case 3:75-cr-00026-f document 136-5 filed 04/17/2006 page ... · 4/17/2006 · ted gunderson cross...

TED GUNDERSON CROSS VOL 101

YOU WERE NOT OKAY WHERE WERE YOU MR GUNDERSON

AUGUST 74 WAS IN MEMPHIS TENNESSEE IN CHARGE OF

THE MEMPHIS BUREAU

OKAY

AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER DATE 75JANUARY OF 75

JANUARY OF 75 WOULD HAYE BEEN IN DALLAS TEXAS

OKAY WELL LET ME ASK YOU DID YOU AT ANY TIME IN

10 ANY OF YOUR DUTY ASSIGNMENTS IN THE FBI HAVE ANYTHING

11 TO DO WITH THE MACDONALD CASE

12 ABSOLUTELY NOT

13 OKAY SO YOU REALLY DONT HAVE ANY PERSONAL

14 KNOWLEDGE FROM HAVING BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE OR

15 YOU KNOW HAVING CONDUCTED ANY INVESTIGATION IN 1970

16 OR 71 DO YOU

17 HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE MACDONALD CASE UNTIL WAS

18 HIRED AS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR TO CHECK INTO IT

19 NOW LET ME ASK YOU WHO HIRED YOU AS PRIVATE

20 INVESTIGATOR

21 DOCTORS WIFE PHYLLIS HUGHES AND DR STEPHEN

22 SHEA

23 OKAY THATS DR MACDONALDS PARTNER ISNT IT

24 DR SHEA IS

25 INTERPOSING YEAH

Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 136-5 Filed 04/17/2006 of 50


ASSOCIATED WITH HIM IN SOME CAPACITY THAT DONT

KNOW

OKAY AND WHAT WERE THE TERMS OF THE ARRANGEMENT

THEY CONTACTED ME IN NOVEMBER 1979 AND ASKED ME IF

WOULD CHECK INTO IT AND AGREED AND WHEN

YOU SAY THE TERMS DO YOU MEAN WHAT WAS GOING TO

CHARGE HIM

YEAH WHAT WAS THE ARRANGEMENT

10TOLD HIM IT WAS HUNDRED DOLLARS 100 AN HOUR

11 OKAY AND WERE YOU PAID RETAINER

12WAS GIVEN FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLAR 15000

13RETAINER

14 OKAY AND WHOSE ACCOUNT IF YOU KNOW WAS THAT

15RETAINER DRAWN ON

16THE FIRST THREE CHECKS WERE FROM THREE INDIVIDUALS

17FIVE THOUSAND 5000 EACH

18 THEIR PERSONAL ACCOUNTS

19 PERSONAL ACCOUNTS YES

20 OKAY AND WHO WEZ THOSE THREE INDIVIDUALS

21JUST MINUTE ILL HAVE TO DO SOME ROSEARCH HERE

22 WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENTS THE FIRST CHECK WAS FROM

23 ADR PAUL CURRY CURRY DATED DECEMBER 24

24 1979 FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS 5000 DRAWN ON THE

25 BANK OF AMERICA HUNTINGTON HARBOR BRANCH HUNTINGTON



BEACH CALIFORNIA THE SECOND BANK CHECK WAS

DATED ITS OUT OF ORDER BY THE WAY DECEMBER

17TH 1979 FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS 5000 HUGHES

MEDICAL GROUP INCORPORATED LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA

EXCUSE ME WAS THAT HUGHES MEDICAL GROUP

INCORPORATED

HUGHES HUGHES HUGHES

YES DID YOU HAVE ANY INVESTIGATIVE JOB FOR HUGHES

10MEDICAL GROUP INCORPORATED

NO

12NO

13THIS WAS THE FIRST EVER HEARD OF THEM

14 OKAY

15AND THE THIRD CHECK FOR FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS

16 5000 IS SIGNED BY HIMSELF DR STEPHEN SHEA

17 SHEA BY THE WAY DATED DECEMBER 17 1979

18 AND WHAT ACCOUNT IS THAT DRAWN ON

19 BANK OF AMERICA

20 AND THE ACCOUNT NUMBER

211104100627

22 HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT

23 HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT

24 OKAY NOW LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN MR GUNDERSON OR

25 LET ME ASK YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU TOOK ON



THIS ASSIGNMENT YOU HAD NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH

THE CASE RIGHT

ABSOLUTELY NONE

OKAY AND THIS WAS AFTER MACDONALD HAD BEEN

CONVICTED IS THAT CORRECT

IT WAS

OKAY DID YOU READ THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

READ SOME OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AFTER WAS

10HIRED

11BUT YOU DIDNT READ THE WHOLE TRANSCRIPT

12READ THAT PART THE PARTS OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

13READ WERE MR STONIBAUGHS TESTIMONY HELENA

14 STOECKLEYS TESTIMONY AND SOME OF THE OTHER

15 TESTIMONY OF INDIVIDUALS DONT RECALL EXACTLY RIGHT

16NOW WHO THEY WERE

17 BUT YOU DIDNT READ THE OTHER TESTIMONY

18DIDNT READ THE FULL NINE THOUSAND 9000 PAGES

19 OR WHATEVER IT IS NO

20 BELIEVE ITS SEVEN THOUSAND 7000

21WHATEVER IT IS DIDNT READ IT ALL NO

22 HOW ABOUT THE ARTICLE 32 TRANSCRIPT

23READ PORTIONS OF THAT DID NOT READ IT ALL

24 WHAT DID YOU READ

25 READ THE SUMMARY OF IT READ COLONEL ROCKS



DECISION ON IT AND THEN PORTIONS THROUGHOUT

DIDNT READ THE WHOLE THING AS SAID

YOU DIDNT READ THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT

DIDNT READ IT IN DETAKL NO

OKAY HOW ABOUT THE FBI JAB REPORTS DID YOU READ

THOSE

IDID

WHICH ONES

10 DONT RECALL OFFHAND

11 OKAY DID YOU LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS

12 DIDNT HAVE THE CRIME PHOTOGRAPHS AT THAT

13 TIME HAD SOME XEROX COPIES OF SOME OF THE CRIME

14 SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HAVE WITH ME TODAY

15 OKAY BUT TAKE IT YO NEVER CAME TO THE

16 COURTHOUSE HERE AND LOOKED AT THE

17 INTERPOSING NO DIDNT THE TESTIMONY READ

18 CAME FROM MR BERNARD SEGAL IN SAN FRANCIUCO HE

19 SENT ME BOX CONTAINING EXTENSIVE INFORMATION ON THE

20 CAS AND ALSO READ HELENA STOECKICYS TESTIMONY

21 OKAY

22 AND THE INFORMATION IN THE COURT RECORDS CONCERNING

23 THE PERSONS TO WHOM HELENA IS WAS REPORTED TO

24 HAVE TOLD THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS THERE

25 SO YOU READ LIKE THE STOECKLEY WITNESSES VOIR DIRE



AND TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE JURY

IN ADDITION TO WHAT IVE MENTIONED RIGHT

OKAY LET ME ASK YOU AG4N MR GUNDERSON DID

YOU DO AN ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY NEWS ACCOUNTS OF

THE CASE

HAD SOME NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS THEY WERE NOT ALL

INCLUSIVE READ WHAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME THAT WAS

FURNISHED TO ME BY MR SEGAL AND BY THE MEDICAL GROUP

10 THE MEDICAL GROUP

11 MR GUNDERSON DID YOU DETERMINE WHAT INFORMA

12TION WAS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT GIVEN TIME SAY

13 IN AUGUST 1970 OR IN AUGUST 1979

14 WHEN YOU SAY DID DETERMINE THAT

15 INTERPOSING YEAH

16 WHAT DO YOU MEAN

17 IN OTHER WORDS FOR EXAMPLE IN FEBRUARY OF 1970

18 THINK ITS FAIR TO SAY IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

19 THAT ROCKING HORSE WAS FOUND IN THE CRIME SCENE

20 BECAUSE PICTURE OF IT APPEARED IN THE PAPERS

21 DID DETERMINE THAT WH DO YOU MEAN

22 WELL IN OTHER WORDS DID YOU DETERMINE WHAT

HI 23 INFORMATION SOMEONE READING THE NEWSPAPERS AT GIVEN

24 TIME WOULD BE AWARE OF

25 NO NOT REALLY READ YOU KNOW THE ARTICLES AS



MANY AS WERE FURNISHED ME DIDNT MAKE

PARTICULAR NOTE OF EXACTLY WHEN THEY WERE PRINTED

BECAUSE NUMBER OF THE ARTICLES HAD BEEN PRINTED

PRIOR TO AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRIAL

FUNHHURAH OKAY DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO REVIEW

VIDEO TAPE OR VIDEO TAPEE OF HYPNOTIC SESSION OF

DR MACDONALD BY DR WILLIAM KROGER

IDID

10 YOU DID DO YOU HAVE THOSE WITH YOU BY ANY CHANCE

NO SIR DONT

12DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE

13DONT HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE THEY ARE

14 OKAY BUT YOUVE SEEN THEM

IVE SEEN THEM

16 OKAY

SAW THEM DIDNT SEE THEM IN THE BEGINNING

18 SAW THEM WOULD SAY MORE THAN YEAR AFTER

19BECAME INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION

20 OKAY MR GUNDERSON

21 INTERPOSING PROBA IN EARLY ID SAY 81

22 OKAY YOU RETIRED FROM TIE BUREAU IN MARCH OF 79

23 AGAIN

24 MARCH 30 1979

25 MARCH 30 1979 OKAY WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT


TED GUNDERSON CROSS VOL LOB

EMPLOYMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM GRIFFIN BELL HIRED ME TO

COORDINATE SECURITY FOR THE PAN AMERICAN GAMES IN

SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO THE SUMMER OF 79UNHHUNH AND AFTER THAT

IN FACT RETIRED EARLY TO TAKE THAT JOB MR

BEN CIVILETTI ASKED ME IF ID RETIRE EARLY AFTER

THATL

10 INTERPOSING IM SORRY BEN CIVILETTI ASKED YOU

11TO RETIRE EARLY

12BEN CIVILETTI ASKED ME TO RETIRE EARLY KNOW MR

13CIVILETTI AFTER THAT OPENED PRIVATE

14 INVESTIGATING FIRM IN LOS ANGELES

15 OKAY HAVE YOU HAD ANY OJHER JOBS

16JOBS NO MEAN HAVE CLIENTS BUT IVE NEVER

17 HAD ANY OTHER EMPLOYMENT

18 WELL LET ME ASK YOU

19 INTERPOSING IM SORRY YOURE RIGHT DID HAVE

20 ONE THE LOS ANGELES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE HIRED ME AS

21 CONSULTANT FOR ABOUT YEAR PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN

22 THEY HIRED FULLTIME SECURITY OFFICER IN CHARGE OF

23 THE OPERATION

24 WERE YOU EVER RETAINED IN ANY CAPACITY BY AN OUTFIT

25 CALLED SASS INTERNATIONAL SASS



WAS NO IT WAS NOT SASS IT WAS DEKIA

WOULD YOU SPELL THAT PLEASE FOR THE REPORTER

DEKLAAND WHAT CAPACITY WAS THAT MR GUNDERSON

WAS PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY FOR THREE WEEKS

OKAY AND WHATS THE STATUS OF THAT COMPANY NOW

DONT KNOW WHAT T1 STATUS IS BECAUSE RESIGNED

IN ON SEPTEMBER 26TH 1982

10 OKAY WHY DID YOU RESIGN

11 BECAUSE HEARD THE INVES THE ORGANIZATION WAS

12 UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN

13 DALLAS AND LOS ANGELES

14 OKAY ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS INVESTIGATING THEM

15 SUBSEQUENT TO MY RESIGNATION HEARD THAT THE FBI

16 WAS INVESTIGATING THE ORGANIZATION

17 OKAY AND YOU RESIGNED BECAUSE YOU HEARD THIS

18 NO RESIGNED BECAUSE HEARD THEY WERE UNDER

19 INVESTIGATION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN DALLAS AND

20 LOS ANGELES DIDNT KNOW THE FBI WAS INVESTIGATING

21 THEM AT THAT TIME

22 OKAY AND WHAT WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATIN

23 THEM FOR

24 IM NOT SURE BUT BELKEVE THEY HAD RECEIVED

25 COMPLAINT THAT SOMEBODY HAD GIVEN MR ALLEN BLAIR WHO



AND ALSO MR ROBERT BARRON WHO WAS PRESIDENT OF THE

COMPANY BEFORE WAS SOME EXPENSE MONEY IN

CONNECTION IN AN ATTEMPT BY THE COMPANY TO PUT

TOGETHER LOAN

HAT WERE YOUR DUTIE WITH THE COMPANY WHILE

OU WERE THERE

DUTIES VITH THE COMPANY FOR THAT THREEWE

PERIOD WERE TO PRIMARILY TO CHECK OUT ANY POTENTIAL

10BORROWERS ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE UNDER

11CONSIDERATION FOR LOAN AND BASICALLY THAT WAS IT

12AND ALSO TO DEGREE REALLY VASNT INVOLVED

IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY BUT ASSUMED THAT IF13

14THE COMPANY HAD NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION

15PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AN

16ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

17WHO DID YOU CHECK OUT FOR THEM

18MR ONEILL YOUR HONOR IM GOING TO

19INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING

20AS IT APPEARS NOT TO RELATE AT ALL TO THE SUBJECT OF

DIRECT21

22THE COURT WELL WOULD ASK COUNSEL FOR THE

23GOVERNMENT TO SHOW ME SOME RELEVANCY DONT

24DETECT IT RIGHT OFFHAND

25MR MURTAGH WELL YOUR HONOR IF UNDERSTAND


TED GUNDERSON CROSS VOL ILL

CORRECTLY MR GUNDERSONS STATUS AS FORMER FBI

AGENT IS VERY MUCH AT ISSUE HERE IN FACT COUNSEL

REFERRED TO MR GUNDERSON IM SURE IT WAS SLIP

OF THE TONGUE BUT SEVERAL TIMES REFERRED TO HIM

AS AGENT GUNDERSON AND DIDNT OBJECT AT THAT TIME

THE COURT WELL HE CORRECTED THAT

MR MURTAGH PARDON AIR

THE COURT HE CORRECTED THAT

10 MR MURTAGH INTERPOSING HE CORRECTED THAT

11 THE COURT AND CALLED HIM MR12 MR MURTAGH YES BUT IN ANY EVENT YOUR

13 HONOR THINK THAT MR GUNDERSONS EMPLOYMENT SINCE

14 HE LEFT THE FBI IS MATTER AT ISSUE AND ALSO THINK

15 IT GOES TO HIS COMPETENCY AS AN INVESTIGATOR WHICH

16 IS VERY MUCH THINK AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE

17 THE COURT WELL ILL LET YOU EXPLORE IT FROM

18 THAT STANDPOINT

19 MR MURTAGH THANK YOU

20 MR MURTAGH DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THE QUESTION

21 MR GUNDERSON

22 PLEASE

23 WHO DID YOU CHECK OUT FOR THEM

24 WHO DID CHECK OUT FOR

25 INTERPOSING DEKLA



YOU MEAN THEIR NAMES SPECIFICALLY

YEAH

DONT HAVE THOSE NAMES WITH ME AND IF ID KNOWN

WOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION

DID YOU CHECK OUT MR B1A FOR ANYTHING

DID LATER ON AND REALIZED THAT YEAH DID

CHECK HIM OUT LATER ON BUT DIDNT CHECK HIM OUT AT

THE TIME

10DID YOU LATER DETERMINE TJ MR BLAIR HAD CRIMINAL

11RECORD

12FOUND OUT LATER SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME THAT WAS

13INVOLVED WITH THE COMPANY

14 OKAY BUT YOUR INVESTIGATION DIDNT REVEAL IT

15NO IF MAY EXPLAIN THE SITUATION MR BLAIR AND

16MR BARRON WERE MY CLIENTS WHEN WAS IN LOS ANGELES

17 BEGINNING IN ABOUT FEBRUARY 1982 AND FROM

18 FEBRUARY 1982 UNTIL JULY 1982 HAD CHECKED OUT

19NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS FOR THEM BY LONG DISTANCE

20 TELEPHONE CALL AT THEIR REQUEST BY LONG DISTANCE

21PHONE CALL AND IN AS OF AROUND JULY THE

22FIRST 1982 THEY OWED ME BILL OF APPROXIMATELY

23THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS 3000

24AND HAD ANOTHER CASE WHEREIN BUSINESSMAN

25CAME OUT OF HIS OFFICE ABOUT MIDNIGHT IN APRIL OF



1982 AND GUNMAN JUMPED OUT OF BUSH AND SHOT AT

HIM NINE TIMES HIT HIM FOUR OUT OF NINE AND HE WAS

TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL LIVED THE BUSINESSMAN HIRED

ME TO FIND OUT WHO SHOT HIM

BEGAN MY INVESTIGATION AT THAT TIME AND

DEVELOPED INFORMATION THAT WAS VERY PERTINENT TO THAT

SITUATION AND CONTACTED THE BUSINESSMAN IN ID

SAY IN JUNE GAVE HIM THE INFORMATION SUBSEQUENT TO

10 THAT LEARNED THAT THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE LOOKING FOR

11 ME AND IN FACT TWO MEN WERE STANDING SITTING

12 ACROSS FROM MY APARTMENT IN MY HOME IN WESTWOOD

13 CALIFORNIA WAITING FOR ME TO COME HOME ONE MORNING

14 AT ONE FORTYFIVE 145 IN THE MORNING

15 NOW THE REASON THIS TIES INTO THIS BLAIR

16 SITUATION DEKLA SITUATION IS THATS WHY WENT TO

17 DALLAS BECAUSE DID LEARN THROUGH MY SOURCES AND

18 INFORMANTS THAT THERE WAS IN FACT CONTRACT ON MY

19 LIFE AND MR BLAIR CAME OVER TO MEET ME IN MY

20 OFFICE ONE SATURDAY DURING THAT MEETING HE MENTIONED

21 HE DIDNT MENTION DURL4IG THAT MEETING MENTIONED

22 IN OUR DISCUSSION THAT BAD PROBLEM HE OFFERED ME

OPPORTUNITY TOHI 23 4HE TO COME DALLAS WHICH DDW AND

24 HE OFFERED ME AN OFFICE AND TELEPHONE WHICH TOOK

25 AND ACCEPT AT THAT TIME DID NOT KNOW HE WAS



CONVICTED FELON

OCCUPIED THAT OFFICE FOR ONE MONTH SEVERAL

TIMES DURING THAT ONEMONTH PERIOD HE ASKED ME TO BE

PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY DECLINED ON AUGUST THE

6TH THINK IT WAS HE ASKED ME TO BE PRESIDENT AND

ACCEPTED WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS

POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH BLAIR OR DEKIA OR THE REST OF

THEM AT THAT TIME

10 OKAY MR GUNDERSON ACCPRDING TO YOUR DECLARATION

11 YOU INTERVIEWED HELENA STOECKLEY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS

12 BETWEEN OCTOBER 24TH 1980 AND MAY 27TH 1982

13 CONCERNING HER KNOWLEDGE OF THE MACDONALD MURDERS

14 THAT RIGHT

15 OKAY SOW IF UNDERSTOPD CORRECTLY ON DIRECT YOU

16 SAID THAT THE FIRST INTERYIEW TOOK PLACE ON OCTOBER

17 24TH 1980 IS THAT RIGHT

18 OCTOBER 24TH 1980 RIGHTS FIRST SIGNED STATEMENT

19 OKAY WELL WHEN DID THE INTERVIEW THAT RESULTED IN

20 THAT SIGNED STATEMENT COMMENCE

21 THINK IT COMMENCED ON THE 23RD 22ND OR 23RD IM

22 NOT SURE

23 WELL

24 INTERPOSING WAS THERE ABOUT DAY AND HALF

25 BEFORE SHE CAME IN LATE ONE NIGHT DIDNT SPEND TOO



MUCH TIME IN THE OFFICETHAT WAS WHEN HAD MY

WESTWOOD OFFICE THE ADDRESS THAT GAVE YOU EARLIER

ANA THEN 5HE WENT WE CHECKED HER INTO MOTEL

SHE CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY AND IT WAS KIND OF

GETTING ACQUAINTED SESSION AND LATE THAT DAY WE

BEGAN TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION INTO WRITING

OKAY MR GUNDERSON LETS BACK UP SECOND WHEN

YOU SAY WE WHO WAS PRESENT

10 MR BEASLEY

11 OKAY

12 PRINCE

13 AND HOW DID HELENA STOECKLEY GET TO CALIFORNIA

14 MR BEASLEY BROUGHT HER TP CALIFORNIA

15 OKAY AND WHEN DID THEY ARRIVE

16 IM NOT SURE OF THE DATE ID HAVE TO GO AND CHECK

17 THESE DOCUMENTS DO YOU WANT ME TO CHECK THEM

18 WELL WOULD YOUR REPORT BE GOOD ENOUGH WOULD YOU

19 DISAGREE WITH ME IF SAID THAT YOUR REPORT SHOWS

20 4HAT SHE SHOWED UP ON OCTOBER 22ND 1980

21 THAT WOULD BE LATE THAT AFTERNOON EARLY EVENING

22 AND THEN THE 23RD AND THEN THE 24TH THATD BE ABOUT

23 ID SAY THAT PROBABLY REPORTSHOWS

24 THAT THEN ITS ACCURAT25 IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT ISNT ACCURATE



WHEN YOU SAY ACCURATE WHETHER ITS ACCURATE

INTERPOSING TRUE CORRECT

THAT IS OR IS NOT TRUE OR CORRECT

THATS NOT TRUE OR CORRECT

THERE PROBABLY IS SOME INFORMATION THATS NOT TRUE

AND CORRECT BECAUSE DONT MAKE AN OPINION WHEN

OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM AN INDIVIDUAL MERELY

TAKING INFORMATION DOWN AND PUTTING IT ON PAPER

10 NO IM NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE WITNESS SAYS

11 IM TALKING ABOUT INFORMATION THATS IN YOUR REPORT

12 THATS RESULT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION

13 NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE DO YOU MEAN INFORMATION

14 ATTRIBUTED TO ME AS FAR AS KNOW THERES NOTHING

15 THATS INACCURATE IN THERE ITS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE

16 THERE COULD BE AN INACCURACY SOMEPLACE YES

17 OKAY ALL RIGHT SO MR GUNDERSON OR MR

18 BEASLEY RATHER AND MS STOECKLEY ARRIVED ON THE

19 22ND WHAT WERE THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO HER

20 COMING OUT TO CALIFORNIA

21 IM NOT REAL SURE ON THAT THINK AS RECALL

22 WELL KNOW WHAT PRINCE TOLD ME BUT ALL KNOW IS

23 WHAT PRINCE CALLED AND TOLD ME SO DONT HAVE THE

24 DETAILS ON THAT MR BEASLEY WAS THE ONE WHO ARRANGED

25 TO BRING HER OUT



HED BE THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THAT TAKE

IT

WELL HE TOLD ME WHAT HAPPENED BUT

INTERPOSING WELL THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION OR

MY QUESTION IS WOULD HE BE THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY

WELL ASSUME HE WOULD BE HES THE ONE THAT TOLD

ME ABOUT IT

OKAY

10 HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF HOW HE BROUGHT HER

11 OUT THERE

12 INTERPOSING ALL RIGHT

13 HOW HE CONVINCED HER SHE SHOULD COME OUT

14 OKAY WAS MR BEASLEY PRESENT DURING ALL OF YOUR

15 INTERVIEWS OF HELENA STOECKLEY

16 HE WAS

17 WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT KR BEASLEY WAS

18 ESSENTIAL TO SECURING HELENA STOECKLEY COOPERATION

19 ID SAY ITS AN ACCURATE STATERENT

20 IS AN AC STATEMENT

21 ID SAY IT AN ACCURATE STATEMENTS

22 OKAY HES KIND OF THE KEY TO NELENA STOECKLEY OR

23 AT LEAST HE WAS WASNT HE

24 VOULD MY HEWIS YES VVE SAID THAT ALL ALONG

25 OKAY WELL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS TRUE BEFORE



THE TRIAL AS AFTER IT WOULDNT IT MR GUNDERSON

DONT KNOW WASNT AROUND BEFORE THE TRIAL

OKAY NOW IF UNDERSTOPD YOU CORRECTLY YOU SAID

THAT AFTER YOUR HAY 24TH 1982 SIGNED STATEMENT WHICH

BELIEVE IS THAT GOVERNMENTS DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT NUMBER TEN 10 YOU HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF

YOU MR GUNDERSON

JUST MINUTE AND ILL LOOK AT THEM WITNESS

10 PERUSES DOCUMENTS THERES SEVERAL ON HAY THE 24TH

11 SEVERAL

12 SEVERAL THERES AN EXHIBIT TEN 10 ELEVEN 11

13 AND TWELVE 12 ON MAY THE 24TH WHICH ONE ARE YOU

14 REFERRING TO

15 WELL WHY DONT WE START WITH TEN 10 MR

16 GUNDERSON AND TALK ABOUT THAT WOULD YOU DESCRIBE

17 IT FOR US

18 THERE WERE THERE WERE SEVERAL STATEMENTS TAKEN

19 DURING THAT MAY SESSION THERE WAS ONE TAKEN ON THE

20 2OTH ALSO BY THE WAY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT

21 AWARE OF

22 WHY IS THAT MR GUNDERSON

23 YOU WELL BECAUSE DIDNT TELL YOU ABOUT

24 FURNISHED ALL STATEMENTS UP THROUGH 1980

25 TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEN WROTE LETTER


TED GURIDERSON CROSS VOL 119

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ASKING IMMUNITY FOR MS

STOECKLEY AND THERE WASA QUESTION ABOUT THE

GOVERNMENT WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WAS SINCERE IN

PURSUING THE MATTER AND THEREFORE DID NOT FURNISH

ANY MORE INFORMATION TO YOU

WERE YOU ACTING AS HER ATTORNEY MR GUNDERSON

NO SIR THAT WAS ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL THAT DID

THAT BUT WE

10 INTERPOSING WHO WAS THE

11 CERTAINLY CONFERRED ABOUT IT

12 WHO WAS THE COUNSEL

13 IM NOT SURE IF THAT WAS MR ONEILL OR SEGAL

14 BUT CONFERRED WITH BOTH OF THEM ON FREQUENT

15 BASIS

16 SEE

17 WOULD YOU LIKE TO START WITH THE MAY 20TH OR WOULD

18 YOU LIKE TO PAUSE

19 WELL LET ME ASK YO THIS MR GUNDERSON IS IT

20 ACCURATE TO SAY THAT YOUR PRIOR INTERVIEWS WITH

21 HELENA STOECKLEY HAD TAKEN PLACE IN OCTOBER AND

22 DECEMBER OF 1980 RIGHT

23 RIGHT

24 THOSE ARE THE SOCALLED CONFESSIONS

25 WOULDNT SAY THEY WERE CONFESSION THEY WERE



STATEMENTS SAYING SHE WAS THERE AND SHE TOLD ME WHAT

OH SAW HE

INTERPOSING YOU DONT CONS

THAI UHE WAS PARTICIPATING IN THE ORIME

SO YOU WOULDNT THOSE CONFESSIONS TOCONSIDER

NELENA STOECKLEY

VER STATEMENTS BY HELENA STOECKLEY TO WHAT

HAPPENED

10 OKAY WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT THOSE WERE STATEMENTS

11 AGAINST HER PENAL INTERESTS

12 MR ONEILL OBJECTION HES NOT LAWYER

13 THAT CALLS FOR LEGAL CONCLUSION

14 THE COURT ISNT THAT TO BE DETERMINED FROM

15 THE STATEMENT ITSELF AS MATTER OF LAW

16 MR MURTAGH YES YOUR HONOR

17 MR MURTAGH OKAY WEL ANYWAY MR GUNDERSON

18 THERE HAD BEEN TWOYEAR GAP RIGHT

19 THE LAST SERIES OF STATEMENTS WERE DECEMBER 80 AND

20 THEN MAY OF 82 WAS THE NEXT SERIES OF STATEMENTS

21 OKAY NOW WHAT PRECIPITATED THIS SUBSEQUENT

22 INTERVIEW IN MAY OF 8223 HELENA STOECKLEY CALLED EITHER PRINCE OR ME IM NOT

24 SURE AND SAID THAT SHE WANTED TO TALK TO US SHE

25 VOLUN SHE CAME TO US



NOW IUNT IT FACT MR GUNDERSON THAT IN THE

INTERIM HELENA STOECKLEY HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE

7BI AND RETRACTED BE RTATEMENTS TO YOG

LOG SHE DIDNT

OHG SHE DIDNT

NO SHE DIDNT

USE HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT

WELL BECAUSE SHE TOLD ME SHE DIDNT

10 OH HAVE YOU SEEN THE STATEMENT OF HELENA STOECKLEY

11 ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIAL AGENT MADDEN IN

12 THIS CASE

13 NO HAVE NOT

14 OKAY SO YOU DONT KNOW WHETHER THATS RETRAC

15 TION OR NOT

16 WELL SHE TOLD MESHE DIDNT RESCIND HER STATEMENTS

17 SHE GAVE US SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS NOT IM

18 TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW SHE WORDED IT SHE

19 REALLY DIDNT SAY THAT SHE RETRACTED IT OR DIDNT

20 RETRACT IT

21 OKAY BUT YOU WENT TO INTERVIEW HER AGAIN

22 NODS AFFIRMATIVELY AND WHEN WE INTERVIEWED HER

23 AGAIN AUKED HER WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE IN THE

24 UEANTIME HAD RECEIVED THIS LETTER WHICH VOLUN

25 TARILY GAVE TO THE HER INTERVIEW WITH THE FBI



ON DECEMBER THE 27TH 1981 IN WHICH HELENA WB

CRITICAL OF ME PERSONALLY

IS THAT DEFENSE EXHIBIT NYMBER FOURTEEN 14THATS NUMBER FOURTEEN 14 AIR

WOULD YOU READ THAT PLEASE

READING DOCUMENT NR ZZ ALL FAIRNESS

TOANY PERSON OR PERSONS INVOLVE4 IN THE INVESTIGATION

OF THE JEFFREY MACDONALD MURDER CASE IN 1970 AT FORT

10BRAGG NORTH CAROLINA FEEL THAT IT IS MY MORAL

11OBLIGATION TO INFORM YOU THAT MY HUSBAND AND ARE IN

THE PROCESS OF IMMEDIATE RE1OCATION IT IS MY12

13OPINION THAT IN THE PRECEDING MONTH HAVE BEEN USED

14PAWN FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE AND CANT READ

15THIS ITS COPY ALSO FEEL THAT IN DECEMBER OF

161980 WAS COERCED INTO SIGNING SOCALLED

17CONFESSION AND THAT WAS EXPLOITED BY MEANS OF

18FALSE HOPES AND EMPTY PROMISES

19NEVER HAVE SEEN BIGGER MOCKERY MADE OF

20 JUSTICE OR SUCH SHAMBLE MADE OF AN INVESTIGATION

21GRANTED HAVE PAST HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE AND CULT

22INVOLVEMENT BUT IN MY OPINION DO POSSESS CLEAR AND

23SOUND MENTAL FACULTIES AND JUDGMENT AND MODERATE

24LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE AFTER BEING CANT READ

25IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN DECEIVED TIME AND TIME



AGAIN AND AFTER FINDING THAT WHAT THOUGHT WAS

SHREWDNESS AND CAUTION ONMY PART WAS BEING TAKEN BY

EVERYONE AS GULLIBILITY NO LONGER FEEL OBLIGATED

TO AID ANYONE IN THE MATTER IN THE MATTER

PERIOD

HAVE PROCURED LAWYER WHO IS GATHERING DATA

ON THE CASE SO THAT SHOULD ANYONE COME UP WITH ANY

CANT READ IT IDEA THAT SHOULD BE

10 INCARCERATED WONT BE CAUGHT UNPREPARED AGAIN

11 ALSO IF WERE YOU WOULD BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT

12THAT AFFIRMATIVE OF CHARACTER OVER SUCH LONG PERIOD

13 OF TIME IS PRETTY SERIOUS CHARGE WHEN FINALLY

14 AGREED TO COOPERATE WITH YOU FELT WAS DOING WHAT

15 WAS MORALLY RIGHT WOULD ALSO BE FEELING MYSELF

16 FREEING MYSELF FROM PRIVATE HELL SO GAVE YOU AS

17 CONCLUSIVE REVIEW OF THE EVENT OF THE NIGHT IN

18 QUESTION ST COU1D YOU IN TURN MISCONSTRUED AND

19 DISTORTED ALL STATEMENTS MADE TO YOU TO BE USED

20 ME YOUR CONVENIENCE

BE21 NO LONGER WILL CAUSED ANY FURTHER

22 EMBARRASSMENT OR HAVE UNFAVORABLE IMPLICATIONS MADE

23 ABOUT ME DUE TO THIS CASEANY AND ALLFEARU

24 HNZIETIES THAT FAOW HAVE VIII DEAL WITH MYSELF

25 TONTRARY TO UTATEMEHTS MADE BYJIIDGE DUPREE AND



COUNTLESS OTHER PEOPLE MY LIFE IS NO LONGER ONE

BIG DRUGDAZED STUPOR THAT CANNOT FACE DO NOT

TRY TO CONTACT ME OR ANYONE RELATED TO ME IN THE

FUTURE AT THE CANT READ IT THE NEXT WORD

CANT READ IS MORE INMY FAVOR YOUR CONSIDERA

TION IN THE MATTER WOULD BE APPRECIATED PLEASE MAKE

MY STAND CLEAR TO MR BEASLEY AS WELL REITERATE

SHOULD THERE BE ANY FUTURE UNDUE STRESS PLACED UPON

10 ME SHALL NOT HESITATE TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION

11 SINCERELY MRS HELENA DAVIS

12 SO AFTER GETTING THAT LETTER YOU CONTACTED HER OR

13 SHE CONTACTED YOU

14 NO SHE CON SHE WROTE ME THE LETTER AND DIDNT

15 PAY ANY ATTENTION TO IT DIDNT EVEN CONTACT HER

16 NO

17 WELL HOW DID

18 INTERPOSING SHE CALLED ME

19 OKAY AND WHAT DID SHE

20 ININ MAY OF 1982 AND SAID SHE WANTED TO

21 JLTALK TO

22 AND YOU VENT DOWN AND TALK TO HER

23 THATSRIGHT

24 FROM CALIFORNIA TO

25 INTERPOSING THATS RIGHT



CLEMSON SOUTH CAROLINA

FLEW ON AN AIRPLANE

WITH MR BEASLEY

NO

WITHOUT MR

INTERPOSING MR BEASLEY WAS ALREADY THERE

WELL BUT YOU VENT TO CLEMSON SOUTH CAROLINA WITH

MR BEASLEY

10 FLEW TO FAYETTEVILLE AND WE DROVE TO CLEMSON

11 OKAY BUT YOU WERE WITH MR BEASLEY

12 INTERPOSING DURING THE INTERVIEW

13 WITH HER IN CLEMSON

14 RIGHT

15 FINE WAS THERE AN DISCUSSION OF HYPNOSIS TAN16 TIME DURING THIS SESSION

17 SUGGESTED TO HELENA THAT SHE BE HYPNOTIZED YES AT

18 ONE TIME THINK IT MIGHT HAVE IM NOT SURE

19 EXACTLY WHEN SUGGESTED THAT WHICH SESSION

20 WAS SHE BYPNOTIRFL

21 EV RUF WAIT MINUTE SHE WASIISHE

22 SUGGESTED THAT IN DECEMBER 1980 AND SHE REFUSED

23 IM PRETTY SURE IM NOT REAL POSITIVE IM PRETTY

24 SURE SHE SAID THAT SHED HAD SOME UNFORTUNATE

25 EXPERIENCES IN HYPNOSIS AND SHE DIDNT WANT TO BE



HYPNOTIZED

UNHHUNH OKAY NOW GETTING BACK TO OCTOBER OF

1980 MR GUNDERSON YOU PROBABLY HAVE DIFFERENT

NUZNBER FOR IT BUT WONDER IF THE HANDWRITTEN

STATEMENT OF 102480 HAYE YOU GOT THAT

SHOULD HAVE IT GAVE IT IT WAS ENTERED AS

AN EXHIBIT

MR MURTAGH YOUR HONOR WONDER IF IN THE

10 INTEREST OF MOVING THINGS ALONG HAVE COPIES THAT

11HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY COUNSEL WITH MY OWN NUMBERING

12 SYSTEM OKAY

13 MR MURTAGH HAVE YOU GOT THAT MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT

14 ITS EXHIBIT FOUR

15THE ENVELOPE IS MARKED EXHIBIT FOUR ISNT IT

18 WELL THE ENVELOPE SAYS EXHIBIT FOUR

OKAY

18 TOOK IT OUT OF THAT ENVELOPE

19 ALL RIGHT SO THIS IS HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT

20 THE COURT INTERPOSING WAIT MINUTE WAIT

21 MINUTE NOW YOUD BETTER PUT EXHIBIT FOUR ON

22 THE STATEMENT ITSELF

23 MR MURTAGH THAT5 GOOD SUGGESTION YOUR

24 HONOR

25 STATEMENT MARKED BY CLERK



MR MURTAGH ANYWAY MR GUNDERSON DID

UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY ON DIRECT THAT YOU WROTE OUT

THIS STATEMENT

IDID

OKAY AND DID YOU WRITE DOWN WHAT HELENA STOECKLEY

TOLD YOU

PRECISELY

PRECISELY

10 EXACTLY

11 EXACTLY OKAY

12 WELL LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW CONDUCTED THE

13 INTERVIEW

14 YES PLEASE DO

15 TALKED TO HELENA LIKE IM TALKING TO YOU AND

16 WOULD SAY TELL ME WHAT THE SITUATION IS SHE WOULD

17 TELL ME AND THEN WOULD AS WOULD WRITE WOULD

18 SPEAK OUT LOUD AND SHE WOULD APPROVE WHICH THIS IS

19 TECHNIQUE IVE USED FOR TWENTYSEVEN 27 YEARS IN

20 THE FBI BY THE WAY

21AY 4O AYTHIR DIFFERENT IN THIS

22 INTERVIEW THAN YOU WOUL DONE IN ANY OTHER 731

NTERVIEW23

24NEVER

25 IM OTRI7



NEVER NEVER

IN THIS INTERVIEW

3N ALL THE INTERVIEWS THEY WERE ALL CONDUCT THE

SAME WAY THAT OONDUCTED MY FBI INTERVIEWS

DID YOU KEEP AN INTERVIEW LOG

NO DID NOT

DID YOU DO THAT WHEN YOU WERE IN THE FBI

NO NOT ALWAYS

10 YOU DIDNT

II NO

12 WERENT YOU REQUIRED TO DO SO

13 NOT NECESSARILY

14 ISNT STANDARD FBI PRACTKCE TO KEEP AN INTERVIEW LOG

15IT WAS AT THE END OF MY BUT NOT BEFORE THAT

16 AND SINCE IM NO LONGER AN OFFICER DIDNT FEEL

17 IT WAS NECESSARY TO KEEP AN INTERVIEW LOG

18 OKAY SO WE DONT REALLY KNOW WHAT TIME THIS

19 INTERVIEW STARTED AND WHAT TIME IT STOPPED

20 NO21 AND DONT IMAGINE YOU RECALL THAT OR DO YOU

22 NOT SURE THII THAT INTERVIEW MAY HAV BEEN

23 OIL THE LATE THE 23RD MD VENT INTO THE 24T AJ4

24 OF THE 24TH IS THAT THE FIRST INTERVIEW

25 DONT



THINK THATS THE FIRST INTERVIEW AND WE HANDLED

HE ONE INTERVIEW AND WEZ INTO TKIE NIGHT

LELIBERATELY BECAU DIDNT WANT TO MEND HER BORNE

IWASA MAYBE THAT YOU NEVER KNOW SOMETHING

ULIGHT BAPPEN SHE SIGHT GET DTBY GOING ACROSS

TEE STREET SO WANTED TO BE SURE TO GET THE

TATEMNT DOWN

WASNT MR BEASLEY WITH HER

10 YES HE WAS

11 WOULDNT HE HAVE PREVENTER HER FROM

12 INTERPOSING BE MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIT BY CAR TOO

13 WELL SUPPOSE THATS POSSIBLE

14 DIDNT WANT TO LET HER LEAVE THE OFFICE WITHOUT

15 AT LEAST HAVING ONE STATEMENT IN HAND LETS PUT IT

16 THAT WAY

17 YES CAN UNDERSTAND THAT MR GUNDERSON

18 NOW WHEN YOU STARTED THIS INTERVIEW WHAT DID

19 YOU TELL HELENA STOECKLEY WITH RESPECT TO ANY

20 EVIDENCE THRTYOU MIGHT HAVE DEVELOPEDIN YOUR

21 RINVESTIGATION

22 DIDNT TELL HER ANYTHIN9 ABOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT WE

23 EDEVELO IN TH INVESTIGATION7

24 OKAY MD YOU HAD CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION

25 BEFORE YOU INTERVIEWED HER



THATS RIGHT

IN FACT STOECKLEYS INTERVIEW WAS REALLY SORT OF THE

CAPSTONE IN YOUR INVESTIGATION WASNT IT SORT

OF THE END OF IT

NO COULDNT POSSIBLY SAY THAT NO

GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 10 12

MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION

10

11 MR MURTAGH WELL LET ME ASK YOU MR GUNDERSON

12 LET ME SHOW YOU WHATS BEEN MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION

13 AS GOVERNMENTS THINK ITS NINE TEN 1014 ELEVEN 11 AND TWELVE 12 WHICH ARE FOUR VOLUMES

15 BEARING THE STICKER TED GUNDERSON AND ASSOCIATES

16 INC INVESTIGATIVE REPORT USA VERSUS DR

17 MACDONALD AND LET ME SHOW THESE TO YOU

18 COUNSEL HANDS DOCUMENTS TO WITNESS WHO PERUSES

19 SAME VOLUME ONE RIGHT

20 ITS BEEN TORN OPEN

21 WELL WHY DONT YOU TAKE LOOK AT IT MR GUNDERSON

22 IF THERES ANYTHING IN THERE THAT YOU THINK DOESNT

23 BELONG OR ANYTHING THATS BEEN REMOVED WHY DONT

24 YOU TELL US ABOUT IT

25 THATS IMPOSSIBLE ITS ALMOST FOUR HUNDRED 400



PAGES LONG HAVENT GOT TIME TO SIT AND READ

THIS

DOES IT APPEAR TO BE YOUR REPORT SIR

IT DOES ON THE OUTSIDE APD IM SURE UNLESS

SOMETHINGS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF IT IT IS MY REPORT

OKAY

HOPEFULLY INTACT

ALL RIGHT AND

10 INTERPOSING ID HAVE TO SPEND SOME TIME TO SAY

11 FOR SURE BUT IT PROBABLY IS

12 OKAY WELL WHILE YOUVE GOT THAT IN YOUR HAND

13 MR GUNDERSON LET ME ASK YOU TO TAKE LOOK AT

14 PAGE ONE NINETYSIX 196A

15 OKAY

16 AND IS THERE HIGHLIGHTE PORTION OF THAT

17 THERE IS

18 OKAY AND WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT SAYS PLEASE

19 DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT TO YOU

20 SURE

21 INFORMATION CAME FROM MR FRED BOAT

22 ZTTEVIEWED HIM ON JANUARY 31 1980 AND WHAT MR

23 BOSTTDID ME THAT MAZEROLLE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY AT

24 TIE THE MURDERS THAT CBA BONDING COMPANY

25 HAD BONDED HIM FOR TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS 200000



WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR HIS APPREHENSION ON MARCH

25 97O AFTER HE FAILED TO APPEAR BR IT WAS

4ATO SUUTODYAN APRLLPAJ9

OR RL UNSPECIFIED OF AI4F1 COBB COUNTY ANDVA FT1D4 HERE

MARIETTA GEORGIA

OKAY SO ASK YOU HR CIUNDORSONIU TRUE

STATEMENT

10 HAVE NO IDEA IF ITS TRUE OR NOT

11 SO YOU DONT KNOW WHETHE MR Z4AZEROLLE WAS IN JAIL

12 ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS OR OUT ON BAIL

13 THATS RIGHT

14 OKAY DID YOU CHECK THE COURT RECORDS

15 NO DID NOT

16 WAS IT YOUR PRACTICE WHEN YOU WERE IN THE FBI TO

17 RELY ON NEWSPAPER REPORTERS FOR DETAILS ABOUT COURT

15 RECORDS

19 VERY HONESTLY FELT THAT HE WAS PROBABLY OUT

20 OF 4AIL AT THE TIME BUTI DID NOT BOTHER TO CHECK

21 COURT ZECORDS

22 WELL YOU ASK MR DEAULEYABOUT WHETHER MR23 MAZEROLLE WAS OUT OF JAIL BN THE NIGHT OF FEBRUARY

24 16TH

25 IT WAS MY IT WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS OUT OF


TED GUNDERBON CROSS VOL 133

JAIL BASED ON THE INFORMATION DEVELOPED DURING THE

INVESTIGATION AND WASNT SURE ABOUT WHETHER MR

BEASLEY TOLD ME THAT OR NOT

ISNT IT AFACT THATTHERES TAPE RECORDED

4NTERVIEW OF MR BEASLEY IN WHICH MR BEASLEY TELLS

YOU THAT MAZEROLLE WAS OUT OF JAIL THAT NIGHT

BELIEVE HE SAID THAT HE WAS OUT OF JAIL UNHHUNH

IN FACT DIDNT MR BEASLEY TELL YOU THAT HE HAD

10SEEN MR MAZEROLLE

HE DID THATS TRUE

12OKAY AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THATS TRUE STATEMENT

13OR NOT

14MR OTEILL YOUR HONOR ONE MOMENT MAY WE

15HAVE FOUNDATION AS TO WHERE AND WHEN THE TAPE

16RECORDED STATEMENT OCCURRED

17MR MURTAGH ITS IN MRGUNDERSONS REPORT

18MR ONEILL BUT YOU JUST

19MR MURTAGH ALL RIGHT MR GUNDERSON DID YOU

20CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW WITH MR BEASLEY

21IDID

22AND WAS IT TAPE RECORDED

23NO THINK IT WAS TYPED OUT IM NOT SURE

24ISNT IT LENGTHY TRANSCRIPT

25 DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS WHERE ITS LOCATED MY



REPORT IS THIRTEEN HUNDRED 1300 PAGES LONG

YEAH LET ME RATHER THA RUITIBLE THROUGH IT

INTERPOSING THATS THE INVESTIGATION AT THE END

OF THE YEAR 1980 BY THE WAY

WBKAY XU REFERRIAQ THINK IT WOULD BE PAGE

TWO TWENTYTHREE 223 OF VOLUME IF INTERVIEW WITH

BEASLEY ON 2180 AND IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT

PAGES TWO FIFTY 250 TWO FIFTYONE 251

10 INTERPOSING IT IS RECORDED INTERVIEW YOURE

11RIGHT

12 RIGHT

13 OKAY BECAUSE ITS IN QUPTES AND ITS QUESTION AND

14ANSWER

15 OKAY AND ISNT IT FAC THAT MR BEASLEY TOLD YOU

16THAT MAZEROLLE WAS OUT OF JAIL

17WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON DO YOU KNOW

18 LOOK AT PAGE TWO FORTYSPVEN 247 MR GUNDERSON

19TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE QUESTION

20 WHICH PRESUME STANDS IOR GUNDERSON HE WAS

21RELEASED ON BOND WHICH MEANT HE WAS OUT JAIL DURINQ

22

23 SEE IT HERE

24PFLW FOR BEAS UHE VAN OUT

25 JAIL YEU MIGHT ADD TOO IT WAS THREE WEEKS



BEFORE THE MURDERS IS THAT CORRECT

THATS WHAT HE SAYS HERE

WELL DO YOU KNOW WELLS LET ME ASK YOU DID YOU

ATTEMPT TO VERIFY WHETHER IN FACT MR MAZEROLLE

WAS IN JAIL ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS OR WHETHER

HE WAS OUT ON BAIL

LLDIDNOTATTENIPTTODOSO

OKAY ISNT IT FACT THAT HELENA STOECKLEY

10 IDENTIFIED ALLEN MAZEROLLE TO YOU ON SEVERAL

11OCCASIONS AS BEING PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE

12 SHE DID

13 AND IN FACT INFLICTING INJURIES ON DR MACDONALD

14 WITH AN ICE PICK ISNT THAT CORRECT

15 ID HAVE TO LOOK AT THE REPORT TO MAKE SURE ITS AN

16 ACCURATE STATEMENT

17 WELL LET ME GET BACK TO YOUR REPORT MR GUNDERSON

18 IS GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT TEN 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION

19 VOLUME TWO II OF YOUR REPORT COUNSEL HANDS

20 SAME TO WITNESS WHO PERUSES SAME

21 WHAT PAGE DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT

22 JUST WANT YOU TO LOOK IT AND SEE IF THATS

23 YOUR REPORT

24 OH THIS LOOKS ACCURATE

25 OKAY HOW ABOUT GOVERNMENTS ELEVEN 11 FOR



IDENTIFICATION COUNSEL HANDS SAME TO WITNESS WHO

PERUSES SAME

IT LOOKS ACCURATE

AND GOVERNMENTS TWELVE 12 FOR IDENTIFICATION

COUNSEL HANDS SAME TO WITNESS WHO PERUSES SAME

THE COURT SUPPOSE WE TAKE OUR LUNCH RECESS

AT THIS TIME AND GIVE MR GUNDERSON CHANCE TO LOOK

AT THOSE THINGS AND BE READY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

WHEN WE COME BACK AT TWO OCLOCK

11

12 LUNCH RECESS 100 20013

14 THE COURT GOOD AFTERNOON ALL DID YOU HAVE

15 FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS

16 MR MURTAGH YES YOUR HONOR DID

17 THE COURT LET HIM COME BACK THEN

18 TED GUNDERSON RECALLED TO WITNESS STAND

19 MR MURTAGH MR GUNDERSON DID YOU TALK TO ANYBODY

20 OVER THE LUNCHEON RECESS

21 IDID

22 WHO DID YOU TALK TO SIR

23 MR ONEILL

24 COUNSEL FOR DR MACDONALD

25 BEG YOUR PARDON SIR


TEC GUNDERSON CROSS VOL 137

COUNSEL FOR DR MACDONALD

YES RIGHT

DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF YOUR

TESTIMONY

IDID

WERENT YOU ON THE WITNESS STAND

IWAS

HOW LONG WERE YOU AN FBI GENT SIR

10 TWENTYSEVEN 27 YEARS

11AND DID YOU NORMALLY TALK TO COUNSEL DURING RECESSES

12INTERPOSING WELL WOUKD YOU

13WHEN YOU WERE ON THE WITNESS STAND

14LIKE TO KNOW WHAT SAID TO HIM

15YEAH TELL ME WHAT YOU SAID TO HIM

16ALL RIGHT MENTIONED THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED

17TO GIVE COMPLETE ANSWER IN TWO INSTANCES THOSE

18 BEING THE RECORD CHECK ON MAZEROLLE AND ALSO MY

19INVOLVEMENT SUBSEQUENT TO MY RETIREMENT MEAN

20 EXCUSE ME SUBSEQUENT TO MY RESIGNATION FROM DEKLA

21IN DALLAS TEXAS

22 THE COURT WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMPLETE THOSE

23 ANSWERS NOW

24THE WITNESS WOULD SIR

25 THE COURT GO RIGHT AHEAD



OKAY MR MAZEROLLE HAD NOT COMPLETED THE

INVESTIGATION IVE NEVER PROFESSED TO HAVE

COMPLETED THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MACDONALD CASE

THERE WAS LOT OF WORK THAT HAD TO BE DONE THAT

RECOMMENDED DID NOT HANDLE LOT OF THIS

MOST OF THIS WORK IN FACT THE REMAINING WORK

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE RAN OUT OF FUNDS AND

ALSO DIDNT FLY THREE THOUSAND 3000 MILES FROM

10 LOS ANGELES TO CHECK RECORDS AND IM NOT SO SURE

11 WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS IN JAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE

12 THERES POSSIBILITY HE WAS POSSIBILITY HE

13 WASNT IN JAIL THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN

14 AND AS FAR AS DEKIA IS CONCERNED RESIGNED

15 FROM THE PRESIDENCY WHEN LEARNED THAT THE DISTRICT

16 ATTORNEY IN LA AND DALLAS WERE INVESTIGATING MR

17 BLAIR IN DEKLA IMMEDIATELY WENT TO BOTH

18 AGENCIES WAS INTERVIEWED BY THEM FOR OVER THREE

19 HOURS ON TAPE TOLD THEM EVERYTHING KNEW

20 ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS

21 THEY OF COURSE KNEW WAS AN EXLAW

22 ENFORCEMENT OFF ICER ALSO WENT TO THE FBI WHEN

23 HEARD THE FBI WAS INVESTIGATING DEKLA AND MR

24 BLAIR AND ME

25 MR MURTAGH IM SORRY SIR



SAY ALSO WENT TO THE FBI WHEN LEARNED THAT THE

FBI WAS INVESTIGATING BLAIR DEKIA AND ME

INTERPOSING ANDYES AND TOLD THEM THAT WANTED TO TALK TO THEM

THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO BE INTERVIEWED TOLD

THEM INSISTED ASKED THE AGENT IN CHARGE

MR KELLY TO CALL WASHINGTQN DC AND TELL THEM

WANTED TO BE INTERVIEWED HE SAID THAT WAS UNDER

10 INVESTIGATION PERSONALLY AND WAS SUSPECT AND THE

11 INVESTIGATION WAS NOT AT STAGE WHERE THEY WOULD

12ALLOW THEMSELVES TO TALK TO ME

13INSISTED ON THE INTERVIEW ON FRIDAY

14 AFTERNOON LATE MONDAY MORNING WENT IN AND WAS

15INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI AND AFTER APPROXIMATELY

16 THIRTYFIVE OR FORTY MINUTES WALKED OUT OF THE

17 INTERVIEW BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO GIVE ME CONFIDEN

18 TIALITY WHICH BOTH THE DA IN DALLAS AND LOS ANGELES

19 DID GIVE ME

20 ASKED MR KELLY SUBSEQUENT TO THAT WHY HED

21REFUSED TO GIVE ME CONFIDENTIA LJIY HE SAID BECAUSE

22 WASNT SAID BECAUSE AFTER ALL YOU DO GIVE

23 INFORMANTS CONFIDENTIALITY WHY DIDNT YOU GIVE IT TO

24 ME NOT AN INFORMANT WE

25 MBATYARSE T1 TREATMENT RECEIVED FROM MY OLD



AGENCY

WELL LET ME ASK YOU

INTERPOSING AND WENT IN FOR THE PURPOSE OF

COOPERATING WITH THEM AND HELPING THEM ANY WAY

COULD

ARE YOU FINISHED YOUR ANSWER MR GUNDERSON

IM FINISHED

OKAY THANK YOU GETTIN9 BACK TO MR MAZEROLLE

10 DO YOU RECALL TALKING TO REPORTER BY THE NAME OF

II ROGER MERCER FOR THE FAYETTEVILLE TIMES ON

12 APPROXIMATELY THE 24TH OF FEBRUARY 1983

13 RECALL RECALL SUCH AN INTERVIEW

14 OKAY AND

15 THE COURT INTERPOSING WHAT YEAR

16 MR MURTAGH 1983 SIR

17 THE COURT 831RACR DO RECALL18 ANDMR MTH YOU THAT PRIOR TO YOUR

19 INTERVIEW BY MR MERCER THERE HAD BEEN STORY IN THE

20 FAYETTEVILLE PAPERS ABOUT THE MAZEROLLE JAIL RECORDS

21 AND WHATNOT DO YOU RECALL THAT

22 DONT RECALL READING IT BUT RECALL IT YES

23 OKAY AND LET ME ASK YOU SIR DIDYOU MR

24 THAT DONT CARE WHAT THE SUPERIOR XECS25 SHOW THERE AND THEN NOT QUOTE



APPARENTLY BASED ON THE INTERVIEW WITH YOU FORMER

FBI AGENT SAID HE HAD TWO WITNESSES WHO WOU14 SAY

AZEROLLE WAS NOT IN JAIL AT THE TIME OF THE KILLINGS

WANE BE DECLINED TO IDENTIFY THE WITNESSES HE SAID

BECAUSE THEY THEY THE FBI WILL ATTEMPT TO DIS

CREDIT THEM IF THEY KNOW THEIR IDENTITIES

DID YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT SIR

MAY HAVE DONT RECAL EXACTLY

10 WELL

11 INTERPOSING PROBABLY DID

12 PARDON ME SIR

13 PROBABLY DID DONT RECALL EXACTLY WHAT TOLD

14 HIM

15 DO YOU HAVE TWO WITNESSES WHO CAN POSITIVELY SAY THAT

16 MR MAZEROLLE WAS NOT IN JAIL AT THE TIME OF THE

17 KILLINGS

18 WAS TOLD IN TWO INSTANCES THAT HE WAS NOT IN JAIL

19 ONE OF THEM WHICH YOU BROUGHT OUT TODAY

20 LFOULD THAT BE ML AIEIY21 HR BEASLEY RIGHT

22 HES THE FIRST ISII OKAY23 RIGHT AND WAS TOLD ALSO BY MR FRED BOAT THAT HE

24 VAS NOT

25 OKAY



MR BOST HAD CHECKED THOSE RECORDS THINK IN 1980

AND DID NOT SEE THE RECORDS THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS

IN THERE THAT PLACED MAZEROLLE IN JAIL OR AT LEAST

HE TOLD ME THAT

WELL MR GUNDERAON DO YOU MVE ANY BASIS BASED ON

OUR OWN PERSONAL INVEST3 TO DISPUTE THE

RECORD THAT SHOW MAZEROLLE WAS IN JAIL

HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE HAVE NO PERSONAL

10 KNOWLEDGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THE RECORDS

11 DIDNT CHECK THE RECORDS MYSELF BUT THEY ARE PUBLIC

12 RECORDS AND IT WOULD BE YERY EASY TO INSERT SOME

13 DOCUMENTS IN THOSE RECORDS

14 DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE

15 INTERPOSING NO DONT

16 OF THAT MR GUNDERSON

17 HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF ITS MERELY POSSIBIL

18 ITY IM NOT SAYING THAT IT HAPPENED

19 OKAY WELL LET ME MOVE ALONG BIT MR GUNDERSON

20 WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENSE COMPOSITE EXHIBITS

21 DO YOU HAVE THOSE CLERK HANDS SAME TO COUNSEL

22 LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WAS INTRODUCED AT THE

23 TRIAL BY THE DEFENDANTDEFENDANTS EIGHTYNINE 8924 DRAWING OF IM WEARING HATI DEFENDANTS

25 EXHIBIT NINETY 90



INTERPOSING HAY LOOK AT THESE

SURE FELLOW WITH CRUCIFIX AROUND HIS NECK

AND DFENDANT NINETYON 191 BLACK INDIVIDUAL

YITH ZIPPERED JACKETI AND DEFENDANTS NINETYTWO

WHICH APPEARS TO BE PICTURE OF VHITE INDIVIDUAL

WITH SOME SORT OF SKIN PROBLEM AND VEARINQ IT

LOOKS LIKE HOODED SWEATSHIRT WITH ZIPPER

COUNSEL HANDS SAME TO WITNESS WHO PERUSES SAME

10DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BEFORE MR GUNDERSON

NOT THESE BUT IVE SEEN COPIES OF THESE

12OKAY WITH RESPECT TO YO REPORT SPECIFICALLY

13GOVERNMENTS TWELVE 12 FOR IDENTIFICATION WHICH

14WOULD BE VOLUME FOUR IV DO YOU HAVE COPY OF

15THAT

16 NO DONT HAVE IT

17 WELL LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU

18 DO HAVE COPY IM SORRY DO HAVE IT DID

19 BRING VOLUMES THREE AND FOUR WITH ME ALL RIGHT

20 AND SIR LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE PAGE

21 EIGHT AND THEN THE FOLLOWING PAGES UP THROUGH

EIGHTEEN 1822 SIXTEEN 16 EIGHTEEN 18SI 23 EIGHT THROUGH EIGHTEEN 18

24 YEAH MR GUNDERSON MY PURPOSE IS YOU REFER DO

25 YOU NOT TO THESE COMPOSITE DRAWINGS BY DIFFERENT



NUMBERS AND THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS USED IN THE

VARIOUS STOECKLEY STATEMENTA ARENT THEY

RIGHT

OKAY LET SEE IF WE CAN AGREE ON WHAT THOSE

NUMBERS ARE OKAY

SURE

PAGE NINE AND PAGE TEN 10 YOU REFER TO AS

COMPOSITE THIRTYNINE F3 THE WOMAN

10 INTERPOSING OKAY

11 WHICH CORRESPONDS TO EIGHTYNINE12 DOES IT NOT

13 OKAY RIGHT

14 ITS BASICALLY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME

INTERPOSING RIGHT

16 OKAY AND THEN WITH RESPPCT TO SUBJECT SUSPECT

17 NUMBER TWO COMPOSITE FORTYTHREE 43 IS THE BLACK

18 MALE19 INTERPOSING RIGHT

20 DEFENDANT NINETYONE CORRECT

21 RIGHT

22 AND WITH RESPECT TO COMPOSITE FORTYFOUR IN YOUR

23 REPORT THAT CORRESPONDS DOES IT NOT TO

24 WITNESS HOLDS UP COMPOSITE

25 YES MR NINETYTWO 92 OKAY DEFENDANTS



NINETYTWO 92 AND THEN COMPOSITE FORTYSIX 46

YOURE HANDING ME DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT NINETY 90EIGHT

OKAY NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE 24TH OF OCTOBER

1980

INTERPOSING OKAY

BELIEVE YOU IDENTIFIED EARLIER DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT NWNBER FOUR IS THAT CORRECT THE

10 HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT

WELL WHATEVER THE EXHIBIT IS THERE WERE TWO

12STATEMENTS ON OCTOBER 24TH

13 YEAH ONE IS HANDWRITTEN AND ONE IS TYPEWRITTEN

14 RIGHT ONES FOURTEEN 14 AND ONES FIFTEEN 15

15 PAGES LONG

16 OKAY WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS FOUR THE

17 HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT LET ME ASK YOU IS THAT THE

18 ONE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER

19IN REGARD TO WHAT SIR

20 WELL DID YOU IDENTIFY THAT AS STATEMENT THAT IN

21 EFFECT HELENA STOECKLEY DICTATED TO YOU AND YOU

22 WROTE IT OUT AND SHE SIGNED IT

23 RIGHT BASICALLY

24 ALL RIGHT AND WHAT NAME DID SHE USE TO SIGN IT

25 HELENA STOECKLEY AND HELENA DAVIS EXCUSE ME IM



SORRY HELENA FOSTER AKA HELENA STOECKLEY HELENA

DAVIS

1111 WHO WAS HELENA FOSTER

IT WAS AN ALIAS THAT SHE JASED

OKAY IS THERE ANY PARTKCULAR REASON WHY SHE SIGNED

IT WITH AN ALIAS

NOT THAT KNOW OF

DID SHE10 INTERPOSING SHE USED 4IAT NAME ON OCCASION

11 DID SHE REFUSE TO SIGN IT HELENA STOECKLEY

12 NO SHE IT FACT REALLY DIDNTJUST SGNED IN

13 PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO IT KNOW THAT SAW HER

14 SIGN IT THAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME DIDNT

15 INTERPOSING WELL DOESPT THE STATEMENT START OUT

16 HELENA FOSTER

17 YEAH IT DOES UNHHUNH

18 DIDNT THAT CATCH YOUR ATTENTION AT THAT TIME

19 IT DID AS RECALL IT DID

20 DID YOU ASK HER WHO HELENA FOSTER WAS

21 KNEW BEFORE THAT WHO SHP WAS

22 OH SEE

23 KNOW THAT SHE USED THAT NAME ON OCCASION

24 BUT THATS NOT HER REAL IS IT ITS NOT HER

25 MARRIED NAME



NO ITS ITS AN ALIAS THAT SHE USED

OKAY NOW MR GUNDERSON BEFORE THIS STATEMENT WAS

OBTAINED ON THE 24TH OF OCTOBER YOU HAD BEEN

INTERVIEWING HER CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG OFF

AND ON FROM THE EVENING OF THE 22ND OF OCTOBER UNTIL

THE 24TH RIGHT

YES WELL SHE ARRIVED LATE WHATEVER THE IF THE

22ND WAS ACCURATE IM NOT POSITIVE ABOUT THAT

10 WELL ITS IN YOUR REPORT

IF ITS IN MY REPORT THEN IT WOULD BE ACCURATE

12 LIKE THE MAZEROLLE RECORDS

13 BEG YOUR PARDON SIR

14 LIKE THE MAZEROLLE RECORDS

WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MAZEROLLE RECORDS

16 WELL YOUR REPORT REFLECTS THAT

17 THE COURT INTERPOSING SUSTAIN THE

IA OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE

19 MR MURTAGH YOUR HONOR EXCUSE ME MR GUNDERSON

20 WITH RESPECT TO THE 24TH OF OCTOBER WHAT TIME DID

21 PH SIGN THIS STATEMENT

22 DONT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT TIME SHE SIGNED

23 STATEMENTS SHE IF THE REPORT SAYS SHE CAME IN THE

24 22ND IT WAS LATE THE 22ND THAT THEY CAME IN WE

25 REALLY DIDNT DISCUSS MUCH THAT NIGHT MAINLY JUST



TO GET ACQUAINTED THE 23RD THINK SHE GOT UP

LATE THE 23RD BUT IM NOT SURE IN FACT KNOW

SHE GOT UP LATE SHE WANTED TO SLEEP IN FOR BORNE

REASON TIRED GUESS AND SHE CAME OVER TO THE

OFFICE AND WE REALLY DIDNT DISCUSS TOO MUCH IT

WAS KIND OF GETTING ACQUAINTED SESSION BECAUSE ID

NEVER MET HER BEFORE ALTHOUGH ID TALKED TO HER ON

THE PHONE IN JANUARY OF 1980

AND SO WE JUST KIND OF SHE GOT

II ACQUAINTED WITH ME AND 9OT ACQUAINTED WITH HER

12 ONCE WE STARTED TALKING LITTLE BIT WE REALLY

13 DIDNT GET INTO THIS UNTIL PROBABLY LATE THE 23RD

14 IM NOT REAL POSITIVE AND INTO THE 24TH YEAH

15 OKAY NOW MR GUNDERSON DID YOU TELL HELENA

16 STOECKLEY AT ANY TIME THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

17 HAD RUN IN THIS CASE

18 DID ON ON THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

19 ALSO TOLD HER THAT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDINGIM

20 NOT LAWYER BUT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THEY HAD

21 RUN AND HAD BEEN TOLD THAT BY MR SEGAL

22 YEAH WELL WHETHER THATS ACCURATE OR NOT YOU

23 ASAMATTEROFLAW

24 INTERPOSING YEAH DID TELL HER

25 YOU TOLD HER THAT



SURE DID

OKAY

ON THE FEDERAL BUT DIDNT ON THE LOCAL

TOLD HER THAT THERE WAS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

LOCALLY FOR CONSPIRACY OFF THE BASE WAS VERY

HONEST WITH HER

SIR

WAS VERY HONEST WITH HER

10 YES

11 CALLED IT JUST LIKE IT AS

12 MR GUNDERSON DO YOU RECALL BEING INTERVIEWED BY

13 REPORTER FOR THE LOS ANGELES HERALD EXAMINER ON

14 APRIL 1ST 1982

15 CAN YOU GIVE ME HIS NAME

16 JANET KAY STAFF REPORTER

17 CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT SAID18 INTERPOSING YES SURE CAN

19 OR WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID

20

21 GOVERNMENTS EXHIBIT 13

22 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION

23

24 LET ME SHOW YOU GOVERNMENTS THIRTEEN 13 FOR

25 IDENTIFICATION WHICH APPEARS TO BE QUESTION AND



ANSWER THING AND IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE

HIGHLIGHTED PORTION COUNSEL HANDS SAME TO WITNESS

WHO PERUSES SAME

PROBABLY MADE THAT STATEMENT

OKAY SO THE STATEMENT YOURE REFERRING TO THEN

MR GUNDERSON IS

QUESTION HOW DID YOU GET THE STATEMENT FROM HER

REFERRING TO STOECKJEY

10ANSWER THROUGH INVEUTI WORK

11 QUESTION AND SHE GAVE IT TO YOU WILLINGLY

12ANSWER SURE SHE DID QUITE FRANKLY WE LET HER

13THINK THERE WAS AN INFORMANT ON THE INSIDE WHO

14 ALREADY IMPLICATED HER WE COMMUNICATED TO HER

15THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY ELSE TALKING AND WE THOUGHT

16 IT WOULD BE GOOD IDEA IF SHE GAVE US HER SIDE OF

17 IT WE DIDNT HAVE ANYBODY TALKING IT WAS JUST

18 INVESTIGATIVE WORK TRICKERY HAVE YOU EVER HEARD

19 THE EXPRESSION OLD AGE AND TRICKERY WILL OVERCOME

20 YOUTH AND SKILL

21 YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT

22 YEAH THAT WAS IN MADE THAT STATEMENT

23 REMEMBER MAKING THAT STATEMENT WAS TRYING TO BE

24 FUNNY OBVIOUSLY IT WASNT VERY FUNNY NOW

25 SENSE OF HUMOR ON THE TRICKERY BIT AS FAR AS THE


case 3:75-cr-00026-f document 136-5 filed 04/17/2006 page ... · 4/17/2006 · ted gunderson cross...

Documents