Affidavits, Declarations and Statements

February 14, 1991

United States District Court
Eastern District of North Carolina

Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton

Scans of original transcript
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 1 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 1 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 2 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 2 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 3 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 3 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 4 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 4 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 5 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 5 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 6 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 6 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 7 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 7 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 8 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 8 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 9 of 9
Feb. 14, 1991: Affidavit of Raymond Madden, Jr. (FBI) re: John Thornton, p. 9 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

NO. 75-26-CR-3
NO. 90-104-CIV-3-D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
:
v. : AFFIDAVIT OF
: RAYMOND MADDEN, JR.
JEFFREY R. MACDONALD :
Raymond Madden, Jr. being duly sworn, does depose and say that:
1.  I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (herafter FBI) assigned to the Raleigh Resident Agency, Charlotte Division, and as such I am currently assigned as the FBI case agent in the above-captioned matter.
2.  I had no previous direct involvement in this case until August 1980, following Jeffrey MacDonald's August 1979 convictions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
3.  On December 6, 1990, Dr. John I. Thornton was contacted and advised of the identity of the interviewing agent as well as the identity of Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Eric Evenson, Eastern District of North Carolina (EDNC), Raleigh, North Carolina, who was present during the interview at Dr. Thornton's residence in Napa, California.  Prior to the interview taking place, Dr. Thornton related he had received a copy of a letter from attorney Harvey A. Silverglate, the current defense attorney representing Jeffrey R. MacDonald, informing him that the FBI may attempt to interview him and Silverglate's objections to such an interview.  Dr. Thornton volunteered that he personally had absolutely no problems with an interview and that in his mind he was in no way possible violating an attorney-client privilege in talking about the MacDonald case.  He was informed that he was welcome to contact Silverglate or anyone prior to the interview being conducted and stated that he did not think it was necessary and advised as follows:
4.  He has a doctorate degree in Forensic Sciences from the University of California at Berkeley in 1974.  He has worked in crime laboratories and taught forensic sciences since 1963. He worked as a full-service laboratory examiner from 1963 through 1972 in Contra Costa, California, and performed all types of forensic examinations with the exception of blood studies. Dr. Thornton advised he believes his specialty in forensic science would be as a "trace expert."
5.  He first became involved in the MacDonald case in 1976 when he was retained by the defense attorney, Bernard Segal.  His association with the case lasted from 1976 through approximately 1981.  Dr. Thornton was hired to evaluate the physical aspects of the case against Dr. MacDonald, the total review of forensic evidence rather than just the evidence gathered by the government.  He was retained to conduct a "De Novo" examination, a fresh examination. During the period from 1976 to shortly before the trial, he did very little as a forensic scientist for the defense team.  During this time frame, he was reviewing crime scene photographs, laboratory reports of the FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), and the United States Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID).
6.  At the present time he is not retained by anyone representing Dr. MacDonald or the defense team representing Dr. MacDonald.  The last time he considered himself retained or associated with the case was when Attorney Brian O'Neill of Santa Monica, California, in approximately 1983 requested his assistance at which time his function was to assist O'Neill and Dr. Richard Fox, Ventura, California, who was the new principal physical evidence advisor, to review Thornton's previous examinations and scientific findings.  Dr. Thornton noted that over the years he had collected reports, photographs, etc. and that he had withdrawn from the case but consented to talk with Dr. Fox to familiarize Dr. Fox with Dr. Thornton's findings concerning forensic evidence.  Dr. Thornton recalled he attended one meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1983 with Dr. Fox, O'Neill, Attorney Wade Smith, and Ray Shedlick, a private investigator whose daughter assisted him with the case.
7.  Other than the above, he has had limited association with the case since 1983 with the exception of being a recipient of Dr. MacDonald's newsletter, which he receives on an irregular basis.  Occasionally, he receives a telephone call from Donna Bruce, a MacDonald supporter who is apparently closely associated with MacDonald's defense effort.  He has not been personally acquainted with or contacted by MacDonald's current defense attorneys, in-cluding Harvey Silverglate, except for the filing of an affidavit which he was requested to do by Phillip Cormier, an associate with Silverglate's law firm.  He reaffirmed that within the last week he received a letter from Cormier concerning possible contact by the FBI.  Again, he personally had no objections whatsoever of being interviewed by the FBI as he was not privy to defense strategy past or present, but if a difficult area came up during the interview he may decline to answer certain questions and would definitely say so.  At this time it was again pointed out to Dr. Thornton that he was certainly welcome to contact Mr. Silverglate, Mr. Cormier or in fact anyone prior to the interview continuing, at which time Dr. Thornton volunteered that if he had any difficulty answering any questions because of a possible pro-fessional conflict, either client/privilege or any other reason, he would definitely voice his objections.
8.  In 1979 prior to MacDonald's trial, he was aware of the scope of the investigation conducted by the government and wanted to examine the physical evidence in connection with the case.  He was well aware that the evidence was voluminous.
9.  The defense team in 1979 thought the case would go to trial and end with MacDonald being acquitted.  Dr. Thornton related this was also his opinion even though he knew a thorough examination of the evidence would take a long time.  The defense decided to go to trial and it was evident from the outset that Attorneys Segal and Murtagh had difficulty getting along as they differed greatly on most legal issues of the case.  It was Dr. Thornton's opinion and recollection that the presiding Federal Judge, Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., "ordered" certain physical evidence to be released for examination by Dr. Thornton.  Dr. Thornton recalled Mr. Murtagh objected to the release of evidence to Dr. Thornton in order that it could be shipped to California for proper examination.  Eventually Judge Dupree ruled that the defense, particularly Dr. Thornton, could examine the physical evidence at the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NCSBI) laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina.
10.  Dr. Thornton advised this was the first occasion that he had access to the physical evidence in the case and he recalled he was permitted access to a United States Marshal's cell in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the evidence was kept.  This was approximately three months prior to t