Playboy Interview: Jeffrey MacDonald

At approximately four A.M. on February 17, 1970, Military Police were summoned to the Fort Bragg, North Carolina, residence of Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, a physician and captain in the Army Medical Corps, where they discovered Dr. MacDonald's pregnant wife, Colette, and two children, Kimberly, five, and Kristen, two, clubbed and stabbed to death. MacDonald was lying partially across his wife's body in the master bedroom. The bodies of Kimberly and Kristen were found in their bedrooms. MacDonald, who apparently sustained a number of stab wounds--one of which resulted in a partially collapsed lung--was rushed to Womack Army Community Hospital, where he was treated and released. So began one of the most bizarre and celebrated murder cases in recent history--best known through Joe McGinniss' best-selling book "Fatal Vision" and NBC's two-part docudrama based on the book, but endlessly debated by virtually everyone who has heard of it.

What occurred next depends upon whose version of the crime you choose to believe: MacDonald's or the Government's. MacDonald's version is as follows: Upon retiring for the night--at approximately 2:30 A.M.--he discovered that his younger daughter, Kristen, had crawled into bed with his wife and had wet his side of the bed. He picked Kristen up, returned her to her bedroom and went into the living room, where he lay down on the sofa and fell asleep. Shortly thereafter, he was awakened by the screams of his wife and elder daughter, Kimberly. He saw a woman--who he later alleged was a local resident named Helena Stoeckley--with blonde hair, a floppy hat, boots, a short skirt, carrying a flickering light or candle and chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." He saw three other people, two white men and a black man, and described the black man as stocky and wearing an Army jacket with sergeant's stripes; one of the white men, he said, wore a cross on a chain around his neck.

According to MacDonald, the three men--who were standing near the couch--proceeded to attack him, pulling or tearing off his pajama top, which he then used to ward off their blows. The three assailants continued to club and stab him until he lost consciousness. When he awoke, he walked to the master bedroom, where he found his wife dead. He pulled a knife out of her body, attempted to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and covered her with his pajama top and a bath mat. He then went to his children's rooms, where he unsuccessfully attempted to revive them. Finally, he went to the bathroom, where he washed; then he telephoned the Military Police. At that point, he lost consciousness.

The Government's version--and that of McGinniss--is that MacDonald himself murdered his wife and two children and then staged the crime scene to cover up the murders.

After the murders, the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Fayetteville, North Carolina, Police Department immediately began searching for the four assailants whom MacDonald had described. But examining the crime scene, the investigators discovered evidence that caused them to question MacDonald's story. The Government contends that, although MacDonald stated that his pajama top had been torn during his struggle with the assailants in the living room, no fibers from its fabric were discovered in that room. However, fibers were found both inside and outside the body outline of Colette in the master bedroom, as well as in the bedrooms of Kimberly and Kristen. In addition, a small particle from a rubber surgeon's glove--which was stained with Colette's blood--was discovered inside a sheet in a pile of bedding near the doorway that led to the hall. Ultimately, without forensic evidence to support MacDonald's explanation of the events of that night, the investigators concluded that MacDonald himself had murdered his family.

Nine and a half years were to pass before MacDonald was finally tried. (See chronology, page 66.) For a fascinated public, it was a sensational parade of did-he-or-didn't-he? charges and countercharges: A Princeton-educated, Green Beret Army doctor, handsome and self-assured, repeating his story that he was ensnared in a web of circumstances; his lawyers, passionately defending him with motions, private investigations, legal delays and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct; his prosecutors, amassing volumes of evidence and affidavits, taking testimony and "confessions," slowly building a massive (though error-filled) case against him; the grieving father-in-law, Alfred Kassab, initially supportive of MacDonald, turning against him after his own study of the case and serving as his chief accuser through the years; and, finally, the author, McGinniss, who took up with the defense team, believed MacDonald innocent but later wrote the book that one reviewer was to call "a totally damning indictment." The conclusion many readers drew from "Fatal Vision" was that MacDonald was a woman-hating "pathological narcissist" who exploded in sudden rage at his wife and killed her and his two daughters in a frenzy. In August 1979, a jury found MacDonald guilty of three counts of murder and sentenced him to three consecutive life terms. He began a process of appeals that continues to this day.

The interview that follows--the most extensive that MacDonald has given for publication--took place at the Federal Correctional Institution at Bastrop, Texas. The interviewer, Dr. Jeffrey M. Elliot, is an associate professor of political science at North Carolina Central University, in Durham, as well as a free-lance writer whose works include Playboy 's memorable interview with Cuban premier Fidel Castro in the August 1985 issue. Dr. Elliot interviewed MacDonald over a five-month period. His report:

"Opened in 1979, the Federal Correctional Institution at Bastrop is a medium-security prison that houses approximately 600 inmates whose offenses range from murder to drug trafficking to bank robbery to conspiracy fraud.

"Armed with nothing but four tape recorders and five boxes of cassette tapes, I was searched thoroughly and escorted through two security doors and into the visitors' room, where I awaited Dr. MacDonald.

"After a 15-minute wait, MacDonald arrived. Attired in khaki garb and sneakers (he had been assigned janitorial duties here), he appeared rested and alert. Grinning, he extended his hand. He has the all-American good looks that have captivated his interlocutors before: piercing eyes, straight nose, tight lips, even white teeth. Now 42 and graying, he is, in appearance and demeanor, youthful, vigorous and relaxed--not much different from any well-educated, upwardly mobile professional in Southern California.

"Upon first meeting, he seemed small, lost, alone, giving me a sense of the pain, the humiliation, the degradation that accompany prison life. I knew what he'd been convicted of, but I couldn't help thinking that MacDonald seemed out of place.

"As I studied him, he studied me--his eyes fixed on mine. Like an artist, he measured his subject. And, for the moment, at least, he made me feel I was his link to the outside world--a world far distant in time but ever close in memory. He asked about my trip: the flight, the hotel, the drive, the restaurants. The details fascinated him. He wanted to keep up with the world in which he undoubtedly felt he belonged.

"As we launched into our interview sessions, I felt in MacDonald a strength that should not have surprised me but did. He never yields. You rope him and he escapes; then he comes charging back. You rope him again and he breaks free. MacDonald is practiced, studied, rehearsed. When I let fly with a question, he would catch it in mid-air and, without hesitation, let fly with a carefully phrased, artfully crafted salvo. At times he looked, uncomfortable, especially when the questions addressed his believability. And although he danced and dodged, he didn't run. He desperately wants you to believe him.

"After three long sessions and almost 15 hours of tapes, I left. I told him I'd be back after more research. As I departed, he appeared disappointed--his conduit severed. As he was taken away, he was strip-searched.

"When next we met, this time in the presence of Playboy Contributing Photographer David Chan, who took the interview pictures, he appeared different--perhaps owing to the presence of a third party, perhaps not. Still, he was cordial, obliging, interested. But this time, unlike the first session, he appeared guarded, ill at ease, a bit suspicious. He may have sensed that I'd spent a lot of time with sources who did not believe his story, in order to follow up on his earlier responses. Buoyed for battle, he was determined to rise to the occasion. The questions evoked anger, resentment, frustration. I fired; he fired back. There was faltering, backtracking. But he did not relent. Of this much I am sure: Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of one of humanity's most terrible and unexplainable crimes, protester of his own innocence, will not give up. And that seems a logical point with which to begin the interview."

[Q] Playboy: What perhaps most fascinates people about you is that you won't give up. You keep saying, in the face of your conviction and overturned appeals over a period of 15 years, that you will eventually be vindicated. Deep down, do you really believe that?

[A] MacDonald: Yes, I do. I think I will be granted a new trial based upon the new evidence, and at that new trial, I will be found not guilty. I also think that public opinion at that time will be radically different. Still, it will not erase the pain of the past 15 years. And, unfortunately, there will always be people who, despite the evidence, will believe that I'm guilty. There's no way around it.

[Q] Playboy: The fact is, most people who have read or seen Fatal Vision believe you're guilty. How can you persevere?

[A] MacDonald: Prior to the past year and a half, my optimism was always predicated upon my own knowledge of, and belief in, my own innocence. I know what occurred that night. And I know I did not murder my wife and children. In the past, my hopes rested upon my own firsthand knowledge of the facts. Today, my case is buttressed by 35 new witnesses, extensive new evidence and previously known but undisclosed evidence, which the Government deliberately withheld from the defense. I think that the new evidence dramatically contradicts the Government's contentions and proves my innocence beyond a doubt. It's no longer me--Jeffrey MacDonald--shouting my innocence from the rooftop. It's the evidence--both old and new--that does it.

[Q] Playboy: You claimed for years that you constantly relived, and dreamed about, the events of February 17,1970, the night your wife and children were murdered. Do you still dream?

[A] MacDonald: In all honesty, I no longer relive that night on a daily basis. The memories, however, are persistent. But they are less vivid than they used to be. However, I still experience moments of actually being there--the terror, the anguish, the hopelessness. That night, with its permanently chiseled sights and smells and sounds, is indelibly etched in my senses. As for coping, I seem to be able to compartmentalize fairly well. I'm better able to divorce myself from the memories--particularly the most powerful memories--as time passes.

[A] But to this day, almost nightly--between three and four A.M.--I find myself wide-awake. And it bears no relationship to how tired I might be.

[A] Fifteen years is a long time. I experienced the mass tragedy of losing my family; then I was charged with the commission of the murders; and then I was victimized by Joe McGinniss and Fatal Vision--both the book and the film. It seems as if I've been fighting for my freedom forever. I've been the victim of the basest accusations--spurious allegations that have no basis in fact. They're both shameful and humiliating. Still, I have no choice. I must try to remain as positive as possible. Negative emotions would be counterproductive.

[Q] Playboy: Your critics over the years have said you are seductive and manipulative in defending your case and that despite your talking a good game, what they sense in you is a coldness, an emptiness.

[A] MacDonald: [A hard, steady stare] I don't think that anyone, with the exception of those who work directly for the prosecution or McGinniss, would characterize me in those terms. That portrait was fostered both by busy media, interested in finding a hook for the case, and by McGinniss, who concocted an evil straw man to serve his own objectives. I'm not cold, aloof, uncaring. The media contributed greatly to that characterization. For example, during the trial, a reporter for the Raleigh News and Observer described me as "cold and unfeeling." The day after I testified--and cried on the stand--I was accused of crying crocodile tears. So you can't win. If I appear stone-faced, I'm described as "unemotional"; but when I display emotion, I'm accused of "turning on the faucet." The media adopted a superficial view of me--despite the fact that the reporters were staring at my back throughout the trial. It's just not true. I was shell-shocked.

[Q] Playboy: McGinniss wrote that he was first attracted to your case, and spent time with the defense team, in the belief that you were innocent. Once he got to know the case, he says, he became convinced you were guilty. Do you believe he began with a presumption of innocence?

[A] MacDonald: The problem is, Joe, has given many versions of that answer. There's simply no way to know. If you read Fatal Vision, you're left with the unmistakable impression that he had already concluded upon our first meeting that I was guilty. I think that's obvious. For example, how could Joe, three and one half years later, publish a book in which he recalls a particular song about a "psycho killer" that was playing on the radio while he was driving down the freeway to meet me for the first time? Given the negative inferences--which he associated with the song and our impending first meeting--I suspect that he had already concluded that I was guilty.

[Q] Playboy: Why do you think the media--and a significant segment of the public--accepted the McGinniss portrait? If that acceptance is so widespread, wouldn't you say he captured some part of the truth?

[A] MacDonald: No, not at all. I don't know whether it's simply because he's a member of the fraternal order of newspaper writers or not. Certainly, there's an element of that. The press knew McGinniss as a reporter who had written a best-selling book, The Selling of the President. Reporters were impressed by McGinniss both because he was one of them and because he had moved from being one of them to being something better: He moved into the best-selling-author sphere. Most reporters don't want to be stringers or write for Associated Press for the rest of their lives. They want to move on into books or major articles for major magazines, or become interviewers for Playboy. That's what they aspire to, and McGinniss has done that.

[Q] Playboy: Isn't that exactly what impressed you when you agreed to have him write a book about your case?

[A] MacDonald: Absolutely! And I say that with chagrin, because I was taken in by McGinniss. He's very glib. He's verbal. He has a rapid-fire, somewhat funny approach to life. He lives life, for the most part, in the fast lane. He jets around the country. He appears on talk shows. He knows famous people. All of that's very seductive. And I was seduced. Had I known that he was planning from day one to write a book--which I thought was my idea--I would have viewed him very differently. The fact is, Joe remained very seductive until I was interviewed four years later by Mike Wallace, when I first learned that he had written this shamefully untrue story of my life and the events surrounding the murder of my wife and two children.

[Q] Playboy: This might be the place to ask you about your version of what happened that night. You were a physician in the Army, stationed at Fort Bragg, living with your wife and your two little girls. What happened on February 17, 1970?

[A] MacDonald: I suppose it had to come sooner or later--in this case, sooner.... Let's dispense with the preliminaries of that evening. I was lying on the couch and I was awakened. My first recollection is of a scream. It wasn't a word but a noise. It was Colette's voice. It seemed very loud. And it seems very loud to this day. It's inconceivable that anyone could have slept through it. It was piercing! I then heard Colette's voice: "Jeff, help! Jeff! Why are they doing this to me?" They were words to that effect. About the same time, I heard Kimberly, my elder daughter--who was five at the time--shriek, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!" As I arose, I saw what I initially thought to be three people. Later on, I saw another person. The first three I saw were a black male and two white males. The black male was to my left; the two white males stood at the foot of the couch, at my feet. They appeared to be clean-cut. They struck me as military types. They were not so-called hippies. And I never described them as hippies. They had short hair. They were not disheveled. They had no beards. It's difficult to describe them, as I was lying down. They were standing.

[A] So I saw three males. First I heard Colette's voice, then Kimberly's voice, and then a third voice. At that point, I briefly saw a girl. She wore a broad, floppy hat. It was light-colored. She appeared to have stringy blonde hair, which was draped over her shoulders. Her face looked narrow. So I saw these people. Everything occurred simultaneously. I heard the sounds. One of the men started moving toward me. I thought or said, "What the hell are you people doing here?" or "Who the hell are you people?" Something like that. And the black male swung and hit me. I was knocked back and saw stars, which you can't understand unless you've been hit in the head. That's not a figure of speech. It's true. You actually see stars--white flashes. And I did. It was unreal. I thought to myself, Colette's screaming. What's she screaming about? Who the hell are these people? I started to struggle, and the guy began to wind up again. I put my hand up and parried his blow. I grabbed his arm at the same time. Then he tried to jerk his arm away. I slid down his fatigue jacket. I only say that because I saw sergeant's stripes. He tried to jerk his arm back and I attempted to hold on to it, because if I let go, I thought he would hit me again. That's when the others started pummeling me. But it was quick. Boom, boom, boom, it was over. I was hit about the head and face. All of a sudden, as I was holding on, I experienced this pain in my right side. I thought, Goddamn, he throws a hell of a punch! And I let go and started grappling. At some point, though it's not clear, I saw the glint of a blade. I never clearly saw a blade. The next thing I knew, I was pitching forward, off the end of the couch. I attempted to struggle. I held on to this guy's arm, while the others pummeled me. And that was it. During the struggle, I couldn't grab their arms, because my hands were bound up in my pajama top. I can't figure it out. It must have been pulled over my head. I never heard it rip, nor did I feel it being pulled over my head. Thus, my hands were all wrapped up--and I was fending off the blows. Then I pitched forward. My hands were not in front of me. I recall thinking, I can't stop falling. That's when I saw a bare knee and the top of a boot. However, I didn't see them in connection with the female's face.

[A] My next clear memory is of being on the floor. The upper part of my body and trunk were positioned in the hallway; my waist and thighs were draped down the steps; and my feet were lying in the living-room area, coming off the steps. And that's where I came to. At this point, I have three clear memories: First, I remember hearing my teeth chatter. They were chattering so loudly I could hear them. Second, I realized I didn't hear Colette. It was silent, except for my teeth. Third, I was cold. I felt as if my entire body was shaking. I stood up and walked down the hallway. When I entered the master bedroom, I saw Colette. I don't know whether I turned on the lights or not. I saw Colette as clear as day. And there was blood everywhere. I remember kneeling down on my hands and knees and attempting to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Air was bubbling out of her chest. It's very, very clear. Then I went to check Kimberly. And I gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and listened to her pulse. But I'm not sure when. And then I did the same with Kristen. Air was bubbling out of both children. [Pauses, sighs and weeps] Eventually, I went back to the hallway. I remember thinking, What the hell is going on? [Tears flow; visibly shaking] Then I went back to the master bedroom [voice breaks, long pause]. After that, I went into the bathroom. I felt sick--queasy. I looked in the mirror. I was bleeding. And I felt breathless. That's when I called for help.

[Q] Playboy: [Later] Despite the version that you've told through the years, most observers think the weight of physical evidence against you is overwhelming--and that you may have convinced yourself of your innocence by insisting on your story.

[A] MacDonald: That's just not the case. My memory of what occurred that night is quite clear. Indeed, the so-called evidence against me simply proves that I was in the house that night, which everyone admits. There's nothing in the entire body of forensic evidence that proves that I committed the murders. It simply says that spots of blood and fibers do not comport with my recollections, which are bits and pieces of my attempt to save my family. There's no truth to your statement.

[Q] Playboy: During the trial, you said it was the prosecution that repeatedly lied. How?

[A] MacDonald: The prosecution employed the big-lie technique, whereby they would repeat a lie over and over again until it was either accepted as truth or viewed as a plausible explanation. For example, consider the question of my wounds. There is no startlingly clear testimony on the wounds. But I did have numerous wounds, approximately 17. I suffered head wounds as well as stab wounds. I also experienced blood-trauma wounds. to my head, left shoulder and arm. When the Kassabs and my mother came to visit, I was in bed in an intensive-care unit with a tube in my chest. My abdomen was bandaged and I had light dressings on other wounds. And yet, to this day, the prosecutor [grins disdainfully], Alfred Kassab and Joe McGinniss continue to repeat the lie that I suffered a mere scratch--that my wounds were of the type requiring Mercuro-chrome. Their allegations fly in the face of the evidence. It's contradicted by countless witnesses, including five examining physicians. Yet it has become part of the folklore of the case. That's what I mean by the big-lie technique.

[Q] Playboy: Let's consider the extent of your wounds. Your wife's arms were broken and she was brutally beaten before being murdered. Your children were also savagely stabbed. Yet, by comparison, you weren't very badly hurt----

[A] MacDonald: That's not accurate--I had to have two surgical procedures----

[Q] Playboy: It's true that you ended up in intensive care with a puncture wound and a collapsed lung. But as for two surgical procedures, isn't it true that the first surgical attempt to reinflate your lung failed, which is why the procedure was repeated?

[A] MacDonald:I did have two surgical procedures on my chest. [Laughs, shakes head in disbelief] There were two separate chest tubes inserted at different times. Those are surgical procedures. That's like saying, if someone has a hernia operation, and the hernia recurs, and he has to have a repeat hernia operation, then he hasn't had two surgical procedures. Obviously, he has. I had two surgical procedures on my lung.

[Q] Playboy: But as to the lung wound itself, isn't it true that it was approximately five eighths of an inch deep and one centimeter in length--a perfect scalpel wound? Isn't it also true that, at the trial, it was testified that you had assisted in an operation that involved an identical incision?

[A] MacDonald: No one testified to that effect--namely, that it was "a perfect scalpel wound." That has, of course, been dredged up since the publication of the book and the movie. What was testified to is accurate--that is, there was a puncture wound of the right chest. The superficial wound that would be seen by the naked eye was approximately a centimeter long. How deep it was is anyone's guess. There was no probe of the wound and there's no way to know its depth. As for my assisting in an operation in which a similar wound was involved, I simply don't remember. Keep in mind that, at the time, I had had a year of surgery at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York, and I had worked in very busy emergency departments. I've seen thousands of chest wounds. I've seen many, many wounds that required chest tubes. And I have inserted chest tubes. on hundreds of occasions. There's no question about it.

[Q] Playboy: You also claim that you sustained ten to 12 ice-pick wounds to the abdomen. Isn't it true that no doctor ever testified to that effect?

[A] MacDonald: [Pauses] I think that's probably correct. To the best of my memory, the wounds that were referred to were a grouping of ice-pick wounds on my left chest, which, of course, Kassab and McGinniss also contend never existed. As to the abdominal wounds, I'm not positive at this point whether that statement is reflected in the trial proceedings or whether it came from a witness' statement later on. There was a series of ice-pick wounds across my abdomen, around the approximately three-inch laceration that was in my left rectus muscle.

[Q] Playboy: But how is it possible, as you contend, to have been stabbed in the abdomen with an ice pick ten to 12 times if you were in a seated position, leaning into your attackers, which is how you described the assault? Doesn't that defy common sense?

[A] MacDonald: I don't see why it's not possible. We re-created the scene, while preparing the defense, and it's exactly as I remember the assault's occurring. I was sitting upright on the couch, attempting to fend off my attackers. All I remember is a series of blows that I thought at the time were punches--but it's quite possible that a blade could have been used to puncture my abdomen while in that sitting position. There's no reason it couldn't. I don't understand your point.

[Q] Playboy: The point is, you say you were stabbed while sitting; no doctor ever reported the injuries; and the stab wounds were supposedly all in one location in your abdomen. If you'd shifted even slightly, you'd have been wounded in other places.

[A] MacDonald: First, the wounds were not apparently major wounds. I did not develop peritonitis. There was no need for a surgical intervention in my abdomen, which is very common in stab wounds. Second, in a rapidly developing fight, a series of blows can be administered very quickly. What would it take to administer ten quick blows? A matter of seconds. All I can recall is fending off blows. What occurred differs markedly from the prosecution's courtroom demonstration and from the movie's depiction of the so-called assault. They reversed the direction of the blows that I remember receiving.

[Q] Playboy: You've claimed from the beginning that crucial evidence was withheld from the defense team. Such as what?

[A] MacDonald: I could cite countless examples. For instance, in 1979, we requested a complete set of crime-scene photographs and were told that we had a complete set. It turns out that we didn't. We never received two sets of photographs. One involved a series of seven fingerprints that were of unknown people but were typable; and the second set concerned the handwriting on a wall in the apartment of Helena Stoeckley [the woman who later gave contradictory evidence about having committed the murders; Stoeckley died in 1983]. Attached to one of the photographs was a note from one of the investigators who noted the similarity between the letter G in a word on Stoeckley's wall, which she wrote, and the G in the word Pig, which was painted in blood on the headboard of the master bedroom of my home. That's a phenomenal piece of information. It puts Stoeckley in my house. Not only did they hide those photographs from us, or the existence of those photographs, but they carefully deleted any reference to those photographs in the Freedom of Information Act materials we received in 1983. [Angrily] That's an obvious, intentional deception.

[Q] Playboy: Isn't it true that Frank Toledo, the agent who you say noted the similarity, never saw the writing on the headboard and that, according to his affidavit, he said that the P and G looked more like your handwriting than like Stoeckley's?

[A] MacDonald: Your comments are correct, as they relate to his later affidavit. Earlier, though, he said that they were similar. Now, 14 years later, he states that he didn't view the writing on the headboard. That strikes me as puzzling. Why, then, did he make such a notation on the back of the photograph in 1970 or 1971? That tells me that his 1984 affidavit is, at best, suspect. The fact is, however, that photograph was kept from us.

[Q] Playboy: What else was kept from you?

[A] MacDonald: The fact that Stoeckley was given a polygraph test in which she was asked whether or not she was present at my home on the night of the murders. Her answer was no.

[A] The polygrapher told us, over the orders of prosecutor Brian Murtagh, who instructed him not to talk to the defense, that the chart clearly revealed deception.

[Q] Playboy: If what you say is true, why didn't you subpoena the polygrapher and require him to testify in court?

[A] MacDonald: But we did. And the judge, Franklin Dupree, refused to allow him to testify. The polygrapher, Robert Brisentine, came to us and told us that the prosecutor had ordered him not to talk to the defense. He said that he was a professional, that he had performed a polygraph on Stoeckley--and that she had flunked. He then told us that Murtagh had threatened to fire him if he spoke to the defense. He did testify, however, by voir dire. In a sworn statement, he said that the results of the polygraph examination, which Stoeckley failed, suggested that she was, indeed, present in my home that night and could identify her co-assailants. Furthermore, he stated that were he involved in the case, he would have proceeded against her.

[Q] Playboy: In addition to those allegations of deception, you've maintained that the Government's failure to protect the crime scene either distorted the physical evidence or led to erroneous interpretations of the evidence. What examples do you have to support that accusation?

[A] MacDonald: The list is almost endless. However, the most significant violation was a state of mind. They entered my house on February 17, 1970, and determined--this is their word, not mine--that the scene had been "staged." Their conclusion was based on several observations: a flowerpot, which they felt should have been sideways on the rug but was upright; no clear signs of intruders; the fact that the coffee table in the living room was found on its side and not turned all the way over onto its top.

[Q] Playboy: The prosecution claims that there was simply not enough disarray in a room in which that kind of violence had occurred. Doesn't it still seem odd that the only two items that were disturbed were a lamp shade in the master bedroom, which was crooked, and the living-room coffee table, which was lying on its side?

[A] MacDonald: First, the crime scene was vastly altered by teams of investigators and by members of the CID team. Second, the fact is, I was hit in the head. It was not a titanic struggle. [Apologetic] I've never said it was. I'm not especially proud of my own attempt at self-defense. There's no question about it. I've had to live with my failure to save my family for the past 15 years. [Sighs]

[A] But the fact remains, I was up against four intruders, was hit in the head and lost consciousness. And don't forget, these were crimes against people, not property. The damage was inflicted upon my wife and two children--and myself, to a far lesser extent--not property. Obviously, I wish it were the other way around.

[Q] Playboy: So you maintain that the investigation was botched?

[A] MacDonald: The mistakes, if that's what they were, were legion. For example, there existed two bloody footprints. Now, remember, we're talking about a triple homicide. A crack forensic team was flown in on the general's airplane from Fort Gordon, Georgia. They saw two bloody foot-prints in one of the rooms, in which there was a dead person. They cut the floor out to take back to the laboratory, and the floor fell apart. Then they tried to pick the footprint up, and destroyed it. As a result, there were no footprints. And yet the investigator, Sergeant Hilyard Medlin, testified under oath that it was my foot-print. And why? Because he remembered looking at it with a loupe and comparing it with the ridges in my known footprints. As for the evidence, he says it's unavailable.

[Q] Playboy: What you're saying is only partially true. The fact is, the footprint was destroyed, but it had been photographed before it was destroyed. And that photo suggests that it was your footprint.

[A] MacDonald: No, it's not! There's no proof that the footprint was mine. The socalled proof is simply Sergeant Medlin's recollection. He didn't even have his notes. He stated that he took my known footprint from me at the hospital and brought it to the crime scene and, with the naked eye, identified the bloodied print as mine. He then photographed the footprint in question. It is not matchable from the photographs; Medlin's two superiors stated as much. Moreover, the prosecution kept that statement from us.

[Q] Playboy: What other evidence was mishandled or withheld?

[A] MacDonald: Fingerprints. Do you realize that, to this day, the house has never been fully dusted for fingerprints? The Government told us, contrary to the facts, that everything had been dusted. But the investigators neglected to dust anything over the couch in the living room. They neglected to dust the tops of vanities. More important, they destroyed fingerprints. We don't know how many.

[Q] Playboy: You say the fingerprints were destroyed, but isn't it true that all that really happened was that moisture penetrated the tape used to cover them?

[A] MacDonald: That's not what's important. The important point is that the fingerprints in question were on the back door leading to the house--the same door that was found open by the investigators on the scene. Why didn't they take the door off that day? That's the obvious question. That was the critical portal of entry.

[Q] Playboy: How do you account for the fact that neither telephone in your house had any blood on it, and yet you stated that you used both phones after examining the bodies of your wife and children?

[A] MacDonald: At the trial, the Government accused me of lying about this point. They said, "If you used the telephones, why didn't they reveal fingerprints?" And I said I didn't know. Their goal was to discredit my story. The implication was that I must have worn surgical gloves while making the calls. However, they neglected to point out one critical fact--that when we questioned the MPs at the crime scene, one of them admitted he had used one of the telephones and had wiped it with his handkerchief after realizing that he shouldn't have used it. Again, that was typical of the crime-scene investigation.

[Q] Playboy: But isn't it true that the MP who used the telephone testified that he had picked up the headpiece with two fingers and that when he put it to his ear, the line was dead and he put it down? Moreover, the MP never testified, as you charge, that he wiped the telephone.

[A] MacDonald: No. No. [Long pause] An MP--I can't at this point tell you it was the same MP--told us that the telephone was wiped with a pocket handkerchief. I wouldn't swear it was the same person; I don't remember. In addition, if he didn't wipe the telephone, why weren't his prints on it? After all, he admits that he had picked it up with two fingers. If the investigators can't find his fingerprints on the telephone, when he admits having used it, why is it a mystery that they can't find my fingerprints, when I admit to having used it? I can't tell you why there wasn't blood on the telephones. I had dried blood on my hands when I arrived at the hospital. And I believe the hospital orderlies made statements to that effect, and that they also cleansed my hands.

[Q] Playboy: You've stated, on numerous occasions, that on the evening in question, Military Police--en route to your home--spotted a woman who closely resembled your description of one of the assailants but made no effort to question or detain her. Do you allege that she was Helena Stoeckley? If so, what evidence do you have?

[A] MacDonald: Again, this is another example of the CID's blatant mishandling of the investigation. When the MPs arrived at my house, I gave them a description of four assailants. The first MP to see me also saw a woman, in a raincoat, half a mile from my house, standing in the rain in 38-degree weather, at four o'clock in the morning. He remembered it instantly and asked that a jeep be dispatched to track down the woman. [Incredulously] And yet no one went to look for that person. That strikes me as incredible!

[Q] Playboy: The prosecution said that the woman had not matched your description.

[A] MacDonald: The important point is that she had bare knees and wore a floppy hat. That's what's important. Moreover, why would someone be out at 3:30 or four in the morning, when it was raining, standing on the street? The fact is, she fit, in a general way, the description of one of the assailants. And yet no attempt was made to find her. I think that's very damning.

[Q] Playboy: Many of your claims hinge on this woman, Helena Stoeckley. Yet in his September 14, 1979, order, Judge Dupree said, "The court gained the unmistakable impression, which it believes was shared by the jury, that this pathetic figure was suffering from drug-induced mental distortion and that she could be of no help to either side in the case." Stoeckley herself admitted that on the day of the murders, she took mescaline, six or seven injections of heroin, a large quantity of marijuana and another hit of mescaline just before she left her house. If it is true that she was strung out on drugs, isn't it likely that her confessions were the product of a confused and twisted mind?

[A] MacDonald: But that's precisely the point. As a law professor has stated, I didn't have the luxury of choosing my assailants or fashioning their characters. You've described a person who, in my view, is perfectly capable of committing these crimes. She's a person who was associated both with multiple drug use and with violence--and whose associates were associated with drugs and violence, including the stabbings both of people and of animals. These are disreputable people. These crimes weren't committed by a sane, logical person who was a loving husband and father.

[Q] Playboy: But aren't Stoeckley's statements riddled with inconsistencies? Didn't she alternately tell witnesses that she had been involved in the killings; that she had been on the scene but killed nobody; that you had killed your family; and that she knew, didn't know or suspected the identity of the killers? Why should her confessions--of which there were several--be believed?

[A] MacDonald: The variances in Helena Stoeckley's statements are clearly understandable under the circumstances. These are, in our estimation, the musings of a person who was guilt-ridden and who was frantically attempting to cope with the awfulness of the crimes of which she was a part. It was not unusual for her to begin admissions only to become fearful of prosecution and withdraw them.

[A] But the value of Stoeckley's statements lies in the overview, not in the minutiae. What she did was to document the existence of a bizarre group of people who match my description of the assailants. They were there. They had inside information. And, lo and behold, they confessed.

[Q] Playboy: You say that people confessed, but, in fact, there were a number of contradictory assertions by a lot of people over the years. What concrete, undisputable evidence can you cite to prove that Stoeckley was present at your home the night of the murders?

[A] MacDonald: Let's start with her confession. She stated that she personally saw [her friend] Greg Mitchell assault Colette. That information is fascinating, because it turns out that a majority of the killing blows were administered by a left-handed person. And Greg Mitchell was left-handed; I am right-handed.

[Q] Playboy: A physician at the trial asserted that the blows that killed Colette could have been delivered by an ambidextrous person--which you apparently are.

[A] MacDonald: Who says I'm ambidextrous? Alfred Kassab. He's the only person on the face of this earth who has ever made that assertion. I'm not ambidextrous. I'm right-handed.

[A] Now, as to other pieces of inside information that Stoeckley revealed, she described, in meticulous detail, the children's broken hobby horse--that is, a broken spring, which she observed while in the house. She described the general placement of rooms and items. She knew the location of the telephone in the kitchen. And she was aware that our neighbor had a German shepherd and that the dog had been barking that night.

[Q] Playboy: Isn't it true that a local newspaper published a photograph of the hobby horse prior to Stoeckley's confession, and that she could easily have seen the picture and described the hobby horse based upon her recollection?

[A] MacDonald: First, Stoeckley stated on polygraph that she had never seen the photograph. On that question, she was apparently telling the truth; the polygraph failed to reveal deception. What's important, in my view, is that she had a general feeling that she was in my daughter's room, rode the hobby horse and stated that it was broken, which it apparently was.

[Q] Playboy: As for the other items Stoeckley described, isn't it true that prior to testifying at the trial, she was escorted into an anteroom by your attorney, Bernard Segal, and shown various photographs of the crime scene? If so, why shouldn't she have been able to describe such items as the jewelry box under the dresser?

[A] MacDonald: [Pause] True, Bernie Segal showed her several crime-scene photographs, but he did so in order to jar her memory. Based upon what I know, he was extremely cautious about leading her into answers that might sound like manufactured testimony.

[Q] Playboy: Continuing with your claims about the four drug-crazed intruders, the prosecution says that a March 1970 Esquire article could have given you the inspiration for your story. The magazine was in your home and the cover was about cult killings in California--specifically, the Manson murders. The prosecution said it contained at least 18 phrases that sounded just like the ones in your initial version. First, did you read the article?

[A] MacDonald: Yes, I perused that issue, which was delivered to my house by subscription, as it was to millions of other (continued on page 178)Jeffrey MacDonald(continued from page 72) households in the United States. Don't forget, it appeared at a time when the Manson case was in the forefront of the news. The only remembrance I have of the issue is an article titled "Leda and the Black Swan," or something like that. Ron Harrison, an Army lieutenant and Special Forces Green Beret officer, came over that evening and saw the copy of Esquire on the coffee table. He picked it up and asked whether I had read any of the articles. I said, yes, I had read the "Leda" article [chuckles] and we made several male-oriented jokes about the piece. I wasn't aware of the close connection with the Manson article that the prosecutor alleged. They showed it to me at the trial. But it's ludicrous. Why didn't they take the Bible in the house? Why didn't they take my books on philosophy? It just doesn't make sense.

[Q] Playboy: What about the coincidence of phrases? There was "acid is groovy"-- which is not, in fact, the way hippies of the time spoke--"a retinue of four," "stroking her long blonde hair" and the "ritualistic use of candles." The article also referred to a smearing of the word Pig in blood on a wall in actress Sharon Tate's home----

[A] MacDonald: But that was common knowledge. This concerned the vicious slaughter of a well-known actress under bizarre circumstances. I didn't have to read Esquire to know the details of the Tate murder. But, again, it is totally irrelevant.

[Q] Playboy: Still, Judge Dupree asserts that the confessions of Stoeckley and the others are "unbelievable" and have contributed a "factual charade" to the case. Additionally, prosecutor Murtagh said, "If you put everybody in that room who confessed, there would hardly be room in there for Jeffrey MacDonald."

[A] Mac Donald: This comment is typical of Brian Murtagh's lack of attention to detail. If, in fact, a roomful of people have confessed to the crimes, we would very much like to have their names and addresses, because we would like to talk to them. The fact is, Stoeckley was one of the very few people who have confessed to these crimes. Moreover, the CID was very reluctant to take information from those persons who did come forward to give it.

[Q] Playboy: You contend that Dupree improperly limited testimony by and about Stoeckley. You imply that if she had been allowed to tell what she knew, you'd be free. But the fact is that when she did end up testifying, she said that she was not present in your home that night and could not remember many of the things to which she later confessed. Isn't that true?

[A] MacDonald: In evaluating Stoeckley's testimony, keep in mind that she was refused immunity. She wanted to testify. She wanted to reveal the names of her coassailants. But the Government refused to grant her immunity, which it routinely gives to hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in criminal cases every day in this country. As a result, she withheld her testimony. What her testimony really said, however, was that she could not remember where she was from midnight to 4:30 the next morning. Interestingly, she remembered everything else about her life. The truth is, she was afraid to confess, for fear that she would be prosecuted.

[Q] Playboy: You've repeatedly said that five persons, including Stoeckley, have confessed to the crimes. However, isn't it true that only two of them--Stoeckley and Cathy Perry [a woman later called a schizophrenic by the appeals court who also made contradictory statements about the murders]--have, in fact, confessed? If you had three additional names, why didn't you produce them at the trial?

[A] MacDonald: They were produced. Their names are contained in the defense motions and the affidavits. However, they're not signed confessions. I don't mean to suggest that. They're admissions of guilt. In other words, we have a signed confession from Stoeckley, in which she names her four co-assailants. She admits her participation, names the other parties and describes what occurred. The others admitted their guilt in off-the-cuff comments to several observers in a park in Fayetteville. And Perry admitted her guilt to the FBI. Now, she didn't use the name MacDonald. She said that she participated in the murders of a physician's family at Fort Bragg. It's obvious that she was referring to the MacDonald murders. However, Perry's confession is a confession--and it's signed. And there are 35 other corroborating witnesses.

[Q] Playboy: The prosecution dismisses these witnesses as bogus and insists that all those who have "confessed" have contradicted themselves at one point or another. Several are now dead. Can you give us an example of new evidence?

[A] MacDonald: There was a news carrier in Fayetteville who had observed Stoeckley and her cohorts in their bloody clothing four hours after the commission of the murders. Also, there was Carlos Torres, an ex-MP who stated that he had observed three men running from the wooded area near my home after two A.M. on the morning of the murders. All this new information is extremely important: It places people in a vehicle similar to one that had been seen by other witnesses traveling toward my home prior to the commission of the crimes. It also has them leaving my home hurriedly in the rainy, cold early morning hours of February 17, 1970. This corresponds perfectly to Stoeckley's version of the split-up of the group. Clearly, this is important evidence.

[Q] Playboy: [Later] Since you told us about this, we've checked. Torres says this incident occurred at 2:05 A.M. According to your own testimony, you hadn't even gone to bed by then. Second, Torres did not say he had observed anyone running from a wooded area. He said he saw one man at the van and two individuals walking toward the van--that he couldn't tell whether one was a girl. Third, Torres said he could not identify any of the individuals--that it was raining at the time. If he is to be believed, how can his testimony possibly help your case?

[A] MacDonald: As to his recollection of the time--2:05 A.M.--I don't know what to make of it. [Waves hand] I would question his recollection of time. But what's important is that it fits the general time pattern, because these individuals were seen leaving a fast-food restaurant in downtown Fayetteville at roughly one A.M. and were headed in the direction of my house.

[Q] Playboy: Aside from Torres' statements, what other new evidence do you have?

[A] MacDonald: Much of it came from being forced to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. We received this material almost four years after our initial application. The information contained therein, as I've noted, proves my innocence. It totally debunks McGinniss' version in Fatal Vision. For example, we discovered that Stoeckley's bloody clothing and boots had been in the possession of the CID at some point and were later returned to the persons who had been given them by Stoeckley. This is potentially exculpatory evidence. And it was kept from us at the trial in 1979.

[Q] Playboy: The prosecution maintains that there never was any bloody clothing--just a pair of boots, a Social Security card and several scraps of paper.

[A] MacDonald: The woman who came up with Stoeckley's effects, Mrs. Betty Garcia, and her attorney, James Nance, both recalled to us the presence of clothing in the package that was given to the CID. In addition, both Mrs. Garcia and the attorney noted the presence of spots on the boots that appeared to be blood. The prosecutor, Murtagh, has stated on numerous occasions that the boots were examined and were not found to have blood spots. However, he has yet to produce a single laboratory test to prove his contention.

[Q] Playboy: The Government says one boot had a stain, but it wasn't blood. Do you have any evidence that it was?

[A] MacDonald: We don't have hard evidence. We have the remembrances of people who saw the boots and the clothing and who stated that they contained dark spots that appeared to be blood.

[Q] Playboy: You also stress the importance of a bloody syringe--discovered by an Army investigator--which you say was left behind by one of the drug-crazed killers. But isn't it true that the evidence reveals that someone, with bloody hands, went into the closet, in which there were many syringes, which, in fact, belonged to you? And that it was your blood that was found on the closet?

[A] MacDonald: [Irritated] I don't know about the latter. That was never testified to at the trial. What was testified to was that a bloodstain of my type was found on the closet door--not inside the closet. It was on the closet door, adjacent to the bathroom that I entered to check my wounds. However, there is no reason to believe that my blood would not be on the closet door. That's perfectly reasonable.

[Q] Playboy: Earlier, you mentioned the Government's "big-lie technique"; you say that many people have lied through the years. Why would the prosecution have gone to such lengths to conceal, distort, alter and withhold evidence? What would they hope to achieve?

[A] MacDonald: There are two basic reasons. First is their own vested interest in the case. Their reputations were on the line. They had spent days, weeks, months attempting to convict me of the murders. They were determined to see me found guilty. Second is a truth that becomes clear only after you've been through the system. I always thought the system was a search for the truth. But it's not. It's an adversarial game. And everyone knows it's a game. Whether I walked out of the courtroom in Raleigh, North Carolina, vindicated or convicted did not depend upon the truth. It depended upon the gamesmanship of the respective players.

[A] If his goal was to search for the truth, why would a prosecutor take someone like Pamela Kalin, my baby sitter--knowing there are five sworn statements in which she says one thing--show her photographs of an alleged ice pick, harangue her, even take her to lunch until, suddenly, she has a vision. She remembers an ice pick in my house. The fact is, we didn't have an ice pick. Murtagh won that hand. He showed her photographs of an ice pick until she suddenly remembered one in my house. Well, it's just not true.

[Q] Playboy: But Alfred Kassab's wife, Mildred, states that she, too, saw an ice pick. She said she recalled using it to chip away some ice in the freezer at your home.

[A] MacDonald: That's false. In 1979, Mildred Kassab stated that she had used an ice pick. However, my question is: Where was Mildred Kassab in 1970? She was available and her husband testified; neither mentioned an ice pick. Do you mean to imply that the Government's investigators didn't ask her if I had an ice pick in the house in 1970? Do you mean to suggest that they went to Long Island, had lengthy interviews with the Kassabs and never asked them whether or not they'd seen an ice pick in the house? It's inconceivable. Actually, it's typical of the CID investigation. But I don't believe it.

[Q] Playboy: Mrs. Kassab says that's right; she simply wasn't asked about it then. The fact remains, much of what you say you have as new evidence has been dismissed over and over again, starting with the original judge.

[A] MacDonald: Let's start with the fact that Judge Dupree is involved in a conflict of interest and always has been. His son-in-law, James Proctor, served as one of the key prosecutors. In fact, Proctor spent a good deal of time spearheading the prosecution effort. I believe he shared much of his initial information with Dupree, which served to prejudice my case.

[A] For example, Proctor held a news briefing following Dupree's decision not to excuse himself from the case. In that briefing, he admitted--proudly, I might add--that he was the salient figure involved in my prosecution; that he was the person who had determined that my account of the murders was a fabrication; and that he was the person who had first described Stoeckley as "pathetic"--the same word Judge Dupree used.

[Q] Playboy: That sounds as if everything that followed came from Proctor's stand against you, as if he alone wanted to prosecute you. But isn't it true that, after the Army first said it wasn't going to prosecute you, almost every attorney in the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of North Carolina was adamant that if the Army dropped the charges against you, they would ask that you be indicted? In fact, didn't a number of attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's office write a letter to the then U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, stating that if you were not prosecuted, they'd resign en masse?

[A] MacDonald: [Hesitates] As far as I know, this is brand-new information. I have never heard it before nor seen such a letter. The point is: Proctor was Dupree's son-in-law. Everyone agrees on that. Even as late as 1982, Proctor still had a relationship with Dupree. We know that because he picked up his mail in Dupree's office.

[Q] Playboy: Alfred Kassab says the entire Proctor story is a smoke screen. Proctor had divorced Dupree's daughter at the time of the trial. After the divorce, in fact, the two weren't particularly friendly. Don't those facts contradict your claim of collusion?

[A] MacDonald: No, not at all. You're missing the point. A case is a case from time zero to its conclusion. My case, legally speaking, began in 1970 and continues to this day. Now, given that, wouldn't it strike you as strange that in 1970, 1971 and 1972, when the marriage was still intact, there wasn't some discussion of the MacDonald case? If such a discussion took place, it was clearly improper.

[A] But, more importantly, the judicial canon of ethics is very clear. We do not have to prove that there was ongoing communication between Dupree and Proctor. All we must prove is the appearance of impropriety. And the appearance of impropriety is all too clear.

[Q] Playboy: Isn't it true that, although you denied it under oath, you were, in fact, polygraphed in 1970--by a person of your own choice--and that you failed?

[A] MacDonald: In fact, I took two polygraphs. One was administered by a legitimate polygrapher, who was selected by my defense counsel. The findings proved indeterminate. I was frantic with worry and asked my attorney, Bernard Segal, why the results proved indeterminate. He reviewed the questions and concluded that the answer lay in my struggle over my inability to defend my family that night. We then retained a second polygrapher, who began by asking me a series of bizarre questions--for example, about sexual activity--which had nothing to do with the case. They were so bizarre that I stood up, knocked on the window to the adjoining room and motioned to Bernie to come in. I told him about the unusual questioning, and he terminated the session. The polygrapher made a snide comment as he left--unpaid, of course. He was in a huff, because he was being fired. As a result, he did not finish the polygraph. The next day, we attempted to obtain the incomplete polygraph charts. And guess what? The polygrapher said he had lost them. Think about it: He lost the results--this, in a triple-homicide case. It's unbelievable!

[Q] Playboy: Let's sharpen our focus. What one piece of evidence--if it were available--could prove your innocence?

[A] MacDonald: I think that evidence was available. And I think it was probably recognized for what it was--which is why it is no longer available. Specifically, I'm referring to a piece of skin found under Colette's fingernail. Two investigators described it as having an oily texture. Unfortunately, while analyzing the skin sample at the CID laboratory, somehow, some way, it was suddenly lost. And the loss of that piece of skin was buried for 13 years. We didn't discover that fact until 1983. The loss of that skin sample proved devastating. For example, what if it had come from a black male? Certainly, that would clear me of the crimes. The question is: Why is it missing? It's inconceivable to me that, once under a microscope in the CID laboratory, under the care of a forensic team, it [mock disbelief] miraculously disappeared. And, of course, that disappearance was hidden from us. Something is terribly wrong.

[Q] Playboy: Most experts concede that the item you've referred to was, in all likelihood, a piece of skin, though it was never identified as such. However, the evidence reveals that your lawyers were advised, as early as 1970, that the skin sample had been lost. You didn't object--until now. Why? Is it because, as several witnesses testified that you had what appeared to be scratch marks on your chest, the skin might turn out to be yours, and that suggested a struggle by your wife against you?

[A] MacDonald: That's false. [Begins to cry] Everything you've just said is false. First, my chest. The evidence is very clear. The investigating physician described the wounds on my left chest very specifically. They were not linear--they were circular, small, ice-pick wounds. There's no evidence that they were scratches. That fact has been distorted over the years.

[A] As for the skin, we did not know about its existence, and its subsequent loss, until 1983--13 years after the crimes and four years following my conviction. It was revealed that two, not one, laboratory personnel had studied the skin sample under the microscope. CID investigator William Ivory, the last person to see it, stated in his notes that he had observed a piece of oily skin under the microscope. Then, suddenly, it disappeared!

[Q] Playboy: How do you account for the fact that none of the murder weapons--for example, the ice pick and the club--had any fingerprints on them, even the knife you said you'd handled?

[A] MacDonald: That's a complicated question. I don't know, for example, if rain can destroy fingerprints on a weapon found outside on a wet morning. Moreover, I don't know how those weapons were handled. Our impression is--given all the evidence--that the crime scene was handled very sloppily. For instance, we know that various items were dumped into plastic bags. If the ice pick were dumped into a plastic bag, for example, it's quite conceivable to me that the fingerprints could have been smudged and found to be nontypable, and thus discarded. That's a very common finding.

[Q] Playboy: Is it true that rubber surgical gloves--of the kind you stockpiled in your closet--were found at the crime scene and that they bore traces of blood?

[A] MacDonald: I don't know if they bore traces of blood. There were fragments of rubber gloves found in my home. There were also, as you suggest, rubber gloves readily accessible in my home. For instance, there were rubber gloves, ones Colette used while cleaning, in the back utility room on the drier. There was also a set or two on the kitchen sink. So there were numerous pairs of gloves--any of which the assailants could have worn.

[Q] Playboy: Aside from under the kitchen sink, the only place the investigators found any of your blood was in the sink in the hall bathroom. Testimony was that that blood had spurted from its source, as though you had injured yourself there. This testimony, many believe, reinforces the belief that your wounds were self-inflicted. Can you explain the blood pattern?

[A] MacDonald: The source of the blood has been crystal-clear from day one. I went into the bathroom, looked at the mirror, which was over the sink, and observed blood around my mouth--the result of having administered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation--and a bruise on my forehead. At no time did I ever self-administer wounds, and certainly the presence of my blood on the sink does not indicate that. There was no testimony as to spatter pattern or any mention of spurting.

[Q] Playboy: And yet no trace of your blood was discovered in the living room or in the hallway--where you lay--or in the master bedroom. Why?

[A] MacDonald: But it was. It's part of the record. It's contained in the CID laboratory report. As a matter of fact, it was reported on CNN by Joe Trento, who showed McGinniss the report. The fact is, my blood was found in the hallway where I lay. As was typical, that information was omitted from the prosecution summary charts, which were read to the jury at the close of the trial in 1979.

[Q] Playboy: During the trial, Dillard Browning, a forensic chemist, testified that fibers and threads matching your blue pajama top were found beneath your wife's body and in the bedrooms of your two children. And yet witnesses testified that few, if any, blue fibers were found by investigators in the living room and hallway, where you said you had been attacked. Can you explain that discrepancy?

[A] MacDonald: First, blue fibers were found in the living room, at the end of the hallway, where I awoke following the struggle. In fact, Ivory saw them as well. Second, Browning failed to note--and this fact was obscured at the trial--that I was wearing my pajama bottoms when I tried to resuscitate Colette, Kimberly and Kristen. Later, we discovered that my pajama bottoms were discarded by the hospital, upon my arrival. Yet it was known to the CID that my pajama bottoms were torn from knee to knee, through the crotch. This means that, when I was on my knees, administering mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and when I went into Kimberly's and Kristen's bedrooms, I was wearing a pair of blue pajama bottoms identical in composition to the pajama top that was torn and tattered and that was trailing fibers throughout the house. That's the obvious source of the fibers. Additionally, what the prosecution fails to admit is that upon finding Colette, I moved her body in order to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The doctor, who was called in to pronounce death, also moved Colette. He sat her upright and listened to her lungs from behind. He then laid her back down. It's obvious that at least some of the fibers must have gotten under her back.

[Q] Playboy: Still, more than 80 fibers and threads were found in the bedroom, many of them under Colette's body. And fibers and threads were found beneath Kimberly's bedclothing, and one was even found underneath her pillow. They were also found in the master bedroom under the headboard, where the word Pig was scrawled. How did they get there?

[A] MacDonald: [Wearily] When I awakened at the end of the hallway, my hands were still bound up in the pajama top, under me, wrapped tightly. When I entered the master bedroom, I somehow took the pajama top off. I don't know whether I ripped it off or took it off or where I threw it. I then kneeled down and straightened up Colette's body, which the prosecution also fails to mention. She was leaning against the green chair. As a matter of fact, I think there's a streak of blood on the chair that verifies that. I pulled her flat onto the floor and began administering mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, kneeling right there. This is a very logical explanation for the location of the fibers. I think the prosecution made a mountain out of a molehill. There were so many people in the master bedroom--there were at least six or eight MPs alone, not counting the rescue people--who walked through that area wearing wet boots that they could have picked up any number of fibers. Therefore, the location of fibers from that point on becomes meaningless. I don't think it's at all important.

[Q] Playboy: You've said repeatedly that every professional who has examined you has said you were incapable of murder. Although your own psychiatrist at the Army hearing, Dr. Robert Sadoff, testified that you did not possess a "personality or emotional configuration" that was capable of committing such a murderous assault on your wife and children, isn't it true that no Army psychiatrist, or any other psychiatrist, ever said that----

[A] MacDonald: No!

[Q] Playboy: But they did say that they were incapable of answering such a question?

[A] MacDonald: No. I had a total of four psychological evaluations, as well as three psychiatric evaluations, all of which were favorable, all of which concluded that I am a normal, decent, rational human being--with the normal range of human emotions and feelings. All of them concluded that I had no pathology of any type--certainly that I wasn't psychotic and had no obvious sociopathic tendencies. None of them cited what McGinniss refers to as "pathological narcissism."

[Q] Playboy: Well, Dr. James Brussel, who examined you in 1979, concluded that you possessed an "Achilles' heel," and that if it were hit, you were, indeed, capable of murder. His evaluation proved to be extremely damaging, on this and other points.

[A] MacDonald: [Leans forward, smiles] Let me tell you about Dr. Brussel. The evaluation took place at night, in the office of my attorney. When I arrived, I was greeted by Dr. Brussel, who was 80 years old. He was accompanied by his partner, Dr. Hirsch Silverman. I asked to have my lawyers present. This request was denied. For the first two hours, I submitted to a series of psychological tests. Dr. Brussel then began what I thought would be a lengthy psychiatric evaluation. I was shocked by what ensued. As I stated, Dr. Brussel was 80 years old; he had recently suffered a stroke, which he freely admitted. He appeared to be drooling from the corner of his mouth and seemed totally disoriented. In fact, he thought he was in Maryland. I asked Dr. Silverman to be my witness, as I was denied the right to have my attorneys present. I asked Dr. Brussel where he was. He said he was in Baltimore, Maryland. I said, "No, you're in Raleigh, North Carolina." And he said, "Well, it doesn't matter." Dr. Silverman comforted me somewhat and said not to worry, that he would straighten things out. Dr. Brussel then proceeded to take out from his pocket a list of typewritten questions. He began by asking me such questions as, "Who wiped the phones?" "Who did the drawings on the walls?" "Why weren't there any footprints outside the windows?" Several of the questions didn't seem to make sense. I then asked him several questions, among them, "Where did you get those questions?" He said they had been prepared by the prosecutor. And I looked at Dr. Silverman and said, a second time, "I want you to be my witness." I told him that Dr. Brussel's conduct was outrageous. How dare he read from a list of questions prepared by the prosecution? I told him that I thought the evaluation was a sham. He then accused me of being paranoid. He said, "Aha, I see by these questions you're paranoid." I said, "I'm not paranoid. I'm just wondering what you're doing." And he said, "They told me you were paranoid." This went on for 20 or 25 minutes, at which time I terminated the interview. I stood up, said that this was outrageous and told him that I was leaving. When I opened the door, my lawyers were standing outside. They were witness to this. They saw Dr. Brussel. They saw, for instance, that he couldn't find his hat or coat, which were on the rack next to him.

[A] The entire evaluation was a fraud! And although he never testified at the trial--no psychiatric testimony was permitted by Judge Dupree--this is the psychiatrist McGinniss quotes at length in his book.

[Q] Playboy: A lot has been written about your relationship with Colette. How do you characterize your marriage?

[A] MacDonald: At the time of the murders, our relationship was the best it had ever been. [A wistful, fond look] It was a very good time for us. It was a period of unwinding, following a very traumatic surgical internship in New York. We had more income than we had had in years. In fact, for the first time, we had sufficient income to live comfortably, with few, if any, financial worries. My relationship with Colette was excellent; it was loving, it was kind, it was warm. There was no mental or physical abuse. Colette was happy and she expressed her happiness to me, her family and her friends. Her letters to her parents and others attest to that fact.

[Q] Playboy: Yet today Mrs. Kassab says, "Colette's personality slipped from that of a bouncy extrovert into subdued depression in the months immediately prior to the murders." Do you deny this?

[A] MacDonald: Yes! The only conceivable worry on the horizon was her pregnancy, which was a legitimate worry, because she had had two difficult Caesarean sections. Apart from that, Colette failed to express or display anxiety, depression, loneliness--any of those things Mildred Kassab has alleged. In fact, Mrs. Kassab's statements in 1970 differ markedly from her later statements. It's difficult to believe she has since experienced a 180-degree change of heart. It's very suspect.

[Q] Playboy: This brings us to the subject of women. The prosecution charged that you had several extramarital affairs--McGinniss says more than several--which you denied in order to paint a perfect picture of your marriage. Did these affairs exist?

[A] MacDonald: Yes, I had extramarital affairs. And I admitted that fact when asked. I never lied about it. I'm not proud of those liaisons. But they happened. If I had to do it over again, I would not go out with another woman while I was married. But these liaisons were meaningless. Remember, it was 1969, and I was away at an Army post. I went to several parties and I had a date with a girl. That's all. And I admitted it.

[Q] Playboy: But did Colette know of your extramarital activities?

[A] MacDonald: No, she didn't. These liaisons were not long-lasting love affairs. They had no emotional content. I met a girl at a party and we spent the night together. That's it. No more, no less.

[Q] Playboy: McGinniss makes the point that it was considerably more, that your version of your sex life doesn't hold up. Didn't you give a red-and-black negligee to Penny Wells, your high school girlfriend, the night before your wedding to Colette?

[A] MacDonald: That's totally false. I never met Penny the night before my wedding. I was at a bachelor party in New York. I did give her a gift, but it was much earlier.

[Q] Playboy: Is it also true that you had sex with another woman shortly after the murders while under arrest at Fort Bragg?

[A] MacDonald: This occurred approximately six months later and at a time of intense depression, anxiety and grieving. But not while I was in custody. Anyway, it has no importance.

[Q] Playboy: In Fatal Vision, McGinniss advances a theory that your sexuality was a key to understanding your motives. He quotes psychological testimony that suggests that you possess a possible repressed homosexuality. And later, he cites texts that describe a pathological narcissism that he believes could also be applicable to your psychological make-up. How do you feel about that?

[A] MacDonald: Every male possesses, to some extent, an aggression quotient. The same holds true for women. Where one stands on that scale must be measured in terms of its relationship to other feelings. The same can be said for sexuality. It strikes me as Psych 101 to suggest that because someone jumps out of airplanes, or perhaps joins the Green Berets, he must have latent homosexual fears. [Makes derisive gesture] Joe implies that I'm somehow afraid of my own masculinity--that these macho activities are rooted in a desire to prove my manhood. That's ridiculous! Similar suggestions of latent homosexuality have been raised concerning policemen, surgeons, sports figures. It may or may not be true in some cases. But it doesn't make them abnormal. What's abnormal is McGinniss' exploitation of normal findings.

[Strongly] I'm a normal male, with normal sexual urges. I've had normal, stable, friendly, nonviolent relationships with all the major figures in my life. Joe takes information out of context, frames it in innuendo and misperception, and then implies that it's rooted in the truth. It's ridiculous! I know it and he knows it.

[Q] Playboy: The central point of McGinniss' book--of its title--is that you murdered your wife and children, owing to a deep-seated hatred of women--a fatal vision of the female sex and of your own manhood.

[A] MacDonald. First, I didn't murder my family. Second, there's no evidence to suggest that I did. Third, the psychological profiles of me are very well known. Few people in this world have been studied as extensively as have I. The psychologists and psychiatrists who've examined me would dispute Joe's contention. They say I'm normal. And I agree. So do my friends. All concerned say that my relationships have been healthy, especially my relationship with Colette. I don't possess streaks of rage boiling just below the surface. And I have no streaks of latent homosexuality. I have no pent-up rage toward women. Despite what Joe says, I have no such feelings.

[Q] Playboy: But at the trial, the prosecution attempted to paint a picture of you as a man with an uncontrollable temper--one that could, if provoked, explode in an act of maniacal violence. Isn't it true that you have, in fact, a bad temper?

[A] MacDonald: Like everyone else, I have a temper. That's part of being human. But I'm not violent. I never have been. I try to cope with anger by attempting to solve the problem that produced it. Clearly, I'm not a passive person. Quite the contrary, I'm reasonably aggressive. I possess a surgeon-type personality. But I do not react to problems with rage or violence or instability. The examples cited by McGinniss in Fatal Vision are totally specious. They were contradicted by all of the witnesses who testified. He can't prove one example of violent behavior.

[Q] Playboy: He writes that upon release from the Army, you physically abused and threatened a ten-year-old boy with whose mother you were having an affair. The boy, Danny, went on to attend an Ivy League school and confided years later to McGinniss that you turned on him ferociously and made him afraid for his life.

[A] MacDonald: That's absolute hogwash! First, the episode you're referring to allegedly occurred at my home in California, following my move there in 1971. Present were Danny, his mother and myself. We have statements that directly contradict Joe's version. In addition, Danny and I had a good relationship, predicated upon the normal interaction that one would expect between an adult male and a ten-year-old boy. There was a lot of horseplay. We would run together, play soccer, swim. We would dive off my boat. I would push him off, and he would push me off. I was never abusive or threatening to Danny. His mother did tell me about one episode in which he became frightened by the horseplay. I was unaware of it at the time. Danny never mentioned it to me.

[Q] Playboy: Following your discharge from the Army, why did you move to California, as opposed to remaining in the area to track down the assailants?

[A] MacDonald: Basically, I moved to preserve my own mental health. I was extremely depressed at the time. And I just wasn't functioning well. I came to the conclusion that I didn't want to spend the rest of my life searching for the culprits. It seemed like a negative and destructive act on my part. I felt I had to move on.

[Q] Playboy: Is it true, as one reporter wrote, that when you informed the Kassabs of your decision to move to California, Mildred stated, "If you leave, I will make you live to regret it"? If so, do you view your decision to move as the catalyst in their change of position?

[A] MacDonald: I don't think that decision precipitated their fanatical change of attitude. I thought so at first, but not now. The fact is, Freddy Kassab is a fanatic by nature. He was fanatical in my defense. Once he saw a chink in my armor, so to speak, he switched sides and was equally fanatical. I don't think anything would have changed Freddy. Nothing will change him now. Even if we produced video tapes of the actual commission of the crimes by the assailants, Freddy would not believe them. That's how he is. Freddy has to has to have someone to blame. And, unfortunately, that someone is me.

[Q] Playboy: Why did you tell Kassab, as you now admit, that you found out where one of the so-called hippies hung out, stalked him and killed him?

[A] MacDonald: [Looks regretful, embarrassed] I didn't preplan that statement. I've asked myself the same question a thousand times. I think it reflected my inability to cope--the fact that I proved unable to defend my family. It was my way of saying to Freddy, "Look, I did the best I could. I tried to save Colette and the kids and couldn't. But I did track down and kill one of them." I suppose I wanted to inflate my own image or whatever. But the initial stimulus stemmed from the fact that Mildred and Freddy were so bent on "an eye for an eye." And I thought that my assuaging their need for vengeance would enable them to find some satisfaction and get on with their lives. In retrospect, it was a terrible decision on my part. But I don't think it was done maliciously. It was done to try to help the Kassabs, as well as to increase my own self-worth.

[Q] Playboy: You've maintained that you were convicted because you represented a sort of life-in-the-fast-lane, California personality to a North Carolina judge and jury.

[A] MacDonald: Yes. I firmly believe that the fact that I was a physician, that I was Princeton-educated and that I lived in California bore tremendous fruit for the Government and helped seal my conviction. The attitude in the courtroom was, "We'll show you." The attitude common among the local press was, "We'll show the MacDonald defense team how things work in North Carolina." And the judge, in his rulings and his body language, sent a similar message to the jury--that this was a highfalutin defense team brought in to harass good local people.

[Q] Playboy: Specifically, what may have worked against you with these people?

[A] MacDonald: The fact that the defense team was fairly large, that I was well dressed, that I had girlfriends, that Bernie Segal is Jewish. The judge, the jury and the press were told that I had a California condominium on the water, that I drove a fancy car, that I had a beautiful girlfriend. From these, they assume that I'm a superficial person whose life is dominated by hedonism. They portrayed me as a "jet setter." In truth, I'm a middle-class physician who lived in a middle-class neighborhood, who enjoyed middle-class pleasures but had the income to experience some of the nicer aspects of life. But, thanks to McGinniss, the public views me as the consummate pleasure seeker. That's not my main goal in life. My main goal is to be a competent doctor--a contributing member of society.

[Q] Playboy: That's not the portrait most people who read the book or saw the movie have. What about another of McGinniss' conclusions--about that aspect of your personality--that you repress emotion?

[A] MacDonald: Today, I'm 42--and a very different person than I was at 25 or 30. In my 20s and 30s, I did find it difficult to express emotion. [Seemingly reluctant] For example, until relatively recently, I've found it difficult to express my love for a woman. It was not easy for me to say "I love you" to Colette. On the other hand, I said it. And I hope I said it enough. I think she understood how much I loved her, even though I would not come home every night, throw my arms around her and say, "I love you more than anything in the world." I just wasn't that kind of man. And I'm probably still not. I'm one of those men who created the need for an Alan Alda. That doesn't mean I'm pathological. [Pauses] It simply means that I'm fairly typical of many men.

[Q] Playboy: You used the word pathological; if you claim not to be the monster you've been made out to be, who are you?

[A] MacDonald: [Instantly] I'm active, energetic, hard-working, empathetic. I'm very demanding of people around me. I also think I'm intelligent. Hopefully, I'm less arrogant than I come across, because I certainly come across as arrogant. I'm much more accepting of people today--warts and all--than I was earlier in life. I'm also a fairly compulsive person. I'm a list maker, for instance. I tend to finish chores rapidly and to have many irons in the fire. I'm certainly not the archetypal placid Libran. I have considerable fire and drive. I'm also very competitive. I always have been--in school, at work, at play. I suspect I always will be.

[Q] Playboy: You were sentenced to three consecutive life terms and you've now been incarcerated for more than four years. Besides fighting to maintain your innocence, how do you cope with prison life?

[A] MacDonald: At first, I thought simply in terms of survival and fighting off massive depression. After a time, I became more accustomed to prison life and less fearful of physical assault. You can view prison in one of two ways. You can become totally absorbed in prison life--and shut out the rest of the world--or you can pretend you're not incarcerated, which is what I do. For example, I use the telephone whenever possible to maintain contact with my lawyers, my secretary, former business associates and fellow physicians in Long Beach. A newsletter is circulated about developments in my case. In short, most of my time is spent on my case and on fostering close relationships with people who are important in my life.

[A] As for life inside here, common sense tells you that it's hazardous to your health to develop close friendships in prison. As a result, most people tend to fend for themselves. I have a small circle of friends with whom I spend time, but they're not the type of friendships that you would develop on the outside. Most inmates are fairly secretive, fearful that their secrets could get into the wrong hands.

[Q] Playboy: Here you are, awaiting one last appeal, hoping you'll be believed. You have often begun your recital of your case by stating that the Army initially dropped charges against you because they were untrue. But, in fact, didn't the Army's press release say the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence?

[A] MacDonald: [Eyes glaze; pauses; tears flow] You're referring to a statement issued by Lieutenant General John Tolson from headquarters at Fort Bragg. That was a requirement of the Army. That was not, and I repeat, that was not the statement of Colonel Warren Rock, who was the presiding officer at the Article 32 hearing. His report is very clear. It states, in unmistakable language, the following: First, that the charges against Captain MacDonald were not true and, second, that, in his view, Army authorities should investigate a civilian, Helena Stoeckley, or ask the Justice Department to do so, as to her whereabouts on February 17, 1970. That is all he said. There exists no other statement in the 90-page report concerning the Army's findings. That's it, period.

[Q] Playboy: If you should be exonerated, do you think you could resume a normal life?

[A] MacDonald: No. I do think, however, that time brings with it a normal healing process. I believe I'll be able to function well--that I can return to being a productive member of society. I hope to have a healthy relationship with a woman--and, hopefully, a family.

[Sadly] But yet I know, deep down, that the loss of Colette and my two children will always remain with me. That's inevitable. It's impossible to wipe away the shame, the humiliation, the anger and the frustration that have accompanied this nightmare.

[On December 17, 1985--shortly after the conclusion of this interview--the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied MacDonald's motion, saying it saw "no basis" upon which to overturn the verdict.]

[Q] Playboy: Moments ago, the court of appeals denied your motion. Is that a fatal blow to your hopes?

[A] MacDonald: It's a devastating blow. There's no way around it. It's beyond comprehension. We expected to win this time. Our appeal was solid. We felt that the court would understand the implications of our new evidence, of our 35 new corroborating witnesses. Either they failed to understand the evidence or they didn't read it or didn't care. Obviously, the decision is certain to change the next several years of my life.

[Q] Playboy: And the optimism that you say you felt when we began talking? What do you say to people who still believe in you?

[A] MacDonald: We will persevere. Our job has been made more difficult by this decision, but I cannot and will not roll over and play dead! The truth is on our side. We must keep fighting until we prevail.

[One day after this interview was concluded, MacDonald was placed in handcuffs and chains and taken from Bastrop for "permanent" incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona.]

"That night, with its permanently chiseled sights and smells and sounds, is indelibly etched in my senses."

The MacDonald Case: An Overview

February 17, 1970: MacDonald's wife, Colette, and two children--Kimberly and Kristen--brutally murdered.

April 6, 1970: MacDonald informed by U.S. Army CID that he is a suspect.

May 15, 1970: Army hearing convenes; Helena Stoeckley, a local hippie who fits MacDonald's description of one of the assailants, questioned.

October 28, 1970: Army formally drops charges due to "insufficient evidence." MacDonald honorably discharged December 5, 1970.

December 1970: Father-in-law Alfred Kassab, supportive of MacDonald, issues plea demanding reinvestigation of murders; delivers copies to all members of Congress.

February 1971: Kassab reads transcripts of Army hearings, concludes that MacDonald committed the murders but does not voice his suspicions.

July 1971: MacDonald moves to Long Beach, California.

1972--1974: Case reviewed by U.S. Department of Justice and various Washington, D.C., attorneys.

April 30, 1974: Kassab and his wife file citizens' complaint charging MacDonald with the murders.

August 12, 1974: Grand jury begins hearing evidence; indicts MacDonald on January 24, 1975. MacDonald arrested.

January 31, 1975: MacDonald released on bail.

January 23, 1976: Fourth Circuit Court rules 2--1 that MacDonald had been denied a speedy trial.

May 1, 1978: U.S. Supreme Court reverses Fourth Circuit Court decision.

March 1979: Trial set for July.

July 1979: Joe McGinniss agrees to write book about the murders.

July 19, 1979: Trial begins.

August 29, 1979: MacDonald found guilty, sentenced to three consecutive life terms. Imprisoned.

November 27, 1979: MacDonald files appeal with Fourth Circuit Court.

July 29, 1980: Fourth Circuit Court again rules that MacDonald was denied speedy trial. MacDonald released on bail one month later.

March 31, 1982: U.S. Supreme Court overturns Fourth Circuit Court's decision. MacDonald is returned to prison.

January 13, 1983: Stoeckley, a drug abuser, found dead of natural causes.

September 1983: McGinniss publishes Fatal Vision, in which he concludes that MacDonald is guilty.

November 1984: NBC-TV airs two-part version of Fatal Vision.

March 11, 1985: MacDonald files for appeal with Fourth Circuit Court.

December 17, 1985: Fourth Circuit Court denies MacDonald's appeal.

"I always thought the system was a search for the truth. But it's not. It's an adversarial game."