Now, this was at a time when I was so strong in his corner.  It elated me no end, because I immediately went on the assumption that if the legal adviser to Colonel Rock would come pay a man a social visit in his room, well, what better indication do you want than that what the verdict is going to be?  This was what I assumed, anyway, at that time.

Q  Do you recall any subsequent conversations in which he made any references to getting revenge and doing anything to assure you that he would get a revenge?

A  No, except for that famous phone call that I got from him on November 17 and he said to me that he had something very important to tell me.  And I said, "Well, if it's very important, wait until tomorrow."  I was under the impression that my phone line was tapped.  I said, "Call me at the office."  I said, "We have eight phone lines in there and there's no telling which line it's going to come in on, and you can talk all you want then."  So the next day I went to the office and Jeff called me, and he told me -- mostly his conversation he used the word "we."  Every once in a while he would say "I," but he did use the word "we" pretty regularly in there -- that he had gone out on a hunt in Fayetteville looking for murderers.  And that he had found one, I think, in a bar.  And that they took this fellow out of there and they questioned him intensely, beat him, what have you.  And by the time they were through with him they said he would have told on his own mother.  However, he identified as having been in the house, hearing the screaming in the house, and that he participated in the murders.  And I was elated and I said to Jeff, "Now, where is this guy now?"  And he said, "He's six feet under.  I killed him.  What has to be done, has to be done."  Those were his very words.  And he said the Fayetteville police found the body.  They think the motive was robbery.  Anyway the guy was way out on drugs.  He didn't even know his own name.  And that's it.  That's the end of it.

Q  I have some letters here and I'll show you a copy of some of them.  Here's a letter dated November 9, 1970.  It's marked as Mrs. Kassab's exhibit #1.  It says among other things that, "I will deny our phone conversation of today if anyone even asks.  I am sure you can figure out why.  What must be done, must be done."  Is that in reference to that conversation?

A  That's right.  That's exactly.  That was written the same day the conversation took place.

Q  Now we have some subsequent letters.  Did he, in the course of the subsequent letters, again, from time to time, refer to having eliminated one of the intruders?

A  Yes.  Because in one letter where I -- it was the only time I ever chastised him in writing -- about coming to Long Island from California and paying a visit and not even calling us on the telephone.  I took him to task about it and the fact that he hadn't gone near the FBI or the CID to inquire as to what was being done.  And he referred to it in the answer to that letter.  I think his words were something like one down, three or four to go, or words to that -- they're in that letter.  Among these letters here.  He also claimed in that letter that he went to -- when he came south, went south from California, on a hunt for the murderers, again referring to something like hippie group #2, or something like that, and that the trip had cost him two thousand dollars and a broken hand.  Well, of course, before that letter, long before that letter, about two months or so, somewhere in that area, I'm not sure exact time frame, because I believed the story that he originally started, that he told me.  But as I sat down and thought about it, I realized that it had to be a ridiculous story.  So, therefore, I got me on an airplane and came down to Fayetteville and checked the story out.  I checked the Raleigh newspapers, the Durham newspaper, the Fayetteville newspaper.  All of the newspapers.  And found that there was only one murder that night and the fellow was shot five times in the back, and it was an army sergeant, and this was the only murder that night.  Well now, with that in hand, I went to the CID and spun my yarn.  I forget exactly what my yarn was, but I told them that I have been approached and somebody had given me information that perhaps this murder may have a connection with the murders of Colette and the children, and would they please check it out?  They checked it out and came back and said absolutely not.

I said, "I understand that man was a drug addict."  They said no, he was -- the sergeant was killed with no drugs, nothing involved with the history of drugs, anything.  When I told him that then I was positive the story was a lie.  So I told them, turned the story over to them, I told them everything and they checked it out again.  And they came back to me and said the whole thing is a lie.  Now I decided at that time that I didn't want to openly accuse MacDonald.  I wanted to do it in my own fashion over a period of time.  And my letter to him accusing him of not going near the FBI or CID or calling us when he was in Long Island, and that type of thing, was sort of a preliminary needling type thing.  That's when he came back with the story about going down south and getting a broken hand, two thousand dollars spent.

And then I called the CID and asked them to check with the hospital in California.  I said that there was nothing more obvious than a surgeon with a broken hand.  You know, he couldn't walk into the hospital with a broken hand and nobody notice it.  And they came back and said, "No, that's a fairy tale."  However, he was in Florida on a medical convention of some kind.

Q  After the telephone conversation and the first of these letters in which he alludes to having killed one of these intruders, he was discharged from the army.

A  That's correct.

Q  Do you remember him holding a press conference?

A  Yes, I think one of his letters refer to it.  I was all in favor of it at the time.  He wanted to hold a news conference in Fayetteville because he said in his letter to me if he held the news conference in Fayetteville that the New York papers and the wire services would cover it.  However, if some news conferences were held where I wnted it held, in New York, the Overseas Press Club, that the southern papers would not bother to cover it.  And why he wanted the southern papers to cover it, I don't understand.  However, this is what he wanted and this is the way he proceeded.  I was very, very anxious for tremendous -- as much publicity as I could possibly get, because I went on the theory that once they dropped the charges against him the case would be shelved and that would be the end of it.  We wouldn't hear boo from it anymore and I wanted to generate as much noise as I could possibly generate.

His press conference that he held, I don't know that he held one, I don't remember.  But he made a statement to the press -- did not produce the desired results that were necessary, not for my purposes.  And therefore, I drew up a very lengthy document, and I went to Washington and I accused the army of everything but spitting on the sidewalk.  Because I assumed that if I went to Washington, and I did call on every congressman and every senator in the country, that if I accused the army or the government of not investigating the murders of my daughter and my grandchildren to congressmen and senators, I was going to get nowhere.  But, if I accused the army of everything that I could this generated interest, and it did generate interest, and quite a few senators, the Armed Services Committee, and the Judiciary Committee asked the Department of Defense to conduct a new investigation, which was done.

Q  Now do you recall in statements to the press when he was discharged from the army that MacDonald made statements to the effect that he was out for revenge?

A  Yes, I think he made a statement somewhat along those lines.

Q  Was this his idea or was this part of your idea?

A  It was not my idea.  I gave him, I seem to remember, an outline of what I thought he should say, and to the best of my knowledge, he said the opposite, not the opposite, but I said to him, and I'm being very frank, I said to him, "Don't go inkto a press conference and say what the army has done to you, how badly you've been treated.  This guy perjured himself, this other guy this, this other guy -- stay away from all of that.  Just stick to the fact that your wife and children were butchered and you want something done about it.  And just stay away from everything else."  But that's not the way it went.

Q  Now how about his appearances on TV shows.  He was on the CBS News Program, Walter Cronkite, Bob Schieffer interviewed him.

A  Yes.

Q  And he was on --

A  (Interposing)  Dick Cavett Show.

Q  Dick Cavett Show.  Tell us about that.  Whose idea was this?

A  They were all -- well, I introduced him to Congressmen.  Congressman Lowenstein was interested in the case and said he would do whatever he could.  So I introduced him to Jeff and Congressman Lowenstein took over from there and helped him as much as he could with the news media.  Most of those that you are referring to were just spot news items.  Some I saw.  Some I didn't.  But I did see the Dick Cavett Show and on that show -- when that show went on the air, when it was over with I was absolutely horrified.  And my phone started to ring.  It nearly rang off the wall all night, because people couldn't understand how the man could go on television and almost say nothing about his family and what was done to them, just complained about what the army did to him and how much money it had cost him.  And I said to him, I wasn't very polite about it, as far as using swear words, "But what difference does it make how much money it cost you.  First of all you don't have the money.  You haven't paid the lawyers anyway.  What difference does it make?  It's only money."  He said, "Well, maybe I did say the wrong thing."  But he said, "You know you get into these places and you're upset, one thing and another, and the ball gets rolling and you just don't stop."

Q  I'm curious to know.  Was he forced into these interviews and was he a reluctant participant in these interviews?

A  No.

Q  Did you push him and shove him into it?  Was it all your own fault?  Did Segal do it?

A  I never -- the only thing I ever engineered in all that period of time for Jeffrey MacDonald, and it was really for him, it was a rounded out picture where he had to be involved, was with Look magazine.  Look magazine was very anxious to do a large article on -- and what they wanted to do was put two investigating reporters on the case and do an in-depth investigation the same way as, let's say, a police force would do it.  And then they were going to write an article.  Well, I called Jeff and told him about it.  As a matter of fact the tape recorder is in my bag.  That day I was kind of upset.  Half of the conversations are recorded and half aren't.

I told him they were interested and he said, "Well, gee, we can get started right now."  I said, "Well, I told them you weren't accessible because the Article 32 was over with but the decision had not been handed down and there is still a guard at the door."  And he said, "Well, not really.  People are coming in and out of there like the Grand Central Station.  The whole thing is relaxed and they can spend the whole day with me either here in the room, my lawyer's office, or anywhere they want it."  Fine.  I said, "I'll call the man and tell him.  Meantime, do you have the Article 32 transcript?"  And he said, "I've got most of it."  I said, "Fine.  I'm coming down tomorrow morning to pick it up."  And he said, "Well, you don't need to do that."  He said, "I'll mail it to you."  So I said, "No, I'm coming down.  I want to pick up that transcript."  And he said, "All right, make the reservations."  And about five minutes later, not even five minutes later, I get another phone call right behind it.  And he said, "Repeat what you just told me because I was half asleep and I want to get it clear in my mind."  So I repeated it, went over the thing with him again and he said, "Boy, that's terrific.  And do they know about the case?  How much do they know?"  And I said, "Well, I just went over it briefly with them but I've got tons of material that I've got here that they can have."

And toward the end of the conversation he kept -- of course, I talk too much a lot of the times, so the biggest part of the conversation is me talking, but he kept trying to get a word in there and every time he'd get in he'd say something.  So finally he got it out.  He said to me, "Did finances ever come up in this first conversation?"  And I said, "Jeff, I never even thought of finances."  I said, "I don't care.  That's your department, not my department."  So then the conversation ended.  And then in about another few minutes later, I get a call from Dennis Eisman, one of his lawyers, and Dennis wanted to know all about this, too.  I told him the same thing I told Jeff.  And he said, "Now wait a minute, Freddy, you cannot release any written material to Look magazine, whatsoever."  Of course, not only could I not, I didn't have any written material to release to them.  I didn't have any.  The only thing I had were newspaper clippings.

And I said, "I wasn't going to release anything to anybody.  This is your department."  He said, "The first thing you've got to do when these people decide for sure that this is what they are going to do, you have to turn them over to us because we have to make the financial arrangements.  Because after all we have to protect Jeff's rights as far as money is concerned.  Because he can sure use the money."  I said, "Dennis, that is not my -- I couldn't care less -- I don't care about the money.  I'm not interested in the money angle.  I'm only interested in the other angle."  That conversation ended.  A  few minutes later I get another call from Jeff, all excited.  Jim Douthat, his military lawyer, he said had just called in and said absolutely not.  I could not have the transcript.  If they gave me the transcript they were both going to be court-martialed and they were going to go to jail.  And I blew my stack at this point and I quit recording the rest of the conversation that evening.  But, however, I got mad and told everybody off.  And Dennis Eisman called back and I told him off.  And I said, "I want that transcript."  And he said, "Well, the decision, we think is going to be next week, and I'll guarantee you will have it by Thursday."  And I said, "You had damn well better have it here on my desk."  And the next conversation on that tape that night -- Mrs. MacDonald called my wife.  She called me really, but I wouldn't talk with her.  My wife spoke to her.  And that wasn't recorded.  And she was trying to pacify me through my wife.

And then, she finally got me the next morning.  That's on the tape.  And I said to her that absolutely I wouldn't stand for the statement that they could not turn over that transcript to me.  That I wanted that transcript.  And she said, well, she could understand maybe.  They were in a precarious position until Jeff got out of the army.  And then I laid it in to her, I didn't lay it in her, I didn't yell at her.  I'm yelling at Dennis Eisman and this idea that they are going to take this transcript and they are going to take Look magazine or any other newspaper and they are going to make a gold mine out of this thing.  And I said, "This is not a money making scheme.  We are looking for murderers."  And that was the long and short of that situation.

Q  Do you recall the Cummins interview?

A  The Cummins interview -- the only thing I know about the Cummins interview is that John Cummins told me that he'd done the interview and he told me two days before it appeared in the paper.  And I read the complete article in the paper and I talked to John about it.  And it wasn't until -- the only thing that struck me about the article, the story runs pretty close to Jeff's testimony in the 32 except for one point.  He said to John Cummins at the end of the article or somewhere in the article that that first night when he was told that he was a suspect and the guard was placed at his door, that he paced up and down all night and looked at the pipes in the ceiling and what have you, and all of a sudden, he got the idea to commit suicide, that he was going to hang himself.  And then he thought it over.  He could get a chair and then kick the chair out from underneath him.  But then he said he was afraid it wouldn't succeed and he would botch it up and then it would look terrible and that would be much worse.  But when I picked up the transcript I discovered that the man had a pistol under his pillow for a long time after he was placed under arrest.  Well now, we get a different picture here.  Jeff MacDonald is not a stupid man.  In fact, he's smarter than I am, well above average as far as intelligence is concerned.  And I know damn well I'm not as smart as he is, but if I wanted to commit suicide and I had a pistol, that's the route I would take rather than take a rope and hang myself from the ceiling.

Q  Mr. Kassab, you mentioned that when you were at the house at Christmas time of 1969 -- did you spend any time in the kitchen?  Did you see any kitchen utensils?

A  I don't think I spent any time in the kitchen, except to go in and out.

Q  Do you know whether there was an ice pick in the house?

A  No.

Q  Then you wouldn't be able to identify a knife?

A  No.  In fact, I don't think I could identify a knife out of my own kitchen although I'm in there all the time.

Q  Now, Mr. Kassab, you've mentioned that you gave tremendous support to Jeff from the time you were informed of the murders, all through the Article 32 hearing, you continued in touch with him thereafter, you had confidence in him, and you believed in him.

A  Absolutely.

Q  Now have you changed your views?

A  Starting the day I read the transcript, the second time through, aside from that little bit about catching the fellow -- killing him that I wasn't quite sure about in there, reading -- when I started reading the transcript through the second time -- the first time I read it quite fast, and there were passages that bothered me, reading pathologist reports and exactly what his statements about what happened in the house, that bothered me a little bit.  But then the second time I started to read that thing I read it very carefully and I read it the third time, the fourth time, and the fifth time, and so on and so forth.  By that, I'm not talking about reading the whole transcript that many times.  I'm talking about his testimony, the pathologist's testimony, important testimonies, not character witnesses.  Those I only read through once, maybe.  And I was sitting and thinking and I started to piece the thing together.  It becomes just impossible in my mind that what he said happened in that house happened.  It just could not have happened the way he said it did.  And I would start and I'd list all kinds of lists of things he said from the transcript and they just couldn't be.  I mean, you know, you could talk about --

Q  Would you be specific?

A  You take an item, start from the beginning and say, well here's a man that swears he was stabbed nineteen times in the living room and was clubbed four times.  Now, first thing about that.  I don't know of anybody that saw more than seven stab wounds.  I don't know of anybody that saw more than one club wound.  Now, to get back to the nineteen stab wounds.  First, how does a man get stabbed nineteen times and not bleed?  That can't be.  You just can't get stabbed nineteen times and not bleed somewhere.

The second thing.  He talks about the ten or twelve ice pick wounds across his abdomen.  I never saw those ice pick wounds across his abdomen.  And I saw his abdomen very clearly for five days, two or three times a day.  And then one further point about the abdomen wounds.  His claim was that he never got above a sitting position on that sofa and that he was leaning forward into his attackers at all times.  Now, you can't get stabbed in the stomach if you're sitting down leaning forward and there are three people coming at you.  You just can't get stabbed in the stomach.  It's not possible.  There's no way they can stab you.

The pajama top being torn and all shredded.  There is not one thread or one fiber, according to the testimony that I'm going by, in that whole living room where this garment was torn and ripped off.  But everywhere else in the house you find threads and fibers.  In Kimmie's room and under one of Kristen's fingernails, some behind the headboard of the bed where the word "pig" is written in Colette's blood, all over the place.  None in the living room.  The pajama pocket is at Colette's feet.  And the only way that pocket could have been torn off according to his description is from the front.  There is one man standing by his side and two in front and nobody behind him.  So, therefore, the pajama top had to be pulled from the front or somebody reached and pulled it.  Now that pocket had to come off in the man's hand.  Now, he surely didn't walk around with it in his hand.  He had to drop it.  Now you're talking also about a man who is fighting three men, but he's handcuffed.  He's handcuffed by pajamas.  This is what he claimed.  He can't move his hands apart and yet he fends off three grown men, two with knives, or at least one with a knife and one with an ice pick and one with a club.  The man with the club now stands there, he lifts his club up.  Jeff's description is that the man's about five foot ten, lifts this club up, swings it down and hits him on the left temple.  Well, I tried it in the house.  It can't be done.  I took a yardstick, held it in my hands down to about twenty-eight inches.  I assumed -- I was told the club was about thirty inches, held the yardstick down to twenty-eight inches, tried to lift it above my head.  I couldn't.  It hit the ceiling.  I was standing in front of the sofa, I tried to bring it, I hit the ceiling on the way back.  Then the sofa -- the front of the sofa is thirty-two inches from the back wall, so a man with long arms is standing there trying to bring this club down.  You can't do it.  You hit the wall back there.  You don't hit anybody sitting on the sofa.  It can't be done.  It just cannot be done.

Now, there are a lot of other things, if I can be permitted to just bring my list out, or would you rather --

Q  I have several lists here.  Do you recognize these as lists that you prepared at one time or another?

A  That's right.  Absolutely.

Q  That includes your comments with respect to -- I have a total of five of them.

A  Yes.  This is the one.

Q  They all seem to be different.

A  The first item is that Jeff said during the hearings that he had volunteered in the army.  It's a small lie, but that isn't what he told Colette.  He told Colette he had been drafted.

He said that when he went into the bedroom the first time, somewhere around two o'clock, I guess it was, he said he went in there to go to bed, that Colette was lying in bed.  Kristie was lying next to her under the blanket, that she had wet the bed, but he described Colette's position, which way she was facing.  He said the lights were out.  You can't see that good in that room to tell which way somebody is  facing without lights on.  Now when he said he went back into the living room because he carried Kristen back to her bed, he took an afghan with him.  He said that he had done this several times before, that Kristen had wet the bed several times before.  If this had been a first occurence this thing wouldn't have come to my mind, but since it was something that normally happens, every once in a while a child wets the bed, so he sleeps in the living room.  I said to myself the normal thing -- you can always use a pillow.  Why didn't he pick up a pillow and take with him.  There was no pillow on the sofa.  He didn't take a pillow with him.  Just an odd occurrence.

Now going on the assumption from his story that Colette and the children were attacked first because he said that when he woke up he heard screaming.  Colette was screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?"  Kimmie was screaming, "Daddy, daddy, daddy."  And never any doubt left that they were attacked first or in the story.  However, when he woke and sat up, the four people were there.  The man with the club is standing right there.  Now Colette, especially Kimmie.  Kimmie was severely beaten about the head with the club.  There were a number of compound fractures.  In fact, the whole side of her face was smashed in.  But the club's in the living room.  Kimmie could not have screamed after those club wounds.  Never.  Any doctor will tell you her whole face and the bad fractures she could never have screamed.  Club's in the living room, though.  How is she screaming?  She's already been attacked and clubbed.

Colette, if her wounds were sustained prior to that, she had many throat wounds.  In fact, the trachea was completely severed.  She could not have screamed after those throat wounds.  Not possible.  So his story about Colette screaming in my mind is just something that just couldn't be, not the way he tells the story.

Now the next thing is about the club.  I've already told you that.

Now when he said that this man hit him a severe blow with this club, he describes the blow as a severe one, that he saw stars, that it knocked him flat on his back.  Now I guess there are a certain amount of gentlemen here who know that when you get punched and if you see stars, if you're knocked flat on your back, you're stunned for a little while.  Let's say, let's minimize it and say fifteen-twenty seconds.  That's a very small amount of time.  Now my big question is these three guys, what are they doing while this man is lying flat on his back?  Nothing, according to him.  They just waited until he came back up again.  And then they reattacked him.  Well, I've been in a lot of fights and anybody fighting that type -- instinct would be to pounce the minute this man is down on the ground.  They wouldn't just stand there and wait for how long it took him to come back up again.

Now, the knife wound that he described that caused the partial collapse of the lungs or the pneumothorax, best to my recollection the doctors described it as being somewhere in the area of a maximum, a five-eighths of an in depth.  A  famous psychiatrist in New York said not so very long ago that he cleans his pipe deeper than that.

The other wounds were, and I assure you, superficial.  When I say superficial I'm not saying it in the terms that the doctors use where you are not quite sure whether it's an eighth of an inch or two inches, you know.  They were definitely superficial wounds.  Now, the man with the ice pick and the man with the knife attacking him, and he's handcuffed, he's seeing stars, and nobody is able to stick a knife in him, and yet he describes in his own words the attack as a "rain of blows.'  That's right there in black and white.  He says, "It's a rain of blows."  But a rain of blows that doesn't produce anything.  And yet, if you go back to Colette, Kimmie and Kristie, you'll find that the wounds are extremely serious and very, very deep wounds.  And it's a very strange thing about the wounds to both children and Colette.  I've been in a lot of fights, I've worked with the commandos, I've fought in the dark.  When you are fighting in the dark, your wounds are all not directly into the body.  You're slashing.  Or if you're holding the knife from underneath, you're still slashing upwards.  You get what are known as slash wounds.  In other words, some of them could be straight in, but you do get a lot of cutting wounds.  There are no cutting wounds.  All wounds are directly into the body.  The pathologist that performed all the autopsies say that all the wounds were directly into the body.  Now you're talking about all of this occurring in the dark.  People are slashing around, and mind you, if you're going by his story then you are talking about drug addicts who are not in possession of their wits.  They don't really know what they are doing.  But, yet, none of them are slash wounds.  They are all direct wounds.  Everything is a perfect stab wound.

Now, he described going into both children's rooms to give them artificial respiration and pulse -- taking pulses.  From my observations in that house with the lighting as it was on that night, there is a very dim light, the lighting I should put it from the bathroom -- very dimly lights Kimmie's room.  He said there was blood all over the place and what have you and where for.  Well, he couldn't have seen that.  It's just not possible.  Now as far as Kristie's room is concerned, it was pitch dark in there.  So he could not have seen what he said he saw.

Now, of course, I doubt it strongly -- I've been told since then that I'm wrong, but I doubt it strongly that a man with a punctured lung could give artificial respiration six times.  But they tell me it can be done.

He takes more pulses in the groin area on both Kimmie and Kristie, gives them both mouth to mouth resuscitation either once or twice.  Yet, both children, when the police walked in are covered to the neck.  Kimmie is completely tucked in on one side.  And Kristen has her baby bottle lying right up against the side of her face and she's lying on her side, too.  They are both lying on their side.  Well, you know, if you're going to give somebody mouth to mouth resuscitation and especially if you are a doctor, you're going to lie that person flat on their back in order to breathe in their mouth.  I don't care what kind of situation you're in.  But they weren't in that position.  And, furthermore, some of you must have children -- if you walked into a child's room and if you have not gone through what these kids did, but let's just say, sick in the night, what is the first thing you do when you walk into the room?  Turn the light on.  He didn't turn any lights on.  Not according to what he said.  He didn't turn any lights on in the children's rooms.  He just did this all in the dark.  Kimmie -- artificial respiration.  Now this could have been a slip.  He said that he realized that bubbles were coming out of her chest from the wounds, so therefore, that he knew that in fact he could not resuscitate her because the air was coming out as he was breathing it in.  There's only one thing wrong with that statement.  She had no chest wounds.  But as I said a moment ago she did have throat wounds which is in a close proximity.  Well, you know.  And he said he went into the bathroom and washed his hands and he grabbed a tissue of toilet paper to wipe his hands off on.  Small thing, but I know damn well if I wash my hands in my own bathroom, there's a towel standing right there, I'm not going to use toilet paper to wipe my hands off with.  I'll use a towel.  Now that very piece of toilet paper from what I was made to understand had a sharp crease mark in it, on it, as though a knife had been wiped off on it.

MR. WOERHEIDE:  Mr. Foreman, I know it's getting late and Mr. Kassab has written these things down, and we have one more witness who will not take long.  And he's up here from Florida, and I would like to get him out of town.  I wonder if it will be all right if we have each of these things that Mr. Kassab has prepared which presents his comments marked as an exhibit and I believe we pretty well covered our story with Mr. Kassab.

FOREMAN:  You want to mark these as exhibits then and excuse him and go to the next witness?

MR. STROUD:    They are accessible and a part of the record so that we can refer to them.

Q  (Mr. Woerheide):  We only have this one day.  Mr. Kassab, we will mark these as exhibits and make them all available to the grand jury.  Do you have any general comment to make regarding this matter?

A  Yes.  I am as adamant today that Jeff is guilty.  In fact, I'm more adamant I think today that Jeff is guilty than I was that he was innocent.  Because his innocence I based on the fact that I knew the boy.  But, however, I knew absolutely nothing about what occurred that night nor did my wife.  Nobody told us a thing.  We were just going on the assumption that how could a man such as we knew do such a thing to his wife and baby children.  And, of course, the worst thing of all would be to turn around and write in blood on the headboard of the bed.  This is something that is just inconceivable.  But when you sit down with the facts and you analyze them and you see that his whole story is a fabrication, when I say you, I mean me, I come to one of only two conclusions.  Now why would a man lie about such a tremendous thing?  Only two reasons.  One, that he's guilty or two, that he knows who did it and he's covering up.  Now if you don't have a shred of evidence that shows that there was an intruder in that house that night, and seven drug addicts could not have come in that house and do what was done and not leave a clue, then you are only left with the first conclusion.

MR. WOERHEIDE:  Ms. Reporter, I have here, I have five separate, let's say memoranda or notes that were prepared by Mr. Kassab.  And I am going to ask that these be marked as Mr. Kassab's exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.  I'll just lay them in front of you.

A  There is one document that outlines all of that that I put in the one barrel if you want it.

Q  (Mr. Woerheide)  Do you have it?

A  Yes, sir.  It's a little lengthier.  It's an article I sent to both judiciary committees, but you can have it.

Q  Make it available.  I'll have a copy of it made and return the original to you.

A  Yes.  I'll appreciate it.

MR. WOERHEIDE:  And this will be marked as exhibit #6 and I'll prepare a Xerox copy for marking purposes.

A  I think a gentleman had a question for me.

JUROR:  Yes.  During the Article 32 you were all in favor of Dr. MacDonald and now you are all against him.  You disbelieve everything he told you since then or you believe everything he told you during the Article 32?

A  He told me nothing during the Article 32 but what happened that night in the house.  At no time did he ever tell us what happened in the house that night.  The only time that we found out was when we read the transcript.  See.  And up until that point I was positive, and so was my wife, the man was innocent.  But then you are faced with this testimony as to what happened in that house that night and you read it and compare it with facts.  It just can't be.  It couldn't happen the way he said it happened.  It's just not possible.  That many outlandish personalities just do not fall into one place.  I mean one or two things -- you can understand one or two things being completely freakish, but not the whole story.  The whole story has to be a fabrication.  It just can't have happened that way.

JUROR:  When did you read the transcript?

A  I asked the army and the army finally gave me a transcript.  They said they would give me a copy provided Captain MacDonald would sign a release.  I got a copy of that transcript sometime in January or February of 1971.

JUROR:  I have a question.  Since you believed in his innocence, did you instigate or do you know of any political pressure against the army to drop charges against him?

A  No, ma'am.  I know of no such thing.  To drop charges against him?

JUROR:  Yes.  Not to pursue it.  Any political pressure?

A  No, I know of no such thing.

JUROR:  I have one.  When you were visiting in the home did Jeff show any favoritism to one child or the other?

A  I don't think so.  Not that I noticed.

JUROR:  Like when he bought one of them something, would he buy both of them something similar?

A  Yes, I think so, pretty well.

JUROR:  Do you think the CID and the MPs did a good job or a relatively good job?

A  No, sir, I don't.  I never did.  I think there were a lot of mistakes made.  Mistakes were explained to me as being overworked people.  They were overworked.  They had too many cases to handle, but that's their problem, not my problem.  You're talking about the original investigation, not the reinvestigation?

JUROR:  The original.

A  The original one is the one I'm talking about.  The reinvestigation, I think, was handled very, very well.

Q  (Mr. Woerheide)  I think it's fair to say there was an emergency situation.

A  That's right.

Q  At the time they came into the house.

A  That's right.  You were dealing with a group of men that had never dealt with a crime of this type and I don't know from personal knowledge.

Q  You're not imputing bad faith?

A  No, no, no.  I'm not imputing anybody bad faith.  I'm just saying inexperience or what have you.  That type of thing.

FOREMAN:  Are there no further questions?  All right, Mr. Kassab, you are excused.  Thank you very much.

[MR. KASSAB'S EXHIBITS 1-6 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION]

[MR. KASSAB DISMISSED]