Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[caphill]

Originally posted by audpaud


What has happened in YOUR life that enables you to imagine that Baby Kristen could put up a better defensive battle than her Green Beret Psycho-Daddy? Not to mention Poor Colette and her two broken arms?

I've never been able to get my imagination expanded enough to wrap around MacMonster LIE #1: "ACID IS GROOOOVY . . . KILL THE PIGS!!!" :rolleyes:

:cool:

You just reminded me of the jargon of the times used in Chief Hodges statements on LKL. I had some friends watching the LKL with me. They haven't followed this case, except with passing interest.

They were hooping with laughter at Chief Hodges answer on why he still believed Mac was the killer. He said 1000s of hippies were looked at and if any of the hippies had done this they would have helped solved this murder. After all the CID put "Help the Fuzz" posters all around Ft. Bragg.

Right on, right on, Chief. Put up a poster and expect nice peaceful but murdering hippies to come forth to help out the "Fuzz". Expecting the hippies to rat out any of their drug dealing acid head friends to the Fuzz was about the extent of the investigation.

We also got a big hoot when he said he was the second lead investigator(something to that effect) to arrive at the scene. When he arrived he did not see any evidence there had been any intruders there earlier. What did he expect to see? Calling cards left by the intruders? Roach clippers dropped around the house? Tie dyed head bands left behind?

He sees 3 dead bodies with blood everywhere. There is the bloodly bedding pulled off the bed. There are crooked lamp shades, over turned table with scattered flower pots, four murder weapons,wet grass tracked down the hall to the living room and he makes an instant decision that is not evidence of anyone being there other than the family.

My friends and I were laughing because we had the impression this Bubba with his toy collection of cars on the shelf behind him had made up mind 36 yrs ago and nothing about any danged DNA or anything else was going to his change his mind. We were betting he secretly thinks the world is still flat and Darwin was really a monkey.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
They were hooping with laughter at Chief Hodges...Hey, Bertie, ooops, I mean Cappy...what is this, the 8,156th entry in your list of everyone who you think was inept in the case?There is the bloodly bedding pulled off the bed.So that tells you instantly there were six or more "intruders" in the house?? Whoa. Quite a conclusionary jump there, isn't it?There are crooked lamp shades...sattered flower pots,What "shades"? I thought only one, in the MB, was slightly askew. What "pots"? The only one we've ever heard about was a plastic pot in the living room, which a medic set upright....wet grass tracked down the hall to the living room...Didn't the first investigators see no wet grass or mud at all? Wasn't it testified to that bits of wet grass were left by medics/mps?

Obviously Hodges and others had it 100% right, and what they thought when they first saw the apartment turned out to be correct. So much for your contentions about the lack of Hodges' investigative abilities.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
US Marshall Britt's allegations of witnessing intimidation opened up the case for review of the evidence in its totality....WD - When reading Caphill's posts (he also posts as Bert Tansill, BTW), keep in mind that this is the same poster who claimed several weeks ago that MacD had been granted a new trial. LOL!

Cappy/Bertie is also the same person who rambled on and on, trying to look very impressive in talking about Glisson's lab note R-11, but actually as we ended up seeing, he not only didn't know what her note really said in regards to the phrase "not reported by me," but he thought #7 and #8 both came from Kimberly and also that they both came from Kristen! And this is only the tip of the iceberg. If I were you, I'd take his posts with more than a grain of salt.[Stoeckley's] admission...Come on, Cappy, don't leave it at that, tell WD the whole truth about Stoeckley. Why did you leave out the fact that she said she saw MacD himself committing the murders? Why didn't you tell WD about her candle which dripped blood and not wax? Why didn't you talk about Beasley and Gunderson and what the courts found about their deliberate alteration of the Stoeckley tapes? What's the matter, Cappy, are you afraid of the truth?...she frequently worn a long blond wig and a long blond wig strands were found at the scene...Why didn't you tell WD that several people who knew Stoeckley also said they never saw her wear a wig, and that none of those synthetic fibers -- which were different from one another in composition, by the way -- were ever described by Glisson as having come from a wig?The totality of her signed confessions of being there, the possible evidence of her intimidation as witness and the evidence of long blond hairs is very circumstantial evidence that is consistant with MacDonald third party theory of intruders, one whose description matched Stoeckely.Sorry, but not a single juror nor any appeals court agreed with you. The evidence against Mac was overwhelming, and he himself has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these horrible crimes. By contrast, not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced in all these years to support Mac's silly stories of "intruders," and now with the DNA results in, we know that the DNA of the people Mac claimed were there was not found in any exhibit. I know it's difficult for you to accept fact (as we've seen so often in your posts), but I'm afraid you're going to have to come to grips with it sooner or later: There were no "intruders" at all, Cappy, and Mac himself is guilty of the horrendous and brutal murders of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
How many hairs were actually tested? How many of those showed no results at all? How many of the ones tested were inconclusive?How many of those showed any match to Stoeckley or Mitchell?

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill


You just reminded me of the jargon of the times used in Chief Hodges statements on LKL. I had some friends watching the LKL with me. They haven't followed this case, except with passing interest.

They were hooping with laughter at Chief Hodges answer on why he still believed Mac was the killer. He said 1000s of hippies were looked at and if any of the hippies had done this they would have helped solved this murder. After all the CID put "Help the Fuzz" posters all around Ft. Bragg.

Right on, right on, Chief. Put up a poster and expect nice peaceful but murdering hippies to come forth to help out the "Fuzz". Expecting the hippies to rat out any of their drug dealing acid head friends to the Fuzz was about the extent of the investigation.

We also got a big hoot when he said he was the second lead investigator(something to that effect) to arrive at the scene. When he arrived he did not see any evidence there had been any intruders there earlier. What did he expect to see? Calling cards left by the intruders? Roach clippers dropped around the house? Tie dyed head bands left behind?

He sees 3 dead bodies with blood everywhere. There is the bloodly bedding pulled off the bed. There are crooked lamp shades, over turned table with scattered flower pots, four murder weapons,wet grass tracked down the hall to the living room and he makes an instant decision that is not evidence of anyone being there other than the family.

My friends and I were laughing because we had the impression this Bubba with his toy collection of cars on the shelf behind him had made up mind 36 yrs ago and nothing about any danged DNA or anything else was going to his change his mind. We were betting he secretly thinks the world is still flat and Darwin was really a monkey.

I don't know about monkeys, but you and your friends? were certainly *****es if you laughed at Hodges. He was one of only three credible guests on LKL, the other two being the lady judge and Bob Stevenson.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
. . . I had some friends watching the LKL with me. They haven't followed this case, except with passing interest . . .

They were hooping with laughter . . .

We also got a big hoot . . .

My friends and I were laughing . . .

WOW! Was it like a Larry King Super Bowl Party? A Larry King Oscar Party? Did you serve hor d'eurves? Wear costumes?

Using my imagination here . . . I can just visualize you and your "friends" . . . decked out in floppy hats . . . wearing tan. brown, purple, wet, not wet go-go boots . . . munching down on some tasty "PIGS" In A Blanket . . . instead of biscuits, the wiener could be wrapped in Bean Sprouts for that "Wig Hair" look??!!???:tongue:

[caphill]

Originally posted by margiej


I don't know about monkeys, but you and your friends? were certainly *****es if you laughed at Hodges. He was one of only three credible guests on LKL, the other two being the lady judge and Bob Stevenson.


The lady judge was retired Judge Leslie Crocker Synder, a most distinguished, much awarded and highly respected woman. Her comments were dispassionate and professional.

If you listened to what she said, she mentioned the defense was eloquent in their presentation of the defense of their client. She noted the lack of any professonal representation of the Governments side of the discussion. It was a one side show but the Government did not respond with anyone to represent their views.

She nicely dismissed Stevenson as having an emotional and personal role only. She nicely dismissed Hodges as being involved in the case. Since Hodges was a part of the investigation that is has always been at question, he nothing to offer to the discussion of the the DNA and possibility of a retrial. His comments were self serving in his defense of the initial investigation. The show was about the new developments in the case and not about the defense of the CID tired old investigation.

Without question Mrs. MacDonald, Barry Scheck, Mr. Segal are self serving in the fact they represent Dr. MacDonald in his quest for a new trial and that was what the show was about. There has been continuing interest in the case since day one and a large audience tuned in to hear about the latest on the case, the DNA results, the Britt evidence and the expected effects this has on a new trial.

The viewing audience was not interested in hearing a rehash of the minute details of a trial. That is why Larry King tried to stop Stevenson from a emotional personal attack on Mrs. MacDonald and a rehash of lab exhibits and trial testimony from 30 years ago. Mr Stevenson let Larry know what he wanted to talk about and Mr King let Mr. Stevenson know it was still his show and he was still running his show. Larry showed he was annoyed that Mr. Stevenson wanted to use his time as a platform to vent his hatred towards Mrs. MacDonald. That wasn't the purpose of the show and wasn't what the viewing audience wanted to hear.

Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, forensic scientist and Judge Synder have no dog in this race. Both voiced very strong opinions that any and all evidence should be tested in the name of justice. This such be the right of all defendants.

Judge Synder found the fact the prosecution argued against any or all of the evidence being tested as incomprehensible. She believed as did Dr. Kobilinsky testing all evidence and a retrial to have it and the suppressed evidence heard.

If the prosecution has such a strong case and their evidence is so strong to show the guilt of the defendant, why are they so scared of DNA testing on all the evidence and why did they hid any part of the forensics found at the crime scene. Put all the evidence on the table and let the chips fall where they may.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
WD - When reading Caphill's posts (he also posts as Bert Tansill, BTW), keep in mind that this is the same poster who claimed several weeks ago that MacD had been granted a new trial. LOL!

Cappy/Bertie is also the same person who rambled on and on, trying to look very impressive in talking about Glisson's lab note R-11, but actually as we ended up seeing, he not only didn't know what her note really said in regards to the phrase "not reported by me," but he thought #7 and #8 both came from Kimberly and also that they both came from Kristen! And this is only the tip of the iceberg. If I were you, I'd take his posts with more than a grain of salt.Come on, Cappy, don't leave it at that, tell WD the whole truth about Stoeckley. Why did you leave out the fact that she said she saw MacD himself committing the murders? Why didn't you tell WD about her candle which dripped blood and not wax? Why didn't you talk about Beasley and Gunderson and what the courts found about their deliberate alteration of the Stoeckley tapes? What's the matter, Cappy, are you afraid of the truth?Why didn't you tell WD that several people who knew Stoeckley also said they never saw her wear a wig, and that none of those synthetic fibers -- which were different from one another in composition, by the way -- were ever described by Glisson as having come from a wig?Sorry, but not a single juror nor any appeals court agreed with you. The evidence against Mac was overwhelming, and he himself has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these horrible crimes. By contrast, not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced in all these years to support Mac's silly stories of "intruders," and now with the DNA results in, we know that the DNA of the people Mac claimed were there was not found in any exhibit. I know it's difficult for you to accept fact (as we've seen so often in your posts), but I'm afraid you're going to have to come to grips with it sooner or later: There were no "intruders" at all, Cappy, and Mac himself is guilty of the horrendous and brutal murders of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

Do you have anything to offer other personal attacks on others that post here that don't share your opinions. Your bold statement have no basics of fact and are your opinions, interpretations and erroneous assumptions.

Your assumptions of who think I am are of no consequence to me. You are just as wrong in that assumption as you are in many other statements you make. Maybe the "fire brigade" enjoys your Jerry Springer style and mentality of personal attacks but that audience is very small and tunnel visioned.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Your bold statement have no basics of fact and are your opinions, interpretations and erroneous assumptions.Sorry, Cappy, but it's not my "opinion" that you thought Glisson's #7 and #8 both came from Kristen but also thought they both came from Kim. It's a fact that you did think that, because you wrote it yourself. It's not my "opinion" or an "interpretation" that you told everyone weeks and weeks ago that MacDonald had been granted a new trial; it's in your post. It's not my "opinion" or an "assumption" that the DNA shows that a hair Mac always claimed came from Colette's murderer actually was Mac's own, and it's not my "opinion" or "assumption" that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA was found in any exibit. It's a fact.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Bunny2
How many of those showed any match to Stoeckley or Mitchell?


:seeya: Ooh, ooh, ooh...I can answer this one. None!

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
She nicely dismissed Stevenson as having an emotional and personal role only.I bet she'd be surprised to learn she was wrong, and that Stevenson and his wife both had statements to give the CID YEARS AGO about Mac. Maybe you ought to let her know.She nicely dismissed Hodges...Poor Cappy. You just can't stop blaming the world for Mac's mistakes, can you. You've never mentioned Hodges before in any post until recently, because you had no clue at all who he was or what his role in the case was. But the second you realize he's against Mac, wham! You put a black hat on him and call him one of the bad guys. How transparent.The viewing audience was not interested in hearing a rehash of the minute details of a trial. That is why Larry King tried to stop Stevenson from a emotional personal attack on Mrs. MacDonald...Actually, many people seem to think LK has the "hots" for Kathryn, which is why when McGinniss was invited and agreed to be on the show and Kathryn threw a hissy fit and said he must NOT appear, LK bowed to her wishes and wouldn't let McGinniss appear. What does that say about Kathryn (not to mention LK)? What is she so afraid of? And if the murderer she married is innocent, why does she have to lie so much?Both voiced very strong opinions that any and all evidence should be tested in the name of justice.Sans the Britt issue, Mac's case is entirely res judica; and the DNA exhibits he chose were tested and didn't support his stories, in fact they pointed ever more conclusively to him himself as the murderer (which we all knew already anyway).
Put all the evidence on the table and let the chips fall where they may.Didn't you know that was done already? If Mac wants more DNA testing, let him go for it. But at this point, knowing how very damaging the current results were to him, somehow I can't see Mac asking for any more DNA testing anytime soon. Then again, come to think of it, he could always work the same old game he worked the first time, asking for more testing and then delaying it interminably in order to keep that $ flowing in...anyone up for another 7-year wait for another set of tests? :)

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

I honestly think Bunny needs a course in logic when she suggests that if evidence points to the Stoeckley group then Dr MacDonald must still be involved. That suggestion is just plain illogical, and utterly ridiculous.
bunny is merely reporting what judge fox stated. there were many items of evidence presented at the trial in which macdoneit was convicted; 3 unsourced hairs do not in any way undermine a single one of those items. and anyway, none of the evidence does point to helena & co. so it's a moot point.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

They were hooping with laughter at Chief Hodges answer on why he still believed Mac was the killer. He said 1000s of hippies were looked at and if any of the hippies had done this they would have helped solved this murder. After all the CID put "Help the Fuzz" posters all around Ft. Bragg.

Right on, right on, Chief. Put up a poster and expect nice peaceful but murdering hippies to come forth to help out the "Fuzz". Expecting the hippies to rat out any of their drug dealing acid head friends to the Fuzz was about the extent of the investigation.
i don't know about you, but i wasn't even alive when this crime happened and even i know that the whole "hippie" thing was about peace and love. and, sherlock, helena ratted out her drug dealing acid head friends to the fuzz all the time (including mazerolle).

We also got a big hoot when he said he was the second lead investigator(something to that effect) to arrive at the scene. When he arrived he did not see any evidence there had been any intruders there earlier. What did he expect to see? Calling cards left by the intruders? Roach clippers dropped around the house? Tie dyed head bands left behind?

actually larry said he was the second investigator on the scene; he did not say it himself.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

In this case, if the totality of the all evidence shows intruders were in the house that night that goes to MacDonald's claims to a a third party theory.

unfortunately for murdermac, the totality of all the evidence shows that he did it. all by him wittle self.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bunny2
[B]Actually, many people seem to think LK has the "hots" for Kathryn, which is why when McGinniss was invited and agreed to be on the show and Kathryn threw a hissy fit and said he must NOT appear, LK bowed to her wishes and wouldn't let McGinniss appear

Certainly possible. He generally fawns over female guests.

But, certainly no one here is mistaking Larry King for a
serious journalist. I watch the show when his guests
are interesting, because for some mysterious reason he
does often get interesting guests, but it's always abundantly
clear to me he has no knowledge of the subject he's talking
about. Last night was supposed to be about the new strikes
in Iraq and I couldn't even watch, his questions were so painfully
out of left field. I'm assuming he's aware we've been at war
for 3 years now, but I wouldn't wager any money on it.

I thought the inmates wife was laughable. I'd never really seen
an interview with her before, but she came across as the
stereotypical dumb bonde (and, as a blonde mysef, I mean no
offense). She stuttered, stammered and generally sounded
as nuts as I would expect someone to be who chooses to
marry a man who butchered his first wife and two innocent
children.

The same night they covered the case on Nancy Grace, and
of course, there was no sympathy there whatsoever for the
killer and no spinning of the evidence. As Nancy said, it
proved that the killers hair was in Collete's hand, as the
killer has been saying for so long.

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill



The viewing audience was not interested in hearing a rehash of the minute details of a trial.

I am a member of the viewing audience and very much wanted to hear what Bob Stevenson had to say about the evidence of 36 yrs. ago. I DID NOT want to hear that nattering KM with her stuttering, stammering, yammering lies.

[audpaud]

Do you think macdonald EVER feels remorse for his crimes???

And if he can't actually FEEL remorse---does anyone know if he's ever come close to confessing to anyone some type of complicity in The Slaughter Of His Family?

Or do you think he just gloats that he is still able to fool some folks?

In comparison to OJ Simpson: (who I think would have murdered his two kids had they interrupted his crime!) OJ's reported "confession" to "Minister" Rosie Grier indicates some level of remorse--granted, I think, the remorse was self serving/self pity for the situation OJ found himself in . . . but still a level of remorse.

[spurs01]

Originally posted by audpaud
Do you think macdonald EVER feels remorse for his crimes???

And if he can't actually FEEL remorse---does anyone know if he's ever come close to confessing to anyone some type of complicity in The Slaughter Of His Family?

Or do you think he just gloats that he is still able to fool some folks?

In comparison to OJ Simpson: (who I think would have murdered his two kids had they interrupted his crime!) OJ's reported "confession" to "Minister" Rosie Grier indicates some level of remorse--granted, I think, the remorse was self serving/self pity for the situation OJ found himself in . . . but still a level of remorse.

NO.

I actually wonder if he's now believing his hippie intruder story. You know how some people can be, particularly if they're mentally ill or have a mental defect of some sort. They will repeat the same thing over and over and over, until, finally, they convince themselves (and sometimes others) that it's the actual truth.

I am starting to re-read Fatal Vision again (my sister found a copy of it at a bookstore a couple weeks ago -- last copy available there). I also ordered the VHS (couldn't find the DVD) of the miniseries. I want to see that again, for some reason.

Again, as to remorse? No, I don't think he feels remorse. I think he's probably convinced himself that he really didn't do it.

Sick, sick, sick.

[Bunny2]

No, Mac doesn't feel remorse for his victims; his only real "remorse" is that he got caught and convicted.

I think it was said somewhere in his psychological/psychiatric reports and/or testimony that he was the type of person who, if he truly felt what we might call a "normal grief," would never let anyone see him cry or weep. That would show a weakness, something Mac wouldn't have wanted. He may also have thought of weeping/crying as being a "feminine" thing to do, and of course that touches somewhat on the "latent homosexual" aspect of his personality: I think he was afraid of his feelings towards other men, leading to his always wanting and needing to show how super-macho he was (and how many women he could bed).

Super-machos don't cry. And yet there he is, time after time throughout the testimonies, statements and interviews, choking up, weeping and crying outright. Overcome with grief? I don't think so. "Put-on" is what I think. Prior to the murders, I'll bet the people who ever saw him weep or cry were few to none. Post-murders, he didn't really want to weep or cry in front of a jury or an interviewer, but when he realized it would make him look better, he had no problem puttin' on the tears.

His anger has always been directed at the investigators, the lab technicians, the prosecutors, the Kassabs (in fact just about any witness who said or did anything against him) and countless other people; never the "intruders." (Not surprisingly, this is the same mantra repeated by most Mac supporters.)

And while it would be easy to think that he's been telling the same lies for so long that he actually believes them now, I don't think that's the case. His own repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt over the years -- changing his stories so they'd match the evidence as he learned of it, lying outright, etc. -- show me that he knows now and has always known that he was the murderer of his family.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Why allow the Stoeckley group to go scot free, and not be thoroughly investigated.? Hey, Bertie, did you forget about the very thorough reinvestigation done many, many years ago? Stoeckley and Mitchell were investigated and found not to be involved in the murders.

And did you know that both of them are dead? Yep, for a long time now; Stoeckley in early '83 I believe, and Mitchell in '82.

Anyway, I gather you have some sort of problem recalling things, so I guess you forgot that the DNA results finally came out on the 10th of this month, and neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA (nor that of any other "intruder") was found in any exhibit. No surprise there, but nice to have it confirmed anyway.

Finally - get this! - remember that hair in Colette's left hand that Mac always claimed came from her murderer? The one trumpeted throughout Fatal Justice as the all-important "mystery hair" IN Colette's hand? Well, hold on to your floppy hat, because guess what: It was sourced to Mac himself!

Will wonders never cease.

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by audpaud
Do you think macdonald EVER feels remorse for his crimes???


Or do you think he just gloats that he is still able to fool some folks?


Well if he's been gloating, i'm willing to bet a lot of money that he's doing a whole lot less of it since those DNA results came out. It's actually been pretty quiet on the Inmate front since the LKL show--and I take that as a plus!

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill



When the 4th Circuit granted and remanded MacDonald motion in January back to the District Court, it was the first time that MacDonald was able to get the higher courts to review the previous Brady issues. US Marshall Britt's allegations of witnessing intimidation opened up the case for review of the evidence in its totality.

It would be very rare to have just one item of discovered evidence to turn a verdict around. The appellate courts deal in the technicalities of Constitution law rather the actual details of evidence. Unless the Government can impeach US Marshall Britt affidavit of witness intimidation, which is a violation of the Constitutional law that guarantees a defendent the rights to a fair trial, then the defendant case is opened up again to be heard in its entirety.



Sorry, Cappy. I missed this portion of your post yesterday when I read it. I admit the Britt affidavit has gotten further along in the appeals process than I thought it would.

What I wanted to ask you is if the appellate court does find MacD's rights to a fair trial were violated if you think he will be bound over for a new trial or do you think he will be set free immediately on the technicality? I admit I think he is guilty and I admit I hope he does not get a new trial nor do I want him set free. However, there is that possibility. Right?

[caphill]

Originally posted by margiej


Sorry, Cappy. I missed this portion of your post yesterday when I read it. I admit the Britt affidavit has gotten further along in the appeals process than I thought it would.

What I wanted to ask you is if the appellate court does find MacD's rights to a fair trial were violated if you think he will be bound over for a new trial or do you think he will be set free immediately on the technicality? I admit I think he is guilty and I admit I hope he does not get a new trial nor do I want him set free. However, there is that possibility. Right?


That's a big question. I will tell you what I think which is not what I know. I don't thinkanyone knows what Judge Fox will do. Keeping in mind Judge Fox's decision to make ,after the response from the Government that is due by Match 30th, does not include the results from the DNA. Since he has the results from DNA prior to the response from the Government will his decision be effected by his knowledge of the results is something that will never be known.

If US Marshall Britt's affidavit, with his polygraph attached, is deemed unimpeachable, Judge Fox and the Judges on the panel will have to have to make one of two decisions. One is to vacate the verdict and set MacDonald free. Second one is allowing a new trial.

The District Court has the authority to vacate judgement if they determine in their judgement that had the jury heard Stoeckely testimony along with 6 other other collaborating witnesses and the other hidden evidence would the jury have had a different verdict. It is a high standard the defendant has to meet to get an appeals court to set aside a verdict. Will the District Court determine he met that standard?

On the other hand the District Court can find that there was acceptable evidence of witness intimidation, evidence of suppression of evidence etc that is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the defendant and order a new trial.

I believe based on what Segal said and what is being said on the MacDonald web site that they are gearing up for a new trial.

Barry Scheck made a comment on Larry King Live that was interesting. He called attention to biggest factor in MacDonald's favor which was the Britt affidavit. Then he said he didn't know how they could have a retrial. That was a clue to me that he thinks the Motice to Vacate will be granted.

Segal, as he stated, believes there is such hostility in some of the prosecutors that he thinks they will push to continue litigation in the case.

My personal opinion, which is admittedly worthless, is Murtagh would be foolish to want to drag the Government through a new trial. That would mean opening the door for continued DNA testing for all the items of evidence that has to date been denied the defense. It brings forth in front a jury all the hidden pieces of evidence. It also being allows introduction of many witnesses and evidence has been compiled over the years since the 1979 trial.
The case doesn't have the media poison it had 36 years ago. MacDoanld has a team of pro bono lawyers that are some of the best in the country. Except for a very small group of people who have their own personal agenda, no one would ever condone what would be proven witness tampering and hidden exculpatory evidence in a murder trial.

MacDonald does not have to prove the actual identity of who killed his family, he just has have evidence there were intruders in the house that night based on the trace evidence of the hairs, fibers, long blond wig hairs and the signed documents and testimony of many witnesse to collaborate the statements of two people that have confessed to being in that house that fateful night.

Helena Stoeckely's hair sample was in poor condition for a DNA profile, plus she claims she never had contact with the victims. Greg Mitchell DNA comparison sample was in very good condition. If the blood samples in question are allowed for DNA testing that could be a blow to the Governments case. There are some crucial places O type blood was found that would be unlikely Kristen's blood. Mitchell was O type and also left handed. Experts have said the blows to Colette's face and head were wielded by a left handed person. Crime experts have said that single person using 5 different weapons in the commission of one crime is extremely unlikely. A new trial will cost the Governemnt millions of dollars and the outcome will not likely be in their favor.

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill



That's a big question. I will tell you what I think which is not what I know. I don't thinkanyone knows what Judge Fox will do. Keeping in mind Judge Fox's decision to make ,after the response from the Government that is due by Match 30th, does not include the results from the DNA. Since he has the results from DNA prior to the response from the Government will his decision be effected by his knowledge of the results is something that will never be known.

If US Marshall Britt's affidavit, with his polygraph attached, is deemed unimpeachable, Judge Fox and the Judges on the panel will have to have to make one of two decisions. One is to vacate the verdict and set MacDonald free. Second one is allowing a new trial.

The District Court has the authority to vacate judgement if they determine in their judgement that had the jury heard Stoeckely testimony along with 6 other other collaborating witnesses and the other hidden evidence would the jury have had a different verdict. It is a high standard the defendant has to meet to get an appeals court to set aside a verdict. Will the District Court determine he met that standard?

On the other hand the District Court can find that there was acceptable evidence of witness intimidation, evidence of suppression of evidence etc that is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the defendant and order a new trial.

I believe based on what Segal said and what is being said on the MacDonald web site that they are gearing up for a new trial.

Barry Scheck made a comment on Larry King Live that was interesting. He called attention to biggest factor in MacDonald's favor which was the Britt affidavit. Then he said he didn't know how they could have a retrial. That was a clue to me that he thinks the Motice to Vacate will be granted.

Segal, as he stated, believes there is such hostility in some of the prosecutors that he thinks they will push to continue litigation in the case.

My personal opinion, which is admittedly worthless, is Murtagh would be foolish to want to drag the Government through a new trial. That would mean opening the door for continued DNA testing for all the items of evidence that has to date been denied the defense. It brings forth in front a jury all the hidden pieces of evidence. It also being allows introduction of many witnesses and evidence has been compiled over the years since the 1979 trial.
The case doesn't have the media poison it had 36 years ago. MacDoanld has a team of pro bono lawyers that are some of the best in the country. Except for a very small group of people who have their own personal agenda, no one would ever condone what would be proven witness tampering and hidden exculpatory evidence in a murder trial.

MacDonald does not have to prove the actual identity of who killed his family, he just has have evidence there were intruders in the house that night based on the trace evidence of the hairs, fibers, long blond wig hairs and the signed documents and testimony of many witnesse to collaborate the statements of two people that have confessed to being in that house that fateful night.

Helena Stoeckely's hair sample was in poor condition for a DNA profile, plus she claims she never had contact with the victims. Greg Mitchell DNA comparison sample was in very good condition. If the blood samples in question are allowed for DNA testing that could be a blow to the Governments case. There are some crucial places O type blood was found that would be unlikely Kristen's blood. Mitchell was O type and also left handed. Experts have said the blows to Colette's face and head were wielded by a left handed person. Crime experts have said that single person using 5 different weapons in the commission of one crime is extremely unlikely. A new trial will cost the Governemnt millions of dollars and the outcome will not likely be in their favor.

Thank you for taking the time to lend your thoughts. I heard Scheck say that about the Britt affidavit and wondered if he meant a vacated sentence. I also heard, I think it was Segal, say that a new trial would be difficult because of witnesses who have died, memory not as sharp, etc. Could testimony from a witness in the 79 trial who has died be read in to the record of a new trial for jury consideration?

Do you think the left handed testimony could be countered with the tennis two handed back swing type action? Also I think there is testimony that MacD was multidextrous, could use both hands more equally than most of us. And, of course, the gov. still has the evidence of the pajama top with the 21 holes matching the wounds in Colette's chest. Plus the blue sheet evidence, the fibers. They still have a strong case, in my opinion. But would it be worth millions of dollars to keep him behind bars? I'm getting the cart ahead of the pony here. Judge Fox hasn't spoken yet. The gov. hasn't even filed their response yet. Thanks.

[sneakers]

Does anyone believe that a bunch of drugged-out hippies (on acid, no less) were so slick they didn't leave evidence of their presence all over the place? Please.

JM is right where he needs to be, he will not get out to enjoy his wife. imo

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by margiej
Do you think the left handed testimony could be countered with the tennis two handed back swing type action?Hi, margie -

Regarding "handedness," what was left out of Cappy's post (I'm not sure why) was Dr. Wright's statement that "In analyzing the severe blow to Colette MacDonald’s head, the handedness of the person cannot be determined with certainty. Individuals intoxicated with psychomimetic drugs or enraged by their wife cannot be presumed to strike with their handed side. Therefore, while perhaps slightly more often forceful blows delivered from a deceased’s right to left are delivered by left handed folk (adjusting for their minority status); it is certainly not unusual to see such a blow delivered by a right handed individual."

Also, the autopsy report for the children states: "...a determination as to whether the assailant(s) stabbing the victims were right or left handed could not be made since the relative position of the assailant(s) to the victims is unknown. The only one in which there is a suggestion of position is in Kimberly where an impression is that the wounds extended to the neck area. If she was on the right side of the bed as found during the crime search and lying on her back, then it is suggested that these wounds were inflicted by a right handed person."

Mac, of course, claims to be right-handed. Freddy Kassab said he was ambidextrous.

I doubt if Mac, in his heart of hearts, really wants a new trial, since he knows the evidence against him in the first one was overwhelming, that the gov't didn't even use everything they had against him, that there was not a shred of any kind of forensic evidence pointing to "intruders," and that by virtue of opening his big mouth so many times over the years, he created even more lies that could be used to impeach him. In short, he's got virtually nothing whatsoever on his side that I can see, and everything going against him. JMPO.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by sneakers
JM is right where he needs to be, he will not get out to enjoy his wife. imoThat's my opinion too, sneakers. The jury didn't buy Mac's "unsourced" arguments the first time around, and should Mac ever get a new trial (which I doubt), I don't think a second jury would either, especially in view of the other 40% of evidence the gov't didn't use against Mac the first time around, and all the demonstrations of the consciousness of guilt Mac has made over the years, the deaths of witnesses, the DNA results and the fact that Mac still has no forensic evidence whatsoever to point to "intruders," and of course the fact that not one whit of any of the incredibly voluminous and overwhelmingly incriminating evidence against Mac has diminished at all; it's only grown stronger.

I also believe that anyone who thinks that an unsourced hair would ever overcome the mountains of evidence against him is dreaming. And, as has been said before, even if that hair under Kristen's nail were ever to be matched with anyone, other corroborating evidence weighty enough to show that that person committed murder at 544 Castle Dr. would have to be forthcoming. And even if that happened, as Fox said, it would only show that MacD wasn't alone when he murdered his family.

[caphill]

Originally posted by margiej


Thank you for taking the time to lend your thoughts. I heard Scheck say that about the Britt affidavit and wondered if he meant a vacated sentence. I also heard, I think it was Segal, say that a new trial would be difficult because of witnesses who have died, memory not as sharp, etc. Could testimony from a witness in the 79 trial who has died be read in to the record of a new trial for jury consideration?

Do you think the left handed testimony could be countered with the tennis two handed back swing type action? Also I think there is testimony that MacD was multidextrous, could use both hands more equally than most of us. And, of course, the gov. still has the evidence of the pajama top with the 21 holes matching the wounds in Colette's chest. Plus the blue sheet evidence, the fibers. They still have a strong case, in my opinion. But would it be worth millions of dollars to keep him behind bars? I'm getting the cart ahead of the pony here. Judge Fox hasn't spoken yet. The gov. hasn't even filed their response yet. Thanks.


There was no testimony that Mac was ambidextrous. That is something made up by posters on message boards to explain away the experts who said the blows on Colette were wielded by a left hand person.

The pj folding and refolding experiement was a most amazing feat of making the at least 48 holes in pj's match 21 of Colette's 37 stab wounds. Colette had 9 stab wound in the neck area, 7 stabs in the chest and 21 addition stab wounds in the left chest and arm area.

The jury missed the part of Mica testimony that when he arrived the left side of Colette's chest and breast was exposed. Dr Neal, who arrived to declare the victims dead testified that he removed the pj top when he examined Colette and he also raised up her body and checked her back for any stab wounds. After Dr. Neal examination the pj top was obviously put back on the chest and photos taken for the record.

I would bet that same experiement would not be tried again in a new trial. That would be so torn apart by the defense and the experts that it would be an embarrassment to Governments case .

Dr. MacDonald's torn pj's would likely have been dropping fibers on and around the body. He was hovering over Colette and moved her body that was partially propped up against the chair to a prone position on the floor. His fibers prove he was all around her body as he was touching her, trying to give her CPR and lying next to her. There was just an army of people(pardon the pun) in and out of that house that there were likely many more fibers dropped around that were never found because they were tracked in and out the house. It is important there were many other fibers found on the body and the murder weapon and the mouth of Colette that could not be sourced to anything in that house. There were light blue, brown green, white and pink fibers that were not matched to anything in the house, not to mention the 22-24 inch blond wig strands.

The many foreign fibers and hairs show the bedrooms had a lot of activity that night. There are many unidentified fingerprints and a big bloody palm print on the foot board that were not MacDonald's or the family prints.

Barry Scheck did state he wants to do closer examination on the fingerprints. There is quite an advancement in print identification today as opposed to the technology in the 70's . J Edgar Hoover started the centralized fingerprinting files, that has evolved to the Intergrated Automated Fingerprint Indentification Systems that became operational in July of 1999, using compression of digitized fingerprint files for millions and millions of prints. Partial prints can be indentified today that would have been worthless in 1970. Thats why Barry was grinning like a Cheshire cat when he mentioned he wanted to do more work with the many unmatched prints found in the MacDonalld house. Throw those prints in the IAFIS database and within 2 hours that can matched against hundreds of millions of prints.

With a new trial I don't how MacDonald could be denied testing any or all the evidence collected at the crime scene using today's technology.

I believe the sworn statements and signed affidavits of the dead and the alive will be admitted in court. A new trial blows the doors wide open for all the old, new, hidden and no holes barred evidence to be seen and heard by a new jury.

Edgar Ray Killen, a KKK clansman was recently found guilty of 3 counts of manslaughter for the killing of 3 civil rights workers 41 yrs earlier.(Mississippi Burning) He was convicted using the earlier sworn testimony of people who are now dead.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
There was no testimony that Mac was ambidextrous. That is something made up by posters on message boards...Oh, really? Gee, that's funny. I wonder why, if there was no testimony to that effect, Kassab testified to it at the grand jury:

JUROR: Was Dr. MacDonald left-handed or right-handed?

A Best of my knowledge Dr. MacDonald was basically right-handed but ambidextrous. In other words he could use one hand as easily as he could the other.

JUROR: The reason I asked that question when we were at Ft. Bragg yesterday, and Mr. Ivory stated that that crepe myrtle bush which was--has been trimmed--you know--I noticed the suckers were about this long (indicating) in the last five years. And whoever threw that knife and ice pick out the door in my opinion was as good with one hand as the other.

A Yes, sir, he is ambidextrous.

Maybe you ought to start reading the records instead of making things up, Bertie (oops, I meant Caphill).

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Dr Neal, who arrived to declare the victims dead testified that he removed the pj top when he examined Colette and he also raised up her body and checked her back for any stab wounds. After Dr. Neal examination the pj top was obviously put back on the chest and photos taken for the record.Oh, Cappy. :no: Shame on you. You know that photos were taken before Neal touched anyone. Why do you deliberately lie and misrepresent things so much? Why are you so afraid of the Truth?[The murderer's] torn pj's would likely have been dropping fibers on and around the body.You need to reread the records and all those many, many posts to you about the fibers and where they were and were not found, because obviously you've forgotten the facts.It is important there were many other fibers found on the body and the murder weapon and the mouth of Colette that could not be sourced to anything in that house.Actually, it's much more important that all the forensic evidence pointed to MacDonald and none whatsoever to any "intruders." As you knew before you posted, unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant. They're so insignificant, in fact, that they're often not reported at all. You should probably write this down if you can't remember it from day to day....not to mention the 22-24 inch blond wig strands.Where in Glisson's notes do you see any mention whatsoever of any "wig" strands? An answer this time, please. You've ignored the question repeatedly, and I'd like to finally see an answer from you if you're going to continue to post such nonsense.The many foreign fibers and hairs...The many fibers sourced to Mac's pajamas and where they were found (and not found), and the blood evidence, show that MacDonald clubbed Colette in the MB and that he also clubbed Kim and carried her back to her bed; that he bludgeoned Kim again and stabbed her and also stabbed his baby daughter in the chest and back; that he carried his wife, Colette, from Kristen's room after brutalizing her mercilessly in there; that he left all sorts of evidence, including his own bloody footprint in Colette's blood exiting Kristen's room, and that his staging of the scenes caused even more evidence to be found against him.

Poor Bert-Cappy. The problem you're having, and the problem you will always have, is that you simply cannot overcome the vast amount of incriminating evidence SOURCED to MacDonald, including the fact that the "mystery hair" IN Colette's hand was sourced to him; you cannot overcome the fact that he was proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have murdered his family, and of course you will never be able to obliterate all those many, many times MacD demonstrated the consciousness of his own guilt in these horrific crimes.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Would sneakers expect them to have left... a blonde synthetic hair-like fiber?Wow. Finally you admit that no "intruder" left those synthetic fibers. It's about time.If you go into another person's apartment you don't usually leave any trace of your presence...Sure you do. It's called transfer of Locard, as you knew before you posted.If a murder takes place there may be tiny hairs or fibers, like black wool fibers found on the mouth and biceps of the murder victim and on the murder weapon left behind, or fragments of the murderer's latex gloves used to prevent fingerprints.In this case there were a profusion of fibers matched to Mac's pj's, found everywhere they shouldn't have been and nowhere that they should have been. Much other forensic evidence existed which established him as the perpetrator of the crimes, including the bits of the latex gloves he used, his bloody pajama fiber lodged under his baby daughter's fingernail, his pajama fibers on the murder weapon, his bloody footprint in Colette's blood exiting Kristen's room, and blood evidence that showed he'd carried Colette from Kristen's room back into the MB. By contrast, there was no forensic evidence at all to point to "intruders." All of which you knew before you posted....MacDonald didn't carry any dead bodies anywhere. I don't believe Kim was injured in the master bedroom as the CID say. It's a theory without facts.Poor Bertie. You just want so badly to rehash all your old wild speculations and crazy theories over and over and over and over yet again and see if you can make people spend hours and hours of valuable time giving you all that factual information and links all over again. What do you do, just copy and paste from your old A&E posts? LOL!Perhaps Bunny could enlighten me about this matter as she pretends to know so much about the matter?...It's just I would like Bunny to reference a medical or forensic report about this ambidextrous matter in order to back up what she's saying, instead of just quoting Fred Kassab.Oh, please. You didn't really think I'd be drawn into that old game again, did you? Nice try, but do your own homework if you want to learn the facts of the case or if you can't remember them from one day to the next. If you haven't begun any real research yet, I might suggest that you start with the recent DNA results and work your way backwards. That'd probably be the easiest for you, since backward thinking seems to come so naturally to you. :rolleyes:

[margiej]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


What evidence of their presence would the Stoeckley homicidal maniacs have left behind at the murder scene? Would sneakers expect them to have left their trousers behind, or a blonde synthetic hair-like fiber, or a flashlight, or mobile phone?

If you go into another person's apartment you don't usually leave any trace of your presence unless you're careless enough to leave muddy footprints. That's unusual.

If a murder takes place there may be tiny hairs or fibers, like black wool fibers found on the mouth and biceps of the murder victim and on the murder weapon left behind, or fragments of the murderer's latex gloves used to prevent fingerprints. There was a fragment of latex glove left behind at the MacDonald murders scene which Dr Guinn, the foremost exprrt in America on latex gloves says wasn't from a MacDonald glove.

There may be DNA at a crime scene now, and blood spots. which should be DNA tested. None of the blood spots at the MacDonald murders crime scene have ever been DNA tested.

Dr MacDonald didn't carry any dead bodies anywhere. I don't believe Kim was injured in the master bedroom as the CID say. It's a theory without facts.

I agree with Bunny that Dr Neal did testify that he had to wait before photographs had been taken of the bodies. Frankly, I don't know the full background to the photography at the MacDonald murders crime scene. I have seen it reported on the internet that one of the photographers had a bad day and the MacDonald murders crime scene photography was botched. I don't know if that's true or not.

The story I heard was that one of the photographers was so horrified by the MacDonald murders that he became ill and had to leave the scene. Whether he completed his photography or not, I'm not terribly sure, or whether another photographer was called in to replace him and took photos after Dr Neal had left, I don't know for sure. Perhaps Bunny could enlighten me about this matter as she pretends to know so much about the matter?

I'm not terribly sure, also, if the crime scene photos were all specifically timed and recorded. I would presume they were. I know in the JonBenet Ramsey case that internet posters have raised doubts about whether some of the photos were taken days after the murder.

Just because Fred Kassab said Dr MacDonald is ambidextrous doesn't make it a fact. One of the forensic scientists said the murderer must have been left-handed. Greg Mitchell was left-handed. Dr MacDonald may be ambidextrous. There is no law against that. Some of the world's greatest artists and sportsmen have been ambidextrous. It's just I would like Bunny to reference a medical or forensic report about this ambidextrous matter in order to back up what she's saying, instead of just quoting Fred Kassab.


Could not those black fibers on Colette's mouth and bicepts have come from the pj top itself? During laundry fibers from one garment attaches itself to other articles. When he pulled the top off, if he wiped the club off with the pj top a fiber could have been dislodged from the pj top, as well as when he tossed the pj top over Colette.

I remember in Ivory's testimony he said he asked Dr. Neal to not move the bodies, after the dr. moved the body of Kris, who was the first victim the dr. declared dead. I thought Dr. Neal testified that he did not move any of the bodies after that warning from Ivory. But I may be wrong. It's been several weeks since I read that testimony, and I have slept since then.

[margiej]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


I don't believe Kim was injured in the master bedroom as the CID say. It's a theory without facts.


Are you discounting the brain serum from Kim that was found at the doorway to the MB? Or do you believe this blood and serum was mistyped?

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill



There was no testimony that Mac was ambidextrous. That is something made up by posters on message boards to explain away the experts who said the blows on Colette were wielded by a left hand person.

The pj folding and refolding experiement was a most amazing feat of making the at least 48 holes in pj's match 21 of Colette's 37 stab wounds. Colette had 9 stab wound in the neck area, 7 stabs in the chest and 21 addition stab wounds in the left chest and arm area.

The jury missed the part of Mica testimony that when he arrived the left side of Colette's chest and breast was exposed. Dr Neal, who arrived to declare the victims dead testified that he removed the pj top when he examined Colette and he also raised up her body and checked her back for any stab wounds. After Dr. Neal examination the pj top was obviously put back on the chest and photos taken for the record.

I would bet that same experiement would not be tried again in a new trial. That would be so torn apart by the defense and the experts that it would be an embarrassment to Governments case .

Dr. MacDonald's torn pj's would likely have been dropping fibers on and around the body. He was hovering over Colette and moved her body that was partially propped up against the chair to a prone position on the floor. His fibers prove he was all around her body as he was touching her, trying to give her CPR and lying next to her. There was just an army of people(pardon the pun) in and out of that house that there were likely many more fibers dropped around that were never found because they were tracked in and out the house. It is important there were many other fibers found on the body and the murder weapon and the mouth of Colette that could not be sourced to anything in that house. There were light blue, brown green, white and pink fibers that were not matched to anything in the house, not to mention the 22-24 inch blond wig strands.

The many foreign fibers and hairs show the bedrooms had a lot of activity that night. There are many unidentified fingerprints and a big bloody palm print on the foot board that were not MacDonald's or the family prints.

Barry Scheck did state he wants to do closer examination on the fingerprints. There is quite an advancement in print identification today as opposed to the technology in the 70's . J Edgar Hoover started the centralized fingerprinting files, that has evolved to the Intergrated Automated Fingerprint Indentification Systems that became operational in July of 1999, using compression of digitized fingerprint files for millions and millions of prints. Partial prints can be indentified today that would have been worthless in 1970. Thats why Barry was grinning like a Cheshire cat when he mentioned he wanted to do more work with the many unmatched prints found in the MacDonalld house. Throw those prints in the IAFIS database and within 2 hours that can matched against hundreds of millions of prints.

With a new trial I don't how MacDonald could be denied testing any or all the evidence collected at the crime scene using today's technology.

I believe the sworn statements and signed affidavits of the dead and the alive will be admitted in court. A new trial blows the doors wide open for all the old, new, hidden and no holes barred evidence to be seen and heard by a new jury.

Edgar Ray Killen, a KKK clansman was recently found guilty of 3 counts of manslaughter for the killing of 3 civil rights workers 41 yrs earlier.(Mississippi Burning) He was convicted using the earlier sworn testimony of people who are now dead.

Oh, yes. I remember that case. The conviction was recent, within the past couple of years.

I agree with what you are saying about new technology and how much more can be ascertained now. However, we do not know for certain sure that the results would not be the same as were reported back in the 70s. Possibly but not probable. Like the palm print on the footboard. Many believe it is Colette's. Many also believe the print has no blood associated with it. Just a palm print, not a bloody palm print. Modern technology could lay that to rest.

Even if the pj top had been removed numerous times from Colette and replaced, the holes would not change nor the pattern. Patterns are patterns. They don't change. In my opinion that pj top is a strong piece of evidence. Not just because of the pattern of the holes, but that it is ON Colette in the first place instead of on MacD. When she was stabbed with the ice pick, the pj top was across her body. Do you see what I am saying? How could she be stabbed by an intruder(s) with MacD being right there hunched over her? I cannot wrap my brain around that scenario without the evidence backtracking straight to MacD. The fibers from the pj top were found in both girls rooms, so he had the top on when giving them mouth to mouth, or cpr. He only removed the top from his body when he went to Colette. So the top is now on Colette's body, MacD is beside her, and suddenly the ice pick holes are put into the pj top. How? The only answer I can derive is that HE stabbed her with the ice pick.

[margiej]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hi, margie -

Regarding "handedness," what was left out of Cappy's post (I'm not sure why) was Dr. Wright's statement that "In analyzing the severe blow to Colette MacDonald’s head, the handedness of the person cannot be determined with certainty. Individuals intoxicated with psychomimetic drugs or enraged by their wife cannot be presumed to strike with their handed side. Therefore, while perhaps slightly more often forceful blows delivered from a deceased’s right to left are delivered by left handed folk (adjusting for their minority status); it is certainly not unusual to see such a blow delivered by a right handed individual."

Also, the autopsy report for the children states: "...a determination as to whether the assailant(s) stabbing the victims were right or left handed could not be made since the relative position of the assailant(s) to the victims is unknown. The only one in which there is a suggestion of position is in Kimberly where an impression is that the wounds extended to the neck area. If she was on the right side of the bed as found during the crime search and lying on her back, then it is suggested that these wounds were inflicted by a right handed person."

Mac, of course, claims to be right-handed. Freddy Kassab said he was ambidextrous.

I doubt if Mac, in his heart of hearts, really wants a new trial, since he knows the evidence against him in the first one was overwhelming, that the gov't didn't even use everything they had against him, that there was not a shred of any kind of forensic evidence pointing to "intruders," and that by virtue of opening his big mouth so many times over the years, he created even more lies that could be used to impeach him. In short, he's got virtually nothing whatsoever on his side that I can see, and everything going against him. JMPO.

Hi Bunny. I thought also that there was testimony, besides Freddy's, that did not clear MacD as being the one who delivered the blows. Thanks for pointing that out.

I would imagine a new trial might scare MacD even though he says he would welcome it. His attorneys would love to have a new trial, but it appears MacD has not been totally honest with them, such as the limb hair of his found in Colette's hand. His telling his counsel that the hair was from one of the supposed intruders. Now he has been proven to be wrong on that. It's those things that come back to zap MacD which scares MacD. Things he has misrepresented to his attorneys which are showing up, with new technology, to be untrue. I think that alone would scare any attorney taking this case. JMO, though.

[sneakers]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


What evidence of their presence would the Stoeckley homicidal maniacs have left behind at the murder scene? Would sneakers expect them to have left their trousers behind, or a blonde synthetic hair-like fiber, or a flashlight, or mobile phone?

If you go into another person's apartment you don't usually leave any trace of your presence unless you're careless enough to leave muddy footprints. That's unusual.
Lol! Anyone's home or apt. will have traces of other people's hair, etc., unless one lives in a hermetically-sealed bubble.

Are you suggesting that Colette, JM, and the children never left that home?

As a matter of fact, Colette attended a class that evening. Lots of stuff could have collected on her clothes, books, papers, etc.

JM himself could have brought in lots of so-called "evidence", including the foreign pubic hair that was found on Colette. IIRC, he was cheating on her. :rolleyes: jmo

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
If the crime scene photos were after the Dr Neal visit, and not before the Dr Neal visit, it puts a completely different perspective on the crime scene photos.When you begin to research the records you'll see that Alexander, Squires and Page were the photographers and that photos were taken before Neal examined the bodies, as well as afterwards.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by RayC
A hair, dissimilar to my hair, was found clutched in Colette’s hand along with a splinter from the club. Even more important, hairs were found under the bloody fingernails of my daughters. The CID tried to match these hairs to me; when that failed, they promptly hid the hairs’ existence.

From Adrift In The American Gulag, By Jeffrey R. MacDonald, M.D., Reproduced with permission from Soldier of Fortune Magazine, July 2000. On the inmate's website at http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/adrift.html

Clutched, say he, clutched! I'm shocked.Excellent spot, Ray! I'd forgotten all about that article. Perfect example of Mac and how so much of what he says just comes back to haunt him. "Clutched"! - I love it. Thanks for posting this!

[cami]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I think Cami seems to be lacking in imagination with regard to the struggle with the murderous intruder thugs on the night of the MacDonald murders.

It's perfectly obvious to me that nothing like that has ever happened to her, or else she would be more sympathetic.

Dr MacDonald was asleep on a couch when the intruders struck. He wasn't wide awake with his boxing gloves on, all prepared for a bar room brawl. They didn't just slap him on the face. They hit him hard. Very hard. Hard enough to make him unconscious.

I have been trying to think of a similar sort of incident. In a way it's quite unusual. There was a murder in our area years ago where a murderer gained entry to a woman's ground floor apartment from an open window while she was asleep. The woman was murdered and the case never solved. I don't think the place was trashed, or there was much sign of any struggle at all.

There was a controversial murder in Chelsea, London, UK a few months ago when a wealthy aristocratic man opened his door to a black man who had just been released early from prison. The wealthy City gentleman was stabbed to death and his wife badly injured. I saw no evidence in the reports on the case that any furniture in the house was moved, or damaged at all.

I can well imagine that Dr MacDonald was knocked unconscious. That sort of thing has never happened to me but maybe I'm lucky. I remember being unfortunately hit on the head by a hockey stick as a child while playing hockey and seeing stars at the time , like Dr MacDonald. It didn't knock me out for an hour.

I expect there have been people involved in road traffic accidents who have had head injuries in the past. I believe Dr MacDonald. The CID and FBI had no reason to be so skeptical about what he said happened that night.

Actually, you'd be quite incorrect. When three men broke down the door to my apt to rob me, I hid in the bedroom closet so they wouldn't know I was home. I was lucky they only the living room. And no I can't be sympathetic to a baby killer, you're right about that. Although we have no death penalty in Canada and I am not a proponent of it, I'd cheerfully make an exception and pull the plug on IPBK.

Yeah keep on dreaming that IPBK was asleep on the couch when he was attacked. Considering how Colette and the girls were taken care of, if there had been intruders, old IPBK would have woken up in hell as he would have been just as dead as the rest of them.

[byn63]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Excellent spot, Ray! I'd forgotten all about that article. Perfect example of Mac and how so much of what he says just comes back to haunt him. "Clutched"! - I love it. Thanks for posting this!

Outstanding! clutched sure sounds a lot different than Mrs. Inmate's LKL appearance "on" doesn't it? Way to go Ray! The mystery hair was CLUTCHED in Colette's hand! See, in macfantasyland they are at least entertaining in the fact that you KNOW they are going to stick their foot in their mouth, but it is always fascinating to watch them open up even wider and cram the other foot in there too!

bertie/cappy - stop the nonsense. As you KNEW before you posted it AGAIN, Kimmie was hit in the master bedroom and then transported back to her own bed. This is proven by the 6" diameter stain (completely saturated/soaking stain) of type AB blood and brain serum found in the masterbedroom carpet. It is not spatter or drips or even a smear. It was a direct contact stain that showed someone with Type AB blood had lain on the carpet for a length of time sufficient to leave a full thickness saturated stain in the carpet that consisted of blood and brain serum. Chisel that into stone if you must, but stop making idiotic comments about there being no proof of Kimmie being struck in the MB. What there is no proof of are things like: intruders, vampires, masons etc. You know, the nonsensical comments that you made as Albie?!?!?!?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by spurs01
NO . . .

I actually wonder if he's now believing his hippie intruder story. You know how some people can be, particularly if they're mentally ill or have a mental defect of some sort. They will repeat the same thing over and over and over, until, finally, they convince themselves (and sometimes others) that it's the actual truth.

I am starting to re-read Fatal Vision again (my sister found a copy of it at a bookstore a couple weeks ago -- last copy available there). I also ordered the VHS (couldn't find the DVD) of the miniseries. I want to see that again, for some reason.

Again, as to remorse? No, I don't think he feels remorse. I think he's probably convinced himself that he really didn't do it.

Sick, sick, sick.

Hi spurs! I've started to re-read Fatal Vision too! Haven't read since its release and find it still to be fascinating! Especially "The Voice Of Jeffrey MacDonald" sections following each chapter . . . Only on Ch. 6, but a couple of things have jumped out at me already:

* In the "Voice" sections . . . have you noticed how macdonald has almost total recall of . . . . FOOD/MENU'S/RESTAURANTS??:confused: He stumbles over a lot of details of his wife/kids' relationship but has total recall on FOOD! (????)

* RE: His friend Ron Harrison: Wasn't OJ's friend that he "confessed" to b4 his arrest of the same name?:eek: Has macdonalds Ron Harrison STAYED a supporter?

* Sooooo, the MP's got to the crime scene around 4am . . . at 5:30am the hospitalized macdonald was given INTRAVENOUSLY (straight to the vein YOWZA) 200 mg of the sedative Nembutal . . . 5:45am 100mg of the tranquilizer Vistaril was administered . . . "But I never really accomplished what I intended," the attentding physician (Bronstein) said. "I mean, I never really knocked him out or made him incoherent in any way." . . . . . . . MORE DRUGS: macdonald was given 50mgs Demerol @ 7:30am and again at 8:30am: "but he remained conscious throughout . . . and even asked if a friend could come visit." (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

How long had this guy BEEN AWAKE at this point???????? GEEEZ LOUISE! Can there be ANY doubt that the dude was speeding his brains out?????????? :rolleyes:

[audpaud]

. . . forgot to post that I was involved in a serious car accident in 1975 . . . despite showing no signs of head injuries and despite me being quite hysterical . . . the hospital would NOT administer any kind of tranquilizer/sedative or even AN ASPIRIN to me until I completed 24 hours of observation!:(

Would have given my kingdom for an IV of Demerol!!!! :eek:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by RayC


A hair, dissimilar to my hair, was found clutched in Colette’s hand along with a splinter from the club. Even more important, hairs were found under the bloody fingernails of my daughters. The CID tried to match these hairs to me; when that failed, they promptly hid the hairs’ existence.

From Adrift In The American Gulag, By Jeffrey R. MacDonald, M.D., Reproduced with permission from Soldier of Fortune Magazine, July 2000. On the inmate's website at http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/adrift.html

Clutched, say he, clutched! I'm shocked.


WOW! What A "GOTCHA," Ray!!!:read: :beer:

(Wishing some REAL Soldiers Of Fortune had access to macdonald . . . we'd have the TRUTH of what happened that tragic night in a HURRY, I think!:cool: )

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bunny2
No, Mac doesn't feel remorse for his victims; his only real "remorse" is that he got caught and convicted.

I think it was said somewhere in his psychological/psychiatric reports and/or testimony that he was the type of person who, if he truly felt what we might call a "normal grief," would never let anyone see him cry or weep. That would show a weakness, something Mac wouldn't have wanted. He may also have thought of weeping/crying as being a "feminine" thing to do, and of course that touches somewhat on the "latent homosexual" aspect of his personality: I think he was afraid of his feelings towards other men, leading to his always wanting and needing to show how super-macho he was (and how many women he could bed).

Super-machos don't cry. And yet there he is, time after time throughout the testimonies, statements and interviews, choking up, weeping and crying outright. Overcome with grief? I don't think so. "Put-on" is what I think. Prior to the murders, I'll bet the people who ever saw him weep or cry were few to none. Post-murders, he didn't really want to weep or cry in front of a jury or an interviewer, but when he realized it would make him look better, he had no problem puttin' on the tears.

His anger has always been directed at the investigators, the lab technicians, the prosecutors, the Kassabs (in fact just about any witness who said or did anything against him) and countless other people; never the "intruders." (Not surprisingly, this is the same mantra repeated by most Mac supporters.)

And while it would be easy to think that he's been telling the same lies for so long that he actually believes them now, I don't think that's the case. His own repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt over the years -- changing his stories so they'd match the evidence as he learned of it, lying outright, etc. -- show me that he knows now and has always known that he was the murderer of his family.


Great Post bun . . . and one I'm evolving to agreeing with completely. In "The Voice of Jeffrey MacDonald" sections I referenced in my other Post/from Fatal Vision . . . his OWN words are what makes macdonald come across as the arrogant and glib murderer that he undoubtedly IS!!! I'm almost thankful that macdonald experienced those few years of freedom in CA . . . gave him a taste of what he was missing b4 a lifetime in jail!!!

I've tried to tell the "supporters" how their "Mac Mimic" comes across to the "ordinary" Posters when they choose to "vent" on the Kassab/Stevenson Family with hostility and hatred. Talk about bad Public Relations!:no:

What's to be gained by hating on a Family that had totally APPROPRIATE responses to the senseless butchering of their daughter/grandaughters/sister/nieces???????:confused: :rolleyes:

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by margiej
[B]

They still have a strong case, in my opinion. But would it be worth millions of dollars to keep him behind bars?

To keep a baby killer in prison? Well worth it, IMO.

My opinion of people like MacDonald, Darlie Routier and Susan
Smith is that they are the lowest form of "human" that exists.
At least Charles Manson murdered innocent strangers. Horrible
to be sure, but a parent who kills their own children? The
very people that should be able to depend on them above
all others? It just doesn't get any worse.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spurs01
[B]

NO.

I actually wonder if he's now believing his hippie intruder story. You know how some people can be, particularly if they're mentally ill or have a mental defect of some sort. They will repeat the same thing over and over and over, until, finally, they convince themselves (and sometimes others) that it's the actual truth.

I'm not sure I believe that about MacDonald, but I definitely
believe that's what OJ has done



Again, as to remorse? No, I don't think he feels remorse.

Sociopaths don't feel remorse. It's one of the things that
makes them what they are.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by margiej
[B]

They still have a strong case, in my opinion. But would it be worth millions of dollars to keep him behind bars?

To keep a baby killer in prison? Well worth it, IMO.

My opinion of people like MacDonald, Darlie Routier and Susan
Smith is that they are the lowest form of "human" that exists.
At least Charles Manson murdered innocent strangers. Horrible
to be sure, but a parent who kills their own children? The
very people that should be able to depend on them above
all others? It just doesn't get any worse.


Charles Manson never murdered anybody. He just played head games with those in his cult. You know those drugged out LSDed peace loving, flowers in their hair groovey gals and guys who were just getting back to nature and enjoying the feel of warm blood on their hands as they stabbed a pregnant woman in the belly. As has been posted here, you know hippies spaced out on LSD couldn't organize a plan to intrude in someone's house and hurt them.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by caphill



Charles Manson never murdered anybody. He just played head games with those in his cult. You know those drugged out LSDed peace loving, flowers in their hair groovey gals and guys who were just getting back to nature and enjoying the feel of warm blood on their hands as they stabbed a pregnant woman in the belly. As has been posted here, you know hippies spaced out on LSD couldn't organize a plan to intrude in someone's house and hurt them.

Actually Manson has committed murder, he's admitted it and
there are witnesses. He just didn't physically kill anyone
at the Tate or LaBianca murders, but, of course, he's just
as guilty as those who physically committed the crimes.
Big differences with MacDonalds imaiginary band of hippies
though. The Manson family was caught, they left plenty
of physical evidence and, oh yeah, they didn't leave anyone
alive to tell the story. Let's not forget that MacDonald butchered
his family 6 months after the Manson Murders which were all
over the news. I have no doubt that's where MacDonald got
his ideas for his story.

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill



Charles Manson never murdered anybody. He just played head games with those in his cult. You know those drugged out LSDed peace loving, flowers in their hair groovey gals and guys who were just getting back to nature and enjoying the feel of warm blood on their hands as they stabbed a pregnant woman in the belly. As has been posted here, you know hippies spaced out on LSD couldn't organize a plan to intrude in someone's house and hurt them.

Yes he did. He murdered the Spawn ranch hand Shorty Shea and others...one a drug dealer for the Black Panthers.

That Manson gang of killers and misfits were not hippies. They were thieves, prostitutes, and creepy crawlers and under Charlies mind control. Anyone with long hair who did drugs in those days were lumped together as hippies. The hippie movement sprung out of the counter culture to protest the war in Viet Nam and other government atrocities around the world. No hippie would ever have done what those Mansons did...not real hippies. And those weirdos were straight on the nights they committed murder--not on acid or any other drugs. As well they left behind a ton of physical evidence at the crime scenes.

MacDonald has told us that his "hippies" were on five different drugs the night they invaded his home. Yeah they would have been comatose if they had ingested that many drugs. The only drug addict in the Macdonald home comitting murder in February 1970 was Jeffrey R. MacDonald.

[margiej]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by margiej
[B]

They still have a strong case, in my opinion. But would it be worth millions of dollars to keep him behind bars?

To keep a baby killer in prison? Well worth it, IMO.

My opinion of people like MacDonald, Darlie Routier and Susan
Smith is that they are the lowest form of "human" that exists.
At least Charles Manson murdered innocent strangers. Horrible
to be sure, but a parent who kills their own children? The
very people that should be able to depend on them above
all others? It just doesn't get any worse.

I totally agree with that. I don't know where I was going with that thought above that you quoted. I think I got interrupted and didn't return to my original thought. Anyway, I'm old. Sometimes that excuse works with my grandchildren when they want me to run my legs off getting their kites up into the air. LOL

[sneakers]

Originally posted by cami


Yes he did. He murdered the Spawn ranch hand Shorty Shea and others...one a drug dealer for the Black Panthers.

That Manson gang of killers and misfits were not hippies. They were thieves, prostitutes, and creepy crawlers and under Charlies mind control. Anyone with long hair who did drugs in those days were lumped together as hippies. The hippie movement sprung out of the counter culture to protest the war in Viet Nam and other government atrocities around the world. No hippie would ever have done what those Mansons did...not real hippies. And those weirdos were straight on the nights they committed murder--not on acid or any other drugs. As well they left behind a ton of physical evidence at the crime scenes.

MacDonald has told us that his "hippies" were on five different drugs the night they invaded his home. Yeah they would have been comatose if they had ingested that many drugs. The only drug addict in the Macdonald home comitting murder in February 1970 was Jeffrey R. MacDonald. Very well stated, imo.

:beer:

[byn63]

Originally posted by sneakers
Very well stated, imo.

:beer:

I agree! well said!

Key points to remember: (1) Manson's followers were not on anything the nights of the Tate and LaBianca murders. (2) Linda Kasabian, was the only member that could truly have been called a hippy (and she didn't kill anyone) (3) Manson and Sadie and several of the MURDERERS said they were more like "slippies" (4) The "family" didn't leave anyone alive, and all of the victims were "overkilled" (5) the "family" left lots of evidence including fingerprints, the broken grip of the gun, bloody footprints, one of the knives.

Inmate's story doesn't even come close to being realistic and we must never forget that the "mystery hair" found clutched in Colette's hand that had to have come from the murderer..............the DNA PROVES that hair to have been from Jeffrey Robert MacDonald aka macdoneit aka icepick baby killer aka Inmate 00131-177 aka narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer, aka murder mac, AKA.........:chicken:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by byn63


I agree! well said!

Key points to remember: (1) Manson's followers were not on anything the nights of the Tate and LaBianca murders. (2) Linda Kasabian, was the only member that could truly have been called a hippy (and she didn't kill anyone) (3) Manson and Sadie and several of the MURDERERS said they were more like "slippies" (4) The "family" didn't leave anyone alive, and all of the victims were "overkilled" (5) the "family" left lots of evidence including fingerprints, the broken grip of the gun, bloody footprints, one of the knives.

Inmate's story doesn't even come close to being realistic and we must never forget that the "mystery hair" found clutched in Colette's hand that had to have come from the murderer..............the DNA PROVES that hair to have been from Jeffrey Robert MacDonald aka macdoneit aka icepick baby killer aka Inmate 00131-177 aka narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer, aka murder mac, AKA.........:chicken:

One other thing: the Manson family did not come from out of nowhere and then go right back to nowhere. They had been under investigation for other crimes. Some of them were in jail when they were arrested for the Tate/LaBianco murders. They were a known, actual gang of thugs on the police rader. Now, the MacDonald fantasy-created "Stoeckley Gang," were a group of LSD (as well as an assortment of various other drugs) taking criminal masterminds, who tore through the MacDonald home, leaving no trace of their presence. And then, not unlike Kaiser Soze, POOF, they were gone! No known presence of this "gang's"
other criminal capers, as a group, before or after. Nope, it was just on this one evening that they decided that acid was so "groovy" that they wanted to kill some "pigs" (i.e. two toddlers and a pregnant woman and not an adult male Green Beret). That some gang, that "Stoeckley Gang," huh?

[cami]

Originally posted by barskin&co.


One other thing: the Manson family did not come from out of nowhere and then go right back to nowhere. They had been under investigation for other crimes. Some of them were in jail when they were arrested for the Tate/LaBianco murders. They were a known, actual gang of thugs on the police rader. Now, the MacDonald fantasy-created "Stoeckley Gang," were a group of LSD (as well as an assortment of various other drugs) taking criminal masterminds, who tore through the MacDonald home, leaving no trace of their presence. And then, not unlike Kaiser Soze, POOF, they were gone! No known presence of this "gang's"
other criminal capers, as a group, before or after. Nope, it was just on this one evening that they decided that acid was so "groovy" that they wanted to kill some "pigs" (i.e. two toddlers and a pregnant woman and not an adult male Green Beret). That some gang, that "Stoeckley Gang," huh?

LOL, yeah more like the "carry on gang" than a gang of blood thirsty killers.

[caphill]

Originally posted by cami


Yes he did. He murdered the Spawn ranch hand Shorty Shea and others...one a drug dealer for the Black Panthers.

That Manson gang of killers and misfits were not hippies. They were thieves, prostitutes, and creepy crawlers and under Charlies mind control. Anyone with long hair who did drugs in those days were lumped together as hippies. The hippie movement sprung out of the counter culture to protest the war in Viet Nam and other government atrocities around the world. No hippie would ever have done what those Mansons did...not real hippies. And those weirdos were straight on the nights they committed murder--not on acid or any other drugs. As well they left behind a ton of physical evidence at the crime scenes.

MacDonald has told us that his "hippies" were on five different drugs the night they invaded his home. Yeah they would have been comatose if they had ingested that many drugs. The only drug addict in the Macdonald home comitting murder in February 1970 was Jeffrey R. MacDonald.


The Manson gang were a bunch of hippies that met Manson in Haight Ashbury. Haight Ashbury was a haven for runaway teenagers, misfits and malcontents. The scene was very different than your vision of the flower children stumming a musical instructment and singing song of love and peace.

The Tate murders yielded little to no evidence of actual intruders. The telephone wires had been cut and there was blood of the victims everywhere. The only thing found at the scene was a broken gun grip, a rope and a pair glasses beleived to have belonged to the killers. There were signs of a struggle based on where the blood of the victims was found on the doors where they tried to escape.

A 19 caretaker that lived in a guest house was arrested at gun point and held for 4-5 days before being released. There were no signs of forced entry, there were no signs of robbery. The police worked on the theory that the killer or killers may have been an invited guest, something went wrong and they killed one of the victims and then had to kill the rest of them to avoid being IDed. The background of the victims were checked and the friends, associations were all checked for months.

The murders were solved because one of the cult girls told an informant about the murders. The Manson gang was being busted for a car thief ring where they stole VWs and converted them to sand dune buggies.

The crime scene itself other than the victims blood had pillows on the sofa upended. The signs of a struggled was blood on the shutters of a door in the back bedroom where Abbie Folger tried to escape and blood smears on the front door areas where Voytech ran to escape.

The housekeeper arrived the next morning, entered the service entrance and didn't notice anything until she looked out and saw Vouteck on the lawn and the blood around the front entrance.

There were 4 adults rounded up in the house and brought into the living room and killed. Sharon Tate had a rope looped around her neck tht ran across and looped around Jay Sebring neck and then over the rafters. Jay Sebring was shot in the living room. This cause Voytech and Folger to go nuts and they tried to escape. They were stabbed and hit the the gun grip. Voyteck was shot in the back as he ran out on the front lawn. Folger ran to the back bedroon and was being stabbed as she tried to get out the door. She was finished off as she tried to run towards the guest house.

With all this going on in the bloodly slayings the police debated whether there was more than one assailant. When they broke down the door and arrested the skinny 19 yr old caretaker at gun point they made him take a polygraph. When he passed it they refused to believe the results and made public statements they believed he had residue of some undetected drug in his system that sedated him into being able to pass a poly.

Because he was living within close proxmity of the scene he should have been able to hear something and because he was left unharmed and alive he was the prime suspect.

The police finally decided that maybe there was 2 to possibly people involved in the murders. That took a lot head scratching. There was without question a gun that killed 3 victims, there was a believed to be a bayonet, knife and the rope used as weapons. Two victims ran as they were being attacked stabbed and then shot. Two victims had the rope around thier necks and over the rafters. These four young adults had all been herded into the living room together and the police finally in their police investigation reasoning agree that there could have been more than one assailant. Duh! They could get off the spin of their first assumption that the assailants were known to the victims and had been invited in the door.

This case likely would have never been solved if one the Manson girls had not bragged to an informant of the murders. Again, I repeat the crime scene left no clues fo these intruders. The living room was not in disarray where these 4 victims and their 4 killers had convened that for last few mintues. The LaBianca murders were not considered linked at the time.

Jay Sebring had been a martial arts student of Bruce Lee. Those martial art skills doesn't do much for you when you have3-4 people surrounding you with knifes, bayonets and guns.

The hippie flower children girl followers of Manson were taken with his music and poems and his gentle manner. Off they went with him to the desert to live happily thereafter. They got back to nature, sunbathed in the nude, had babies in a converted bus, sang and danced by the firelight. They left the serenity, love of their home in the bus or mining shacks to come into LA on occasion to slice up a few people.

You can blow smoke all day long about how real hippies were all tie dyeing, smoking a little weed and finding themselves dancing barefoot in the moon light were the real innocents of the world. The truth and reality is that the hippie culture and its image drew many runawaya and misfits that were tripping into many crimes to support their life style. I will grant you that only a few went so far as to kill innocent people for whatever reason. The fact is there are only a few people in any walk of life that will brutely go in and murder sleeping innocent people. Those few that do those heinous crimes are usually mental and/or under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

The facts are that Ft. Bragg had a large drug problem with a lot of civilian and military misfits that lived their version of a hippie lifestyle. The harsh reality of the times was many of the young men coming back from Nam were drug addicts and shell shocked. It is also a fact that the Vietnam opened the flood gates to massive amounts of drugs being in from that region. The 70's were dark times for this nation.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
It was spots of blood which could have come from dripping blood, as the wooden club murder weapon was being carried from Kim's bedroom, after Kim had been murdered in her bed by the Stoeckley group.The evidence doesn't support your theory at all, which of course you knew before you posted. Not only was Kim bludgeoned in the MB and carried back to her bed by her father, but she was clubbed again and stabbed after he put her in her own bed.

And of course the evidence (including the recent DNA results) show that there never was any "Stoeckley group" nor any other "intruder" in the apartment.One of [the murderer's] arm hairs "clutched" in Colette's hand doesn't suggest MacDonald guilt to me.LOL!! Oh, Bertie, how you do make me laugh. Had that hair been sourced to Stoeckley or anyone else outside the home, you'd be delirious with joy, claiming that it was conclusive proof of "intruders." How transparent you are, and how funny.There was a blue acrylic fiber in Colette's hand...So what? As you knew before you posted this for the hundredth time, unsourced items aren't forensically significant, so the fiber means nothing at all. Even if it were to ever be sourced to someone else it wouldn't mean a thing unless you had other corroborating evidence showing that that particular person helped Mac commit the murders. So as usual: nice try, Bertie, but no cigar.I was interested to read Bob Stevenson say recently that there was a foreign pubic hair found at the MacDonald murders scene....There are some unanswered questions about that pubic hair.What did you think about the pubic hair sourced to MacDonald that was found in his daughter's bed?

[Bunny2]

I still see no sign at all of the AFIP report on the murderer's website. Is Mac trying to suppress evidence? :)

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill . . .
A 19 caretaker that lived in a guest house was arrested at gun point and held for 4-5 days before being released. There were no signs of forced entry, there were no signs of robbery. The police worked on the theory that the killer or killers may have been an invited guest, something went wrong and they killed one of the victims and then had to kill the rest of them to avoid being IDed. The background of the victims were checked and the friends, associations were all checked for months . . .

And? What's wrong with that?

There were 4 adults rounded up in the house and brought into the living room and killed. Sharon Tate had a rope looped around her neck tht ran across and looped around Jay Sebring neck and then over the rafters. Jay Sebring was shot in the living room. This cause Voytech and Folger to go nuts and they tried to escape. They were stabbed and hit the the gun grip. Voyteck was shot in the back as he ran out on the front lawn. Folger ran to the back bedroon and was being stabbed as she tried to get out the door. She was finished off as she tried to run towards the guest house . . .

ummmmmm, is it registering for you at all caphill, that THREATS were eliminated and KILLED??? Victims that fought were . . . KILLED? Victims that tried to escape were . . . yes . . . KILLED!???

Jay Sebring had been a martial arts student of Bruce Lee. Those martial art skills doesn't do much for you when you have3-4 people surrounding you with knifes, bayonets and guns . . .

. . . you got that right . . . and yes, again . . . Jay was KILLED!

The 70's were dark times for this nation . . .

I enjoyed the 70's and think Colette Stevenson MacDonald and her two defenseless children would have too . . . had things not gone PERMANENTLY DARK for them at the hands of her "physician heal thyself" prescription speed freak hub . . . too bad macdonald was so "anti-drug" :lol: . . . Colette and the girls would surely still be alive (I'm thinking Colette would have eventually found the Women Rights Movement . . . got a divorce--taken adulterous-macdonald to the cleaners in the process--finished college and had a happy and successful life with her kids!) had macdonald chosen marijuana as his drug of choice! Since the illegality of marijuana prolly offended the doctors' sensibilities (whereas family-slaughter did NOT! :rolleyes: ) . . . things could have turned out differently had he chosen prescription valium or even that handy supply of lithium macdonald had on hand to abuse!!!:mad:

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill



The Manson gang were a bunch of hippies that met Manson in Haight Ashbury. Haight Ashbury was a haven for runaway teenagers, misfits and malcontents. The scene was very different than your vision of the flower children stumming a musical instructment and singing song of love and peace.

The Tate murders yielded little to no evidence of actual intruders. The telephone wires had been cut and there was blood of the victims everywhere. The only thing found at the scene was a broken gun grip, a rope and a pair glasses beleived to have belonged to the killers. There were signs of a struggle based on where the blood of the victims was found on the doors where they tried to escape.

A 19 caretaker that lived in a guest house was arrested at gun point and held for 4-5 days before being released. There were no signs of forced entry, there were no signs of robbery. The police worked on the theory that the killer or killers may have been an invited guest, something went wrong and they killed one of the victims and then had to kill the rest of them to avoid being IDed. The background of the victims were checked and the friends, associations were all checked for months.

The murders were solved because one of the cult girls told an informant about the murders. The Manson gang was being busted for a car thief ring where they stole VWs and converted them to sand dune buggies.

The crime scene itself other than the victims blood had pillows on the sofa upended. The signs of a struggled was blood on the shutters of a door in the back bedroom where Abbie Folger tried to escape and blood smears on the front door areas where Voytech ran to escape.

The housekeeper arrived the next morning, entered the service entrance and didn't notice anything until she looked out and saw Vouteck on the lawn and the blood around the front entrance.

There were 4 adults rounded up in the house and brought into the living room and killed. Sharon Tate had a rope looped around her neck tht ran across and looped around Jay Sebring neck and then over the rafters. Jay Sebring was shot in the living room. This cause Voytech and Folger to go nuts and they tried to escape. They were stabbed and hit the the gun grip. Voyteck was shot in the back as he ran out on the front lawn. Folger ran to the back bedroon and was being stabbed as she tried to get out the door. She was finished off as she tried to run towards the guest house.

With all this going on in the bloodly slayings the police debated whether there was more than one assailant. When they broke down the door and arrested the skinny 19 yr old caretaker at gun point they made him take a polygraph. When he passed it they refused to believe the results and made public statements they believed he had residue of some undetected drug in his system that sedated him into being able to pass a poly.

Because he was living within close proxmity of the scene he should have been able to hear something and because he was left unharmed and alive he was the prime suspect.

The police finally decided that maybe there was 2 to possibly people involved in the murders. That took a lot head scratching. There was without question a gun that killed 3 victims, there was a believed to be a bayonet, knife and the rope used as weapons. Two victims ran as they were being attacked stabbed and then shot. Two victims had the rope around thier necks and over the rafters. These four young adults had all been herded into the living room together and the police finally in their police investigation reasoning agree that there could have been more than one assailant. Duh! They could get off the spin of their first assumption that the assailants were known to the victims and had been invited in the door.

This case likely would have never been solved if one the Manson girls had not bragged to an informant of the murders. Again, I repeat the crime scene left no clues fo these intruders. The living room was not in disarray where these 4 victims and their 4 killers had convened that for last few mintues. The LaBianca murders were not considered linked at the time.

Jay Sebring had been a martial arts student of Bruce Lee. Those martial art skills doesn't do much for you when you have3-4 people surrounding you with knifes, bayonets and guns.

The hippie flower children girl followers of Manson were taken with his music and poems and his gentle manner. Off they went with him to the desert to live happily thereafter. They got back to nature, sunbathed in the nude, had babies in a converted bus, sang and danced by the firelight. They left the serenity, love of their home in the bus or mining shacks to come into LA on occasion to slice up a few people.

You can blow smoke all day long about how real hippies were all tie dyeing, smoking a little weed and finding themselves dancing barefoot in the moon light were the real innocents of the world. The truth and reality is that the hippie culture and its image drew many runawaya and misfits that were tripping into many crimes to support their life style. I will grant you that only a few went so far as to kill innocent people for whatever reason. The fact is there are only a few people in any walk of life that will brutely go in and murder sleeping innocent people. Those few that do those heinous crimes are usually mental and/or under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

The facts are that Ft. Bragg had a large drug problem with a lot of civilian and military misfits that lived their version of a hippie lifestyle. The harsh reality of the times was many of the young men coming back from Nam were drug addicts and shell shocked. It is also a fact that the Vietnam opened the flood gates to massive amounts of drugs being in from that region. The 70's were dark times for this nation.

Though not a cohesive cultural movement with manifestos and leaders, some hippies expressed their desire for change with communal or nomadic lifestyles, by renouncing corporate influence, consumerism and the Vietnam War, by embracing aspects of non-Judeo-Christian religious cultures (including much Eastern philosophy), and with criticism of Western middle class values.

Such criticism included the views that the government was paternalistic, corporate industry was greedy and domineering, traditional morals were askew, and war was inhumane. Hippies referred to the structures and institutions that they opposed as The Establishment. (Pigs)

Hippies of the time were interested in "tuning in to their inner minds" (with or without drugs or mystic meditation) and improving mainstream society. Influence in hippie culture is sometimes akin to Eastern religions, philosophies, and associations. Although mainstream culture is not associated with hippie ways, modern hippies nonetheless exist as made apparent on sites such as Hippyland and events such as Rainbow Family Gatherings.

These are the hippies I am referring to.....real hippies. Not the "family"

Was Haight-Ashbury the only piece of real estate in the nation where hippies gathered? I don't think so.....it just became famous for the hippie movement because it started there. Yes, it attracted run-a-ways, it was California....warm climate. They could gather outdoors in the parks to talk and sleep without worrying about the climate, and to listen to the music of the day, Jefferson Airplane, Janice Joplin, Hendrix, Grateful Dead, etc. etc.

By the time Manson was released from prison and met up with the freaks, Haight Ashbury was no longer a hippie haven of flowers in the hair and love beads and marijuana. The speed freaks.....always volatile....were then in abundance in H-A, robbing, mugging and committing assaults. Yes, it was very different that's why I told you the Manson gang were not hippies. Hippies stood for peace and love, not violence and murder. Hippies lived together in communes...living off the land and sharing together. Call them hippies if you must but to me they never were and never will be. They were a gang of long haired freaks who took drugs, big difference. I was a teenager in those days, I know all about the hippie movement because I was there joining in--a hippie with my bell bottoms, long hair, sandals, head band and love beads.

But there was physical evidence, unlike the MacDonald apt, of their participation.

Yes, I know all that, I don't understand why you are giving me a review of the Tate murders. What does it have to do with MacDonald other than he copycatted some of the details from that Esquire magazine.

"The fact is there are only a few people in any walk of life that will brutely go in and murder sleeping innocent people. Those few that do those heinous crimes are usually mental and/or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. "


Yes you are so correct Cappy, Jeffrey R. MacDonald committed heinous crimes while under the influence of drugs.amphetemines..speed.

No one is arguing that Ft. Bragg had a large drug problem. How it relates to the MacDonald murders is the argument. NO, don't even bother to tell me that Macdonald wouldn't give the druggies methadone or turned them in to their Commanders. You don't kill a man's children for that, you kill him.....

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill


Again, I repeat the crime scene left no clues fo these intruders. The living

You are wrong - 2 of the Manson murderers left finger prints at the Tate house - Watson on the front door and Krenwinkel on the door leading from the master bedroom to the pool.

[cami]

REAL HIPPIES


It was the hippies that took the movement (the beatniks) out of the coffee shops and on to the campuses around the country. Berkley became the center of the movement. There were protest and demonstrations. Angry at the injustices in this country such as racism, poverty and the lack of women's rights, sit ins were staged. Sometimes practically taking over campuses. Many were arrested. The movement started small and grew. I believe there were two major factors in the growth of the hippie movement. Music and Vietnam have to be considered in the equation. As the war escalated, more and more young people were going to Vietnam. Students died in confrontations with the national guard at Kent State and Jackson State. It was a war that was considered unjust within the movement. Peace became a common goal and the ranks of the hippies swelled. The music took roots from the folk music of musicians coming out of the depression, such as Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie. Singers like Joan Baez, Bob Dylan and Arlo Guthrie brought folk music into the sixties with protest themes against government oppression and war. They had taken the words of the beat generation to a new level. Music festivals like the Newport Folk Festival drew large crowd of like thinkers where they could not only enjoy the music but share the common goals. These festivals grew in size and number. Many areas banned the festivals because they were afraid of what might happen. All those crazy, dirty, dope smoking hippies. Who knows what they might do? It's true that drugs were a part of the movement. For some reason drugs have been part of music for generations, including the blues and jazz performers of the 1920s and 30s. This just was the first time it spread so far. Much of the drug use, dress and such was just a part of the protest. Some, of course, were in it for the drugs alone. These were the people, that naturally, were most linked with being a hippie. Even with the protest of the establishment, music festivals flourished and the movement grew. Then in August 1969 there was a festival that changed the world. Half a million hippies joined together to make history. Woodstock was probably the high point of the hippie movement. Woodstock proved the doom and despair people wrong. For three days, all these crazy hippie lived together in peace and harmony.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by caphill

<snip>
Jay Sebring had been a martial arts student of Bruce Lee. Those martial art skills doesn't do much for you when you have3-4 people surrounding you with knifes, bayonets and guns.
<snip>


How very true. Martial arts skills couldn't save him. Alas, if he only had one of Mac's magic pajama tops!

[barskin&co.]

Which part if Mac's story is the most utterly ridiculous

A) Drug crazed hippies chanting "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs."

B) Colette, while being attacked by said hippies, shouting "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?"

C) The dug crazed hippies attacking the Macster with a baseball bat and his proceeding to fend off their attempts to stab him with his pajama top.

D) The bedrooms where Colette and Kristen and Kimberly were killed were a bloody mess showing evidence of a great struggle, while the living room where the grown man, a Green Beret, successfully vanquished these bloodthirsty attackers having not much more than an overturned coffee table.

E) The drug crazed hippies failing to steal anything at all, like
....well, drugs, for instance.

F) The murderous drug crazed hippies leaving an adult male witness not just alive, but with merely a pin prick of a wound.

I think this rivals the latest notorious wife and baby killer, Neil Entwistle's, story for sheer absurdity. I'd like to hear Bertie, our own "Brit" (heh, heh) backing up Entwistle's claims. I could use the laugh.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by audpaud
. . . even that handy supply of lithium macdonald had on hand to abuse!!!


. . . ooooooops, my bad! The good doctor had a big supply of that ever popular camp-out first aid kit medicine: THORAZINE on hand!:tongue:

That'd be some camp out . . . even in the DARK DAYS of those 70's!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :D

[audpaud]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.
. . .
How very true. Martial arts skills couldn't save him. Alas, if he only had one of Mac's magic pajama tops!

OMGosh! ROTFLMBO!!!!!!:D :beer:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Deb B
. . .
You are wrong - 2 of the Manson murderers left finger prints at the Tate house - Watson on the front door and Krenwinkel on the door leading from the master bedroom to the pool.

You mean Ole Tex and Patty didn't wear any freakin' DOCTOR SURGICAL GLOVES???????????:confused: :rolleyes: :D

[barskin&co.]

Think of how many lives could be saved if our troops in Iraq were armed with pajama tops!

[barskin&co.]

Dosen't the story sound like something from the Old Testament (or the New Testament, for that matter, but I'm Jewish)? You know, like the lamp in the Temple of Jerusalem that was able to burn for 8 days or the Red Sea parting.


Yea, verily did MacDonaldirius hold up his linen breeches. And, lo, though his attackers did try to smite him with their swords, the Lord protected him with His Mighty Hand, and the breeches did protect MacDonaldirius. And so his smiters left, gloved as a surgeon, and went out into the night.

And so today, we celebrate the Holy Day of Breechnukah, the Festival of the Robes.

[barskin&co.]

And, yea verily did they shout, "fermented grapes are rapturous! Smite the unkosher meat!"

[audpaud]

Originally posted by audpaud
. . . The good doctor had a big supply of that ever popular camp-out first aid kit medicine: THORAZINE on hand!:tongue:

That'd be some camp out . . . even in the DARK DAYS of those 70's!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :D [/B]


. . . . strumming his guitar and singing:

"It's a North Carolina Camp Out hiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh . . .
. . . friends around the camp fire and everybody's high
on, ummmmm thorazine????????"

"NAH, doesn't even rhyme!" *Mr. Denver leaves the Thread, shaking his head sadly . . . *

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Far be it from me to suggest that Bunny is fabricating another pubic hair out of whole cloth, but where on earth did Bunny get that idea from? Source please?LOL! You already know about the pubic hair of Mac's which was found in Kim's bed, Bertie, so why do you act like you don't know anything about it? Go read the records if you've forgotten the facts. I'm not going to do your homework for you.To me it sounds like lies, or CID and FBI manufactured evidence.No, it doesn't. You only write things like this because you're a flamebaiter and a fraud, just playing games with the posters here.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.
Yea, verily did MacDonaldirius hold up his linen breeches. And, lo, though his attackers did try to smite him with their swords, the Lord protected him with His Mighty Hand, and the breeches did protect MacDonaldirius. And so his smiters left, gloved as a surgeon, and went out into the night.

And so today, we celebrate the Holy Day of Breechnukah, the Festival of the Robes.
Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.
And, yea verily did they shout, "fermented grapes are rapturous! Smite the unkosher meat!"

HA!!! And here I thought things couldn't get any funnier than what's in Bertie's posts...

:lol:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Bunny2



HA!!! And here I thought things couldn't get any funnier than what's in Bertie's posts...

:lol:

Well, then of course, the Book of MacDonaldirius and the story of Judah MacDonaldirius against the fierce Stoeckleyants happened so very, very long ago, in another time and another place, back in the Dark Days of the 1970's.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.
Think of how many lives could be saved if our troops in Iraq were armed with pajama tops!

lmbo! hey, throw in an afghan or two (the blankie kind, of course, lol) and our troops would be home in no time!

[cami]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.
Dosen't the story sound like something from the Old Testament (or the New Testament, for that matter, but I'm Jewish)? You know, like the lamp in the Temple of Jerusalem that was able to burn for 8 days or the Red Sea parting.


Yea, verily did MacDonaldirius hold up his linen breeches. And, lo, though his attackers did try to smite him with their swords, the Lord protected him with His Mighty Hand, and the breeches did protect MacDonaldirius. And so his smiters left, gloved as a surgeon, and went out into the night.

And so today, we celebrate the Holy Day of Breechnukah, the Festival of the Robes.

aaaaaaaaahahahahaha you guys are killing me tonight. I'm here to donate a container full of pajama tops for the troops in Iraq. It'll be Canada's contribution.

[cami]

Originally posted by audpaud



. . . . strumming his guitar and singing:

"It's a North Carolina Camp Out hiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh . . .
. . . friends around the camp fire and everybody's high
on, ummmmm thorazine????????"

"NAH, doesn't even rhyme!" *Mr. Denver leaves the Thread, shaking his head sadly . . . *

Guitars everyone....sitting around the Camp Fire

fire's burning
fire's burning
draw nearer
draw nearer
needles ready
needles ready
thorazine is hear..er

Well it rhymes don't it....Okay so a lyricist I'll never be.

[Pamala397]

hi there! I am very new to this post, but I have some information that might be of interest to ya'll. In 1989 I was getting a divorce and believed in JM's bs and wrote him (to keep myself from writing to my x-husband.) I wrote and spoke with him for 3 years,and I totally believed in him. He called me on x-mas and helped me with my mom's back problems.We also got in an argument over football. The guy thinks he knows everything and tries to be very sexy even in prison. I still kept believing even after I married again. Now, here is the thing that turned my head around. I read every piece of information I could get ahold of, and that monster is exactly where he needs to be. I viewed the autopsy photos and I knew that he was guilty. I feel like a complete fool. My birthday is exactly one week earlier than little Kristen and I feel I have a special bond with her. : :punch: I think of Colette and Kimmy and Kristen. I think everyone on this forum should all get together one day and light a candle and say a prayer for them for the horrible way they lost their lives,for the pain at the man they all loved themost. We should all be grateful that we are all here to agrue about this and the one that we love isn't killing us and our children. even if you think he is innocent it doesn't matter. Its time we all think of the girls. Thanks for listening. Cami and Bunny 2 you are my favorite!!

[Bunny2]

Hi, there, Pamala, and welcome to the board!

I enjoyed reading your post. I think it's always interesting reading things written by people who've had direct contact with the murderer (and dare I say it's also interesting reading the things he writes to his female correspondents!). I was wondering if by any chance you'd contacted Christina Masewicz and told her of your experience(s) with JM?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

Regardless, you're 100% right in your final conclusions about Mac. He took the lives of his family and has never had any remorse whatsoever about doing that. He's also a very controlling sort of person, but one thing he will never be able to control are the many, many posters who honor (and will continue to honor) the memories of his victims, Colette, Kim and Kristen. I'm glad your voice is among those, and hope you will be a regular poster from now on. :)

[stinkerbelle]

welcome pamala!:)

[byn63]

welcome pamela! join in regularly!

AND BERTIE/CAPY - byn is NOT WRONG or MISTAKEN. Why not try reading the FACTS for a change. Kimmie's blood and brain serum was found in a fully saturated stain from direct bleeding approximately 6" in diameter on the master bedroom carpet. We are not talking drips or smears or transfer from the murder club. Read the CID reports and Blood testing results.

AND capy - not only were Patricia Krenwinkle's fingerprint (on door from mb to pool) and Tex Watson's fingerprint on living room door (in a position that could only have been made from inside), but, an impression in blood of Tex's boot heel was also found on the sidewalk near the front door.

[Deb B]

Has MacDonald ever made a statement as to what the heck he was doing with all those anti-psychotic drugs in the house?? That seems really wierd/creepy.

[cami]

Originally posted by Pamala397
hi there! I am very new to this post, but I have some information that might be of interest to ya'll. In 1989 I was getting a divorce and believed in JM's bs and wrote him (to keep myself from writing to my x-husband.) I wrote and spoke with him for 3 years,and I totally believed in him. He called me on x-mas and helped me with my mom's back problems.We also got in an argument over football. The guy thinks he knows everything and tries to be very sexy even in prison. I still kept believing even after I married again. Now, here is the thing that turned my head around. I read every piece of information I could get ahold of, and that monster is exactly where he needs to be. I viewed the autopsy photos and I knew that he was guilty. I feel like a complete fool. My birthday is exactly one week earlier than little Kristen and I feel I have a special bond with her. : :punch: I think of Colette and Kimmy and Kristen. I think everyone on this forum should all get together one day and light a candle and say a prayer for them for the horrible way they lost their lives,for the pain at the man they all loved themost. We should all be grateful that we are all here to agrue about this and the one that we love isn't killing us and our children. even if you think he is innocent it doesn't matter. Its time we all think of the girls. Thanks for listening. Cami and Bunny 2 you are my favorite!!

Hi Pam, welcome....:seeya:

I agree with Bunny, always interesting to hear personal stories of MacDonald. What a manipultor eh? He is very controlling and likes to micro manage everything.

I feel a special bond with Colette. We all honour them. They will never be forgotten as long as we are around, nor will we ever stop exposing that ice pick baby killer for what he is.

[cami]

Originally posted by Deb B
Has MacDonald ever made a statement as to what the heck he was doing with all those anti-psychotic drugs in the house?? That seems really wierd/creepy.

Should be in the April 6th, 1970, interview with Grebner and the CID....he was questioned about it....of course he is such a liar so take his answers with a grain of salt.

[audpaud]

>>> . . . "The other problem I have," Shaw said, "is a motive."

"Right."

"We've got to establish a motive for this thing and I don't see one. There's nothing even missing from your house----not even vandalism."

"Right."

"Captain MacDonald, there's nothing missing. You have a lot of things in your home that people would like to steal."

"They were nice. I know."

"You have a lot of---drugs in your house."

"I know."

"Why?"

"Oh, I just got something of everything in case anyone asks me. Johnny-on-the-spot, you know. Very often I'd suture people, and I took care of half the neighborhood, you know, and----nothing there was controlled. I was careful about that. Everything was stuff there wouldn't be any problem with and no one should be after for any reason. And I just had---like, for instance, if we were going to go on a camping trip, I was all ready to make up a nice little kit with----you know, all the possibilities involved. But that was the only reason.
"All this came about when the Third Special Forces disbanded, and they had boxes and boxes of stuff they were just going to burn. And I thought that was stupid, so I just took a couple bottles of everything and was going to make up my own aid kit, you know, for my car, and camping and stuff. But I know it looked a little---a little excessive, I'm sure."

"It looked more than a little excessive," Shaw said, glancing at a list which showed that, among many other drugs, syringes, and disposable scalpel blades, MacDonald's hall closet had contained eighteen fifty milligram vials of liquid Thorazine---an anti=psychotic drug often used to sedate unruly mental patients. "It looked real excessive, frankly. I'm being frank with you as you're being frank with me, I hope."

"Yeah, well----"

"Were you sending these things to people?"

"Just my mother, my in-laws. Diet pills, thyroid medicine, blood pressure pills."

"Okay, were you sending anything to anybody around here that would sugguest----"

"Huh-uh," shaking head to mean no.

"Can you give us any help along this line at all?"

"Geez, I wish I could. I just can't imagine that I've ever offended anyone enough---unless they're psychotic."

"And then that one person commits at least three others to his cause?"

"At least. Right, right. Other people, and to---and to have no---no one break down, you know, no one come forth and feel bad or read the newspapers and say 'Jesus, I know of,' you know, 'I know of some people, and I saw them Tuesday morning and they were all bloody,' or something. So I agree with you. I don't know. I'd sleep a little easier, I'll tell you that."

[Bunny2]

Hey, Audpaud, nice work on transcribing that! Gee, you did so well that you stunned us all into silence today. :)

I can see it now: Mac and Colette and the kids, out there camping (yeah, right), and Mac's all prepared with his Thorazine and syringes, just in case one of the kids suddenly begins having hallucinations or Colette decides to begin clawing at her face..just break out the ol' Thorazine and problem solved.

Seriously, though, I don't get this bit about his insisting that "nothing was controlled." Is that true, that Thorazine is not (or was not at that time) a controlled substance? I have a hard time believing that, but then again, I have a hard time believing most of what Mac says, so what else is new.

I think he might have been supplying his brother with Thorazine, and I also think if he was treating neighbors and they weren't his actual hospital patients, he could have lost his medical license for that.

[Pamala397]

Hi again! I just thought yall might want to know that he sent me a video tape. It's name was "False Witness". It contained Helena Stoekley and her version of what happened. It is a must see for those of us who believe him to be guilty. Never seen it in any video store. But guess what happened??? My vcr ate the tape! Must be something there!:shrug:

[caphill]

What happened to many posts that were on this thread? Many seems to have been deleted.

[byn63]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, Audpaud, nice work on transcribing that! Gee, you did so well that you stunned us all into silence today. :)

I can see it now: Mac and Colette and the kids, out there camping (yeah, right), and Mac's all prepared with his Thorazine and syringes, just in case one of the kids suddenly begins having hallucinations or Colette decides to begin clawing at her face..just break out the ol' Thorazine and problem solved.

Seriously, though, I don't get this bit about his insisting that "nothing was controlled." Is that true, that Thorazine is not (or was not at that time) a controlled substance? I have a hard time believing that, but then again, I have a hard time believing most of what Mac says, so what else is new.

I think he might have been supplying his brother with Thorazine, and I also think if he was treating neighbors and they weren't his actual hospital patients, he could have lost his medical license for that.

Hey bunny - I never thought of that - Thorazine not controlled? Let me see what I can uncover on that..........ya know how I like to ferret out obscure data! LOL!:read:

[caphill]

Originally posted by byn63


Hey bunny - I never thought of that - Thorazine not controlled? Let me see what I can uncover on that..........ya know how I like to ferret out obscure data! LOL!:read:


Could you ferret out what happened to over a 1500 posts on this thread?

[cami]

Originally posted by Pamala397
Hi again! I just thought yall might want to know that he sent me a video tape. It's name was "False Witness". It contained Helena Stoekley and her version of what happened. It is a must see for those of us who believe him to be guilty. Never seen it in any video store. But guess what happened??? My vcr ate the tape! Must be something there!:shrug:

It's a British documentary, shown on television only I believe.

I thought it was a piece of trash. All those crazy supposed witnesses who saw Helena washing blood off her; smelled blood on her boots! (I love that one), saw Greg Mitchell (Jim) running from a building where he had written on a wall that he had killed the MacDonalds. All that stuff about Fayetteville being so dangerous. If it was that dangerous why didn't ice pick lock his doors that night.

Yeah your VCR ate it cause it's full of lies and falsehoods and inenudos which Mac and his ilk do so well....

It was the first program, however, where I heard Stombaugh, when running down the crime, say that Kris was murdered before Colette made it to her room.

I like the interviews with Fred and Mildred, we've only seen snippets on LKL and other programs.

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill



Could you ferret out what happened to over a 1500 posts on this thread?

Ask the moderator Cappy, Coldwater isn't it? Maybe they need to free up bandwith so they cut them down. The other threads have been diminished as well...I noticed it yesterday on the Darlie thread as well. Too bad they didn't take the first several pages of posts and left the middle to the end....more discussion on evidence.

[cami]

Originally posted by byn63


Hey bunny - I never thought of that - Thorazine not controlled? Let me see what I can uncover on that..........ya know how I like to ferret out obscure data! LOL!:read:

"It should be noted that many psychoactive drugs are neither con-trolled substances NOR SHOULD BE. Neuroleptics such as chlorproma- zine (Thorazine), haloperidol (Haldol), and thioridazine (Mellaril) do not produce a "high" and can be downright unpleasant. Lithium can be toxic and has no perceivable psychological effect."

Exerpt from the US Drug Abuse Regulation and Control Act of 1970.

Link to the site (http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/law_fed_info1.shtml)

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill



Could you ferret out what happened to over a 1500 posts on this thread?

Can you ferret out an example of a case that will show us that it's not unsual that a band of drugged out hippies managed to butcher 3 people in a small apartment without leaving any physical evidence they were there?

[byn63]

would have made better sense imo to remove the first half of the thread!


Thorazine = antipsyhcotic * tranquillizer * antiemetic

Description: chlorpromazine is 10-(3-dimethylaminopropryl)-2-chlorphenothiazine, a dimethylamine derivative of phenothiazine.

Indications:
for the treatment of schizophrenia.
to control nausea and vomiting.
for relief of restlessness and apprehension presurgery.
for acute intermittent porphyria.
as an adjunct to treatment of tetanus.
to control manifestations of mania of manic depression.
for relief of intractable hiccups.
*****for the treatment of severe behavioral problems of children (1-12yrs age) marked by combativeness and/or explosive hyperexcitable behavior (out of proportion to immediate provocations), and in the short-term treatment of hyperactive children who show excessive motor activity with accompanying conduct disorders consisting of some or all of the following symptoms: impulsivity, difficulty sustaining attention, aggressivity, mood lability and poor frustration tolerance.

The 1970 Controlled Substances Act is 132 printed pages. So, I still have a lot of reading to do, and I have not, as yet, determined if Thorazine is or ever was a controlled substance. I'll let you know what I find out.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by cami


"It should be noted that many psychoactive drugs are neither con-trolled substances NOR SHOULD BE. Neuroleptics such as chlorproma- zine (Thorazine), haloperidol (Haldol), and thioridazine (Mellaril) do not produce a "high" and can be downright unpleasant. Lithium can be toxic and has no perceivable psychological effect."

Exerpt from the US Drug Abuse Regulation and Control Act of 1970.

Link to the site (http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/law_fed_info1.shtml)

Interesting tidbit: Wikipedia says that thorazine can be used to treat amphetamine overdose.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Pamala397
. . . I think everyone on this forum should all get together one day and light a candle and say a prayer for them for the horrible way they lost their lives,for the pain at the man they all loved themost. We should all be grateful that we are all here to agrue about this and the one that we love isn't killing us and our children. even if you think he is innocent it doesn't matter. Its time we all think of the girls . . .

I read every word/post/page of this formerly lengthy Thread b4 I began posting . . . had a casual interest in this case over the years and found the facts/links contained here to be amazingly interesting! I was also amazed at the contempt posted by "supporters" of macdonald, for the true victims here!:( Along with the informative, factual links, many, many, many, and yes, "many":D posts, dedicated to honoring Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, Her Unborn Baby Son AND the much maligned Kassab/Stevenson Family were deleted as well . . .

SOOOOOoooooooo . . . *deep breath* . . . Tx to all who have provided those links to christina's website . . to the macdonaldmagicalmystery tour and other areas where exhaustive (and expensive!) research has been done for us and for the Memory of . . .

Colette, Kim, Kris & Baby:rose:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Deb B
Interesting tidbit: Wikipedia says that thorazine can be used to treat amphetamine overdose.

I do think macdonald prolly had the Thorazine on hand for his bro' Jay to an extent . . . but have often wondered if the speed freak Doc gave himself a shot of it after the eruption of his murderous rage(???):confused: Maybe even b4 he methodically killed Krissy?

Not sure how that timeline would work . . . but maybe when he "started thinking like a physician" . . . he took a shot of the Thorazine to calm down . . . re-read parts of the Esquire Manson article and then gathered the multiple weapons/staged the scene?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by byn63
*****for the treatment of severe behavioral problems of children (1-12yrs age) marked by combativeness and/or explosive hyperexcitable behavior (out of proportion to immediate provocations), and in the short-term treatment of hyperactive children who show excessive motor activity with accompanying conduct disorders consisting of some or all of the following symptoms: impulsivity, difficulty sustaining attention, aggressivity, mood lability and poor frustration tolerance.


Dear Lord! I hope Psycho-Doc didn't have the eighteen vials on hand to also administer to Poor Kimberly in a misguided bedwetting "treatment"???!!:flamemad: If so, no wonder Colette was taking a Child Psychology Class!!!

Even though the guy was capable of bashing Lil Kim's brain out . . . the thought of him with all of this Thorazine still puzzles, and creeps me out!

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, Audpaud, nice work on transcribing that! . . .

. . . Seriously, though, I don't get this bit about his insisting that "nothing was controlled." Is that true, . . .

Tx bun . . . owe all my posting skills to stinkyb!:) NEVER would have figured out that "bold thing" without her!

I took (abused) a lot of diet pills in those "Dark Days of the 70's" . . . had a lot of fun and thankfully didn't kill anyone, or myself. Didn't have any kind of weight problem to speak of and they were relatively easy to get . . . but still thinking they were "controlled"(?????) :confused:

My faves were called "Didrex" (sp) . . . little pink pills that had "Upjohn" printed on them . . . we'd peel the pink coating from them so they'd "kick-in" faster . . . gonna Google to see if they were controlled.

I'm thinking macmonster could have been disbarred for even "mailing" prescriptions thru the U.S. mail.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by cami


Yes he did. He murdered the Spawn ranch hand Shorty Shea and others...one a drug dealer for the Black Panthers.

That Manson gang of killers and misfits were not hippies. They were thieves, prostitutes, and creepy crawlers and under Charlies mind control. Anyone with long hair who did drugs in those days were lumped together as hippies. The hippie movement sprung out of the counter culture to protest the war in Viet Nam and other government atrocities around the world. No hippie would ever have done what those Mansons did...not real hippies. And those weirdos were straight on the nights they committed murder--not on acid or any other drugs. As well they left behind a ton of physical evidence at the crime scenes.

MacDonald has told us that his "hippies" were on five different drugs the night they invaded his home. Yeah they would have been comatose if they had ingested that many drugs. The only drug addict in the Macdonald home comitting murder in February 1970 was Jeffrey R. MacDonald.
Very good post, cami!
And lol, how could JMD have known the exact number of drugs the intruders had ingested? Did they, while standing neatly lined-up in front of his couch, tell him: "JFYI, Doc, we have taken the following drugs: "......" LMBO!

And Caphill, it sticks out a mile that you don't know a thing about Charles Manson nor a thing about the hippie movement.
Manson did murder people himself, and, no, he did not simply play 'silly mind games' with his followers, but sent them out to kill people.
Every time someone calls Manson a hippie, this makes me cringe. Manson was no hippie. He was a r*cist and a fascist and preached war, therefore his ideology was diametrically opposed to hippie ideology which was against r*cial prejudice and in which peace was one of the main topics.
Manson had far more in common with Hitler than with any hippie.

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by rashomon

Very good post, cami!
And lol, how could JMD have known the exact number of drugs the intruders had ingested? Did they, while standing neatly lined-up in front of his couch, tell him: "JFYI, Doc, we have taken the following drugs: "......" LMBO!

And Caphill, it sticks out a mile that you don't know a thing about Charles Manson nor a thing about the hippie movement.
Manson did murder people himself, and, no, he did not simply play 'silly mind games' with his followers, but sent them out to kill people.
Every time someone calls Manson a hippie, this makes me cringe. Manson was no hippie. He was a r*cist and a fascist and preached war, therefore his ideology was diametrically opposed to hippie ideology which was against r*cial prejudice and in which peace was one of the main topics.
Manson had far more in common with Hitler than with any hippie.

Manson had far more in common with Hitler than with any hippie.

I've always thought of manson and other's like him, jim jones for example as sicko guru's, great at manipulating people, and not above doing the dirty work of actually taking lives when it suits them.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


I must admit I'm a bit confused about all this talk of pubic hairs at the MacDonald murders scene, after the recent MacDonald case AFIP lab DNA testing results.

I would agree with Bunny that a human hair was found in Kim's bedding. That was another fact that was withheld from the MacDonald defense, and from MacDonald defense expert Dr Thornton, prior to, and during the 1979 trial. I have never seen that Kim bedding hair described as a pubic hair before, except by Bunny.

There was a pubic hair found within the debris taken from the blue sheet, found on the floor of the master bedroom. The MacDonald competent forensic expert Dr Thornton was never given that information prior to, or during the 1979 trial. I presume that's the pubic hair that is being discussed with regard to these latest DNA results.

JTF insists that particular pubic hair was microscopically examined by FBI men Stombaugh and Malone and found to be Dr MacDonald's hair. It's just that what Stombaugh and Malone say isn't real proof. From what I can gather that pubic hair was recently DNA tested and the AFIP lab now says that pubic hair is not a MacDonald pubic hair. I may be wrong about this. This is highly technical stuff.

I must admit I do find it a little difficult to understand how the Stoeckley gang left behind a pubic hair at the crime scene. All I can suggest is that in their drug induced state the Stoeckley murderers may have indulged in some sexual hanky panky with Colette.

This is from a Forensic Communications website, dated January 2004, with regard to the forensic identification of hairs:

"Hairs that have been matched or associated through a microscope examination should also be examined by mtDNA sequencing. Although it is uncommon to find hairs from two different individuals exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics, it can occur. For this reason the hairs or portions of the hairs should be forwarded for mtDNA sequencing. The combined procedure add credibility to each."

Barry Scheck is a media prostitute, who simply does not care about the facts in this case. It was the same with the Simpson case.
These cases interest him only as far as they are high profile cases and his name can be associated with them.
It is the limelight which attracts the Barry Schecks and Cyril Wechts of this world. Which is why they have prostituted themselves to the media.
And with their oberblown ego they are completely convinced that people will swallow everything they say because of their reputation as experts.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
There was a pubic hair found within the debris taken from the blue sheet, found on the floor of the master bedroom... I presume that's the pubic hair that is being discussed with regard to these latest DNA results.Nope. That seems to have been a misstatement by Scheck during his recent LKL performance, Bertie. If you check the latest uploads on Christina's site you'll see that the defense isn't referring to it as a pubic hair in their filing because it wasn't one.

Also, here's a post by JTF on another board which might help clarify things for you:

...Scheck got it wrong on LKL on several levels.

1) The unsourced hair was not found between Colette's legs, but under the trunk of her body.

2) The unsourced hair is a limb or body hair.

3) Paul Stombaugh sourced every single head hair found at the crime scene in 1974. He also sourced every single pubic hair with the exception of a pubic hair found under the trunk of Colette's body. This hair and the unsourced hair mentioned by Scheck are both part of FBI Exhibit Q79.

4) Several months after Stombaugh's hair analysis, and just prior to his Grand Jury testimony, Jeffrey MacDonald provided the FBI with pubic hair samples.

5) The 16 unidentified hairs in this case would not be analyzed again for another 16 years. In 1990, Michael Malone matched the pubic hair from FBI Exhibit Q79 with a pubic hair exemplar from Jeffrey MacDonald. Malone's analysis has never been challenged by the MacDonald defense team. This match left 15 unidentified hairs, all of them were limb/body hairs or hair fragments, and all 15 hairs were DNA tested by the AFIP. According to the AFIP DNA test results, 3 of the 15 hairs were unsourced.

Justthefacts.

And as for Thornton, those issues were adjudicated long, long ago, as I think you knew before you posted. Old history, and it amounted to nothing.

I must admit I do find it a little difficult to understand how the Stoeckley gang left behind a pubic hair at the crime scene. All I can suggest is that in their drug induced state the Stoeckley murderers may have indulged in some sexual hanky panky with Colette.LOL!! Bertie, you've long been the King of Wild Speculations and Crazy Theories, but I think you've outdone yourself with this one. Thanks for the laughs!

:lol:

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
There may be Stoeckley homicidal maniac hairs at the crime scene but they may not be pubic hairs as was at first thought. There seem to be unexplained hairs at the crime scene which the recent DNA results indicate are not MacDonald hairs.Unsourced items are so common in every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant. In fact, they're so insignificant that often, they're not even reported.

There weren't any "Stoeckley homicidal maniac hairs" (LOL!) at the scene, Bertie. Mac's charade of asking for DNA testing brought him results that were devastating to him: Not only did the crucial "mystery hair" in Colette's hand turn out to be his very own, but the testing showed that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's nor any other "intruder's" DNA matched any exhibit.

[realityaddict06]

Bert says:"I must admit I do find it a little difficult to understand how the Stoeckley gang left behind a pubic hair at the crime scene. All I can suggest is that in their drug induced state the Stoeckley murderers may have indulged in some sexual hanky panky with Colette."


:eek: Oh good lord, this takes the cake. In the context of what happened that night, the words "sexual hanky panky" just seem rather odd, kinda like saying "the manson gang was a little cranky the night they committed the Tate murders". Where do you come up with this stuff, Bert?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


I must admit I'm a bit confused about all this talk of pubic hairs at the MacDonald murders scene, after the recent MacDonald case AFIP lab DNA testing results.

I would agree with Bunny that a human hair was found in Kim's bedding. That was another fact that was withheld from the MacDonald defense, and from MacDonald defense expert Dr Thornton, prior to, and during the 1979 trial. I have never seen that Kim bedding hair described as a pubic hair before, except by Bunny.

There was a pubic hair found within the debris taken from the blue sheet, found on the floor of the master bedroom. The MacDonald competent forensic expert Dr Thornton was never given that information prior to, or during the 1979 trial. I presume that's the pubic hair that is being discussed with regard to these latest DNA results.

JTF insists that particular pubic hair was microscopically examined by FBI men Stombaugh and Malone and found to be Dr MacDonald's hair. It's just that what Stombaugh and Malone say isn't real proof. From what I can gather that pubic hair was recently DNA tested and the AFIP lab now says that pubic hair is not a MacDonald pubic hair. I may be wrong about this. This is highly technical stuff.

I must admit I do find it a little difficult to understand how the Stoeckley gang left behind a pubic hair at the crime scene. All I can suggest is that in their drug induced state the Stoeckley murderers may have indulged in some sexual hanky panky with Colette.

This is from a Forensic Communications website, dated January 2004, with regard to the forensic identification of hairs:

"Hairs that have been matched or associated through a microscope examination should also be examined by mtDNA sequencing. Although it is uncommon to find hairs from two different individuals exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics, it can occur. For this reason the hairs or portions of the hairs should be forwarded for mtDNA sequencing. The combined procedure add credibility to each."


There were 28 specimens tested, 9 of those produced no useable results or had inconclusive results. Of the remaining speciments 13 were Colette or the girl's hair.

Of the six remaining, 3 were MacDonalds and the other three were foreign hairs.

58A1 was found on the bedsprend of Kristen's bed.

75A was 21/2 inch hair with root and follicle, found off or under the body of Colette.

91A was a 1/4 inch hair with a root intact along with bloody residue found under the fingernails of Kristen.

The importance of the lab mentioning hair with roots intact shows hair forceably removed as opposed to hair that just falls off. Colette's own hair in her right hand a root. The limp hair of MacDonald found in her opened left hand had no root. How do I know her left hand was opened? I looked at the pic of her body lying on the floor of the bedroom with her left opened hand above her head.

The copy of the hand written list from CID describes a pubic or body hair found under Colette. That's were the "pubic" hair description comes from and not from the DNA lab. Not to get too personal here, but isn't a 21/2 inch pubic hair a mighty long pubic hair for most mortal humans? LOL

Christina's site has posted the latest legal filings. MacDonald's legal team is asking that the DNA results be a predicate to the previously filed motion.

March 30th is drawing near. We will see in short order if the Government will meet the dead line for a response or whether they will file for an extension

[caphill]

Originally posted by realityaddict06
Bert says:"I must admit I do find it a little difficult to understand how the Stoeckley gang left behind a pubic hair at the crime scene. All I can suggest is that in their drug induced state the Stoeckley murderers may have indulged in some sexual hanky panky with Colette."


:eek: Oh good lord, this takes the cake. In the context of what happened that night, the words "sexual hanky panky" just seem rather odd, kinda like saying "the manson gang was a little cranky the night they committed the Tate murders". Where do you come up with this stuff, Bert?

My previous post, with info taken from the recent MacDonald request to include the DNA as new found evidence to be included in the Motion to Vacate, it is clear the the CID lab described the hair as a pubic or head hair. Why would they think this 21/2 inch hair was possibly a pubic hair unless it was a wirey, curly and/or coarse hair. Could it be a hair from an African American head.

Zig Zag might have been in that bedroom swinging a club. He might have a curled up wiry head hair that was 2/1/2 inches long.

I tend to think that 21/2 inches is an unusually long pubic hair. I have done no research on the usual length of pubic hair, so I could be wrong in my thinking.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
The importance of the lab mentioning hair with roots intact shows hair forceably removed as opposed to hair that just falls off. So, Cappy/Bertie, what do you think of that dog hair with root intact that was found by Frier? And considering the huge emphasis the defense has placed for so many, many years not only on the hair under Kris's nail but also the hair under Kim's, what did you think of Jednme's post in C&J that seems to indicate that the hair under Kim's nail might have been an animal hair?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
My previous post, with info taken from the recent MacDonald request to include the DNA as new found evidence to be included in the Motion to Vacate, it is clear the the CID lab described the hair as a pubic or head hair. Why would they think this 21/2 inch hair was possibly a pubic hair unless it was a wirey, curly and/or coarse hair. Could it be a hair from an African American head.I may have this one confused with another, but I thought this was shown to be a Caucasian hair.

Zig Zag might have been in that bedroom swinging a club.LOL!! And it could have been a Martian, too, Cappy! (Can you prove it wasn't?) Regardless, why in the world would you still insist that Dwight Smith might have been there, when even the defense doesn't think so, and hasn't for years and years? Where do you see any samples from Dwight Smith in those DNA reports?

Since we know that the forensic and circumstantial evidence pointed directly to Mac, that there was an incredible amount of that evidence, that not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence whatsoever has ever surfaced which pointed to "intruders," and that Mac himself has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes, I'm not sure why you can't accept the fact that neither Martians nor vampires nor Stoeckley nor Mitchell nor the New York Four nor any other "intruder" were ever in the apartment, and that Mac himself was the brutal and cold-blooded murderer of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen. Why do you want to continue to blame innocent people for the crimes MacDonald himself committed? Is it because you simply can't face reality, or is it because you're a fraud and your real interest is only in playing games with the other posters here?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
March 30th is drawing near. We will see in short order if the Government will meet the dead line for a response or whether they will file for an extensionWhat a funny thing to say, in view of the many times the defense has delayed various proceedings, including delaying the DNA testing for so many years. Methinks this was a pretty lame attempt at more baiting. Didn't work too well, at least not on me. :)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by realityaddict06
Bert says:"I must admit I do find it a little difficult to understand how the Stoeckley gang left behind a pubic hair at the crime scene. All I can suggest is that in their drug induced state the Stoeckley murderers may have indulged in some sexual hanky panky with Colette."


:eek: Oh good lord, this takes the cake. In the context of what happened that night, the words "sexual hanky panky" just seem rather odd, kinda like saying "the manson gang was a little cranky the night they committed the Tate murders". Where do you come up with this stuff, Bert? Easy answer to that one, realityaddict. Bertie says this stuff (and so does his other alias, Caphill) because he's only playing games, that's all. He's told us that there were up to 17 intruders in the apartment, that the synthetic fibers should have been DNA tested, that vampires committed the murders, that fibers from "black wool wigs" were found in the living room, that Mick Jagger might have been connected somehow, that every one of the CID investigators were "Masons" and that's why they were protecting Stoeckley, that Brian Murtagh had something to do with the 911 disaster and so many more patently absurd things that I've long lost count.

Did you see his fairly recent "Queen of London" post?: "In a way I think the Queen of London and the London Olympics could have done more to put matters right. I don't think Prince Charles would be much help because he probably still thinks Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a damn fine chap. The UK government and political intelligence officers seem to be too busy covering up their own cancer of corruption at the moment, and the electronic eavesdropping public scandals, to be bothered about the MacDonald case." Priceless, eh? :)

Bertie/Caphill just likes seeing what kind of weird thing he can come up with next so that he can try to get some reactions out of people, that's all. Speaking for myself only, I wouldn't pay any attention at all to him if he didn't have such great entertainment value.

:lol:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

I tend to think that 21/2 inches is an unusually long pubic hair. I have done no research on the usual length of pubic hair, so I could be wrong in my thinking.
well why don't you pluck a few, say maybe 10, and report back to us their average length. i'll be waiting with bated breath.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

well why don't you pluck a few, say maybe 10, and report back to us their average length. i'll be waiting with bated breath.


Stinky, does your mommy know you are playing with her computer?

[audpaud]

Hi Everyone! Just taking a quick break in my Re-reading of Fatal Vision endeavor . . . right now in the Grand Jury Testimony . . . Dr. Merrill Bronstein (staff surgeon on call the night macdonald was admitted to the Hospital) is testifying . . .

"Did he have visitors?"

"Yes, sir. His mother stayed with him a lot. She was up quite a bit. And I met a friend of his named Ron Harrison, whom he introduced me to in his room."

"Tell us about Ron Harrison."

"He was an unusual person. I never knew many people like Ron Harrison. He impressed me as being----and this is a surgical opinion, I'm a surgeon, I'm not a psychiatrist----he impressed me as being disturbed.
"I was worried when I met Ron Harrison. He told me that he was a killer. And he told me he was going to kill the people responsible for this crime.
"He was a paranoid person. He was always worried about people being around. He said, 'Jeff wants me to find them and kill them.' And from him I took this seriously, I mean, I really did.
"He was in every day for sure. And I saw him after that. I was out with my wife one night, and he was in the same restaurant and he frightened my wife. It was just the way he appeared---the things he said. He said things that---my wife is a very gentle person. She would never think of killing anyone. She would not think of harming anyone. And he was talking about that.
"I have friends---or I had friends---who were in Special Forces, and I had friends who were not physicians in Special Forces, people that I socialized with, who I was in their homes and they were in mine. But certainly, you know, would not choose a topic of conversation or point of discussion with me, killing and death. They certainly never would discuss it in the presence of my family."

In fact, Bronstein said, it was the apparent closeness of the relationship with Ron Harrison which first caused him to doubt MacDonald's innocence.

"Overall," he said, "I think I could have accepted Jeff's story without too much trouble. But I was worried after I met Ron Harrison. He was a frightening guy. I mean, he physically frightened me. I just didn't know how he could be Jeff's friend."

Think I've asked this before--purely because it seemed odd to me that he was always hanging around Jeff and Colette's apartment . . . but what was the deal with this guy? Any updates on what became of him or if his story ever changed? Has his support for MacD ever wavered? :confused:

Tx!:)

[liz-marie]

It is looking like Jeffrey Macdonald will be released from Prison soon or possibly face a re-trial as new DNA evidence has been released this month, after waiting since 1997 for the tests to be completed.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by audpaud
Hi Everyone! Just taking a quick break in my Re-reading of Fatal Vision endeavor . . . right now in the Grand Jury Testimony . . . Dr. Merrill Bronstein (staff surgeon on call the night macdonald was admitted to the Hospital) is testifying . . .

"Did he have visitors?"

"Yes, sir. His mother stayed with him a lot. She was up quite a bit. And I met a friend of his named Ron Harrison, whom he introduced me to in his room."

"Tell us about Ron Harrison."

"He was an unusual person. I never knew many people like Ron Harrison. He impressed me as being----and this is a surgical opinion, I'm a surgeon, I'm not a psychiatrist----he impressed me as being disturbed.
"I was worried when I met Ron Harrison. He told me that he was a killer. And he told me he was going to kill the people responsible for this crime.
"He was a paranoid person. He was always worried about people being around. He said, 'Jeff wants me to find them and kill them.' And from him I took this seriously, I mean, I really did.
"He was in every day for sure. And I saw him after that. I was out with my wife one night, and he was in the same restaurant and he frightened my wife. It was just the way he appeared---the things he said. He said things that---my wife is a very gentle person. She would never think of killing anyone. She would not think of harming anyone. And he was talking about that.
"I have friends---or I had friends---who were in Special Forces, and I had friends who were not physicians in Special Forces, people that I socialized with, who I was in their homes and they were in mine. But certainly, you know, would not choose a topic of conversation or point of discussion with me, killing and death. They certainly never would discuss it in the presence of my family."

In fact, Bronstein said, it was the apparent closeness of the relationship with Ron Harrison which first caused him to doubt MacDonald's innocence.

"Overall," he said, "I think I could have accepted Jeff's story without too much trouble. But I was worried after I met Ron Harrison. He was a frightening guy. I mean, he physically frightened me. I just didn't know how he could be Jeff's friend."

Think I've asked this before--purely because it seemed odd to me that he was always hanging around Jeff and Colette's apartment . . . but what was the deal with this guy? Any updates on what became of him or if his story ever changed? Has his support for MacD ever wavered? :confused:

Tx!:)

Harrison had an extensive military background and had active duty experience - I think MacDonald was very entralled with that and drawn to Harrison. They are the same age.

Harrison testified at the grand jury hearing re: the Thanksgiving day search for the ice pick (MacDonald has always said the family didn't have one) and the "It's wild!" comment about the Esquire article. He also testified that after the Article 32 hearing in 1970, his contact with MacDonald consisted of an occasional X-mas card from MacDonald. He married in January 1971 and lived in California at the time of the grand jury hearing.

From his grand jury testimony, he seems like a person who was exhibiting a certain amount of loyalty to his friend while testifying honestly/reasonably.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Then the hair and fiber information lab notes were hidden prior to, and during the 1979 trial.I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up since you know that this issue was adjudicated long ago and amounted to nothing. Read the records.All this talk about pubic hairs is muddying the waters, as well. The CID lab said hairs were "pubic or body hairs."A pubic hair was found under Kim's bedclothing and was matched to MacDonald. In Exhibit Q79 was another pubic hair, which Malone matched to MacDonald. Malone's hair analysis confirmed the analyses of Browning, Glisson and Stombaugh. I think you are confused by Barry Scheck's recent misstatement on LKL wherein he referred to a "long" pubic hair found between Colette's legs. That information seems to be false, and you can see for yourself that even the defense is not calling it a pubic hair in its recent filings. Does this help clear up your confusion?I agree with Bunny that Frier of the FBI lab did discover a dog hair in the debris at the MacDonald case crime scene.So again, what is your answer to Jednme's thought that the hair under Kim's nail, which the defense has long held as being highly indicative of intruders, may have been an animal hair?There were black wool fibers found on the mouth of the murder victim Colette, and on her biceps, and on the murder weapon....MacDonald wasn't wearing black wool that night and the prosecution and CID have never explained those black wool fibers. You don't need specialized homicide training to realize that by following that black wool fiber evidence, it could lead to the intruders.Why do you keep posting this, Albie? What causes you not to remember from day to day that unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, so insignificant that they're often not even reported?

A fiber sourced to MacDonald's pajamas was found under his baby daughter's fingernail and a profusion of fibers matched to his pajamas was found under the victims and in their bedclothing and on the murder weapon.

MacDonald was wearing his pajamas when he murdered his family, and he has never been able to explain those fibers. You don't need specialized homicide training to realize that by following the pajama fiber evidence and blood evidence and the evidence of Mac's demonstrations of the consciousness of guilt led to finding the real murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Deb B
Harrison had an extensive military background and had active duty experience - I think MacDonald was very entralled with that and drawn to Harrison. They are the same age.

Harrison testified at the grand jury hearing re: the Thanksgiving day search for the ice pick (MacDonald has always said the family didn't have one) and the "It's wild!" comment about the Esquire article. He also testified that after the Article 32 hearing in 1970, his contact with MacDonald consisted of an occasional X-mas card from MacDonald. He married in January 1971 and lived in California at the time of the grand jury hearing.

From his grand jury testimony, he seems like a person who was exhibiting a certain amount of loyalty to his friend while testifying honestly/reasonably.Good post, Deb (as always). I agree with you about Mac's feelings toward Harrison. And I think Harrison was shocked about the murders and did try to tell the truth about what he knew. He may have appeared to be a "frightening" person to Bronstein and others who met him, but obviously (IMO) he was being truthful when he testified. I'll bet Mac never expected that. :)

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by liz-marie
It is looking like Jeffrey Macdonald will be released from Prison soon or possibly face a re-trial as new DNA evidence has been released this month, after waiting since 1997 for the tests to be completed.

liz-marie:

I would call your attention to the Jeffrey MacDonald thread on this board. The tests have proven that, mercy me, MacDoanld actually did tell the truth at least once. He said the DNA of the person that Collete was clutching in her hand would belong to the real killer; the test proved that this DNA belonged to Jeffrey MacDonald. So much for "exonneration."

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by liz-marie
It is looking like Jeffrey Macdonald will be released from Prison soon or possibly face a re-trial as new DNA evidence has been released this month, after waiting since 1997 for the tests to be completed.Hi, Liz.

LOL!! Looks like you're the victim of some MacSpin, Liz! Mac has never been exonerated, and now with the DNA results out, it looks like he never will. The DNA test results were released on the 10th of this month, and were very damaging and devastating to the defense. Not only did they show that none of the exhibits matched any DNA of any "intruder," but the all-important "mystery hair" which Mac has claimed for years could only have come from Colette's murderer, turned out to be his very own!

Since it looks like you might not be too familiar with all that overwhelming evidence against Mac (and the fact that not a single shred of any forensic evidence has ever surfaced which pointed to "intruders"), you might want to visit the following links so that you can learn more about the facts and evidence in the case:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

http://www.azwest.net/c&j/

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up since you know that this issue was adjudicated long ago and amounted to nothing. Read the records.A pubic hair was found under Kim's bedclothing and was matched to MacDonald. In Exhibit Q79 was another pubic hair, which Malone matched to MacDonald. Malone's hair analysis confirmed the analyses of Browning, Glisson and Stombaugh. I think you are confused by Barry Scheck's recent misstatement on LKL wherein he referred to a "long" pubic hair found between Colette's legs. That information seems to be false, and you can see for yourself that even the defense is not calling it a pubic hair in its recent filings. Does this help clear up your confusion?So again, what is your answer to Jednme's thought that the hair under Kim's nail, which the defense has long held as being highly indicative of intruders, may have been an animal hair?Why do you keep posting this, Albie? What causes you not to remember from day to day that unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, so insignificant that they're often not even reported?

A fiber sourced to MacDonald's pajamas was found under his baby daughter's fingernail and a profusion of fibers matched to his pajamas was found under the victims and in their bedclothing and on the murder weapon.

MacDonald was wearing his pajamas when he murdered his family, and he has never been able to explain those fibers. You don't need specialized homicide training to realize that by following the pajama fiber evidence and blood evidence and the evidence of Mac's demonstrations of the consciousness of guilt led to finding the real murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald.


Exhibit Q79 consisted of a container with fibers, Container with wood chips, vial, container with paper and a wood chip,slide with fibers,slide with fibers, slide with hair,slide with hairs and fibers.

AFDIA separated out the hairs and gave them a new number for testing. One hair with a root was given the number an AFDIL number of 75A. This hair with a STR anaysis yielded no reportable results. Whena mitochondrial DNA analysis was done this hair was not consistant with any other samples tested. A foreign hair.

The other 3 hairs from Q79 were given a new AFDIL number of 71A(1) 71A(2) 71a(3) These had no roots and only mtDNA was run. 71A(1) and 71A(3) sequences were consistant with Colette and the girls. 71A(2) yield inconclusive sequence information

75A of the Q79 exhibit does not match Dr. MacDonald or any of the other samples tested.

Malone can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Just another example of not being able to rely on anything Malone did or said about any pieces of evidence or research he has done.

The AFDIL never classified any of the hairs tested as a pubic hair. Any reference to a pubic hair comes from CID.

[JTF]

Caphill: A cheap shot at Michael Malone, what a shock! Your post is another indication that you read portions of the record, but not the record in its totality. Paul Stombaugh listed 1 brown Caucasian pubic hair, 18 pajama fibers, 9 wood fragments, and 2 pieces of yellow tissue in FBI Exhibit Q79. Michael Malone matched that pubic hair to a pubic hair exemplar from Jeffrey MacDonald. The MacDonald defense team has never challenged that result. What does the AFIP's listing of 4 hairs in Exhibit Q79 as opposed to the single pubic hair listed by Stombaugh AND Malone, have to do with Malone's ANALYSIS of the Q79 pubic hair? Obviously, a mistake has occurred in the past 16 years, involving the type and number of exhibits that were a part of FBI Exhibit Q79. That mistake, however, has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Malone. The mistake was/is a system's issue, plain and simple.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: A cheap shot at Michael Malone, what a shock! Your post is another indication that you read portions of the record, but not the record in its totality. Paul Stombaugh listed 1 brown Caucasian pubic hair, 18 pajama fibers, 9 wood fragments, and 2 pieces of yellow tissue in FBI Exhibit Q79. Michael Malone matched that pubic hair to a pubic hair exemplar from Jeffrey MacDonald. The MacDonald defense team has never challenged that result. What does the AFIP's listing of 4 hairs in Exhibit Q79 as opposed to the single pubic hair listed by Stombaugh AND Malone, have to do with Malone's ANALYSIS of the Q79 pubic hair? Obviously, a mistake has occurred in the past 16 years, involving the type and number of exhibits that were a part of FBI Exhibit Q79. That mistake, however, has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Malone. The mistake was/is a system's issue, plain and simple.

JTF.



Hello, Hello. Wake up. This is 2006 and the DNA results for the AFIP are done and in the District Court's hands.

Q79 exhibit contained a 2/1/2 hair and 3 other hairs that were DNA tested by AFIP. The 21/2 hairs from Q79 was given the AFIP number of 75A. This 21/2inch hair does not match Dr. MacDonald's DNA.

It was presented to the lab with 8 pieces of samples listed as exhibit Q79. The lab took this slide with hair and gave it a corresponding numer of 75A. The other 3 hairs from Q79 were given AFIP numbers of 71A(1)(2)(3). 2 of those were Colette or the girls and 1 was inconclusive

If Michael Malone testified or reported that this 21/2 in hair in Q79 matched a sample taken from Dr. MacDonald he gave false testimony. It would not the first time he has given false testimony regarding his lab work in this case and in others.

You call it a cheap shot. I call it false testimony and another brick in the wall of shame that man brings to the FBI.

I have a copy of the lab report date stamped March 10, 2006 in my hand. I have read the report which is something I suspect you have not read.

YOu say Dr. MacDonald never challenged the results of Malone work? Dr. MacDonald has spent years challenging the CID and FBI lab work. Malone statements about the 22 inch wig strand was challenged to no avail. Mr Malone just made a "mistake"
about the saran wig strands. Is this just another one of his "mistakes" of regarding this so called 21/2 inch pubic hair.

Only select samples of hair and no blood or fingersprints have been allowed to be looked at by Dr. MacDonald's team. Wonder how many other "mistakes" would be found it all the evidence was released to be examined.

The Government can throw around tons of papers and lab reports from the 70's but none will out weigh the new DNA testing that has recently been done. Malone is inept or he is liar or both.

Of the 19 hair samples from the murder scene that were that yielded results, 13 belonged to Collette and the girls, 3 belonged to Dr.MacDonald and 3 were foreign hairs.

The hair found under Kristen fingernails, an hair found on her bed, and the 2/1/2 inch hair found on or under the legs and body of Colette was the location of the foreign hairs.

Plain and simple.

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


liz-marie:

I would call your attention to the Jeffrey MacDonald thread on this board. The tests have proven that, mercy me, MacDoanld actually did tell the truth at least once. He said the DNA of the person that Collete was clutching in her hand would belong to the real killer; the test proved that this DNA belonged to Jeffrey MacDonald. So much for "exonneration."

According to The MacDonald Case website the hair in Colette's hand did not belong to Jeffrey MacDonald-as it was a brown hair and JM's hair is blonde, also the hair is said to belong to a Greg Mitchell who died in 1982 and had confessed to several people that he commited the crime along with 3 others.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Hello, Hello. Wake up. This is 2006 and the DNA results for the AFIP are done and in the District Court's hands. Yes, the DNA results are out and they were devastating to the defense. Just another of many nails in Mac's coffin.The 21/2 hairs from Q79 was given the AFIP number of 75A. This 21/2inch hair does not match...MacDonald's DNA...Does it match the people that Mac claimed committed the murders?

And wasn't there a crucial hair sourced to Mac which he'd always claimed could only have come from Colette's murderer? I do believe there was. Poor Mac, he just can't win, can he? All those years of lying, down the drain forever now! All he ended up with was even more evidence that there were no intruders, and more evidence against himself. Oh, well, he has only himself to blame. If he hadn't chosen to murder his family, he wouldn't be going through any of this. I have no pity for him whatsoever.If Michael Malone testified or reported that this 21/2 in hair in Q79 matched a sample taken from [the murderer] he gave false testimony.I don't believe Malone testified at trial, Cappy. He didn't even enter the case until 1990. As for your contentions about Malone in general, I don't think that even requires another answer since JTF has already done such a good job with that.Malone statements about the 22 inch wig strand...
What 22-inch wig strand? I didn't see anything in Glisson's notes about that. What page is that on?Is this just another one of his "mistakes" of regarding this so called 21/2 inch pubic hair.I've only had time to skim most of the recent filings, but I've seen references to the effect that the defense is not referring to it as a pubic hair. Is that true?Only select samples of hair and no blood or fingersprints have been allowed to be looked at by [the murderer's] team.It seems that the murderer's own lawyers chose these "most crucial" exhibits. Are you unhappy because you think other exhibits were more crucial than the ones they chose, or are you just unhappy because one of those most crucial exhibits matched MacDonald himself and none of the others matched any "intruder's"?I have a copy of the lab report date stamped March 10, 2006 in my hand. I have read the report which is something I suspect you have not read.And I suspect you haven't done your own research very well, Cappy, since not only did you claim that Mac had been granted a new trial, and not only did you not even know what Glisson's #7 and #8 were, but your determination of the length of the "2 1/2 inch hair" to which you so often referred differs from the defense's. :)Of the 19 hair samples from the murder scene that were that yielded results, 13 belonged to Collette and the girls, 3 belonged to Dr.MacDonald and 3 were foreign hairs.

The hair found under Kristen fingernails, an hair found on her bed, and the 2/1/2 inch hair found on or under the legs and body of Colette was the location of the foreign hairs.

Plain and simple.Until Mac can source anything to any "intruder" and until he can also provide much other corroborating evidence that that person committed murder at 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970, and until he can explain why he demonstrated the consciousness of his own guilt so often throughout the years and why all the evidence pointed to him and why he covered up all those many years for a person or persons who helped him murder his family, he's got nothing, nothing at all.

Plain and simple.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
Hello, Hello. Wake up. This is 2006 and the DNA results . . .


Hello Backatcha . . . I'm wide awake and still can't figure out why you keep trying to prove macdonald had accomplices thru DNA findings???:confused:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by liz-marie


According to The MacDonald Case website the hair in Colette's hand did not belong to Jeffrey MacDonald-as it was a brown hair and JM's hair is blonde, also the hair is said to belong to a Greg Mitchell who died in 1982 and had confessed to several people that he commited the crime along with 3 others.

Again, liz-marie, I suggest you take a look at the Jeffery MacDonald thread on this page to see more of the facts.
As Bunny said, this is nothing but Mac spin. The DNA tests that you said would exonerate MacDonald are in. The hair clutched in Collete's hand was matched to Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA. No, and I mean not one scintilla of, evidence, has ever been found to link Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley, or any of the rest of the so-called "gang of 'acid is groovy, kill the pigs' hippies" to the crime scene.

DNA test results (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/macdonald_dna_report.pdf) (look at number 4 in the report)

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


Again, liz-marie, I suggest you take a look at the Jeffery MacDonald thread on this page to see more of the facts.
As Bunny said, this is nothing but Mac spin. The DNA tests that you said would exonerate MacDonald are in. The hair clutched in Collete's hand was matched to Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA. No, and I mean not one scintilla of, evidence, has ever been found to link Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley, or any of the rest of the so-called "gang of 'acid is groovy, kill the pigs' hippies" to the crime scene.

DNA test results (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/macdonald_dna_report.pdf) (look at number 4 in the report)

I beg to differ, I did not say the tests would exonerate JM- I put exonerated with a question mark.
JM is going for a 4th appeal against his conviction.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by liz-marie


I beg to differ, I did not say the tests would exonerate JM- I put exonerated with a question mark.
JM is going for a 4th appeal against his conviction.

Okay, I'm sorry. I do not mean to be antagonistic. However, the DNA results were very bad for the MacDonald camp. He will lose his next appeal...again. Believe me, this wife and baby killer is just where he belongs- behind bars for the rest of his life.

[caphill]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


Okay, I'm sorry. I do not mean to be antagonistic. However, the DNA results were very bad for the MacDonald camp. He will lose his next appeal...again. Believe me, this wife and baby killer is just where he belongs- behind bars for the rest of his life.

Factually the DNA results supports the defense theory of third party intruders. The defense has filed with the Court a request to add the DNA results as predicate to the 2255 Motion.

Of the 19 hair sampled from the crime scene tested 13 were from Colette and the girls, 3 were from MacDonald and 3 were foreign hairs.

One of the foreign hairs that was found with a root was found imbedded under the bloody fingernails of Kristen.

One was found on her bed.

The 2 and 1/2 inch hair was found on or under the legs of Colette.

Those are significant finds and the Court will not dismiss those as easily as you do.

The reason the Court ruled there could be DNA testing of a small portion of the hairs that were collected at the crime scene was to determine if there were foreign hairs not sourced to the family members.

It is expected to find many hairs that belong to the family members that lived there. This DNA tests showed 31% of all the hairs that yielded results came from an outside source.

Those are facts not opinions based on emotions of anyone who refuses to accept anything that does not support their own theory.

These tests clearly support the argument of the MacDonald team that testing of the forensics would yield trace evidence of someone other that MacDonald was in close contact with the bodies that night.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by liz-marie


I beg to differ, I did not say the tests would exonerate JM- I put exonerated with a question mark.
JM is going for a 4th appeal against his conviction.

You sure sound optimistic in your first post:

"It is looking like Jeffrey Macdonald will be released from Prison soon or possibly face a re-trial as new DNA evidence has been released this month, after waiting since 1997 for the tests to be completed."

The fact is that none of the samples DNA tested belonged to any of the intruders MacDonald has named. He can spin it all he wants, but IMO he's going to have a hard time prevailing on his appeal.

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by Deb B


You sure sound optimistic in your first post:

"It is looking like Jeffrey Macdonald will be released from Prison soon or possibly face a re-trial as new DNA evidence has been released this month, after waiting since 1997 for the tests to be completed."

The fact is that none of the samples DNA tested belonged to any of the intruders MacDonald has named. He can spin it all he wants, but IMO he's going to have a hard time prevailing on his appeal.

time will tell.... all in all this has been a long haul,
has anyone read 'Fatal Justice' there is s'posed to be a lot of information about the case in there.

[cami]

Originally posted by liz-marie


time will tell.... all in all this has been a long haul,
has anyone read 'Fatal Justice' there is s'posed to be a lot of information about the case in there.

"A long haul" he's been convicted of three counts of murder. He's guilty as sin. He should never be released and he won't.

Fatal Justice is full of outright lies, half truths and inneundos--edited by MacDonald so hardly impartial. It's claims have been disproved by the posting of all the transcripts, affidavits and lab reports to do with this case.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by liz-marie


time will tell.... all in all this has been a long haul,
has anyone read 'Fatal Justice' there is s'posed to be a lot of information about the case in there.

Weeeeeeell, actually IMO time has told. It has been 27 years since his conviction with not a successful appeal, nor a shred of evidence found to back up his ludicrous story. The latest test results have not changed anything, except in that it proves him more guilty and that it exonerates Mitchell and Stoeckley.

[byn63]

Hello Liz -

Inmate is still a long, long, long, long way from getting another hearing. In his latest appeal he was granted permission to file a successive habeas petition. (which he has filed) The court has requested a response to his latest habeas petition from the government because on the face of this latest petition it is not obvious that Inmate is not entitled to relief. This finding DOES NOT mean he is entitled to relief either. The government response is due 30 March (unless an extension request has been filed and granted) (sorry I don't know, I've been out of the loop for a few days).

Fatal Justice is the macalite bible. Since the narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer is said to have edited himself, it is not surprising. It is however, full of half-truths, distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies. It starts on the first page and is estimated to be at least one error every 2 or 3 pages. A&E TV has an extensive thread on Fact Checking Fatal Justice. It goes into depth about the lies etc. Check it out - it is very educational.

Don't rely on Mac's own website for facts. They must employee lots of spin doctors to keep up the charade that he has a chance. The DNA results were devastating to the defense. The "mystery hair" found clutched in Colette's hand is one that Inmate has spent over 20 years stating it could only have come from her murderer -- and what do you know -- yup! It's inmate's own hair. The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site, The MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour - those are must see sites for finding out the FACTS.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
The MacDonald case investigation was hardly a brilliant investigation.

These CID agents are burly military policemen. They aren't seasoned homicide detectives. I still believe that if the Stoeckley group were to be thoroughly investigated then the MacDonald murders could still be solved. The FBI were a complete shambles in the MacDonald case, and in the JonBenet Ramsey case, and in the Darlie Routier case..

Are CID agents afraid of people like Big Al Mazerrole, just because Detective Beasley of the local police described him as a "hard cookie" or is it because the CID lips are sealed about cocaine importation and the drugs trade at Fort Bragg?

Dr MacDonald isn't a professional criminal investigator. The information Dr MacDonald was given in 1970 was that a human hair had been found in Colette's hand, at the morgue, that at that time the CID lab was unable to match to Dr MacDonald. It appears from the AFIP DNA results that this particular hair has now been matched to Dr MacDonald. It doesn't prove Dr MacDonald murdered anybody.

In my opinion, there could still be covert investigation, and covert surveillance of the Stoeckley group, and even complete background checks on them. It may yet not be too late to prevent the Stoeckley maniacs from murdering any more little children.

I'm not a great admirer of North Carolina justice. Murder trials are not properly thought through and North Carolina judges and lawyers tend to be mistaken and unfair.

Innocent people have been sentenced to death in North Carolina. Charles Munsey was awarded a new trial because prosecutors withheld evidence of his innocence. Another man who confessed to acting alone was later convicted of the murder.

Justice Brady at the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in a case on the 6th February 2004, said this about North Carolina justice:

"As in every human endeavor, error is sometimes unavoidable, and our system of appeals will continue to provide relief to defendants in appropriate cases. However, I take this opportunity to encourage trial judges, the State, and defense attorneys to practice self-imposed quality control by becoming more diligent in avoiding costly and unnecessary mistakes at the trial court level."

I believe that advice applies to the MacDonald case.


:lol: OMG. You've outdone yourself this time. Stop it! You're killing me! :lol:

[JTF]

The Stoeckley group was certainly the most impressive home invaders in the history of true crime. They managed to be high on drugs, yet not steal any of MacDonald's drug stash in the hallway closet. They manage to slaughter 3 people, yet not leave any bloody fingerprints or footprints at the crime scene. They manage to fight with Colette in 2 bedrooms, yet not leave a single trace of their DNA in either room. They were something, eh?? Pathetic.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
These CID agents are burly military policemen... I still believe that if the Stoeckley group were to be thoroughly investigated then the MacDonald murders could still be solved... Are CID agents afraid of people like Big Al Mazerrole...,In my opinion, there could still be covert investigation, and covert surveillance of the Stoeckley group, and even complete background checks on them. It may yet not be too late to prevent the Stoeckley maniacs from murdering any more little children."He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."
- Groucho Marx

If you stand close enough to him, you can hear the ocean.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by RayC

So who's running the "group" now? Could the reported death of the ringleader have been only an elaborate charade??? Or was there a Helena sighting at Graceland last week??? Or was ... oh, never mind.

Ray

OMGosh . . . catching my breath from ROTFLMBO!!!! :D

:beer: Ray!

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . .
The CID were focused on the innocent victim Dr MacDonald from day one, and because . . . . . .

I'd say BECAUSE . . . Pregnant Colette, Kimmy & Krissy were BATTERED, BROKEN AND BUTCHERED while macMacho was relatively unscathed . . . wouldn't YOU consider this on Day One Bert, in the event you were thinking clearly as an investigator????:confused:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill . . .
I suppose if Dr MacDonald was ever to confess guilt with regard to the MacDonald murders I would change my mind. That is most unlikely to happen . . .

THAT reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask . . . Is there any public information on who the other inmates are near macdonalds' cell? Or if these same prisoners get sick of all of his fund-raising/publicity/false proclamations of innocence?

I think peer pressure will be the only way we get the real story of what went down that night . . . perhaps a few fellow prisoners can get to the truth for a few letters and some cartons of cigs???
:confused: :patriot:

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by chatwuann


Thanks for the info Toth. I'll have to read Fatal Justice. LE should look into further if the possibility exists that Jeffrey McDonald may be innocent after all. It has happened before. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

there are some reports that a 'bloody' syringe was found at the scene along with 3 'bloody' gloves and also black wool fibers along with a lot of other evidence, so maybe this will come out at the appeal.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by liz-marie


there are some reports that a 'bloody' syringe was found at the scene along with 3 'bloody' gloves and also black wool fibers along with a lot of other evidence, so maybe this will come out at the appeal.

The bloody gloves is the most laughable example of just how factual Fatal Justice is - they were actually oven mitts.

[JTF]

I love how MacDonald groupies can reconcile the fact that the crime scene evidence points to an initial frenzy in the master bedroom, then a strange calmness as Kimberly is carried back to her room, then back to frenzy as Kristen is brutally murdered, then a brief moment of calmness, then frenzy again as Colette is beaten to death in Kristen's room, and finally a long/final stretch of planned actions such as transporting Colette to her room, inflicting overkill wounds on all 3 victims, and leaving all 3 murder weapons in the backyard. Yeah, makes perfect sense to a wide-eyed follower of a child-killing psychopath.

JTF.

[caphill]

Tomorrow is date for the response from the Government to the 2255 Motion.

I will not be surprised if there is an extension granted particularly because the of the request to have the DNA results attached to the 2255 Motion.

I will looking to see if the response is filed tomorrow or if an extension is asked for and granted.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by liz-marie
there are some reports that a 'bloody' syringe was found at the scene along with 3 'bloody' gloves and also black wool fibers along with a lot of other evidence, so maybe this will come out at the appeal.I see you haven't bothered to read much (or any) of the information in the links I gave you. Why not?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
We have some oven mitts in the form of gloves in our house. What's so strange, or funny, about that?

FJ's ridiculous intimation that Mitchell &Co wore dish gloves and oven mitts when clubbing and stabbing the victims, that's strange and funny about it, and even you know that very well.
"Five bloody gloves were found in the kitchen" it says in FJ, and they deliberately left out the info about what types of gloves were found there. So that the reader should think these were gloves which had been left behind by the killers. LOL!

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill
Tomorrow is date for the response from the Government to the 2255 Motion.

I will not be surprised if there is an extension granted particularly because the of the request to have the DNA results attached to the 2255 Motion.

I will looking to see if the response is filed tomorrow or if an extension is asked for and granted.

Thank you Cappy.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
We have some oven mitts in the form of gloves in our house. What's so strange, or funny, about that?

There were latex glove fragments found at the murder scene which the foremost latex glove expert in America, Dr Guinn, said at the 1979 trial were not Macdonald gloves. He could scientifically prove it. To me that's proof of intruders.

It's not strange or funny that folks have oven mitts in their house.

What's strange and disengenous is to refer to oven mitts from the Macdonald home as bloody gloves. It's also strange to suggest that the murderers donned oven mitts from the MacDonald home and then stepped around an unconscious MacDonald to put the oven mitts back into the kitchen.

Regarding Dr. Guinn's testimony regarding the latex glove fragments found at the crime scene. The jury disagreed with you. Here is the conclusion of Murtagh's cross of Guinn:

"Murtagh: Can you say positively that these pieces of rubber [from the crime scene] did not come from a Perry-brand surgical latex glove [the kind kept in the MacDonald residence]?

Guinn: No, I could not say that."

[cami]

Originally posted by liz-marie


there are some reports that a 'bloody' syringe was found at the scene along with 3 'bloody' gloves and also black wool fibers along with a lot of other evidence, so maybe this will come out at the appeal.

This has already come out in the appeal and the appeal was lost. No bloody syringe was ever found. The bloody gloves were oven mitts and dish gloves. The black wool fibres were unsourced.

Your research if very one sided if you are only going to read FJ.

Here's a link to the appeal (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_vs_macdonald_1985mar1.html)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
We have some oven mitts in the form of gloves in our house. What's so strange, or funny, about that?...There were latex glove fragments found at the murder scene which the foremost latex glove expert in America, Dr Guinn, said at the 1979 trial were not Macdonald gloves. He could scientifically prove it. To me that's proof of intruders.Uh-huh, right. Aside from the fact that the jury accepted that the latex glove fragments were consistent in composition with the others Mac had, you can't even keep your own stories straight, since apparently now you want people to believe that the intruders knew where to find those gloves under the kitchen sink, back behind the potatoes and other items there, but that they wore oven mitts too. What a fraud you are.

How satisfying to know that in all likelihood, Mac will spend the rest of his days rotting in prison for the horrendously brutal crimes he committed. May the memories of Colette, Kim and Kristen never be forgotten...

[cami]

Originally posted by RayC

So who's running the "group" now? Could the reported death of the ringleader have been only an elaborate charade??? Or was there a Helena sighting at Graceland last week??? Or was ... oh, never mind.

Ray

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
In the JonBenet Ramsey case Fleet White never left any forensics behind when he murdered JonBenet. [/B]
Indeed he didn't because he didn't kill her.

Scott Peterson left few forensics.
This was because Laci's body had been drowned and was already decomposed when found.
And Peterson left a lot of other circumstantial evidence (behavior etc.) which pointed to him as the killer.
To JTF I would say what sort of forensics would he expect the Stoeckley group to have left behind?
Of JMD the prosecution said that the forensic evidence he left behind was more than enough to convict him of triple homicide.

It would really interest me why you close your eyes to the truth so much.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Factually the DNA results supports the defense theory of third party intruders.Sorry, Bertie/Cappy, but of course it doesn't. The results were extremely damaging to Mac, and of course you knew that before you posted. The DNA results eliminated his mythical "intruders," and the hair in Colette's hand was found to be Mac's very own. Mac had only his tired old "unsourced" arguments to start with (which have all failed miserably), so with regard to the three unsourced hairs he still has nothing more than he started with. I'm still celebrating. :)

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
I love how MacDonald groupies can reconcile the fact that the crime scene evidence points to an initial frenzy in the master bedroom, then a strange calmness as Kimberly is carried back to her room, then back to frenzy as Kristen is brutally murdered, then a brief moment of calmness, then frenzy again as Colette is beaten to death in Kristen's room, and finally a long/final stretch of planned actions such as transporting Colette to her room, inflicting overkill wounds on all 3 victims, and leaving all 3 murder weapons in the backyard. Yeah, makes perfect sense to a wide-eyed follower of a child-killing psychopath.

JTF.


I believe you can only speak for yourself on how or what you reconcile and your interpretation of what you believe are facts.

To speak for anyone else is arrogance in your believed ability to mind read some unknown posters on a message board.

I think the pathologists stated it best when he surmised the stabbings and clubbings were berserk.

If you or anyone else wants to spin the many stabbing wounds and clubbings from 5 different weapons as methodical long/stretch planned actions , that is your use of your logical reasoning abilities or your adoption of some the CID agents logic. Either way, that is your opinion and opinions are not facts.

There is no absolute proof that Dr. MacDonald killed or didn't kill his family. There is proof that many pieces of forensic evidence were not introduced in the trial and to the jury.

Any opinions that are formed on half truths or the picking and chosing of what pieces of evidence that supports those opinions is disingenuous.

This case has not been about Dr. MacDonald and the murder of his family for a long time. This has the battle of keeping the particulars of the CID and FBI investigations and what the prosecutors knew and when they knew it under wraps.

Why the fight to keep Dr. MacDonald from having a new trial with "all" the evidence from the crime scene presented for review of a jury? If the proescution and the investigators were so confident that "their" evidence is so strong beyond a reasonable doubt, I say bring it on, but bring it "all"on. Open up all the blood evidence for testing, let those many unmatched fingerprints be looked at in today's technology.

Until that happens, there is not much to talk about except self serving fallacious statements, personal attacks and insults and down right absurdity.

[Deb B]

Cappy recently said: "Factually the DNA results supports the defense theory of third party intruders. "


So is this a FACT or is it your OPINION?

Seems like JTF's "wide-eyed follower of a child-killing psychopath" description struck a nerve. Qualifier: that's just my OPINION.

It is also my opinion that the DNA results show no evidence of intruders. Or is that a fact, since the results don't match any intruders?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
. . . there is not much to talk about . . .

Au contraire, mon cher caphill!:tongue: There's plenty to talk about!

*when did you notice that you have the propensity to consistently side with the "underdog?"

*a tendency to "defy the odds" and fly off in the face of logic, reason and evidence?

*have you, or someone close been treated unfairly/wrongfully accused/wrongfully convicted by the Justice System?

*Is there something missing in your life that your macdonald crusade helps fill?

*were you perhaps attacked by groovy hippies/bad acid trip at one time and no one believed you?

*do you somehow feel "smarter" or "better than others" with your perceived ability to "see what no one else" can in macMonster?

*why is it that the recent damning DNA results have apparently sent you even deeper into denial rather than enlightening you to WHO Poor Colette was clutching at the night of her Slaughter?

:confused:

Let's talk.

[Spamela]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


These CID agents are burly military policemen. They aren't seasoned homicide detectives.

Hey Bert, where can I find some of those burly military policmen to play good cop/bad cop with me? Oh baby, they sound like just my type.

Well, albertweb/berttansill, have they modified your meds, yet? You still seem to live in a world of fantasy with your hero, Mr. Inmate.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Don't you people ever think the FBI could make a mistake?

Do you people still think the FBI were correct in applying media pressure to Richard Jewell in the Atlanta Olympics bombing case?

I do have my doubts and very little confidence in North Carolina juries.

I do think people make mistakes. I just haven't seen mistakes in this case that make me think someone other than Jeffrey MacDonald killed his family.

Do you think that people who have committed murder lie sometimes and say they didn't do it, when in fact they did? Do you still believe in Santa?

[barskin&co.]

I'm still rolling on the floor over the notion of preventing "Stoeckley maniacs from murdering any more little children" (and my boss is starting to get annoyed at that, by the way). When and if I recover, I'll try to join back in.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


It reminds me very much of the Prince of Tetbury in the UK giving knighthoods to rock stars for pontificating about poverty in Africa, and not mentioning corruption scandals in Africa at the same time.

Well, gosh, Bert, what wouldn't remind anyone of that?

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

If you or anyone else wants to spin the many stabbing wounds and clubbings from 5 different weapons ...
oh good grief. what 5 different weapons?

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by Deb B


The bloody gloves is the most laughable example of just how factual Fatal Justice is - they were actually oven mitts.


Are you sure now? I'm waiting for the MacDonald Groupie
on board to come up with a new conspiracy theory? Weren't
bloody gloves a big part of the OJ case? There you go,
it's all connected-OJ Killed the MacDonalds! Or was it
Mick Jagger? I get confused.

[kateyes]

I just have a short comment to make. First, I do believe that Jeffrey McDonald is very, very guilty. If the DNA evidence was so clearcut as to exonerate him, his attorney(s) would have been chomping at the bit some few years before this to do so! Second, thank you to those of you (barskin & co. and several others) for lending a sense of humor to this thread. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but IMHO, those who support Jeffrey McDonald are ocean deep in denial.

[caphill]

Originally posted by liz-marie


there are some reports that a 'bloody' syringe was found at the scene along with 3 'bloody' gloves and also black wool fibers along with a lot of other evidence, so maybe this will come out at the appeal.


There was a report found somewhere in the thousands of pages of documents that a bloody syringe was found in the linen closet. There was also a report that the drawers in the master bedroom were pulled open at the time of the first responders. There were fingerprints and palm prints that were seen and some that were even photographed. There was a piece of skin found under or on Colette's fingernail. SInce this was all lost or destroyed it can never be a part of evidence.

It is known that a pair of beige boots were turned over to CID that were reported to have stains that came from Cathy Perry's possessions. Stoeckely had made statements she gave the boots back to Cathy to get rid of them. These boots were returned by CID and CID claimed there was no blood or mud to link them to the crime scene. The lab report of any analysis of the boots is not known to exist. DId the CID lie and they never examined the boots and there is no or never was a lab analysis? Was there a lab analysis and the lab report was lost or destroyed?

The telephones and the knife found in the master bedroom had been wiped down of any fingerprints and blood by someone at the crime scene after Dr. MacDonald was rolled out on a gurney.
Who wiped down the telephones and knife and why?

This is evidence at the crime scene that is lost forever. No crime scene investigation will ever be perfect. The possibility of pieces of evidence being lost or destroyed can happen due to human error. IN the MacDonald investigation the number of pieces of forensic evidence lost or destroyed is quite phenomenal. Not to mention the forensics that are now known to have been suppressed.

The documented history of this investigation, the corrupted and contaminated crime scene, the manipulation of the remaining evidence by the labs and prosecution makes the MacDonald case the shame of jurisprudence,law enforcement and police investigations of the 20th century. This MAcDonald trial is only rivaled by the Leo Frank trial and subsequent lynching for the murder of Mary Phagan.

The hatred that was generated in the Leo Franks trial and the people that came forth to blatently lie about Leo Frank to vilify him and destroy his personal character reminds me of some people in the MacDonald case.

I questioned the character of people who never met MacDonald and will probably never meet him, coming forth on a public message board to make bold statements that he was a child molester, a homosexual, a speed freak and womanizer.

Of course, I realize that the readers and supporters of those ugly tactics are mostly of the same little clique that wants to defend the actions of the CID that was involved in the 70's investigation.

To have differing opinions or interpretations of the known facts is one thing but to make up horrible malicious and libelous lies about Dr. MacDonald and his wife is another. This shows that some people that have an agenda will stoop to new lows to fuel the mob mentality of a few to vile hatred.

I do believe that independent thinkers do not buy into this kind of tunnel vision and character assassinations with no basis of fact.

It appears this forum was opened at the time of the MacDonald's parole hearing to denigrate him and his wife and carry the mantra of Kearns and the Kassabs.

Anyone that has a view that differs will be subjected to personal attacks, jeers and sneers.

These attacks are heaped on Larry king, Barry Scheck , any and all of MacDonald defense team and any posters here that dares to differ.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

oh good grief. what 5 different weapons?


There was evidence of ligament wounds around Kristen's neck. There were 2 knives one ice pick, a binding string or rope and a club.

My math says that is five.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



There was a report found somewhere in the thousands of pages of documents that a bloody syringe was found in the linen closet.
actually what the report says (and i'm paraphrasing because i don't have it right in front of me) is that the door to the linen closet had blood on it. the blood happened to be mac's, btw. P&B started that nonsense in FJ. if someone here can post the actual notation (pretty please!), it will be patently obvious to everyone that it was the door, not any syringe, that bore a bloodstain.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



There was evidence of ligament wounds around Kristen's neck. There were 2 knives one ice pick, a binding string or rope and a club.

My math says that is five.
i think you mean ligature ;) and i happen to disagree, but that's neither here nor there. thanks for clarifying!

[caphill]

Originally posted by kateyes
I just have a short comment to make. First, I do believe that Jeffrey McDonald is very, very guilty. If the DNA evidence was so clearcut as to exonerate him, his attorney(s) would have been chomping at the bit some few years before this to do so! Second, thank you to those of you (barskin & co. and several others) for lending a sense of humor to this thread. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but IMHO, those who support Jeffrey McDonald are ocean deep in denial.

MacDonald and his team of lawyers did chomp at the bit in 1997 to be allowed to do DNA testing. The District Court did allow for a select few pieces of forensic hairs to be tested. No blood dna testing was allowed. MacDonald wanted to test 63 pieces of forensics and was only allowed 28 items of hair forensics.

In1999 these few hairs were sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

It took the AFIP 6 years to finish the testing but on March 10,2006 the results were finally released to the District Court.

On March 22, 2006 Macdonald filed a Motion to add the DNA results as an additional predicate to the previously filed Motion 22 US Section 2255 to Vacate his conviction.

Of the 28 hairs, 9 were not fit for testing. Of the 19 remaining hairs, 13 were found to be the hairs of Colette and the girls, 3 were MacDonalds and 3 were foreign hairs not belonging to MacDonald or the victims.

Results back March 10th and legal Motion filed with Court on March 22nd. Within 2 working days from the release of the DNA the MacDonald team had managed to get a live Larry King interview to discuss the DNA findings and within 7 working days already had a Motion filed with the District Court

It that chomping on the bit to get the results heard? If Judge Fox does not vacate his verdict and allows for a new trial, you can bet there will be further testing done on the blood evidence in question, an examination of the dozens of unmatched finger prints and palm prints.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

i think you mean ligature ;) and i happen to disagree, but that's neither here nor there. thanks for clarifying!

Thank you for the correction. I did mean ligature.

You disagree with the pathologist and the autopsy report?

[byn63]

cappy dear - the mark around Kristen's neck was not ligature; it was determined in one of the reports by medical personnel that it was a burn type injury (similar to rug burn) and was most likely caused by her pj top. The pj top she was wearing when murdered was a loose fitting style and could and probably did get twisted during her murder. It is logical because the holes in her little undershirt and the holes in the pj top do not match in all cases.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

actually what the report says (and i'm paraphrasing because i don't have it right in front of me) is that the door to the linen closet had blood on it. the blood happened to be mac's, btw. P&B started that nonsense in FJ. if someone here can post the actual notation (pretty please!), it will be patently obvious to everyone that it was the door, not any syringe, that bore a bloodstain.

In someone statement there was a report of bloody syringe being found in the linen closet. This never became a part of evidence because the syringe never turned up in the collection of evidence.

Whether this syringe with a bloody substance was actually found or whether someone just made that up in their statements is something that will never be known.

I suspect it was something made up and it never surfaced because it never existed.

The lab reports of the forensics on the boots of Cathy Perry never showed up either. Did that ever exist or was that made up?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
In someone statement there was a report of bloody syringe being found in the linen closet. This never became a part of evidence because the syringe never turned up in the collection of evidence. Whether this syringe with a bloody substance was actually found or whether someone just made that up in their statements is something that will never be known.
There was no bloody syringe, Cappy. Read the records.The lab reports of the forensics on the boots of Cathy Perry never showed up either.Can you show your source for that statement, or is that something you just made up?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
There was a report found somewhere in the thousands of pages of documents that a bloody syringe was found in the linen closet. There was also a report that the drawers in the master bedroom were pulled open at the time of the first responders. There were fingerprints and palm prints that were seen and some that were even photographed.There were pajama fibers and threads of MacDonald's found under Colette. There were more of his pajama threads and fibers in all the bedclothing in every room. There were more of his pajama fibers found on the murder weapon. One of his pajama fibers was found lodged under his baby daughter's fingernail. MacDonald's bloody footprints were found in Colette's blood, exiting Kristen's room. 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes were found in his pajama top which matched 21 holes in Colette's chest. Mac carried the bodies of Colette and Kimberly to other rooms and staged the scenes in the house before help arrived. One of his hairs was found entwined around a bloody crushed hair of Colette's, and another hair found in Colette's hand, a hair he claimed came from her murderer, was found to be his very own. There were some 1100 evidentiary items against him presented at trial, which was apparently only 60% of what the government had against him. The recent DNA results showed that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's nor any other "intruder's" DNA was present in any exhibit.

MacDonald has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes. The evidence presented at trial was overwhelmingly conclusive, and has grown even stronger since then. The recent DNA results were very damaging to him, providing more evidence that there were no "intruders" and that MacDonald himself was and is the brutal murderer of his family. It's likely that he'll remain in prison for the rest of his days on earth.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
MacDonald and his team of lawyers did chomp at the bit in 1997 to be allowed to do DNA testing.I wonder why they waited almost 20 years after DNA testing began being used in this country before they decided to ask for that. I also wonder why they delayed the testing for so many years afterwards.The District Court did allow for a select few pieces of forensic hairs to be tested.I believe MacDonald's own lawyer, Cormier, chose the exhibits to be tested, naturally choosing those felt to be the most crucial and important. The results of the tests, when they finally came out, were that no "intruder's" DNA was found in any exhibit, and the critical hair in Colette's hand turned out to be the murderer's very own.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by kateyes
I just have a short comment to make. First, I do believe that Jeffrey McDonald is very, very guilty. If the DNA evidence was so clearcut as to exonerate him, his attorney(s) would have been chomping at the bit some few years before this to do so! Second, thank you to those of you (barskin & co. and several others) for lending a sense of humor to this thread. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but IMHO, those who support Jeffrey McDonald are ocean deep in denial. Hi, Kateyes! Good post - ITA!

IMHO, Mac will never be exonerated or vindicated. He'll never manage to source any crucial evidence to anyone else and also produce other corroborating evidence to back up the idea that that particular person was at 544 Castle Drive during the murders. And even if he did, it would only show (as Fox said) that he wasn't alone when he butchered his family.

[JTF]

Bunny: MacDonald and his advocates basically rely on 3 tactics.

STICK TO MESSAGE: It doesn't matter that most of their arguments have been proven false, they simply repeat the same message over and over again. Perry having bloody clothing, a bloody syringe found at the crime scene, Greg Mitchell confessing to murdering the MacDonald family, and a bloody palmprint found on the footboard of the bed in the master bedroom are just a few examples of this tactic.

IGNORANCE IS BLISS: MacDonald groupies, MacDonald's legal team, and Kathryn/Jeff won't talk about the more ominous pieces of evidence. The bedding evidence, the blood stains from Colette on Jeff's pajama top, and the profusion/location of the blue pajama fibers at the crime scene are simply ignored. The MacDonald camp has recently used this tactic in an attempt to spin the DNA test results in their favor. Nary a word about the limb hair found in the palm of Colette's hand that matched Jeffrey MacDonald.

ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK: When the first two tactics are ineffective, the MacDonald camp simply gets nasty. Kathryn's appalling comments towards Bob Stevenson on LKL and/or her demand to have Joe McGinniss removed as a guest on LKL, are prime examples of this tactic. Anyone who has ever received nasty e-mails from Kathryn or Char in response to MacDonald case questions, can identify with this tactic.

JTF.

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by cami


This has already come out in the appeal and the appeal was lost. No bloody syringe was ever found. The bloody gloves were oven mitts and dish gloves. The black wool fibres were unsourced.

Your research if very one sided if you are only going to read FJ.

Here's a link to the appeal (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_vs_macdonald_1985mar1.html)

I have not in fact read 'Fatal Justice' but have read a lot about this case on the Internet, McGuiness who wrote 'fatal Vision' was taken to court and did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
. . . Anyone that has a view that differs will be subjected to personal attacks, jeers and sneers.

These attacks are heaped on Larry king, Barry Scheck , any and all of MacDonald defense team and any posters here that dares to differ.

ok caphill . . . I'm gonna put you down as a macmonster defender who is motivated by the feeling of "daring to differ." Is that accurate?:confused:

Have you considered that the "dare to differ" thrill you get may be better used on a more worthwhile issue?

It's got to be rough defending this Sociopathic Slaughterer, isn't it? Not to mention exhausting . . . from turning that blind eye!;)

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill . . .
I questioned the character of people who never met MacDonald and will probably never meet him, coming forth on a public message board to make bold statements that he was a child molester, a homosexual, a speed freak and womanizer . . .

BINGO! on the "public" part of the message board caphill!:tongue:

That macMonster was a child molester/repressed-confused-WHATEVAH homosexual are both interesting theories. All that repressing can add up to a lot of rage, you know.

That macMonster was a speed freak makes a lot of sense when factoring the # of hours he was awake b4 he Slaughtered his Family . . . not to mention the weight loss.

The fact that macMonster was a "womanizer" is not a theory, but simply a fact.

[barskin&co.]

I've always felt that laughter keeps you healthy and young- so thanks for all the great chuckles!

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by liz-marie


I have not in fact read 'Fatal Justice' but have read a lot about this case on the Internet, McGuiness who wrote 'fatal Vision' was taken to court and did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent.

liz-marie, you have been repeatedly been given links to the sites with accurate information about this case, which you have shown no desire to explore. What you say about the MacDonald lawsuit against MacGuinness is not true. He never "did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent."

[cami]

Originally posted by liz-marie


I have not in fact read 'Fatal Justice' but have read a lot about this case on the Internet, McGuiness who wrote 'fatal Vision' was taken to court and did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent.

No he didn't. You really need to get your facts straight Liz. If you take FV and the transcripts and compare you will see that McGinniss's book was factual. He also says right in the book that his amphetemine theory is speculation......good speculation I believe based on MacDonald's own notes in his own hand that he had been taking amphetemines in the weeks prior to the murders.

He was sued for fraud. The jury hung on the first question...McGinniss offered to settle the suit rather than have the judge declare a mistrial. MacDonald needed money desperately and he quickly accepted the $325,000 settlement, although he sued for $15 million.

with all due respect, I believe you are just a flame baiter so it's a given that you are not going to seriously research this case.

[cami]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Don't you people ever think the FBI could make a mistake?

Do you people still think the FBI were correct in applying media pressure to Richard Jewell in the Atlanta Olympics bombing case?

I do have my doubts and very little confidence in North Carolina juries.

Of course Bertie, they are human, we all err. Just look at how you have made mistake after mistake after mistake afer mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake on the facts of this case.

I'm betting NC juries have very little confidence in you Bertie!

[byn63]

The untruth about finding a bloody half filled syringe is a classic FJ ploy.

The comment was misrepresented and came from comments made by the people who inventoried the hall closet. These people actually said something like "the hall closet was found with the door partially open and blood on it. The closet was hall filled with syringes and various medications". Of course, this is not a direct quote but FJ somehow turned these statements into a half-filled bloody syringe. The court has already ajudicated the Inmate claims on such a syringe. Now it falls into the category of res ajudicata which means "the thing has been judged", Inmate lost and cannot bring the subject up again in court.

Fatal Vision is a well written true crime novel that is amazingly accurate and taken almost word for word in many places directly from the court proceedings. JoeM did originally believe in Inmate''s innocence, but, after following the trial and staying with Inmate throughout he became convinced of Inmate's guilt. FV has stood the test of time whereas FJ has been shown to be less than accurate from page 1.

Cathy Perry's bloody clothes and boots also falls into the category of res adjudicata. First, the receipt that was signed by Inmate's attorney DOES NOT include clothes. This is another of the misrepresentations of FJ and the macalites. Second, the pair of boots were turned in, tested, and returned. WHY? Easy, the boots had not produced any evidence to connect them or Cathy Perry to the crime.

Inmate 00131-177 needs to drop his white feather and stop being :chicken: ADMIT what you did Inmate!

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill

There is no absolute proof that Dr. MacDonald killed or didn't kill his family. There is proof that many pieces of forensic evidence were not introduced in the trial and to the jury.

Why the fight to keep Dr. MacDonald from having a new trial with "all" the evidence from the crime scene presented for review of a jury? If the proescution and the investigators were so confident that "their" evidence is so strong beyond a reasonable doubt, I say bring it on, but bring it "all"on. Open up all the blood evidence for testing, let those many unmatched fingerprints be looked at in today's technology.

Until that happens, there is not much to talk about except self serving fallacious statements, personal attacks and insults and down right absurdity.

Good grief what don't you get about the pajama top and the bloody bedsheet? Absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Macdonald murdered Colette and carried her in that bedsheet. What don't you understand about the defence's own expert agreeing with the prosecution on the evidence on the bedsheet. It's not such a great leap to believe he murdered his daughters. Why do you make such posts when the evidence of his guilt is staring you in the face? For a seemingly intelligent person, you really do yourself an injustice by making these ridiculous posts honouring your hero, an ice pick baby killer.....a baby killer, baby killer, baby killer......

Bring on a new trial. I say let him have it, bring in the hairs, the black fibres, the saran fibres..the fingerprints etc etc all of it, lets' bring all of it to the table. I totally agree with you and when your hero is convicted again on the strength of the prosecution's evidence that far outweighs some unsourced black fibres and an unsourced hair under the dirty nails of a child....what will you do then?

[cami]

Scott Peterson left few forensics.

Yes Bertie, when you premeditate the murder of your wife and unborn child, you don't leave the house awash in blood for the luminol guys to find. You don't leave forensics for the CSI's to uncover. You administer a soft kill which is what Scott did--he strangled or smothered her as she was getting ready for bed on December 23, 2002. I believe he strangled her myself. She probably didn't even see it coming. He got her from behind, all she could do was reach up and scratch him and try to get those hands or whatever he used off her neck. That's probably how her ribs got broken, she fought him but she was no match for him.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


The Stoeckley group were suspicious characters in their own right and involved in suspicious activities, not withstanding that a triple homicide had taken place where they were unable to explain where they were at the time of the MacDonald murders.
was this large group of suspicious characters under investigation before the murders? helena named names, helena said this, helena said that....any proof to back up her allegations?

Some of this group came from California and went back to live in California after the MacDonald murders. Doesn't barskin think it might me a good idea if the genius detectives in California and the CID might communicate with each other about this matter? There have been unsolved murders in California since the MacDonald murders.
whoa, back up. wasn't it you who posted recently about how wonderful the detectives in L.A. are and that the CID should take advice from them? :confused: make up your mind, duckie. regardless, there have been unsolved murders all over the world since the beginning of time. you're saying helena's murderous thugs committed all of the unsolved murders in CA? yeah, i can see where that makes sense.

The local police detective Beasley knew about this Stoeckley group. Beasley's information about the Stoeckley group was rejected and ignored by the CID. The CID and FBI just seemed to have regarded the Stoeckley group as naughty children.
perhaps because there was no evidence that they were involved with this crime.

Where is the police report on the close questioning of Greg Mitchell's and Cathy Perry's friend Eddie McDaniels for a start?
who says there's not a police report? do you have access to the police files from 1970-71?

I don't know why barskin's boss is becoming annoyed.
*whooooooooooosh* that was the sarcasm flying over your head. duh. she's laughing so hard and loud at your ever-increasingly inane comments that her boss is becoming annoyed. reading is fundamental!

The bloody syringe in the MacDonald case is one of those mysteries whoich have never really been explained ...
there was no bloody syringe, therefore it is not in the least bit mysterious.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


It reminds me very much of the Prince of Tetbury in the UK giving knighthoods to rock stars for pontificating about poverty in Africa, and not mentioning corruption scandals in Africa at the same time.

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


Well, gosh, Bert, what wouldn't remind anyone of that?

What's really bothering Albie, um I mean Bertie, is when such awards are given to Irish rock stars.

[cami]

It reminds me very much of the Prince of Tetbury in the UK giving knighthoods to rock stars for pontificating about poverty in Africa, and not mentioning corruption scandals in Africa at the same time.

LOL, the Prince of Tetbury!! You mean Prince Charles don't you? Only the Queen can bestow a knighthood Bertie. If you were British you'd know that. Well Prince Charles can in some instances since he's heir apparent.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
The Stoeckley group...were unable to explain where they were at the time of the MacDonald murders.False. You've simply chosen to take Stoeckley's statement and apply them to all of her friends, and to ignore all of the trial evidence and the DNA evidence which showed that neither Stoeckley nor any other "intruder" was in the apartment at all. I mean, what's up with that anyway, Bertie? Do you really think you can just make up things out of thin air and it will somehow magically result in placing Helena in the apartment? Get a grip, dear! You're only making yourself look more and more ridiculous with every post you write.Helena named names.Yep, she said she was there and saw MacDonald committing the murders.The local police detective Beasley knew about this Stoeckley group.Yes, and he ultimately seems to have come to the conclusion that she wasn't involved.

By the way, Bertie, where are the voluminous records detailing MacDonald's constant searches for the "intruders"?
...those suspicious clothes and boots which he transported to Mrs Garcia, and which the MacDonald defense lawyers were never told about.Hmmm. You knew before you posted that this is false, yet you deliberately post it over and over again. Why do you lie and purposely misrepresent things so often, Bertie? Do you think lying is going to change the facts of the case? You ought to seek some professional help for this compulsion. Seriously.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
. . . he was a child molester, a homosexual, a speed freak and womanizer . . .

. . . conclusion of Grand Jury Testimony . . . let's listen in:

"What can I say about that? These arguments about other women are just----they are absurd. I've slept with a lot of women. It doesn't mean anything to me, at all. It never has meant anything to me. It's been very easy for me my whole life. I haven't chased one girl in California and I must have slept with thirty since I've been there."

I can't resist posting the rest of his Testimony here . . . can you imagine leaving the Grand Jury with this before deliberations??????:

"Because I didn't spend the rest of my life, you know, praying on the graves, you tell me I don't love my family. And that means I must have killed them. That's not true!"

Again, MacDonald began to sob.

"Oh, it's a lot of sh!t.
"I didn't kill Colette.
"And I didn't kill Kimmy and I didn't kill Kristy and I didn't move Colette and I didn't move Kimmy and I didn't move Kristy and I gave them mouth-to-mouth breathing and I loved them then and I love them now and you can shove all of your f*ucking evidence right up your a$s!"

Three days later, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Jeffrey MacDonald with three counts of murder.

[byn63]

Originally posted by audpaud


. . . conclusion of Grand Jury Testimony . . . let's listen in:

"What can I say about that? These arguments about other women are just----they are absurd. I've slept with a lot of women. It doesn't mean anything to me, at all. It never has meant anything to me. It's been very easy for me my whole life. I haven't chased one girl in California and I must have slept with thirty since I've been there."

I can't resist posting the rest of his Testimony here . . . can you imagine leaving the Grand Jury with this before deliberations??????:

"Because I didn't spend the rest of my life, you know, praying on the graves, you tell me I don't love my family. And that means I must have killed them. That's not true!"

Again, MacDonald began to sob.

"Oh, it's a lot of sh!t.
"I didn't kill Colette.
"And I didn't kill Kimmy and I didn't kill Kristy and I didn't move Colette and I didn't move Kimmy and I didn't move Kristy and I gave them mouth-to-mouth breathing and I loved them then and I love them now and you can shove all of your f*ucking evidence right up your a$s!"

Three days later, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Jeffrey MacDonald with three counts of murder.

and Inmate is surprised by the indictment and surprised at the guilty, guilty, guilty verdict in 1979. Bernie is surprised by the verdict. The problem is the evidence is so incredibly overwhelming yet the macalites still play the game - conspiracy, psy ops and other fantastic nonsense. They don't seem to grasp the concept of proof.

Inmate = :chicken:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Spamela


Hey Bert, where can I find some of those burly military policmen to play good cop/bad cop with me? Oh baby, they sound like just my type.

Well, albertweb/berttansill, have they modified your meds, yet? You still seem to live in a world of fantasy with your hero, Mr. Inmate.
i saw this post but completely forgot to welcome you spammy! :)

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
<snip>I I accept this proves nothing<snip>

Oh, Good. Finally, you have found the phrase the sums up the essence of all your theories. But, don't get me wrong, please do bring up the Prince Of Tetbury any time you wish.

You're a kook, Bert! Don't ever change, babe. I mean it.

[Bunny2]

The Government's response to the Blackburn-Britt allegations has been posted:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/dow..._2006-03-30.pdf

Appendices to the response have also been uploaded (more may follow as they become available):
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/new_uploads.html

[caphill]

The District Court has denied the Goverments request to file their exhibits conventionally. Now the Government will have to upload the 1500 pages of their exhibits. IN the old days the Courts bowed to whatever the Government asked for. I guess this is a new day and the Court is not bending to every whim of the Government

It appears what the Governments lacks in quality will be made up in quantity. In response to the new evidence the government is responding with 1500 pages of the reguritated trial of 1979 as their exhibits.

It is known what was presented in the trial. Hey guys, the Court wants to hear about what was not presented and why it was not presented. They want to hear a response and/or argument to Britts sworn statement that Stoeckely was threatened and intimidated into changing her testimony. The response is going to be 1500 pages of 1979 trial transcripts. GMAFB.

The Governmernts response to the DNA results was interesting.

The Government states that the hairs found to be Colette's and the girls is further evidence that MacDonald was causing them to lose or drop their hairs as he was murdering them.

Any hairs found to be MacDonald is further proof that he was struggling with them as he killed them to explain why his hairs are found in the house where he lived, slept and touched and handled his family.

On the other hand the Governments wants to have it both ways on the foreign hairs. Item 75A, which was found on floor in the outline of Colette's body, should be of no significance according to the Government. It could have been on the rug for "months" or "years" according the Government. This is the 21/2 inch hair that Malone had previously matched to Dr. MacDonald's pubic hair. This hair was never presented to the jury so therefore the jury was not mislead by this hair never being shown to them according the t the Govt. Duh! This hair and many other hairs and fibers were never shown to the jury and the defense never knew of the existence of these hairs until long after the trial.

There was also no evidence presented to the jury that Colette had not vacuumed cleaned the apartment since she moved in less than 6 months earlier. That is grasping at straws to argue that this hair could have been there for months or years and has no signficant evidentiary value. I guess this same arguement doesn't carry the same weight to any hairs found from MacDonald that could have been lying around for any time prior to the murders.

The foreign hair found on the Kristen's bed and under her fingernails is argued by the Government as having no value because it could have come from anywhere and the hair under her nails was not observed when she was found and taken to the morgue. Therfore this embedded hair under the nails could have happened because of contamination because her hands were not bagged before she moved.

I guess this same argument also doesn't apply to MacDonald's hair or fibers. When 15 0r 20 men are running around the bodies and the apartment , I guess, they could not have possibly contaminated or transferred trace evidence of MacDonald's from one place to other. These same people running around is an explanation of Kristen having hair transferred and embedded "under" her bloody nails on the hands that showed horrible defensive wounds.

The 21/2 hair found under Colette could have been there for months or years, but any hair found from MacDonald would have only been there since around 300am the morning of the murders. I guess it would be unreasonable to think that MaDonald sleeping in his the bed and carriyng and tucking his children in their beds would only have trace hairs in his house if he were killing them.

It the crime scene was so mangled, contaminated and the hands of the victims were not bagged so therefore the evidence of any foreign forensics is unreliable and not to trusted, why should any of the trace forensics from MacDonald be trusted either. Who is to say the fibers and hairs found from MacDonald had not been there for the same months the foreign hairs were that were found around Colette's body.

Anyway that is a synopsis of the Government asking the Court to find only value from the DNA hairs indentified as MacDonalds and to disregard any of the DNA that shows it came from a foreign source.

That is pretty much how they conducted the trial in 1979. They chose to let the jury see or know about only one side of the picture. Now they are asking the Court to do the same thing. Only look at the DNA that is MacDonald's that is lying around and ignore the embeddedd hair under Kristen's fingernails and on her bed. Ignore the 21/2 inch hair on the rug under Colette legs. Oh shucks, that could've been there for years.

Malone, FBI lab guy, just made a mistake when he sourced the 2/1/2 inch hair to MacDonald. No harm according to the Government because he did not mislead the jury. No he didn't mislead the jury. He mislead the appellate court when he did a report that the 2/1/2 inch hair that was hidden from the jury and defense would not have made any difference in their verdict because it belonged to MacDonald.

That is two major false reports he made to the appellate court about the forensics and trace evidence found at the murder scene
to help the Government block MacDonald appeal for a new trial based on suppression of exculpatory evidence.

Malone's history and reputation is well earned with proven false testimony in this case and well as others. He hasn't worked in the FBI labs for many years because of being slammed on other cases. The fact the FBI has kept him on payroll is is a shame and embarrassment to everything the FBI and law enforcement should stands for.

Judge Fox and the panal may not vacate the verdict on the new evidence but I don't know how the Court could deny him a new trial. A new trial should open up the door for the defense to have many other untested items of forensics tested as well as a retesting of the the items introduced to the jury. It is now proven that some of the tested items were in error. How many more?

I would look forward to the blood being DNA tested and would like to see the unmatched fingerprints and palm prints released from the government for testing.

[JTF]

Caphill: All that energy for an unsourced pubic OR body hair (i.e. defense claim) found under Colette's body, yet a limb hair from your hero found stuck to the left palm of his wife gets a wave of your hand. Brilliant. By the way, did you notice that even though Malone stated that MacDonald was the source of the hair from Exhibit Q79, he added that the hair was not forensically significant. If Malone was truly "out to get MacDonald," he would have played up that hair as further prove of MacDonald's guilt. Malone, however, realized that since the hair showed no signs of being forcibly removed, it meant nothing in regards to Jeffrey MacDonald's guilt or innocence. It's ironic that an unsourced DNA result of that hair turns out to be equally insignificant.

JTF.

[caphill]

Just been reading the response. Found a questionable part o page 20. There is discussion of Stoeckley's description of the hobby horse that was broken and would not roll. The Government refutes this by boldly stating the horse was suspended on 4 springs rather than wheels and the springs were not broken. In their exhibit (Tab 8) they show a very poor quality photo of a spring horse that was supposedly taken through the window by a local publication as their proof of this spring horse.

On Christina's site she had posted a series of pictures given to her by Peter Kearns that were of the crime scene. These are obviously not pictures that were in evidence or Kearns wouldn't have them. They could be duplicates of the pictures the government has in their files or they could be just extras that he has taken out of the CID files.

Christina had posted a clear picture of the hobby horse. It was clearly a stick legged horse on wheels. Christina has removed this pictures of the horse that was given to her by Kearns. This picture that was supplied by Kearns makes the bold statements of the governments wrong about the horse not having wheels. the poor quality photos the a spring hobby horse that was filed with the Court as the picture taken through the window of the house the day after the murders is not the horse that was photographed by CID at the time of the murders.

What the h*ll is going on that Muragh and the government would file an official response to the Court and clearly misrepresent the description of the horse and actually show a picture to the Courts that is not the horse that was in Kristen's room at the time she was murdered. This done as a discredit to statements that Schoeckley had made about the horse bening broken and would not roll.

The District Court need to made aware that the information that the Government is submitting to them in their official response is very different that what a CID agent still has in his files of pictures fromt the crime scene that is very different.

It looks there is still manipulation going on with the real evidence and manufactured evidence.

Freaking unbelievable that these photos of the hobby horse that Kearns has in his possession is no where near the same picture that the government if submitting to the District Court as evidence.

What will they stoop to protect themselves from exposure of what they did to dirty up the evidence in the MacDonald case to get a verdict.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Christina had posted a clear picture of the hobby horse. It was clearly a stick legged horse on wheels. Christina has removed this pictures of the horse that was given to her by Kearns.Oh, really, Cap? What were the names of those "clear pictures" of that horse in Kristen's room, do you know? Even if you claim there was only one, I'd be very interested in knowing the filename, since I created those images and can tell you there has never been any clear photo of the horse anywhere on her site that I know of.

BTW, that's part of the reason the 3D views first showed a horse on springs, then people said no, it was definitely on wheels, so I changed it to wheels, and now it's still on my to-do list to change it back to the original again. If I'd had a "clear picture" such as you claim existed on CM's site, I would have created the horse accurately to begin with.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your reply about this.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill


The District Court need to made aware that the information that the Government is submitting to them in their official response is very different that what a CID agent still has in his files of pictures fromt the crime scene that is very different.


i'm assuming then, that you'll be firing off a letter to the court, with proof attached?

i don't recall seeing or not seeing a pic of the horse on christina's site, so i won't comment on that.

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


liz-marie, you have been repeatedly been given links to the sites with accurate information about this case, which you have shown no desire to explore. What you say about the MacDonald lawsuit against MacGuinness is not true. He never "did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent."

It is none of your business whether I decide to read links about this case, or not: in fact I have read widely about this case on various sites on the internet. I have read that McGuiness was taken to court, please refrain from using this board to have a go at me, THANKYOU.
I am interested in many murder cases and do not have to justify myself to you or anyone else.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . . MacDonald wasn't being tried for his sex life . . .

Your bud caphill, brought up the "womanizing" thing bert . . . you know, how it's "unfair" to discuss on a public message board? Your hero Jeffie, was the one who addressed the issue in his Grand Jury Testimony. What's your beef?:confused:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by liz-marie
It is none of your business whether I decide to read links about this case, or not: in fact I have read widely about this case on various sites on the internet. I have read that McGuiness was taken to court, please refrain from using this board to have a go at me, THANKYOU.
I am interested in many murder cases and do not have to justify myself to you or anyone else.


ummmmmmm, so I guess I'll jot you down here for . . . ummmm . . . . NOT wanting to discuss the pajama fibers, bedding or blood evidence???

Ok . . . that leaves us with Prince Tetbert and Mick Jagger up next for discussion!!!:seeya:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by liz-marie


It is none of your business whether I decide to read links about this case, or not: in fact I have read widely about this case on various sites on the internet. I have read that McGuiness was taken to court, please refrain from using this board to have a go at me, THANKYOU.
I am interested in many murder cases and do not have to justify myself to you or anyone else.

First of all, I have tried to be polite to you, and have never "had a go at you."

You did not post that you had "read that McGuiness was taken to court." You said that McGuiness "did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent."
I am telling you that is absolutely not true. MacDonald sued McGuiness, because he never let on to him, as he observed the defense and the trial, that he (McGuiness) had reached the conclusion that he was guilty. His belief in MacDonald's guilt was based on the facts of the case and has never wavered.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I understand the concept of proof all right. There is no real proof against Dr MacDonald. That's because he's innocent.

All this talk about "mountains of evidence" and the government's response to the latest DNA results is a load of Irish blarney. Dr MacDonald wasn't being tried for his sex life ,or whether he's interested in acquisitions and mergers. He was being tried on whether he's a homicidal maniac, like the people in the Stoeckley group, which he isn't.

I'm not lying about anything. I'm just digging up the facts.

Whatever Bunny says those clothes and boots delivered to Mrs Garcia are suspicious. Eddie McDaniels made a statement to the MacDonald private investigator Ray Shedlick that he didn't know nothing about any clothes or boots delivered to the witch Mrs Garcia. The trouble with that is that Eddie McDaniels was stopped by the police as he was delivering the clothes and boots, and drugs were found in his car.

McDaniels then lawyered up with James Nance Jr who sent the clothes and boots to the CID, who promptly returned them. This was because the CID were only focused on the innocent Dr MacDonald. The CID weren't interested in the information. I don't know if Nance is still alive. He could provide more information about Eddie McDaniel's involvement in all this.

McDaniels said he lived with Cathy Perry and Jack Wolverton, who also seemed to be known as Stan Warmbrod. McDaniels said he knew Smitty (Dwight Smith) the black man who in the 1960's and 1970's was into the music scene. Smitty was a friend of Pat Reese (local journalist). Smitty is a prime suspect in the MacDonald murders. I would have thought that Jack Wolverton could still be asked a few questions about all this.

There was a rumor that Cathy Perry had marked the night of the MacDonald murders on her calendar. I accept this proves nothing, but it's interesting just the same.

This is what Bernie Segal had to say about those clothes and boots in an affidavit:

"During the entire course of my representation, I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of clothing or boots. Moreover, Army Captain James A. Douthat was under no duty to the defense team to keep the defense informed after his official representation of Dr MacDonald
at the conclusion of the Article 32 proceeding."


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Oh, I'm sorry. Were you saying something?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I think the CID also made a great effort to interview some of Dr MacDonald's former lady friends. That was probably the bulk of their 3000 page report on...MacDonald. Neither the CID or FBI ever made a great effort to interview in depth the suspicious characters in the Stoeckley group, who many people consider to be the real culprits in the MacDonald murders.Since you've forgotten the facts again, you probably should reread the case records and the many posts on several boards to refresh your memory. It was proven that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell nor any other "intruder" was ever in the apartment. Mac only made up those stories in order to try to divert suspicion away from himself and to try to cover up the fact that he murdered his family, and because of his horrific acts and his constant lies, he will most likely remain in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Joe McGuinness was blatantly dishonest in pretendingg to be Dr MacDonald's friend, and also accepting $10 an hour from MacDonald lawyer Bernie Segal in order to write a fair and just book about the MacDonald case.

And that's EXACTLY what McGuinness did, Arthur, he wrote a fair and just book about the Macdonald case. :)

[Bunny2]

Bertie/Cappy/Arthur: Considering you've shown that you don't have a firm grip on the facts in the case, and that you demonstrate an inability to evaluate the evidence you do know about, and that you've been outed as a fraud, why should anyone believe anything you write?McGuinness was fabricating it out of whole cloth.Sorry, Bertie/Cappy/Arthur, but nothing you write can even begin to make a dent in the fact that McGinniss's book was truthful and as I understand it wasn't changed upon republication. It's actually you, and not McGinniss, who fabricates things out of whole cloth.I have just been reading some of the government response to the recent MacDonald motion. What a load of bull and Irish blarney! It's all theory with no facts. There is a lot of empty waffle about...MacDonald moving Kim and Colette here there and everywhere without any hard documentary evidence to back it up at all. It's just an absurd theory.I see you still haven't begun to research the facts in the case. Do you plan on starting to do that anytime soon?

IMHO, the government's response was well-prepared and factual, unlike so much of what the defense has submitted over the years. Mac's lied to the courts and society so many times over the years that it's become a pleasure watching him get crushed repeatedly by the strong arm of justice.Finally they say Helena Stoeckley was making up her story about being at the MacDonald murders. If you believe that you must believe the earth is flat.The evidence shows conclusively and without any question whatsoever that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell nor any other "intruder" was ever in the apartment at all, and that MacDonald is completely responsible for the brutal and horrific murders of his family. Justice prevails.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by realityaddict06
And that's EXACTLY what McGuinness did, Arthur, he wrote a fair and just book about the Macdonald case. :)

Absolutely, realityaddict. Poor Bertie the Flamebaiting Fraud just hates to admit it, that's all. :)

[caphill]

There was a lotta lying going in this case. Some say MacDonald was lying about seeing a woman with long blond hair and a floppy hat with one black dude and 2 white dudes in his the house at the time of his family was being murdered.

Some say more than forty people who have come forth to say they saw a similar group of people in the immediate area right before and right after the murders were lying or mistaken.

There are dozens of people who have come forth to say that Stoeckley or Mitchell has told them they were involved in the murders and that they were 2 of the people that MacDonald claimed he saw that fatal night. Add that to growing number of lying people in the case.

I have heard of people lying about being not involved in a crime to avoid arrest or incarceration but having two people suffering great remorse admitting to being involved in a murder is an interesting twist. Add those two to number of people lying about the murders.

We now know that there were a number of people in the CID and FBI labs that were lying directly or by omission about what was presented to their labs from the crime scene. Add that to the growing list of lying people.

To recap, MacDonald lying that he didn't do it and it was a "hippie loooking' group. We have dozens and dozens of people lying by saying they saw a similar "hippie group" hangng around that night. We have 2 of the 4 described people of the "hippie' group lying saying they were there and involved.


We have the lab people lying directly or by omission about the forensics to help the CID prove that MacDonald was lying, the people who saw the hippie group are lying and the people who admit to being there and involved in the murders are lying.

Colette wrote less than 2 months prior to the murder "We are having a great time, all expenses paid vacation in the Army. It looks as if Jeff will be here in NC for the entire 2 years, which is an immense load off my mind, at least. Life has never been more normal and happy. Jeff is home every day at 5 and most days comes home for lunch. By the way, we have been having such a good time lately that we are expecting a baby in July."

Colette has been accused of lying about her happy life with Jeff.

Joe McGinniss wrote right after the verdict regarding the jury in the trial," Total strangers can recognize within 5 minutes there was no fair fair. What the f**k were those people thinking of. How could 12 people not only agree to believe such a horrendous proposition, but agree with a man's life at stake, that they believed it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Was McGinniss lying when he wrote that or was he lying when he got his book ready for to publish for profit.

MacDonald still keeps on lying about not killing his family according to CID and the Government. Mitchell and Stoeckley kept on lying till their dying day that they were involved in the murders of the family according to the CID and the Governemnt.

Freddy Kassab said" We know full well Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent beyond any shadow of doubt and the Army has made no effort to look for the real murderers." Was he lying then or was he lying after he found out that Jeff was guilty of banging a nurse in Tex when Colette was looking and changed his story?

The only truth in the case and the only truthful ones are the old dudes involved in the highly questionable investigation . Anybody that questions their job or their "truth" as they tell it is just another liar to add to the mix of the hundreds of other liars mentioned above.

This whole story of the CID investigation and the circling of the wagons to prove that that a known drug crazed cult that admitted to killing a family as they slept were just lying, could a gallows humor or a black comedy.

[JTF]

Caphill: Yawn. Practicing MacDonald groupie Tactic #1, eh? Stick to message, stick to message, stick to message. I'll give you this, you follow that philosophy to a tee. The bottom line is that when you add the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented at trial by the prosecution with the recent DNA test results (i.e., forcibly removed body hair from Colette on the blue bedsheet and a limb hair from her husband stuck to the palm of her left hand), the case against MacDonald is overwhelming. MacDonald is a cruel, vicious killer who decided that saving his medical career gave him permission to stab his 2 year old daughter 33 times with a knife and an ice pick. MacDonald is currently where he belongs, living among people who also showed their victims no mercy.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
There was a lotta lying going in this case.More sand attempting to be thrown into the eyes of the people. More diversion, more hopeful attempts to throw the spotlight anywhere but on the murderer. Mac groupies never change. I only skimmed your post because it looks like the same old thing all over again, but didn't see a single thing in there anywhere that could even begin to eradicate any of the overwhelming number of evidentiary items against MacD.

You want to see some real hard-core lying in the case, Cappy? Here's so much of it that it'll boggle your eyes, and this is only a partial list:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

Snipped

I have just been reading some of the government response to the recent MacDonald motion. What a load of bull and Irish blarney! It's all theory with no facts. There is a lot of empty waffle about Dr MacDonald moving Kim and Colette here there and everywhere without any hard documentary evidence to back it up at all. It's just an absurd theory.

snipped

Finally they say Helena Stoeckley was making up her story about being at the MacDonald murders. If you believe that you must believe the earth is flat. The late great Fred Kassab said the hobby horse or rocking horse had wheels. Murtagh and co. now say it didn't have wheels but was suspended on springs. May I ask who is talking nonsense at the Department of Justice and why?


The Governments reponse was not surprising and they just regurgiated the same old responses already presented to the Courts in their prior attacks to block MacDonald from opening up this case again.

I was waiting to see what response the Government would have to Britt's sworn statements. It was the same old argument they had made before that if the defense had done due diligence they should have been able to root this info about intimidation from Stoeckley or Britt back in 1979, therefore, this is not newly discovered infor. I guess they forgot the 4th Circuit Court believed this was "new" info that the defendant would have had no way to discover in 1979.

Murtagh has his own statements on record with the Courts that Stoeckley had told him that she believed she was at the property and witnessed the murders. The prosecution had Stoeckley on their witness list. Murtagh had done a pre trial interview with her and she told at that time she believed she was there and witnessed the murders. She asked him for immunity and ready to talk and give names.

When the defense realized the prosecution was not going to put Stoeckley on the stand, they demanded that she be brought to court as their witness for their case in chief. Right before she is to go on the stand to testify, the prosecution wants to interview her again. After the little chat with Blackburn when Murtagh just happens to have stepped out of the room, Stoeckley has a total relapse of recall of anything that happened before or right after the murders. I would have had a total loss of memory too if I were told that I would be indicted for murders if I admitted I was a witness to the crime

Her written and verbal story to many people over the years has been basically the same. Admittedly in a drug fog, she had memories or flashbacks that tormented her of what she had seen that fatal night. She admits that after dropping mescaline in combo with other drugs she did not have full recall of that evening. She could only remember bits and pieces of what she saw and heard in the drug maze of her mind. She saw things she would not have known if she had not been there .

She knew the hobby horse had a broken wheel and that was not public knowledge. She knew the assailants had carved an "S" pattern in Kristen's chest and that was not public knowledge. She answered the phone and it was later discovered that there had been a wrong number dialed and a woman had answered. She admitted she had candles. Foreign wax dripping were found in the house as well as a burnt match in one the girls bedrooms. There was piece of forensic evidence in the lab that had a burn hole. It was explained away as someone at the lab had put the burn mark there. Why somone working with a piece evidence from a crime scene would burn a spot on the evidence was not explained.

When Helena was willing to take the stand to testify that she believed she had been in the house with a group that matched the description by MacDonald, the prosecution, the Judge and the CID knew their case of cards would tumble.

The Army in 1970 dismissed the charges against MacDonald and instructed the CID to fully investigate Stoeckley and her gang. Rather than doing the investigation of Stoeckley, the CID angred that MacDonald had so publically vilified them, with the help of Proctor, the father of Judge Dupree's first grandson,with the help of the ambitious Murtagh, with the help of the obsessive and easily manipulated Kassabs, and the manipulation of evidence, managed to get a civilian court to indict.

Fast forward 9 years later and Stoeckley is coming to bat. The CID and their labs, Murtagh, the FBI, and even Judge Dupree are about to watch 9 years of putting their careers on the line becoming another mockery.

Colette and the girls are dead and nothing brings them back. What is the sacrifice of Dr. MacDonald, whether he is guilty or not, to the downfall of the already bruised reputation of the CID. Murtagh, who had moved from military JAG officer to civilian lawyer to make his career on this case is not going to give up those 9 years to move back into legal obscurity.

Proctor has worked too hard to bring this to a Grand Jury and his son's grandfather, Judge Dupree has put himself on the line to sit on the bench to convict MacDonald.

This high profile case with all the characters that were involved is at jeopardy of being brought down by a drug addict, drug informant woman will bring further shame to the CID, the FBI and the prosecution.

When the presecution was unable to keep Stoeckley off the stand because the defense had her subpoenaed, they had to make a bold move to keep her from blowing up 9 years of their work. After the defense has for their pre testimony interviews to porepare her for testimony, Blackburn and Murtagh then call her into the room for their final little chat with her before she gets on the stand.

When she got on the stand and her had testimony is very different from what she had told the defense in their preparation, Judge Dupree would not allow the defense to declare her a hostile witness and cross examine to impeach her in front of the jury. Without being able to cross examine her how could they find out why she had a memory lapse, while sober on the stand, of the last 9 yrs of her written and verbal statements of what she did remember of that murderous night.

It was bold to threaten her with indictment but they had the Judge holding the hammer of the Court to shut her down. Judge Dupree also shut down the many witnesses that were there to testify that she had at many times confessed to being a witness to the crime.

This same Judge Dupree sat on the appellate court to help rule there was no court or prosecution error in supression of evidence or error in not allowing defense witnesses to testify. He was a part of denying the defense the right to DNA testing. Only after his death did the defense get that one part of their Motions granted.

Murtagh is coming back with the very same arguments used before when Judge Dupree was at the helm to try to block MacDonald quest for a new trial or to vacate his verdict.

The Government put forth the same old same old arguments to ask the District Court to deny MacDonald a new trial. Their arguments to have the District Court not consider Britt's sworn statements are weak.

I am of the opinion it would behoove the Government if the Court vacates the verdict and the Government never has this case opened up in a public court of law to fully expose the miscarriage of justice and fraud on the court from the trial of 1979.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



The Governments reponse was not surprising and they just regurgiated the same old responses already presented to the Courts in their prior attacks to block MacDonald from opening up this case again.


well what do you expect? they were responding to mac's regurgitation of the same old tired "new evidence" he has been trying to use for decades now. perhaps if he would learn a new song and dance, they'd have a new response.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
blahblahblahblahblah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, yakkety yak, blah blah, blahblahblahblahblah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, yakkety yak, blah blah and more yakkety yak.Oh, is this your new game now, Bertie/Cappy/Artie? Thinking that if you start writing endless looooooooooooong posts that you can cover up the facts? Sorry, no chance of that happening, no way no how. We can do that, too, Cappy! I prefer shorter posts myself, but hey, let's go for it...

Too bad that our government has to waste time and resources replying to the same old claims MacDonald keeps regurgitating. Mac's already presented his arguments to the courts and has failed, and just keeps trying to open up the case over and over again despite the fact that he has no evidence whatsoever to support him and that voluminous evidence points (and always has) to his being responsible for the murders of his family.

I was waiting to see what response the Government would have, and see that they've very nicely detailed all of the failures Mac's suffered in court, and the description of the gatekeeping requirements was noteworthy. Mac keeps making the same old arguments, keeps bringing up the same old "newly discovered" evidence but of course as the government so nicely pointed out, virtually everything in the defense's current motion is not new at all. I guess Mac forgot that he's already presented this evidence before, and that he's lost all his appeals.

Mac has his own statements on record, showing how often he has lied and therefore demonstrated consciousness of his guilt in these crimes. The defense didn't even call Stoeckley during its case in chief. Even when Dupree demanded that they do something with her, call her to the stand or let her go, Wade Smith responded "We don't want to." Stoeckley denied being present at the murders.

Stoeckley claimed her candle did not drip wax, but dripped blood instead. She also claimed she was in the apartment and witnessed MacDonald committing the murders. Her statements were factually erroneous, did not match the physical evidence, did not match MacDonald's stories, were found to be verging on fantasy, and no trace of her presence in the apartment has ever been forthcoming. Recent DNA testing proved that none of her DNA (nor any other "intruder's" DNA) was present in any of the crucial exhibits the defense chose to have tested.

Your description of the interview with Blackburn does not match the facts. Stoeckley interviewed with the defense lawyer, Segal, before Blackburn interviewed her. She told both the defense and the prosecution the same story, and Wade Smith admitted to Judge Dupree that this was indeed the case. Segal told her that she wouldn't be prosecuted if she admitted to the crimes. Stoeckley had already been coerced and manipulated enough by Gunderson and Beasley; Segal should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for trying to force her into testifying to something she didn't do. The government's response contains marvelous rebuttal to Britt's allegations; perhaps you should read it sometime.

Stoeckley was never in the MacDonald apartment at all, and MacDonald should be ashamed of himself for making her another one of his many victims. The man has no shame whatsoever, would have murdered his own mother if she'd been in the house that night. She was wrong about the hobby horse and the "S" pattern supposedly carved into Kristen is of course another MacMyth not supported by fact, as you knew before you posted.

Mrs. Kane's telephone number was written on the murder club, and she gave a written statement in which she said she received a call from a male at 3:00-3:20 or so but that she couldn't recall the conversation, supposedly due to her "sleepy state." Mac was probably having intimate relations with Mrs. Kane, as he was known to be a womanizer and cheater during his marriage.

You have failed to tell the whole truth about the wax, the burned match and other issues in your posts. You are aware of those facts (such as the fact that the wax on the coffee table was old and filled with household debris; that no wax trails were found, that the wax in Kim's room was from a birthday candle, that Stoeckley's candle didn't drip wax at all according to her, that Colette would of course routinely thrown out candle stubs after burning, etc.). The burn hole to which you refer was apparently from a cigarette.

Helena was never willing to take the stand to testify that she believed she had been in the house with a group that matched the description by MacDonald. MacDonald knew his house of cards was tumbling down when he heard her truthful testimony.

Stoeckley was investigated as were hundreds of other people, and MacDonald was found to be lying when he claimed she was present during the murders. Neither Proctor nor Murtagh nor the Army nor the CID nor Dupree nor the Kassabs nor anyone else whom you love to vilify had anything to do with MacDonald's decision to murder his famly, nor did they have anything to do with his decision to stage the scenes, nor were they responsible for his repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt in the crimes.

Fast forward 36+ years later and MacDonald has been found to be narcissistic and psychopathic and has been tried, convicted and remains in prison for the horrendous acts he committed. His appeals have been weak and were rejected by the courts. Not one of his many, many lawyers has ever, in all these many years, been able to overcome or even make the slightest dent in the incredibly voluminous evidence against him. With the DNA results now in, he is watching 36+ years of his lies and manipulations come back to haunt him, as they will continue to do until he draws his last breath.

Colette and the girls are dead and nothing brings them back. MacDonald has enjoyed his celebrityhood while in prison, primps and preens and looks forward to each February 17, when he can again be in the spotlight. He certainly isn't going to sit back quietly and let his case fade into obscurity, because he loves that limelight more than anything else. He cannot seem to see or understand that the vast majority of people who have read about his case believe him to be thoroughly guilty. At no time has he ever showed any remorse for his crimes. He gave Colette little respect in life and none at all in death. He will probably rot away the rest of his miserable days in his concrete cell, a fate far too good for him.

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by audpaud



ummmmmmm, so I guess I'll jot you down here for . . . ummmm . . . . NOT wanting to discuss the pajama fibers, bedding or blood evidence???

Ok . . . that leaves us with Prince Tetbert and Mick Jagger up next for discussion!!!:seeya:

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit......

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


First of all, I have tried to be polite to you, and have never "had a go at you."

You did not post that you had "read that McGuiness was taken to court." You said that McGuiness "did concede that a lot of his book was embellished and said there was a possibility that JM is innocent."
I am telling you that is absolutely not true. MacDonald sued McGuiness, because he never let on to him, as he observed the defense and the trial, that he (McGuiness) had reached the conclusion that he was guilty. His belief in MacDonald's guilt was based on the facts of the case and has never wavered.

after the book' Fatal Justice' was released a book review was done by Tara Aronson in a San Francisco newspaper and quoted that MacGiness said under oath (at the trial of the civil lawsuit against him) said - he had to give readers(of his book) more than a re-hash of Macdonald's trial and said he was not convinced it actually happened the way he portrayed in his book re- the murders.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . . McGuinness to cite his source for what he had written about diet pills.

McGuinness replied that that he had obtained his information from a particular book but when asked for the exact reference by Bostwick he said he couldn't find it. McGuinness was fabricating it out of whole cloth. . . .


. . . This account which, Jeffie told Victor Worheide at the grand jury, was put in writing because the events were too painful to talk about. These notes, Jeffie told Worheide, were the most accurate, most complete, most coherent account of the night of the murders Jeffie had ever compiled. Jeffie had not, however made it available to Worheide or to the grand jurors. He had not made it available to ANY investigator!!! Jeffie gave it to his lawyers for THEIR use-----not knowing, at the time, what the evidence against him might consist of-----and, once it became clear, during the Article 32 hearing, that certain avenues were not to be pursued, this "most accurate" account had lain at the bottom of a cardboard box, covered by dozens of other files!!! . . . . Listen now for the Word of Jeffie: :tongue:

We ate dinner together at 5:45 p.m. (all 4). It is possible I had one diet pill at this time. I do not remember but it is possible. I had been running a weight control program for my unit and I put my name at the top of the program to encourage participation. I had lost 12-15 lbs. in the prior 3-4 weeks, in the process using 3-5 capsules of Eskatrol Spansule (15 mg Dextroamphetamine(("speed")) and 7.5 mg Prochloloperazine (Compazine) to counteract the excitability of the speed. I was also losing weight because I was working out with the boxing team and the coach told me to lose weight. In any case, the reason I could have taken the pill was two-fold-----1)to eat less in the evening when I "snacked" the most and 2)to try to stay awake after dinner since I was baby sitting. It didn't work if I did take a pill because I think I had a nap from 7:30-8:00pm after I put Kristy to bed . . .
The CID knows nothing about the possible diet pill . . . If I did take the pill, it is conceivable that my urine and blood at 11:30 a.m. Tues. would still have some residue. We would have to research the breakdown and excretion products of adrenaline from the body, which would be increased in the excitement of the attack, etc. Right now, I don't know if it's definitely possible to identify Dextroamphetamine from pills in the blood and the urine. I think I told the CID that the only pills I took were aspirin, occas, cold pills and Tetracycline (antibiotic) . . . .


Physician Desk Reference: Prescribed dose ONE capsule Eskatrol Spansule per day to be taken in the morning.

3-5 capsules could have some serious side effects---as Poor Collette, Kim and Kris found out.:(

[Bunny2]

Well, poop, that's what I get for firing off a reply without double-checking it. Correction in one of my previous posts: The sentence should have read "Stoeckley had already been coerced by Segal and Gunderson and Beasley should be ashamed of themselves for trying to force her into confessing to something she didn't do."

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by liz-marie
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...... Actually, usually it's said that puns are the lowest form of wit, not sarcasm. You may also have confused the word sarcasm with satire.

[liz-marie]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Actually, usually it's said that puns are the lowest form of wit, not sarcasm. You may also have confused the word sarcasm with satire.

how petty can u get.....

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by liz-marie
how petty can u get.....
Sorry, Liz. I thought perhaps you'd be interested in expanding your education. I guess I should have known better considering the rest of your posts.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
The CID lab report stated that...MacDonald had no narcotics in his blood at the time of the MacDonald murders and a minimum amount of alcohol.What does that have to do with his ingestion of speed, Bertie? He wasn't tested for amphetamines.
...MacDonald was being perfectly candid to his lawyers...Really?? I don't recall reading anywhere that he told his lawyers the truth, that he'd committed the murders.He was just discussing normally with his lawyers, and about their defense strategy, if the diet pill business ever came up in the case.Funny how the issue of speed was the very first thing Mac wanted to talk about in his "notes," and that he went on at great length about it. I've seen the notes in their entirety, and the rest of the issues he talks about are given scant space. The speed issue was of paramount importance to him. I wonder why.Plexus is a medically qualified doctor.Yeah, right, and I'm Kathyrn MacDonald, Bertie.There is no scientific evidence that a few diet pills would send anybody into a murderous rage.Apparently you have yet to do any research on the subject. Why don't you Google "amphetamine psychosis" when you get a chance and educate yourself?It's interesting to me that as far as I can judge the prosecution in the MacDonald case have never mentioned an amphetamine psychosis in any MacDonald court case that I know about. It's the same with the absurd child molestation allegations, and the urine stain, which I believe was Kristen's, and not Kim's.The urine was shown not to be Kristen's. It was either Kim's or Colette's or an "intruder's." By process of elimination, it was Kimberly's urine. That aside, why in the world would the prosecution even need to bring up such things when they had so much incredibly overwhelming evidence already against Mac? Apparently they only used 60% of what they had against him, and IMHO they could have used about 10% of it and still convicted him.Murtagh knows that he has no evidence to back up those crazy allegations at all.Didn't you know there was a trial, Bertie? Mac lost, and was convicted of the murders of his family. He received three consecutive life sentences, has lost all of his appeals, and in all the many years since hasn't even come close to making even the slightest dent in the evidence against him. On the contrary, the evidence has grown much stronger.In reply to Bunny, Helena Stoeckley said to a polygrapher that the candles dripped blood at the MacDonald murders in one of her DREAMS.Gee, I don't think so, Bertie. Here's Wendy Rouder at trial:

"Mr. Underhill had gone upstairs to get his clothes. Again, our conversation was predominantly small talk. There was a pause. She said, 'I still think I was there in that house that night.' And I said, 'Helena, is it a feeling you are having or a memory?' She said, 'It's a memory. I remember standing at the couch, holding a candle, only--you know--it wasn't dripping wax. It was dripping blood.'"Helena Stoeckley and her associates should have been thoroughly investigated when she was alive.Poor, poor Bertie. Didn't you know that the DNA results came back and proved not only that Stoeckley's DNA wasn't found in any exhibit but also that a crucial "mystery hair" which Mac claimed came from Colette's murderer turned out to be his very own? Maybe one of these days maybe you'll actually start researching the case and reading the many posts which have corrected the falsehoods you post. One can only hope.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Christina had posted a clear picture of the hobby horse. It was clearly a stick legged horse on wheels. Christina has removed this pictures of the horse that was given to her by Kearns.

Hey, Cappy, what's up? I still haven't seen any response from you about this picture that you went on and on about. Did you miss my post to you about that? What was the name of this supposed picture? Was it a color photo or B&W? Did it show all of the rocking horse? When was it posted? When was it removed? Since I processed those pictures and never processed anything like what you describe, I'd really like to know the answers to these things.

Or can't you answer because it's just something else that you made up?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bunny2
What does that have to do with his ingestion of speed, Bertie? He wasn't tested for amphetamines.
Really?? I don't recall reading anywhere that he told his lawyers the truth, that he'd committed the murders.Funny how the issue of speed was the very first thing Mac wanted to talk about in his "notes," and that he went on at great length about it. I've seen the notes in their entirety, and the rest of the issues he talks about are given scant space. The speed issue was of paramount importance to him.

That's what struck me too, bunny! Can you imagine if you were asked to reconstruct the most horrible night of your life in the most detail you can (and it's so painful that you can't speak out loud about it) and then you just end up writing on and on about freakin' "diet pills????"

It's very telling and very damning, IMO. I've already shared with the Board that I did a LOT of "diet pills" in the 70's (like MacDonald, I had no weight problem to speak of, so draw your own conclusions here!;) ) . . . They WERE legal and I wouldn't have a problem telling law enforcement/medical personnel that I was taking them, had my family been murdered and I was innocent. Would anyone? Why lie?

And why not give Jeffie this "out?" The way I see it . . . had it not been for the amphetamine abuse the MacDonalds would have ended up divorced possibly . . . instead of everyone Slaughtered but the Good Doctor who shouldn't have been "healing thyself" with "sample" after sample of Eskatrol!:(

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Actually, usually it's said that puns are the lowest form of wit, not sarcasm. You may also have confused the word sarcasm with satire.

It's apparent that liz-marie would rather discuss the lower forms of wit than say . . . ummmmmm . . . like . . . .

THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, THE BEDDING EVIDENCE AND ummmmm . . . the . . . . PAJAMA FIBER EVIDENCE????? :eek: :confused:

[caphill]

Following is the Govt's submission asking the District Court to deny the instant motion request by Macdonald to vacate his verdict based on the newly discovered evidence i.e. Britt's affidavit and the Mitchell affidavits.

Should the court not agree with out submission that the instant motion should be denied on these grounds or any other grounds, we anticiate contesting all allegations MacDonald has made in the support of the motion.

In that event we request an evidentiary, an opportunity to cross examine the affiants supporting the relief and an opportunity to present evidence in rebuttal. Finally should the court determine that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, we request that the court delay any such hearing until any other preliminary or jurisdictional matters have been resolved, and the government has sufficient time to complete our ongoing investigation.

Excuse me, Mr. Murtagh but why do you think the court should grant you an evidentiary hearing when the same Courts would never allow MacDonald to have a evidentiary. Macdonald was never allowed to cross examine any affiants when they submitted affidavits to block his appeals.

The nerve to ask for a evidentiary hearing and then ask the court to delay the requested hearing to some open ended date for the government to have sufficient tme to complete their ongoing investigation.

The government has had 36 years to complete their ongoing investigation and they need more time? The court gave them more that 60 days to respond to Britt's allegations and have a rebuttal to his claims of witnessing Blackburn intimidations of Stoeckley.

The governments response to court order due by March 30th was a request to have a delayed evidentiary hearing with more time to complete aongoing 36 year investigation?? GMAFB

The response was really no response at all . The Govt then adds up load of 1500 pages of old trial documents to support their no response. I guess that's the tactic the Govt is using to try to delay along with smothering the court with a few thousand papers of the old stuff.

Lets see if the District Court has the cojones to buck the Govt and deny an evidentiary and make a decision on this "no" response or rebuttal to Britt's allegations.

I noticed the lack of an affidavit from Blackburn challenging Britt's credibility. The government questions his memory but does not and can not out right call him a liar. The only basis of proof would be Blackburn's rebuttal affidavit. Britt has his poly attached to his affidavit. Wonder if Blackburn could or would do a poly and wear his badge of felonious and fraudulent conduct against the court and his clients as a challenge of credibility to the retired US Marshall Britt.

[audpaud]

Let's listen in as Jeffie's lawyer Bernie Segal BEGS Helena to confess at trial . . . . :tongue:


. . . I didn't say that. I just said I don't remember saying that. Still there was no inflection, no spark---not even resentment---in her voice. Do you realize how much drugs I've taken since that happened? I'm not gonna sit there and say yes to things I didn't say, or things I don't remember saying. Besides, how do you know he's not guilty?

Segal returned to the albums of the crime scene and autopsy photographs. He turned to a pic of Kim. A pic that showed the fracture of her skull and the piece of cheekbone protruding from the skin of her little face . . .

Segal: That was his flesh and blood Helena. What kind of father could do that to his flesh and blood?

Somebody on drugs could do something like that. Not acid. Maybe speed . . . .
. . . . Only somebody whacked out on drugs could have done something like that. I don't know what anybody else is capable of, but I know I'm not capable of that.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Excuse me, Mr. Murtagh but why do you think the court should grant you an evidentiary hearing when the same Courts would never allow MacDonald to have a evidentiary.Hmmm. Are you sure about that? From the current response (emphasis added):

"In 1984, MacDonald filed in this Court a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.33, on the basis of "newly-discovered" evidence, and two motions for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. After an evidentiary hearing, it denied the motions. United States v. MacDonald, 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985) (App. Vol. I, Tab 10)."The nerve to ask for a evidentiary hearing...Ooooohhh, just look at CappyBertieArtie stamping his little feet in anger! I'm laughing. They really got to you with that well-prepared response and all those many many attachments, didn't they, Cappy? And lo and behold, they even use Fatal Vision and McGinniss to back them up; when was the last time you saw the defense relying in any official court document on references to the "facts" in Bost's Fatal Justice? Haaaahaaaahaaa!!!

Mac's had 36 years to think about what he did and to try to show remorse, and he has the nerve to tie up court resources by submitting a motion in the first place which consists virtually entirely of issues that are res judica. It's no secret that even the defense agrees that Stoeckley told the prosecution the same things she told the defense, and that there are other things also that indicate that something seems to be amiss with what Britt claims to recollect. And now, with the DNA results out, the government has more ammo than ever on the Stoeckley issue, not that they really even need it in light of all the other evidence they have.The Govt then adds up load of 1500 pages of old trial documents to support their no response. I guess that's the tactic the Govt is using to try to delay along with smothering the court with a few thousand papers of the old stuff.I guess you don't know too much about things like this, do you, Cappy? I mean, I remember when you gleefully trumpeted to everyone that Mac had been granted a new trial (!) when he hasn't even gotten a hearing yet, but geez, I thought you would realize that support must be given for what's in a response. I guess since the defense never had much support for what they say, this all must be rather new to you then, eh?

I noticed that apparently the defense didn't want to support themselves by attaching a copy of the notes Wade Smith claims to have taken. Interesting. The defense consumes untold resources on constant "newly discovered evidence" claims that so far have turned out to amount to nothing all these years, then they bring forth yet another time-consuming and resource-wasting motion based mostly on old, old issues, yet apparently they don't have the cajones to even attach Smith's notes. Maybe Smith ought to be given a polygraph exam; who knows what else the defense might be trying to hide.

[audpaud]

. . . You know . . . the one he denied taking under oath???? Listen now for the Word of Jeffie::tongue:

Well he hooked me up to the machine, and once more Bernie was excused from the room, he began going over my sexual history. It was VERY bizarre. He started talking about had I ever had sex with other women beside Colette. And I answered that. And then he asked had I ever had sex with men. And then he wanted to know if I . . . if there was a wild orgy the night of the occurence of the murders. And I stopped him and I said, uh, I don't understand what we're doing here. I thought this was a polygraph based on my current legal situation----and he says , well, he was just getting me used to the machine and getting a base line reading on truth and falsity. So I said okay then, let's get back to the point. So then he said okay, and we started going back to some more questions, and he immediately reverted to premarital and extramarital sexual activities, and unusual sexual activities, and I thought this guy was CRAZY, to tell you the truth. And I said Look, I don't think we can continue. And at this point he made some comment about well, have you considered the insanity defense? And I said, Jesus, that's the most outrageous thing I ever heard. You haven't even completed your polygraph, and now you're telling me I should be going for an insanity defense? And he said well, in HIS judgement, and he said, basically, I've never been wrong on a major case. Ummmmmm . . . you should start considering an insanity defense!

WOW! Dr. Sadoff sure wasn't kidding when he testified about the polygraph to the grand jury that Jeffie "had NOT come through with flying colors." LOL!!!:rolleyes: Too bad Jeffie wouldn't authorize the DEFENSE polygrapher---Cleve Backster---to discuss Jeffie's wild accusations re: sexual questions/FAILURE of the exam!:( I would LOVE to see the transcript of the questions Jeffie REALLY failed on!!!!

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I thought a lawyer's office wasn't electronically bugged in America.What?? Wow. Do you have evidence that someone was bugging Mac's lawyer's offices?? Point us to the link which shows that, please!

McGinniss (and BTW, CappyBertieArtie, you don't seem to be too sure of how his name is properly spelled, probably because you're not very familiar with his work) wrote such a superb book about the case, Fatal Vision, that hit the best-seller lists right away and has since become a not-to-be-missed true-crime classic. Mac did lie about so many things that we actually made a webpage for it (MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour) and looking down that list, it's nearly unbelievable how many times he lied and tried to cover up and suppress the evidence of his crimes. And that's only a partial list!The hobby horse, or rocking horse, in the MacDonald murders is confusing to me in the same way as the hair fiber evidence is confusing. I don't know if the CID are deliberately making the rocking horse confusing, or if they are just totally ignorant about it.Well, I think in this case it's not the CID who is totally ignorant, Bertie. Look a little closer to home, like into a mirror.Helena was involved in the MacDonald murders and knew the names of the people involved in the MacDonald murders.You seem to be somewhat out of date there, Bertie/Cappy/Artie. Didn't you know that it was proven in a court ages ago that he'd simply lied about that and that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell nor any other "intruder" was ever in the apartment? Yep. It's not a difference of opinion here; it's fact, as shown thoroughly and conclusively by the evidence and of course capped off by the confirmation in the recent DNA results. Your Mythical Monster Vampire Intruders never existed, and all your blathering about rocking horses and Glisson and the CID and Mick Jagger can't ever change that fact, not a single whit.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by audpaud
Let's listen in as Jeffie's lawyer Bernie Segal BEGS Helena to confess at trial . . . . :tongue:
Hey, aud, just wanted to say a big thank-you for the good posts. You've saved me a lot of typing. :)

Only Mac knows for sure, but all things considered, I think there are quite a few things that indicate to me that he probably did use speed on a regular basis in the weeks before the murders (or even long before that), and that he simply crossed the line by taking yet another hit of speed that evening. Perhaps he wasn't quite the doctor as he thought himself to be (I'm thinking of his claiming to have pulled a knife from Colette's chest; his claiming to have given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on a soft surface; his diagnosis that Colette was dead but he treats her for "shock"; etc.), and he simply didn't recognize that continued abuse of amphetamines could cause a psychosis. Or, perhaps more likely, he simply thought that being such a Perfect Being, he was immune to such a thing.

The signs he exhibited when medics were there and later at the hospital do tally with known signs of amphetamine abuse, and the theory is also supported by other things such as Colette's saying to Elizabeth Ramage that he was so exhausted when she left for school that she was afraid he was going to fall asleep (yet there he is bright and bouncy upon her return, and stays up for quite a while afterwards); his weight loss before the murders; the fact that amphetamine psychosis can cause auditory and visual hallucinations; and so on.

Thanks again for transcribing the excerpts, aud. They now have become part of my permanent note file. :)

[stinkerbelle]

wow. just wow.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
...Colonel Kane may have lost control and decided to take revenge against...MacDonald for screwing his wife by arranging for Dr MacDonld's wife and daughters to be murdered, and for...MacDonald to be blamed for those murders. Kane would have known the children of the other Colonels who were involved in the MacDonald murders, and may have been involved with them in the Fort Bragg drugs trade.Oh, my. I thought your posts about vampires committing the murders, and "black wool wigs" being worn, and synthetic fibers which "ought to" have been DNA tested, and the CID all being Masons, and Murtagh being responsible for 911 and so many other ludicrous posts were absurd enough, but once again you've outdone yourself.

Obviously you have no real interest in the true facts of this case at all, and are only interested in playing games here. The fact that you waste so much time trying to think up such nonsense and that you waste board space by actually posting it indicates to me that not only are you a fraud for sure but that you need professional help to find out why you do such things. I hope you will seek this help soon; it can only benefit you.

By the way, if I were you I wouldn't even bother to include any quotes by Kassab or anyone else anymore, since it's already been shown that you don't have any problem cutting and pasting in order to deliberately misrepresent what was actually said.

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill


Personally, I believe there are unanswered questions with regard to Colonel Kane and the MacDonald murders.

The background to Colonel Kane's involvement was that for some reason the reformers 'reformed' Dr MacDonald's regiment just before the time of the MacDonald murders. Dr MacDonald's former commanding officer was Colonel Kingston, a man of British descent, who spoke most glowingly about Dr MacDonald at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970. So did his wife.

It seems that when Dr MacDonald's regiment was reformed the officers in charge now seemed to be Irishmen, with Irish tempers, with names like Flanagan, Lennon, Kearns and Connolly. There may be something in the rumor that Dr MacDonald was screwing about with Colonel Kane's wife. There is no law against that, and it's certainly not a death penalty offense. I honestly don't know if it was against military regulations.

My theory, and it's just a theory, is that Colonel Kane may have lost control and decided to take revenge against Dr MacDonald for screwing his wife by arranging for Dr MacDonld's wife and daughters to be murdered, and for Dr MacDonald to be blamed for those murders. Kane would have known the children of the other Colonels who were involved in the MacDonald murders, and may have been involved with them in the Fort Bragg drugs trade.

Colonel Kane had the power to keep the police out of the MacDonld murders investigation, and to control the CID investigation. He also probably knew the shady North Carolina lawyers involved in the MacDonald prosecution as well, and he also knew he was also above the law.

I realize Dr MacDonald never seems to have suspected this himself. Dr MacDonald isn't a professional criminal investigator. I believe that if Dr MacDonald was involved in a secret sexual relationship with Mrs Kane then it would be in his interests now to be candid about that, and not to attempt to posture.

This is from a statement by Malley, one of Dr MacDonald's army lawyers in 1970 with regard to Colonel Kane:

"Colonel Francis B. Kane signed charges aginst Capt. MacDonald. These conclusions were that nothing was missing from the MacDonald house and that unidentified persons could not have been in the house. CID investigators recklessly represented to SJA and Colonel Francis B. Kane, that it had thoroughly investigated this case, which was patently untrue."

This is what Fred Kassab said about Colonel Kane in 1970. Kassab seemed to be talking sense in 1970:

"However they still had to find someone who would sign the charges on three counts of pre-meditated murder. The logical person was Colonel Francis B. Kane Jr., Capt. MacDonald's commanding officer, however he was none too willing. Time went on, and finally it was reported to me that on May 1, Major-General Edward Flanagan ordered Colonel Kane to sign the charges. That same night Colonel Kane called me to tell me that he had read the charges to Capt. MacDonald. He was very apologetic and assured me that the evidence was very circumstantial. Little did I realize that all they had was pure theory, with nothing to back it up."


I bet Fox TV would reject this as too unbelievable if submitted to them as a script for a new show in the Crime Drama genre! Interesting imagination you've got there Bert.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Helena...categorically denied her involvement in the MacDonald murders.As we know from the evidence (and lack of evidence of her presence), and from the recent DNA results, she did testify truthfully. No "intruders" were in the apartment at all, and MacDonald himself murdered his family.

MacDonald, Segal and Gunderson should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for trying to coerce this innocent, drug-addled young woman to confess to crimes she didn't commit.Blackburn seems to have threatened her, and advised her to perjure herself, or go down for life.But of course you can show no proof of that, because there is none. If you haven't read it already, I'd recommend taking a look at the government's March 30 response. It's a good read.

It seems that nobody knew where Helena was living at the time of the 1979 trial. The FBI seemed to find her when she was trying to hide in the back of her trailer in South Carolina.And isn't it funny that Mac tried to claim credit for finding her, when Stoeckley was actually located and arrested by FBI Special Agent Frank J. Mills, who was executing a Material Witness Warrant issued by the Court on the Government's motion. I guess Mac thought (and still does) that he can lie about anything and everything and suffer no consequences. You'd think he'd have learned differently by now, wouldn't you, but no, he just goes on lying from day to day, about whatever suits his fancy. But how telling it was that even when the defense had Stoeckley in its hot little hands, they didn't even call her during their case in chief. Dupree had to tell them to either use her or send her home, and even then the response to using her was that they didn't want to! Sure shows a lot of confidence in her, doesn't it...how funny.

[Spamela]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

i saw this post but completely forgot to welcome you spammy! :)

Bunny made me do it! I have to say, this is the most insane thread, ever, with bertie/albie/kook posting. Glad he was banned from A&E, at least there is a chance for a few decent ideas, rather than the deep, deep morass of bertie's scary imagination.

I am just dying with the reference of Prince of Tutu, or who ever the he11 it was. So, now we have vampires, baby killing Satan worshipers, drug addicts, irate husbands of Inmate’s sexual conquests, various Irishmen with ill intent, burly MPs (gets me hot just thinking about their…..nightsticks), corrupt CID, incompetent FBI, and….am I missing anyone? Oh yes, the Prince of Tutu.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Spamela
Bunny made me do it! I have to say, this is the most insane thread, ever, with bertie/albie/kook posting.Spammy, you're a gas. Seeing you here is great. As Mac would say, I'm just totally jazzed.

:lol:

[stinkerbelle]

lmbo@jazzed!:rolleyes:

hey bunny, check out this grooooooovy site (http://www.antimonkeybutt.com/)

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
lmbo@jazzed!:rolleyes:

hey bunny, check out this grooooooovy site (http://www.antimonkeybutt.com/)

Whoo hoo! That was quite a public service for you to post. "Specially formulated to absorb excess sweat and reduce frictional skin irritation." Perfect for the person who spends untold hours sitting down posting long-winded lunatic theories with absolutley no basis in fact.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Spamela


Bunny made me do it! I have to say, this is the most insane thread, ever, with bertie/albie/kook posting. Glad he was banned from A&E, at least there is a chance for a few decent ideas, rather than the deep, deep morass of bertie's scary imagination.

I am just dying with the reference of Prince of Tutu, or who ever the he11 it was. So, now we have vampires, baby killing Satan worshipers, drug addicts, irate husbands of Inmate’s sexual conquests, various Irishmen with ill intent, burly MPs (gets me hot just thinking about their…..nightsticks), corrupt CID, incompetent FBI, and….am I missing anyone? Oh yes, the Prince of Tutu.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!

Tetbury, Spamela. Tetbury, a lovely place to visit this time of year. (http://www.tetbury-gloucestershire.com/tetbury-attractions.asp)

[byn63]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


Tetbury, Spamela. Tetbury, a lovely place to visit this time of year. (http://www.tetbury-gloucestershire.com/tetbury-attractions.asp)

I kinda liked Prince Tutu! Maybe it really was a Pharoah that committed these murders...................................

Hey spammy! good to see ya here! bunny and aud have been really lettin' bertie/cappy/artie have it!

[byn63]

Originally posted by Spamela


Bunny made me do it! I have to say, this is the most insane thread, ever, with bertie/albie/kook posting. Glad he was banned from A&E, at least there is a chance for a few decent ideas, rather than the deep, deep morass of bertie's scary imagination.

I am just dying with the reference of Prince of Tutu, or who ever the he11 it was. So, now we have vampires, baby killing Satan worshipers, drug addicts, irate husbands of Inmate’s sexual conquests, various Irishmen with ill intent, burly MPs (gets me hot just thinking about their…..nightsticks), corrupt CID, incompetent FBI, and….am I missing anyone? Oh yes, the Prince of Tutu.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!

oh spammy I just Hate It! when you are so subtle in your use of language. people won't know how you feel! lmao! :beer: :lol:

[cami]

As you know many of us leave virtual flowers and notes to Colette, Kim and Kristy at Find A Grave.

Lately there has been an individual who has decided to argue for MacDonald on this site. This is a memorial site and those pages are dedicated to Colette, Kim and Kristy.

Here's a link to the site, read the notes from David Tucker. (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=MacDonald&GSfn=Colette&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=11892)

I have emailed Mr. Tucker and expressed my disgust at what he is doing and asking him to please stop it. If he wants to argue for MacDonald there are these websites he can visit.

I also just got so riled after reading his latest, I couldn't stop myself from addressing him right there.

[barskin&co.]

Is Jeffrey MacDonald guilty?


YES!!

Okay, back to the Prince of Tutu, etc.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by cami
As you know many of us leave virtual flowers and notes to Colette, Kim and Kristy at Find A Grave.

Lately there has been an individual who has decided to argue for MacDonald on this site. This is a memorial site and those pages are dedicated to Colette, Kim and Kristy.

Here's a link to the site, read the notes from David Tucker. (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=MacDonald&GSfn=Colette&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=11892)

I have emailed Mr. Tucker and expressed my disgust at what he is doing and asking him to please stop it. If he wants to argue for MacDonald there are these websites he can visit.

I also just got so riled after reading his latest, I couldn't stop myself from addressing him right there.I'd also suggest that anyone finding those posts offensive and in error should write to the board administrators at info@findagrave.com. Maybe if they get enough emails about it they'll remove that moron's posts.

[cami]

Murtagh and co. now say it didn't have wheels but was suspended on springs. May I ask who is talking nonsense at the Department of Justice and why?

It was suspended on springs. If you look at the rocking horses from that era 60's to 70's you will see them suspended on springs on a platform that either rocks or has wheels.

Here's some links.


If you look around this Ebay site you will see that most of the rocking horses of that period were suspended on springs. (http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Childs-Childrens-Palamino-Spring-Rocking-Horse_W0QQitemZ6048679435QQcategoryZ19024QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)

From memory, I do recall you can clearly see the springs in the rocking horse in Kris's room.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
lmbo@jazzed!

hey bunny, check out this grooooooovy site
Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.
Whoo hoo! That was quite a public service for you to post. "Specially formulated to absorb excess sweat and reduce frictional skin irritation." Perfect for the person who spends untold hours sitting down posting long-winded lunatic theories with absolutley no basis in fact.I've been sitting here for 10 minutes just trying to compose myself after seeing this site. How hilarious. Obviously we don't have to worry about the death of entrepreneurial ingenuity anytime soon.

:lol:

[cami]

That was a direct quote I mentioned from Fred Kassab, from a letter he wrote to Congress in December 1970. I'm not misrepresenting anything.

it was prior to Mr. Kassab's receiving the transcripts of the Article 32 where he learned, for the first time, what had happened to Colette, Kim and Kris. He also read for the first time MacDonald's statement as to what happened in that house. MacDonald's testimony at the A32 was not consistant with the evidence found there. It was from MacDonald's own testimony that Mr. Kassab first started to believe that the CID might have a case against his murdering son-in-law. Until that time, Mr. Kassab was relying on his personal experience with MacDonald. He had no reason to doubt his word.

mac continues to open his mouth and insert his feet.