Grand Jury

---

I, Mary M. Ritchie, being a Notary public in and for the State of North Carolina, was appointed to take the testimony of the following witness, Bruce H. Bailey, before the Grand Jury, Raleigh, North Carolina, commencing at 10:15 a.m. on December 12, 1974.  All Grand Jurors present except Katie O.  Durham, who was excused by the Foreman.

Whereupon,

Bruce H. Bailey having first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY VICTOR WOERHEIDE:
Q  Will you state your full name, sir?
A  Bruce H.  Bailey.  I am a doctor.
Q  And, where do you live, Dr. Bailey?
A  At the present time I'm living in Phoenix Arizona.
Q  Would you give us the street address?
A  128 West Moon Valley Drive, Phoenix, Arizona.
Q  Where are you employed, sir?
A  I'm Chief of Psychiatry Services at the VA Hospital in Phoenix.
Q  I guess the address VA Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona is good enough for that.  Isn't it?
A  Well it's at the corner of Indian School Road and Seventh Street.  That's adequate to address letters just VA Hospital, Phoenix.
Q  Will you give us a brief sketch and outline of your professional training and experience?
A  Yes, sir.  If I can start with medical school rather than going back to grade and high school.  I graduated from the University of Illinois, College of Medicine, Chicago in 1958.
     I entered the army and served my internship, which is a rotating internship at Fort General at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  Then took a three year residency program in specializing in Psychiatry at Walter Reed General Hospital in Washington, D.C.  Had a six month course in aviation medicine at Pensacola, Florida.  Served at Fort Rucker, Alabama, primarily as a combination flight surgeon and psychiatrist.  Went back to Walter Reed as Assistant Chief of Psychiatry which was essentially being Chief of the In-Patient Services at Walter Reed.  I left the service after my obligation was up.  I was, for a short time Superintendent of Madden Mental Health Center in Chicago, Illinois, which was one of the new mental health centers there.  Became very disenchanted with the administrative chaos that Illinois was in with mental health at that time, left it and went fully time with the School of Medicine, Loyola University as an Assistant Professor.
     I was feeling around and other people were feeling around and I was asked to come back into the army and to take the job as Chief of Psychiatry at Walter Reed, which I did.  And it was during my tour as Chief of Psychiatry at Walter Reed that I did the evaluation of Dr. MacDonald.  I served about two, a little over two years, left the army again and worked partly in private practice initially, partly for the County Health Department in Du Page County in Illinois, just outside of Chicago.  I was offered the job as Associate Dean at the Stritch School of Medicine and excepted that job.  Did that for about a year and a half.  Had a myocardial infarct, a heart attack, had been working something like sixty hours a week at two half time jobs and plus and decided that I was no longer going to live a life like that.  And that I was going to -- I, then, went into the VA mainly because I had a good opportunity to teach because of the affiliation between Hines VA Hospital and Loyola University.  I was primarily a teacher there.  The relationship -- my job is sort of like a liaison between the University and the VA.  Hines is the largest VA Hospital in the country and has many residency training programs.
     I had the opportunity of, to take the job in Phoenix.  That is that it opened up and I saw it as a challenge and it's a growing hospital.  It's a small hospital right now, but it's going to almost triple in size.  This will be developing relationships with schools there in the state universities and the University of Arizona and so forth.
     And frankly, I was disenchanted with the climate in Chicago.  We had served so much, my wife and I, we have six children, we had served so much of our time in the south that we found that we really weren't northerners anymore.  And, so when the chance came to go to Phoenix, I took it and went there last July and I've been there since July last year.
Q  Well, I trust the tempo of your life is different in Phoenix and you find a salubrious climate and a pleasant place to live in.
A  Yes.  I had to buy a coat when I came here.
Q  Now, tell us about your, you say it was a psychological evaluation of, then, Captain MacDonald.
A  I don't recall how the initial contact was made to me.  I had during that time become somewhat of a, what we call a forensic psychiatrist, from the sense that I had been involved in other major trials.  So, anyway I was contacted to do an evaluation of Dr. Macdonald.  The initial question that was that was placed to me that a civilian psychiatrist had evaluated him and had stated that he incapable of committing such an act and so I was asked if I would evaluate him and testify as to my own opinion for the army as to that issue.
     The first contact that I had was with Captain Douthat, Dr. MacDonald and his escort.  I was briefed for about hour and a half by Captain Douthat without Dr. MacDonald being present, sort of giving his side of the story.  Later, that afternoon, I was approached by Captain Somers, Captain Thompson and Mr. Ivory, the CID man.  They arrived around four o'clock and I got out of my office about six thirty.  And, I was exposed to pictures of the house and the bodies.  I considered it a bombardment and I used that word.  I have thirty five minutes to drive to drive home and I trembled as I drove.
     Events happened very rapidly.  I decided immediately -- what we normally do in the army when we are asked to do a sanity evaluation, which we have not yet been ask to do, I had been called and asked to evaluate, what we normally do is we involved three to constitute what we call a sanity board.  And, I decided since I had been bombarded with this information and frankly it was rather disturbing to me, having six children of my own, I decided to involve Dr. Morgan who is board certified and I am also board certified.  Dr. Morgan worked as Director of Research.  Dr. Edwards was Chief of the Out-Patient Clinic.  And I very deliberately decided not to tell them any of the information that I had except to very briefly state that this was a man who was charged with murder and that we were asked to do a sanity evaluation.
     It was sometime later; I cannot document the date that I received a call from Colonel Rock, who was the investigating officer.  Colonel Rock, on someone's advice, I don't know who, perhaps Captain Beale's; I don't know, said that he wanted a full sanity board which meant that we were to do a traditional sanity evaluation which utilizes the McNaughton Rules in the army, which responds to questions as to is there presence of emotional disease?  Is there such disease present as to impair an individual's ability to know right from wrong?  Is there a disease present such to impair an individual's ability to adhere to the right?  And recently the army has incorporated something that is beyond the McNaughton Rules and introduced by the American Law Institute.  And that is a question of does the person have the capacity to form the intent?  That is, does he have the disease that would impair his ability to form the intent to commit a given act?  So, we -- by that time I had interviewed Dr. MacDonald twice.  Dr. Morgan had interviewed him, I believe once.  Dr. Edwards had interviewed him once.  We had a conference together.  I then let them know some of the information.  I did not and have not, I don't believe, yet seen the pictures, as I was exposed to them.  I think that -- I made that my own judgment.
     They concurred in the judgment that I felt since all of us were human, that we wanted to gain as objectively a picture as possible.
Q  From Dr. MacDonald, himself?
A  Right.  And as I said, we then were asked to do a full sanity evaluation, which we did.  Dr. Morgan saw him again.  I saw him again.  Dr. Edwards did not.  Because of the unusual nature of the case, I say unusual in the sense of my impression of degree of violence and so forth, because of the unusual nature of the case I had developed a relationship with Dr. Jonas Rappaport who was the Chief Psychiatrist for the Baltimore District.  I think he works for the Federal government rather than for the state of Maryland.  And is a straight man.  A man I trust very much.  I asked Dr. Rappaport if he would come down and serve as a technical consultant for us, in the terms of, have we everything we could possibly in order to gain -- to do what we had been asked to do -- to make a response.  By the way, in the meantime, I had contacted Colonel Rock and I had asked him for every piece of information that was available.  And I was supplied with Dr. Sadoff's report.  I was supplied with Dr. Mack's report.  I was supplied with the raw data of the psychological testing.  I was supplied with the testimony of the witnesses, both -- well, the witnesses basically who had testified at the Article 32 investigation.
     Colonel Rock screened that and selected out various testimony and sent that to me.  I was, also, supplied with statements made by character witnesses at that time.  I wanted to get all of the possible information as this was to help me with the time trend and the events that occurred the 16th and 17th of February.  Of course, I'm talking about late August that I was asked to do this.  So, it was some four or five months hence and I feel professionally that if I am going to do an evaluation I wanted all available information at that time, rather than just deal with psychological evaluation of the person.  I am going to need a drink of water somewhere along the way, if that's possible.
Q  Well, Dr. Bailey, we have a copy of your report.  It is dated 8 September 1970, and I am sure you have a copy of it there.  So, I take it, as of that date you had your consideration of this matter and you had arrived at your conclusions and furnished them to Colonel Rock.
     I won't go into -- specifically into the report at this at this time, but we'll get to that later.  However, --

MR. WORHEIDE:  Let's mark this as Dr. Bailey exhibit #1 of this date

Dr. Bailey's exhibit #1 marked for identification.

Q  Now, just referring back to what you told us, I take it Dr. Edwards conducted one interview.  Both you and Dr. Morgan conducted more than one interview.
A  Yes sir.
Q  Dr. Edwards has testified here.  He said that he didn't make any notes.  Did you and Dr. Morgan make notes of your interviews?
A  I made notes which are cryptic, which is my style, of my interviews both with the people who briefed me as well as notes of interviews.  Yes, the third interview I had very, very sketchy notes on because I was basically dealing with wanting to satisfy myself with regard to the questions of the McNaughton Rules that I've mentioned in terms of it I thought he was free from disease at the time as to be able to commit such an act.  So, I had very sketchy notes of the interview.  
Q  Did you tape -- record any part of this interview?
A  I did not.
Q  Did Dr. Morgan?
A  Yes.
Q  Was his tape made available to you?
A  Yes.
Q  Is that tape now available?
A  No.
Q  Did you make notes of it?
A  Yes, I did.  That's the first interview.  Apparently, I was not aware that he had taped the second interview.  We went through quite a hassle in the sense that Captain Douthat wanted to be present when I interviewed -- when we interviewed Dr. MacDonald.  And, I simply talked him out of it in saying that I honestly believed that -- well, when I first met Captain Douthat and Dr. MacDonald they were sitting on a couch in my office.  Every time I would ask Dr. MacDonald a question, he would look at Captain Douthat and answer it.  And, I pointed that out to him.
     I said that Captain MacDonald fully understands his rights.  He fully understands that he can interrupt the interview at any time.  He fully understands that he -- what we call has his rights, under Article 31, which is the same as the Fifth Amendment.  And, I would like for you not to be present because I think it will interfere in my ability to gain some rapport with and be able to conduct an adequate evaluation.  So, he backed off that and asked if he could observe the interview through a one-way mirror.  And, I said that I thought that was possible.  We had that because it's a training institute.  But, I felt, personally, the same would be true.  That is, if Captain Douthat was sitting outside, I didn't feel that he or I would be comfortable as if I was seeing him alone.  So, after some calls to Mr. Segal and so forth, they agreed.  Dr. MacDonald wanted to tape because he -- that's his style.  He can tell you that himself.
Q  Dr. Morgan?
A  I'm sorry.  Dr. Morgan wanted to tape because that's his style.  And, we, in fact, drew up a written agreement that the tapes would be destroyed.  That's it, they would not be kept by us, I think out of fear on their part that they might be used in some other capacity.  So, Dr. Morgan said, "I -- look! I only want to use the tapes."  I'm quoting Dr. Morgan himself.  "I only want to use the tapes because that's my way of taking notes so that I can re-listen them as I want to."  And, so, that's how the tape issue came up.  The tapes were erased after we had finished that report.  Dr. Edwards, I don't think took notes during his interview.
Q  Dr. Bailey, could you refer to your notes, both of your personal interview with Captain MacDonald or interviews with Captain MacDonald and your notes made by listening to the tape of the interview taken by Dr. Morgan and could you tell us what you, by referring to these notes, what you said to Captain MacDonald, what Dr. Morgan said to Captain MacDonald, what his responses were, how you evaluated his responses?  And, his reactions, so far as you were able to observe them?  His demeanor and attitude, his way of playing whatever role he was playing when he was with you.  And, using these illustrations, tell us what conclusions you arrived at as to character, his mental status, psychological profile, his psychological condition.  In other words, give us a psychological evaluation.
A  I've had great difficulty in preparing for this in -- well, in how to most cogently give you that.  Reading of my notes I don't think will be helpful.
Q  I don't want to read your notes.
A  I know that.  I think I can perhaps use my notes and also -- remember this is four years ago and it's hard sometimes for me to remember what I learned from him and what I learned from other people and what I learned from conferences that us three doctors had together.  So, part of that is meld in.  Some of it from these notes.  I deliberately, when I saw Dr. MacDonald, as I do with any person that I am evaluating, met him at the door and shook hands with him.  He was a very cordial, smiling, cooperative, relatively warm person.  
     We chatted a bit about his arrangements over at Walter Reed Inn, which is not the most plush motel available, but it was across the street.  He did what Captain Douthat had done the day before, in terms of expressing his feelings of being upset at having to go through all of this procedure, upset that he was accused.  I let him just sit and ventilate.  At the same time he created an impression in me of being a very engaging sort of person who was very faceted in his ability to talk.  I deliberately, in my first interview with him, did not discuss February 17th at all.  I did the past history.  He gave me a very bland past history, if you will, on what he considered to be a relatively normal family upbringing on his part.  I was struck by -- we talked about his father dying of pulmonary fibrosis, said that it was a happy family.  Described his father as a leader.  Described his father in an interesting way, as a man who was constantly at battle with the world when he didn't need to be.  And, describing his father as feeling that women -- I've got a quote here.  "That women had taken over the country."  Described his father as a very masculine kind of person.  However, I had the impression that the relationship between him and his father was not all that close.  They did things together.  That is he recalled building a fireplace.  He recalled building a boat together.  But in the terms of emotional closeness I had the impression that there was not much emotional closeness there.
     He described his mother as a very calm, quiet, strong person who was a school teacher / school nurse.  He talked of his brother, Jay.  Everyone likes Jay he said.  Described Jay as a failure who had had some fifteen to twenty jobs, who was on amphetamines, who had a paranoid psychotic break, I think in -- I have the date in my notes.  Described him as a "passive aggressive person"  whom we doctors frequently use that term "passive aggressive"  when we want to say something bad about somebody in a sense that it's used as a term to say that the person is a manipulating person.  He used that word.  I had the impression that his relationship with Jay was not all that close.
     He talked about Judy, his sister.  He described her as more of the intellectual in the family said that she had a stroke of luck and married the only person who could possibly live with her.  Said that Judy had a pension for choosing men who would put her down all the time.  Chose men who were masochist.  And, I got the flavor that somehow, even though the mother was described as a strong person, somehow women are put down.  That was just an impression that I got.
     I asked him about himself.  He described himself as a striving person, making the point that he would never have achieved what he had achieved or gotten where he had gotten if he had not been a striving person.  That he was good at athletics.  He made it a point of having never cheated.  Usually when I ask that kind of question I'd say, "Okay.  Those are some of your good points.  Can you tell me some of your bad points?"  He described himself as compulsive.  And, here was the first time that any feeling or what we call affect came out.  He became sad, almost tearful.  Said that he was not accepting in his own family.  Said not as accepting as a good father should be.  He talked about what could have been if this had not happened.  Said he could have had a closer relationship with Colette.  He could have had a better relationship with the children.  He said -- he volunteered that he saw that as strange in himself because he was never annoyed by patients.  He always could take all the crap that any patient could give him and do it with candor.  Frankly, that's not uncommon among doctors, probably.  Talked about his source of fun as being music and reading and athletics.
     Described his wife as the best mother in the world.  Warm, understood the kids completely.  Further background history I got from him -- if I'm being redundant in terms of -- if you folks know this history and you prefer that I be more general, I will.
Q  We would prefer that you give it the way he gave it to you.
A  Okay.
Q  We've heard this history, but we get different versions of it and we would like to get this version of it.
A  He talked about knowing his wife since eighth grade and perhaps dating since eight grade.  She had spent, I think, two years at Skidmore and he started at Princeton.  They had broken off a couple of times.  I did not ask why.  But he talked about how he -- I asked him more how he acted to these breaking ups.  He said that he would feel hurt and he would sulk.  That she would cry and that would hurt him.  I obtained a sexual history from him.
     He had his first sexual encounter with the mother of one of his friends when he was fourteen years old.  He talked about Kimberly, who was almost six years old, in kindergarten and a very feminine child.  He talks about Kristy as being a tiger, two and a half years old.  There was little affect at this time, in terms of his very straightforward discussion in the sense that I am talking in a very straightforward voice like this.  I was impresses with his coolness in giving me this information.  However, I also think you ought to understand that I, by design, as I said, did not try, did probe at that point, because I knew I would have more time to talk with him.  I wanted him to become comfortable with me.  We talked -- he talked about his feeling about army.  The implication being that he had a lot of anger toward the army.
     He talked about his family's approach to Jay.  I thought this was interesting because I had heard various versions.  And, I will just tell you what I learned.  He said that his parents were more casual toward Jay's accomplishments.  He said that he had gotten more recognition, he, Jeff, got more recognition than Jay.  He felt bad about that.  He felt that somehow that might be responsible for Jay's becoming a bum.  I had heard different versions of this description of his relationship with this thing.
     I went into his physical health.  He had a slipped disc when he was in high school.  He had various injuries in football.  He had been sick two times in medical school and was hospitalized with infectious mononucleosis.  I got into the use of alcohol.  He talked about using it socially, judiciously, minimally really.  That they had a supply in the house, but that neither he nor Colette drank heavily.
     He used medication and in fact, his wife had taken diet pills for some period of time in order to lose weight and he, himself, had taken diet pills to lose weight when he was on the boxing team in college.  He said that he was a fighter.  His nose was broken four times while he was in high school.  And, as I said, that essentially was my first interview with him, which I deliberately left this relatively blank.
     As I said, I had been confronted with many things and I decided that in my second interview I was going to get into February 17th.  I initiated the interview in talking with him about his father.  Apparently, there was a lot of feeling in the family about the father's death.  He talked about his mother crying when he, Jeff was around.  He created the impression that he was sort of the person who carried the family through the father's death.  He added that time and volunteered that Colette's father had committed suicide.  I asked him if he could tell me anymore about it.  But, he couldn't.
     I have a note here that "one time she helped me and I became stronger."  Frankly, I don't know what that means.  I don't know whether he was talking about Colette, his mother, or her mother.
     I've got the dates, more specifically in terms of birthdays.  I was not aware until he told me that Colette was pregnant at the time that they got married.  He made a point of the fact that they had intended to get married later, but that they went ahead with getting married.
     I asked him about religion.  He was Catholic, but felt that that was not important.  He felt the -- he said, to quote him, he said, "That's the least role in me."  Implying that he does not practice his religion and he talked with some feeling about the changes going on, particularly then, in the church and he felt that the church is hypocritical and pretty much dismissed that.
     He discussed entering the service.  I never asked him, I learned later whether he volunteered or was drafted or was up for draft and volunteered, or what.  All those options are possible.  But, I had the impression that most of what he did, he volunteered to do.  All doctors when they enter the service go to Fort Sam Houston for basic officer's indoctrination course and while he was there his thought was that he was going to be in the service and he was going to end up going to Vietnam, which was the expectation of most young doctors if they went into the service at that time.
     He spoke of a Colonel coming down and giving a talk to the group about Special Forces.  He was extremely impressed by the physical appearance of this man and his stature and he really was very impressed.  There was a lot of feeling expressed about this man.  And, it was almost as if the appearance and the presentation of the man, more than a judicious discussion of what he would be involved in going into Special Forces, it was almost as if his impression of the man was more important.  He knew that he would get pay, better pay.  He felt that it was a challenge and later went to Fort Benning, had three weeks of jump school, expecting again to, I think go to Vietnam.  But did not.  I don't know why he didn't.  I don't know whether it was anything that he did or anything -- he ended up at Fort Bragg.
     He added and volunteered further sexual history in terms of having an affair with an airline stewardess.  I began to get a, you know a question in my head in terms of whether he volunteer -- I didn't pull that out of him or whether he volunteered this to impress me or what.  I don't know.  They apparently -- she spent a weekend with him in Texas and this was apparently a second time encounter that he had had.
     We talked more about his brother because I wanted to get a little more.  My notes are very poor except that he made the point that he was the only one in the family that could handle his brother.  He expresses that he didn't really understand his brother, but talked about his brother's potential for violence.  He was very upset that his mother had to see this violent behavior that the brother displayed.  She wanted him to be a nice boy.  He expressed this with an affect of anger and shame.  He said he was ashamed of his brother.
     Then we got to the night of the 17th or the night of the 16th and the morning of the 17th.  He talked about coming home from work, having gone with his kids and I don't know whether Colette was with him or not, to feed Trouper, which was a pony that he had bought.  And, I again, don't know whether he was a present for Colette or the kids.  I have the impression that it was for the kids and for Jeff.  He talked at some length about having done this very secretively.  That it was a big surprise to the family and talked with some pride about having worked with the man whom he bought the horse or whose property he was going to keep the horse on and how the two of them had -- he would make up stories about where he was going and he would go over and they built the shed the horse would stay in.  He made quite a big deal of it.  Anyway, they had been feeling Trouper after work and his wife fried supper.  Why I say fried is just because that's what I wrote.  He talked about his wife attending a child psychology course on Monday and Thursday nights.  They had supper, cleared the dishes and wife went to her course.  Kristy was in bed by seven.  Kimberly and he watched TV.  He recalled watching "Laugh-In".  He fell asleep.  I am aware the briefing by Captain (Juror Katie O.  Durham just entered) Somers, that one of the points that they were making had to do with earlier conflict between Captain MacDonald and his wife over the handling of the children in terms of bedwetting and in terms of the children climbing into bed with them.  
     I had not raised it yet, but somehow at that point in the interview it came up.  He said that Kristy had come in -- was coming into bed with them and that his wife -- his feeling was that she -- what should be done -- she should be put back into her own bed and left to cry and that it would stop.  He said that Kimberly had done it and he had put her back to bed and she cried one night and it was over.  It stopped.
     His wife, that night, had discussed -- I learned this from him, as well as from the investigating officers, from Somers and Thompson, his wife had discussed with the teacher how to handle the problem.  I have in the back of my mind -- its characteristic of doctors -- it seems true in my family that my wife never takes my advice.  I can treat my kids' colds, but when it comes to medical opinions I, you know, I'm low man on the totem pole.  I'm not sure that isn't true in a lot of physician's families.  But, I think there was a favor of that there and I began to probe and try to feel for areas of conflict between him and Colette.  Because, there again, the point had been made so strongly to me by Somers and Thompson and Ivory that they saw this as a potential motive.  I didn't get a degree of reaction from him.  He said, in fact, that he wasn't upset.  She had discussed it with the professor.  I think I would have been, but he said he wasn't.  The professor, he said, advised a firm hand, which is exactly what he had advised.  He said that Colette could take less crying than I and that's probably why Colette tolerated it more -- that is she couldn't tolerate putting the Kris back in her own bed and making her stay there.  He talked about getting Kris a bottle.  And, I think later he talked about giving her a second bottle.  Well, he did.  I have it in my notes.  I don't have a good memory of the sequence.
     He mentioned that his wife was four and a half months pregnant.  He also mentioned that he was reading a novel by Mickey Spillane called "Kiss Me Deadly".  Again, I am becoming more probing.  I said that -- oh, I don't have it in my notes, but I recall he described his wife coming home from the course.  They chatted awhile.
     He had fallen asleep previously.  And, as I said, the children were in bed.  And, he talked about having a friendly conversation with his wife.  This was an important point in the sense that it had been raised that he had had a fight, in fact.  And, he denied that and said they had had a pleasant conversation.  He was interested in what the professor had had to say and so forth.  And, his wife then went to bed.  Why he didn't go to bed I don't know.  He stayed up reading.  He later went to bed and Kris was in bed on his side of the bed and had wet the bed.  He picked her up and out her back into her bed.  There were periods here where he became emotional, became tearful, but recovered quickly.  It was a -- I recognized that he had been interrogated previously and so I allowed him the lack of affect that I would have expected from a person describing these things about his family.  I did not get much feeling from him at that time.  It was matter-of-fact, but, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.  He had gone through this story so many times.  In fact, I have another opinion about that that I offered later.
     He -- being a father, I guess I said, you know, being a February night he talked about checking the windows.  In fact, the window in Kristen's room was open a bit.  She was wet.  Why didn't he change her?  And, if she had wet the bed enough to make the bed wet enough that he didn't want to sleep in it, I figured that would be a pretty wet diaper.  He said that it wasn't.  She was not very wet.  She was asleep and there was just a small amount of urine on her panties and he did not want to disturb her, didn't want to wake her so he just put her to bed.  I didn't by that.  But, I let that -- that was it.  Then we talked about him falling to sleep on the couch.  He decided not to disturb Colette and the bed or cover it up and go to sleep with Colette.  And, did this again in a very matter-of-fact way.  Then we went through the arrival of people in the house.  He was awakened by screaming from his wife and from Kris.  No, Kimberly.  His wife was screaming, "Why are they doing this to me."  He talked about -- as I recall, and I somehow misplaced that particular set of notes.  You see, again a lot of my notes are from other people.
     I have three people written down here.  Two Caucasians and one Negro girl.  I understand that there were different versions and different stories about that.  But anyway, he talked about being awakened by screams and that these people were around him.  He related this again in a fairly matter-of fact way.  He talked about being hit and that he was very confused after being hit and that he was very confused after being hit.  And, he used the expression that the guy can really punch.  And, then went on to give a very clinical description of the fact that he had been stabbed with an ice pick and that's why he experienced the pain that he had.  There were several episodes during that night, you know, in the course of that time when he either lost consciousness or did not have a good memory.  He talked about running into Colette first, giving her mouth to mouth resuscitation, feeling her pulses, running into the children's room feeling for pulses, giving mouth to mouth resuscitation.  Finally, knowing that they had been stabbed when he would breathe in the air would come out of the chest.  
     He talked about coming back down the hall, talked about making the phone call.  All this again without much feeling to me.  More of a clinical thing.  He then went on to eventually, he -- apparently he lost consciousness or says he lost consciousness and the next thing he remembers is someone bending over him and giving him mouth to mouth resuscitation.
     And then he became angry.  He said he was put in an ambulance.  Some son-of-a-bitch wanted to know his serial number.  He was yelling.  He was swearing.  He didn't want to be taken out of the house.  He wanted to stay there.  His wife and kids needed help.  Help them; don't worry about me, that kind of thing.  There was affect then.  Feeling expressed.
     Talked about a friend coming over and seeing him at the hospital.  Described this as a failure.  That he had failed.  That he had somehow not had the capacity to hold off these aggressors to himself as well as his family.
     Whenever I get the idea in my head about whether anybody has considered suicide I ask the question.  And, so I did.  And, he said he had had suicidal thoughts in the sense of what is there to live for.  And, then he thought it over he said and that his suicide would be misconstrued.  It would be misunderstood by other people.  It would be a second failure.  And, he did not want to have a second failure.  He had pills enough to take.  He had a belt he could use.  There were pipes in the apartment.  He had a gun in the drawer.  He various routes he could use if he wanted to and he decided not to.  I asked him what he was going to do when all this was over.  And, he said something fairy insightful in the sense -- I, by now, which is after about a total of four hours of interviewing him -- I had the impression that he was depressed -- that what I was seeing as being clinical, as being matter-of-fact was interpreted, by me anyway, as being controlled, very controlled, very -- I hope you understand what I mean by controlled in terms of controlling his feeling, not allowing his feeling to well up.
     And, he substantiated that a bit in the sense of -- he said that he doesn't know what's going to happen when this is all over.  He said that what's keeping him going right now is that he's a fighting and that he is a fighter and has been a fighter all his life -- a fighter in the sense of defending himself.
     Another interesting thing -- this is out of context of the interview -- I asked him -- I noted the length of time between February 17th and August 6th when he first -- he says he first became aware that he was a major suspect.  And, I asked him --
Q  I think it was April 6th.
A   April.  I'm sorry, I said August.  August was when we saw him -- April 6th -- correct.  And, I asked him, you know, had you tried to put this together, to explain it to yourself, to -- what did you do?  And he went back to work.  He said that it's just part of his make-up -- that one way he has of dealing with something that is too tough to deal with is to go be a doctor and work.
     And I was very impressed by the fact that he had not pursued the CID, had not pursued the JAG office.  He had not gotten a lawyer.  He had done nothing -- at least that's what he told me.  And then he implied to me that when he went on the 6th that he thought he essentially was going to get some information about what in the world was going on.  And, then, all of a sudden they sprung on him that he was the prime suspect; and he was read his rights.  And that was the first time he knew.
     Getting back to when it's all over -- we talked about his mother selling her house in to help pay the legal fees.  He said he didn't care about the money.  He felt that he would recover -- that he would go back to being a doctor.  Then he got a very quizzical look on his face, almost wanting me to understand him, wanting me to empathize with him.  And he says, "You know, those bastards want to have a victory party when this is all over."  He's talking mainly about Douthat.  And he said, "I don't want to have a victory party.  I mean this is a fight, but I don't feel there is any victory.  I've lost my family and I just -- and I will be relieved.  That's all."
     That's the essence of my two interviews -- initial two interviews.  We had a conference involving Dr. Morgan, Dr. Edwards, and myself; and it was very interesting.  I'm sorry, before that time, I had listened to Dr. Morgan's tape.  With the shuffling, I hope I have it.
     And there were all kinds of calls coming to us from Colonel Rock and from Captain Beale.  Captain Beale came up and spent a full day -- not a full day, a half a day with me; again,  giving me all kinds of circumstantial evidence.  For example, talking about this table that was lying on it edge and that Ivory had made the big point that it was impossible to knock that table over without it going all the way over.  And that Captain Beale and Colonel Rock, themselves, went into the house; and the first time that Colonel Rock bumped the table, it fell right on it side and stayed there.  I'm trying to help you understand that I was bombarded with all kinds of information from all kinds of sources.

Recessed for lunch

Examination by Victor Woerheide continued:

MR. WOERHEIDE:  For the record, Dr. Bailey's exhibit 1 is a report of 8th September 1970, "Report of Psychiatric Evaluation, Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald."  It's addressed to Colonel Warren V. Rock, and it is signed by Dr. Bailey, Dr. Morgan and Dr. Edwards.  I have asked our reporter to mark as Bailey -- Dr. Bailey exhibit No. 2 a letter addressed to him by Bernard L. Segal, and I'll just read part of the last sentence.  "I hereby authorize you to disclose to the grand jury and to government attorneys working with the grand jury the results of any tests administered to Dr. MacDonald and all raw data including conversations, interviews, upon which your evaluation of his mental state and his personality were based."

Dr. Bailey exhibit #2 - Marked For Identification

Q  (By Mr. Woerheide)  Dr. Bailey, at the noon break you were taking out your notes of a recorded interview made by Dr. Morgan with Dr. MacDonald -- or Captain MacDonald.  Should we take up there at this point?
A  Okay.  Dr. Morgan had asked him permission to do this; and, essentially, he has given it to me.  Probably I can understand more of my -- this is the way I take notes.  So, that is one of the reasons I've been very cautious in not just releasing them to people; because many of them are cryptic -- one-word statements that I can understand sometimes.  Although four and a half years later, now it's hard sometimes for me to -- four years later, it's hard for me to fully understand.
     Anyway, Dr. Morgan interviewed him a period of, I think, approximately two hours and tape recorded -- and as I said, he tape recorded as his means of -- in lieu of taking notes and as a device so that he could rehear it.  He started out the way that I did in terms of getting background history, his age.  He was born in Jamaica -- his family living in Patchogue, history about being athletic, entering the army, when arrived at Fort Bragg, a description of his father -- pretty much what I have already given to you and very similar in nature to the information that was given to me.
     Dr. Morgan asked him why he picked Yale; and his family, apparently, had some influence in that.  And at the time, he was interested in a further residency program in pediatric orthopedics.  He had additional information to what I had before -- described his family as middle-class.  Both parents were working -- a little description of his -- of his parents in terms of emotional qualities, but more facts about them.  He talked about doing well in school -- interested in athletics.  He talked about his slipped disc and how it happened.  There were four minutes to go in a varsity game, and the coach was keeping the seniors in.  And even though he had all this profound pain, he continued; and I don't know whether they won the game or not.  He talked about running the athletic program for the fraternity he was in at Northwestern.  
     Dr. Morgan asked him, as a child, what he did for fun and he talked about reading.  He said he read more than most other kids.  He was always athletic.  He read everything.  He was on an animal kick.  He read all the Lassie books.  He liked to read history later -- natural history and political history.  He enjoyed reading to his own children.  He now reads mystery books.  He will deliberately -- I've got a quote -- "most always don't try to figure out the end."  He doesn't try to out guess Sherlock Holmes.  He's read all of James Bond, Mickey Spillane, J.B.  MacDonald --I don't know who that is -- as well as having magazines which are medical in nature.
     They, then, went into his moonlighting practices -- the fact that he was -- in addition to his Army job, he was working at two different hospitals in North Carolina -- that he also moonlighted while he was in medical school and that's partly how he paid his way.  He was getting about a hundred and twenty-five ($125.00) dollars a night at Cape Fear Hospital.
     They talked about how easy it was to exit in Special Forces.  He was initially rather disappointed in the Army, because he didn't have much to do.  But, then he'd been given a job to do and he enjoyed it.  And he probably -- I think, also what is referred to -- and I'm making an inference here -- that he enjoyed his moonlighting, because he had more clinical work to do in moonlighting.
     The parts I can't make sense of, I won't try.  Oh, he made the point about at Fort Bragg he didn't have the three months special training that most of the Special Forces people go through -- that he apparently was given the title of group surgeon and I've got here "earned his Green Beret."  He had had, as I said earlier, his jump training at Benning.  Morgan went into that further than I did.  He said he liked it.  He liked challenges.  "It's like are you man enough?"  He lived through it; therefore, he stood up to the challenge.  The people around him liked his attitude and that was important to him.  He said, in fact, as far as the physical training program, which is tauted to be so rigorous at Benning, that football practice was harder than that.  When it came to his jump day, it was a scary experience.  "I don't usually scare that easily.  It was something more than scared; it was a matter of pride."  I'm sorry, he was more scared that he had expected himself to be, but it was a matter of pride that he do it.  And he described the experience as fun.  He did not volunteer to free-fall.  "I don't have a strong death wish."  He saw that in a hierarchy of challenges.
     His decision to go into paratroopers is that they were hard-core.  He described to him, as he had described to me, the Colonel in the Green Beret -- above average.  It was presented to him that he would work with the troops, not on them.  He talks of calling Colette about the decision to go into the Special Forces.  "She knows how I respond to these guys.  I'm a bit of a showman."  He was six-foot, two; a soldier to end all.  Colette's response was "Well, let's think about it.  I'm kind of proud of you -- the fact that you take the hardest thing to do and you do it well."  Out of four hundred and thirty (430) docs at Fort Sam, two guys signed up for Special Forces.
     He talked about helicopter staff jumps where they would put on displays.  This is frequent in the Army where visiting firemen would have a show put on for them.  It happened at Fort Rucker, and I'm sure it happened at Fort Bragg.  And all the kids would come.  It would happen about every three months.
     He talked about working -- enjoying his work, working with dedicated, real soldier.  He was interested in what really motivated those guys.  It was exciting.  It was patriotic -- not second rate.
     The subject was changed significantly, and he talked about having a collie dog named, Lady, and said that a neighbor had poisoned the collie.  And he rode his bike, he said, all day -- five miles -- and he sat all day in the park.  He went to the police and what could they do.
     Then he got onto the pony and described --I've got "old retired master sergeant."  I think that means the guy -- the guy that got the place, and he got the pony from and the pasture where it was.  It was a palomino.  He got it for the kids and Colette.  And he was talking rather glibly, now, in the same way -- I wrote "glib talking."  And I think what I meant was, you know, freely talking without a lot of emotions -- even in talking about the pony.  But, then talked about giving him away.  The pony's name was Trouper.  I've got that he began crying -- and this is after he was talking about the pony -- and that he began crying and mentioned his family.
     Then he did something that had happened a number of times in our evaluation.  He would show emotion, become tearful and then go into a tirade.  "It's not right.  I never did anything wrong.  They shouldn't be doing this to me.  It's just not right.  Whenever I think about it -- every day -- now.  It used to be every day, but now so not so often."  The whole thing.  "I've treated some of the crummiest people in the world."  And he will recover.
     It's -- I've defined it as sort of a device in which -- rather than, you know, crying about his family and being given -- and normally what we would do is stop pursuing the issue and let him recover himself.  He would take control and use what I call projection in the sense of talking about what those people had done to him.  If I'm not making sense, please let me know.  But, I felt that this was rather significant in the sense that it, for him, was a recovery maneuver.
     He talked about Colette.  He recovered and he talked about Colette.  His voice was much softer now.  He talked about her being an unbelievable person -- the kindest person he's ever known.  He still wakes up and expects them to be there.  He always fights to look calm and cool.  He has this terrific guilt feeling about -- and then he goes into tears again -- this procedure.  I've got a big fat "they."  "I'll get out of these proceedings.  I've got the most competent lawyer in the world.  He got the best of all possible worlds, because he has an innocent client."  He goes into it further.  "There was an eye witness.  There were two people.  The FBI and the CID had a big jurisdictional flight,"  which he thought was asininity.  They couldn't find fingerprints -- or making such a big deal out of nothing.  After his innocence is proven, it doesn't prove anything, as far as he's concerned.  "The proceedings are in sane.  They didn't even interview the first twelve MP's that came into the house."  
     Then I've got "motive thrown out -- forced back in."  I don't know what that is.
     "Why was I on the couch?"  And I've got "annoyed."  And I'm not sure whether he is talking about what he has been accused of or what he experienced.  I don't know -- I don't recall.
     He talked about the importance to him of maintaining himself -- of his emotions by compartmentalizing them.  "I don't sit down and think about February 17th."  He talked about having dreams.  He wakes up and hears screams all the time.  "They seem loud to me."   How much dreaming and how much reliving -- feels scared -- sometimes he's crying when he wakes up.  "I see her lying on the floor."  A depression type thing -- sleeps soundly between six and eight in the morning.  And there is an aside -- Dr. Sadoff told me I'm very naïve.  Now I dream about the proceedings.  Colonel Rock is sitting there looking at me.  "Did you do it?"   "No, I didn't.  And he's not really listening, so I have to tell him over and over again."
     He has dreams as a child -- sometimes has them now.  There were two particular dreams that were recurrent.  One of them -- someone is coming into his room looking for him and he hides from them and he is scared.  And then he would wake-up and he said this dream ended when he got into the sixth grade.  The second dream was just a feeling.  He was in a void and he just felt upset.
     He also talked of having nice dreams about his family -- about riding the horse -- seeing Colette riding the horse.  She was like a big kid.  She loved surprises.  He really felt good.  Then he started crying again.  He made a point again of getting rid of Trooper right after he got out of the hospital.  Then he made a very important point.  "I resent people who want to share this with me.  I resent people who want to share this emotion.  People get their own relief from crying."  
     Dr. Morgan changed the subject -- regarding what his weight was.  And he had apparently gained weight and recovered quickly.
     "It's okay for a woman to cry.  A man should not be able to cry."
     They went into his sexual life to some extent.  His first sexual experience was somewhat alarming to him.  He frequently awakened with an erection.  He had two girl friends -- oh, yes, as a teenager, he had two girl friend friends and they offered to have sex with him; and it repulsed him.  It wouldn't repulse him now.  He described having one-night affairs with two women.  One of the reasons he didn't want to do anything with these two girl friends was he was going with Colette and he didn't want to offend her.
     At the present time, their sexual life was not all that great.  She was five months pregnant and that bothered him.  He didn't have much interest in sex.  I'm trying to find what's useful.
 He described their sexual life as relatively normal -- having intercourse three or four times a week.  He was unable to -- oh, he was unable to have an erection with the girl in San Antonio.  She was pushy.  She was attractive, but he was not excited by her.  Colette could always excite him.  Did his wife know about the affairs?  "No"  with a big fat "no."   "I don't think it's important for her to know."
     Did he ever think that his wife did the same thing in terms of having affairs because of his absences?  "Well, she had friends in Chicago,"  but he didn't think so.  He said, "You know, there is a double standard."
     He was asked about homosexual experiences.  He was approached at age thirteen, while he was mowing a lawn, by an older man.  And then he got into a discussion of a job ha had, and I'm not sure when the job was.  He drove a beach tax on Fire Island and apparently -- I got the impression -- I don't recall -- I don't have the notes in terms of exactly what he said.  But he kind of did whatever people would pay him to do.  He would pimp girls for guys.  He would -- that was just the thing to do.  I understand later that his brother also worked on Fire Island.  I don't know that personally.  That's that interview.
     Dr. Morgan's second interview was done -- as you notice the night of the 17th was not discussed by Dr. Morgan in this interview.  And when it became clear that we had to make a response with regard to his sanity on that day, on the date of February 16th - 17th, then I wanted to re-interview him -- to do a mental status examination.  And Dr. Morgan also wanted to do the same, as well as to cover some of the data.  I leave it to Dr. Morgan.  I do not have notes of that tape and did not hear it.
     We held a conference.  Dr Edwards was concerned as to whether he would have to appear at the Article 32 Investigation.  I had drafted a report and shared it with them.  He expressed agreement with the findings.  Dr. Morgan raised a question of feeling that we were missing something.  He was concerned about particularly the psychological data.  And this is a tone that went through much of our discussion.
     As I have expressed before, I have a fairly strong impression that Dr. MacDonald is a pretty controlled guy.  He is capable of maintaining control and he also has this device, as I said, of going into some kind of tirade to avoid allowing emotion to become expressed.  This is, the emotion may be sadness, but he turns it into anger about what they are doing to him -- kind of thing.
     Dr. Edwards described him -- and I realize that he has testified here, but I though it would be useful; this conference resulted in our making our certain decisions about him.  He didn't -- I've here "not total openness."  He was -- Dr. Edwards was also struck by the social rapport and the extreme cooperativeness of Dr. MacDonald in this situation.  He answered all the questions extremely quickly.  Dr. Edwards described him as having like a wall of denial -- he has a resistance wall against the events or against feelings about the events.  He needs to appear competent.  I have a quote from Dr. Edwards -- "very little expression of feelings."  His mother was mentioned by Dr. Edwards in more -- I guess Dr. Edwards discussed this more than either I or Dr. Morgan.  He talks about her as a great person; but he had to put her in her place, which was another reference in terms of sort of a family attitude about women.
     Dr. Edwards was impressed with the fact that he seemed to be a very action-oriented person -- active as opposed to thinking or contemplating -- the difference between, say, a surgeon and a psychiatrist, I suppose, in part.  He liked the emergency room.  He enjoyed the excitement of the emergency room.  I understand that he is now working in a trauma unit which is a super-emergency room.
     He talked about him when he is rejected -- that he is hurt -- that he sulks -- that he withdraws.  And an impression that he had that I was beginning to get -- that he seemed extremely dependent on what other people thought of him.  That -- to put it in other words -- and I'm making, I think, a summary statement now in terms of my evaluation of this person's make-up or his personality -- is -- lets take it as a given -- that all of us have other people to -- that is other people are our mirrors.  How other people respond to us affects how we feel about ourselves.  But that can go to an extreme and I think this went to an extreme for this young man and does.  He needs much, much more than the average person needs in terms of reassurance that he's a good guy from other people.  That's an impression that I have and I think that that partly explains this -- what we saw initially as a kind of naiveté, openness, honesty.  It's like a little kid and, yet -- you know, a little kid in the sense of, you know, being quite trusting; whereas one might expect that he'd be a bit cautious, being a doctor, having worked in the situation that he had worked.
     I'm talking about a matter of degree.  And I'm not trying to put a label on him or say that this is sick.  I'm talking about it more as a way he operates.  He was extremely cordial, extremely -- as he said Dr. Sadoff told him he was naïve.  I think that's most of the information from my notes that I have.
Q  All right.  Now, could you put this altogether and indicate -- you know, tell us what your psychological evaluation of Jeffrey MacDonald is?  What makes him tick on the basis of your observations as a result of the examination you made -- the testing?  By the way, before you start answering, I take it you did have available to you the report that was prepared by the two psychologists, Dr. Mack and Dr. White?  
A  I did.
Q  Of course they testified here.  We have marked their reports as exhibits.  They have given us their evaluation.  Maybe you could tell us just preliminary whether you are basically in agreement with them.
A  Yes, I think so.  I may use different language than they use.
Q  Well, pleas give us your evaluation in your own words, and if possible, illustrate it.
A  After it was all over, I had no question in my mind about my ability to respond to the questions that were being asked.  I would like an opportunity to read that report, if I could, at some point -- if it has not been read to you.
Q  It hasn't been read per se.  You have a copy of it there.  I marked it -- a xeroxed copy of you Exhibit 1, so just proceed in your own way.
A  Well, I'll take the latter first, in the sense of -- I see this young man who was twenty-six at the time, as sort of a person who uses -- probably his primary mechanism of defense or his primary mechanism of handing stress, difficulty, is denial.  I think that explains, for example, his not putting a story together for himself until April 6th -- or at least he says he didn't.  He didn't think about it.
     It's sort of inconceivable to me that someone wouldn't be ruminating and thinking about it and trying to put it together.  He does describe himself as thinking about it in terms of having the images of it, but trying to explain it, understand it -- I think he's capable of just blocking this out.
     I think he uses other mechanisms -- action.  I think I described earlier that he talked with some sense of grief about not relating as well as his family as he thought he ought to and yet, being able to relate to patients easily.  And I think to wear his doctor's coat was easier for him than to be a man -- if you'll understand -- because you'll know what to do.  You have certain things to do and I think that's his orientation.  I think that probably is why he is oriented toward the kind of work that he is doing.  He had planned, at that time, to get out of the service and go back to somewhere at one of the Ivy League institutions for a residency training program, as I said, in surgery and go into pediatric surgery.  I don't know what happened to those plans.  I honesty don't.  I know that he didn't go.
     I see him as a guy -- I've used the word in talking to other people about him -- I've used the word hysteric and I'd like to explain that.  I don't mean hysterical in the sense of histrionic blowing your cool kind of thing.  By hysteric, we mean -- what I mean a person who does use denial -- who is extremely effective at using denial -- if presented with twenty pieces of evidence or data, capable of seeing only tree or four and drawing your conclusion from it.  I see him as that kind of person.  As I say, Dr. Morgan raised the question and may raise it in front of you in terms of did we miss anything -- did we miss the boat.  I was very impressed with how his story was almost as if it was reconstructed.  I don't like to use the word "canned"  because that can be misinterpreted or distorted.  But the story, even about the 17th, let alone his life history, was told us -- told to me anyway -- in a not so much rehearsed -- it isn't like -- I feel I'm being vague.  I'm trying not to be.   It's like -- if you ask a person about a given incident, my assumption is that he'll probably tell you something different each time he tells you.  On the other hand, he seems to tell the story, with some changes, very much the same way and with very little real feeling.  What I'm saying is, I'm not sure that -- that's what I mean by reconstructed.  That's why I'm trying to avoid the word "canned"  or "rehearsed."  Am I clear about that?
Q  I think so.
A  Okay.  Part of the characteristic of the hysteric type of person -- and I'm going to apply a label to him.  I don't feel that generally within the normal range.  Yes sir?
Q  Do you agree that he is a man with basic inner feeling of inadequacy, a possible lack of manliness by his own definition of the term?
A  I hope I did convey in terms of my own presentation to you this morning that to -- "he doth protest too much."
Q  Then he compensated for this?
A  He needs to compensate.  He needs to achieve.  He needs to volunteer for jump training.  He needs -- he didn't have to go that far, as he said, as to do a free-fall.  You know, he's not crazy is pretty much what he said.  But he needed to do that.  He, in fact, had to lie.  He had to lie in order to get into the jump training; because of his physical exam -- on the questionnaire -- have you ever had back trouble.  He checks "no"  Because, if he had had any history of lumbar disc disease, they would have never let him into the paratroopers.  So, he had to lie to get into it.  So, yes, I see him as -- well, having to work against a feeling of inadequacy.  
Q  Well, having these feelings of inadequacy and having to work so strenuously to overcome and compensate for these feeling of inadequacy -- maintaining the front, the front, the façade, that he had to maintain -- do you think it's appropriate to say he had some underlying pre-psychotic tendencies?
A  There I have trouble.  Because I don't have the data.  I know that Dr. White -- remember, Dr. White did not interview him.  He had the raw data available to him.
Q  I'm just wondering whether it is possible.
A  Yes, sir, I think it is possible.
Q  It's not sufficiently apparent?
A  I will say we could have retested and we could have done our own battery, I think.  Both Dr. Morgan and I wondered if we shouldn't have re-evaluated him, although actually I am very impressed with Dr. Mack's report.  I thought it was extremely thorough.  I concurred in it.  And he certainly talks about what he saw in terms of denial and in terms of his dependency and in terms of -- I don't recall anymore -- whether Dr. Mack thought that he had underlying psychotic potential.  You must remember another thing.  I testified for -- it seems to me -- a full day at the Article 32.  And it wasn't like this.  It was an adversary situation.  And, remember, the big issue was that a psychiatrist who was -- who had a reputation as a forensic psychiatrist -- had said categorically -- this man is incapable of committing such an act.  And --
Q  We'll come back to that in a moment.
A  All right.
Q  You've testified an observation that you made and the others made in a situation of stress.  And this is a situation where people are talking at arms-length with one another under let's say, professional interview circumstances.  Under the situation of stress, he tends to lash out --
A  (Interposing) Yes, sir.
Q  Verbally at others.  Let me ask you this question.  In the situation of stress, let's say extreme stress, in a family atmosphere where you have a combination of, say, fatigue, a possible quarrel recent -- where he might be accused of lack of competency, a lack of adequacy in the family situation, could he react in a violent way?  In your presence he lashed out verbally.  I am talking about lashing out physically.
A  I think he could, yes, sir.
Q  And could he lash out physically and with sufficient violence and kill members of his own family?
A  I believe he could.  I've done a fair amount of research in terms of the literature related to murder and in most common murder is of a friend or a member of one's own family.
     Explanation's not intended there or saying that says he did it.  That doesn't say that at all.  But, if -- you see, interestingly, there are a lot of clichés thrown around.  He was brought to us -- to me initially, as Jack Armstrong, the All-American Boy.  He has been you know, just peachy-cream, achiever, super-wonderful all his life.  He didn't come across to me as Jack Armstrong, the All-American Boy.  He came across to me as having lots of holes.  I can't label that as pathology.
     The question raised -- I'm trying to think.  Oh, does he have an Achilles; heel?  That was the question put to me by Somers.  You know we want you to examine him and find his Achilles' heel.  We didn't find a specific Achilles' heel.  I mean, what was being looked for was the issue between him and Colette with regard to him and the children.  That seemed to be the mostly likely area, territory.  And, I could conceive that he would take a good deal of affront to her not going along with him and disagreeing with him about handling the children -- and, in fact, had been going to an outside expert who tells her the same thing.  But rather than feeling aha, aha, you see, the professor agrees with me, I could see him being offended.  That's what I was trying to make clear earlier.
Q  But controlling it at the same time?
A  Yes.
Q  But this is something that might fester?
A  Oh, yes.
Q  And could easily surface?
A  I think it could.  I think that that -- I certainly don't want to build any issue that I have enough data available to me to say that it did.  But, if you're talking about the realm of possibility in this man, yes, I think it does exist.
     We tried to do something.  I said we did everything we could do.  We didn't do everything we could do.  As I told you, there were at least three periods of the night of the 16th, morning of the 17th, about which he was very vague and hazy -- whether because of his injury or whether because, as he, I think, has put it, he was in a "shocky condition,"  or whatever.  There are periods he's vague about.
     He's not sure which room he went into first.  He's not sure what he did.  He's not sure.  And I offered -- even though I felt, as well as did the other doctors, that he was clinically
Depressed and hiding his depression in the same way I've described his ability to hide feelings otherwise.  The one other thing we could have done was an amytal interview
Q  That's sometimes referred to as sodium amytal?
A  Sodium amytal interview where essentially -- in laymen's terms, it's frequently used in the newspaper like the truth serum, but it's not really that.  I mean it's not something that makes you tell the truth.  What it does is it's a procedure in which you use an anesthetic -- a general anesthetic -- to a point that a person loses some degree of his conscious control of their thought processes.  And, in a person who has lack of memory, very frequently -- lack of memory, by the way, very frequently is because of a need not to remember, rather than events just passing away -- if you understand me.  The point here is he had -- he was vague about -- had lack of memory for certain periods; and as I understand it, has told his story a number of times and has told -- there are different details each times.
     We offered to do an amytal interview; and, quite frankly, it was two-fold.  By then, as I said, he was a warm, engaging person.  We were concerned about him.  We did not want to precipitate more of a depression; but we felt that if it was underlying, then we might as well surface it and treat it, rather than having him live with this tragedy for the rest of his life.  But, we also felt it would -- if he were innocent -- it would be more clear in his description of the people and of the events.  He refused that.  After I talked with Dr. Sadoff, who raised the issue of the risk of anesthetic and raised the issue that he wouldn't or couldn't add anything, or couldn't add anything to what he had already told us -- and, as I say, he refused that.  So, there was one procedure that we could have done that might have helped us more in terms of getting information.
Q  Tell us a little bit more about your conversation with Dr. Sadoff in this respect.  You said he made a reference to the risk involved.  Is there really any substantial risk in this procedure?  I assume that every giving of the drug implies a certain amount of risk; but, as a practical matter, what extent -- have you ever heard of anybody dying from taking this sodium amytal examination of this type?
A  I, personally, have administered a large number of them.  I've never seen anybody die.
Q  Do you consider it a risky procedure?
A  It's risky in the same sense that a general anesthetic is risky -- that is, a person might have an allergic reaction to the agent.  However, I believe he had had -- I don't know.  No, his brother had the appendicitis.  I don't know that he had ever had surgery in his life.  The greatest risk is one of allergic reaction, which is not great.  I don't know how many people in the room have had operations and have had general anesthetics.  It -- yes, there's a risk.  There's a risk to getting a shot of penicillin -- probably greater -- a greater risk penicillin is.
Q  So, it is fair to say, as a practical matter, the risk is minimal risk?
A  Yes, sir, especially if you are prepared; and I discussed at length with Dr. Sadoff -- we'll come up here to Philadelphia.  We'll do it in your hospital or you can come down here and do it in our hospital.  We'll do it together.  Let's collaborate.  And he would not agree.  He said it was not admissible, which I don't think is true -- that is if we gained information from him under the influence of amytal, it would not be admissible.  I don't think that's valid.
Q  But in any event, it would be helpful in arriving at a determination concerning his mental condition?
A  Yes, it would have been.  And, certainly, if he had been able to clear up some of the vagaries about the people who were in the room and things like that, it might have been helpful to him.
     He said -- I had the phone conversation on the 25th of August with Dr. Sadoff.  He wouldn't take it.  He would repeat the same story.  We might get some bizarreness, some neurotic material, but nothing useful.  There was some risk.  It's an IV with a drip.  He says the risk is as high as one percent, which is not true.  I mean that it's not that high.
     He doesn't have amnesia, says Dr. Sadoff.  I don't know how he can say that.  Amnesia means gaps in memory.  He had amnesia.  I'm sorry he had gaps in memory.  Maybe he didn't have amnesia in the sense of a whole block of time that he can't account for, can't reveal -- we can't reveal anything he uttered under amytal, which I don't think is true if the patient agrees to it.
Q  Agrees to it -- yes, consents to it.
A  And certainly we would not subject him to it if he would not agree.  He said he would discuss it with Dr. MacDonald and Mr. Segal and then he made the point about the army paying for his coming down to participate if that decision was made.  Dr. MacDonald, effectively, was the one who expressed the opinion that he did not wish to undergo the procedure.  Have I covered everything in that now?
Q  I think you've covered it.  Is there anything I should have asked that I did not ask you?  Is there anything you feel that we should know that we haven't afforded you an opportunity to tall us?
A  One of the questions we were asked -- by the way, we answered the standard questions in the sense that there was no evidence of mental disease -- I'm summarizing this report -- in fancy language, "no evidence of mental disease, defect, or derangement,"  which is the primary question.  And from that primary question is -- was there evidence of disease, defect or derangement such as the ability to adhere to the -- I'm sorry -- to know the difference between right and wrong.  And we said, no, there was no evidence.  Was there defect such that he could not adhere to the right?  We said, no.  There may have been.  Again, in terms of what you described -- of a man who could suddenly lash out or, if I was his psychiatrist; I certainly would play that in terms of his defense, as much as I could.
Q  Temporary insanity?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  That could be, but --
A  We had no evidence.
Q  You didn't have evidence --
A  (Interposing) No, sir, we had no evidence.
Q  To lead you at the time to that conclusion?
A  That's right.  And we also said -- was there any evidence?  There was no evidence of any disease, defect or derangement which would have impaired his ability to form specific intent -- which is, as I said, an addition to the question asked.
     And, then, our final comments, which -- did you read those yesterday?  Am I being redundant by going --
Q  No, please go into them.
A  "It's is the understanding of the unsigned that we are asked to express an opinion in two areas: (1) Was this subject capable of committing this act, and (2) on the possibility that he committed this act, is he capable of hiding this from himself or the evaluators?
     "The evaluators considered and discussed these issues at great length among themselves and with the benefit of the civilian consultant experienced in forensic psychiatrist"  -- who, by the way, strongly agreed that the amytal interview would have been useful.
     "Our answer to the question regarding capability is that it is possible"  -- that is, was the subject capable of committing the act?  We said it is possible.
     It is our strong opinion that the medical expert is not especially qualified to offer a further opinion as to probability in this matter,"  and I believe that very strongly.  
     I have no greater ability than anybody in this room to talk about probability of what a person would do.
     "With regard to capability of hiding facts related to the acts charged, it is our opinion that this is possible.  Our evaluation has been designed to search for a mental disorder.  We have found no significant disorder, except for a current depression of significant proportions."
Q  Now, will you comment on Dr. Sadoff's testimony before the Article 32 at which time he said, in substance, I know this man well.  From my observations of him -- I think he previously testified that he saw him for a total of three hours, but it may have been longer.  And having this excellent knowledge of him as a person, as a man, I know he could not have committed this act.  Can you comment on that?
A  I thought I had.
Q  Well.  Just comment on it again.
A  I don't think I, as a professional, could make such a statement or make such an evaluation; and I would make a generalization that I don't think any other psychiatrist or psychologist could make a statement on a professional ground.  I can tell you my opinion.  I can tell you I like him and all that jazz, but to -- for a professional person -- for a professional to say this as expert testimony, I think he was off base.

MR. WOERHEIDE:  Do the members of the grand jury wish to ask Dr. Bailey any questions?

FOREMAN:  No questions.

JUROR:  I have one.  If you were in Dr. MacDonald's shoes, being an expert and a doctor like he, wouldn't you agree to take this test?  

A  If I were in his shoes --

JUROR:  If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you agree?

A  And I implicitly believed in my innocence?

JUROR:  That's right.

A  I would certainly take the test.  It could only help me.

JUROR:  There us no way it could harm him -- I mean mentally?

A  I said we might have precipitated a greater depression, but then we could treat it; because all of us felt -- Dr. Sadoff, I think, felt and said in this report that he felt that he had a depression.  And, we recommended that he get treatment for this depression.  I don't know whether he has or not.  But, that's the only risk.

JUROR:  By him taking that test, he could have give very well a satisfied answer to the government, right?

A  I believe so.  I'm sorry, that's the potential.  We may fail.  He may go to sleep.  He may -- the test has to be done by a very skillful interviewer who is able to do -- who has specific arrears that he wants to touch upon.  And the thing that I would have done -- I would have been very careful about getting him into emotion-latent areas until I had gotten some of these vague areas clarified in terms of what did happened.  Do you understand me?
     I mean, I'm aware that now -- I think it's fair to say, in talking with these gentlemen -- I'm aware that he has told a variety of stories about it I don't know that that's abnormal, as I said earlier, But, yes, if I were in his shoes -- and thank God I'm not -- but if I were, and it was offered to me, I would take the test

Q  (By Mr. Woerheide)  You added one element on your previous answer.  If you were in his shoes and you knew you were innocent, you wouldn't hesitate to take the test.
A  That's right.
Q  But if you were in his shoes --
A  Okay, I'm sorry.  And I knew -- remember, he said, he's got the greatest lawyer in the world who has the greatest of all possible worlds -- an innocent client, speaking of Mr. Segal.
Q  Now, let's say, you were in his shoes; and you knew that you had done it.  Would you take the sodium amytal?
A  No, sir.

JUROR:  Any accusation -- if you're absolutely innocent of anything, I'd take any kind of test that they would throw at me, wouldn't you?

A  Yes, sir.  I would.

JUROR:  Because I would already be satisfied but I'd want the government satisfied.

MR. WOERHEIDE:  Do you have a question Mr. Epperson?

FOREMAN:  No, sir.

JUROR:  I've got one.  I was thinking, Dr. Bailey, Dr. MacDonald told you that he was in agreement with the teacher that had told Colette to put the child back in the bed and kind of take a firm hand, you know, when she came home that night and told him -- I'm sure she told him what happened -- and he was in agreement with him -- so he said to you?

A  Yes.

Q   How about if it were reversed and they had a discussion previously; and he said, no, leave the child in bed and, maybe, you sleep on the sofa.  Now, how about if she came home and said that he was wrong -- that my teacher says that I am right -- that you're supposed to take the child, put her back in the bed.  Would that make him even more enraged that saying, ha, ha, I was right, like you said a while ago?
A  Okay, I'm not sure --

JUROR:  I'm saying maybe he was telling you story when he said he was in agreement with putting the child in bed.

MR. STROUD:  Can I ask you to go a little bit further?  What she's saying is this, Doctor.  Suppose -- and there is some testimony to this effect -- that Colette's own position was to take the firm hand and that Captain MacDonald's position had been, at that point, to be lenient and let the child remain in the bed and Colette would have to go to sleep on the couch: because the child would push Colette out of bed.
     Okay, suppose she comes home after class and she tells him -- you know, this problem we've been having with Kristen.  Well, the professor and the class agree with me and say you are wrong.  They agree with me that the child -- that we should take a firm hand with the child -- and sort of holds it up to him, you know, in that light.  Could this trip him off?  Could this enrage him?  Could this have been that which might --
A  As I have described him and as Mr. Woerheide has extracted from me -- I think you're asking me, do I see him as a person who would become so, you know -- I think he is capable of becoming -- of having, you know -- to question his professional competence and judgment is like striking at his armor -- his white coat.  And I guess I'm answering your question "yes."  I don't know the facts.  I don't know.

FOREMAN:  Someone else?

JUROR:  In line with that question, would you think that a question or challenging his manliness would pose a greater threat or a lesser threat?

A  Remember, I got this from Morgan; and again I think that this probably is something you might want to ask Dr. Morgan about in terms of his recall.  I got this from his notes.  And I'm trying to remember what I've gone through, and my memory is that he describes himself as having become turned-off sexually toward Colette, as her pregnancy began to show itself.  That's my memory of my notes from Dr. Morgan's interview.
     Now challenging his manliness in the sense of Colette maybe not liking that too much and accusing him of, you know, not having it as a male and that's why he doesn't want to sleep with her -- I think this guy's a Green Beret tiger in black boots, and I think he was proud of it, and I think it would be quite a challenge.  I'm speculating here.  I frankly am speculating.  I don't have evidence to that at all.

Q  (By Mr. Woerheide)  But this is an area in which he would be particularly sensitive?
A  Yes, sir.  I think -- that's my opinion.
Q  And if some remark was made along this line -- you're not a man, let the kid sleep here and you sleep on the sofa -- or something like that -- that might be sufficient, under conditions of stress, such as fatigue --
A  Right.  I think it's very important that you add those, because I think they are.  Each of us has his tolerance in terms of fatigue.  Sure, he loved to work and he may very well have had some spans of time to sleep; but he had just come off, as I understand it, a twenty-four hour shift of being on call at the hospital.  My memory is -- and I don't have it in my notes, so I can't say it affirmatively -- you know more than I do -- but my memory is he also, after work, plays basketball.  And then he goes out and takes the kids out and they feed Trooper.  I can understand why he fell asleep.
Q  But he's up.  On top of this, he's up until two o'clock in the morning reading a Mickey Spillane mystery and not going to bed.
A  Right.
Q  Here is a man who should be tired, ready to go to bed at ten o'clock when his wife goes to bed --
A  (Interposing) Right.
Q  But still he doesn't go to bed.
A  I'm puzzled.  I can't, as a professional, do anymore than you can with it.
Q  Don't these indicate some stress, some strain?
A  Yes, sir, sure.
Q  Fighting going to bed for some reason or other?  The fatigue comes not only from the strain of being, you know, twenty-four hours on duty at a hospital, coming home at six o'clock in the morning, spend a full day working and then playing basketball, all these things put together.
A  It -- for me, again, I can only respond in the same realm that you can.
Q  I understand, but --
A  It puzzles me, too.
Q  But this fatigue and stress, stemming from such conditions, makes a man particularly subject --
A  There you go -- that I can testify to.  In terms of even what we saw -- the tirades, for example, in response to the crime -- he was under stress then -- very controlled, very well-hidden, a nice façade of, you know, too much friendliness, more than I think most of  us would do if we were undergoing such an evaluation by the Army.  I can believe that he could see Dr. Sadoff as his potential savior, if Segal had sold him that way.  But, we were in the Army; and as I said, he had rather bad feeling about the Army with the exception of Captain Douthat and Colonel Rock.
     Anyway, even -- what stress does for us humans brings generally is, it exaggerates those sorts of basic personality qualities that we have -- that is, perhaps, people in the room know about themselves in terms of -- when you're exhausted is when those things that you perhaps don't like about yourself or that you would wish you were different about, and you're normally able to maintain control over -- when under stress, that's when those things come out, yes.

JUROR:  At any time during MacDonald's talking to you, did he ever express or say to you whether he was talking about Colette's kindness and gentleness or whether he was talking about the airline stewardess and how he felt about her at that time?  Did he ever say to you that he loved Colette?

A  No.

JUROR:  He never said that?

A  That word was never mentioned.  That word was not used.  I thought that was remarkable, too.  He talked about, his -- especially his missing them.  He used words like that.  I've lost something that I wanted to say.  There were a number of times when he would avoid specific words.  I don't think he used the word "kill"  either.  He didn't like the word "anger."  I got into it with him about -- as I said, I really tried to pursue the issue.  And I'm speaking from memory, rather than notes right now -- of not only why didn't he change the baby but, you know, there is some question as to disagreement.  Was there any anger?  Well, we had had "discussions"  about it.  And what he meant by discussions, I think is what most of us mean by argument -- if you understand me.  He avoided that kind of language.  I interrupted you.

JUROR:  I'm sorry, I interrupted you.  But when they asked -- I believe it was Dr. Morgan -- asked him if Colette knew that he was having affairs, he said a big fat "no."  Okay, the fact that he admitted that he had lost interest sexually because she pregnant -- maybe she got the idea that he was running around.  What if she confronted with this?

A  I think, that, he would handle rather skillfully.  I think -- my impression of him is that that's a compliment.  I guess I'm talking more as a person than a professional there; but, in the terms of my overview of him -- if you should the expression -- cocksman.  I think he would like to have that image.  That's my impression of him.

JUROR:  Why wouldn't he admit it to her, then?  Why didn't he just stand up and say --

A  I don't know.  He talked about the double standard.  Remember, I said he said it was unimportant.

JUROR:  Maybe to him, but not to a pregnant woman.

A  Yes but he said it was unimportant that she know about this.  That's what he told me.  I can only deal with what he told me.  I can't read his mind.

JUROR:  Do you think it was really fair to you for both the defense and the prosecutors to give you so much of this information they gave you prior to the testing?

A  No.

JUROR:  It's strange, isn't it?

A  I have called it bombardment.  And I don't know whether I said it earlier -- I lived out in Galesville, Maryland.  When I drove home, it was getting dark; I was trembling and I did not sleep that night.  And that's specifically why I did not give them any information, essentially.  I merely told them we were asked to conduct the evaluation of a man who was being charged with murder.

JUROR:  Is this usually done when you have to evaluate someone in a case, a trial or something?

A  That way?  No, not that.  Now, as I said I -- I'm sure you folks have the pictures shown to you, etc., and that's part of your job to deal with.  But I'm talking about --here I am in my office and here these three guys come in, and they just bombard me with all this material.  I'm a human being, too, and -- no, I didn't think it was fair.  In fact, I asked them to stop.
     Now asking for information regarding -- I wasn't to be juror.  I was to be an expert witness, evaluating him from a psychiatric perspective, so I wanted to know information about his behavior, his actions, anything anybody observed that would indicate that he was off his rocker that day -- or anything.  I wanted to know all that.  But to see the pictures of the victims, no.  That I considered unfair; and I had to work very hard to satisfy myself that I was being an objective person.  Otherwise, I would have, in fact, disqualified myself.  I would have had them do the evaluation and make the report.

FOREMAN:  Any further questions of Dr. Bailey?

MR. WOERHEIDE:  Dr. Bailey, we're very grateful for you being here today.  Thank you sir.

Witness excused.