Fatal Vision (53 page)

"Mr. Woerheide, are you setting me up as a fall guy?"

"No, I'm not."

"I've got instructions from an attorney that gets five hundred dollars a day and he says, 'You will not ever divulge attorney-client relationships.' And here I am divulging them."

"I have not asked you question one."

*
^’
I understand that. But the implication is—"

"I'm asking you to consult with him and give us an answer as to whether or not you are willing to give us this statement either in whole or in part. If you wish to Xerox it and excise portions of it, you are free to do so."

"The problem is, the unfairness is, if I respond in a negative fashion through attorney—"

"We'll be aware that you are doing it on the advice of counsel and you might not necessarily agree with the answer," Woerheide said. "But it's your decision, not your counsel's decision. You can accept his advice or reject his advice."

Woerheide shuffled some more papers. "Let me ask you this," he said. "In April of 1970, when you went up to Philadelphia, you were examined by a forensic psychiatrist.
I
assume this examination extended over several days?"

"It did. I don't know the dates."

"Now, besides seeing the psychiatrist, did you also see a psychologist who gave you certain tests?"

"Yes, I did. But I think we're going to have to stop talking about attorney-client relationships."

"I'm not asking you what you said to him."

"Yes, you are."

"I'm not asking what the psychologist said to you. I'm just asking you were you examined by a psychologist who gave you certain tests?"

"Yes."

"Well, how long did you spend with the psychiatrist as opposed to the psychologist who gave you the tests?" "I don't remember."

"Was it part of one day or more than one day?"

"Oh, it was more." "How many days?"

"I don't remember. I honestly don't remember."

"Could it have been more than three days?"

"I would say that would be the upper limit. It was parts of two or three days." In fact, there had been only a single, three-hour interview.

"Now, between the interview by your own psychiatrist at the end of April and the Walter Reed examinations made in August, did you talk to anyone concerning the incident of February 16th and 17th?"

"No one except reporters."

"Who were the reporters?"

"I really don't remember, sir. There were hundreds of them. You know, they were all over the place all the time."

"Did you give a full description of the matter to any of these reporters?"

"I gave a long statement to one from
Newsday."

"Was this with the knowledge of your attorneys?"

"Certainly."

"Was it tape-recorded?"

"I believe it was."

"Do you have any objection to our obtaining a copy of that tape?"

"It's not my property."

"Would you personally have any objection?"

"Only that—that my experience in the past with government prosecutors has not been very good. And you would have to view the tape with the understanding that that was a statement to a reporter.''

"I understand that you were not under oath."

"It isn't even that. It's—this was a duty for me to, you know, to try to sort of equalize all the bad things my family had to read up on Long Island and stuff. And the Kassabs at that time. My in-laws."

"Well, let me ask you this. Is there anything that you said in that statement that you feel at this time you would like to retract?"

"I'd have to reread it."

"I'll get a copy. I'll give it to you. I'll afford you an opportunity to reread it tonight. I'd like to know—"

"Sir, in other words, what you're saying is that you're viewing the statement as a statement of fact from me—otherwise you wouldn't be interested in it."

"Well, it is a statement by you recounting your recollections of the events of February 16th and 17th."

"You know, this wasn't even really with thought. This is just talking to a reporter. It's not at all like—you know, I should turn this around and say, do you want me to bring the provost marshal's news clippings, what he said in the press."

"I'm not interested in what the provost marshal said."

"Well, you should be."

"I'm interested in what you,, as a witness, having knowledge of certain facts, have to say."

"But the newspaper isn't facts. That's the thing. And this was an interview sort of arranged by high-powered defense attorneys who want a story told publicly. You know, if I'd had it my way, I wouldn't even have given the interview. That's not a legitimate thing to me."

"Well, it is a statement you made for the benefit of anybody who chose to read it, and the statement is attributed directly to you."

"Sir, I think there is a much fuller, better account of this in the Article 32 investigation, taken under oath."

"But this was prior to the Article 32. You were not under any pressure. You were not under any strain."

"I beg to differ with you."

"It was done voluntarily and purports to cover the same territory."

"To imply that I wasn't under pressure at that time in my life is outrageous! I was under tremendous—"

"Did the reporter put you under pressure?"

"The interview was to me, yes."

"You were tense?"

"Yes, I was tense, Mr. Woerheide."

"You think you said anything you should not have said?"

"I don't know. I'd have to reread it. I don't reread newspaper clippings."

The next day, Woerheide said, "Doctor MacDonald, I gave you a copy of the statement that was published in
Newsday,
and I asked you to review it and inform us today whether there was anything that you felt should be explained or modified."

"The answer is essentially what I said yesterday. This is not a statement under oath. It's a statement to a reporter for a news story, and I think it should be viewed as such. There are a lot of things in here that now, if I looked critically at it, aren't exactly correct. But I don't see what relevancy that has."

"I see questions which purport to be verbatim transcript of questions asked of you and I see answers which I think purport to be verbatim transcript of responses that you gave."

"Sir, if you took what was quoted as verbatim in a newspaper— for instance, the Justice Department six months ago stating that this case would never be prosecuted. This is totally irrelevant. A news interview by a reporter."

"Did he ask you those questions, and did you give those answers?"

"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."

"Would you say it has been doctored in any way?"

"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? I don't remember stating some of the things he had me stating."

"I notice on page seven," Worheide said, "and I don't want to get into the details of this right now, there is a—"

"Sir, may
I
say this? If this is going to be discussed, is the grand jury going to see it? I mean they should see this if we're going to discuss it.''

"At this point," Woerheide continued, "I just wanted to ask you, did you furnish this drawing that's set forth here?"

Woerheide pointed to the diagram of the interior of 544 Castle Drive on which MacDonald had drawn stick figures to represent himself on the living room couch and the bodies of his wife and children in the locations in which he said he had found them. In his handwriting there were identifications of the various rooms, such as "Kristy's," "Kim's," "L.R."

"No, sir," MacDonald said. "I believe this was a drawing furnished the news media by the provost marshal."

"So that doesn't represent your work product in any way?"

"That's correct," MacDonald said, despite the fact that the drawings had been made by his own hand.

"All right. I have here also a transcript of a CBS interview of Captain MacDonald given on 11 December 1970. Can you tell us how this came about?"

"No, I cannot. I don't remember which interview you're talking about."

"This is a CBS interview which was part of a Walter Cronkite news broadcast. The person who interviewed you is Bob Schieffer."

"Was that interview on Fort Bragg, sir?"

"Well, Schieffer states at one point here, 'We talked with

Captain MacDonald in the office of New York Congressman Allard Lowenstein.' "

"I honestly don't remember that, being in an office in New York for an interview. There were hundreds of interviews like this during that time, sir. I honestly don't remember a CBS interview with Bob Schieffer."

"Do you recall who arranged this interview that took place in Mr. Lowenstein's office?"

"Sir, I honestly don't remember an interview in an office. It may have occurred, but I really don't remember it. Most of these interviews were done on the phone. There were a lot of interviews at Fort Bragg where they brought TV crews to the BOQ. But on December 11 that wouldn't have been the case."

"You don't remember being in Congressman Allard Lowenstein's office, Bob Schieffer being there, and, I assume, cameramen and technicians?"

"Sir, that was not an unusual occurrence at the time. Honestly.
I
mean, this was happening all the time."

"All right. I have here a somewhat more lengthy transcript captioned 'Jeffrey MacDonald's appearance on Dick Cavett show, 15 December 1970.' Do you remember that occasion, sir?"

"Yes, I do."

"How did that come about?"

"I believe that was Lowenstein's bright idea. To push along the congressional investigation that we were asking for—civilian type, not CID reinvestigating itself. But his feeling was that pressure should be brought to bear from any number of quarters. That was the last—that was when I finally said, this thing was too much and I wasn't going to do any more."

"All right. Now here you refer to the April 6 interrogation of you by military personnel. You say, 'It's really an interrogation, you know. They turn the light up in front of your face and have all these little tricks.' Now tell us about this business of staring into the light and the little tricks that were—"

"Sir, I don't want to make implications that aren't true.
I
didn't really ever—there was some sort of a desk lamp and someone reached over and adjusted something, and I realized from then on I was annoyed because this thing was shining in my face. That's all. That's all it amounted to."

"Where was the light located?"

"Somewhere on the desk, it seemed to me."

"Was it on the far side of the desk?"

"Sir, it wasn't important to me at the time."

"Well, it's become important by the fact that this reference to the light occurs so frequently in these news accounts that 1 read."

"Sir, we're not here to discuss news accounts. I have testified for three days. We haven't talked about anything that's factual."

"We're here to discuss misconduct on the part of the CID," Woerheide said. "Now you say, little tricks. What are you referring to?"

"Oh, the little—what's called the Mutt-and-Jeff approach thai I'm sure you're aware of, where someone badgers you for about an hour or two and then he leaves the room, and the other guy sort of puts his arm around you and says, 'I'm really a nice guy and you can kind of lean on me and we'll get this all squared away. It's a common interrogation technique."

"Later, here, you state that the CID man, a technician, 5 presume, destroyed fifty fingerprints. Now is that an accurate statement, sir?"