Affidavits, Declarations and Statements
August 28, 1984
Declaration #3 of Bernard Segal re: FBI Agent Tool's Report, Cathy Perry's Clothing and Boots, the So-Called "Lost Skin," the Letter "G," and Latent Prints Photos
DECLARATION OF BERNARD L. SEGAL (3)
I, Bernard L. Segal, declare as follows:
(1) I am an attorney at law. In 1979, I represented Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald in the criminal case captioned United States V. MacDonald, Case No. 75-26-CR-3 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
(2) My co-counsel at that trial were Wade M. Smith of North Carolina and Michael J. Malley of Phoenix, Arizona.
(3) My representation of Dr. MacDonald began in April 1970.
(4) I did not at any time during my representation of Dr. MacDonald have access to FBI Agent Tool's February 21, 1970 report of the briefing of the FBI by the CID. Contrary to the representations at page 3 of the Government's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, this document was not made available to defense attorneys during the Army's Article 32 investigation.
(5) During the entire course of my representation, I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of clothing or boots. Moreover, Army Captain James A. Douthat was under no duty to the defense team to keep the defense informed after his official representation of Dr. MacDonald ended at the conclusion of the Article 32 proceeding.
(6) Although at the Article 32 hearing the defense was aware of the possibility that a small fragment of skin had been found under Colette MacDonald's fingernail, the CID laboratory reports furnished to the defense team led the defense to believe that this skin never existed. The lab report stated: "Re-examination of Exhibits D-233 through D-239, E-4 and E-5 (fingernail scraping from the left and right hands of Colette, Kimberly, Kristen and Jeffrey MacDonald, debris from Colette MacDonald's right and left hands, did not reveal the presence of any skin particles."
(7) The defense never received copies of Ivory's statements regarding the skin. Therefore, replying on the representation in the lab reports the defense believed that what had appeared to be skin to the naked eye of Dr. Gammel was not actually skin. Moreover, the defense did not incorporate the fact of the lost skin in the Kassab/Malley allegations as the defense was not aware of the loss of the skin.
(8) At no time during my representation of Dr. MacDonald did I or any member of the defense team discover any reference to Agent Toledo's having photographed a letter "G" at Helena Stoeckley apartment. Although the defense made repeated requests for photographic evidence, the defense did not have access to photographs of the letter "G" painted on Helena Stoeckley's apartment, nor was the defense ever aware the Government had discovered a letter "G" painted in Helena Stoeckley's apartment and compared it with the letter "G" written in blood at the crime scene.
(9) The defense was unaware that the government had destroyed seven photographs and negatives of fingerprints. Rather, the defense was under the impression from Medlin's testimony at the Article 32 hearing that "the photographs, when they were printed were blurred." Medlin's had then indicated, during his testimony, that he had made more pictures to replace those that were "blurred" and that nine fingerprints and three palm prints had been lost in those photographs.
(10) As early as the Article 32 hearing, Dennis Eisman, one of my co-counsel, had requested that the Army provide investigating officers, counsel for the defense and the government with a set of the photographs so that they could conduct their own independent investigation regarding the identity of persons to whom those fingerprints belonged. Captain Somers replied:
"The negatives in this case, particularly the ones with which any difficulty might have been had, I can represent are undergoing further treatment, and so they are not presently available. The prosecution objects to complying with that request."
(Article 32 Hearing Transcript, page 536.)
(11) As late as 1979, the defense requested of the FBI fingerprint lab photos of all latent lifts or prints of photos taken of developed fingerprints from the crime scene, including those initially or subsequently evaluated as being of insufficient clarity for comparison.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 28th day of August, 1984 at San Francisco, California.
/Bernard L. Segal/
Bernard L. Segal