt is unquestionably authentic and was signed by representatives of both sides of the case, further evidencing its accuracy. Although the declarations of Douthat and James R. Nance both refer to clothes and boots, the property receipt does not list any clothes as having been received by the CID and both investigators Ivory and Kearns state that all items offered by Nance were taken for analysis but that no clothes were provided. There is no evidence in the record to support the argument that property other than that listed on the military property receipt was given to the CID investigators, but not listed on the receipt. The court therefore found that while a pair of beige boots was given to the CID by Nance, he did not deliver any articles of clothing to the agents.

Nance recalls a brownish stain on one of the boots and Mrs. Garcia thinks that there "may have been some kind of a stain on the boots," but she is not sure. This less than concrete evidence that the boots were bloodstained is contradicted by the affidavits of CID investigators Kearns and Ivory and Kearns' sworn statement of April 5, 1972 concerning the boots. Thus, while the recollections of two individuals suggest that the boots may have been bloodstained, the physical evidence in the form of the military property receipt, a sworn statement by one of the receiving investigators made just over a year following the incident, and the present recollections of both of the receiving CID investigators are to the contrary.  Furthermore, since the boots bore no stains, mud, or other debris connecting them to the MacDonald murders and they did not meet the description of the boots MacDonald said the female assailant was wearing on the night of the murders, the CID did not act improperly in returning the boots to Mrs. Garcia.

The court found that either MacDonald or his lawyers should have known about the existence of the boots and their receipt by the CID because both Douthat and Nance had represented MacDonald at some point in the case and Douthat had until recently had a copy of the military property receipt in his files. MacDonald argues that knowledge on the part of Douthat and Nance should not be imputed to him because Douthat's involvement in the case ended in December of 1970 and Nance's involvement was limited and ended prior to the close of the Article 32 hearing in late 1970. In any event, so the argument goes, neither Nance nor Douthat were under any duty to pass the information to the defense and both deny having done so. The court has difficulty believing that these two lawyers, particularly Douthat, were so removed from the defense team in January of 1971 that they would have failed to bring the boots to the attention of MacDonald's lawyers, especially when it was well known that MacDonald had claimed a woman wearing boots had participated in the crimes. Even assuming they did not do so because they were unaware of the possible evidentiary value of the boots, this only underscores the fact that the prosecution was acting in good faith when it returned the boots to Mrs. Garcia simply because there was no reason to suspect that they were involved in the murders. The court is unwilling to go so far as to find that Nance and Douthat told MacDonald's lawyers about the boots in the face of the affidavits by these two members of the bar, but it does find that their apparent lack of concern in 1971 over the boots corroborates the conclusion that the CID did not suppress this evidence.

The argument that the beige boots could have been exculpatory cuts both ways for MacDonald. There is the possibility, though remote, that the CID could have made a mistake in its laboratory analysis of the boots or that the boots could have been used to MacDonald's benefit at trial either by implication connecting Stoeckley or Perry to the crimes or by impeaching CID witnesses. It seems likely, however, that the government would have been able to deflect these arguments and use the boots as evidence against MacDonald. Assuming it could be shown that the boots belonged to Helena Stoeckley, the fact that they did not meet MacDonald's description and laboratory analysis failed in any way to connect them to the crimes would add weight to the government's position that Stoeckley did not participate in the murders and that MacDonald had actually murdered his family. The exculpatory value of this evidence is thus equivocal at best and MacDonald has made an insufficient showing from which the court could find that the beige boots which were turned over to CID investigators on January 6, 1971 would be favorable to him had he known of their existence.

A pair of beige boots was undoubtedly received by the CID on January 6, 1971. It is clear that the CID did not take custody of any clothing and the boots were unstained by blood or any other substance connecting them to the MacDonald murders. Accordingly, the court finds that there was never any reason for CID investigators to suspect that the boots were relevant to the case and they properly returned them to Mrs. Garcia after testing. Although MacDonald in his filings is unsure who owned the boots, Stoeckley or Cathy Perry, it makes no difference for the court has been unable to find that the government suppressed the evidence.



MacDonald claims that Helena Stoeckley's post-trial confessions to Retired FBI SA Ted Gunderson substantiated that she was present in his home the night of the murders of his family and the attack on his person.


Following MacDonald's conviction on three counts of murder and while his case was on appeal, the defense hired Gunderson in the capacity as private investigator to conduct further investigation and, in particular, to further interview Stoeckley. Gunderson then enlisted the help of retired narcotic officer, Prince Beasley to assist him.

On October 21, 1980, Stoeckley provided Beasley with what was to be the first of a series of "confessions" to having been present during the MacDonald murders.

 Beasley flew Stoeckley to California where, upon being confronted by Gunderson, she initially stated that she could not recall what happened on the night of the murders. The following day, however, Stoeckley experienced a miraculous recovery of her memory and gave a detailed confession to the MacDonald murders.

She again confessed to Gunderson and Beasley on December 4-5, 1980, and gave incriminating statements to the author of a book during February 1981. However, in July 1981, she wrote a letter to Gunderson accusing him of coercing her into signing a false confession and misconstruing and distorting the statements she made to him.

 In September 1981, FBI agents interviewed Stoeckley. She provided them a statement disclaiming her preceding confessions to Gunderson, stated that her admissions to them were the result of dreams, and concluded: "I do not know if I was present or participated in the MacDonald murders."
Upset with this turn of events, Gunderson and Beasley re-interviewed Stoeckley during May 1982. On that occasion, she restated her confession, and asserted that: (1) she had been in the MacDonald home on several different occasions; (2) that she had stolen a bracelet from the residence two weeks prior to the murders; and (3) several weeks prior to the murders, one of the cult members visited MacDonald at his home in an effort to convince him to cooperate in treating drug addicts.

None of these alleged occurrences meshed with any information that MacDonald had furnished investigators.
On May 27, 1982, Stoeckley accompanied Gunderson and Beasley to a taping of the television show, 60 Minutes. Once again, she confessed to being in the MacDonald home on the night of the murders but refused to name the persons actually responsible for killing the members of the MacDonald family.
The defense used this as their predicate for a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence that Stoeckley's alleged perjury in testifying that she lacked any recollection of her whereabouts on the night of the murders.

 However, in addressing the motion, the trial judge observed that following the trial Stoeckley has since alternated between lack of memory and almost total recall, on at least ten occasions . . . . The motion was therefore denied.


Helen Stoeckley said Bruce Fowler, Greg Mitchell, Don Harris, Dwight Smith also known as 'Zig Zag' and 'Smitty', Allen Mazerolle and I were all at the scene of the MacDonald murders at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on February 17, 1970.


Kathy Smith a former acquaintance described Stoeckley as a drug user. She also said that Stoeckley could not have been with Bruce Fowler because he was with her. Fowler submitted to polygraph and passed it.
Greg Mitchell said he was at his parent's house and was not involved in the murders. He took a polygraph and passed it.

Records show Allen Mazerole was incarcerated in the Fayetteville jail during the month of February, 1970.

Don Harris stated it is entirely possible that he could have been at the pizza parlor that particular evening and may have accompanied Dianne Marie Cazares (nee Hedden) to her apartment at 1108 Clark Street, Fayetteville. He denied being with Stoeckley.
Interesting enough, Harris appeared in the False Witness documentary. He was describing the times back in 1970. No one asked him if he was involved in the murders.

Dwight Smith stated he did not participate in the MacDonald murders, had no knowledge of anyone who did, never met Dr. MacDonald or his family members and could provide absolutely no information regarding the MacDonald case. He noted he is willing to submit to a polygraph examination at any time and will testify in a court of law to the above interview.
No evidence was found at the crime scene that would support that any of the above people were involved in the murders.


MacDonald's website states: "Murtagh failed to report, or turn over to the defense, any record of Helena Stoeckley confessing to him in a secret pre-trial meeting. In a bench conference during the ninth day of trial, Murtagh told Judge Dupree that he himself had once interviewed Stoeckley, and that she had tried to confess to him."


On July 31, 1979, the eleventh day of the trial, during a bench conference, Brian Murtagh stated: "I would represent to the court that I have spoken to Helena Stoeckley in years past and --- you know --- you say, 'Well, why do you think you were there?' And she says, 'Because I think I was there.' You know, you go round in circles on that one."

We have no physical evidence whatsoever to tie her to the crime scene. The Defendant, during the Article 32 investigation, was shown a photograph of Stoeckley taken around 1970 --- I believe it was Government Exhibit 105 --- in which he did not recognize her as the female intruder.


MacDonald claims that Greg Mitchell confessed that he killed Colette and the children.


On May 27, 1971, Mitchell agreed to and was given a polygraph examination by Robert Brisentine. The results concluded that Mitchell was truthful when he denied involvement in the murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald. It was further concluded that Mitchell was truthful when he denied knowing the identity of the perpetrator(s) of the murders.
Helena Stoeckley implicated Mitchell in her post-trial confessions by alleging he was with her in the MacDonald apartment, and was responsible, at least in part, for killing Colette. Mitchell, when depressed, did make statements to friends that "something was bothering him that was too horrible to talk about." That "something happened while he was in the service and if anyone found out about it he would have to leave the country."
These claims as well as many others have been submitted in various motions to the court, heard and rejected including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DNA test results released March 10, 2006 showed no match to Greg Mitchell's DNA.



MacDonald claimed that Freedom Of Information Act revealed that comparisons were possible on the unsourced hair found in Colette's hand, and that the government had compared the hair to others, including his own, but could not match it and that this information was not provided to the jury.


In July 1970, during the Article 32 hearing and obtaining hair samples from MacDonald, the CID lab was asked to compare the hair from Colette's L hand designated E-5 and the hair from her R hand designated E-4 with MacDonald's known exemplars. CID chemist, Dillard Browning who had been handling the hair examinations was unavailable, so Janice Glisson, the principal serologist, whom Browning was training to conduct hair examinations, did the comparison. Glisson was comparing a limb hair to head, pubic or other limb hairs, no match was made, nor could have been. Far from concealing this fruitless comparison, the results were reported in Glisson's signed report "R-11", which was also made available to the defense in 1970.
When E-5 was examined by the FBI in 1974, it was determined to be the distal portion of a limb hair of Caucasian origin which did not exhibit enough individual characteristics to be of value for comparison purposes. Only head and pubic hairs are suitable for microscopic comparison purposes.

At the 1979 trial, Paul Stombaugh testified to his examination of E-5 and its lack of suitability for comparison purposes. Glisson was called by the government to testify about examination of bloodstains, but was not qualified as a hair expert. Had the defense wanted to reveal to the jury Glisson's futile attempt to compare the limb hair, they could have called her as their own witness. Defense attorney Segal said he intended to call Glisson as his witness, but he never did.
DNA test results released March 10, 2006 showed that the previously unidentified hair found in Colette's hand came from MacDonald.



MacDonald gave a statement that was reported in Raleigh Observer on August 18, 1979, MacDonald told reporters outside the courtroom that he "recognized Miss Stoeckley - 'The voice as much as the face' - as one of the intruders who bludgeoned and stabbed his family and attacked him on that night."

MacDonald stated during the Article 32 hearing: "I saw her probably the least. It was the briefest glimpse and this is why I say I only have, really an impression."

Later he would say he could: "recognize the black male and the white female, but could not identify either of the two white males."


 MacDonald's website states: "Although the Army's hearing officer cleared MacDonald, he was later brought to trial in the civilian courts."


Colonel Warren Rock did not have the authority to find MacDonald guilty or innocent. He could only recommend if the evidence was sufficient for a general court-martial. When Colonel Rock said the charges were not true, he over stepped his boundaries. His report should have said the evidence presented does not warrant a court-martial
Colonel Warren V. Rock was not an attorney. Now all Article 32 hearing officers must be an attorney.

While Colonel Warren Rock did have Captain Beale as his legal advisor, his knowledge of understanding the evidence was not that of an attorney.
Captain Beale was a friend of MacDonald's, and visited him in the BOQ during the Article 32 hearing, bringing his significant other for MacDonald to examine.

Colonel Rock was a thirty-year Army man, head of the 4th Psychological Operations Battalion at the John F. Kennedy Institute of Military Assistance. He
was an interesting man, yet he refused to talk about his recommendations or the reasons he came to his conclusion, other than he was impressed with the psychiatric reports and testimony. It is apparent that he put a lot trust in Dr. Sadoff, who clearly stated "In my opinion I don't believe that this man committed these crimes."

Colonel Rock did say in 1971, as the hearing officer at the time, that he thought attorneys for both side were perhaps a bit childish in some of their tactics. However, in the remainder of the his statement, it was evident that he was not impressed with the investigation done by the CID and in many areas sided with the story MacDonald told. From that time on he remained closed mouth. If there was other reasons, they remained with him until his death. As to Colonel Rock, he was not objective in many of his rulings. It is hard to understand how a 30-year army man would/could criticize the army investigation the way he did.

On October 23, 1970, Major General Edward Flanagan, Jr. prepared his report to the Commanding General at Fort Bragg stating: "I have considered the attached charges against Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald... In my opinion, there is insufficient evidence available to justify reference of the charges for trial by court-martial. Consequently, I have dismissed the charges...."


MacDonald's website states: "In 1975, immediately following Jeff MacDonald's indictment by a grand jury, attorney Bernard Segal set about trying to gain all the information he could about the Justice Department's 'evidence' against the man who had been exonerated and honorably discharged by another branch of our government, the U.S. Army."


MacDonald was never tried for the murders of his pregnant wife and two small daughters until 1979. There was no court-martial, there was only an Article 32 hearing which is the military's version of a grand jury. The charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

He applied for a hardship discharge from the army due to loss of his family. Since there were no pending charges against him, he received an honorable discharge on December 7, 1970.
Joe McGinniss received a letter from the person who granted MacDonald
's discharge stating: "I have always believed he was guilty."


MacDonald did not voluntarily surrender
 his medical license to practice medicine.


On April 12, 1983, the following was filed: Cause exists for discipline of respondent's certificate for unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Section 2236 and former Section 2383 of the Business and Professions Code by reason of the facts set forth in Finding III, IV and V.

III Complaint has caused to be timely filed and served all pleadings, notices and other papers as required by law. Jurisdiction for these proceedings exits.

IV On August 29, 1979, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Fayetteville Division, respondent was found guilty of one count of first degree, and two counts of second degree murder on a government reservation in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code Section 1111. Respondent was sentenced to three consecutive life terms of imprisonment. On January 10, 1983, the United States Supreme Court denied certiori, and the matter is final.

V The crimes of which respondent was convicted involves moral turpitude.

Wherefore, the following order is hereby made: Physicians and Surgeons Certificate No. G-19922 heretofore issued by the Board to respondent Jeffrey Robert MacDonald, MD, is hereby revoked.

Effective July 28, 1983


MacDonald claims that despite the fact that the hair found in Colette's left hand was brown, and he was blond at the time, the government still tried to source to the hair to him, but failed.

MacDonald was described as having brown hair in the Criminal Investigation Division report: "MacDonald: 12 Oct 43; Jamaica, NY; M; Cauc; 71 in; 175 lbs; brown hair; green eyes; medium build; discharged from US Army 4 Dec 70..."


Jeffrey MacDonald's website claims he was ready and willing to take a sodium amytal test. That he wanted Dr. Sadoff present in case of a medical problem during the test, and to ensure it was administered correctly so he would not have to undergo it again. That a hospital room was reserved for February 1, 1975, for the sodium amytal test.

However, on January 23, Victor Woerheide (who presided over the Grand Jury hearing) made arrangements for Jeff MacDonald's arrest, even though he had not yet been indicted. The next day the grand jury was told by Woerheide that Dr. Sadoff had made it clear that the sodium amytal examination would not benefit them in gaining knowledge about Jeff MacDonald's guilt or innocence.  Sadoff had expressed no such opinion, yet Woerheide called for an immediate vote for indictment. With the assurance from Woerheide that the sodium amytal test was deemed of no use to them in making their decision, the grand jury issued their indictment to try Jeff MacDonald for murder on January 24, 1975. This deception was part of defense attorney Bernard Segal's appeal to fight the indictment (which he won in 1976, then lost in 1978 when the government appealed to the Supreme Court.)  Since that time, the sodium amytal issue has become another myth of this case- the myth that Jeff MacDonald refused to take the test. This is simply not true- unfortunately, Victor Woerheide  prevented him from taking the test, and lied to the grand jury about its value.


On August 13, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Victor Woerheide asked MacDonald: "And another thing while we are discussing these examinations, would you consent--now I am just throwing this out, raise the question with your attorney--I understand at the time that Dr. Sadoff examined you, there was some consider--and the doctors at Walter Reed examined you, there was some consideration given to asking you to take a sodium amytal, truth serum, and submit to an examination under the influence of this truth serum. So I am going to ask you to consider and discuss with your attorney cooperating with the grand jury to the extent--in aiding the grand jury to the extent of taking both the polygraph and the sodium amytal examination."

MacDonald: Okay. Can I discuss with them at lunchtime the polygraph and the sodium amytal?

On August 15, 1974, Woerheide asked MacDonald:
"You remember I requested that you consider taking a polygraph examination, and I suggested that you consult with your counsel with respect to this."

MacDonald replied: To sum it up, sir, in my terms, they have advised me not to undergo a sodium amytal interview or the polygraph procedure.

On January 21, 1974, Woerheide said:
"Dr. MacDonald, you were to consult with your attorney, Mr. Segal, and as to certain matters asked you by members of the grand jury. Do you have a response you wish to make at this time?"

MacDonald replied: Right. I discussed this suggestion from the grand jury that I submit to a sodium amytal interview. I discussed it with my attorneys and upon their advice I want to say this.

In the past I have been advised that considering the horrible events that happened on February 17, 1970, it would be extremely dangerous for me to be examined under sodium amytal. I have been warned it could lead to a psychotic episode which in ordinary terms means a nervous breakdown. For that reason, I have been unwilling to consider such a procedure.

However, I very much appreciate the feelings of the grand jury in this matter. Despite my genuine fears about the dangers that this presents, I state now that I am willing to submit to a sodium amytal interview if the following problems can be satisfactorily dealt with.

1. I want to receive the current advice of Dr. Robert L. Sadoff who has been with me since February, 1970, and in whom I have great trust as to whether submitting to such an examination would have a great potential of permanent mental harm to me.
Let me say that my confidence in Dr. Sadoff is not just because he's known me and worked with me in the past. He is a psychiatrist of outstanding reputation in the United States and he has been used by the federal government and by federal courts in criminal cases. He is also past president of The American Forensic Psychiatric Association. That was number one. Wanting to receive the current advice.

2. The arrangements for whom should administer the examination, under what circumstances should be a matter agreed to jointly by Dr. Sadoff and responsible government doctors. My reluctance to submit to this type of examination is not because I have any fear that my answers will do anything other than what I have told you here, the truth.
But my fear has been for serious and permanent mental harm. It would do me no good to submit to such an examination, be freed of the charges against me by the grand jury, and then have to live my life with permanent mental illness. Crippling me and making me a burden on my friends and family.

I have tried in part to overcome the loss of my family by working as a physician which is what I do for a living.

As a person with a permanent mental illness, I would be deprived of even that opportunity for a normal future.

Woerheide: All right, well, I take it you will contact Dr. Sadoff and then be further in touch with us?

MacDonald: Right.

Woerheide: Well, we'll expect to hear from you.
Now, any other questions?

(No response)

In the interview of Dr. Sadoff at his home in Philadelphia in the early afternoon of January 22, 1974, Woerheide asked:
"Dr. Sadoff, from the record here it indicates that you interviewed Jeffrey MacDonald on April 21, 1970. Did you interview him further on subsequent dates?"

Dr. Sadoff: No, I have two other times, but I have here noted here, one was a day and a half testimony; the other was a consultation with his attorneys. There is only one time when I actually examined him. That was April 21, 1970.

Woerheide: And that was for about three hours, I take it?

Dr. Sadoff: That's right.

Woerheide: And then you had him treated by Dr. Mack and you received his report and you probably had some discussion with him and that is the basis for the conclusion that you arrived at?

Dr. Sadoff: That's right.

Woerheide: And as to which you testified. Now, we were told by Dr. Bailey, Bruce Bailey, that when Jeff went over the story with him there seemed to be a few gaps. For example, he will--part of the story that--that he went from room to room, he visited--one of the last places he went was to the kitchen and then the next thing he knows he was in the bedroom and he doesn't know how he got there and this, that and the other thing. And Dr. Bailey informed us that--that possibly through the use of sodium amytal these gaps could be filled in. And he discussed this with you and you disapproved, saying that in your opinion it was a dangerous procedure--that it was possibly a dangerous procedure?

Dr. Sadoff: Yes, at that time there were two reasons why I said I didn't think it could be a useful tool.

First of all, it was so close to the time that he suffered the trauma, assuming that what he suffered was true. And that to have him re-experience--is what I do when I give a person sodium amytal is to have them re-experience the event and re-go through it again as though he were back there and living it out one more time might make [it] be excessively traumatic and could made him seriously ill if he were on the borderline.

Woerheide: When you say seriously ill, you mean mentally ill?

Dr. Sadoff: He could become psychotic; he could become seriously psychoneurotic. I was very concerned about him becoming psychotic if indeed he relived the experience and he remembered and it was too much for him and the trauma was too much and it was too close.

The other reason was he didn't seem to have memory lapses or amnesia and I use sodium amytal primarily for lapse of memory. Now that we see that there are gaps, the only way I could even attempt to explain the discrepancy here that if there was such--if you take what he told me as true, it was so traumatic for him that this is the way he remembers, even though it was wrong or distorted. And it could be that way if he were so upset by all the occurrences. At this point it may be [a] more feasible suggestion to try sodium amytal because he is now five years away from the event and he is also--there seems to be more gaps than I had been aware of at first. Sodium amytal is not a truth serum. It is not like a lie detector test. It does not detect the truth or lies.

Stroud: Let me ask a couple of questions, if I may, along the line with sodium amytal, Doctor. If--a hypothetical situation--you have a complete clarification, a person has committed a crime and it is he--he or she has fabricated a story.

Dr. Sadoff: Right.

Stroud: About how the crime was committed other than he or herself. Okay, now here it undergoes sodium--he or she undergoes sodium. Is that--can that fabrication hold up under the influence of sodium amytal?

Dr. Sadoff: Absolutely.

Stroud: And the sodium amytal is not going to cause them to break down in such a way that the fabrication would disappear?

Dr. Sadoff: Not necessarily. What you may get is either an enhancement of the distortion that is even more unusual or bizarre. You may get just exactly what you got before, because you may know facts or the person may have a strong enough will to be able to withstand the sodium amytal, or you may get a person who has lied or distorted and under sodium amytal is not able to hold up under the lie and will come under the truth.
So there are three or four possibilities. It is hard to tell how Dr. MacDonald would fare under this, but I would see him as being of the type with the stronger personality who would likely maintain the type of presentation that he has thus far. Now, there may be minor differences, which may be important, or significant, that would be worthwhile checking out if you all wish to. It's up to him, I suppose, to--he doesn't have to, I understand.

Stroud: So, your feeling is in the case of a person with the personality that Dr. MacDonald has and strong will that if he stuck to his story for five years, which is the case here essentially, that sodium amytal is not likely to break that story down.

Dr. Sadoff: It is not likely, and five years is a difference. And people's minds and memories change, and what they said five years ago, even though it may be essentially the same when he testified to the grand jury, may have a little bit of difference as to the--what he said at [the] Article 32 transcripts investigation that--at Fort Bragg five years ago. And I would suspect that putting someone under sodium amytal five years afterwards may have a more profound effect because you don't have the nearness of the situation. You have a distance and you may be able to break through some of the areas and into certain areas that you didn't have.
I don't think it will change much from what you have.

Woerheide: (Interposing) Particularly since he has repeated the same story several times.

Dr. Sadoff: That's right, that's right.

Woerheide: And has repeated it.

Stroud: Repeated it several times recently?

Dr. Sadoff: That's right.

Woerheide: And he's a highly intelligent individual?

Dr. Sadoff: (Interposing) The chances are it will come out the same as it has in the past.

Woerheide: Or he'll go to sleep?

Dr. Sadoff: Or go to sleep, correct. In one case--off the record.

On January 24, 1974, (Mr. Stroud proceeds to read a letter from Bernard L. Segal, attorney for the defense.)

Stroud: "The government attorneys are trying to bar the personal appearance of Dr. Robert Sadoff as a witness before the grand jury after they assured me he would be called personally. They interviewed Dr. Sadoff at his home where he is ill with the flu. And it appears they will attempt to present the grand jury only with written answers obtained in an interview at his home.

"This is in flagrant violation of their agreement with me to call Dr. Sadoff personally before the grand jury.

"If there is to be an impartial investigation of this case and not a cover up, then it is essential that the members of the grand jury be allowed to question Dr. Sadoff personally and obtain the answers to the questions of their minds and not just the matters that the government attorneys wish you to hear.

"The attempt to keep Dr. Sadoff from testifying personally denies to the grand jury their legal right to quote 'question the witness in order to get the truth.'"

"I urgently request that Dr. Sadoff be allowed to testify personally concerning the psychiatric examination he made of Dr. MacDonald within a few weeks after the deaths of his family.

"Dr. Sadoff advises me that he will be available to testify before you sometime between February 3 and February 21 with reasonable notice of the date that he is wanted.

"If it is appropriate for the work of the grand jury to be held up for four weeks while the government attorneys goes on vacation in Europe then the grand jury has a right not to be stampeded into proceeding without Dr. Sadoff's personal testimony.

"The testimony of Dr. Sadoff will also be important because he advises me that Dr. MacDonald is able to undergo a sodium amytal interview. This interview will be completed by February 3, and Dr. Sadoff will be in the position to report personally to the grand jury on the results of that interview.

"It will be unforgivable of the government's attorneys to block this direct, personal testimony on a subject, which a member of the grand jury stated firmly they wanted to hear about.

"There is no legitimate reason for the grand jury not to hear Dr. Sadoff's testimony concerning the psychiatric examination of Dr. MacDonald and the results of the sodium amytal interview, which will take place shortly.

"We agreed to the sodium amytal interview at the urging of the grand jury and now we only ask that the grand jury hear the personal testimony of the results of that interview.

"Bernard L. Segal, Attorney of record for Jeffrey
R. MacDonald."
Woerheide: I was reading a text when you were taking your break which discusses the narcoanalysis, which is the use of sodium amytal and sodium pentothal, and it said, in substance, that unless a man would--a person who was guilty of an offense would--is--prone to confess, even without the use of narcoanalysis, he would not confess under narcoanalysis. I have it back in the office in case you want me to read any portion of it to you. But what the text says, in effect, is a person like Jeffrey MacDonald who has a story and who has adhered to it and so on and so forth would still tell the same story under narcoanalysis.

Woerheide: You want one of us to read that to you? It covers--when I was questioning Sadoff at first, my questions were based on what it says there.

Juror: That is the statement back in April of 1970?

Stroud: And this is his findings based on that interview.

The interview with Dr. Sadoff was played back to the grand jury. Then Mr. Stroud stated: "Okay, folks in order to move on with this thing. Are we prepared to go on without hearing from Dr. Sadoff any further, are you satisfied with the interview of him and the notes?"

Juror: I can't see that Dr. Sadoff is going to shed any more light on what we have heard.

Jury Foreman: May we agree that we don't need to question Dr. Sadoff any further, that the grand jury is satisfied with his taped interview as played back to us in regards to the sodium amytal interview, what's your feelings on that now?

Juror: Forget about it, too.

Juror: I don't think it would help us at this time.

Stroud: Would you like us to step outside?

Jury Foreman: No, I don't think so. Well, do you want to take a vote on it--you--have got to decide whether or not to pursue the amytal interview or not, because we're the ones that instigated the whole thing. So, I guess we have got the right to call it off or pursue it.

Juror: If I had known what you knew about sodium amytal, I would have not asked for it. But I had no knowledge.

Woerheide: It's understandable--you know we raised the issue right in the beginning of August. And obviously you had it on your mind and you were thinking about it and really at that time I didn't--it wasn't that--as I say, I have never had a case where you had the use of this narcoanalysis and it wasn't until the Walter Reed psychiatrists showed up here and I got to talking to them that I began to learn a little bit more about it. And basically--well--you know--we didn't go into that at that time because I didn't think it was relevant. But Sadoff says basically the same thing--you know--and, as I say, I have this book here; I can read it to you, but Erlig said that the only people who will break down and confess under narcoanalysis are people who would break down and confess anyhow. And I think it is pretty obvious that MacDonald is not ready to do that. When he is confronted with the evidence against him, he does--you know--well, he in effect says it's fabricated, it's all a lie, he can't explain it, but he doesn't break down and say, yes, I did it, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done it. I'm sorry, but I did--you know.

Juror: Mr. Woerheide, even if he should, to Dr. Sadoff, he wouldn't have to tell us?

Woerheide: No, actually it's not evidence and would not be admissible at the trial and you don't--it's really not evidence at all, now. It has no evidentiary value legally.

Stroud: Sam, if I may say this--Sam had a good suggestion earlier. Go ahead and say it, please?

Jury Foreman: Yeah, about the letter, is that what you mean?

Stroud: Yes.

Jury Foreman: There are some comments--statements--inferences in these telegrams to the grand jury that I was going to ask if you thought it would be improper to have a response letter drafted and sent back to Mr. Segal?

Juror: No.

Jury Foreman: Now, wait a minute, let me finish. Because if we entertain an indictment, even have one presented to us, before anything is ever decided about this amytal situation, I think we at least owe him a response to our request saying that based on what we now know, we don't feel like the amytal interview is as pertinent as we did. And that we're not going to press the issue and that having the benefit of a personal taped interview the grand jury does not have any questions of Dr. Sadoff and are satisfied after having his conclusion played before us, that we are satisfied with the evidence he wants to give us and we will just terminate that situation right here. I think that is at least some courtesy to his attorneys, because we stirred up this mess, now we can cut the flame out--you know--or keep it burning under the pot.

Stroud: I think more than a courtesy, that it would be good for the record.

Juror: I think that is beautiful idea.

Juror: Wouldn't it be better to call him?

Jury Foreman: I think we should have something we could enter into the record in response to that which has been entered as evidence. Would you like to have the attorneys draft a letter for the grand jury with those comments in there on their official stationary and so forth?

Juror: I'd like it known that when I asked him that I wasn't aware. I really didn't know.

Jury Foreman: Right, you have since had an education about it from Dr. Sadoff about what the results might be.

Whereupon, the following letter was drafted and written to Mr. Bernard L. Segal, Attorney for Jeffrey MacDonald:

"This is to acknowledge your telegram dated January 23, 1975, received by me on behalf of the grand jury today.

"Today the grand jury heard for the record a taped interview of Dr. Robert Sadoff, which took place at his home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Wednesday, January 22, 1975, in which he was asked questions by Mr. Woerheide and Mr. Stroud, attorneys on behalf of the United States Government. In addition to the tape interview, the grand jury received into evidence and considered a memorandum prepared by Dr. Sadoff of his interview with Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald April 21, 1970.

"After considering all of this evidence, it was the feeling of the grand jury that there was no additional questions needed to be asked of Dr. Sadoff and therefore it would not be necessary for him to make a personal appearance before the grand jury.
In regards to the sodium amytal test initially requested by one of the Grand Jurors, it is the considered opinion of the grand jury after hearing the taped interview of Dr. Sadoff that a sodium amytal test would not be of any practical benefit to the grand jury at this time.

"It is also the personal feeling of the Grand Juror who raised the question about the sodium amytal test that she would not have raised the question had she had the knowledge at the time concerning the sodium amytal test that she now has.

"Therefore, the grand jury is proceeding to deliberation in this case.

"Sincerely Yours,

"Samuel F. Epperson
"Foreman of the United States Grand Jury Sitting in Raleigh, North Carolina"
Whereupon, the United States Grand Jury Investigation in the matter of the deaths of Colette MacDonald, Kimberly (sic) MacDonald and Kristen MacDonald was concluded insofar as the recorded portion of the investigation was concerned. The grand jury then proceeded to deliberation in the matter.



MacDonald claims he was unaware of Dr. James Brussel's prior role as a criminalist in his case and that Dr. Brussel had formed conclusions as to his guilt.


The government provided Bernard Segal, MacDonald's attorney, with Dr. Brussel's vitae in 1971.
Dr. Brussel was consulted as to what his finding would be solely based on his reviewing the evidence. MacDonald was not examined by Dr. Brussel at that time. From 1971 to 1979 he had no other dealings in this case until contacted by the government to examine MacDonald in 1979.
On February 7, 1971, CID investigators Bill Ivory and Peter Kearns met with Dr. Brussel at his New York home to discuss the case.

The following was Dr. Brussel's opinion after a briefing on the crime scene, reviewing MacDonald's statements, autopsy reports, background, and investigative information.

Dr. Brussel suggested a clear cut motive for the murders needed to be established; that an argument between Colette and MacDonald could have started over the bedwetting in the master bedroom but this by itself could not be considered the prime factor and because MacDonald was not telling truth did not make him guilty.

According to Dr. Brussel, if hippie intruders committed the murders, which personally was hard to believe, it would be the first case he had heard of where they would be carrying and using an ice pick and paring knives. They would be involved in ritualistic murders and would use daggers or similar ceremonial type weapons. Also, if hippies had wielded the piece of wood as a club, all the blows would be hard and vicious, and the attackers would not have struck so many blows. Of all the drugs in use by hippies or drug communities, Dr. Brussel's opinion that "speed" (methamphetamine) would make the person act as described by MacDonald.

Dr. Brussel said, the female assailant's statement about acid rang false; people under the influence LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) would not partake in such continued deliberate strenuous activity, they would be lethargic, evidence of their presence would have been left in the residence.

It was Dr. Brussel's opinion that Kimberley was injured in the master bedroom, and then carried to her own bedroom; this behavior was inconsistent with the intruder theory. He said it should be kept in mind that the injuries to Colette's mouth could have come from a punch; that the best reconstruction of the crime appeared to be that an argument took place and a punch was delivered to Colette's mouth, and then further blows resulted. It was more logical, he opined, to assume that an argument between Colette and MacDonald took place and that after resulting blows, Colette went to Kristen's bedroom; that there may have been many reasons for her going into that room with the best being that she was fleeing her husband. In his opinion, the children were killed because they were witnesses to the attack on Colette or each other.
CID investigator Peter Kearns stated, I have read the Motion For New Trial filed by the defendant in this case, and in response to the assertions that are set forth in the Declaration of the defendant's former counsel, Bernard Segal, dated 28 February 1984, regarding the offering of testimony of several psychiatric witnesses at trial, I can state as follows:

(a) During a face-to-face meeting I had with Mr. Segal in room 3731, of the Americana Hotel in New York City, New York between 1140 and 1330 hours (11:40 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) in response to Segal's request, I personally furnished the names of Dr. James A. Brussel and Dr. Hirsch L. Silverman as the medical experts I intended to have view the various psychiatric and psychological data which Segal was to furnish to USACIDA. I further identified Dr. Brussel as a forensic psychiatrist, and Dr. Silverman as a psychologist that teamed with Dr. Brussel in such examinations. I told Segal I would follow up our verbal discussion by a formal letter of request.

(b) On 17 May 1971, I personally typed and mailed a letter to Segal with a carbon copy to the defendant's home address, again setting forth USACIDA's need to have Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman review the various psychiatric and psychological data available on the defendant which was released only by direct consent of Segal and the defendant. In this correspondence I attached a "credential" page setting background information on the expertise of Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman.

(c) The above mentioned discussions and written references to Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman between Segal and I ultimately terminated when Segal's letter of May 20, 1971, was received By Colonel Jack Pruett, USACIDA. In that letter Segal notified USACIDA that: "Pending that action all of matters will be held in obeyance."

(d) Additional contacts and efforts made by USACIDA in an attempt to review the medical data previously mentioned are contained in the investigator's statement of USACIDA Criminal Investigator Darrell Jack Bennett. This statement further makes reference to the letter dispatched to Segal on 17 May 1971 identifying the "experts" who would review the psychiatric data.

(e) I never told the defendant's counsel, Mr. Segal that Dr. Brussel "had already examined the psychological and psychiatric reports concerning Dr. MacDonald which had been prepared in 1970", as he so states in his declaration of February 28, 1984. The reason I did not report such a review to Segal is simply because Dr. Brussel did not review that medical data. As previously mentioned, all attempts to obtain that data were futile. Dr. Brussel's comments to me were all based on crime scene reports and photos, a taped oral interview of the defendant and autopsy reports of the victims, and medical reports concerning the defendant (exclusive of psychiatric or psychological reports). Segal grossly errs in paragraph 8 of his declaration when he states: "The government did not disclose that Dr. Brussel had already formed the conclusion that Dr. MacDonald was guilty. . ." Dr. Brussel's final overall comment was reported to me (as set forth in the declaration of defendant's counsel, Karen Davidson, dated 14 February 1984, and also set forth below) as "In Brussel's opinion Jeffrey MacDonald is not telling the truth but this fact alone does not make him the accused."

Regarding the declaration of Davidson, I submit the following:

(a) Dr. Brussel was identified to both the defendant and to his legal counsel, Mr. Segal. Mr. Segal was made aware of his connection with the government as early as April 1971.

(b) I was the author of the CID reports referring to Dr. Brussel. As can readily be seen, I only related Dr. Brussel's cursory opinions. As previously mentioned, we did not have the medical test results or interview results available to obtain definitive comments from Dr. Brussel and had absolutely no test result to obtain any kind of comment from Dr. Silverman. In essence and probably in all rules of expert witness testimony, all I had was one more layman's opinion that things at that crime scene did not take place in the manner the defendant claims. Dr. Brussel never furnished me with any "new" evidence or any "new" scenario of the crime scene. Basically he just said he didn't believe the defendant was telling the truth, but in order to give more scientific evaluation he would need to talk with the defendant, review psychiatric and psychological reports and tests of the defendant and have Dr. Silverman examine the defendant.
It is important to remember that Dr. Brussel's opinions as expressed to CID investigators Kearns and Ivory about any physical evidence would not have been admissible. The defense should have been aware of that.



MacDonald claims that the government retained Dr. Brussel who was unknown to the defendant, an investigative agent directed to surreptitiously gather information from him for cross-examination. That violated his rights to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and his due process rights and privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.


After studying the record and MacDonald's contentions in his motion, the court concluded that the motion was without merit and must be denied. Dr. Brussel was obviously chosen by the government as an expert because of his reputation as a criminologist and knowledge of the case, and not because of his willingness to serve as an investigative agent. There was, therefore, no violation of MacDonald's Sixth Amendment right to counsel or his privilege against self-incrimination and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Although Dr. Brussel may have personally believed that MacDonald murdered his wife and children and may have been zealous in his questioning, the government in no way encouraged him or used him as an agent and its actions during this period of the trial are beyond reproach.


MacDonald claims that Dr. Silverman administered various psychological tests for about two hours while Dr. Brussel observed and took notes.
According to defense counsel Bernard Segal, the examination took place in the law offices of Wade Smith. Further that, on the evening of August 13, 1979, he accompanied Dr. MacDonald to Wade Smith's office. Before Dr. MacDonald, Dr. Silverman and Dr. Brussel left the reception area to go into the private offices to conduct the examination, he spoke with both Dr. Silverman and Dr. Brussel. At that time he had them both read and agree to confidentiality agreements. That he stood with the doctors as they read the confidentiality agreements and each stated they understood and accepted the terms. Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman then escorted Dr. MacDonald into a private office to conduct the interviews and they closed the door.
Segal contends he remained in the reception room within ten feet of the door of the private office for the entire time that Dr. Silverman, Dr. Brussel and Dr. MacDonald remained in the office for the interviews.

That he saw Dr. Silverman walk into the office with Dr. MacDonald and he did not see him exit the office until the conclusion of the interview with Dr. MacDonald, Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman walked out together.

Per Dr. Silverman: "While Dr. James L. Brussel, M.D., also examined Dr. MacDonald on the evening of August 13, 1979, we did not conduct our respective examinations in each other's presence..."



MacDonald claims that Dr. Brussel asked him questions from a list that the psychiatrist told him had been provided to him by the prosecution.


Dr Silverman stated: "I can and do state that neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Brussel, was furnished with a list of question to ask Dr. MacDonald. Nor were we questioned by any government representative as to Dr. MacDonald's answers to any specific questions, rather the extent of any discussion with the prosecutors was limited to my impressions of Dr. MacDonald's mental status as revealed by clinical examination and as reflected in my report of August 16, 1979.

"...I can only state that at all times I found Dr. Brussel's conduct to be conformity with the highest standards of professional ethics."
At the request of Dr. Brussel, Murtagh caused to be mailed to him the results of the defendant's prior psychiatric testing previously released to the Government by defendant's counsel, as well as many prior statements of the defendant. According to Murtagh, to the best of his recollection, Dr. Brussel was furnished with the following statements by the defendant:

(a) April 6, 1970 CID interview

(b) Article 32 testimony

(c) MacDonald's statement to Dr. Sadoff

(d) Grand jury testimony


MacDonald claims that the psychiatrist, Dr. Brussel was a "government investigator" who asked many questions about the facts and disclosed MacDonald's answers to the prosecution.

The Fourth Circuit Court found there was no support for the contention except speculation, and the district court found that the psychiatrist did not depart from his properly assigned role.


According to MacDonald, the Government contended that the Court did not condition the admissibility of all defense psychiatric testimony on Dr. MacDonald's submission to an examination conducted by a government psychiatrist.


This assertion is contrary to the facts as reflected in the trial transcript. The Court stated: "I will tell all of you this now if the evidence is to come in, then of course because it has been so delayed in bringing it to a head and getting the defendant's side of it, then I am going to give you an ample opportunity to have the man examined and get your own evidence."


Appearing on the Jerry Springer live interview of MacDonald, Jerry Potter claimed that he and Fred Bost, through the FOIA, found that Janice Glisson, from the CID laboratory has hid evidence that was favorable to MacDonald and wrote on her report "they aren't going to be reported by me."

Janice Glisson did no such thing. According to Glisson's hand written notes, she wrote: "did not label all the other vials cont. fibers & hairs (#1, #2, #8 but gave them #s & slides correspond to these #'s, since they are not going to be reported by me."
The operative word here is "since"


MacDonald claims that he was placed under hypnosis. Many question if he was really was. On the Jerry Springer, MacDonald said he had been given a order and that during the whole four hours, he held his arm up with the index finger sticking out.


I have the tape of this so-called hypnosis session. Nowhere on the tape is MacDonald holding up his arm with any finger sticking out.

What is very noticeable is the fact that he has on two different shirts.

It was during this so called hypnosis session that F.G. Ponce, a police artist did new sketches of the alleged intruders.

Dr. William Kroger and Richard Doucet were the ones putting him under, with Doucet asking most of the question.


Claims that Judge Dupree refused to hear Helena Stoeckley's admissions of guilt.


Bernard Segal had six witness that he wanted to testify as to what Helena Stoeckley had told them about her involvement in the murders.
Judge Dupree refused to have others testify as to what Stoeckley told them about her involvement in the murders as evidenced by his decision below:

Judge Dupree: Since court adjourned on Friday afternoon, I have spent a substantial portion of my waking hours researching and deciding the rather interesting evidentiary question which was posed, the question being whether statements tending to be against the penal interests of the witness Stoeckley should be admissible through other witnesses -- statements made outside of court in far distant times.
In that connection, I have studied the transcript of the witnesses' testimony -- Stoeckley's and the six witnesses whose out-of-court statements are posed to be offered -- the briefs of both sides, and all of the case law -- relevant case law --that I could find, which includes the Advance Sheet of the Federal Second, which came Sunday and which, oddly enough, contained a case involving 804(b)(3), but unhappily not directly in point.
I will rule that these proposed statements do not comply with the trustworthy requisites of 804(b)(3) or (b)(5); that far from being clearly corroborated and trustworthy, that they are about as unclearly trustworthy -- or clearly untrustworthy, let me say -- as any statements that I have ever seen or heard.

Chambers v. Mississippi, of course, is a far cry from this. There we had an absolute confession by a person who was in his right mind, and various other distinguishing features. On the question of impeachment, of course the prerequisite for a prior inconsistent statement is one that is, in fact, inconsistent.
Weinstein has said that any statement is inconsistent if, under any rational theory it might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness has said. This witness, in her examination here in court -- and cross-examination -- has been, to use the Government Counsel's terminology, "all over the lot."
The statements which she has made out of court were "all over the lot," so it can't really be said that the hearing of those statements would lead to any different conclusion than what the jurors got while she was here in open court.

The case most nearly like this one that I was able to find and not cited by either side is United States v. Satterfield: in the 500 F. 2d 687, cert. denied 99 Supreme Court 128. That is a Ninth Circuit case from 1978. That case, as many others do, including cases that were cited -- such as Thomas and Barrett and others -- states that this matter of determining trustworthiness is committed in the first instance to discretion of the Court. In that case there was a finding of untrustworthiness by the District Court, although there were some factors in evidence which tended to substantiate the statements or lend credibility to them, and statements which were pointed in the opposite direction.
As I stated, this testimony, I think, has no trustworthiness at all. Here you have a girl who, when she made the statements, was in most instances heavily drugged, if not hallucinating. And she has told us all that herself. She has stated that in person.
But I would get over the unavailability question. I would get past that and, in some aspects of it, I think they could have been held to be against her penal interests. But on the question of trustworthiness, I just can't see it.
Now, on the question of impeachment, as I stated, I don't think it is admissible on that theory for the reason that I don't think it is impeaching. There are other reasons which I won't elaborate on right now.

Finally, I think that this evidence ought to be excluded as a matter of discretion by the Court under Rule 403, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. It would tend to confuse the issues, mislead the jury. It would cause undue delay and a waste of time.
I am thinking now that I took a day of this jury's time and gave it to Counsel, most of which was taken by Counsel for the Defendant to interview Ms. Stoeckley, and to have her apparently interviewed in company with several of these six witnesses. And anything that would come in by this way now would still be cumulative.
She has told everything -- she told this jury everything that you proposed to show by these witnesses that she told them. So I think in the interest of time -- having devoted two days to this subject -- that that is enough; and for the additional reason that it ought to be excluded under 403, I will hold that it is not admissible.
The six witnesses on August 17, 1979 testified on
voir dire were;

Jane Zillioux
Jim Gaddis
Charles "Red" Underhill
Robert Brisentine
Prince Beasley
William Posey

August 20, 1979 in the presence of the jury, five of the above were recalled to testify. The defense did not recall Robert Brisentine, CID polygraph examiner.


MacDonald stated on the Jerry Springer live interview that the CID "wined and dined" Freddy Kassab in their effort to get him over to their side.


That is an outright lie. Kassab was seeking justice for the brutal murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen before the re-investigation started. He was not open to the CID in the beginning.

Peter Kearns was in charge of the reinvestigation. Being a husband and father of six, his sympathies were with the Kassabs, and if MacDonald was guilty, he wanted to make sure that that he was brought to justice.

Kearns opened the records to Freddy, no holds barred. He made it clear that this case was an open book; it would be investigated with no tunnel vision, and the CID would find out who was responsible for committing the crimes.


On August 14, 1974 during the grand jury investigation Woerheide asked MacDonald how he came to be on the Dick Cavett Show.

MacDonald replied: "I believe that was Lowenstein's bright idea to push along the congressional reinvestigation that we were asking for, civilian type not CID reinvestigating itself..."


If MacDonald wanted a civilian investigation, he sure went about it the wrong way. In a  Pit Bull fashion he belittled the CID stating how incompetent they were.

December 15, 1970, MacDonald appeared on Dick Cavett Show smiling, and confidently discussing how badly he had been injured in the attack.
During the interview he mentioned certain activities at his residence on the evening of February 16-17, 1970 and with errors of omission and commission that he attributes to investigators of CID during their investigation. He insulted the Army, accusing the investigators of lying, covering up evidence, bungling the investigation, and then making him the scapegoat for their errors. He did not appear sad or depressed about what had happened. Not one word of how much he missed his family, not one word asking for help to locate the intruders he claimed committed these murders.

Freddy and Mildred watched the show and were flabbergasted by his flippant attitude, as were many other people.

Dick Cavett recalled the show and has publicly stated referring to MacDonald, his affect was all wrong.
The following night Truman Capote was on the show and in a sense told Dick Cavett if you believe him you're crazy.

MacDonald sought out Capote and tried to see him to try and straighten it out in his mind. He got nowhere with Capote.


On September 18, 1983 on the 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace, MacDonald denied that he was taking Eskatrol.


MacDonald: I never said that to anyone. I did not in fact lose 15 pounds.

Wallace read from MacDonald handwritten notes: "We ate dinner together at 5:45 p.m. It is possible I had one diet pill at this time. I do not remember and do not think I had one, but it is possible. I had lost 12-15 pounds in the prior three to four weeks, in process, using three to five capsules of Eskatrol Spansule...."

MacDonald spoke up saying, three to five capsules for the three weeks.

Wallace: Then why would you put it down here that there was even a possibility?

MacDonald: These are notes given to an attorney who has told me to bare my soul as to any possibilities, so we could always be prepared.

Wallace: But you've already told me that you didn't lose 15 pounds in the three weeks prior.

MacDonald: I don't think that I did.

Wallace: It's in your notes. "had lost 12 to 15 pounds in the prior three to four weeks, in the process, using three to five capsules of Eskatrol spansules." That speed--and Compazine, to counteract the excitability of speed. "I was losing weight because I was working out with the boxing team and the coach told me to lose weight."

MacDonald: Mike, there's no question there's a possibility that I took the pill. Nowhere in there does it say I took it.

Wallace: One has to say, look, why would he be taking off 12-15 pounds in a period of three to four weeks, again, in your own handwriting?

MacDonald: But if I did take off those 12 to 15 pounds over three to four weeks using three to four tablets of Eskatrol, that's not abnormal. That's a normal thing. The problem is you're making it sound like a person who's honest and writes honest notes to his attorney for any possibility is guilty of a triple homicide.
One gets the feeling that MacDonald never answers a question directly. He is always trying to deny or play ring around the question.


MacDonald stated on live television: "There are 28 people who saw them go to my house and leave my house."

Who are these people? Where are these people? Why didn't the defense call them as witnesses?


On August 13, 1979 MacDonald gave what he claims happened during the psychiatric evaluation.


The following are MacDonald's recollections of the interview.

"The psychologist, Dr. Silverman, appeared to be sane, rational, and relatively normal. The psychiatrist, Dr. Brussel, appeared to be at least senile and, in fact, at times not in control of full mentation. He appears to lose his train of thought; he appears not to remember for more than approximately two to three minutes. Dr Brussel appeared to be misinformed about the case, did not appear to have any sound basis from which to question me, and in fact, at times appeared to have a bizarre if not psychotic thought pattern.

"I stated to Dr Silverman and Dr. Brussel my reluctance to undergo the interview. I stated to them that I had testified freely in the past and that every testimony by myself had, in fact, been used against me. I told them in no uncertain terms of my anger regarding the necessity for undergoing this current interview. I also told them that I felt it was unprofessional to be forced to undergo an interview on the evening of a day of trial on short notice by two strangers unknown to me who could provide me with no curriculum vitae.

"Dr. Silverman interviewed me first. We spent approximately two hours doing seven different tests comprising his version of a psychological profile series of tests. The initial test performed was the Worshak test. He was interested in how recently I had been tested. I told him that was one question I would not answer at this time. We did do the Worshak test followed by six other tests. During this time, Dr. Silverman did take some notes regarding the Worshak test and my comments. He did not make any other notes in writing while I took six follow-up tests to the Worshak test. During this time, Dr. Brussel sat on the couch to my right, somewhat behind to my right, and occasionally jotted down notes on a pad. He appeared to take approximately one possibly two sheets of notes regarding his observations of myself while I was  undergoing psychological testing.

"Dr. Silverman informed me that he was in practice in New Jersey and did have an association with Seaton Hall, the University of Seaton Hall. Dr. Brussel informed me that he was in practice in 'New York' but would not name a hospital that he was affiliated with and would not tell me whether or not he was in private practice at this time. He did state that he was involved in 'five or six murders, and/or rapes'. He also told me that he had been a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army in WW11 and was the psychiatrist in the Army prior to Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. He claims that he administered certain tests to Army inductees numbering in the thousands and that he was the originator of psychiatric testing in the Army. He claimed that he left the Army as a Lieutenant Colonel.

"The psychological testing took approximately two hours. During this time there were basically no pleasantries exchanged except Dr. Silverman discussed what I did for a living in Long Beach. Dr. Brussel offered a few negative comments on the southern way of live.

"At approximately 8:30 perhaps 8:32 the psychological testing was finished and the psychiatric interview began by Dr. Brussel. At this time, Dr. Silverman attempted to leave the room and go into the waiting room but was instructed by Dr. Brussel to remain and 'take notes'. I asked them if they had worked together on cases before and Dr. Silverman informed me that they had in fact worked on 'many, many' cases in the past

"The psychiatric interview by Dr. Brussel lasted from twenty to twenty-five minutes and in no way, shape or fashion resembled any psychiatric interview to which I have been exposed either as a medical student, intern, practicing physician or patient. It did not resemble at all any interview ever given me regarding this case and it did not resemble any interview to which I am familiar from the practice of medicine. The entire interview consisted of Dr. Brussel putting forth to me an investigator style question and asking me if in fact that had been my answer in the past or was it true now at this time. He read from three major documents during this time. The first document that he read from was a typewritten three page document and it was simply a series of questions in typewritten form. I asked him what the document was and he replied to me that 'it was a document of questions that had been compiled and typed by the government attorney.' I asked was this Brian Murtagh and he replied in the affirmative. The second document that he read during this time was the grand jury testimony of Dr. Robert Sadoff. He read extensively from this grand jury testimony about which I will say more below. The third document that he read from was the grand jury testimony or psychiatric report, I could not tell which, of first Dr. Bruce Bailey followed by another psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Hospital. I believe it was Dr. Donald Horton—some word to that effect. The latter was a grand jury document. I did not specifically see which document he was reading from regarding Dr. Bailey. The substance of the interview from Dr. Brussel was that he would ask a question in the style of a CID or FBI or police interrogator and he would then ask what my answer was.

"At no time during this interview did Dr. Brussel ask me any questions that would resemble a normal psychiatric interview. He did not inquire about my family, my feelings toward my family, my relationship with my parents or my siblings, the quality of my relationship between my wife and myself, the quality of my relationship between my children and myself, my relationship with my friends, my relationship with the Kassabs, my feeling towards the prosecution, my feelings regarding the loss of my family. He did ask me a number of questions about homosexuality, my sex drive, virility and masculinity, and whether or not I had lied to the investigators. At no time did Dr. Brussel discuss my childhood, my marriage with Colette, my feelings about my children, my capacity for violence, my aggressiveness.

"The manner of interview by Dr. Brussel was clearly accusatory, and in fact he admitted to me he had been briefed 'only by the prosecution lawyer.' He denied having been briefed by the CID but did admit to using the series of questions typed by the government lawyers and admitted to me in front of Dr. Silverman that his knowledge came from the prosecution.

"The strangest part of the interview was the following:

"During the twenty-five minutes that I was 'interviewed' by Dr. Brussel, he would repeatedly turn to Dr. Silverman after what he considered to be an unsatisfactory answer by myself and remark 'write that down.' (i.e. Dr. Brussel would pose to me a question such as—'Were there any fingerprints under the windows?' I would reply—apparently they never looked for any since the MP's footprints were noticed under the window, much less the intruders.) [Re: fingerprints and footprints under the window, this appears to have been stated incorrectly.] At that point, Dr. Brussel would turn to Dr. Silverman and say 'mark that down, he says they are lying.'

"Dr. Brussel repeatedly questioned me by reading a portion of a written document in front of him and asking me was it true or not. The problem with that approach was that he would very often read a question by a prosecutor in front of the grand jury (i.e. he would read Victor Woerheide's statement to Dr. Robert Sadoff and then ask me was it true or not). Very often I was unable to answer since in fact the reading that he had just  completed was either incorrect reading, or was not in fact a question that I could answer. I would then ask Dr. Brussel in what context should I answer and he would then accuse me of lying either now or before. It was very confusing, since his comments did not have any relevance to his just finished reading. It is important to note that he was often unaware of what he was reading (i.e. he would be reading a question by Victor Woerheide in front of the grand jury but he would be assuming that he was reading the answer of Dr. Robert Sadoff ). When I pointed out to him that he was reading the question of Woerheide rather than the answer of Sadoff his comment was 'well it's not important anyway, this is just a bunch of crap.'

"At times during the interview, Dr. Brussel would clearly lose his train of thought and make totally inappropriate comments about which I could not respond since they were totally inappropriate to the situation. At these times, Dr. Silverman would appear acutely embarrassed but offer no assistance for help in resolving the situation.

"At the close of the interview at 8:55 p.m., Dr. Brussel informed me that he felt that I was 'a homicidal maniac, with psychopathic tendencies and was a chronic liar.' I sat there absolutely stunned and repeated back to him 'did I hear what I just thought I heard?' He repeated to me that he felt that 'I showed psychopathic tendencies of a homicidal nature', at which time I asked him how did he come to those conclusions. He stated to me in front of Dr. Silverman that he had reached those conclusions from 'Dr. Silverman's tests.' I asked him how he had reached those conclusions since the tests were not graded yet, and he stated to me 'they will be graded soon.' I then asked Dr. Silverman to be my witness to his comments and I asked Dr. Brussel if he intended to be a sworn witness on the stand in this case. He stated to me that he did feel he would be a witness in the case and I stated to him that I awaited his arrival on the witness stand. I then asked Dr. Silverman had he in fact graded my test in the twenty to twenty-five minutes that we had been interviewed by Dr. Brussel and he stated to me that no, he had not graded the tests and that it would take 'five to six hours' to grade the tests. He indicated very clearly to me that no decision had been reached. At this time, I repeated my question to Dr. Brussel and he repeated his answer that 'I was a homicidal maniac with psychopathic tendencies.'

To move on to specific questions of Dr. Brussel, Dr. Brussel read first from the list of questions prepared by Mr. Murtagh. He asked me:

Q: How can you account for the lack of footprints under the window?

A: There were no footprints found of the MPs who went up to the window. I have no answer to that.

Q: Did you have any major "encounters" on Fire Island?

A: No. I explained that Fire Island was misconstrued because of the concentration in the media of Cherry Grove, a homosexual community on Fire Island. I explained to him Fire Island was 35 miles long and Cherry Grove was approximately ˝ mile of Fire Island and that in my experiences on Fire Island had been very pleasant those of fishing and camping out with family from the boat.

Q: Dr. Brussel asked had I had an argument with Colette that night?

A: No.

Dr. Brussel then stated that the neighbor had sworn that "she had a violent temper."

"I attempted to clarify his question and finally got from Dr. Brussel that he meant that Colette had a violent temper and that my next door neighbor had testified to this. I informed him that such was not the case. I informed him that Colette neither had a violent temper nor had Mrs. Kalin testified that Colette had a violent temper. He seemed surprised at this information.

"Dr. Brussel asked me why I had, as a physician, put my daughter to bed with wet diapers on. Didn't I know it was bad for her?"

 "I replied that in most cases in a single wet diaper or pair of underwear is not enough to harm anyone and I had in fact known that I was putting Kristen to bed with a wet pair of pants on but did not change her for fear of waking her."

"Dr. Brussel was reading from Dr. Sadoff 's testimony or so he thought, but in fact he was reading Woerheide's questions. And he read a portion that implied there was a problem with my virility and masculinity. And he asked me if 'that was true?

"I tried to point out to him he was not reading Dr. Sadoff 's answer but he replied it was not important. I then told him that basically I did not feel that I had problems with my virility or masculinity but that Mr. Woerheide felt that I had problems. He at that point turned to Dr. Silverman and told him to 'write that down.' He stated that I felt or was calling Dr. Sadoff a liar when in fact, that had not transpired. I had simply tried to inform him that he was reading Mr. Woerheide's version of an answer and asking me to corroborate it which I would not do. I eventually had to take the grand jury testimony from Dr. Brussel and read back to him his misread quotes. He was in fact reading Mr. Woerheide's testimony which was not in question form but rather was stated as direct testimony. I pointed out this to Dr. Brussel and he told me it 'not important.' He also at this time informed me that 'he only knew what the government told him.'

"Dr. Brussel asked me what I knew about a Lieutenant Harrison and another 'friend' who was homosexual?

  "I replied I didn't know what he was talking about. He then turned to Dr. Silverman and Dr. Silverman said he felt that maybe one name was Harrison but he wasn't sure of the other one. I replied at this time that I did know a Lieutenant Harrison—I related a correct version of the Esquire magazine incident in which Ron Harrison had seen the magazine at my house prior to February 17th. As I retold this story, Dr. Brussel stated 'huh they even got that wrong.'

"They asked about my brother, Jay.

"I described his current living conditions and his house partner."

They asked about my sister Judy.

"I informed him of her current living conditions and normal family relationships.

"Dr. Brussel at this time asked me if I was aware that my sister had identified me as one who was capable of committing violence.

"I informed Dr. Brussel that his information was incorrect that I had read her testimony and that she in no way, shape or form implied such an answer.

"He then turned to Dr. Silverman and said 'write that down.' He stated to Dr. Silverman 'so he disagrees with the direct testimony.'

"We then had a long interchange on a very bizarre series of reading that Dr. Brussel was making. Basically, I feel he was trying to paraphrase Bob Sadoff 's account of a long discussion we had involving my feeling of inadequacy about defending my family. However, Dr. Brussel kept misreading, mispronouncing, running sentences together, and leaving words out. At the end of approximately two to three minutes reading by Dr. Brussel, I informed him that his information was incorrect, and that it was out of context. While attempting to answer his extremely hard to follow question, he turned to Dr. Silverman and said 'write that down—he's denying that he said it and he is denying that it happened.'

"Dr. Brussel asked me was I ever footprinted on February 17?

"I replied no, I was not. He stated at that time. Well, 'they screwed that up too.'

"Dr. Brussel asked me if I was involved in the deaths of my wife and children.

"I replied no.

"Dr. Brussel asked me how I felt the jury would vote?

"I told him that I felt they would find me innocent. He also replied that he also believed that I would be found innocent.

"He asked me how my wife and children could be over-killed, and I could be found with just one laceration 2/5ths of an inch deep?

"I replied to him that his information was incorrect that I had multiple puncture wounds, stab wounds, several blows to the head and was found unconscious by the MPs. He appeared surprised by this information.

"We had many conversations about Dr. Robert Sadoff during this twenty-five minutes. Many times we would refer to Dr. Sadoff 's testimony in front of the grand jury, but usually Dr. Brussel would misread Mr. Woerheide's questions as Dr. Sadoff 's answers. At the end of the interview after all of these questions and answers involving Dr. Sadoff, Dr. Brussel asked me 'who is Dr. Sadoff?'

"I replied that he was a forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Brussel then asked me was he for the prosecution or for the defense. I replied somewhat incredulously that he was a defense psychiatrist and that should have been clear from the questions and answers. He then informed me that he 'only knew what the government told him' and further more he felt that I had wasted my money with Dr. Sadoff. He felt that Dr. Sadoff had turned on me in front of the grand jury and that I would have been wiser to spend my money elsewhere and find a psychiatrist who would stick with me.

"Dr. Brussel read a long discourse from Dr. James Mack. He was reading from Dr. Mack's grand jury testimony. It clearly was in answer to a hypothetical question posed to Dr. Mack by Mr. Woerheide. Dr. Mack's answer was also hypothetical and basically it involved his feeling about my capacity or lack of capacity to have committed the murders. James Mack's answer was basically that he could not see me killing my children but in his answer he implied the remote possibility that he could understand or see the potential for me murdering my wife. At the conclusion of this lengthy reading of Dr. Mack's testimony, Dr. Brussel stated 'your man says you did it.' I informed him of what, in fact, he had just read and stated that I did not feel that Dr. Mack stated that I did it but rather was answering a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer. Dr. Brussel at this time reiterated his feeling that my own man said that I had done it.

"Dr. Silverman finished the Worshak test; Dr. Brussel asked him how many total answers. Dr. Silverman counted the answers and said 60 total. Dr. Brussel then said and 'was his least number of answers on number 7.' Dr. Silverman said well, 'he had four answers on number 7 but there were four questions on which he had only four answers. But the total was 60.' Dr. Brussel seemed pleased that my least number of answers was on number 7.

"Dr. Brussel asked me how I could possibly have sex at least three times weekly with my wife if she went to bed before I did.

"I couldn't understand his question but through a convoluted discussion it gradually became clear that he was referring to or he misinterpreted the fact that on that particular night Colette went to bed before me. When I explained this to him I also told him that usually we went to bed at the same time and he then asked me did I stick by my story that we had sex two to three times a week at least. I told him yes.

"Just before the very end of the session, Dr. Brussel was closing his notes, leaned back in a chair and said now, 'Dr. Silverman and I really don't have any stake in this matter. We don't care if you burn. But, I want you to answer this question for me—did this murder involve homosexuality?'

"I replied in the negative. Not to my knowledge was homosexuality involved.

"At one point, Dr. Brussel said to me, now about these two guys who were homosexuals—Harrison and said who is the other one 'Henderson?' He then turned to Dr. Silverman and said was the second one Henderson? Dr. Silverman said 'I don't know there were two names.'

"I replied I don't know a Henderson, but I know Lieutenant Harrison. Dr. Brussel said yea, that's him. He wasn't married was he? And, I replied no, but he has since gotten married. Dr. Brussel was obviously distressed . . . that Ron Harrison is now married. He specifically asked me was Ron Harrison homosexual and was this unknown man Henderson homosexual. I replied I had no idea.

"He asked me at one time why I was sleeping on the couch. I explained to him that Kristy had wet the bed.

"He asked me at one time how could I possibly see these four people in the house when I was knocked unconscious?

"I explained to him that I saw these people before I was knocked unconscious. He seemed surprised at this and said that he had been 'informed otherwise.'

"He asked me how many of your friends and neighbors saw these people enter the apartment.

"I replied several. He seemed genuinely surprised at this answer and asked if they were going to testify. I replied yes they would be testifying. He at that point made a comment about the government's inability to properly investigate a case.

"That's all the questions I can think of at present. As we were getting ready to leave the room and as we were leaving the room, his disorientation became more apparent. He asked me if I had taken his hat, I replied I arrived in the room after he did and that I did not see him with a hat. He then asked me if I had his coat. I replied I didn't know anything about a coat. He asked me what motel he was staying at. I asked Dr. Silverman what motel he was staying at and he replied 'The Royal Villa', so I told this to Dr. Brussel. I then asked Dr. Brussel if he knew where he was. He said somewhere in the south. I asked Dr. Brussel again after having told him that he was staying at the Royal Villa what motel are you staying in—he was unable to tell me at this point what motel he was staying in. He then went to Wade Smith's waiting room and began trying on a hat from the hat rack and he asked me if it was his hat. I told him I didn't know but it didn't appear to fit his head. He then asked how was he to get back to the airport and Dr. Silverman said he wasn't going to the airport he was going to the motel. He then asked me to call him a cab at which point Nancy Jones called Brian Murtagh and said it would be about twenty minutes before he came to pick up the two doctors.

"At this point I wished both of them a good journey back home. Dr. Silverman shook my hand, told me to 'hang in there it will be over soon' and Dr. Brussel said goodbye."
Brian Murtagh dropped off Drs. Brussel and Silverman at Wade Smith's office. He then took Mrs. Brussel out to dinner while waiting for the call to pick up the doctors and also bringing dinner back for them.



MacDonald claims he was "kidnapped" for the purpose of obtaining hair sample from him.

He further claimed, "I remember being assaulted, dragged and shoved and  into the CID car, & then, later, as I stood embarrassed, at attention, naked, in my BOQ room while they took hair samples." He claims: "The Chevy was  'blocked' and run off the road even though there was never any need to do so."


On July 20, 1970, on the elegant, tree-lined and flower-decked "Colonel's Row," near where the stature of Iron Mike stands, MacDonald's car was stopped and he was taken into custody for the purpose of obtaining hair samples. MacDonald and his attorneys knew that the Army wanted to take hair samples and they had tried several times. The defense kept stalling.

MacDonald contends that he was waiting for his commanding officer to give him the order, and that when that happened, he would cooperate and provide the hair samples.

MacDonald and Segal knew what was going to happen, and, not averse to publicity, Segal had arranged for news reporters to be present.

MacDonald and his driver—who was at the wheel of MacDonald's 1965 two-door white Chevrolet convertible—were both in the front seat; Segal and defense lawyer Dennis Eisman were in the back seat. They were
enroute to MacDonald's BOQ.

Arriving there, they noted that there were more guards than usual. Apparently realizing that this meant they were there to take MacDonald into protective custody for removal of the hair samples, the MacDonald team continued on instead of stopping, saying they had decided to go for coffee. This of course gave the MPs and CID agents no choice but to follow them, forcing the car to stop in order to complete their assignment. When MacDonald's car stopped, appropriately named, Captain Chase approached MacDonald
's car. Segal and Eisman got out of the car, telling MacDonald and his driver to remain in the car and do nothing. Segal was irate and indignant, and both Segal and Eisman were attempting to block anyone from getting to MacDonald's car.

They were both asked nicely to step aside and not interfere, and told that Captain MacDonald was to be taken into protective custody for the purpose of removal of hair samples. Segal and Eisman would not move, so Captain Chase nodded to a CID agent who then moved Eisman aside, again telling MacDonald they were taking him into protective custody. MacDonald got out of the car. No one touched him. He was not kidnapped, grabbed or dragged to the car; he walked of his own free will. Suddenly, as he entered the sedan, he kicked  CID agent Hodges, the blow landing in what CID agent Peter Kearns described as
"a far more sensitive area" than a knee or leg.
It was later learned that one of MacDonald's attorneys had advised him to shave all the hair from his body, but he had failed to do.


 In a live interview with Diane Diamond, MacDonald was not happy when she confronted him about his trying to get Toni Stanton to wire tape Bill Ivory, Peter Kearns and Paul Stombaugh.  MacDonald responded: "What's wrong with that? What's wrong with trying to get information to prove  my innocence?"

She also confronted him about the many love letters he had written and their contents.


Many things came out during that 2 show episode in February 1991, even the fact that MacDonald wanted Toni Stanton (Antoinette Smelling) to wear a wire tap so she could interview Bill Ivory and Peter Kearns both on the same day so they couldn't compare notes. And the main one to get was Stombaugh. He gave instructions on how it should be done. He also asked if the money was OK, if not let him know and he would get more money to her.

In 1991, a 9 1/2 pound box of love letter, other statements/recollections written by MacDonald, pictures, audio tapes and documents were sent to Eames Yates, producer of Hard Copy.

This information provided the public with a raw glimpse into the mind of Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted triple murderer. It told just how good at manipulation he was. It also told of the sexual encounters that occurred in the attorney's private meeting room at the prison that read like a modern-day Boccaccio's Decameron.

Large parts of the letters were read on national television by Diane Diamond. MacDonald was not a happy camper, and said she was making something out of nothing. Then Diamond asked him if he wrote the letters, to which he stated: "I don't know that." Diamond handed him the letters, and he quickly thumbed through them. His face turned red and you could see sweat appear on his forehead. Continuing on he said "I have been convicted of three murders that I should not have been convicted of. . .and now I'm being convicted for writing letters to a beautiful woman."

MacDonald was aggressive, and at one point Diamond asked him "are you threatening me" and he denies that he was. He did say, "if you do what I suspect you're about to do, you'll make my job more difficult. You better be on good solid ground if you use or misuse those letters."


MacDonald said on national television that "Joe McDonald was making money off of this tragedy."


Who wanted this book written? MacDonald himself. He made money off of it as well and he murdered Colette, Kimberley and Kristen. He got twenty-five cents out of every dollar made from the sale of the book, Fatal Vision. By September 1983, he had received $75,000 from Joe McGinniss from the book's earnings.


MacDonald claimed poverty during the 1979 trial wanting the trial transcripts for free.


On August 13, 1979, during a Bench Conference, Smith addressed the court, "Judge, we still feel that we are being very badly hurt about the transcript, and we hate to ride that horse again; but we do want to review our motion. We filed a motion and we contended the Defendant does not have the money to pay for the transcript. I have talked with the United States attorney about it, and we have tried to work something out. We feel that we do not have the money to pay for that transcript and we need it. We need it especially now."

Anderson: Mr. Smith and I have talked about the situation in connection with the transcript. I told Mr. Smith that we would consider making it available to the Defendant, not at the cost the government had to pay, but at the cost that it would cost them at the end of the trial—that is $1.50 a page. And then he indicated to me that the Defendant was unable to do this. Subsequently, I suggested to Mr. Smith that this Defendant should not be treated any differently from any other defendant—that if he signed an affidavit of indigence and the Court found he was indigent, that we would supply on the Court's instructions a copy of the transcript. That is the position of our office.

Judge Dupree: How much does this man make a year?

Segal: $60,000 gross, all sources of all income.

Judge Dupree: That is incredible, absolutely incredible.

Smith: That he doesn't have the money?

Judge Dupree: No, that he makes $60,000 a year gross. That is simply—

Smith: (Interposing) You mean that's too little or too much?

Judge Dupree: Too little. Let me tell you, they make over $100,000 just working here in Raleigh in the emergency rooms. In Los Angeles, my guess is that this man's income is between $150,000 and $200,000 a year. He is head of the department. I bet you anything in the world it is.

Segal: We have an affidavit to file signed by Dr. MacDonald. We would be glad to supplement that information with anything Your Honor wants. I will tell you, just here at side bar, that his total assets in the world are the condominium house he lives in—apartment, really—which has been mortgaged and re-mortgaged for this trial to 100 percent. He owns an automobile. He has a power boat, which was borrowed on fully. It is not owned outright—him and the finance company.

The balance of it was borrowed fully, and that is it; and his income—he receives during the course of this trial that part of his salary which went for administration—they let him stay on salary on that. But the part of his earnings which come from actually working as a physician in the ER, rather than doing administration—that part, of course, he is not earning, because they are literally paying another doctor to cover his space.

We have, I think, set that out in paragraph four or  five of the motion. Again, I would offer the Defendant under oath in regard to any matters of his finances for the court to examine in this regard.

Judge Dupree: Well, we just got too much else to do. I have been into that once; I am not going to do anything else about it right now. If you can arrange some deal with United States attorney, well and good. I don't want to deprive you of anything . . .


MacDonald asked for protection in the court room because Freddy had stated: "If the court didn't find Jeff guilty, he would dispense his own justice."


While waiting for the jury to return, Judge Dupree sat alone in his chambers, just off the courtroom. He requested that Freddy Kassab visit him. Freddy was very outspoken, his mission in life was for Jeff MacDonald to be prosecuted and convicted for the murder of his extended family. He pulled no punches and made no secret of the fact that he had acquired a permit and purchased a gun. And as he often had said, "If the court didn't find Jeff guilty, he would dispense his own justice."

Through the open door of the large, but unpretentious inner sanctum of the most powerful federal judge in eastern North Carolina, Freddy entered asking, "Judge, you wanted to see me?"

One can be sure that Judge Dupree was well aware of the passion that burned within Kassab. He himself had two daughters and grandchildren, and he knew how much he loved them. Perhaps the thought of what he would do if anyone harmed them had crossed his mind.

The trial was almost over, and the jury was deliberating. No one knew in whose favor the verdict would be. But Judge Dupree was a man who took seriously his responsibility to protect all parties that might come before him. That responsibility and protection extended to Jeffrey MacDonald. He did not want Kassab to dispense his own brand of justice either in his courtroom or anywhere close to it. There had been enough discussion of death and the MacDonald family in his courtroom.

The meeting between these two proud, strong men did not take long, but the judge got what he wanted: a promise from Freddy that he would not harm MacDonald if he was found not guilty while he was in his federal jurisdiction.


In 1979, the Marshall's did not wear uniforms, they wore suits and ties. A guard was assigned to stand behind MacDonald when the verdict was read.


MacDonald claims that evidence from a most reliable source, a former government official, that Helena Stoeckley, in fact, was prepared to testify at MacDonald's trial that she and other accomplices were responsible for murdering MacDonald's wife and children, but the lead prosecutor, James Blackburn, when told by her of involvement in the crime, threatened Stoeckley into changing her testimony, and then misrepresented to the court and to the defense attorneys what Stoeckley had told him based on the affidavit that Britt gave.
According to Britt, At the Courthouse, I first took Ms. Stoeckley to the office that was used by Jeffrey MacDonald's attorneys on the seventh floor of the Federal Building. I left her there with Mr. Smith and Mr. Bernard Segal. When the attorneys were finished, I escorted Ms. Stoeckley to the eighth floor to the U.S. Attorney's office.

I knew that James Blackburn was one of the government attorneys trying Jeffrey MacDonald. I had seen Mr. Blackburn many times before. I was also aware of, and saw Mr. Brian Murtagh and Mr. George Anderson during the course of the trial.

When I delivered Helena Stoeckley to the U.S. Attorney's office, Mr. Blackburn asked me to remain in the room. This was not an unusual occurrence—I had been asked to sit in the room by government attorneys many times in my career.

As I recall, Mr. Blackburn sat behind a desk that set at an angle in the northeast corner of the office. There were several chairs positioned in front of the desk. Helena Stoeckley sat in the center chair in front of the desk and I sat over to the side next to the window.

After Ms. Stoeckley was settled in the room, Mr. Blackburn began to interview her. Ms. Stoeckley told Mr. Blackburn the same things she had stated to me on the trip from Greenville to Raleigh. She specifically mentioned the hobby horse and various other things, and specifically told Mr. Blackburn that she, along with others, had been inside Jeffrey MacDonald's home on the night of the murders. She also said she had gone to MacDonald
's house to acquire drugs.

When these statements were made, I was absolutely aware of the importance of Ms. Stoeckley's words to Mr. Blackburn. There is no doubt in my mind today, I am still absolutely certain, that Helena Stoeckley told James Blackburn that she was in the MacDonald house on the night of the MacDonald murders, with other people.

After Helena Stoeckley had given the history of her visit to Jeffrey MacDonald's home, Mr. Blackburn stated:
"If you testify before the jury as to what you have told me or said to me in this office, I will indict you for murder."

The importance of Mr. Blackburn's words were not lost on me at the time, and never has been. I have no doubt that this is what Mr. Blackburn said to Helena Stoeckley in my presence.

I am not certain as to whether other attorneys besides Mr. Blackburn were in the room during the Stoeckley interview. It is possible George Anderson, the United States Attorney at the time, and/or Brian Murtagh, the other government prosecutor, or others associated with the prosecution were there, either when I entered the room with Ms. Stoeckley, or after I entered with her. They may have come in and left at some point, taken a break, or gone out of the room. I have a recollection of Ms. Stoeckley asking for a sandwich during the interview, and someone other than myself going to see about it. But my clear recollection is that only Mr. Blackburn, Ms. Stoeckley and I were in the room at the time Mr. Blackburn said those words to Ms. Stoeckley.

Upon conclusion of the interview, I took Ms. Stoeckley from the eighth floor by stairway down to the seventh floor, and into the Courtroom.

These events have remained with me. The interview with Mr. Blackburn and other conduct by representatives of the government which I felt was unethical all have moved me to take this action.

99% of time, United States Marshals are not present during questioning in a case like this.  Stoeckley was not a prisoner being held for a crime she was suspected off. She was being held in custody as a material witness.
The only time a marshal would remain in the room would be if a prisoner is considered dangerous, the marshal might remain in the room or just outside the door observing through the window of the door. Stoeckley was not a danger to anyone there. She was passive. The only possible risk, if not held in custody, she might have been a flight risk.
Blackburn's desk was never on an angle in his office.

Britt took Stoeckley to United States Attorney George Anderson's office. Anderson's desk was not on an angle, and Britt was not asked to stay as he claimed. Anderson sat behind his desk. Blackburn sat to Anderson's left in a straight-back chair. There were two other chairs in the office of a dark blue leathery looking texture and behind those was a sofa. Stoeckley sat in one of those chairs facing Blackburn. Want to guess who sat in the other chair? It was none other than Brian Murtagh. Jack Crawley sat on the sofa. Jim Blackburn, in his book, Flame-Out touches on this fact.
 Tim Junkin was made aware of the fact that Jack Crawley was in the room the whole time and heard the conversation in 2005.
While there is nothing to back Britt's accusations but his memory, we do know what occurred in the courtroom. Segal himself appeared somewhat surprised after Stoeckley's testimony and sought leave to examine Stoeckley, a defense witness, as a hostile witness. He maintained that, during the preceding interviews, Stoeckley had made statements suggesting familiarity with the crime scene and recalled standing over a body and holding a candle. At this, Blackburn represented that during his interview with Stoeckley, she had no recollection of ever having been in the MacDonald home and did not recognize any of the scenes depicted in the crime scene photos. To this, Blackburn added: "I told Mr. Smith last night what she told us. I was under the impression to this very moment that what she told us was essentially what she told them." Smith, interjected: "Judge, here I think is where we are. Generally, she said to us the same thing and that is, 'I don't remember.'"

 Judge Dupree then questioned Stoeckley, who informed him that on the preceding day, she was interviewed by the defense for approximately three and a half hours and was thereafter interviewed by the prosecutors. In response to his question whether she told both sides the same story, Stoeckley responded:
"As far as I know, yes, sir."



In paragraph 10 Britt states, I did not come forward previously with the information I shared with Mr. Smith, and which I now share with the court, out of respect for the late Judge Franklin Dupree, who presided over the trial, and others who were with the courts at the time of the MacDonald trial. Working on the side of law enforcement in the courthouse was my career. I did not want to betray, or appear to be portraying, the people I worked with and respected. I considered myself a loyal officer and I still do, but ultimately I decided that I had a duty to come forward.


Why would a U.S. Marshal, who is supposed to uphold the law, witness what he alleges he did and yet do nothing about it? This
 definitely says a lot about the man. He certainly was under no duress not to report this and furthermore to wait all these years could lead people to think that he may well have an alternative motive for coming forward at this late date. Britt asserts his reasoning for not reporting the instance:
"His loyalty to the Marshal's Service and his respect for Judge Dupree." However, Britt retired from the U.S. Marshal Service in November 1990. Judge Dupree died in 1995. He speaks of loyalty, but where was his loyalty to uphold the law that he had sworn to do?

Britt's duty was to immediately report this to his superiors. He should have informed Blackburn of what he intended to.


In paragraph 11 of Britt's affidavit, he claimed: What I shared with Mr. Smith is that during the Jeffrey MacDonald Trial, in my capacity as a United States Marshal, assigned to the District Court where MacDonald was tried, I was assigned to travel to Greenville, South Carolina, to assume custody of a witness by the name of Helena Stoeckley. I picked Ms. Stoeckley up at the County Jail in Greenville, South Carolina and drove her back to Raleigh.


Stoeckley was arrested on August 14, 1979, by FBI SA Frank J. Mills and Thomas John Donohue at her trailer located off Highway 24, Oakway Community, Oconee County, South Carolina. Stoeckley was interviewed by FBI SA Mills en route to the detention facility. At 6:32 p.m. on August 14, 1979, FBI SA Donohue committed Stoeckley to the custody of the Pickens County Jail, located at 216 LEC Road, Pickens, South Carolina. Stoeckley was fingerprinted and entered in the Jail Book as prisoner No. 1061.

Retired DUSM Vernoy Kennedy gave a sworn statement that during 1979, while he aware of the trial of Jeffrey MacDonald in North Carolina, he received an assignment from his supervisor that a female prisoner needed to be transported to the trial. Mr. Kennedy stated that at the time of the trial he was the only African-American Deputy U.S. Marshall stationed in Greenville, South Carolina. Because it was a female prisoner, he was required by USMS procedure to have a "female guard" accompany him.

 Accompanied by a female guard (name not recalled), DUSM Kennedy traveled from Greenville to Pickens County detention facility on August 15, 1979. When he arrived, he signed the required USMS "Release" Form No. 103 in order to take custody of a federal prisoner and took custody of Stoeckley at 2:30 p.m.

He transported Stoeckley by car to a meeting point near the intersection of I-85 and I-77 in the vicinity of Charlotte previously arranged by the Marshal Services in Raleigh and Columbia. DUSM Dennis Meehan, and his then wife Janice Meehan, who acted as the female guard or matron took custody of Stoeckley from DUSM Kennedy on August 15, 1979 using the witness security vehicle maintained by the Marshals Service in Raleigh, North Carolina. There after he and his wife brought Stoeckley to the Wake County Jail, where she was incarcerated.

Evidence found by the government supports the fact that
Helen Stoeckley was not arrested or detained in Greenville, South Carolina. She was arrested in Oconee County, South Carolina, on August 14, 1979, by the FBI and lodged in the nearest facility contracted to house federal prisoners, which was the Pickens County Jail in the town of Pickens.


In Paragraph 15, Britt claims that during the travel from Greenville, South Carolina to Raleigh, without any prompting from me whatsoever, Ms. Stoeckley brought up the manner of the trial of Jeffrey MacDonald. She told me in the presence of Jerry Holden, about a hobby horse in the MacDonald home, and that she, in fact, along with others, was in Jeffrey MacDonald's home on the night of the murders.

If Britt allowed any prisoner to discuss their case with him, he was not following the rules. It was strict regulation of the Marshal Service not to allow the prisoner to discuss their case with the marshals or anyone else in the marshal's presence.

If a guard was used who was not employed by the Marshal's Service, it was the marshal's duty to instruct that person not to discuss their case with the inmate.


In paragraph 17 of Britt's affidavit, he states, I was the United States Marshal assigned to bring Helena Stoeckley to the Courthouse at 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North, Carolina, the day after she made the statements to me in the car.

MacDonald claims that additional corroboration for Britt's claim that he was the deputy marshal assigned to accompany Stoeckley can be found in the video footage contained in the documentary False Witness, which has actual news footage of Stoeckley appearing at the Raleigh courthouse during the trial, and shows that she is accompanied by a much younger Britt. Although Pickens County is contiguous to Greenville County, the town of Pickens where the Greenville County Jail is located are approximately a 30-minute drive apart.

On this, Britt is correct. He was assigned to pick up Stoeckley from Wake County Jail and bring her to the Raleigh Courthouse with Ms. Jerry Holden acting as the female guard.
However, Brit makes no mention of Ms. Holden acting in any capacity on this day which was August 16, 1979. There is a picture in the newspaper that shows Britt and Ms. Holden escorting Stoeckley into the courthouse.

The False Witness video does in fact show Britt and Holden escorting Stoeckley into the U.S. Courthouse in Raleigh on the morning of August 16, 1979, the date of her interview by the defense and prosecution. That video was taken by the news staff.



MacDonald seems overly concerned as to what went on when the government questioned Helena Stoeckley prior to her testimony at the 1979.


Although the records show, that, during the interview of Stoeckley, a member of the defense took notes, the defense has yet to present any evidence in support to establish what occurred during the interview or to contradict defense attorney Wade Smith's admission at trial that she had no recollection of participating in the murders of the MacDonald family.
Other than attorneys and staff, the defense allowed one other person to be present during their interview with Stoeckley. That person was Joe McGinniss. According to McGinniss' book, Fatal Vision as to his account of the interview, Stoeckley responded to Segal's inquiries concerning crime scene photos,
"I can't help you, I wasn't in the house. I didn't have anything to do with any of this."  Responding to additional questioning, she added, "I don't know what you want me to know. I was never in the house." When Segal assured her that she would not be prosecuted, she responded, "I can't help you, I can't tell you things I can't remember."


MacDonald claims that confessions made by Helena Stoeckley to her own mother are "profoundly" reliable. He requests that his statement of material evidence be supplemented with the affidavit of Mrs. Stoeckley so "that the court can consider the attached affidavit as part of the evaluation of the evidence as a whole, and as a further profound addition to the body of proof of his actual innocence . . .."


No further statement is attributed to Helena Stoeckley on the first occasion other than: "she was present in the MacDonald house during the murders on February 17, 1970."

The first 12 numbered paragraphs consist of factual averments which are not supported by any sworn statements. Neither the affidavit nor the motion contain any explanation why these statements alleged to have been made between 1979 and 1983 to the elder Mrs. Stoeckley from her daughter..

The newly discovered evidence consists exclusively of post-trial "confessions" of Helena Stoeckley to her mother, "Mrs. Stoeckley" prior to Helena Stoeckley's death in January 1983. These statements are contained in a three-page document, purportedly the affidavit of Mrs. Helena Stoeckley, who is 86 years old, legally blind and a resident of a nursing home.

 The affidavit was produced by defendant's current wife, Kathryn MacDonald, who manages the MacDonald Website, following what she claims was a contact with the website by Mrs. Stoeckley's son Eugene (Gene) Stoeckley.

Mrs. Stoeckley's signature appears on "Page 1" of a document captioned "Untitled", which is otherwise totally devoid of any text from the 15 numbered paragraphs of the "affidavit" contained in the first two unnumbered pages. Each unnumbered page consists of self-contained paragraphs which do not carry over text from the first to the second page. The first two unnumbered pages have not been signed or initialed by anyone.

The second page, containing paragraphs 11-15, ends in the middle of the page. Although 5 ˝ inches of space remain between the last line of 15 and the bottom of the page, which is more than sufficient space for the signatures of the affiant, the notary and the witnesses, no such signatures appear on this page.

The signature page does not in any way incorporate the preceding pages. There is no way of discerning whether the signature page ("Page 1") comes after a one page affidavit or a hundred page affidavit. The sole basis to support the inference that Mrs. Stoeckley was in fact swearing to the averments in the 15 numbered paragraphs, is an unsworn statement.

The Government does not dispute that Gene Stoeckley read to his mother some form of document typed by Kathryn MacDonald. As Gene Stoeckley was not provided a copy of that document contemporaneously, we have no proof that, except for the signature page, the affidavit read and the affidavit filed are one and the same.

 When these circumstances are added to her disavowal to the FBI that her daughter ever said she was afraid of the prosecutor, and Mrs. Stoeckley's evident cognitive and visual limitations, the reliability of this affidavit becomes questionable.

That three individuals (although not Kathryn MacDonald) witnessed Mrs. Stoeckley, with some apparent difficulty, sign a blank piece of paper is utterly meaningless under these circumstances. In view of the irregular circumstances under which this affidavit was procured, the admitted incapacity of the affiant to read what she was signing, her cognitive limitations, and the absence of supporting affidavits attesting that the affidavit as read to Mrs. Stoeckley is the same document, without additions, deletions or alterations, that was filed with the court.
I do believe Ms. MacDonald was celebrating a little too soon. She was caught and charged with the offense: Driving while impaired, unsafe movement in North Carolina.
I find it strange that MacDonald would put so much faith and reliability in what Ms. Stoeckley allegedly said in her affidavit.

Stoeckley's parents were subpoenaed, and they came to Raleigh during the 1979 trial. They said they did not know where their daughter was. Further stating: "I don't know her address and don't want to know."

This is the same Ms. Stoeckley who said her daughter was a "physical and mental wreck. She's not even a human being anymore. You find her now, sure she'll talk. She'll always talk. But I'm telling you, she's gonna talk all kind of nonsense." How did Helena all of a sudden become so reliable in her mother's eyes? One is left to wonder how, why and if Ms. Stoeckley did say those things in her affidavit since it so diabolically opposed to what she had said all those years prior.


MacDonald was allowed to get married in prison.


In August 2002, more than thirty-two years after the murder of his pregnant wife and two daughters, MacDonald married Kathryn Kurichh in a Federal Prison, in Adelanto California. After the prison gave their permission for the marriage, they applied for a marriage license in San Bernardino County, California, and requested the marriage license remain confidential, which is allowed by California law.

His bride refers to herself as a paralegal who works on his case. MacDonald immediately applied for and was ultimately granted a transfer to Cumberland, Maryland, which he is entitled to be within five hundred miles of his wife.

I wrote to the prison to inquire as why they would allow a triple convicted murderer to get married.
The prison's way of looking at it was there was no reason not to allow it. After all, his wife was dead. However, what the prison should have looked at and took into consideration is the fact that she is dead because he killed her.


MacDonald states on his website, "For many years, Joe McGinniss's best-selling novel Fatal Vision was viewed as the definitive book on the MacDonald case. The book, and the ensuing mini-series based on it, were accepted as fact, since McGinniss had direct access to, and cooperation from his subject. His portrayal of MacDonald as a cold, narcissistic killer has been indelibly imprinted in the public's collective psyche over the years; the residual effects have tainted every court proceeding since trial."


Joe McGinniss is a man who has witnessed first-hand personal insight into the personality of Jeffrey MacDonald. He was there every step of the way. He heard what everyone said in and out of the court room from the defense. More important, he saw MacDonald's behavior out of the court room. He experienced the rage and the bitter hatred MacDonald felt for anyone who did not agree with him.

McGinniss said the first time he met MacDonald, that: "the first thing MacDonald did was make a joke to me, saying; 'I understand you're an expert on triple homicides', and he laughed, making reference to a newspaper column I had written fifteen years earlier.

"But it struck me as most peculiar that this man would be making jokes about this kind of situation. It struck me most peculiar that he would be allowing his friends to give him a disco party to send him off to North, Carolina on an 'emotional high', as he put it."

McGinniss, like many others were faced with things that just didn't seem right, but were willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. However, McGinniss said: "I'd say that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence first caused me to recognize that there was a very, very real chance that, despite outward appearances, he must have done it..." He goes on to say: "Then in living with him during the trial and seeing his emotional reactions and lack of emotional reactions to different situations, you could say in an amateurish way...I had an intuitive psychological insight that the man was not responding appropriately...

"Throughout the summer in private he would rage against the judge, against the prosecuting attorney, against witnesses called by the prosecution, against the military from 1970--rage against everybody in the privacy of the fraternity house."

McGinniss' book, False Vision, is one of the best of its kind. It will go down in history as a classic of a true murder case that still leaves people wanting to know why MacDonald committed these brutal murders.  McGinniss did not convict MacDonald, he too, in a sense, is also a victim of MacDonald.


MacDonald claims he was convicted of triple homicide in 1979 because of his failure to explain the physical evidence.


Jeffrey MacDonald was not convicted because he failed to explain the evidence. Both sides presented their case. The jury took from that the issues they needed to consider. The jury did not want to find him guilty. The man they saw before them was a doctor, a healer who had taken the oath to save lives as opposed to taking them. They had a tremendous job to weigh what they had seen and heard. As Blackburn said: they kept waiting for that one piece of evidence that would show he was not guilty and it never came.

The jury found that beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the only possible person who could have committed the murders.


Would MacDonald be found guilty if he had a second trial?


If there is a second trial held, the government would again be able to introduce such damaging evidence against MacDonald as his pajama top, the location of fibers from the pajama top in parts of the house which would be inconsistent with MacDonald's story, the bloody footprint leaving Kristen's bedroom, the pajama top demonstration whereby it was shown that holes in the top matched ice pick wounds on the body of Colette and other evidence which proved, apparently conclusively so, that MacDonald murdered his family.
There is also evidence that was not introduced at the 1979 trial, and might well be introduced at a second trial.

Addressing the impact of Stoeckley's confessions (and those who seemingly made statements supporting them), in light of such evidence, Judge Dupree said, the court is certain that Stoeckley was telling the truth when she testified that she could not recall her whereabouts on the night of the murders. This is what she said for over ten years following the crimes and MacDonald has failed to convince the court that her "confessions" show otherwise. These statements are factually erroneous and inconsistent not only with MacDonald's story but with the physical evidence gathered from the crime scene...
Even were the court to assume Stoeckley lied on the witness stand, it could not conclude that without Stoeckley's testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion. It might well be that Stoeckley's trial testimony took the defense by surprise, but if the jury had not heard that testimony but instead had heard her so-called confessions, in the court's opinion the jury would not have reached a different verdict, for the government's cross-examination would surely have developed the glaring inconsistencies in her story . . . and that, because of her drug-crazed condition she was a totally unreliable, untrustworthy witness.

Judge Dupree in addressing why MacDonald's bail was denied he stated:
"Although the government did not seek the death penalty in this case, the statue under which it was prosecuted still provides for such a penalty..."

The death penalty was reestablished in 1976 in North Carolina after the William Henry Furman case. (Furman v Georgia) The first execution after Furman was in 1984, with the sole method of execution being lethal injection since October 29, 1998.

Although violations of 18 U.S.C.
§1111 were punishable by death at the time of the commission of the murders, the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Furman V. George, 409 U.S. 902 (1972) meant the death penalty could not be Constitutionally imposed at the trial because of defects in the statue.



The grand jury investigation was a necessary step and the last attempt in getting MacDonald prosecuted since Furman v. Georgia in 1976 succeeded in overturning the death penalty, and had changed existing law. Previously there had been no statute of limitations on a charge of first-degree murder on a federal installation. Furman essentially created a five year limit, and February 17, 1975 became the deadline for bring an indictment against MacDonald.

The grand jury convened on August 12, 1974, MacDonald was the first witness called. The defense contends that Woerheide's plan from the start was apparently to set him up for a big fall; his statement on record in front of MacDonald on the first day of the investigation read that the grand jury would be looking into criminal misconduct on the part of the CID in their investigation and the Article 32 hearing that followed, and then, if possible, who was responsible for the murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen as well as the
"felonious assault" on MacDonald. By couching the process in these terms, Woerheide precluded the need to have testimony to corroborate MacDonald's side of the story. Once MacDonald had told his story, the other witnesses would offer contradicting details, with which Woerheide would then confront MacDonald when he was recalled at the very end of the proceedings. Despite Woerheide's objective-sounding introduction, MacDonald was clearly targeted from the beginning of the proceedings.

What the defense neglected to mention is the fact that Woerheide clearly informed MacDonald that he was considered a suspect as evidenced by the following-

Victor Woerheide: "With respect to the murders, the finger has been pointed at various individuals; and one of the persons who has been a suspect in the past and who must be considered a suspect for the purpose of this grand jury proceeding is you, yourself, since you are the only survivor of the incident that occurred on the night of February 16, 17, 1970. And no one up to this point has been identified as the person who committed murder, person or persons that committed murder and assault on that occasion. Now, under the circumstances, in view of what I have just told you, it is my duty to inform you that you have a constitutional right to refuse to answer any questions if you believe that a truthful answer to that question may in any manner or any wise tend to incriminate you. Further, you have a right to counsel. You may not have counsel in the grand jury room during the course of the grand jury proceedings; but you may have counsel nearby, and upon request, you may leave the grand jury room and consult with your counsel as to any matter that is asked of you during the course of the grand jury inquiry. Do you understand what I have stated to you, sir?
" MacDonald replied: "Yes, I do." Woerheide: "Do you have counsel?" MacDonald replied: "Yes, I do." Woerheide: "What is his name?" MacDonald replied: "Bernard L. Segal." Woerheide: "Is he here at this time?" MacDonald replied: "Yes, he is."

MacDonald can claim whatever he wishes, but each of his claims can be explained and will always revert back to him, and he continues to display the narcissism alluded to in Fatal Vision. MacDonald will most likely die in prison, because it is doubtful he will ever admit his guilt and take responsibility for his actions. So be it. When one lives a lie, one lives the life of the self-tormented soul.

From the beginning MacDonald has bitched about his rights being violated. He should have been thrown into the stockade, but because he was an officer, he was restricted to his BOQ. He drew his full pay while under restriction without having to work.

He is void of any common decency. Rules are something that MacDonald had no conception of, and furthermore he was not one to follow them. This is evidenced by the fact that he managed to have female companionship in his BOQ for the purpose of a sexual nature. I guess the guards just looked the other way. He even went off base without permission with his friend Captain Jim Williams to see the movie M*A*S*H.

MacDonald has lied, and changed his story about what occurred from the start. His so-called injuries grew from minor to life threatening. MacDonald's own words below evidence that.

(1) When asked to describe what occurred when we woke up on the floor with his pajama top wrapped around his hands, he said; "When I woke up, the first thing I thought of was--you know, I'm ashamed to say--myself."

(2) When he called for help, speaking to the sergeant on the phone; "So I told him that I needed a doctor and an ambulance and that some people had been stabbed, and that I thought I was going to die."
These were not "some people", they were his family.

(3) According to MacDonald, "I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also."
Later he said "I think I heard Kristy--Kimmie, the older girl, said, "Daddy"--saying "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."

(4) As to the female he claims was present, he said; "And, really, all I saw of her was some long, stringy blonde hair and--and a big hat."

(5) He stated, "And I remember starting--you know, I started to go down the hall and really, the next thing that's clear is that this MP was--MP or medic, I don't know--was giving me respiration--artificial respiration, which I apparently didn't need."
So, here he is actually admitting that he did not need to receive artificial respiration.

(6) When he was asked if his injuries were inflicted by the intruders, he replied: "Well, I assume so."
What did he mean.
"I assume?" Surly a person who claims to have been attacked would know if their injuries were inflicted by the attackers.

(7) As to anything being missing from the residence, Investigator: ... There's nothing missing from your house, not even--not even vandalism--

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: --Captain MacDonald, you have a lot of things in your home that people would like to steal.

MacDonald: They were nice, I know.

Investigator: Nice to take, no matter what their reason was, if there was. Do you know what I mean?

MacDonald: Well, yeah. They could have come in for--for that reason and then realizing what they'd done, just left. But it's--I know, I agree with you. It's very likely. I don't know.

(8) As to the drugs found in the residence; Investigator: Captain, you have a lot of--a lot of drugs in your house.

MacDonald: I know.

Investigator: Why? Why do you have a lot of drugs there?

MacDonald: Oh, I just got something or everything in case anyone ever asks me and--Johnny-on-the-spot. You know, very often I'd suture people; and I took care of half the neighborhood, you know, and--nothing there was controlled.
I was careful about that, you know. I didn't have any controlled drugs or anything like that. Everything was stuff there wouldn't be any problem with and no one should be after for any reason.
And I just had--like, for instance, if we were going on a camping trip, I was all ready to make up a nice little M3A kit with that--you know, all the possibilities involved; but that was the only reason.
All this came about when the third disbanded, and they had boxes and boxes of stuff they were just going to burn. And I thought that was stupid, so I just took a couple bottles of everything and was going to make up my own aid kit, you know, for my car and camping and stuff.
But I know, it looked a little--a little excessive, I'm sure.

Investigator: It looked more than a little excessive. It looked real excessive, frankly. I'm being more than frank with you as you're being frank with me, I hope.

MacDonald: Yeah, well--

MacDonald has claimed over the years and even stated so on interviews "there is no hint of violence anywhere in me. Others say otherwise.

June Reich, a friend of Colette's said that once when they were dating each other, she witnessed an incident when MacDonald had slapped Colette for no apparent reason.

MacDonald had fights with Dean Chamberlain, a boy who Colette went out with in high school.

 Ken Mica told me about fight MacDonald had in New York and how he had to be pulled of the guy because after the guy was down, MacDonald kept beating his head against the ground.

 Bill Ivory told me about a time when MacDonald was playing football with police officers, he became violent against a player and had to be restrained.

August 20, 1979,  Mary Butler testified that on one occasion,  we did have a patient--a big burly guy--excuse me--very irate, very arrogant--he just took a swing at the MacDonald and broke his glasses, and that MacDonald swung at the patient and put him in his place.

 While out on his boat with his friend Bob Stein's wife Marion (they were separated at the time) MacDonald became so angry at her son, Danny he threatened to crush the child's skull against the dock, and ended up throwing him into the water.

As to Brian Murtagh, the defense has done everything they can to cast suspicion and wrong doing on him. Hard as they have tried, they have never found anything to dishonor his name or work except allegations with nothing to back them up.

Murtagh has been and continues to be a tireless, dedicated advocate of the victims. When one assesses the vital components which brought about the indictment, then the trial itself, Murtagh has been there at every crucial juncture. Those of us who have followed the case and believe that MacDonald was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, certainly owe a vote of thanks to him and all of his hard work. Thank you friend for the courage you inspire.

In a courtroom it is fascinating to watch the faces of the people at a trial; their fear, hope, anxiety, and just plain terror regardless of which side they were on. Waiting for a jury to reach a verdict is a strange feeling, sort of like being in church waiting for the minister to start his sermon. Few people stay in the courtroom and for the few that do remain, it is a time for them to silently reflect on what has gone on. Most gather in the lobby or just outside who had just a few hours previously been seated on opposite sides of the courtroom now joined with no divided line in conversation together with the most common question asked: What do you think?

In the court, despite the crime scene illustrative photographs of the bodies of the victims, the bloody clothing on display, and the graphic testimony as to the victims' injuries and what they had endured prior to their death, many including the press believed either he was innocent or a jury would never convict him. MacDonald's body language told the same and that he was looking forward to a victory celebration.

In order to get away with murder, a person has to be incredibly lucky. For nine and a half years Segal had successfully kept MacDonald from facing the justice of conviction. But on the afternoon of August 30, 1979, his luck ran out and his freedom came to end. MacDonald was handcuffed and removed from the courtroom.

Reporter David Lee Miller, said about MacDonald: "I spent a few hours in a very small room with Jeffrey MacDonald, and I must admit, I never met someone convicted of a heinous crime that's so likable, good looking, and you want to believe him. As his father-in-law said, 'he can charm the birds right out of the trees' and its only when you start talking about the facts, you realize there's inconsistencies in his story..."

In the movie Fatal Vision, Victor Woerheide makes a profound statement to the effect that MacDonald will never explain his motivation for killing his family. Of course, to define that motivation is to declare his guilt. The ironic twist of fate was that any motive he had was irrelevant, because the physical traces of evidence would be sufficient to convict him. We may speculate about his reasons, but really, this only broadens one aspect of the case. The fundamental facts remain that his actions resulted in the deaths of his family, and very few people believe otherwise. To sum up MacDonald, Joe McGinniss said he is "charming, engaging and absolute ruthless beyond morality."

At the end of trial in 1979, Brian Murtagh stated: "Our duty was to take you through a tour of a slaughterhouse--not a slaughterhouse for the Defendant, certainly, but a slaughterhouse for Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. It was our duty to show you many pieces of physical evidence--much of it grotesque--and to put these bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together.

"Obviously, we couldn't bring in the eyewitnesses to testify because, we submit, the eyewitnesses were murdered; but as Mr. Blackburn has told you in his opening statement, things, objects, blood stains, et cetera, don't lie. They tell the story."

At the 1979 trial, the judge, the jury and spectators actually slipped for a time into the consciousness of the murdered victims. Through the evidence presented, we saw what they saw and heard; we all saw where and how they died. There was no way, of course, that we could actually feel their terror and pain. I did not understand it at that time, it would take years for me to thoroughly understand, but this was as close as I ever came to gazing through the eyes of murdered victims. To say this was disturbing and unsettling doesn't even begin to describe what I felt. It is something I will never forget in my lifetime.

MacDonald has frequently said, I never hurt Colette, I never hurt Kimmy, I never hurt Kristy. I loved them, I love them now. Going on to say, I was there I know what happened. On that, he is right, he saw the crime scene before anyone else did, because he created it.

MacDonald has had many interviews over the years. Most of the reporters have treated him with kid-gloves so-to-speak. Few have had the balls to ask serious questions or challenge his answers. Connie Chun was one of the stronger ones, and she asked him point blank,
"When you look in mirror, do see how old you have gotten?" You could see the angry in his eyes at that statement.

When I see a picture of MacDonald, I see a coward. An evil man, one who has committed a series of evil and unimaginable acts. It is ironic that he took Colette, Kimberley and Kristen's life and got away by having his spared. He deserves no mercy and he deserves never to be paroled. Jeffrey MacDonald turned their home that should been a safe haven into their execution chamber. MacDonald imposed the death sentence on his pregnant wife and his two innocent little girls. He escaped the death sentence, but he deserved it.


Judge Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.


Judge Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., was the presiding judge at the trial in 1979. He had just received the title of Chief Judge of the Federal Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina, presiding over forty-four of North Carolina's one hundred counties from Raleigh to the coast. Referred to as the hanging judge, he brandished his gavel with a no-nonsense wisdom, practicality and fairness.

In his late-sixties, he had a round chubby face, over-active, with his many expressions. He had a few white hairs left on his head. From the moment he ascended the bench in his long flowing black robe, it was quite evident that he was in charge of the courtroom. His way was to do it right the first time around.

He had an excellent memory. He was unfailingly polite and courteous to his staff and the jurors who helped to resolve this case, but he had no patience and was stern with those who came before him unprepared. Lying back in his chair as if he was asleep, he would spring forward in a flash to statements between attorneys or things that he did not agree with. He handed out stiff sentences.

He sat on the Federal Bench since President Nixon nominated him on November 30, 1970, confirmed by the Senate on December 1, 1970, and received commission on December 12, 1970. He served as Chief Judge, 1979-1983 until he assumed senior status on December 31, 1983. Service terminated on December 17, 1995, due to his death.


James Blackburn


James Blackburn known as Jim to friends is one of the politest men anyone could ever meet. He speaks in a very soft low voice, and never seems to get upset. He graduated from Wake Forest University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.

On October 7, 1977, Blackburn was sworn in as First Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina by Joseph Branch, Associate Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, who would later become the Court's Chief Justice.

After being sworn in later that same day in his office he received a telephone call from Brian Murtagh who was in Washington, D.C. He was told by Murtagh to start reading the grand jury testimony, especially that of Jeff MacDonald and his father-in-law Freddy Kassab, and that he would arrange for him to visit the crime scene and fly there to meet him as well. Murtagh wanted him to start familiarizing himself.

There was a hearing pending in the United States Court and oral argument had been set for January 1978. Murtagh wanted Blackburn to attend that hearing and hear the arguments so he could get a feel for the case and he wanted Blackburn to meet Freddy Kassab. Murtagh was already in gear to have everything ready for trial and since Blackburn was now the Assistant United States Attorney he was the one who would be the prosecutor or at least one of them.

While most murder cases usually occurred under state and local jurisdiction, the MacDonald murders had taken place on Fort Bragg, and for that reason, the federal government was involved. MacDonald, to be tried for murder at all, would be tried in the federal courts, and more specifically, in the federal courts in Eastern District of North Carolina.

This was Blackburn's first murder trial. His thoughts were how the hell could he prove that MacDonald did it . . . and why. His feelings of morality would not come into play until he and Brian walked into the MacDonald apartment and saw, all these years later, where the murders had taken place and what was left of what was once a young and vibrant family.

Blackburn told me, "I deeply believed MacDonald was guilty. But my confidence in my ability to successfully prosecute a well known former Green Beret doctor, long accused of murdering his family, and represented by two of the best trial lawyers anywhere, was a little more than I wanted in my first murder trial. I was not at all sure I could stay in the same courtroom with these guys. And I was it, except for Brian Murtagh, the only game in town for the government."

Long after the MacDonald trial, Jim committed a crime, but he took responsibility and admitted what he did and stood up like a man and took his punishment. He surrendered his license before it was asked for on April 16, 1993. He paid back every cent he owed and served his time. He was given a seven year sentence for the first count and a ten year sentence for the second count which was suspended. He entered prison on January 3, 1994; and was released April 3, 1994. Within four hours of his release, he returned to prison on his own free will when he was notified he had been released by mistake. He remained in prison until the end of April 1994 and then he released back into society.

He had many friends who rallied around to help him. One was Wade Smith, the defense attorney from the MacDonald case, and another was Joe McGinniss. There is a tremendous amount of respect between Smith and Blackburn. Smith has said, "Blackburn was first the prosecutor who was my nemesis, an opponent who was always perfectly prepared and who was nearly impossible to defeat . . . He was one of the best prosecutors I has ever known."

Today Blackburn has a great deal of pride in what he accomplished because of his mistakes and lives a productive life in the community. He walks straight and carries his head high. There is something about him that you cannot help but admire and respect and I am proud to call him my friend.


Brian M. Murtagh


Brian Michael Murtagh joined the Army in 1971, fresh out of Georgetown University College of Law and was commissioned as a captain in JAG. He has been with the case ever since. He worked with Victor Woerheide in 1974-1975, who was the Chief Department of Justice Prosecutor in the Grand Jury Investigation.

In 1975, after the grand jury indictment against MacDonald, he resigned his commission and joined the Department of Justice where he pursued the case vigorously and had long wanted to bring MacDonald to trial.

Murtagh would assume the position of the government's co-counsel. He is polite, respectful, extremely smart, and powerful when he speaks. Anyone talking with Murtagh about this case can clearly hear the intensity and the obvious emotion in his voice. A quiet man, he rarely appeared before the press, and never made a spectacle of himself; he stayed in the background. One might say he is plain spoken, but with a determination to bring MacDonald to justice for the horrible murders of his family.

 Brian's expertise was he knew more about the case than anyone alive, except MacDonald of course who knew all the whys it happened. Every piece of evidence, every hair and fiber he could quote. There were more than seven hundred pieces of evidence introduced at the 1979 trial and each piece of this evidence had three different numbers assigned to it and he knew them all.

Brian was at the cemetery that crisp October day in 1974, when agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under court order, exhumed the bodies of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald in order to determine the correct identity of the hair found in the hand of Colette MacDonald on the night she died by checking it against her own hair, and to get fingerprints of the children since the Army had failed to obtain them previously. He watched Stombaugh take samples of each victim's hair and identify the children. Stombaugh touched the back of the head to see which skull moved since the bodies of the children somehow had been switched when buried.

One could never ask for a better friend and a loyal one at that.


Bernard Segal


The late Bernard "Bernie" Segal was, in 1970, a middle-aged family man and well-established attorney. Originally, from Philadelphia, his education consisted of a B.S. from Temple University; an M.A., and J.D., from the University of Pennsylvania. He was a boisterous man and he and MacDonald appeared perfectly matched; they both believed in using the media to criticize the Army's handling of the investigation into the murders. They gave numerous interviews to newspapers, television, and radio. They ridiculed the Army team of investigators and laboratory technicians as incompetents at best and criminally negligent at worst. He was smart, hardworking and dedicated to doing his best for his client; he would do anything to win and was totally arrogant and resentful to all who disagreed with him. He had a wild appearance for the times in North Carolina. His mange of brushed-out curly hair was long and usually unkempt which did not seem to bother him. Perhaps in his mind, it was a sign of character.

 At the Article 32 hearing; he was brilliant and well prepared to take on the Army. There was no reason to believe this trial would be any different.

He remained a distinguished trial lawyer winning many awards. He was a master of trial advocacy programs for lawyers. He was the author of The Defense Manual for Consensual Crimes and co-author of The National Defense Manual in Criminal Cases and a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. For over 33 years he was on the teaching staff at the Golden Gate University Law Facility.


Wade M. Smith


Wade Marvin Smith, an outstanding trial attorney in Raleigh was the main co-counsel with Segal. He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he was a former all-conference halfback who had played in the Rose Bowl. Tall, in his early forties, polite, and a sharp dresser with an impressive record for winning cases, among them murder cases. He had a way with the jury of making them believe what he saying. When he spoke all was quiet and he had the attention of every person in the courtroom.

In North Carolina, Wade is a good ol' boy, and a member of the "bubba hood"; he spoke their language. A highly respected family man in the Raleigh area, his great passion was playing the guitar and singing.

Wade and Bernie were exact opposites; Wade was quietly aggressive while Bernie was boisterous. Wade had something that you could not help but admire. As James Blackburn told me, "Wade could insult you and you would like him more for it." Of the two representing MacDonald, Smith was the one who would try to humanize MacDonald by pulling on the heart strings of the jury that this man would never have raised his hand in anger to his family. Together they would fight for MacDonald's acquittal.

 Wade went on to be a North Carolina State Representative, former president of the Wake County Bar Association and winner of 2000 Distinguished Alumni Award UNC—Chapel Hill.

He continues to practice law and is recognized as a top criminal defense lawyer and a musician to boot.

During the closing argument, Smith sat very patiently at the defense's table, waiting for Segal to call on him. But as the time passed, and Judge Dupree alerting Segal that his time was almost up, Smith just slowly slumped back into the chair. One could gather from his expression that he was watching the case fall apart and there was nothing he could do about it


Judge James C. Fox


James Carroll Fox received a B.S. from the University of North Carolina in 1950. Served in the United States Army from 1951 to 1959. He received a J.D. from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1957, serving as law clerk to Don Gilliam of the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina from 1957 to 1958. He was in private practice in Wilmington, North Carolina from 1958 to 1982, and was a county attorney of New Hanover County, North Carolina from 1967 to 1981.

On September 14, 1982, Fox was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a new seat authorized by 92 Stat. 1629. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 29, 1982, and received his commission on September 30, 1982. He served as chief judge from 1990 to 1997, and assumed senior status on January 31, 2001.


 Home  -  Contact  -  Scholarship Fund  -  New Upload  -  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