Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Rockford


I know a lot of people feel there was no known motive in this case, but I STRONGLY disagree. MacDonald wanted OUT of his marriage and his reponsibilities.....as so many other recent murder cases have shown time and time again as a motive.

I agree. He was looking forward to what he would call his "fun years."

[bandit's mom]

[JMO and MOO!!



Do any of you remember WHY Colette would never have talked with her Mother about Jeff's affairs? Because Mildred testifed to having a deep opinion on men who ran around on their wives. For the longest time, I could never understand why Colette wouldn't have talked with her mother if nobody else, about her problems. Now I know why. She didn't want her mother to know she had married one of those men.

This part never really surprised me. If your parents hate
your spouse you don't want to admit they were right. If, as
appears to be the case here, they love your spouse, you don't
want them to start hating him, unless you are fully prepared
to end the marriage which, obviously she was not.
This is another similarity to Scott and Laci Peterson. She caught him in an affair early in their marriage. NO ONE in her family
knew about the affair.



Just by reading halfway thru, you can tell MacDonald NEVER had any respect for Colette. NEVER. And it reflects years later when he "talks" in the "Fatal Vision" book. Talks about the cars he bought, the great money he was making in California, and enough women that I'm surprised he never contracted AIDS.

Well....he has MANY an hour to sit and reflect about the "good ol days" when he was single and carefree, because you know he's not thinking about his murdered family. I really believe that this man REALLY does not believe he murdered his family. He's told the lie so many times, that he truly believes his lies. [/B][/QUOTE]

I've often wondered about this myself. I've wondered it about
OJ as well. I guess it just amazes me that they can cling to
their lies so well for so many years. I'm a horrible liar. I could
never get away with murder, cuz by the 2nd. or 3rd. time
the cops asked me I'd break. It's interesting to me that
these people not only commit these horrendous crimes but
then really do seem to convince themselves they are innocent.
Or perhaps they are just really, really experienced liars?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by barskin&co.

I agree. He was looking forward to what he would call his "fun years."

Is this the Scott Peterson Thread? Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that I was still on the Jeffrey MacDonald. My bad! LOL!!

:tongue:

[Rockford]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Is this the Scott Peterson Thread? Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that I was still on the Jeffrey MacDonald. My bad! LOL!!

:tongue:

Naw.....MacDonald just paved the way for the rest of the murderers to follow his lead when the others were also tired of their marriages/family commitments.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Rockford

I don't think he thought he'd get away with it from the beginning.....I really don't. The pathological liar in him regarding these murders, takes awhile to build up in the mind. He knew he murdered them in the beginning, and was going to try his darndest to save himself.
i'm afraid i'll have to disagree here too :) i think pathological lying and sociopathy go hand-in-hand. technically all sociopaths are liars since they project emotions they think people want to see, rather than what they really do feel (which doesn't amount to much). this is not to say that all pathological liars are sociopaths though lol! anyway, i think his inflated ego couldn't conceive of him not getting away with it. i'm sure he was shocked that his story and integrity were ever questioned.

Do any of you remember WHY Colette would never have talked with her Mother about Jeff's affairs? Because Mildred testifed to having a deep opinion on men who ran around on their wives. For the longest time, I could never understand why Colette wouldn't have talked with her mother if nobody else, about her problems. Now I know why. She didn't want her mother to know she had married one of those men.
i never questioned it, probably because i'm a very private person myself. i HATE having to tell my parents when i've screwed up. i'm reminded of nicole brown...her parents did not want her to leave OJ (personally because i think they enjoyed the perks of being his inlaws but that's JMO). i'm also reminded of my best friend, whose parents do not treat her very well; when she told her mother she was getting divorced, her mom cried because she liked the husband so well, not because she was sad for her daughter. i think that colette simply did not want to disappoint, nor did she want to admit failure and after mildred's comments regarding cheaters, i can easily believe she'd keep that to herself. mildred also pushed her to choose mac over dean chamberlain.
I really believe that this man REALLY does not believe he murdered his family. He's told the lie so many times, that he truly believes his lies.
gotta disagree with this one too.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by bandit's mom

I've often wondered about this myself. I've wondered it about
OJ as well. I guess it just amazes me that they can cling to
their lies so well for so many years. I'm a horrible liar. I could
never get away with murder, cuz by the 2nd. or 3rd. time
the cops asked me I'd break. It's interesting to me that
these people not only commit these horrendous crimes but
then really do seem to convince themselves they are innocent.
Or perhaps they are just really, really experienced liars?
i'd say really really experienced liars. the world is full of them. i happen to be a good one actually; my mom took me to visit the minister once, sure i wouldn't lie to him. i looked him straight in the eyes and lied through my teeth. i was 12 at the time. if i killed somebody and wanted to, i'm sure i could lie myself through it. however, i happen to have a conscience (which, of course, would not allow me to do such a thing and be able to stand myself) and am relatively sure i'm not psychopathic LOL!

i should also add that i tell the truth more than i lie :D

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
i'd say really really experienced liars. the world is full of them. i happen to be a good one actually; my mom took me to visit the minister once, sure i wouldn't lie to him. i looked him straight in the eyes and lied through my teeth. i was 12 at the time. if i killed somebody and wanted to, i'm sure i could lie myself through it. however, i happen to have a conscience (which, of course, would not allow me to do such a thing and be able to stand myself) and am relatively sure i'm not psychopathic LOL!

i should also add that i tell the truth more than i lie :D

Thank God you added that last paragraph. I was beginning to think......J/K......LOL!!

:D

[Rockford]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thank God you added that last paragraph. I was beginning to think......J/K......LOL!!

:D

Yeah...this person had me going too. :D

Actually....I'd have to disagree. I knew a person who was a pathological liar, and this person after awhile of telling the lies they started to begin believing in the lies, until their whole life was one big lie.

I really think that MacDonald has told these lies sooo many times, that he's convinced himself that it was 4 hippies.

Well..here's the test. Has he slipped up several times with the stories? I didn't think he had and the reason for that is because he's become to believe in this dribble he spits out as the truth and what happened back in 1970.

I sincerely hope that Mrs. Kassab didn't go to her grave blaming herself for these murders. I noticed in the book, "Fatal Vision" she mentions several times of Colette wanting to come home shortly before the murders, and Mildred being concerned with the unfinished outside pool and worried for the kids, asked Colette to wait until Spring.

We all know that if Colette had gone to visit her mother at that time, it would have been another time then that Inmate would have murdered her. The man, IMO, was a bomb just waiting to explode.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thank God you added that last paragraph. I was beginning to think......J/K......LOL!!

:D

sorry, that was rather an overshare on my part lol! but i guess my point was (even though i really didn't get around to it in that post) that good liars are everywhere. not all of us commit crimes though! for a criminal, that has to be one of his strengths; i would imagine if you are a horrible liar and feel terribly guilty, you won't go far in the world of crime. mac has had a vested interest in lying for so many years and you can bet this case wasn't even close to being the first time. you don't become an accomplished liar overnight.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Rockford


Yeah...this person had me going too. :D

Actually....I'd have to disagree. I knew a person who was a pathological liar, and this person after awhile of telling the lies they started to begin believing in the lies, until their whole life was one big lie.

I really think that MacDonald has told these lies sooo many times, that he's convinced himself that it was 4 hippies.

Well..here's the test. Has he slipped up several times with the stories? I didn't think he had and the reason for that is because he's become to believe in this dribble he spits out as the truth and what happened back in 1970.



every word was true!:tongue:

i, too, have known pathological liars (had one as a roommate) who began to believe their lies. but IMO that has more to do with their personality makeup than the lying itself. you have to have something else "wrong" with you than just the lying in order to fall into that fantasy world. and i don't think MacMurder qualifies.

you could look at it, not as he has told the lie so many times he is convinced, but that he has told the lie so many times he has become convincing. i think he doesn't slip up when telling his story simply because he has told it so many times, not because he believes it to be true.

six of one, half a dozen of another, eh?:)

[Rockford]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


every word was true!:tongue:

i, too, have known pathological liars (had one as a roommate) who began to believe their lies. but IMO that has more to do with their personality makeup than the lying itself. you have to have something else "wrong" with you than just the lying in order to fall into that fantasy world. and i don't think MacMurder qualifies.

you could look at it, not as he has told the lie so many times he is convinced, but that he has told the lie so many times he has become convincing. i think he doesn't slip up when telling his story simply because he has told it so many times, not because he believes it to be true.

six of one, half a dozen of another, eh?:)

yeah....this person was also a roommate. Do you know....
Ha ha!!

well....I also believe this is the root to a serious problem but what that could be with Inmate, is anyone's guess...as there are many!

I'd be willing to bet though, that his lies started long before he met Colette and yes, I know he met her in his younger years, but still, something about the MacDonald family was just not right. And I think it had to do with Inmate's father. He had some funny ideas about life and how he felt about women....all women, according to "Fatal Vision."

Whatever happened to his sister, Judy? Anyone know? Did she stand behind him? We know his bro, Jay did, as well as his mother.....but not much has been said about his sister.

[Kateski]

Hi, I'm new to the forums and have followed this case for years. It's my belief that Jeffrey MacDonald is where he should be. I believe the DNA without a doubt proves no one was in the home other than the deceased victims and MacDonald.

He will continue fighting this claiming his innocence until dying breath at the taxpayers expense and at the expense of those that have been duped and/or mesmerized by him.

I've read MacDonald's site and Christine Masewicz's site, read the books that present both sides and the saddest part of this is MacDonald will never take responsibility. Even in prison, he's had a life. That's more than he gave his late children and wife.

I feel very bad for the new Mrs. MacDonald. She seems very intelligent, and very decent. All in all, she's very likeable. I believe she truly does love him and honestly believes in him.

Anywho, thought I would throw out that yes, I feel he's guilty and yes, I pray he never gets out of prison. I feel it would be a huge miscarriage of justice for him to ever step foot out of prison walls after he brutally murdered his wife, two daughters, and unborn son and ultimately destroyed the Kassab family and Bob Stevenson.

My two cents.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Kateski
Hi, I'm new to the forums and have followed this case for years. It's my belief that Jeffrey MacDonald is where he should be. I believe the DNA without a doubt proves no one was in the home other than the deceased victims and MacDonald.

He will continue fighting this claiming his innocence until dying breath at the taxpayers expense and at the expense of those that have been duped and/or mesmerized by him.

I've read MacDonald's site and Christine Masewicz's site, read the books that present both sides and the saddest part of this is MacDonald will never take responsibility. Even in prison, he's had a life. That's more than he gave his late children and wife.

I feel very bad for the new Mrs. MacDonald. She seems very intelligent, and very decent. All in all, she's very likeable. I believe she truly does love him and honestly believes in him.

Anywho, thought I would throw out that yes, I feel he's guilty and yes, I pray he never gets out of prison. I feel it would be a huge miscarriage of justice for him to ever step foot out of prison walls after he brutally murdered his wife, two daughters, and unborn son and ultimately destroyed the Kassab family and Bob Stevenson.

My two cents.

GR8 1st Post. Welcome to the JM Board! I honestly believe that lying all of these years is JM's way of coping for what he did. If he can convince himself that he didn't do it, it just didn't happen.

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Rockford



I'd be willing to bet though, that his lies started long before he met Colette and yes, I know he met her in his younger years, but still, something about the MacDonald family was just not right. And I think it had to do with Inmate's father. He had some funny ideas about life and how he felt about women....all women, according to "Fatal Vision."



i would say it started in early childhood.

can't help you any with judy, sorry.

[stinkerbelle]

welcome kateski!:)

[Rockford]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


i would say it started in early childhood.

can't help you any with judy, sorry.

It did.....I just read a doctor's evaluation of Inmate in "Fatal Vision" and the doctor went on to talk about MacDonald's lies when he was a young child.

Do ANY of you believe that this was planned? That the night of the murders, and before Colette came home from class, MacDonald planned to murder perhaps Colette only, but somehow the murder plot got out of hand and it ended up including the kids?

Maybe when he went into the master bedroom and found his daughter asleep in their bed, along side of his wife.

Or do all of you believe this was done in an act of rage?

Planned......or act of rage?

[NevadaBound]

Good morning all,

Sorry I am coming in at the tail end and do not want to look through all the posts on 70 some odd pages, but why wasn't McDonald's wounds ever photographed...how can you account for the four different kinds of punture wounds McDonald had received !


Interestingly, MacDonald's wounds were never photographed, while those his family suffered were rigorously documented. Womack Hospital photographer John McCaffrey waited for a request
to record MacDonald's wounds, but it never came. "Somebody goofed," he said.


In order to protect their scenario of Colette injuring her husband in self-defense, the government ignored any and all mention of ice pick wounds in the records. It would have been implausible for Colette to have been wielding not only a knife and a club, but an ice pick, as well. The presence of three different types of wounds from three different types of weapons gave credence to MacDonald's account of multiple intruders.

Considering all the statements from medical personnel, hospital records and eye witnesses, MacDonald summarily suffered at least seventeen stab wounds to the hands, arms, and torso, stabbings through the muscle in the bicep and abdomen, a stab wound to the lung requiring a chest tube and two surgeries, and multiple contusions to the head. He required resuscitation at the murder scene. He could not save his family because he was knocked unconscious.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Facts.html

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by NevadaBound
Sorry I am coming in at the tail end and do not want to look through all the posts on 70 some odd pages, but why wasn't McDonald's wounds ever photographed...Maybe because he didn't have any serious wounds that anyone could find except for the tiny, neat, clean 1-cm. incision he self-inflicted, which caused the pneumothorax.

MacDonald stated that when he went to the hall bathroom to check his wounds, "there wasn't even a cut or anything." He did have some minor lacerations, inflicted by Colette and/or himself, and a bump on the head, the skin of which apparently wasn't even broken. Shortly after the murders, he described these wounds as being "little" and "small" and even "small, small" ones.

He spent only a single day in the ICU, and icepick wounds were not noted by Newman (the first to see him) or his doctors. The emergency room orderly and the chief of surgery both testified that Jeffrey MacDonald had no icepick wounds on his body. Staff surgeon Merrill Bronstein testified that when Jeffrey MacDonald’s pajamas were removed he examined MacDonald "from head to toe," and that MacDonald "absolutely did not have any icepick wounds anywhere."

MacDonald did not say anything about having received eight or ten icepick wounds in his abdomen until the Article 32 hearing in the summer of 1970.

The only treatment he received was a Vaseline gauze bandage for the chest wound, some sleep meds (which didn't put him to sleep, perhaps because of the amphetamines he'd taken), and later, a chest tube. According to Dr. Gemma, the only reason he remained in the hospital after the chest tube was removed was because the investigation was continuing and he had "no real home to go to."

By the way, did you realize that the site you gave as a link is the murderer's own? So of course it's not exactly the best place to go for unbiased information! :) In fact, once you become more familiar with the case you will see for yourself that it's filled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and outright deliberate falsehoods.

The best place to find accurate information about the case is:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

You may also want to take a look at:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rockford
[B]

Or do all of you believe this was done in an act of rage?



I tend to think act of rage. Mainly because had it been
planned it probably would have been done better. The
murderer isn't a stupid man and with his medical background,
he might have been able to come up with something alot
less obvious. I think it was more that the rage was there,
and something set it off. As to what, we'll obviously never
know because I think most of us agree, he'll never admit
the truth and there's obviously no one else left alive
to tell us.

[Rockford]

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

Or do all of you believe this was done in an act of rage?



I tend to think act of rage. Mainly because had it been
planned it probably would have been done better. The
murderer isn't a stupid man and with his medical background,
he might have been able to come up with something alot
less obvious. I think it was more that the rage was there,
and something set it off. As to what, we'll obviously never
know because I think most of us agree, he'll never admit
the truth and there's obviously no one else left alive
to tell us.

True....but even the best laid crimes go awry. Maybe he didn't expect Colette to put up that much of a struggle what with her being pregnant.
Maybe he didn't expect the little girl would get up and go to sleep in their bedroom....as much as he knew how often this did occur.

I was talking to some of the people i work with, and one of them sincerely believes that Inmate planned this crime out...albeit it wasn't carried out very well. Just well enough that gave Inmate freedom that he never should have had before his trial and conviction.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Rockford

<snipped>

Or do all of you believe this was done in an act of rage?

Planned......or act of rage?

Without a doubt, an act of rage. He was hopped up on amphetamines and had been working at the hospital for 3 straight days. He was teetering on the edge and something happened or something was said and that was all it took. Boom! After that, it was no turning back for him. I think that his rage and issues were with Collette. Even if Kimberly was alseep, he still would have killed her. And poor Kristin, she was definitely alseep and never saw or heard anything. I get sick to my stomach when I think that he had no problem whatsoever with picking up sleeping Kristin, placing her on his lap and stabbing her repeatedly until she was dead. I don't know how he even has any friends, a wife and lawyers that still believe in his innocence.

JMO and MOO!!

:shrug: :eek:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

And poor Kristin, she was definitely alseep and never saw or heard anything.
Sad but true: Kristen had defensive wounds on her hands and got one fiber from JMD's pj top under her fingernail. So she had woken up and realized that her own father was going to kill her.

[Rockford]

Originally posted by rashomon

Sad but true: Kristen had defensive wounds on her hands and got one fiber from JMD's pj top under her fingernail. So she had woken up and realized that her own father was going to kill her.

Something tells me that wasn't the first time that child was witness to the ugliness of Inmate's ugly side. Only this time, the poor child saw rage in his eyes...and I don't care how young she was, she knew...

[JTF]

Bunny: For some reason, the computer I'm using will not allow me to respond to your personal message on the C&J website, so here goes.

The Geneva Forge knife was certainly dull compared to the Old Hickory knife, but I don't see whey the Geneva Forge knife couldn't have caused the wound on the back of Colette's hand. It was sharp enough to tear open Jeff's abdomen to the point where his rectus muscle was exposed, so I would argue that the Geneva Forge knife cannot be ruled out as the weapon which caused this particular cut. In thinking of a scenario where Jeff would use a knife on a combative Colette, where would the Old Hickory knife come into play? Every single stab wound from the Old Hickory knife was inflicted when Colette's body was inert. Food for thought when pondering my theory: THE ONLY BLOOD FOUND ON THE GENEVA FORGE KNIFE WAS TYPE A. This brings me back to a scenario where the cut on Colette's hand was caused by incidental contact as Jeff took the knife from Colette or an attempt by Colette to retrieve the knife back from her husband.

Justthefacts.

[Kateski]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


GR8 1st Post. Welcome to the JM Board! I honestly believe that lying all of these years is JM's way of coping for what he did. If he can convince himself that he didn't do it, it just didn't happen.

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya:

Thanks for the welcome. I couldn't agree more with your statement.

I believe Nancy Grace summed up this case pretty accurately. It's hard to refute MacDonald's hair in Colette's hand.

I also got physically ill while watching Larry King disrespect and shut down every statement made by Bob Stevenson. I felt his show was very biased and that he was only interested in showing MacDonald's side.

[Kateski]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
welcome kateski!:)

Thanks for the welcome. :)

[Kateski]

Originally posted by Rockford


It did.....I just read a doctor's evaluation of Inmate in "Fatal Vision" and the doctor went on to talk about MacDonald's lies when he was a young child.

Do ANY of you believe that this was planned? That the night of the murders, and before Colette came home from class, MacDonald planned to murder perhaps Colette only, but somehow the murder plot got out of hand and it ended up including the kids?

Maybe when he went into the master bedroom and found his daughter asleep in their bed, along side of his wife.

Or do all of you believe this was done in an act of rage?

Planned......or act of rage?

Hi, Rockford...

I believe it was an act of rage. I don't feel it was premeditated murder at all. I believe from statements from friends of Colette's that he had been physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive towards her.

I think a fight between the couple got out of hand because Colette stood up for herself or perhaps even fought back. MacDonald, enraged, went too far accidentally injuring Kimberly and knew there was no going back. Knowing his career and life was over, he felt he had nothing to lose. So he chose to butcher his family and make a martyr of himself by claiming he was a victim of the phantom attackers.

MacDonald is a pathological liar, sociopath, and egotistical person. He's charming, as most sociopaths are. He NEARLY escaped justice.

MacDonald has never expressed any true remorse for his family or any real concern for them. He's concerned for himself and ONLY himself.

If released, I feel he's still a danger to himself and to others. That kind of rage doesn't disappear. It will manifest in other ways. MacDonald, IMO, is an control freak and if he crosses someone who isn't a submissive personality, he quickly loses control.

[Kateski]

Originally posted by Rockford


True....but even the best laid crimes go awry. Maybe he didn't expect Colette to put up that much of a struggle what with her being pregnant.
Maybe he didn't expect the little girl would get up and go to sleep in their bedroom....as much as he knew how often this did occur.

I was talking to some of the people i work with, and one of them sincerely believes that Inmate planned this crime out...albeit it wasn't carried out very well. Just well enough that gave Inmate freedom that he never should have had before his trial and conviction.

I don't believe it was planned. However, I do believe he resented having another child. I believe that he was so "in love with himself" that he didn't like being tied down so to speak.

We all know he had multiple affairs on Colette.

If it was planned, it was poorly executed. He would have known that his past and infidelities would come into play. He would also have known that his lies would have caught up with him.

I still believe it was an act of rage. With Colette going to school and becoming more independent, he could have been threatened by that. Perhaps she found out he was cheating or just told him she wanted out. We can really never know.

His actions were that of a desperate man. Kristen was clearly from the evidence the only murder that was premeditated. I believe Kimberly's and Colette's were not. I feel once he continued to batter and kill his already dying wife that perhaps he should have gotten 1st degree murder for her.

In my opinion, desperation was ultimately what prompted MacDonald to finish executing his family one by one. He knew that it was too late to go back and change what he had started.

[Maxie]

This family, wife and children were brutally brutally murdered.

Does anyone believe these type of killers who could kill sleeping innocent babies would leave that house, without also brutally attacking Jeffrey McDonald in the same way his family was?
Why was he spared?
That's the question.
Unless, he's "innocent" in his mind because he hired them and didn't actually do the killings than I can't believe that his life was spared by them, and that would only leave him as the guilty one.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Kateski


Thanks for the welcome. I couldn't agree more with your statement.

I believe Nancy Grace summed up this case pretty accurately. It's hard to refute MacDonald's hair in Colette's hand.

I also got physically ill while watching Larry King disrespect and shut down every statement made by Bob Stevenson. I felt his show was very biased and that he was only interested in showing MacDonald's side.

This isn't the first time that I have heard that Larry King does this. So, I have decided to boycott his show. Not that losing one viewer is going to break him, but at least I will be able to sleep at night!

:)

[Kateski]

Originally posted by Maxie
This family, wife and children were brutally brutally murdered.

Does anyone believe these type of killers who could kill sleeping innocent babies would leave that house, without also brutally attacking Jeffrey McDonald in the same way his family was?
Why was he spared?
That's the question.
Unless, he's "innocent" in his mind because he hired them and didn't actually do the killings than I can't believe that his life was spared by them, and that would only leave him as the guilty one.

DNA ruled out intruders.

[Kateski]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


This isn't the first time that I have heard that Larry King does this. So, I have decided to boycott his show. Not that losing one viewer is going to break him, but at least I will be able to sleep at night!

:)

Since that show, I don't watch him anymore. He seemed almost like he was flirting with Katherine MacDonald.

[Bunny2]

JTF, good conversation today on the phone. As you know, I'm in agreement with you now about the Geneva Forge being the weapon that probably made the incision on the back of Colette's left hand and probably also the "defect" on the dorsal surface.

How's your son, by the way? Hope that yell you heard didn't result in a "career-ending injury"! :)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Kateski
I don't believe it was planned. However, I do believe he resented having another child. I believe that he was so "in love with himself" that he didn't like being tied down so to speak.

We all know he had multiple affairs on Colette.

If it was planned, it was poorly executed. He would have known that his past and infidelities would come into play. He would also have known that his lies would have caught up with him.

I still believe it was an act of rage. With Colette going to school and becoming more independent, he could have been threatened by that. Perhaps she found out he was cheating or just told him she wanted out. We can really never know.

His actions were that of a desperate man. Kristen was clearly from the evidence the only murder that was premeditated. I believe Kimberly's and Colette's were not. I feel once he continued to batter and kill his already dying wife that perhaps he should have gotten 1st degree murder for her.

In my opinion, desperation was ultimately what prompted MacDonald to finish executing his family one by one. He knew that it was too late to go back and change what he had started. Well said, Kateski. I agree, with the proviso that premeditation can involve premeditating only for a few minutes; it doesn't have to mean he sat for months or weeks ahead of time and preplanned the murders (not that that's what you said; I'm only mentioning it). Considering that Kim's injuries in the master bedroom may have caused death before he beat and stabbed her back in her own bed but that it's also possible she was still alive (barely) when he put her in her own bed, that could be seen as premeditation, as can his catching up with Colette in Kristen's room and deliberately finishing her off in there. He could have stopped and gotten help for both of them had he chosen to do so, but he made a conscious -- and some might say premeditated -- decision not to do that, and to deliberately beat and stab Kim and Colette again, until he was satisfied that they were dead. And of course that's why Kassab said that if the jury had deliberated just a bit longer, they may well have decided to come in with three first-degree verdicts instead of just one.

[Kateski]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Well said, Kateski. I agree, with the proviso that premeditation can involve premeditating only for a few minutes; it doesn't have to mean he sat for months or weeks ahead of time and preplanned the murders (not that that's what you said; I'm only mentioning it). Considering that Kim's injuries in the master bedroom may have caused death before he beat and stabbed her back in her own bed but that it's also possible she was still alive (barely) when he put her in her own bed, that could be seen as premeditation, as can his catching up with Colette in Kristen's room and deliberately finishing her off in there. He could have stopped and gotten help for both of them had he chosen to do so, but he made a conscious -- and some might say premeditated -- decision not to do that, and to deliberately beat and stab Kim and Colette again, until he was satisfied that they were dead. And of course that's why Kassab said that if the jury had deliberated just a bit longer, they may well have decided to come in with three first-degree verdicts instead of just one.

Agreed.

I feel from the evidence he should have atleast been found guilty of 2 counts of first degree murder for the deaths of Colette MacDonald and Kristen MacDonald.

[cami]

Originally posted by Rockford


It did.....I just read a doctor's evaluation of Inmate in "Fatal Vision" and the doctor went on to talk about MacDonald's lies when he was a young child.

Do ANY of you believe that this was planned? That the night of the murders, and before Colette came home from class, MacDonald planned to murder perhaps Colette only, but somehow the murder plot got out of hand and it ended up including the kids?

Maybe when he went into the master bedroom and found his daughter asleep in their bed, along side of his wife.

Or do all of you believe this was done in an act of rage?

Planned......or act of rage?

I believe it was an act of rage, fueled by the speed he was taking. If he had planned this, he didn't put much thought into it so are you suggesting he planned it a few hours before the murders occurred? Of course, he's so arrogant he probably thought his word would never be questioned or the crime investigated.

[cami]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Without a doubt, an act of rage. He was hopped up on amphetamines and had been working at the hospital for 3 straight days. He was teetering on the edge and something happened or something was said and that was all it took. Boom! After that, it was no turning back for him. I think that his rage and issues were with Collette. Even if Kimberly was alseep, he still would have killed her. And poor Kristin, she was definitely alseep and never saw or heard anything. I get sick to my stomach when I think that he had no problem whatsoever with picking up sleeping Kristin, placing her on his lap and stabbing her repeatedly until she was dead. I don't know how he even has any friends, a wife and lawyers that still believe in his innocence.

JMO and MOO!!

:shrug: :eek:

Kristen was awake when she was murdered, that's evidenced by the defense wounds on her hands. Also, a neighbour was awakened by her dog barking....the dog slept in the bedroom with her....when coming awake she heard a woman screaming and two children crying. Yes, I believe Kris was wide awake and aware of what was happening to her. Her little hands received multiple defense wounds.

Those lawyers believe in his innocence because he is conning them.

[byn63]

welcome kateski! glad to have another person who shares our "sickness"!

I believe these murders were absolutely a result of rage. I think Freddy's comments in re: the four intruders posted at CMs site really brings the rage into focus. I believe that Inmate was enraged by Colette which is what started the melee, but he was also exhibiting rage at Kimberly for have "forced him" to get married by her presence in her mother's womb. I believe in Inmate's mind he sees it as Colette's fault that they had to get married. You know the old "she went and got pregnant" male chauvinist vision.

My father used to say "he was just poking fun, and SHE took it seriously" when he'd talk about someone that "had to get married" when us kids were young. He meant it to be ironic, but many a man of that time frame probably would have meant it in a deadly serious manner. Inmate being one, imo!

[Kateski]

Originally posted by byn63
welcome kateski! glad to have another person who shares our "sickness"!

I believe these murders were absolutely a result of rage. I think Freddy's comments in re: the four intruders posted at CMs site really brings the rage into focus. I believe that Inmate was enraged by Colette which is what started the melee, but he was also exhibiting rage at Kimberly for have "forced him" to get married by her presence in her mother's womb. I believe in Inmate's mind he sees it as Colette's fault that they had to get married. You know the old "she went and got pregnant" male chauvinist vision.

My father used to say "he was just poking fun, and SHE took it seriously" when he'd talk about someone that "had to get married" when us kids were young. He meant it to be ironic, but many a man of that time frame probably would have meant it in a deadly serious manner. Inmate being one, imo!

Great post, and thanks for the welcome. I believe that he resented Colette and the children. Which would explain the brutal way he went into overkill with them. From the autopsy photos on CM's site, the wounds to the faces it pretty damn telling of his rage. Most profilers will say that killers who mutilate the face, etc. of the victim are often intimately close to the victim in some way. Then the way he carried Kimberly to bed, covered her up, and covered Kristen up showed he may have possibly had remorse for them. He left Colette laying in the bedroom floor. I believe he truly hated Colette for whatever reason.

Every single time I think of inmate, I wonder if after all these years if he's finally covinced himself that he's innocent. I hope he stays there until his last breath.

After seeing those photos on CM's site, I am convinced he's a monster.

[Hotwater]

Hi guys!

I wanted to let you know I am thinking of changin this forum back to a thread. Once we banned the troublemakers, the discuccion seems to have resumed normal patterns, and I don't think I need a whole forum for it.

If there is not a lot of dissent I will keep this thread
and merge :
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO . . . Updates on
and
Good news for bullimics!

into it.

--Hh20

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Kateski
Then the way he carried Kimberly to bed, covered her up, and covered Kristen up showed he may have possibly had remorse for them.He was diagnosed as being psychopathic, and has never showed any true remorse since the day of the murders, so I just don't think he had any remorse at all. He put Kim in her bed and covered her (even tucking her in with her "security blanket") because that was part of the staging: He wanted to make it appear as though all three victims had gone to bed and then were attacked.

Every single time I think of inmate, I wonder if after all these years if he's finally covinced himself that he's innocent.Nope, or at least not in my opinion. It's easy to think that, because we want to convince ourselves that there has to be a reason why he keeps claiming he didn't do it even though it's obvious he's guilty, but all you have to remember to discount this idea is that in the years since the murders he's repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes. Even in his interviews the last few years, he's still lying, and still changing his stories to try and match the evidence. If he truly, in his heart of hearts, believed that he was completely innocent, why in the world would he need to keep lying and changing his stories?

Just one example of this is the LKL show in 2003, where, among other things, notice how he's changed his timeline, upping it so that suddenly he's going to bed about 12:30 or 1 a.m. instead of around 2 a.m., he's got Colette coming home earlier, etc. I think he did that to try to account for a neighbor's having heard a thud (which as I recall he thought could have come from the Kalin apt., and which the defense would want people to believe was the coffee table being turned over; and maybe it was, who knows). If I'm remembering correctly, that sound was supposedly heard around midnight.

I think another reason he upped his timeline was to try to fit Milne in there, since Mac's original stories claimed that he was still awake at 2 a.m. but Milne (who lived within a very short distance of the Mac apt.) claims that "About the best I can estimate" is that he saw the three sheet-clad, candle-carrying people (including a girl with "beautiful hair) "somewhere between a quarter till midnight and 15 minutes past midnight."

Larry King Live interview (2003):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/24/lkl.00.html

I hope he stays there until his last breath.On that we can agree, completely.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Hotwater
Hi guys!

I wanted to let you know I am thinking of changin this forum back to a thread. Once we banned the troublemakers, the discuccion seems to have resumed normal patterns, and I don't think I need a whole forum for it.

If there is not a lot of dissent I will keep this thread
and merge :
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO . . . Updates on
and
Good news for bullimics!

into it.

--Hh20
JMO of course, but i don't have any problem not having an entire forum just for mac. i don't really care for merging threads though, as that sometimes makes it hard to figure out where we left off in the discussion.

[byn63]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

JMO of course, but i don't have any problem not having an entire forum just for mac. i don't really care for merging threads though, as that sometimes makes it hard to figure out where we left off in the discussion.

I agree with stinkerbelle - merging the threads is confusing! :biggrin:

[2L8 4A D8]

Now that the DNA results have come in, I wonder how many more times we will see JM and his wife on the LKL show still professing his innocence? I mean "gag me with a spoon!"

JMO and MOO!!

:flamemad: :cuss: :flamemad:

[byn63]

Remebering Colette on her Birthday.

With Sorrow, Respect and Honor I think about this courageous woman. I also renew my desire to make sure that slimeball who murdered her and her precious children rots in prison!

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by byn63
Remebering Colette on her Birthday.

With Sorrow, Respect and Honor I think about this courageous woman. I also renew my desire to make sure that slimeball who murdered her and her precious children rots in prison!

:rose: :rose: :rose:


Well said.

[barskin&co.]

And now, my friends, I present you a little look into The Mind of Ted Gunderson. (http://www.tedgunderson.com/911Report/911intro.htm) Take a look, if you dare!

[Spamela]

With love from Ted---
"Party Music", is quite possibly a subliminal message. When I re-arranged the letters of "Party Music", the message is "Earth Waste" or "Waste Earth". (See the bottom of the cover.) It should be noted that satanic cults are notorious for using subliminal messages. The star at the top left corner of the album cover depicts a Communist star.

It is my opinion, as a result of 23 years of experience dealing with satanic cults, that the fall of the World Trade Center was executed by Satanists who have infiltrated the Government.

Ted L. Gunderson
FBI Senior Special Agent in Charge (RET)
California License No. 12878


Ted,
Your brain took a wrong turn and I don't think you can find your way back. Ooo-weee, take a walk on the wide side, baby.

[cami]

Originally posted by Spamela
With love from Ted---
"Party Music", is quite possibly a subliminal message. When I re-arranged the letters of "Party Music", the message is "Earth Waste" or "Waste Earth". (See the bottom of the cover.) It should be noted that satanic cults are notorious for using subliminal messages. The star at the top left corner of the album cover depicts a Communist star.

It is my opinion, as a result of 23 years of experience dealing with satanic cults, that the fall of the World Trade Center was executed by Satanists who have infiltrated the Government.

Ted L. Gunderson
FBI Senior Special Agent in Charge (RET)
California License No. 12878


Ted,
Your brain took a wrong turn and I don't think you can find your way back. Ooo-weee, take a walk on the wide side, baby.

Yeah that Ted is a satantic nut isn't he. Who in their right minds would take him seriously I wonder.....everything is satanic cults with him. I read a report of his on the net a few years ago about all the bodies buried under Washington DC that your government doesn't want you to know about..aaahahahahahahahaha

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Spamela


Ted,
Your brain took a wrong turn and I don't think you can find your way back. Ooo-weee, take a walk on the wide side, baby.

I think I have the answer. He's been hitting the Himalayan Goji Juice! (http://gojiexpress.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=main.CID_01_001)

[caphill]

Originally posted by rashomon

Sad but true: Kristen had defensive wounds on her hands and got one fiber from JMD's pj top under her fingernail. So she had woken up and realized that her own father was going to kill her.


How do you explain someone else's hair and DNA was under her bloody fingernails.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
How do you explain someone else's hair and DNA was under her bloody fingernails.Actually, it seems that no one ever testified or gave any statement indicating that the hair was found under any of her nails.

Whether it was found under the nail, on the nail or somewhere else on her hand, no one can say positively how it got there. She hadn't been bathed before her father murdered her, she'd supposedly been to the stables where the pony was kept before he killed her, had also apparently also visited the Edwards residence (another household filled with unsourced debris) where she could have been playing with someone's hairbrush or any other object that might have had hair on it; in short she could have gotten it from anywhere, but until it's sourced to someone, and until there other strong corroborating evidence showing that that particular person committed murder, it's worthless to Mac.

Also, of course it doesn't begin to eradicate the value of those 1100 other evidentiary items used at trial against Mac, nor do I think this single item would have much effect on the other 40% of the evidence the government had but didn't use against him. I also don't think it negates the DNA evidence which showed that no DNA from Mac's "intrurder's" matched that in any exhibit and that the hair in the bedding was Colette's and that the hair in Colette's hand was MacDonald's own.

[byn63]

welcome Janel!

and to add to Bunny's post about the unsourced hair found on or under Kristen's nail................................

the hands of the victims were not bagged before they were removed from the crime scene. that hair fragment could be from an investigator, an MP, a Medic, the ME or other hospital/morgue employees. Without a source, it is USELESS.

there is a difference between an item being UNIDENTIFIED and UNSOURCED. If the item is something unknown it would be unidentified, however, since we KNOW it is a hair fragment than it IS NOT unidentified it is UNSOURCED!

Point to Ponder

February 17, 1970 = "Some people have been stabbed" (JRM to Fayetteville telephone operator)

April 6, 1970 = "I woke up and there were some people standing at the foot of the bed" (JRM to CID investigators)
:shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by janel

<snipped>

I also thought this was just a domestic fight that got out of control, but now I think it was a rage killing, those poor little babies, and Colette(sp?) she fought so hard to save her children and herself, so now I think Jeff is a socialpath and the murders were rage/premedidated, no need to kill the baby, but he did in an attempt to , what, get pity? why kill the baby?

<snipped>

Firstly, JM didn't want any witnesses. Secondly, he didn't want to be saddled with anymore kids. JM wanted to be free. It was all about him, him, him. He could care less what he did and to this day does not show one ounce of remorse.

JMO and MOO!!

[stinkerbelle]

welcome janel! :)

[Spamela]

Originally posted by caphill

How do you explain someone else's hair and DNA was under her bloody fingernails.

Her fingernails were bloody from her own blood, from her defensive cuts. The hair was a broken fragment, it did not contain a root. It was not ripped out when she was holding up her hands. What DNA are you talking about? The hair had DNA in it, of course, but there was not separate DNA sitting around.

And her hands were not bagged, which makes it all a moot point. She had grass under her finger nails, too, but I don't think that implicates the Chem Lawn man.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Spamela


... She had grass under her finger nails, too, but I don't think that implicates the Chem Lawn man.

i bet he was paid off just like the bus driver :rolleyes: :D

[caphill]

Originally posted by Spamela


Her fingernails were bloody from her own blood, from her defensive cuts. The hair was a broken fragment, it did not contain a root. It was not ripped out when she was holding up her hands. What DNA are you talking about? The hair had DNA in it, of course, but there was not separate DNA sitting around.

And her hands were not bagged, which makes it all a moot point. She had grass under her finger nails, too, but I don't think that implicates the Chem Lawn man.

The hair found under Kristen's fingernail indeed had a root. The DNA extracted from the hair with the root ball contained DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor. The 21/2 inch dark hair with a root found on or under Colette also had DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor.

The hands not being bagged was sloppy police work at the crime scene but did not rendered the fingernail scraping evidence invalid or moot. Not bagging the hands of the victims could have lost forensic evidence of value. The hair with the root was embedded under her nails and it would be a stretch to argue this hair just fell under her nails after after her death.

[caphill]

Originally posted by byn63
welcome Janel!

and to add to Bunny's post about the unsourced hair found on or under Kristen's nail................................

the hands of the victims were not bagged before they were removed from the crime scene. that hair fragment could be from an investigator, an MP, a Medic, the ME or other hospital/morgue employees. Without a source, it is USELESS.

there is a difference between an item being UNIDENTIFIED and UNSOURCED. If the item is something unknown it would be unidentified, however, since we KNOW it is a hair fragment than it IS NOT unidentified it is UNSOURCED!

Point to Ponder

February 17, 1970 = "Some people have been stabbed" (JRM to Fayetteville telephone operator)

April 6, 1970 = "I woke up and there were some people standing at the foot of the bed" (JRM to CID investigators)
:shrug:


To find hair or semen or any other forensic evidence that contains human DNA is sourced evidence. That would mean the source was from some human person.It may not be identified unless the donor has a DNA profile available as a reference.

A rape victim, for example, could have semen with DNA that excludes a suspect. As a matter of fact there have been hundreds of wrongly convicted men in prison that have been released after DNA testing showed they were not the donor of the DNA found on the victim.

Kirk Bloodworth was convicted for the rape and murder of Dawn Hamilton and sentenced to death. After a retrial he was sentenced to a life sentence. He was released from prison after serving almost 12 years when DNA of the semen found on the panties of the little girl excluded him as the donor. 10 later the semen was identified to an inmate that was serving time for oher sexual assualts.

A the time he was released from prison the acutal source or donor was not indentified.

Your statements are not supported by fact.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
The hair found under Kristen's fingernail indeed had a root. The DNA extracted from the hair with the root ball contained DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor.
I believe there are eight specimens in the DNA report which are described as "hair with root." D-237 (Q137, GX285, 91A), to which you refer, is not one of those exhibits. It is described only as "Hair." Also, only mtDNA testing was done on this sample, another indicator that it did not have a root.

Also, as JTF wrote: "...outside of Janice Glisson's lab note, there is NO DOCUMENTATION that demonstrates that this hair fragment was found UNDER Kristen's fingernail. Several lab technicians, including Glisson's supervisor Dillard Browning, looked at the fingernail scrapings from Kristen PRIOR to Glisson looking at the evidence. Not 1 of them saw a hair fragment under Kristen's fingernail, but Browning did find a pajama fiber under 1 of Kristen's nails. MacDonald has never been able to explain how a fiber from his pajamas found its way UNDER his daughter's fingernail."

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2

I believe there are eight specimens in the DNA report which are described as "hair with root." D-237 (Q137, GX285, 91A), to which you refer, is not one of those exhibits. It is described only as "Hair." Also, only mtDNA testing was done on this sample, another indicator that it did not have a root.

Also, as JTF wrote: "...outside of Janice Glisson's lab note, there is NO DOCUMENTATION that demonstrates that this hair fragment was found UNDER Kristen's fingernail. Several lab technicians, including Glisson's supervisor Dillard Browning, looked at the fingernail scrapings from Kristen PRIOR to Glisson looking at the evidence. Not 1 of them saw a hair fragment under Kristen's fingernail, but Browning did find a pajama fiber under 1 of Kristen's nails. MacDonald has never been able to explain how a fiber from his pajamas found its way UNDER his daughter's fingernail."


JTK wrote a number of his personal opinions and his personal interpretations. Many that I read are contrary to the lab reports and other court records.

Whether the DNA was extracted from the hair for mtDNA or STRs DNA from the root doesn't change the fact the hair from the fingernail scraping embedded under Kristen's nails was not Dr. MacDonald's hair.

To not be able to obtain Short Tandem Repeats DNA from roots or any other forensics that is 36 years old is understandable. That is why the more advanced technology of mtDNA testing is a major break through in being able to profile DNA from very old or degraded DNA samples.

Helena had hair with roots samples but her root samples yielded insufficient data to render a conclusion using STR's DNA.

It lends more credibility if information discussed comes from the lab reports, court reports and filed legal documents than from message board posters with an obivous bias and agenda.

[Bunny2]

Whether the DNA was extracted from the hair for mtDNA or STRs DNA from the root doesn't change the fact the hair from the fingernail scraping embedded under Kristen's nails was not Dr. MacDonald's hair.The hair had no root, was a fragment, and no one testified or gave any statements to my knowledge that this fragment was "embedded under Kristen's nails," but perhaps the most important thing about it is that it was identified as not having come from the people MacD has, for decades, claimed that he saw in the apartment that night, and whom he has, for decades, named as being Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley.

And of course an unidentified hair fragment doesn't begin to negate the overwhelming mountain of already-existing evidence against MacDonald, especially since one of his pajama fibers was found under Kristen's nails, indicating, along with the "multiple incisions of left and right hands," that she reached out and tried to stop him from murdering her.

Until Mac can source the hair fragment to a specific person, and provide other corroborating evidence to prove that that person committed murder in 544 Castle Drive on February 16-17, 1970, he has nothing. Should it ever be identified, and should that additional corroborating evidence ever be forthcoming, then Mac would definitely have a lot of explaining to do, since it would show that he wasn't alone when he committed the murders. All of which you knew already, of course.
Helena had hair with roots samples but her root samples yielded insufficient data to render a conclusion using STR's DNA.
No DNA matching that of either Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell was found in any exhibit. Did you see all those zeroes in the DNA report for Stoeckley and Mitchell? I'm thinking of making some wallpaper out of that; it's so pleasing to the eye. :)

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



It lends more credibility if information discussed comes from the lab reports, court reports and filed legal documents than from message board posters with an obivous bias and agenda.

omg lmao!!! i totally totally agree. you're so entertaining, thanks so much!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Bunny2

<snipped>

No DNA matching that of either Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell was found in any exhibit. Did you see all those zeroes in the DNA report for Stoeckley and Mitchell? I'm thinking of making some wallpaper out of that; it's so pleasing to the eye. :)

:lol: HYSTERICAL!! :lol:

When you're finished making the wallpaper, I'll take 6 rolls. I have been looking for some new wallpaper and the room that I have in mind just screams this "wallpaper!" LOL!

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
The hair had no root, was a fragment, and no one testified or gave any statements to my knowledge that this fragment was "embedded under Kristen's nails," but perhaps the most important thing about it is that it was identified as not having come from the people MacD has, for decades, claimed that he saw in the apartment that night, and whom he has, for decades, named as being Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley.

And of course an unidentified hair fragment doesn't begin to negate the overwhelming mountain of already-existing evidence against MacDonald, especially since one of his pajama fibers was found under Kristen's nails, indicating, along with the "multiple incisions of left and right hands," that she reached out and tried to stop him from murdering her.

Until Mac can source the hair fragment to a specific person, and provide other corroborating evidence to prove that that person committed murder in 544 Castle Drive on February 16-17, 1970, he has nothing. Should it ever be identified, and should that additional corroborating evidence ever be forthcoming, then Mac would definitely have a lot of explaining to do, since it would show that he wasn't alone when he committed the murders. All of which you knew already, of course.

No DNA matching that of either Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell was found in any exhibit. Did you see all those zeroes in the DNA report for Stoeckley and Mitchell? I'm thinking of making some wallpaper out of that; it's so pleasing to the eye. :)

Of the few hairs that were tested there were three foreign hairs that were not sourced to any member of the MacDonald family. There are many hairs and all the blood samples they have never been tested. There are numerous fibers that are unsourced to anything found in the MacDonald home. Fibers found on one of the murder weapons and the mouth of Colette are a part of the many pieces of forensics evidence that was hidden from the jury and the defense team.

I say bring it on and let the light shine on all the evidence that still remains from the crime scene. Let the unidentified fingerprints and palm prints be examined along with blood samples and any hairs samples in question.

It is known what the prosecution cherry picked to be shown to the jury. The cat is out of the bag of a whole set of forensics that were not introduced at the trial.

How can anyone argue there was a fair trial when the prosecution controled the evidence and only allowed what was favorable to their case and hid or denied any evidence that the defense could use.

Why is the prosecution pleading with the Court to not recognize the DNA results, the affidavits of those to whom Mitchell confessed, the affidavit of US Marshall Britt and the introduction of the hidden forensics and the 22-24 inch blond wig strands?

The Jeffrey MacDonald trial was the farce of the 20th century. You can bet the CID and the prosecution will fight tooth and nail to continue to suppress the truth of what evidence was collected from the crime scene and how that evidence was manipulated to secure a conviction. It is not hard to understand why they would want this case to never be retried or the judges to vacate the conviction.

All the messages posted, the misinformation, the spinning of the known information can't put the cat back in the bag. Vital evidence found at the crime scene was denied to MacDonald for his defense. His rights to a fair trial were violated by the actions of the investigators, the CID and FBI labs and the prosecutors.

There is no argument that can justify why ALL the evidence was not put on the table. If the blond 22-24 inch wig strands, the foreign hairs and fibers, the foreign wax dripping and the many unidentified fingerprints were so insignificant, why did the prosecution go to such lenghts to hid this from the courts, the jury and the defense?

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


omg lmao!!! i totally totally agree. you're so entertaining, thanks so much!


You are welcome. If I apologize for my spelling of obvious, do you think you could catch your breath.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



You are welcome. If I apologize for my spelling of obvious, do you think you could catch your breath.
i actually missed that misspelling, but thanks for pointing it out:D

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill


There are many hairs and all the blood samples they have never been tested.
you know how the game is played here. don't give us "many hairs," give us the evidence item numbers. as has been posted a zillion freaking times, the blood evidence had been consumed during the original investigation and reinvestigation. not to mention that mac's very own attorney chose the exhibits which were to be tested. give him a call and complain if you think it will make you feel any better.

There are numerous fibers that are unsourced to anything found in the MacDonald home.
yes. what's your point? you think this case is so amazing that this phenomenon is unheard of?

Fibers found on one of the murder weapons and the mouth of Colette are a part of the many pieces of forensics evidence that was hidden from the jury and the defense team.
um no. bernie had the documentation, his expert had his chance at examining the evidence, nothing was hidden from them. being lazy is no excuse to come back later and cry foul. to my knowledge the prosecution has no duty to hand over an itemized list and outline showing how they plan to use their evidence.

as for the jury, evidence not presented at trial can't be termed as "hidden" and bernie certainly had a chance to present what he wanted. perhaps instead of all the time he spent gathering character witnesses, he should have focused on learning the nuts and bolts of the case.

I say bring it on and let the light shine on all the evidence that still remains from the crime scene. Let the unidentified fingerprints and palm prints be examined along with blood samples and any hairs samples in question.
i have to chuckle because you probably think you're making a great point here but um, just because you think it should be done or mac thinks it should be done, doesn't mean anyone important enough to actually make that decision thinks it should be done. if it were so, there'd have been such a hearing eons ago. the prosecution certainly would have no reason to perform additional testing on evidence that has already been used to convict a person, nor would they have any reason to request a hearing regarding such evidence. IMO judge fox agreed to DNA testing merely to shut mac up.

It is known what the prosecution cherry picked to be shown to the jury. The cat is out of the bag of a whole set of forensics that were not introduced at the trial.
why is it you think this is so sinister? i'm curious as to why you think the prosecution choosing which evidence they should present is an anomaly? you really don't understand the concept of entering only what is needed to convict into evidence, rather than taking up the court's and jury's time with endless presentation of meaningless items?
Why is the prosecution pleading with the Court to not recognize the DNA results, the affidavits of those to whom Mitchell confessed, the affidavit of US Marshall Britt and the introduction of the hidden forensics and the 22-24 inch blond wig strands?
pleading? :rolleyes: dude, post a quote of said pleading! why would they ask the court to disregard the DNA results when they show that mac's two favorite scapegoats were not donors and that the hair in colette's hand was mac's? and duh, the court has already seen all the crap about "hidden forensics" and affidavits of mitchell's supposed confessions numerous times and has summarily rejected such claims, so there's no reason for the prosecution to "plead" with the court to disregard them. technically they have already been "not recognized."
All the messages posted, the misinformation, the spinning of the known information can't put the cat back in the bag.
and do you not understand that all of your own message posting, misinformation and spinning of the known information will never change a thing about the case? if you think we are all stupid for posting here, all i gotta say is pot meet kettle. oh, and you might want to see a dentist; i doubt there's much room in your mouth for any more feet.
There is no argument that can justify why ALL the evidence was not put on the table. If the blond 22-24 inch wig strands, the foreign hairs and fibers, the foreign wax dripping and the many unidentified fingerprints were so insignificant, why did the prosecution go to such lenghts to hid this from the courts, the jury and the defense?
are you having a contest with yourself to see how many times you can post the exact same thing in one message? :shrug:

[caphill]

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.org/Documents.html

This is a link to read the Governments Response to Defense Motion to Expand the Record(April 17,2006)

There are 4 additional Motions filed by the Government that can be read at this link that has the pleadings to the Court to not allow the DNA results, the affidavits regarding Mitchell's confessions and the Britt affidavits in the Court's decision to address the instant motion to have this verdict vacated.

Christina's site also has these Motions from the Govt posted. Also posted on Christina's site is the 33 page report from the Dept Of Defense Armed Forces Institute of Pathology regarding the DNA testing.

This report show an itemized list of 188 hair samples received from the FBI on 5-17-1999. IIRC, only 28 of these 188 hair samples were DNA tested. Page 15 of 33 shows the actual samples that were tested with corresponding exhibit numbers. There were an additional 35 specimens of tissue that was not tested. There were no blood samples released for testing.

The actual report from the AFIOP is my source of information of what hair specimens were tested and the 160 other hair specimens that were not tested.. What is your source that contradicts this official DNA report. This report was sent to the Honorable James C Fox United States District Judge , who ordered the DNA testing back in 1997.

Is this a sufficient enough link to support my statements that many hair samples were never tested. Does this report also support my statements that no blood specimens were ever released to the lab for DNA testing?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
There were an additional 35 specimens of tissue that was not tested. There were no blood samples released for testing.As I thought you'd already been told several times, the blood samples were largely used up during the autopsy. As for the rest of what you've said, it's not up to the government to do Mac's DNA testing for him, so I assume you think that Mac will be asking for another round of DNA tests for his set of next-most-crucial exhibits, as soon as he's finished paying off the $90,000 he already owes? I have my doubts. The overwhelming evidence against Mac has only grown stronger and stronger over time, and the recent DNA results were so devastating to him that I can't see him risking having even more evidence confirming his guilt by going another round with the DNA lab anytime soon, if ever.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
There are 4 additional Motions filed by the Government that can be read at this link that has the pleadings to the Court to not allow the DNA results...From what I can gather, it seems that the sentence to which I'm assuming you're referring actually says "In any event, the United States is requesting that this Court not entertain the merits of the DNA motion until it has clear jurisdiction to do so..." Not quite the same thing you're trying to imply here, is it?

But wait, there's more. :)

Far from the government wanting to "not allow" the DNA results, what I see in their filings says that (1) in the event of any retrial, they'd love to use those DNA results, and (2) currently they only "suggest that it would be in the interest of judicial economy if all possible claims of newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence, or attacks on newly discovered inculpatory DNA evidence, were litigated in a single proceeding."

For example (emphasis added):

In a hypothetical retrial, in which the government would possess the benefit of “all relevant evidence [including] that . . . unavailable at trial,” (Schlup, 513 U.S. at 328), the prosecution would be able to present not only the very same forensic evidence that the trial judge deemed more than sufficient to trump Stoeckley’s “confessions,” it would it would also be able to present forensic evidence in the form of recently released results of DNA analysis, as to which, for purposes of this discussion, we note that MacDonald has acknowledged in his Motion To Add An Additional Predicate based upon the AFIP Report, that none of the samples tested matched the DNA of Stoeckley or Mitchell.41 Accordingly, the Government would argue that these results eliminate both Stoeckley and Mitchell as the source of any of the questioned blood or hairs.

Also:
(footnote 42) We note that on March 22, 2006, MacDonald filed under the docket number in the instant habeas a pleading seeking to expand the instant §2255 petition to include consideration of the DNA testing as newly discovered evidence. The United States will respond to this latest motion, and to the jurisdictional issues it raises, as provided by Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(1). Accordingly, we respectfully reserve the right to address at the appropriate time, the results of the DNA testing, which inculpate MacDonald in the murders of his family, and therefore should be included in the evaluation of the previously filed motion under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255.


And then in the response to the "add predicate" issue, the same response referred to above, I see:

Finally, should the Court determine that it has jurisdiction over the DNA motion, we respectfully request that the Court defer any such hearing until the pending petition for relief, based upon the allegations made by retired Deputy U.S. Marshal Jimmy Britt, has been resolved. The United States is not requesting that the Court delay ruling on the Britt matter, which is unrelated to the instant motion to add the DNA predicate. We respectfully request that the Court dispose of the Britt petition before addressing the merits of the DNA motion. In any event, the United States is requesting that this Court not entertain the merits of the DNA motion until it has clear jurisdiction to do so, and the parties have had sufficient time for their experts to review the voluminous technical data generated in the course of the DNA testing between 2000-2006.2

And footnote 2 to that response which was filed April 13 states:

Neither the government, nor MacDonald, have yet received, much less reviewed, the DNA bench notes generated by the DNA testing. Some of the DNA testing identifies MacDonald as the source of Specimen 51A(2) the hair found in Colette’s left hand. He maintains that this is in no way inculpatory of him. For the present MacDonald also appears not to challenge the testing which identifies Colette MacDonald as the source of a forcibly removed hair (Specimen 46A ) found in the sheet used by MacDonald to transport his wife’s body. Nor has MacDonald yet challenged the AFIP results which were inconclusive. MacDonald is free to argue that these testing results are not inculpatory, and the government is free to argue that they are. However, in terms of the results of the testing, MacDonald waives any claim as to the correctness of the methodology, or the validity of the examiners conclusions if he forges ahead with only the three hairs he has identified. In addition a second petition for relief based on the DNA results involving other specimens, is certainly successive under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255. A second DNA petition is also potentially subject to dismissal as an abuse of the writ. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); United States v. MacDonald, 966 F2d 854, 860 (4th Cir. 1992). (App. Vol. 1, Tab 13). We respectfully suggest that it would be in the interest of judicial economy if all possible claims of newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence, or attacks on newly discovered inculpatory DNA evidence, were litigated in a single proceeding.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

you know how the game is played here. don't give us "many hairs," give us the evidence item numbers. as has been posted a zillion freaking times, the blood evidence had been consumed during the original investigation and reinvestigation. not to mention that mac's very own attorney chose the exhibits which were to be tested. give him a call and complain if you think it will make you feel any better.


yes. what's your point? you think this case is so amazing that this phenomenon is unheard of?


um no. bernie had the documentation, his expert had his chance at examining the evidence, nothing was hidden from them. being lazy is no excuse to come back later and cry foul. to my knowledge the prosecution has no duty to hand over an itemized list and outline showing how they plan to use their evidence.

as for the jury, evidence not presented at trial can't be termed as "hidden" and bernie certainly had a chance to present what he wanted. perhaps instead of all the time he spent gathering character witnesses, he should have focused on learning the nuts and bolts of the case.


i have to chuckle because you probably think you're making a great point here but um, just because you think it should be done or mac thinks it should be done, doesn't mean anyone important enough to actually make that decision thinks it should be done. if it were so, there'd have been such a hearing eons ago. the prosecution certainly would have no reason to perform additional testing on evidence that has already been used to convict a person, nor would they have any reason to request a hearing regarding such evidence. IMO judge fox agreed to DNA testing merely to shut mac up.


why is it you think this is so sinister? i'm curious as to why you think the prosecution choosing which evidence they should present is an anomaly? you really don't understand the concept of entering only what is needed to convict into evidence, rather than taking up the court's and jury's time with endless presentation of meaningless items?

pleading? :rolleyes: dude, post a quote of said pleading! why would they ask the court to disregard the DNA results when they show that mac's two favorite scapegoats were not donors and that the hair in colette's hand was mac's? and duh, the court has already seen all the crap about "hidden forensics" and affidavits of mitchell's supposed confessions numerous times and has summarily rejected such claims, so there's no reason for the prosecution to "plead" with the court to disregard them. technically they have already been "not recognized."

and do you not understand that all of your own message posting, misinformation and spinning of the known information will never change a thing about the case? if you think we are all stupid for posting here, all i gotta say is pot meet kettle. oh, and you might want to see a dentist; i doubt there's much room in your mouth for any more feet.

are you having a contest with yourself to see how many times you can post the exact same thing in one message? :shrug: LOL! Good post, stinker! I had a reply all ready to go, but didn't even bother to put it up after seeing yours. Way to go.

:beer:

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
As I thought you'd already been told several times, the blood samples were largely used up during the autopsy. As for the rest of what you've said, it's not up to the government to do Mac's DNA testing for him, so I assume you think that Mac will be asking for another round of DNA tests for his set of next-most-crucial exhibits, as soon as he's finished paying off the $90,000 he already owes? I have my doubts. The overwhelming evidence against Mac has only grown stronger and stronger over time, and the recent DNA results were so devastating to him that I can't see him risking having even more evidence confirming his guilt by going another round with the DNA lab anytime soon, if ever.


I beg your pardon. It was up to the Government to pay for the DNA testing that was ordered by Judge Fox. As evidence of that fact is a recently posted US Dept of Justice Reimbrusement Agreement through their criminal division to pay AFDIL for their services in conducting the DNA testing.

It appears you have not read much of the official documents that are being posted on the MacDonald sites.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dna-cost_2005-04-08_p01.html

What are you talking about when you state the blood samples were used up by the autopsy? The autopsy has nothing to do with the blood samples collected at the scene of the crime and sent to the CID lab. Most of the blood samples collected from the crime scene should still be preserved enough to do at least mtDNA if not STRs DNA.

The DNA profile of Colette and the girls has already been obtained from the hair analysis as a reference to any blood samples in question. There is also now a DNA profile for Mitchell and Helena from the hair analysis.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
I beg your pardon. It was up to the Government to pay for the DNA testing...It appears you have not read much of the official documents that are being posted on the MacDonald sites.
Actually, I've read every single page of every single document that's ever been posted on CM's website, and many of those I've read more than twice, but it appears as though you haven't done your research, since not only do you continually get things wrong, but you didn't even apparently read Fox's 1999 orders about the DNA (emphasis added):

"Finally, MacDonald's suggestion that the Government should finance this phase of his 2255 motion is not well-taken. Because this action is civil in nature, MacDonald is not entitled to prosecute it at taxpayer's expense. Nevertheless, the court will ensure that laboratory and related test expenses are met, and ultimately will adjust allocation of the costs depending on the outcome of the case. Should the Government prevail, and should the court determine that MacDonald must bear the costs and expenses incurred as a result of this phase of the litigation, MacDonald may be required to file an affidavit detailing the amount and source of all assets subject to his direction and control which are or have been used to finance the prosecution of this litigation."Most of the blood samples collected from the crime scene should still be preserved enough to do at least mtDNA if not STRs DNA.You need to reread the records, Cappy. I'm not going to sit here again and do your homework for you. Obviously that DNA testing wasn't done, was it? If you don't understand the reason for that even after multiple posts and having access to that information in the records online, there's not much point in my sitting here and running it down for you.The DNA profile of Colette and the girls has already been obtained from the hair analysis as a reference to any blood samples in question. There is also now a DNA profile for Mitchell and Helena from the hair analysis.And here's some late-breaking news for you, Cappy: The DNA results came back on March 10, and showed that neither Mitchell's nor Stoeckley's DNA matched that in any exhibit! What a surprise, eh? :)

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Actually, I've read every single page of every single document that's ever been posted on CM's website, and many of those I've read more than twice, but it appears as though you haven't done your research, since not only do you continually get things wrong, but you didn't even apparently read Fox's 1999 orders about the DNA (emphasis added):

"Finally, MacDonald's suggestion that the Government should finance this phase of his 2255 motion is not well-taken. Because this action is civil in nature, MacDonald is not entitled to prosecute it at taxpayer's expense. Nevertheless, the court will ensure that laboratory and related test expenses are met, and ultimately will adjust allocation of the costs depending on the outcome of the case. Should the Government prevail, and should the court determine that MacDonald must bear the costs and expenses incurred as a result of this phase of the litigation, MacDonald may be required to file an affidavit detailing the amount and source of all assets subject to his direction and control which are or have been used to finance the prosecution of this litigation."You need to reread the records, Cappy. I'm not going to sit here again and do your homework for you. Obviously that DNA testing wasn't done, was it? If you don't understand the reason for that even after multiple posts and having access to that information in the records online, there's not much point in my sitting here and running it down for you.And here's some late-breaking news for you, Cappy: The DNA results came back on March 10, and showed that neither Mitchell's nor Stoeckley's DNA matched that in any exhibit! What a surprise, eh? :)

The breaking news is that the Justice Department paid for the DNA testing that was allowed. Jeffrey MacDonald is not on the hook for payment as you boldly stated in your previous posting. It is not a matter of debate as the reimbursement from Justice Criminal Division to AFDIL on Feb 20, 2005 is clearly documented and recently posted on Christina's site.

You posted a discussion about the payment in 1999 and you made an erroneous statement based on your interpretation. Obviously the Government did not prevail and the Court did not determine that MacDonald would have to pay for these Court ordered tests.

Your disengenous scolding about my need to reread the records is laughable. Click on the link to the reimbursement agreement and don't let the official record confuse you. I uess that was one document you must have overlooked or you would not have so gleefully posted that MacDonald was in debt to the AFDIL lab. Would it not be foolish for the Court to order DNA testing and then expect an indigent prisoner to pay for it.

You are factually wrong that the DNA testing done on March 10 showed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell's DNA matched that in ANY exhibit. The DNA testing done showed they matched no exhibit that had conclusive results that were tested. There are hundreds of forensic exhibits of hair, tissue and blood that was never tested.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Rockford
. . . Something tells me that wasn't the first time that child was witness to the ugliness of Inmate's ugly side . . .

ICAM Rockford . . . I think this may have been a MacPattern ~ which is why the neigbors didn't hear much.:mad:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Rockford
. . . As to the exact words that Colette used that night, my thought was why neither this woman, nor a family member went downstairs to see if everything was ok. She never says she heard MacDonald's voice, so you would think she would have been concerned for Coletter, but I also know a lot of people do not like to get involved . . .

Still true today ~ altho' our 911 system and domestic violence education has made it more likely that a neighbor will get somewhat involved ~ but this was early 1970 ~ and MacMurderer was an Officer ~ and a Doctor.:rolleyes:

Remembering my Grandparents neighbors~who lived a couple of backyards away~would get rowdy/violent on occasion in the mid 60's . . . I would be scared when I heard my occasional playmate friends crying and Grandpa would just say "Ah, they're just at it again." :(

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Rockford
. . . Do ANY of you believe that this was planned? That the night of the murders, and before Colette came home from class, MacDonald planned to murder perhaps Colette only, but somehow the murder plot got out of hand and it ended up including the kids? . . .



Forgot to say HI and Welcome to All!:D I've so enjoyed catching up on this Thread~even tho' it's Mothers Day & I'm thinking of Colette~who would most likely be a Granny by now!:rose: Lots of Great New Posters & Posts!

For those of you that haven't read all 70 something pages, I'll just say real quickly that I did a lot of recreational drugs in the 70's-and particularly a LOT of speed. These experiences have helped me rule out the "Stoekley Intruders" (What a GROOVY joke!) ~ and rule out ANY intruders that could be trippin' on some kind of LSD cocktail and execute this Execution!

I can and have entertained the notion, however, of MacSpeeder planning the Murder of his Family.

You know how certain statements MacLiar sticks to no matter what? (Kristen the bedwetter NOT Kim etc . . ?) Well MacReaders whole thing about reading a few chapters of the Mystery Book (Spillane?) the night of the Butchery has always struck me the same way . . . Speed does things to the brain and I think MacBrain didn't need a lot of help to slide off the slippery slope he was always on to begin with!

For whatever reason, that Esquire Article on The Manson Murders struck a note in his feverish brain . . . I think he read it over and over for days and dwelled on it as his sleepless mind zoomed on.

No, I don't think he had a specific plan to Murder that night, but I do think the idea had either crossed his mind or got stuck in his speeding mind for days "Gee, what if marauding hippies wiped out my Family?" may have progressed to "Gee, what if I could make it LOOK LIKE marauding hippies wiped out my Family???" very easily in the manic pace his brain stayed in those days! I also think he may have discussed this with Ron Harrison.

Speed Kills.

[malvolio]

...since I haven't said it for at least 20 pages:

YES! HE'S GUILTY!!!

...one more time:

...justice is groovy...kill the appeals...

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
The breaking news is that the Justice Department paid for the DNA testing that was allowed. Jeffrey MacDonald is not on the hook for payment as you boldly stated in your previous posting.
It is not a matter of debate as the reimbursement from Justice Criminal Division to AFDIL on Feb 20, 2005 is clearly documented and recently posted on Christina's site.Obviously you didn't understand what Fox said, even though I and others think it's clear as can be. Fox said the lab would be paid and Mac would reimburse the government if the defense did not prevail. The agreement has to do with the lab being paid by the government so that testing could proceed. Do you buy or rent a house without an agreement about payment? Do you undergo surgery without an agreement about payment? Do you agree to do work for someone without an agreement in place? Of course not, unless you're stupid, which the lab wasn't.

The DNA results are still being dealt with in current motions, which I guess you didn't realize. Obviously you made erroneous statements based on your interpretation, not even stopping to think that the 2005 agreement to which you refer took place before the DNA results were even known or released, that the results just came out on March 10 of this year, and obviously the agreement is certainly not any kind of recent legal decision (or any decision at all) by a court that the defense "prevailed" with regard to those results (which is the only way Mac would get "off the hook" for payment, per Fox's instructions).

Your disengenous scolding about my need to reread the records is laughable. Click on the link to the reimbursement agreement and don't let the official record confuse you.Your urging that others "read the records" is actually what's laughable, when we can all see that you yourself have made several serious and careless errors in your various posts. Hey, how about that new trial Mac was supposedly granted, Cappy? How did that go, anyway? Gee, I guess it came and went so fast that I missed it altogether. And what about those Glisson notes; did you ever get it straight that hair samples weren't both from Kim and weren't both from Kristen as you claimed they were? And did you finally come to realize that the "Kristen hair" did indeed appear to have no root, and that no one ever testified that it was "embedded" under her nails, both of which you claimed were facts? Have you come to accept now that you were wrong when you claimed that the government wanted the court to disregard the DNA results? I could go on, but why bother...you embarrass yourself enough here that there's no real need for me to add to that.

You are factually wrong that the DNA testing done on March 10 showed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell's DNA matched that in ANY exhibit.Of course I was referring to the exhibits which were tested, Cappy, which I thought you'd certainly realize since that's what we were discussing. Those were the exhibits the defense deemed to be most "crucial," and of course I was correct in stating that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched that in any of those exhibits.

If Mac wants more testing, I suppose he's free to ask for that, but somehow I don't think that's ever going to happen. Mac will probably never recover from the terribly damaging results that were revealed the first time around, and I can't see him risking being hammered again with a second or third round of damaging results.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
As I thought you'd already been told several times, the blood samples were largely used up during the autopsy. As for the rest of what you've said, it's not up to the government to do Mac's DNA testing for him, so I assume you think that Mac will be asking for another round of DNA tests for his set of next-most-crucial exhibits, as soon as he's finished paying off the $90,000 he already owes? I have my doubts. The overwhelming evidence against Mac has only grown stronger and stronger over time, and the recent DNA results were so devastating to him that I can't see him risking having even more evidence confirming his guilt by going another round with the DNA lab anytime soon, if ever.


These are your words, Bunny. I just posted the link to copy of the reimbrusement agreement from the Justice Dept that showed they agreed to pay the bill.

Rude and insulting responses to me doesn't change that fact that you factually erred and posted misinformation.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
These are your words, Bunny. I just posted the link to copy of the reimbrusement agreement from the Justice Dept that showed they agreed to pay the bill.

Rude and insulting responses to me doesn't change that fact that you factually erred and posted misinformation.Here's a link to Fox's 1999 orders, Cappy:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/foxdna_1.html

Now, take a look at the dates on the agreement to which you refer. See how it's dated 2005? What could possibly be the problem here, that you don't understand that the agreement was per Fox's orders and that a 2005 agreement could not possibly be anything that had to do with whether or not the defense "prevailed" in the 2006 DNA results, since the testing had not even been done at that time??

As I said, and I'll repeat it because I guess you didn't get it the first few times around: The DNA results are still being discussed in current case filings, and no 2005 agreement ordered that Mac had prevailed or that he need not reimburse the government for the testing. Fox's orders were that when all was said and done, should the government prevail with regard to the DNA results (meaning, presumably, when both parties' arguments about it have been heard), Mac will be ordered to reimburse the government for the cost of the tests.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by audpaud
...I'm thinking of Colette~who would most likely be a Granny by now!:rose: Let's see...if they'd lived, Colette would have been 38 when Kim was 18. If my math is correct, if Kim had a child at 18, and if her child had had a child at age 18, by now Colette would have been a great-grandmother for the past 7 years! Can that be right? Hardly seems possible, does it.
For those of you that haven't read all 70 something pages, I'll just say real quickly that I did a lot of recreational drugs in the 70's-and particularly a LOT of speed. These experiences have helped me rule out the "Stoekley Intruders" (What a GROOVY joke!) ~ and rule out ANY intruders that could be trippin' on some kind of LSD cocktail and execute this Execution!

I can and have entertained the notion, however, of MacSpeeder planning the Murder of his Family.
Hey, audpaud, I turned 18 in the winter of 1970 and remember well all the white crosses and black beauties and Thai sticks and Purple Haze, windowpane, etc. that people were doing back then. I went around in my black wool knitted poncho, bell-bottoms, hair parted in the middle; bought candles and incense and visited head shops and thought I was cool like virtually everyone else, but unlike everyone else, I wouldn't dare to have tried any of that stuff. My dad was a drill instructor in the Marine Corps, later going on to join the AF, and it was too well-ingrained in me that if you stepped out of line even slightly, if you even breathed wrong, your life was over (at least where my dad was concerned!). Then about four years later, I met a great guy and began seeing him a lot, and every time I'd go over to his house down by the river, you could hear the Pink Floyd blaring away before you even got to the door, and when you opened the door, there'd be about 20 people partying, everyone from waitresses to Air Force jet pilots to other AF guys who repaired heart-lung machines on the base. A wild time, and since I wasn't living at home anymore by that time, I convinced myself that I was being a prude sitting there with my little Diet Coke while everyone else was slugging down Robin Hood ale, and I tried getting into the Thai sticks, the Purple Haze, etc. I stuck with it for five or six months but then had to be honest with myself and say, "This is just not me. I hate the taste of any kind of alcohol, I don't really want to spend the rest of my days watching the walls move on their own...I hate that horrible agitated feeling of speed, and not being in control..." When I found myself on the back of a Kawasaki motorcycle behind a guy I didn't know very well, going 126 mph down the freeway once (which is an experience that I not recommend you try if you're doing acid), I quit, right then and there and went back to my Diet Cokes and my books and my painting and knitting (yes, knitting; I liked it, so sue me).

Point of all that was that I wanted to let you know you're not alone and some of the rest of us also did a few of those drugs back then, and I'm in agreement with you that not only could six or more people on acid have carried out these murders in the dark and been skillful enough or lucky enough not to leave any evidence of themselves, but as that reporter said, people on acid couldn't organize a trip to the toilet, much less the murders of three people. Speed, though, is a different story, as you know. Even Stoeckley knew that, but I guess that's just another one of those things she said that Mac and his camp have chosen to ignore.

By the way, just FYI, my "great guy" and I are still together, 31 years later, and I still think Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is the best album ever, although part of my heart also belongs to Dave Matthews... :)

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill


The hair found under Kristen's fingernail indeed had a root. The DNA extracted from the hair with the root ball contained DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor. The 21/2 inch dark hair with a root found on or under Colette also had DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor.

The hands not being bagged was sloppy police work at the crime scene but did not rendered the fingernail scraping evidence invalid or moot. Not bagging the hands of the victims could have lost forensic evidence of value. The hair with the root was embedded under her nails and it would be a stretch to argue this hair just fell under her nails after after her death.

Why is it that Caphill just will not beleive that we all have unsourced hair in our homes, on our persons, etc. I bet if we vacuum your rugs and carpets Cappy, we'll find tons of hair that cannot be sourced to you or your family.

I don't think any of us here believe the "just fell under her nail after her death." That hair could have been there for days. She did not have her nails cleaned before going to bed that night. Barry Scheck should have had the balls to speak up and say so on the LKL program. He's the dna expert, he knows that hair could have come from anywhere.

There are other possibilities Cappy, that hair did not have to come from an intruder. You can shut your mind to the possibilities but aren't you really just fooling yourself by refusing to see any other options?

Were you aware that the defense at trial impuned this hair as contaminated evidence due to the hands not being bagged? Now that we have dna testing of course it's back as a major piece of exculpatory evidence with the new attorneys.

Sorry but I don't see the jail house door swinging open based on this hair.

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill


The hair found under Kristen's fingernail indeed had a root. The DNA extracted from the hair with the root ball contained DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor. The 21/2 inch dark hair with a root found on or under Colette also had DNA that excluded Dr. MacDonald as the donor.

I think you are mistaken Cappy. That hair did not have a root, it had medula only, it was a hair shaft. That's why it was mitochrondial dna tested and not nucleur which give more accurate results than mito.

[Spamela]

Originally posted by Bunny2

I believe there are eight specimens in the DNA report which are described as "hair with root." D-237 (Q137, GX285, 91A), to which you refer, is not one of those exhibits. It is described only as "Hair." Also, only mtDNA testing was done on this sample, another indicator that it did not have a root.

Also, as JTF wrote: "...outside of Janice Glisson's lab note, there is NO DOCUMENTATION that demonstrates that this hair fragment was found UNDER Kristen's fingernail. Several lab technicians, including Glisson's supervisor Dillard Browning, looked at the fingernail scrapings from Kristen PRIOR to Glisson looking at the evidence. Not 1 of them saw a hair fragment under Kristen's fingernail, but Browning did find a pajama fiber under 1 of Kristen's nails. MacDonald has never been able to explain how a fiber from his pajamas found its way UNDER his daughter's fingernail."

Bunny is correct. No root ball. This info can be found in the DNA results.

What is more important, blue pj fiber under Kris's fingernail, or a hair fragment that may, or may not, have been under her fingernail? And the hair fragment that did not match Helena and Company. Remember her? The one chanting? Holding a candle? Sitting on the rocking horse? Standing on street corners?

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill


The actual report from the AFIOP is my source of information of what hair specimens were tested and the 160 other hair specimens that were not tested.. What is your source that contradicts this official DNA report. This report was sent to the Honorable James C Fox United States District Judge , who ordered the DNA testing back in 1997.

Is this a sufficient enough link to support my statements that many hair samples were never tested. Does this report also support my statements that no blood specimens were ever released to the lab for DNA testing?
i'm assuming this was directed to me, although you did not note that.

why would you think every single hair would be tested? criminy, it took 9 years to get results on the ones that were tested. mac is damn lucky he was allowed testing on anything. and for the 9000th time, MAC'S LAWYER IN 1997, CORMIER, CHOSE THE 15 "MOST IMPORTANT" EXHIBITS TO BE TESTED. the judge did not choose them. the prosecution did not choose them. since more than 15 exhibits were actually tested, what is it you're complaining about?

about the blood, well duh freaking duh...we all know there was none released for testing because, duh again, there is none left in sufficient quantity for testing. this is not a hard thing to understand. way back when, there was testing done on these samples and then more testing done during the reinvestigation (and possibly the grand jury?). testing consumes samples (that means "uses them up" :) ). the more testing that is done, the less of the sample remains.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
LOL! Good post, stinker! I had a reply all ready to go, but didn't even bother to put it up after seeing yours. Way to go.

:beer:

why thank you dahlin' :)

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
From what I can gather, it seems that the sentence to which I'm assuming you're referring actually says "In any event, the United States is requesting that this Court not entertain the merits of the DNA motion until it has clear jurisdiction to do so..." Not quite the same thing you're trying to imply here, is it?

But wait, there's more. :)



and a very good post from you bunny!!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Actually, I've read every single page of every single document that's ever been posted on CM's website, and many of those I've read more than twice, but it appears as though you haven't done your research, since not only do you continually get things wrong, but you didn't even apparently read Fox's 1999 orders about the DNA (emphasis added):

"Finally, MacDonald's suggestion that the Government should finance this phase of his 2255 motion is not well-taken. Because this action is civil in nature, MacDonald is not entitled to prosecute it at taxpayer's expense. Nevertheless, the court will ensure that laboratory and related test expenses are met, and ultimately will adjust allocation of the costs depending on the outcome of the case. Should the Government prevail, and should the court determine that MacDonald must bear the costs and expenses incurred as a result of this phase of the litigation, MacDonald may be required to file an affidavit detailing the amount and source of all assets subject to his direction and control which are or have been used to finance the prosecution of this litigation."

the english language is so hard for some folks!

in "plain" english....the gov't will foot the initial bill so that testing will happen. if the results favor the prosecution (i.e. no DNA from intruders found), then mac is SOL and he will have to cough up the dough to pay the government back.

so yeah, mac is in serious debt, which he has made plainly clear in his many recent pleadings for cash via ye olde update letter.

and how can someone with a freaking defense fund (which has been noted, on more than one pro-mac site including his own, is not at a zero balance) be indigent?

in·di·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-jnt)
adj.
Experiencing want or need; impoverished. See Synonyms at poor.
Archaic. Lacking or deficient.

n.
A needy or destitute person.


i'll agree with the archaic...mac is certainly lacking or deficient in many areas :D but with a wife who runs her own school? and a fully stocked "bank account" at the prison? methinks not.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

Your disengenous scolding about my need to reread the records is laughable. Click on the link to the reimbursement agreement and don't let the official record confuse you. I uess that was one document you must have overlooked or you would not have so gleefully posted that MacDonald was in debt to the AFDIL lab. Would it not be foolish for the Court to order DNA testing and then expect an indigent prisoner to pay for it.



lmbo! i "uess" the winner for most flowery adjectives used in one paragraph goes to.....

dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

and wow, i hardly think this is an accurate description of bunny, but to each his own.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by malvolio
...since I haven't said it for at least 20 pages:

YES! HE'S GUILTY!!!

...one more time:

...justice is groovy...kill the appeals...

lol!

[JTF]

Caphill: My statements regarding the trace evidence collected from the fingernail scrapings of Kristen MacDonald are not my personal opinions, but are culled from the documented record.

Fact: Kristen's hands were not bagged prior to her body being removed from the crime scene.

Fact: There is no documented record of Kristen being bathed on February 16, 1970.

Fact: Kristen was active on February 16th, visiting the pony with her father, and going to a neighbor's home around 7 p.m.

Fact: Several lab technicians viewed the fingernail scrapings from Kristen MacDonald before Janice Glisson looked at them a full 6 months after the murders.

Fact: Janice Glisson is the only lab technician to see a hair fragment included in the fingernail scrapings of Kristen MacDonald.

Fact: Dillard Browning, Glisson's supervisor, viewed these same fingernail scrapings before Glisson did, and he did not find any hair fragments. Browning did find, however, a blue pajama fiber under Kristen's fingernail.

Fact: According to Bost and Potter, the hair fragment had feminine characteristics. The hair fragment, however, did not match Helena Stoeckley's DNA profile. Cathy Perry is the only other female intruder suspect and, outside of Allen Mazzerolle, may be the least viable suspect of the Stoeckley group.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

For those who didn't see it on the "other" boards, here's a real stretch of the imagination...

Make Your Own MacMutant
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/dls/macmutant.html

(Applet window may appear on first click; can be closed by clicking the X in upper right corner)

[byn63]

Originally posted by Bunny2
For those who didn't see it on the "other" boards, here's a real stretch of the imagination...

Make Your Own MacMutant
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/dls/macmutant.html

(Applet window may appear on first click; can be closed by clicking the X in upper right corner)

this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay fun! thanks bunny! :lol:

[Spamela]

Originally posted by caphill

You are factually wrong that the DNA testing done on March 10 showed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell's DNA matched that in ANY exhibit. The DNA testing done showed they matched no exhibit that had conclusive results that were tested. There are hundreds of forensic exhibits of hair, tissue and blood that was never tested.

And which of these hair exhibits is going to change the:

Bloody impressions of MacMurder's pj cuffs on the sheet?

Bloody impressions of Colette's pj cuffs on the sheet?

The threads all over the MB, and not all over the living room?

The bodies being moved by the drugged up hippies?

The fact that MacDeath's one big boo-boo was caused by a mystery weapon that was never found, BUT, that left a cut JUST like a scalpel blade?

Who cares about the unsourced hair?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bunny2
. . . Hey, audpaud, I turned 18 in the winter of 1970 and remember well all the white crosses and black beauties and Thai sticks and Purple Haze, windowpane, etc. that people were doing back then. I went around in my black wool knitted poncho, bell-bottoms, hair parted in the middle; bought candles and incense and visited head shops and thought I was cool like virtually everyone else, but unlike everyone else, I wouldn't dare to have tried any of that stuff. My dad was a drill instructor in the Marine Corps, later going on to join the AF, and it was too well-ingrained in me that if you stepped out of line even slightly, if you even breathed wrong, your life was over (at least where my dad was concerned!). Then about four years later, I met a great guy and began seeing him a lot, and every time I'd go over to his house down by the river, you could hear the Pink Floyd blaring away before you even got to the door, and when you opened the door, there'd be about 20 people partying, everyone from waitresses to Air Force jet pilots to other AF guys who repaired heart-lung machines on the base. A wild time, and since I wasn't living at home anymore by that time, I convinced myself that I was being a prude sitting there with my little Diet Coke while everyone else was slugging down Robin Hood ale, and I tried getting into the Thai sticks, the Purple Haze, etc. I stuck with it for five or six months but then had to be honest with myself and say, "This is just not me. I hate the taste of any kind of alcohol, I don't really want to spend the rest of my days watching the walls move on their own...I hate that horrible agitated feeling of speed, and not being in control..." When I found myself on the back of a Kawasaki motorcycle behind a guy I didn't know very well, going 126 mph down the freeway once (which is an experience that I not recommend you try if you're doing acid), I quit, right then and there and went back to my Diet Cokes and my books and my painting and knitting (yes, knitting; I liked it, so sue me) . . .

. . . Speed, though, is a different story, as you know. Even Stoeckley knew that, but I guess that's just another one of those things she said that Mac and his camp have chosen to ignore.

By the way, just FYI, my "great guy" and I are still together, 31 years later, and I still think Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is the best album ever, although part of my heart also belongs to Dave Matthews... :)

Tx for painting a beautiful "word picture" of 1970 for those not there to feel the love, bun!:patriot: Betcha no one at your eventual hub's parties EVER uttered the word "groovy!!!"

My recreational drug use didn't start til a few years later, but we were still listening to Dark Side of the Moon (and still are! LOL!) . . . my experiences mirrors yours somewhat--although lasted several years rather than months . . . nothing heavy duty day in and out . . . which is why I always feel somewhat sorry for Helena Stoekley when I read about her life -:read: - and squalid death. Is there any word about the baby that was found with her decomposing body?

[Spamela]

Originally posted by audpaud


Tx for painting a beautiful "word picture" of 1970 for those not there to feel the love, bun!:patriot: Betcha no one at your eventual hub's parties EVER uttered the word "groovy!!!"

My recreational drug use didn't start til a few years later, but we were still listening to Dark Side of the Moon (and still are! LOL!) . . . my experiences mirrors yours somewhat--although lasted several years rather than months . . . nothing heavy duty day in and out . . . which is why I always feel somewhat sorry for Helena Stoekley when I read about her life -:read: - and squalid death. Is there any word about the baby that was found with her decomposing body?

I did not hit the age of majority until 8 years later--and we still had on Dark Side of the Moon! But less drug use...the age of Izod had arrived, and Nancy told us to just say "No".

[gmetzerious]

Originally posted by audpaud


Tx for painting a beautiful "word picture" of 1970 for those not there to feel the love, bun!:patriot: Betcha no one at your eventual hub's parties EVER uttered the word "groovy!!!"

My recreational drug use didn't start til a few years later, but we were still listening to Dark Side of the Moon (and still are! LOL!) . . . my experiences mirrors yours somewhat--although lasted several years rather than months . . . nothing heavy duty day in and out . . . which is why I always feel somewhat sorry for Helena Stoekley when I read about her life -:read: - and squalid death. Is there any word about the baby that was found with her decomposing body?

yes, he's alive, well, married and has a small baby himself.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by audpaud
Is there any word about the baby that was found with her decomposing body?
Helena had been dead for several days when her seven-month-old son, badly dehydrated but alive, was found soiled with his excrements and crawling beneath his crib not far from the couch where her body lay.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bunny2
[B]
Hey, audpaud, I turned 18 in the winter of 1970 and remember well all the white crosses and black beauties and Thai sticks and Purple Haze, windowpane, etc. that people were doing back then. I went around in my black wool knitted poncho, bell-bottoms, hair parted in the middle; ...
Wonderful post, Bunny! You can describe things so vividly, and although you and I have never met, I get that picture of you in your poncho and bell-bottoms, hair parted in the middle ... I was fifteen years old in 1970 and had similar clothes (and also a floppy hat and boots and felt 'ultra-cool' in them).

And wow, you were lucky to have survived your 'Acid Kawasaki-trip!'
I too have done pretty crazy and risky things in my adolescence which must have driven my poor guardian angel into working overtime ...
And it's somewhat ironic that now, many years later, my almost 18-year-old daughter complains that I'm being an overprotective worrywart who always points out possible dangers to her. But that's exactly why: been there, done that, and I vividly recall how I used to feel 'invulnerable' at that young age and didn't even consider the possibiliy that anything dangerous could happen to me, which today only makes me shake my head. Looking back, it was sheer luck that I had, emerging from all the things I did with no major harm done.

And aah, Pink Floyd! They were among the first music groups to have experimented with the electronic synthesizer. Their avantgardistic music has always been a class of its own, and listening to some of their songs today gives me exactly the same 'cosmic' feeling which I had back then. Your post made me play one of their CDs, and as I'm typing this, I'm listening to 'Shine on you Crazy Diamond' from their album 'Wish You Were Here'.

And, interesting coincidence, like you I also met my 'great guy' 31 years ago and we have been together ever since too. And guess what has always been one of his favorite music groups: PINK FLOYD! :)
We recently bought most of their albums as CDs, but your post reminded me that 'Dark Side of the Moon' is still missing in our collection!

Thanks for a great 'trip down memory lane', Bunny!

Back to Mac: that idiotic sentence 'Acid is Groovy' he concocted was to become one of the nails in his 'guilty' coffin.
"Groovy", lol. Just doesn't fit together with 'acid'. These words come from two different linguistic worlds with no common denominator.
One poster on another board said it best when pointing out that 'Acid is groovy' sounds like the Partridge family joining forces with the Manson family. :D

[cami]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Let's see...if they'd lived, Colette would have been 38 when Kim was 18. If my math is correct, if Kim had a child at 18, and if her child had had a child at age 18, by now Colette would have been a great-grandmother for the past 7 years! Can that be right? Hardly seems possible, does it.

Hey, audpaud, I turned 18 in the winter of 1970 and remember well all the white crosses and black beauties and Thai sticks and Purple Haze, windowpane, etc. that people were doing back then. I went around in my black wool knitted poncho, bell-bottoms, hair parted in the middle; bought candles and incense and visited head shops and thought I was cool like virtually everyone else, but unlike everyone else, I wouldn't dare to have tried any of that stuff. My dad was a drill instructor in the Marine Corps, later going on to join the AF, and it was too well-ingrained in me that if you stepped out of line even slightly, if you even breathed wrong, your life was over (at least where my dad was concerned!). Then about four years later, I met a great guy and began seeing him a lot, and every time I'd go over to his house down by the river, you could hear the Pink Floyd blaring away before you even got to the door, and when you opened the door, there'd be about 20 people partying, everyone from waitresses to Air Force jet pilots to other AF guys who repaired heart-lung machines on the base. A wild time, and since I wasn't living at home anymore by that time, I convinced myself that I was being a prude sitting there with my little Diet Coke while everyone else was slugging down Robin Hood ale, and I tried getting into the Thai sticks, the Purple Haze, etc. I stuck with it for five or six months but then had to be honest with myself and say, "This is just not me. I hate the taste of any kind of alcohol, I don't really want to spend the rest of my days watching the walls move on their own...I hate that horrible agitated feeling of speed, and not being in control..." When I found myself on the back of a Kawasaki motorcycle behind a guy I didn't know very well, going 126 mph down the freeway once (which is an experience that I not recommend you try if you're doing acid), I quit, right then and there and went back to my Diet Cokes and my books and my painting and knitting (yes, knitting; I liked it, so sue me).

Point of all that was that I wanted to let you know you're not alone and some of the rest of us also did a few of those drugs back then, and I'm in agreement with you that not only could six or more people on acid have carried out these murders in the dark and been skillful enough or lucky enough not to leave any evidence of themselves, but as that reporter said, people on acid couldn't organize a trip to the toilet, much less the murders of three people. Speed, though, is a different story, as you know. Even Stoeckley knew that, but I guess that's just another one of those things she said that Mac and his camp have chosen to ignore.

By the way, just FYI, my "great guy" and I are still together, 31 years later, and I still think Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is the best album ever, although part of my heart also belongs to Dave Matthews... :)

Ooooh thanks for the memories Bunny....I too was 18 when these crimes happened. I too had bell bottoms, a poncho and purple haze was definitely in my brain....LOL. We were hip...cool...a happening....

[stinkerbelle]

....sigh.....i missed that groovy acid trip called the 70s. well, not totally, but i was rather young to have indulged lol. i do recall vividly the horrid clothes i was forced to wear!

[byn63]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
....sigh.....i missed that groovy acid trip called the 70s. well, not totally, but i was rather young to have indulged lol. i do recall vividly the horrid clothes i was forced to wear!

If the clothes were so horrid, then how come the styles came back and many of them in neon! LOL! I was ultra cool in 1970, I was 6 almost 7. I had long blonde hair, wore floppy hats, mini-skirts and hotpants, hip huggers and bell bottoms and the knee-hi boots were a must in any wardrobe!

Pink Floyd - The Wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gmetzerious]

Originally posted by byn63


If the clothes were so horrid, then how come the styles came back and many of them in neon! LOL! I was ultra cool in 1970, I was 6 almost 7. I had long blonde hair, wore floppy hats, mini-skirts and hotpants, hip huggers and bell bottoms and the knee-hi boots were a must in any wardrobe!

Pink Floyd - The Wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Byn63 we must be close to the same age. Those knee high boots if I remember right were called go go boots. I was so disappointed when you could no longer buy them!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by byn63


If the clothes were so horrid, then how come the styles came back and many of them in neon! LOL! I was ultra cool in 1970, I was 6 almost 7. I had long blonde hair, wore floppy hats, mini-skirts and hotpants, hip huggers and bell bottoms and the knee-hi boots were a must in any wardrobe!

Pink Floyd - The Wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i seriously don't know why the most horrid fashion eras EVER (70s and 80s) have come back. i have even seen ppl wearing parachute pants! and this 70s thing shows no signs of stopping. i can't find jeans for either myself or my daughter that do not have flared legs (eww!). i do like platform shoes though, because it's nice feeling tall :D

as to the horrid clothes *i* remember wearing, we were quite poor. my grandmother made a lot of my clothes. probably 99% of them used plaid (loud loud plaid), polyester or a compination of both. the other 1% must have been hand-me-downs from someone...and that someone was a boy. :rolleyes: eventually my brother wore them too.

[weezer]

Originally posted by gmetzerious


Byn63 we must be close to the same age. Those knee high boots if I remember right were called go go boots. I was so disappointed when you could no longer buy them! but they had to be white and plastic!

[byn63]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

as to the horrid clothes *i* remember wearing, we were quite poor. my grandmother made a lot of my clothes. probably 99% of them used plaid (loud loud plaid), polyester or a compination of both. the other 1% must have been hand-me-downs from someone...and that someone was a boy. :rolleyes: eventually my brother wore them too.

I was lucky my hand-me-downs came from 2 older female cousins and an older sister. I remember one outfit, the pants were the superwide bell bottoms and made in a red and gold paisley print. The top was a vest of emerald green polyester with little ruffled caps of the paisley on the shoulders! Now, that was UGLY! LOL! but, I was "in fashion" and thank goodness no pictures exist of that outfit!
:lol:

[gmetzerious]

Originally posted by byn63


I was lucky my hand-me-downs came from 2 older female cousins and an older sister. I remember one outfit, the pants were the superwide bell bottoms and made in a red and gold paisley print. The top was a vest of emerald green polyester with little ruffled caps of the paisley on the shoulders! Now, that was UGLY! LOL! but, I was "in fashion" and thank goodness no pictures exist of that outfit!
:lol:
]
Yes, the old ELEPHANT EAR pants. lol

[Spamela]

As we are going down Nostalgia Lane, I was talking with office mates about strange childhood activities, like eating glue and spreading Elmer’s glue on your palm and peeling it off when it is dry. Did anyone melt paraffin was in a cup of hot water and then dip you finger in it repeatedly to make a wax cast? How do kids think of these strange things?

[cami]

Originally posted by gmetzerious


Byn63 we must be close to the same age. Those knee high boots if I remember right were called go go boots. I was so disappointed when you could no longer buy them!

Oh I loved my go go boots, I was wearing them in 1965...white with zippers up the back.

[cami]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
....sigh.....i missed that groovy acid trip called the 70s. well, not totally, but i was rather young to have indulged lol. i do recall vividly the horrid clothes i was forced to wear!

wow, I don't think the clothes were horrid. As a matter of fact, except for the go go boots, I am, once again, wearing 60's/70's style clothes...flared jeans, peasant blouses, platform shoes. Of course all the pants are made with some spandex now, LOL, that must be the polyester of jeans.

[cami]

Originally posted by gmetzerious

]
Yes, the old ELEPHANT EAR pants. lol

Yeah elephant pants, I could never wear those as I was too short. They look good on tall, long legged women. I did wear wide leg blue jeans though until about 1978 when straight legs came back in vogue....now the flares and elephants are back!!!! I liked stove pipe legs, I wore those in the mid to late 70's.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Spamela
As we are going down Nostalgia Lane, I was talking with office mates about strange childhood activities, like eating glue and spreading Elmer’s glue on your palm and peeling it off when it is dry. Did anyone melt paraffin was in a cup of hot water and then dip you finger in it repeatedly to make a wax cast? How do kids think of these strange things?

never played with paraffin (except to make a turtle once as a class project) but we definitely did the elmer's glue thing. we would put it on our fingertips or the back of our hands and try to get someone to believe we were pulling off our skin lol! ahh, to be young again :)

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by cami


wow, I don't think the clothes were horrid. As a matter of fact, except for the go go boots, I am, once again, wearing 60's/70's style clothes...flared jeans, peasant blouses, platform shoes. Of course all the pants are made with some spandex now, LOL, that must be the polyester of jeans.

trust me honey, the clothes i'm speaking of were horrid! to this day my aunt makes fun of what i wore as a child :(

and if it makes you feel any better, my flared-leg pants are all made with spandex too lol!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

you know how the game is played here. don't give us "many hairs," give us the evidence item numbers. as has been posted a zillion freaking times, the blood evidence had been consumed during the original investigation and reinvestigation. not to mention that mac's very own attorney chose the exhibits which were to be tested. give him a call and complain if you think it will make you feel any better.

yes. what's your point? you think this case is so amazing that this phenomenon is unheard of?

um no. bernie had the documentation, his expert had his chance at examining the evidence, nothing was hidden from them. being lazy is no excuse to come back later and cry foul. to my knowledge the prosecution has no duty to hand over an itemized list and outline showing how they plan to use their evidence.

as for the jury, evidence not presented at trial can't be termed as "hidden" and bernie certainly had a chance to present what he wanted. perhaps instead of all the time he spent gathering character witnesses, he should have focused on learning the nuts and bolts of the case.

i have to chuckle because you probably think you're making a great point here but um, just because you think it should be done or mac thinks it should be done, doesn't mean anyone important enough to actually make that decision thinks it should be done. if it were so, there'd have been such a hearing eons ago. the prosecution certainly would have no reason to perform additional testing on evidence that has already been used to convict a person, nor would they have any reason to request a hearing regarding such evidence. IMO judge fox agreed to DNA testing merely to shut mac up.

why is it you think this is so sinister? i'm curious as to why you think the prosecution choosing which evidence they should present is an anomaly? you really don't understand the concept of entering only what is needed to convict into evidence, rather than taking up the court's and jury's time with endless presentation of meaningless items?

pleading? :rolleyes: dude, post a quote of said pleading! why would they ask the court to disregard the DNA results when they show that mac's two favorite scapegoats were not donors and that the hair in colette's hand was mac's? and duh, the court has already seen all the crap about "hidden forensics" and affidavits of mitchell's supposed confessions numerous times and has summarily rejected such claims, so there's no reason for the prosecution to "plead" with the court to disregard them. technically they have already been "not recognized."

and do you not understand that all of your own message posting, misinformation and spinning of the known information will never change a thing about the case? if you think we are all stupid for posting here, all i gotta say is pot meet kettle. oh, and you might want to see a dentist; i doubt there's much room in your mouth for any more feet.

are you having a contest with yourself to see how many times you can post the exact same thing in one message? :shrug:

Excellent, Excellent Post SB! I love reading all of your Posts. They are so "right on!" :beer:

[seawolf4]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
....sigh.....i missed that groovy acid trip called the 70s. well, not totally, but i was rather young to have indulged lol. i do recall vividly the horrid clothes i was forced to wear!

Now Stinkerbelle those clothes were wonderful. However my sons still talk about the horrible clothes they had to wear, the winter coats they hid in the woods before getting on the school bus. Hey they were very nice, colorful, but nice. LOL

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Spamela
As we are going down Nostalgia Lane, I was talking with office mates about strange childhood activities, like eating glue and spreading Elmer’s glue on your palm and peeling it off when it is dry. Did anyone melt paraffin was in a cup of hot water and then dip you finger in it repeatedly to make a wax cast? How do kids think of these strange things?LOL! Never did the Elmer's glue thing, but definitely the paraffin one. One of the best, though, was sewing your fingers together. Needle and thread, stick it just at the edges of the nails where there's a tiny bit of sort-of-excess skin, and thread it on through, going from finger to finger, then go gross out your parents. Wasn't much fun ripping it out later, but still worth it. We were definitely easily amused when I was a kid.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
i seriously don't know why the most horrid fashion eras EVER (70s and 80s) have come back. i have even seen ppl wearing parachute pants! and this 70s thing shows no signs of stopping. i can't find jeans for either myself or my daughter that do not have flared legs (eww!). i do like platform shoes though, because it's nice feeling tall :DI loved flares; the best ones were the ones that started way up just under the knee and draped really softly. Others had a really "hard" flare, following the leg down and then suddenly mushrooming out in a really obvious way, and I hated those.

Also in 8th grade or so, got my first go-go boots. The originals didn't come to the knee, just halfway up. White plastic, can't remember if there was a zipper or not. All you had to do was put 'em on and boom, instant cool.

As for "groovy," that was part of my vocabulary for about ten minutes. It didn't sound "cool" even back then; I thought it just sounded stupid. And I guess I wasn't the only one who thought so, since "groovy" died out faster than just about any other slang I can think of.

Boy, I bet JTF is just sitting there looking at all this and thinking "sheesh, all this clothes stuff...are we ever going to talk about the case again?!" HA!! Never fear, JTF, we'll get back on track sooner or later. I've got some things stored up in my notes to talk about, but all in good time...

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
LOL! Never did the Elmer's glue thing, but definitely the paraffin one. One of the best, though, was sewing your fingers together. Needle and thread, stick it just at the edges of the nails where there's a tiny bit of sort-of-excess skin, and thread it on through, going from finger to finger, then go gross out your parents. Wasn't much fun ripping it out later, but still worth it. We were definitely easily amused when I was a kid.

i was sitting here reading this with my mouth opened in horror lol..then i remembered that i used to stick pins under the skin too...no "sewing" but i did do the pin thing. good grief, we were all little nutcakes! :D

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Excellent, Excellent Post SB! I love reading all of your Posts. They are so "right on!" :beer:

why thank you!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by seawolf4


Now Stinkerbelle those clothes were wonderful. However my sons still talk about the horrible clothes they had to wear, the winter coats they hid in the woods before getting on the school bus. Hey they were very nice, colorful, but nice. LOL

i never actually hid anything (was too worried i'd get my butt busted!) but i can relate lol!

[byn63]

Originally posted by Spamela
As we are going down Nostalgia Lane, I was talking with office mates about strange childhood activities, like eating glue and spreading Elmer’s glue on your palm and peeling it off when it is dry. Did anyone melt paraffin was in a cup of hot water and then dip you finger in it repeatedly to make a wax cast? How do kids think of these strange things?

Yup, did the parafin and water casts. Also, sniffed the papers the teacher handed out in class (what a quick high!), made artificial fingernails by pouring Elmer's into the groove of our rulers and letting it dry, then cutting out the "nails" and gluing them on. Made candles out of melted crayons, created "natural" dyes to do tie dying on campouts. At least we were never bored!

[byn63]

Originally posted by cami


Oh I loved my go go boots, I was wearing them in 1965...white with zippers up the back.

I had go-go boots too! The knee-high's were different but oh so cool! You wore the knee highs with the sizzler dresses and the hotpants for sure! The go-go boots could be worn with the mini-skirts or hotpants and of course the elephant ear pants!

Hey gmetz - I am 1 year and approx. 3 weeks older than Kimberly.

[gmetzerious]

Originally posted by byn63


I had go-go boots too! The knee-high's were different but oh so cool! You wore the knee highs with the sizzler dresses and the hotpants for sure! The go-go boots could be worn with the mini-skirts or hotpants and of course the elephant ear pants!

Hey gmetz - I am 1 year and approx. 3 weeks older than Kimberly.

Byn63 I am about 2-3 months older than Kimberley would be. Makes you sad to think about her not being able to get married, be a mother and a grandmother etc.

[byn63]

Originally posted by gmetzerious


Byn63 I am about 2-3 months older than Kimberley would be. Makes you sad to think about her not being able to get married, be a mother and a grandmother etc.

yes indeed it does! Kimberly is the reason I've gotten so into this case. All the special things that little girls of that time had available to them: dance classes, majorettes, Girl Scouts, etc. The butcher that took her life, took all that away too!

[Spamela]

Originally posted by Bunny2
LOL! Never did the Elmer's glue thing, but definitely the paraffin one. One of the best, though, was sewing your fingers together. Needle and thread, stick it just at the edges of the nails where there's a tiny bit of sort-of-excess skin, and thread it on through, going from finger to finger, then go gross out your parents. Wasn't much fun ripping it out later, but still worth it. We were definitely easily amused when I was a kid.

I never stitched my fingers together! I really feel deprived (as opposed to depraved). I did the straight pin thing, though, in the dead skin of the finger. Also, we gave sucker bites to the inside of our forearms. I did not know about neck hickies until I was much older (lived in a sheltered town).

[Spamela]

Originally posted by byn63


Yup, did the parafin and water casts. Also, sniffed the papers the teacher handed out in class (what a quick high!), made artificial fingernails by pouring Elmer's into the groove of our rulers and letting it dry, then cutting out the "nails" and gluing them on. Made candles out of melted crayons, created "natural" dyes to do tie dying on campouts. At least we were never bored!

Yes, in the olden days, before computer games!

[gmetzerious]

OH MY GOSH you guys bring back all the memories. lol I forgot about the elmers glue (skin), sewing your fingers up and wax casts. I did not do the fake nails though. Ahh those were the days

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
....sigh.....i missed that groovy acid trip called the 70s. well, not totally, but i was rather young to have indulged lol. i do recall vividly the horrid clothes i was forced to wear!

If you've ever seen "Absolutely Fabulous" on BBC America, picture Edina in some of the funky "hippy" clothes she wears, like polka dot bell bottoms where the bell starts at her knee, then she'll put an odd patterned vest over what looks like a tuxedo shirt with wide bell sleeves...and then she adds the go-go boots, floppy hats, pounds of jewelry. That's the look that was all the rage when my dad was stationed in Germany in the late sixties/70's, both in the American school on the bases, and off base anywhere the German kids hung out! I actually wore that kind of outfit, after all, I had to be "styling"!!!! When I became the parent of teenage daughters, I lost/destroyed/hid a lot of the photo's of me back then since I do have some self-respect, and think i'd have way too much trouble telling my daughters that they can't wear some of the outlandish things they want to wear when they can see I was just as bad as they are when it comes to the styles of the day!!!!! By the time I graduated HS back in the states, the style was more "bohemian" hippy....bell bottom jeans, long hair parted in the middle, and earth shoes!!! I love earth shoes they were/are wicked comfy!! I love memory lane.:D

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by byn63


If the clothes were so horrid, then how come the styles came back and many of them in neon! LOL! !



I've often wondered that myself!

[sturetroll]

He did it!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by sturetroll
He did it!

he sure did. welcome sturetroll :)

[byn63]

anyone read the Inmate's response to the Goverment in re: Motion to Vacate dtd May 2006?

I've been reading and making my notes and every time I do - I get this overwhelming mental image of the Elementary School playground. You know: "I did not" "You did too!" over and over again!:read:

[cami]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


i never actually hid anything (was too worried i'd get my butt busted!) but i can relate lol!

Ha Ha I sort of did that. When mini skirts first came in vogue, I was out of Catholic school, where we had to wear uniforms, ours were tunics with the white blouse and knee socks (we called them gimps, LOL), and into the public school system. Not being allowed to wear mini skirts, I used to hide mine under a long pleated skirt before I left the house for school. (couldn't let mum see that mini, LOL, or else).

[cami]

Originally posted by gmetzerious
OH MY GOSH you guys bring back all the memories. lol I forgot about the elmers glue (skin), sewing your fingers up and wax casts. I did not do the fake nails though. Ahh those were the days

Gosh I feel very deprived, we didn't do any of those things in Canada. I remember making "love beads" from apple seeds, stitching them together. Sure beat the heck out of your fingers.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by byn63
anyone read the Inmate's response to the Goverment in re: Motion to Vacate dtd May 2006?

I've been reading and making my notes and every time I do - I get this overwhelming mental image of the Elementary School playground. You know: "I did not" "You did too!" over and over again!:read:

haven't read it yet but now i guess i'll have to.....accompanied in my head by "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" lol!

[rashomon]

Bunny, I just got a message that you sent me a PM but my inbox was full. I've emptied it now. I sent you a PM too.

Rash

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by rashomon
Bunny, I just got a message that you sent me a PM but my inbox was full. I've emptied it now. I sent you a PM too.

Rash
Got it, Rash! And sent one back to you.

[byn63]

So, anyone read that response yet? What did you think?

[JTF]

Byn: If you're referring to the most recent response by Junkin and Miles, I found it to be sloppy, inaccurate, and rather weak. Stating that the government was merely rehashing the evidence presented at the 1979 trial as a means to prove the merits of your client's innocence, was flat-out laughable. This coming from the same defense team that repeats the same evidentiary items over and over again. Evidentiary items, mind you, that have been proven to have prosaic explanations. The defense is simply throwing small stones at the government's immense tank.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by byn63
So, anyone read that response yet? What did you think? Directly from my notes (I also posted most of this on another board awhile back):

p. 4: Just like in FJ, the defense skips completely over the fact that Mac told Sadoff the pajama top was ripped while he fought with intruders on the sofa, and they go directly to the hallway area. Then they quote the bits about Shaw seeing "bunch" or "pile" of fibers, but as was said in one of JTF's posts, "Robert Shaw wrote in his notes that he saw a number of blue fibers at the end of the hallway, he later told Peter Kearns that he saw a single, long blue fiber at that location, the CID lab notes state that there were 2 pajama fibers found at that location, and Stombaugh stated that there was 1 fiber found at the end of the hallway."

p. 4. They still want people to believe that the fibers got under victims, in the bedclothing, etc., when Mac was trying "desperately to revive" Colette and the children. Not only is there no conclusive evidence that Mac ever tried to revive anyone, but I see they don't mention the fibers on the club at all, nor the fibers under the headboard, nor do they explain how fibers became scattered all over the MB, nor do they explain the fibers/threads found tangled together under the throw rug, nor do they seem to have any explanation of how a fiber got under Kris's fingernail if she was not moving when Mac tried to "revive" her.

p. 4: "The government in its Response claims that the fact that the pocket of the pajama top was found separated from the pajama top, and the fact that the pocket was stained with both Colette and Kimberley's blood before it was torn away from the top refuted MacDonald's story that he placed the pajama top over his wife before he went to aid his children." The pajama pocket was not stained with Kimberley's blood. (Also see next entry).

p. 5: (emphasis added) "When he regained consciousness and rushed to aid his wife the pajama top was still bound around his wrists. His wife, of course, was covered in her own blood, and the bath mat on top of Colette was splattered with blood of Kimberley's blood type. A conclusion equally plausible with the government's theory is that Jeff MacDonald, upon finding his wife's bloody body in the master bedroom, and while removing the bath mat and trying to move Colette as he testified happened, at some point began trying to frantically unbind the pajama top that was wrapped around his wrists. As he was attempting to do this the pajama pocket could easily have been torn away from the top, but only after it had already come in contact with both Colette's blood which was all around her body, and blood of Kimberley's blood type which was on the bath mat covering Colette..."

In their zeal to show the government wrong, they seem to be claiming that blood from Kim was on the pocket before it was torn from the top. But Laber testified that all stains on the pocket were of Colette's blood type and stated definitively that none of them were of Kimberly's or Kristen's or MacDonald's type.

Also, the defense is saying here that Mac woke and found the towel already on Colette, but Mac told Caverly on Feb. 17 that he himself covered Colette with the bath mat (towel). Mac even also said at one other point something to the effect of "Either I put it there or a medic put it there (what, no "intruder" put it there?). And didn't the defense earlier try to say that the towel was definitely put there by an MP or medic...? So now the defense is having an "intruder" put the towel on Colette, so that Mac can wake up and find it there and get blood from it onto the pocket as he tries to "revive" Colette. Hogwash.

p. 5: “It is likely that Colette and Kristen were assaulted by intruders in two different rooms as the bloody fight ensued. They must have run or been moved from one room to the next. The blood splatterings, in fact, only proved where the victims were assaulted. They offer no proof of by whom the victims were assaulted.” NOTES: (1) There is no evidence whatsoever showing that Kristen had “run” or was moved from one room to another during or after the murders. (2) The defense describes Mac's so-called “wounds,” yet offers no proof of “by whom” Mac was assaulted; they offer nothing whatsoever to discount the idea of Colette having possibly inflicted the wounds.

p. 6: In essence, they're saying that the "speck" of Type O blood on the glasses could have been an intruder's. But then defense basically says if it wasn't an intruder's then maybe it came from a patient (an old argument). IMO, they are saying that since the spot isn't matched to any particular person, it's worthless. "So what does that blood speck prove? The fact is that it proves nothing—unless of course one engages in unfettered speculation." So it appears that the defense does admit that unsourced items are forensically useless.

p. 6: "And why would he deny that he owned an icepick?" Because he used the icepick to murder his family, that's why!

pp. 6-7: "The government claims that the word Pig written on the headboard in blood was written by someone wearing latex gloves, and that latex gloves were found in MacDonald's kitchen, thereby inculpating MacDonald in the crime. But these facts no more point to Jeff MacDonald as the murderer than they point to intruders as the murderers." But, dear defense team, combine that with the rest of the evidence, and it's a different story, isn't it? LOL!

p. 7: Defense states that the gloves in the kitchen were "readily available in the MacDonald kitchen..." They certainly were not, not according to my understanding anyway. Weren't they found under the kitchen sink in a cabinet, toward the back, behind a sack of potatoes and cleaning supplies, etc.? "Readily available"? Where do they get this stuff from?

p. 7: Even though defense has already stated that speck of Type O blood on glasses means nothing because it's unsourced, here they claim that "This unsourced wax is direct evidence of intruders consistent with MacDonald’s description of a female assailaint bearing a candle...fingerprints...and...palm prints...were lifted from the MacDonald home that investigators were unable to match...Again, this comprises physical evidence of strangers in the home." Same old defense standby, trying to have it both ways whenever they can.

p. 7: No notes from me on the wounds. I was too busy laughing.

p. 8: "...the two and a half inch long human hair with root and follicle intact found on the body of Colette MacDonald,..." I thought an earlier filing said this was 2¼ inches, not 2½...?

p. 9: "And Dr. Bronstein testified at trial [about Mac's "wounds"]..." But notice how the defense chose not to mention Bronstein and other doctors (and Newman) saying that Mac had no icepick wounds, anywhere.

p. 13: Reference to Posey and his testimony (who as it turned out had been lying at least about some of what he claimed) which said Stoeckley told him about the rocking horse, but wasn't it shown that a photo of the horse appeared in the newspaper on the morning of the murders...?

p. 13: Defense argues about horse, claims no photo shows it being broken, that it was in a position indicating no one could ride it. But I guess they forgot that Stoeckley said she did try to ride it and couldn't because one of the "wheels" was broken and it wouldn't roll. And where are her fingerprints if she did this?

p. 14: Footnote refers to Helena's "confession" (of course), but it appears that Gunderson was very firm in saying he didn't consider it to be a confession but only a statement.

I also didn't see any answer at all to the well documented fact that Wade Smith admitted that Stoeckley told the defense the same thing she told the prosecution and the jury. Is that not important somehow? I thought it was, but I guess not.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by byn63
So, anyone read that response yet? What did you think?
FWIW, my notes on the May 8, 2006 Exhibits 1-7 to Movant's Reply to Gov’t Response re: Motion to Vacate
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/def_2006-05-08_Reply_to_Govt_Response_exhibits01-07.pdf

p. 7: Nice of the defense to show how Mac wasn't hurt too seriously: "This is a well-developed, well-nourished male in moderate distress. Blood pressure -- 128/70. Pulse -- 88. HEENT -- swelling and hematoma in the midline on the forehead. Dried blood was around the mouth. Eyes -- pupils were round, regular and reactive to light and accomodation. Chest -- symmetrical; 1 cm stab wound in the 6th intercostal space [NOTE: on p. 9 it says "7th interspace"] in the midclavicular line; decreased breath sounds on the right; no rales or rhonchi. Abdomen -- several superficial lacerations, not extending into the subcutaneous tissue; also several small puncture wounds that may have been from an instrument, such as an ice pick. Abdomen was soft with no rebound. Bowel sounds were active. External genitalia -- within normal limits. Extremeties -- full range of motion."

p. 14: I'm admittedly being a bit sarcastic here, but I think Mac lied in the very first sentence of his May 1, 2006, declaration: "In August, 1979, in the case of U.S. v. MacDonald, I was wrongly convicted of the murders of my wife, Colette, and two children, Kimberley and Kristen."

p. 14: Mac's declaration: I realize that Mac's trying to say that Stoeckley was in the apartment but didn't admit it on the stand, but just so we have it from his own mouth that none of his team could get her to say this: "...despite the efforts of my legal team to get Stoeckley to tell the whole truth, Stoeckley never divulged that she had admitted to participating in the crimes to a deputy U.S. Marshal, or to prosecutor James Blackburn, or that prosecutor James Blackburn had threatened and intimidated her into changing her testimony and claiming amnesia as to her whereabouts on the night my family was murdered."

p. 14: More Mac lies: "Since the time of my trial and conviction, I have done everything in my power to continue to investigate the circumstances of the crime..." No, he didn't. Except for the superficial fake "effort" re: hiring Gunderson, he made no real effort at all to find the "real killers"; all efforts were directed only to getting him out of prison. Also, note that Mac cannot say he started investigating back in 1970 or anytime prior to trial; he has to admit that he didn't start any so-called "investigation" until after trial and conviction, and then the first date he talks about is 1982, 12 years after the murders.

p. 15: Again, Mac claims he had several people working diligently and trying everything to get Stoeckley to talk, but she "never divulged to anyone" anything about talking to Blackburn.

p. 15: Mac lies again! "These investigators [Gunderson, Beasley, Homer Young] working on my behalf were also directed to continue to investigate the crime and to follow all leads no matter how speculative, and they did so. In their efforts they interviewed many individuals with potential knowledge of the crime." Who?? Gunderson and Beasley never followed up on names Stoeckley gave them!

p. 15: Just a little note for my own information: Mac claims (implies?) Bost still works for him: "Fred Bost has remained as an investigator to the present time, and Jerry Potter remained until his death in 2004."

pp. 18-21: Contains excerpt from Shaw's trial testimony re: threads/fibers in the hallway. But how weird (or sloppy?) of defense! In the original transcript of Shaw's testimony, he mentions the "pile" just *before* where defense has started excerpting here. So despite their wanting to play up Shaw's observation of the "pile," they've left that out of this excerpt!

pp. 26-29: Considerate of the defense to include Newman's statement that the blood on Mac's face looked like he'd wiped it with his hands. So much for any claim that it came from Mac trying to "desperately" revive his family!

pp. 44-45: Also nice of the defense to include Gemma affirming that Mac never had a tension pneumothorax!

p. 46: Minor note: Gemma says he saw no evidence of "a hemothorax which would imply a significant amount of blood. This fluid that came out was blood-tinged. It does not take but a few drops of blood in the body fluids that sort of lubricate the lung surfaces to make the entire bottle of water rather bloody, but it was not an amount that concerned me that he had any undue bleeding more than might have been from the incision that I made to insert the chest tube."

p. 47: I love it. Defense shows Gemma's statement about Bronstein and the wound going into the fascia: "There is no record that this, in fact, is true."

pp. 62-63: More defense sloppiness (this is about the 3rd time I've spotted this kind of thing in various filings). Page 62 is the same as page 52, and page 63 is the same as page 53.

And just a couple of notes on the May 8, 2006 Exhibits 8-14 to Movant's Reply to Gov't Response re: Motion to Vacate. Not much here to even comment on.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/def_2006-05-08_Reply_to_Govt_Response_exhibits08-14.pdf

pp. 14-81: More sloppiness by defense, in the excerpt from Stombaugh's trial testimony: page 68 is the same as page 69, and pages 30 through 40 are identical to pages 71 through 81.

p. 97: Just a small FYI, about MacDonald admitting that the pajama top was not stationary during the "struggle": BLACKBURN: Well, did you ever, if you can recall, during this time, move the pajama top to the right or the left? MACDONALD: Did I ever during the struggle? BLACKBURN: Yes? MACDONALD: I'm sure I did. I had hold of a shirt one time. I had hold of a hand. There was movement during the struggle. I am sure it had moved. I did not hold this stationary.

[JTF]

Bunny: Tremendous job breaking down the motion point by point. It reminds me of what I used to do with Fatal Justice. It always gave me great satisfaction to list the page number, the quote, and then do my own little evidentiary demolition by using the documented record. The arguments by the MacDonald camp don't even hold up under basic scrutiny.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by JTF
Bunny: Tremendous job breaking down the motion point by point. It reminds me of what I used to do with Fatal Justice. It always gave me great satisfaction to list the page number, the quote, and then do my own little evidentiary demolition by using the documented record. The arguments by the MacDonald camp don't even hold up under basic scrutiny.

JTF. Praise from the master himself...be still, my beating heart...

LOL!

Hey, JTF, yep, I keep pretty detailed notes on most of the documents; didn't used to do that, but the last year or two I've been working hard at it. It's time-consuming for sure, but sure comes in handy, having that stuff at hand when I need to look something up.

The most time-consuming thing, of course, is editing out all the WTHs and the "I can't believe the defense is saying this!!" things out of my notes before I post them. ha!

:lol:

[JTF]

Bunny: Junkin and Miles are something else, but at least they are following in the fine tradition of cut and paste/duck and dodge masters such as Bernie Segal, Brian O'Neil, Phil Cormier, Fred Bost, and Jerry Allen Potter. I was also thinking the other day about Jimmy Britt's 27 year wait to clear his conscious and wondered why Bruce Fowler, Don Harris, or Dwight Smith haven't done the same? How about Kathy Smith and Diane Cazares? Amazing how the only characters, and I do mean characters, that come forward after all these years are the cursory players in this case.

JTF.

[JTF]

Bunny: I just got through reading Ray Shedlick's 30+ page ball of innuendo, distortions, and lies in the New Uploads. In my book, Shedlick showed his true colors in that document. He showed the world that he was nothing more than an investigative hack who couldn't shine Peter Kearns' shoes. Freddy Kassab said it best in his letter to Jeffrey Elliott when he stated that Shedlick's biggest claim to detective fame was chasing prostitutes.

JTF.

[byn63]

OOOOH! JTF I haven't read that yet. Guess it is now going to move up on the priority list! Yes, btw, that was the filing I was talking about. bunny did an excellent job of pointing out details - sloppy work by the defense!

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by JTF
I just got through reading Ray Shedlick's 30+ page ball of innuendo, distortions, and lies in the New Uploads. In my book, Shedlick showed his true colors in that document. He showed the world that he was nothing more than an investigative hack who couldn't shine Peter Kearns' shoes. Freddy Kassab said it best in his letter to Jeffrey Elliott when he stated that Shedlick's biggest claim to detective fame was chasing prostitutes.Originally posted by byn63
OOOOH! JTF I haven't read that yet. Guess it is now going to move up on the priority list! Yes, btw, that was the filing I was talking about. bunny did an excellent job of pointing out details - sloppy work by the defense!Byn, JTF's thoughts about that 30+ page document were right on target, IMO. I made so many notes about this "ball of innuendo, distortions, and lies" as I was reading it that I think it's one of the longest note-taking sessions I ever had.

There are way too many things to list here, but there's one in particular that made me think of you:

p. 23:

The "charge" is "How do you fall upstairs and around the corner?" The "fact"?: "Simple...you fall upstairs and around the corner." Wow, why didn't we think of that? :)

Nov. 1985: List of questions and MacDonald’s quotes sent to Fred Kassab from Jeff Elliot
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac_elliot_kassab_1985_p01.html

[stinkerbelle]

the new upload i got a kick out of is the one where mac is talking about fayetteville. he mentions colette's uneasiness, which started with her seeing the "home of the KKK" on the sign...and then goes on and on about himself, as usual. how colette tried to tell him about it but he brushed her off, eager to talk about himself and as usual, she dropped the subject so he could chatter about jumping out of planes and being a big man.

actually, he almost sounds insightful there, for a change. i'm sure it probably did happen, too, although i can imagine him saying, "what are you talking about? it's a stupid sign! now about me...."

the other one that had me actually chuckling is the one i posted about on A&E. i'll just copy my post from there over here...

i had to chuckle when reading this part:

"If you instead look at the details-as did Jerry Potter & Fred Bost-the details are even more astonishing. There is not a single exhibit or piece of evidence that says I committed murder. All the gov't evidence really proves is that I was in the house that night. Instead, the actual forensic evidence, when you blow away the gov't smoke screens, points directly to Helena Stoeckly & friends."

i'm still wondering which of helena &/or her friends wore the pj top when carrying colette in the bedsheet!

i am enjoying all these things written by mac so much more than boring lab reports lol!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2


Nov. 1985: List of questions and MacDonald’s quotes sent to Fred Kassab from Jeff Elliot
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac_elliot_kassab_1985_p01.html

ok, call me stupid but i'm not getting this......i know who elliot is, of course, but why did he send this thing to freddy?

i didn't take any notes (well, i never do lol) but do recall quite a bit of eye rolling when i read it :)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
the new upload i got a kick out of is the one where mac is talking about fayetteville. he mentions colette's uneasiness, which started with her seeing the "home of the KKK" on the sign...and then goes on and on about himself, as usual. how colette tried to tell him about it but he brushed her off, eager to talk about himself and as usual, she dropped the subject so he could chatter about jumping out of planes and being a big man.

actually, he almost sounds insightful there, for a change. i'm sure it probably did happen, too, although i can imagine him saying, "what are you talking about? it's a stupid sign! now about me...."Oh, yeah, it's always about him. I also agree with you that this description of coming to and leaving Fayetteville/Ft. Bragg does sound more insightful and believable than so much else we've seen from him. Of course I also keep in mind that these word-pictures of Colette were coming in 1994 (apparently) from the man who hit her in high school and later murdered her, and by then he'd already long ago "compartmentalized" Colette and the murders, and had told so many varying stories about so many different things that he couldn't even keep them straight anymore. “He'd say anything to anybody...”

For example, look at the difference between what he says here and what he told McGinniss on tape years earlier. Here's Mac in his "thoughts on Fort Bragg and Fayetteville, North Carolina" (emphasis mine):

"My wife, Colette, from the same town, accepted the first volunteering, that to pass directly into the Army post-internship. Medical school (4 years) and internship (1 year) are hard years, more difficult and trying if finances are tight - so why not volunteer, and perhaps get assigned to, say, Hawaii or Germany? She was so enamored with the two subsequent volunteering episodes, that of becoming a paratrooper, and then a Green Beret."

But as MacD told it on tape years earlier, she doesn't seem to be enamored about it at all (emphasis added):

"...I remember I called Colette later that night or the next day and sort of announced rather than asked that I'd been offered his chance to go airborne and go to paratrooper school and join the Green Berets.

"And I remember there was a little silence at the other end of the phone. My mom was there at the other end, too, I believe. She was with Colette or Colette came next door to see my mom as soon as I called. In any case, I remember there was a little silence and then Colette's next question was, "Well, why in the world would you want to jump out of airplanes and be a Green Beret?"

"And I must have been a little, you know, excited or up about it, but I was very enthusiastic and told her that they were the best troops in the world and we'd learn different things as well as doing the medical work-we would learn patrolling and long-range reconnaissance and jumping out of airplanes and demolitions and small weapons fire and all this stuff. And I explained to her how, instead of wasting two years in a sick-call line treating not very sick people, this way I had a chance to work with these incredible troops and if I went to Vietnam I might even go as a Green Beret physician.

"Colette was uncomfortable about my becoming a Green Beret but she also respected me, you know, for making a firm decision-and she sort of, you know, she put her faith and her trust in me."

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


ok, call me stupid but i'm not getting this......i know who elliot is, of course, but why did he send this thing to freddy?

i didn't take any notes (well, i never do lol) but do recall quite a bit of eye rolling when i read it :) Best as I can figure, this was apparently Elliot's way of conducting research for his Playboy article. There are a few other new uploads having to do with the same article. Freddy didn't seem too happy about the way Elliot was doing things, and from what I've seen can't say I blame him:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab_elliot_1985-11-15.html

[byn63]

I have been reading and making notes on the Elliot questions - rolling eyes is indeed one extreme side effect. I've been taking it in small sections just to keep from sending my blood pressure soaring.

I get incredibly irritated by quotes from ol Inmate! Every other word seems to be "you know" or "like, you know" and I just want to scream at him: "No, I don't KNOW, otherwise what would be the point of you telling me!".

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Best as I can figure, this was apparently Elliot's way of conducting research for his Playboy article. There are a few other new uploads having to do with the same article. Freddy didn't seem too happy about the way Elliot was doing things, and from what I've seen can't say I blame him:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab_elliot_1985-11-15.html

thanks. that's what i figured, but wasn't sure if i was right or if elliot just decided for kicks n grins to send it to freddy (being a jerk) or what. i haven't read the playboy article so i didn't know whether freddy was quoted in it or not.

interesting how he changed yet another story (although not related to the case), eh? i remember all that, now that you mention it. i SO wish colette were here to defend all his "oh she thought i was the greatest thing since sliced bread" comments! (among other reasons, of course!)

[stinkerbelle]

i'm sitting here unable to sleep at 2:25 a.m., reading Col. Rock's report on the article 32. i'm actually reading the transcribed portion, rather than trying to make my tired eyes decipher the scans :)

anywho, i just found a rather laughable portion IMO. rock states that

There is, generally speaking, a logical explanation for the location of blood types where found.

linky (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article-32_rock_1970-10-13.html)

#6 under reasoning for recommendations, letter C.

the bedding, i believe had not yet been analyzed; had it been, i don't think we'd see that particular statement ;) but even so, the blood types as found might have a logical explanation, but what is his logical explanation for blood that wasn't found, i.e. icepickbabykiller's blood in the living room??

perhaps he does say something about that further down; as soon as i read the quoted portion i had to come post :)

anyone else have any other thoughts?

[byn63]

stinker - I always get the feeling that Col. Rock wanted so badly to believe that Inmate was innocent, that he just tuned out any evidence that pointed to his guilt. Everytime I read any of his statements, that same feeling comes forward. I agree with you that I wondered why he never questioned the lack of Inmate's blood in places that it should have been if his inane story were even partially truthful. anyway - that is what I think.
:seeya:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by byn63
stinker - I always get the feeling that Col. Rock wanted so badly to believe that Inmate was innocent, that he just tuned out any evidence that pointed to his guilt. Everytime I read any of his statements, that same feeling comes forward. I agree with you that I wondered why he never questioned the lack of Inmate's blood in places that it should have been if his inane story were even partially truthful. anyway - that is what I think.
:seeya:

i agree byn....i read the rest of his recommendations last nite and he seemed quite desperate at times to show mac's innocence. of course, stupid me didn't make any notes:rolleyes: so i can't share them with you right now, but he made some pretty long reaches. one i remember is the wax from a "multi-colored" candle that could support his story of the woman holding the candle.

again, i realize a large portion of the evidence hadn't been analyzed, or at least not to the degree it was by 1979, but reading that just left me shaking my head.

one thing i did notice though....we have always talked about rock overstepping his bounds; he should have checked the box and moved on. well, there is a box to check; however it states that if the person checks "no" then they should provide their recommendations on a separate sheet. i don't recall which page it is, but it's part of the scanned portion and right near the bottom of the page.

[stinkerbelle]

ETA: i tried editing my above message to include the link but couldn't.

link (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article-32_rock_1970-10-13_p03.html)

bottom of page 3, #15.

and while i'm here, another tidbit:

this is also under recommendations, #7 under C (ha, right after the one i posted about earlier; i guess i should have kept reading lol!)

After listening to the lengthy testimony of the accused in the hearing room and closely observing his actions and manner of answering questions it is the opinion of the Investigating Officer that he was telling the truth.

the only times i have seen mac on tv have been after the verdict, of course, but i sure don't get that vibe from him. perhaps in person he's able to pull it off better? :confused:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


ok, call me stupid but i'm not getting this......i know who elliot is, of course, but why did he send this thing to freddy?

i didn't take any notes (well, i never do lol) but do recall quite a bit of eye rolling when i read it :)

i finally read the supporting documents last nite (letter from elliot to freddy and then freddy's memo); what i get from reading is that elliot was trying to give freddy the chance to rebut? except instead of answers from mac, they were answers from shedlick?

is the article online?

[JTF]

Rock was clueless when it came to the forensics in this case. There is no way to innocently explain Colette's blood on top of Kristen's bed, on Kristen's wall, and in the formation of a bloody footprint exiting Kristen's room.

JTF.

[JTF]

It's important to note that Jeffrey Elliott was in the process of writing a book on the MacDonald case and that the slant was going to be that MacDonald did not receive a fair trial. He processed that information with Janet Malcolm for her book on the MacDonald/McGinniss civil case. Elliott's book project fell through and it is now clear that he was not seeking the truth during his "research" for the Playboy interview.

JTF.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by JTF
It's important to note that Jeffrey Elliott was in the process of writing a book on the MacDonald case and that the slant was going to be that MacDonald did not receive a fair trial. He processed that information with Janet Malcolm for her book on the MacDonald/McGinniss civil case. Elliott's book project fell through and it is now clear that he was not seeking the truth during his "research" for the Playboy interview.

JTF.

is anyone writing on mac's behalf actually seeking the truth? :tongue:

thanks for the info!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by JTF
Rock was clueless when it came to the forensics in this case. There is no way to innocently explain Colette's blood on top of Kristen's bed, on Kristen's wall, and in the formation of a bloody footprint exiting Kristen's room.

JTF.

what i took rock's comment to mean was that (using your examples) no matter who killed colette, if she were attacked in kristen's room, it's not weird her blood would be on the bed and wall. and actually i agree. just because she was "found" by mac in the mb doesn't mean anything in terms of who killed her; the blood just proves that she was bleeding in kristen's room.

as for the footprint, it in itself wouldn't be an odd finding, except for the fact that none of colette's blood was on the floor. [still wondering about that large rug on the floor; was any of her blood found on it?] i think maybe he added that "generally speaking" to cover his butt, because the footprint isn't something that could be explained away.

rock didn't seem too impressed with the abilities of any of the investigators or lab techs, so i wouldn't be surprised if he, too, wondered if the CID could even type blood correctly.

[JTF]

This is the same Colonel Rock that went to the crime scene with Franz Grebner, ordered Grebner to stand in silence as he tipped over the table in the living room without looking at the crime scene photographs, and feeling satisfied when the table remained on its side. Please. Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw tipped over the table 20+ times and used the crime scene photographs to position the table/chair in the correct manner. Every single trial run ended with the table tipping completely over. Rock knew this, but didn't seem to really care nor did he care about the fact that there were no bloody shoeprints found at the crime scene. Rock's decision-making during the Article 32 proceedings left much to be desired and even Bost/Potter mentioned that a majority of Fort Bragg officials were upset with his performance.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
[still wondering about that large rug on the floor; was any of her blood found on it?] Nope; only Kris's type O.

A search for "rug" or "carpet" in the CID transcripts pulled up a lot of exhibits, but only four have to do with the rug in Kris's room:

Two are D-36NB (green yarn bearing red-brown stains from rug in north bedroom) and D-37NB (green throw rug bearing red-brown stains from north bedroom). The sum of the findings for those two exhibits was: Examinations of the red-brown stains of Exhibits D-212, D-36NB, D-37NB, D-43NB, D-48NB, D-49NB, D-50NB, D-55NB, D-62NB, D-65NB and D-68NB revealed the presence of human blood of the International Blood Group Type O.

The only other exhibits I can find in the CID transcripts having to do with this rug are H-35NB (yellow and white particles from northwest corner of throw rug in north bedroom) and H-47NB (white powder from near northeast corner of rug in north bedroom). The findings on those two exhibits were: Examination of Exhibits D-245, H-35NB, H-38NB, H-44NB, H-45NB, H-46NB, H-47NB, H-54NB and H-73MBR did not reveal the presence of sufficient powder residues for chemical comparison.

[stinkerbelle]

thanks mucho for that info bunny!! there are always posts about none of colette's blood on the floor, but until i was looking at some of the crime scene photos i guess i never realized that big ole rug was there, so it had me wondering. :)

[JTF]

Crabman: The best verbal tidbit from MacDonald on the A&E special is when he states that the phone call to Freddy Kassab was, "impulsive." That claim, of course, is laughable for he told Bob Stern that same story (i.e., MacDonald and some green beret buddies tracked down and killed one of the Stoeckley group) 3 months prior to the Kassab phone call.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

Has anyone read the book "Scales of Justice:The Jeffrey MacDonald Story"by Christina Masewicz? I have tried to find it via Amazon and so forth without success. Anyone know where I can find a copy? Have opinions of the book? Her web site is most informative and thorough. Your help much appreciated.

I would also be interested in anyones theory regarding why MacDonald lied about which of his daughters actually wet the bed.

And does anyone think there is evidence to suggest that MacDonald called his commanding officer that night Col.Kane intending to confess and then changed his mind? Was his phone number actually written on the club?

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Lanna89
[B]*snip*

Has anyone read the book "Scales of Justice:The Jeffrey MacDonald Story"by Christina Masewicz? I have tried to find it via Amazon and so forth without success. Anyone know where I can find a copy?

I haven't read the book, but here is a link to find it. Good luck!

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Scales_Of_Justice_The_Jeffrey_Macdonald_Story/1418471232/

[JTF]

Lanna: There have been a number of theories floated about for why he claims that it was Kristen, not Kimberly, who wet the bed. Freddy Kassab believed that MacDonald was molesting Kimberly, but I'm of the opinion that if Kristen had been struck with the club near the entrance to the master bedroom, MacDonald would have claimed that Kimberly wet the bed. It was readily apparant during the April 6th CID interview that MacDonald was surprised that Ivory, Grebner, Shaw knew that Kimberly was struck with the club in the master bedroom and then transported back to her bed. MacDonald was clearly hoping that he staged the scene in a manner suggesting that the children were murdered in their beds. In terms of the writing on the club, there was a phone number written in pencil that was later found to be that of the Kanes. Mrs. Kane told the CID in 1971 that an unknown male called her around 3:30 in the morning on February 17th, but claimed that she had no recall of the content of the phone call. Most people familiar with this case don't believe that for a second. Investigators had a strong suspicion that MacDonald and Mrs. Kane had an affair.

JTF.

[stinkerbelle]

welcome lanna! :)

[Lanna89]

Thank you for the information. Hard to believe that Christina's book didn't generate more interest by major publishers. Especially since she seems to have such a good understanding of the case. As far as I can tell her book is unavailable except from someone in the UK. I understand she published it independantly and the focus was going to be the victims and the discrepancies in Mac's story.MacDonald tries so hard to make it all about him. I would happily pay to read more indepth about Colette,Kim & Kristin.Since he is a confirmed liar to me anything Mac says is supect.I always ask myself if the the opposite could be true.Or if he is again embellishing his story to draw attention to suspects other than him. The conversation that he alledges took place as he and Colette first entered NC is a good example. It seems like to me he is trying by that story to cast a pall of suspicion based on the racism of that era. Just as he used the drug culture and the Manson crimes to shift attention away from himself. More smoke and mirrors.

I had no idea he was suspected of having had an affair with Mrs.Kane. But to write their number on the murder weapon?How bizarre. It makes you wonder if he was calling to speak with her or her husband. Was the affair confirmed by Mrs. Kane?

I too find Freddy Kassabs theory of Colette walking in on a molestation of Kim hard to believe. Mac would have had to be awfully brazen to do that with Colette right in the next room.But it's possible. I think that a violent argument sparked by the bed wetting and Colette's frustration with his extra-marital affairs is more plausible.It could have been a combination of factors.Including the fact that Colette sought advice that conflicted with Mac's about how to handle the bedwetting.That probably infuriated him.

Thanks again for the responses. If anyone runs across a copy of Christina's book they would like to sell I'd appreciate your letting me know.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
Lanna: There have been a number of theories floated about for why he claims that it was Kristen, not Kimberly, who wet the bed. Freddy Kassab believed that MacDonald was molesting Kimberly, but I'm of the opinion that if Kristen had been struck with the club near the entrance to the master bedroom, MacDonald would have claimed that Kimberly wet the bed. It was readily apparant during the April 6th CID interview that MacDonald was surprised that Ivory, Grebner, Shaw knew that Kimberly was struck with the club in the master bedroom and then transported back to her bed. MacDonald was clearly hoping that he staged the scene in a manner suggesting that the children were murdered in their beds. In terms of the writing on the club, there was a phone number written in pencil that was later found to be that of the Kanes. Mrs. Kane told the CID in 1971 that an unknown male called her around 3:30 in the morning on February 17th, but claimed that she had no recall of the content of the phone call. Most people familiar with this case don't believe that for a second. Investigators had a strong suspicion that MacDonald and Mrs. Kane had an affair.

One of the highlights in the April 6th interview is indeed MacDonald's treacherous reaction when he realized the investigators had found out that Kim was injured in the master bedroom. His flustered response shows that he was obviously totally taken by surprise (FV, p. 129):

"So - geez - that's the first time I heard that. I - I didn't - I hadn't heard anything about - about Kimberly's being injured in the master bedroom. Umph." There was a long pause.

Yes, Jeffieboy, these guys were "more thorough than you thought", as you later had to admit.

Re Mrs. Kane: hard to believe that she couldn't remember what was said to her in a phone call at such an unusual hour. Even if MacD had only talked incoherent things, she could have told the investigators that. But to claim no recall of the conversation - I don't buy that. It seems that Mrs. Kane did not want to get involved because she didn't want her affair with MacD to become public.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Lanna89

I had no idea he was suspected of having had an affair with Mrs.Kane. But to write their number on the murder weapon?How bizarre. It makes you wonder if he was calling to speak with her or her husband. Was the affair confirmed by Mrs. Kane?

Lanna (welcome btw!): I don't think Mrs. Kane was ever asked point-blank if she had an affair with MacD, but her reluctance to 'remember' the content of the phone conversation at 3.30 am on Feb 17 imo suggests that she did not want to get involved for fear of their affair being made public in the course of the investigation.
MacDonald also had an affair with another Colonel's wife: Josephine Kingston. If you read between the lines in Fatal Vision, there is no doubt about that. Col. Kingston was already away in Vietnam, and MacDonald went to see Jo Kingston many times at her house, and they, according to Mrs Kingston "just talked". LOL! As if MacDonald had ever gone to see a woman he found attractive to 'just talk' to her. The Valentine card with the kissing lips Mrs. Kingston sent to MacDonald just about completes the picture.
I too find Freddy Kassabs theory of Colette walking in on a molestation of Kim hard to believe. Mac would have had to be awfully brazen to do that with Colette right in the next room.But it's possible. I think that a violent argument sparked by the bed wetting and Colette's frustration with his extra-marital affairs is more plausible.It could have been a combination of factors.Including the fact that Colette sought advice that conflicted with Mac's about how to handle the bedwetting.That probably infuriated him.
Just my opinion too, Lanna. I also think it was a combinationof factors. I do think the wet bed on his side played a role because he used it as an element in his story, a liar weaving some truth into his fabrication. If for example, Kim had wet the bed out of fright because she saw the fight between her parents, I doubt MacD would have noticed that at all later in all that chaos.
But I think the wet bed was not the sole reason for the fight, it was some kind of trigger, the final straw which pushed MacD over the edge. He was overworked and sleep-deprived, ingesting amphetamines, a third child was on the way where he would feel tied down even more, Colette's frustration with his cheatings and with his alleged trip to 'Russia'; possible sexual frustration on his part (there is a passage in FV which suggests he probably made advances to her on that night; maybe she rebuffed him) - all these things could have added up.

[Deb B]

I don't know that Mrs. Kane's not remembering the details shows she's being evasive because she had an affair with him. She says she doesn't recall the details due to her sleepy state. That meshes with my experience with late night phone calls - I barely remember that I even got a phone call.

Also, she sure doesn't sound very enamored with him, like a lot of women were who he had affairs with - she sounds like she thinks he did it and that his lawyers used legal trickery to get him off (referring to the Article 32).

[Lanna89]

The question of why MacDonald called Col.Kanes home on the night of the murder is I think going to always remain one of the dark areas of this case. I certainly would not put it past MacDonald to have had an affair with her.He seems to have slept with practically anything that slowed down long enough for him to jump it.It was in my opinion part of his prolonged emotional abuse of Colette. And Col Kanes wifes(and I use that term loosely) reticence to reveal that would not be suprising.Her husband is fighting in Vietnam and she sleeps with MacDonald. Then suddenly she is thrust into the heart of a legal investigation by the CID of a triple homicide!! Yikes! Talk about getting your hand caught in the cookie jar.No will ever know because she isn't talking but it certainly looks,walks and quacks like a duck.MacDonald resented Colette and practically flaunted his affairs in her face.I'm sure that created a lot of tension in that marriage.It probably wouldn't have taken much to spark a violent fight. Like MacDonald coming to bed and demanding rudely that Colette go sleep on the couch or change the sheets immediately.The issue was bothering Colette enough to consult her Child Psychology professor about it earlier in the evening. He pushes her out of bed.She whacks him on the forehead with her hairbrush on the nightstand and the fight is on.

It's purely speculation on my part but I think Colette was shocked that MacDonald became as violent as he did. I don't think she saw it coming. When you love someone it is so inconcievable that they would try to kill you. Even if you know they are capable of being violent.I certainly think the amphetamines played a part in things spirally out of control rapidly.

What bothers me most about this case are the unanswered questions. I wonder about how much Kristin saw and heard before she died. We know Kimberly saw and heard a lot. Was Kristin lying in bed terrified listening to the fight and then witnessing her Mothers attack in her bedroom? Only to have her Father turn on her next?

MacDonald thought he got away with his crime. That is why he talked incessantly about it. I think it was a form of bragging. If Freddy Kassab hadn't gone after him relentlessly he would proably still be out there. Remarried with a new family. A ticking timebomb. It's not unusual for these guys to get away with murder one time and then kill a second wife when she becomes inconvienent. I wonder if he would have done it again.

[Deb B]

I think it's really unfair to her to claim that she and MacDonald had an affair and make commentary about her as a wife. There is nothing to back up that they had an affair (e.g., valentine with lipstick kisses).

He screwed around, no doubt about that. That may have been commonly known around the base. Some women (myself included!) actually don't like men who screw around on their spouses and think disparagingly of them. That may be the case with her - hence that she sounds decidedly unenamored by him in her statement.

Like I said before, I don't think it's unusual that she didn't remember the content of the call - in fact, I think that would be usual when a call is received that wakes someone from a sound sleep. It's usual for me.

[Lanna89]

Deb: It's not my intention to unfairly accuse anyone of anything. I'm purely speculating on some things that don't seem to add up.For instance why was MacDonald calling Col.Kanes residence at 3am immediately after the murder? To confess? To seek advice? To talk to Mrs. Kane? It's an unanswered question and a strange one. Why after being brutally attacked in your home by an alledged band of drug crazed murderous hippies who have just slaughtered your entire family do you call your commanding officers residence?Much less scrawl his phone number on the murder weapon? I don't know anything more than anyone else about whether he and Col.Kanes wife were having an affair. But we know that he had multiple extra-martial afftairs during his marriage and even after he was accused of the murders and under guard he didn't curtail his sexual exploits.And if he was having an affair with Col.Kanes wife she would certainly have had a motive for not disclosing it.

[JTF]

Common sense dictates that MacDonald and Mrs. Kane had an intimate relationship. You don't cover for a family murderer if he is merely an acquaintance. Mrs. Kane also stated to the CID that MacDonald's lawyers basically pulled the wool over Colonel Rock's eyes at the Article 32 hearing. Why in the world would she offer up that little tidbit, especially when you consider that MacDonald worshipped her husband? MacDonald's appetites were prodigious, so it would be more surprising if he DIDN'T have an affair with Mrs. Kane. The CID discovered that MacDonald had sex with 7 different women during his marriage and that he had a sexual relationship during the Article 32 hearing. These numbers don't even include Mrs. Kane, Mrs. Kingston, Carol Larsen, and a 19 year old girl who lived a few houses down from MacDonald. Newsday reporter Bob Keeler, provided a great line to Janet Malcolm when he stated, "Jeff's penis should be in the Smithsonian."

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF, I agree with you completely but I would hate to characterize MacDonald as some kind of irresistable casanova. I think he'd enjoy that analogy to much. I think he was sexually voracious to compensate for his other dramatic shortcomings as a man. He is someone completely lacking in self control,character and conscience. He emotionally abused Colette and in my opinion was probably also physically abusive to her. Since rarely does someone out of the blue commit a triple homicide without some progession of violence coming before. Instead of the Smithsonian I think the Mutter Museum of odd medical specimens would fit his genitalia better. In any case he is old now and can no longer use his deteriorating looks to charm women. What a shock that must be.Since he has always hidden his true self behind that facade. His endless womanizing amounts to nothing more than horrendous emotional abuse he heaped on Colette before her death.He has always claimed she never knew.But she knew all about it and he knew she knew.I often wonder if she didn't suffer more from that than from the club and knife he wielded in her last moments.

[JTF]

Lanna: Unfortunately, this 62 year old psychopath still attracts women to his fold. Despite being married, he continues to correspond with women through the mail, and several female reporters still seem to be taken by whatever he has left in the charisma bank. For example, Wall Street Journal reporter Laurie Cohen, began writing pro-MacDonald articles in the mid-90's and she continues to troll out pro-MacDonald "news." I e-mailed her recently after reading her December 05 article on the Britt issue. She has yet to respond. Considering that I accused her of "huddling up with a psychopath," her non-response does not surprise me in the least.

JTF.

[rashomon]

And Col Kanes wifes(and I use that term loosely) reticence to reveal that would not be suprising.Her husband is fighting in Vietnam and she sleeps with MacDonald. Then suddenly she is thrust into the heart of a legal investigation by the CID of a triple homicide!!

Originally posted by Deb B
I think it's really unfair to her to claim that she and MacDonald had an affair and make commentary about her as a wife. There is nothing to back up that they had an affair (e.g., valentine with lipstick kisses).

The woman who sent MacD the Valentine card, and whose husband was away in Vietnam was not Mrs. Kane, but another colonel's wife: Mrs. Josephine Kingston. And if one reads between the lines in FV, I think there is no doubt at all that she and MacDonald were having an affair.

The first time I heard about the other colonel's wife, Mrs. Kane, was on the MacD forums. If memory serves, McGinniss doesn't mention her in FV.

But if, like a very reliable poster (JTF) wrote, the investigators strongly suspected an affair between Mrs. Kane and JMD, they may have had their reasons.

[Lanna89]

JTF,Rashomon: It doesn't suprise me at all that MacDonald is still trying to charm female members of the press.That would be to his advantage wouldn't it?He may be a psychopath but he's not a dummy.And apparently he is still able to wield a charming facade.Of course so did the snake in the garden of Eden.And I would sooner cuddle up with the snake than with him.Are you suprised by the postive spin the Court TV crime library puts on implying MacDonalds innocence?

Lanna

[Deb B]

Originally posted by rashomon



The woman who sent MacD the Valentine card, and whose husband was away in Vietnam was not Mrs. Kane, but another colonel's wife: Mrs. Josephine Kingston. And if one reads between the lines in FV, I think there is no doubt at all that she and MacDonald were having an affair.

The first time I heard about the other colonel's wife, Mrs. Kane, was on the MacD forums. If memory serves, McGinniss doesn't mention her in FV.

But if, like a very reliable poster (JTF) wrote, the investigators strongly suspected an affair between Mrs. Kane and JMD, they may have had their reasons.

I am aware of the difference between Mrs. Kane and Mrs. Kingston. My point was what is there to back up suspicions that Mrs. Kane and MacDonald had an affair? There is stuff that backs up suspicions of an affair between Mrs. Kingston and MacDonald, such as the Valentine covered with lipstick kisses, and Joan Didion article sent by Mrs. Kingston to MacDonald, and her statement about the fair amount of personal contact between them.

For me, that she didn't remember the content of a phone call she received in the middle of the night when she was sleeping and that she didn't recognize the likely incoherent voice of someone who she said she had met once or twice doesn't do it.

[JTF]

Lanna: I suspect that the author of the MacDonald case material on the Crime Library website is a MacDonald camp member, possibly Fred Bost.

Deb: Granted, the argument for MacDonald having an affair with Mrs. Kane is not airtight, but there are several things which point in that direction.

1) MacDonald's history of bedding women within the framework of an unusual and/or risky scenario. In 1963, he is caught having sex with a secretary on her desk, an incident which cost that secretary her job at a construction company. He has sex several times with a woman while under house arrest and during a time when his freedom is on the line (i.e., Article 32 hearing). He is having sex with a 19 year old girl who only lives a few houses down the street. He is having an intimate relationship with another Colonel's wife, while making no secret of the fact that he finds the daughter of the Colonel's wife attractive. He has sex with one of his wife's bridesmaids the evening of his wife's wedding shower.

2) What are the odds that MacDonald murders his family, one of the murder weapons has the phone number of Mrs. Kane written on it, he calls that number approximately 15 minutes before calling dispatch, and that Mrs. Kane has no idea who the caller was nor does she remember the nature of their conversation? Makes about as much sense as Mrs. Kane stating to the CID that MacDonald's lawyers were pulling the wool over Colonel Rock's eyes, while claiming that she barely knew MacDonald.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF: I agree that based on what we know Mrs. Kane didn't appear to be exactly open,honest and forthright with respect to her relationship with MacDonald.There is no ironclad evidence to prove they had an affair but the circumstanstial evidence seems to support that they did.Whether she actually remembered a middle of night phone call by him is perhaps debatable.But that MacDonald chose to call her residence on the night of the crime instead of calling MP's first says a lot.Both about their relationship to each other and also about the lack of fear present in Macdonald.He was not in any hurry to get the MP's there that night.Because of course there were no murderous hippies.Just as he saw no need to turn on any lights to apply first aide.

I don't even think we really know how long after he committed the crimes that he really called the MP's. I think he may have waited a while after killing them for them to die.

[JTF]

Lanna: The following is from the CID Reinvestigation Report.

Mrs. Joan T. Kane, wife of the former Commanding Officer of Jeffrey MacDonald, executed a written statement wherein she discussed certain details of a telephone call she received at her residence at about 0320-0330, 17 Feb 70. She said the caller was a male but she could not identify his voice or recall his conversation due to her sleepy state. Criminal investigator Thomas P. Temple furnished an Investigator's Statement regarding his interview of Mrs. Kane. Temple reports that according to Mrs. Kane she only met Jeffrey MacDonald on one or two occasions and, in her opinion, his lawyers used legal trickery and deception in defending him.

Hmmmmmm.

Justthefacts.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by JTF
Lanna: The following is from the CID Reinvestigation Report.

Mrs. Joan T. Kane, wife of the former Commanding Officer of Jeffrey MacDonald, executed a written statement wherein she discussed certain details of a telephone call she received at her residence at about 0320-0330, 17 Feb 70. She said the caller was a male but she could not identify his voice or recall his conversation due to her sleepy state. Criminal investigator Thomas P. Temple furnished an Investigator's Statement regarding his interview of Mrs. Kane. Temple reports that according to Mrs. Kane she only met Jeffrey MacDonald on one or two occasions and, in her opinion, his lawyers used legal trickery and deception in defending him.

Hmmmmmm.

Justthefacts.

Me thinks that Mrs. Kane was just "covering her azz!" Her husband is over in Viet Nam and she's at home here having an affair with JM? Sorry, but I don't find her credible at all!

JMO and MOO!!

:rose: For Collette, the Girls and Baby Boy MacDonald :rose:

[Lanna89]

JTF:There is really no doubt in my mind that MacDonald and Mrs. Kane had an affair. Based on his history of promiscuity and her lack of candor. I will even take it a step further and speculate on whether in his call to her residence on the night of the murders he may have confessed to her what he'd done. Her comment to investigators was strange. Why is she so sure he is guilty and that he will be let off the hook for the crime by the Army?An odd remark don't you think?

Do we know if Col.Kane was away on the night of the murders?Could MacDonald have called to talk to Mrs.Kane and confess in a panic what he'd done?And she horrified blew him off?

[Lauramj39]

Originally posted by NY-EVE
I'VE STUDIED THIS FOR YEARS ....AND I PRAY HE GETS OUT
WHAT AN INJUSTICE TO THIS MAN .......LET HIM LIVE ..WHAT LITTLE LIFE HE HAS LEFT ....I'M CONVINCED HE'S NOT GUILTY

TAKE IT EASY ON ME PEOPLE ...I'M NEW :)

I am new also..I always thought he was guilty..but my husband never felt that way..I think he is a little sinister..but not guilty

[Lanna89]

Welcome to the boards Laura. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But before you make a final decison regarding MacDonalds guilt or innocence I would suggest you visit The Jeffrey MacDonald information site run by Christina Masewicz.She has some fascinating information listed there about the case and it is all backed up with factual information. I would also suggest you read "Fatal Vision" if you haven't already done so.

I am no expert but like many other posters on these boards I am convinced of MacDonalds guilt.And it was the facts of the case that led me to this conclusion.

Again welcome and feel free to sign any time for a discussion about the case.

Lanna

[Lauramj39]

Originally posted by Lanna89
Welcome to the boards Laura. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But before you make a final decison regarding MacDonalds guilt or innocence I would suggest you visit The Jeffrey MacDonald information site run by Christina Masewicz.She has some fascinating information listed there about the case and it is all backed up with factual information. I would also suggest you read "Fatal Vision" if you haven't already done so.

I am no expert but like many other posters on these boards I am convinced of MacDonalds guilt.And it was the facts of the case that led me to this conclusion.

Again welcome and feel free to sign any time for a discussion about the case.

Lanna

Thank you Lanna for your welcome..I posted thatb without really reading...hubby kind of turned me from my original opinion!! I intend to thoroughly check the info I have read about here...Thanks so much
Laura

[JTF]

Laura: Welcome. I've researched this case for 21 years and, in my opinion, the following is the essence of the case.

1) There was no trace evidence found at the crime scene of a known intruder suspect. Known suspects include the Stoeckley Seven and the New York Four. No head hairs or fingerprints of any of these 11 individuals were found at the crime scene. Two of the intruder suspects passed polygraph exams in 1971, and the DNA profiles of the two main intruder suspects (i.e., Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell), were also not found at the crime scene.

2) The government presented over 1,000 evidentiary items at the 1979 trial, which was only about 60 percent of what they could have presented.

3) MacDonald's performances during the April 6, 1970 CID interview and the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings are prime examples of how the mind of a psychopath works.

You can read the AFIP's DNA report, the 1979 trial transcripts, the entire April 6, 1970 interview, and MacDonald's testimony at the Grand Jury hearings at

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

Justthefacts.

[Lauramj39]

thank you so much!!! there are so many facts to go over!! But I look forward to it!!
You seem to be very intelligent and straightforward..do you have any info or insight into "The Yosemite Killer" Cary Stayner??

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Lauramj39

I am new also..I always thought he was guilty..but my husband never felt that way..I think he is a little sinister..but not guilty

Aren't you the same Poster who finds Cary Stayner facsinating? Hmmmmm...........!

------------------------> :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

[Lauramj39]

Why yes I am!!!! LOL You are quite the detective!! I do find Cary Stayner fascinating for many reasons...I have been a true crime for many years..but Cary really has been staying with me recently..lots of unanswered questions there..
Laura
magicworks2@comcast.net
Lauramj39@yahoo.com
:rose:

[Deb B]

Originally posted by Lanna89
JTF:There is really no doubt in my mind that MacDonald and Mrs. Kane had an affair. Based on his history of promiscuity and her lack of candor. I will even take it a step further and speculate on whether in his call to her residence on the night of the murders he may have confessed to her what he'd done. Her comment to investigators was strange. Why is she so sure he is guilty and that he will be let off the hook for the crime by the Army?An odd remark don't you think?

Do we know if Col.Kane was away on the night of the murders?Could MacDonald have called to talk to Mrs.Kane and confess in a panic what he'd done?And she horrified blew him off?

Maybe she just simply was of the opinion that he was guilty - the murders were a huge event on that base and I think it was probably something lots of people at Ft. Bragg during that time talked about and had lots of opinions about.

[Lanna89]

Deb: That is purely speculation on my part. The only thing we know for sure is that MacDonald did call the Kane's residence shortly after the time the murders were thought to have occurred.And he called there prior to calling MP's.He has always claimed the murder weapons were not from the house.How did Col. Kane's phone number end up on the club if not from MacDonald?Did the murderous hippies want to have his number handy?It is ludicrous.Everytime I think I have heard it all about this case something else surfaces.

[JTF]

Will: There were no phone records kept at that time, so this issue is basically a matter of putting together several pieces of a large puzzle.

1) Fort Gordon lab technicians noticed that 2 phone numbers were scrawled in pencil on the club. One of those numbers was to the Kane residence.

2) Mrs. Kane was questioned by the CID in regards to whether she was contacted by phone in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.

3) Mrs. Kane confirmed that she was called around 3:20-3:30 in the morning, that the caller was male, but that she has no recollection of the content of the call due to her sleepy condition.

4) Mrs. Kane added that MacDonald's lawyers basically pulled the wool over Colonel Rock's eyes at the Article 32 hearing.

5) This addendum was unusual for her husband thought highly of MacDonald, MacDonald worshipped her husband, and that she claimed that she had only met MacDonald once or twice.

6) Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett questioned MacDonald about whether or not he called the Kane residence the morning of the murders.

7) Victor Woerheide pointed out the 2 phone numbers on the club at the Grand Jury hearing.

8) Victor Woerheide also asked MacDonald about whether or not he called the Kane residence the morning of the murders.

9) MacDonald was probably having a sexual relationship with another Colonel's wife, Mrs. Josephine Kingston.

Justthefacts.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by Lanna89
Deb: That is purely speculation on my part. The only thing we know for sure is that MacDonald did call the Kane's residence shortly after the time the murders were thought to have occurred.And he called there prior to calling MP's.He has always claimed the murder weapons were not from the house.How did Col. Kane's phone number end up on the club if not from MacDonald?Did the murderous hippies want to have his number handy?It is ludicrous.Everytime I think I have heard it all about this case something else surfaces.

I am not questioning whether or not he called the Kane's residence, or whether or not the number was written on the murder club and who wrote. I'm also speculating/looking at the evidence, as I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened unless he fully confesses, which isn't gonna happen.

I think he comitted the murders, thought/planned to call his commanding officer to report the crime, got the phone number, wrote it on the club, called, thought twice about it when Mrs. Kane answered, mumbled something and hung up.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's really creepy that he had just used that bloody club to beat Colette and Kimberley to death - and then uses it as a note pad, unless the number happened to already be on that club.

[Lanna89]

Yes Deb:I think the scenario you described is entirely possible.And it is true that we will never know for sure exactly what happened because MacDonald will never tell us.I don't think he would ever confess.Because he knows that to be labeled a child killer would destroy whatever life he might have on the outside.If he had just killed Colette sadly it might be a different story.He might be able to rationalize that to some people.But to have killed the children.Never.And yes,it is creepy to the extreme to think he probably wrote those phone numbers on a bloody murder weapon that he used to bash in Colette and Kimmie's heads with.If that isn't psychopathic behavior I don't know what is.

Lanna

[JTF]

Will: No doubt in my mind that MacDonald called her. I think that he recently ended their relationship, she was not to happy about it, but he still trusted her enough to ask her what he should do under the circumstances. Mrs. Kane didn't want it known that she had an affair with a family murderer, so she wasn't about to offer up that information to the CID. She obviously was disgusted by this whole mess, so she added in that little tidbit about MacDonald's lawyers using legal tricks at the Article 32 hearing.

JTF.

[JTF]

Will: She was doing what most people do, saving their own reputations, their own butts above all else. This case is replete with instances where individuals could have helped the CID investigation, but chose to serve their own best interests. Josephine Kingston and Carol Larsen come to mind, whereas Linda Matthews and Ron Harrison took the hide road, and simply told the truth.

JTF.

[JTF]

Will: I don't think that MacDonald told Mrs. Kane that he killed his family, but I do think that he didn't come close to providing a salient explanation as to why he was calling her for "advice," as opposed to screaming for neighbors or calling dispatch.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

I agree with JTF that it is improbable that MacDonald confessed in his phone call to Mrs.Kane.I was just speculating this as a possibility.He probably called and was incoherant and panicing.But as JTF pointed out the really telling thing was the fact that he didn't call for help first.He didn't call the neighbors and he didn't call the MP's with his family dead or dying around him. And with these supposedly homicidal hippies who had just battled him having just left.I'm not sure Mrs.Kane's admission of an affair would have made much difference in the case against MacDonald. The guy was sleeping with a secretary while he was under house arrest in the BOQ.Just a few weeks after the deaths of his wife and children.Not exactly the behavior of a grieving husband.If anything was clear about him it was inability to control himself sexually.He is and was a self-centered psychopath who probably thought nothing of it.

L

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
Will: She was doing what most people do, saving their own reputations, their own butts above all else. This case is replete with instances where individuals could have helped the CID investigation, but chose to serve their own best interests. Josephine Kingston and Carol Larsen come to mind, whereas Linda Matthews and Ron Harrison took the hide road, and simply told the truth.

JTF.
I too think Mrs. Kane did not want to become involved for fear of her affair becoming public.

Who is Linda Matthews?

[JTF]

Rashomon: Linda Matthews was the woman that MacDonald was having sex with in his BOQ room during the Article 32 hearing. I believe McGinniss named her Bonnie Wood in Fatal Vision.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
Rashomon: Linda Matthews was the woman that MacDonald was having sex with in his BOQ room during the Article 32 hearing. I believe McGinniss named her Bonnie Wood in Fatal Vision.

JTF.
Thanks JTF for the info. You certainly have chosen the right poster name, for you are something like a walking 'MacDonald case encyclopedia' with your immense knowledge about this case.:read:

[Lanna89]

My thoughts exactly Rashomon.Good research JTF. I'm glad there are people like you out there who are knowledgable about this case.I think MacDonald is hoping that won't be the case and that he can somehow con his way out of jail on parole with some smooth talking.No way! The victims of this crime will never be forgotten by those of us who know the truth.

Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: MacDonald is certainly banking on the court system allowing him to con his way out of his concrete bunker. Several months ago, I came up with what I call the 3 MacDonald camp tactics. I based the 3 tactics on my experiences with several members of the MacDonald camp.

1) IGNORANCE IS BLISS: Rather than debate the more ominous evidentarry items, the MacDonald camp simply will not discuss the evidence which clearly points to their master's guilt.

2) STICK TO MESSAGE: Despite the fact that all of their evidentiary arguments have prosaic explanations, the MacDonald camp repeats the same evidentiary items over and over again.

3) ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK: If MacDonald or any camp member is confronted with documented fact, they get personal, and deflect the focus of the interaction from the evidence to the motivations of the individual who is pointing out the facts.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF: I think MacDonald thinks that enough time has passed since this crime was committed that he can convolute the facts of the case and get out of jail on retrial. I don't think he will ever confess.And I have never heard of anyone being paroled who didn't confess and show remorse for the crime.I think he figures he can somehow twist the evidence to fit his story.

There is a lot of circumstanial evidence to support his guilt. He is the only person with a motive to want his family dead.Drug users hell bent on teaching him a lesson for not giving them drugs would have made him their main target.Not his wife and babies.He was barely injured.Attackers would have eliminated the greatest threat first the Green Beret.Drug users wouldn't have left drugs and syringes in the closet.They wouldn't move their victims and tuck the kids back in bed.They would have brought their own weapons.They wouldn't have thrown them under a bush by the back door.It goes on and on.

The crime scene wasn't properly secured.That is a big plus for MacDonald.He can just claim the Army contaminated the crime scene.The Army tried to cover their butts by letting him go even though they knew he'd killed his family.Big plus for him.Stoeckley and Mitchell were interogated to the point of fueling their own misguided drug induced paranoia.Big plus for MacDonald he can claim someone confessed.But why in all the time since the murders has he never shown an ounce of concern for finding who killed his family?Freddy Kassab made it a crusade to find the truth.But MacDonald has just sat back and whined about how pathetic his situation is.

There will always be people who listen to and believe this con artists story.He is smart and articulate and he was once good looking.We don't want to think that people like this slaughter their families.But they do and he did.Domestic violence happens everyday.He had the motive. He wanted to rid himself of his family so he could live a swinging bachelor life.He had the means.The club and knife and icepick.He had the opportunity.They were his family and as stuck with him as he was with them.

[2L8 4A D8]

Kinda like Darlie Routier. To this day, she professes that she is innocent, yet the evidence against her is overwhelming. She is another one who will never confess or show remorse, as well as Scott Peterson. At least both of them are on Death Row, as well they should be!

JMO and MOO!!

[Lanna89]

Yes,but Darlie Routier didn't have MacDonalds medical expertise to do a non life threatening self inflicted wound. She ended up giving herself some horrible cuts. And like MacDonald her behavior after the crime was bizarre and strangely oblivious to the case being built against her.It was as if they said to themselves "Ha,I got away with it.I can do whatever I want and no one will suspect me." In Peterson's case he was such a liar that I think he just began buying into his own deception.Everyone knew he killed his wife.He was just so used to getting away with his lies that he thought he could do it again after he killed her.I mean he didn't realize that the Police were going to take a look at his cell phone records?Or find out about Amber Frey?

[JTF]

Lanna: Similar to MacDonald not knowing the blood types of his wife and 2 daughters or realizing that the blood evidence would provide investigators with a map of the crime scene or that Paul Stombaugh would match bloody fabric impressions on the blue bedsheet with the pajama sleeves of his wife and his torn blue pajama top or that the CID would discover that he had multiple affairs or that the CID would find out about the New York Four or that Shirley Green would be able to match-up 48 puncture holes in his pajama top with 21 ice pick wounds in his wife's chest or...

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF:Yes,strange that as a doctor he wouldn't know his families blood types. Good thing though.Or we would know a lot less about what actually happened that night.I think he was so egotistical and arrogant that he felt he had outsmarted everyone.

L

[JTF]

Lanna: Franz Grebner felt the same way after assisting William Ivory and Robert Shaw with interviewing MacDonald on April 6, 1970. Grebner told Joe McGinniss that MacDonald obviously felt he was smarter than the 3 investigators, so he was hoping to keep MacDonald talking. Grebner got a rude awakening, however, when his superiors decided to make a public announcement that MacDonald was considered the main suspect in the murders of his family. Grebner knew that he would never get to talk to MacDonald again.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

Yes JTF: The CID needed to coordinate their investigatory strategy better. Grebner must have known that MacDonalds second biggest downfall besides his big mouth was his ego.And there was no excuse for not securing the crime scene properly.Even rookie cops learn that on the first day.

But for an alledgedly brillant guy MacDonald sure has done some dumb things.Going on the Dick Cavett show and criticizing the Army.Lying to Freddy Kassab about having killed one of the alleged hippies.Continuing his womanizing in the BOQ while under investigation by the Army.Telling a very detailed story of the attack and murder of his family,much to detailed.Such as describing the intruders down to their hair color when there were no lights on in the room.Saying he gave CPR to the girls in a room without any lights on.How many people after an attack like that wouldn't turn on every light in the house as one of the first things they did? But no he's content to wander around in the darkness with his attackers just having left.Call up Mrs. Kanes residence for a little chat instead of the MP's and leave the back door wide open.

[JTF]

Lanna: To be fair to Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw, they did a great job during the April 6, 1970 interview with MacDonald. They didn't have nearly the information at their disposal that Victor Woerheide had at the Grand Jury or Brian Murtagh had at the 1979 trial. They still were able to turn MacDonald into a stammering mess and that interview contained pieces of dialogue that MacDonald will never be able to shake.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

Agreed JTF.The April 6th interview was done well.But you have to admit they couldn't possibly have fumbled the crime scene worse if they'd tried.They made coffee in the kitchen.Used the toilet facilities.Handled the Esquire magazine.Broke apart the board the bloody footprint was on.Allowed the garbage to be hauled away.Mislabeled a hair sample as known to be from MacDonald when it was from Trooper the pony.Allowed MacDonalds wallet to be stolen by an ambulance attendant.Alllowed onlookers and neighbors to wander at will threw the crime scene.Allowed the victims bodies to be embalmed before fingerprints and hair samples could be collected and lost a piece of skin from underneath Colette's fingernails.What difference might it have made to the case if that skin under her nails could have been linked via DNA to MacDonald?He was observed to have linear marks that appeared to be scratch marks on his chest.And personally I believe Colette scratched him during the struggle.A woman would use her nails to defend herself.

Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: The Department of Internal Affairs for the CID investigated the issues you listed and their final report basically states that although the investigation was, "not a model of its kind," it was not the ball of incompetence levied by the MacDonald camp. Without question, mistakes were made, but as Peter Kearns has pointed out, "There was an awful lot of hair and fiber evidence, none of it was contaminated by the actions of the investigators and medics that came in." If I could be an apologist for Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw for a moment.

1) Neighbors and onlookers were not allowed to walk through the crime scene. Mr. Kalin was asked by William Ivory to identify the bodies and that was it.

2) This was Ivory's first murder case, so he made the mistake of assuming that everyone would do their jobs. Ivory was so focused on supervising Fort Gordon lab technicians that he failed to remind CID staff to not use the toilet facilities, kitchen facilities, and to keep the trash from being collected. I'm convinced that none of that would have happened if Franz Grebner was present when Fort Gordon lab technicians were processing the crime scene.

3) Issues such as the embalming of the bodies, attempting to remove the bloody footprint, and collecting hair samples have little to do with Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw. The good news was that Paul Stombaugh collected hair samples in 1974, Hilyard Medlin was able to match the footprint to MacDonald via photographs, and the fingerprints of known suspects did not match any of the 30 unidentified prints.

It's important to note that Peter Kearns thought so highly of William Ivory's skills that he recruited him as an investigator for the CID Reinvestigation team.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF: I'm not disputing at all that the evidence was there and clearly pointed to MacDonald.The blood and fiber evidence were really all that was needed to prove his guilt as far as I'm concerned.I'm not siding with the MacDonald camp in criticizing the Army and of all the investigators I respect Grebner the most.I also feel that William Ivory was well meaning but as you point out inexperienced.
Why if the Army was so convinced of MacDonalds guilt did they let him walk? Would they have pursued him further if Freddy Kassab hadn't dogged them. And if MacDonald had kept his mouth shut and not critcized the Armies handling of the case?I don't think so.I think he would have gotten away with this horrendous crime.And the only rational I can come up with for that is that they didn't want their investigatory errors to be made public.Does that make sense?

I don't know who had the responsibility to collect the hair samples and fingerprints of the victims but it would seem to me to have been the CID's job.Yes,Paul Stombaugh ultimately did so but he had to dig up the bodies to do it for goodness sake!

I don't believe the case was bungled to the extent MacDonald claims and the errors made in no way exonerate him.I also understand that no investigation is perfect.But I believe the errors that were made were an embarrassment to the Army and they tried to cover it up.

Please don't misunderstand me.I have the utmost respect for members of law enforcement and investigators who try to solve a crime.And as you point out the April 6th interview was done extremely well.I'm just playing devils advocate here.

Lanna

[Lanna89]

JTF:You seem very knowledgable about the MacDonald case.I'd like to ask your opinion of a few things if you don't mind. Why do you think MacDonald chose to put on surgical gloves towards the end of the commission of this murder?His fingerprints were already on the weapons.He evidently wiped some of them clean.He claimed he had pulled the Old Hickory knife out of Colette's chest.Ostensibly,to explain his prints on it. But she was never stabbed with that knife. He was the perpetrator. He knew this.Why did he then claim to have pulled the knife out of her chest.Did he get confused about what knife he used?Do you think he stabbed Kristin before or after he attacked Colette for a second time in her bedroom?Do you think Kristin was making a lot of noise and he killed her to shut her up?Children can scream very loudly when they want to.Why do you think he ditched all the murder weapons under the same bush out the back door?

My own theory on the gloves is that when it came to Kristin he really didn't want to kill her.He knew he had to because she was a witness.But he put on the gloves to make it more clinical for himself and distance himself emotionally from murdering her.With the gloves on he could almost pretend he was a surgeon administering first aide instead of a cold blooded child killer.

Thanks, Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: I agree with most of your points. Grebner was bothered by the mistakes and was concerned that the entire case would unravel. The Army was convinced that MacDonald was a murderer and according to Bost/Potter in Fatal Justice, many Fort Bragg officials were furious with Colonel Rock's decision making at the Article 32 hearing. The Army, however, was not going to let MacDonald just walk, so they forumulated the CID reinvestigation team in late 1970. Colonel Jack Pruett supervised the team, Peter Kearns was the team's chief investigator, and he and Pruett had a team of 8 investigators at their disposal. William Ivory, Mike Pickering, Dick Mahon, and Jack Bennett were members of that team. Freddy Kassab or no Freddy Kassab, this team went over the case with a fine tooth comb and they were all convinced of MacDonald's guilt. It's important to remember that Freddy Kassab was advocating for MacDonald during the early stages of the reinvestigation, yet that did not deter Pruett and Kearns one bit. Kassab certainly was at the head of the line in terms of receiving credit for MacDonald facing the legal music, but Pruett and Kearns were equally aggressive in bringing MacDonald to justice.

JTF.

[JTF]

Lanna: The lack of ridge lines on the 2 bloody handprints on the blue bedsheet indicates that he was wearing gloves when he transported Colette to the master bedroom, so I think it's possible he was wearing gloves when he stabbed Kristen. In this scenario, the only weapon that he touched with his bare hands was the club. I believe that Kristen was already dead by the time that Colette made it to her room. Jeff caught up with her in Kristen's room and proceded to beat her to death as she lay in a semi-seated postion on top of Kristen's bed. Jeff killed Kristen in order to save his career. Typical thought process of a psychopath. As horrible as it sounds, I believe Kristen awoke as a result of a knife thrust to her chest, she reached out to defend herself, and tore out a fiber from her father's pajama top. Jeff then dragged Kristen face down towards the edge of the bed and proceded to stab her multiple times in the back with the Old Hickory knife. Two of those knive wounds penetrated her heart and she literally bled to death on her own bed.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Lanna89
He claimed he had pulled the Old Hickory knife out of Colette's chest.Ostensibly,to explain his prints on it. But she was never stabbed with that knife.
Lanna - it was the dull Geneva Forge knife he claimed he had pulled out of her chest, not the sharp Old Hickory knife with which she was stabbed.
JMD probably had wrestled that dull knife from Colette's hands during the initial struggle.
And imo his reason for wiping weapons clean which he had obviously used while wearing gloves was: 'better safe than sorry'.

[bandit's mom]

Did anyone see the latest load of crap posted at the Crime
Library about the murderers case? Jeeze, just when I thought
the whole article couldn't get any more biased. Does
one of his girlfriends work at Court TV now. They should
be ashamed publishing such nonsense!

[Lanna89]

Rashomon:My mistake.Your correct about the knives.Thanks for the correction.

Lanna

[JTF]

BM: Looks like Fred Bost or Char Laba is at it again on the Crime Library website. The way that the DNA test results are spun into something positive for MacDonald is hilarious. The thing that I wonder about is the selection process for the author of each murder case. Did Fred or Char slip the website moderators a 50 or do they pick their respective case authors out of a small hat? The mind boggles.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rashomon

JMD probably had wrestled that dull knife from Colette's hands during the initial struggle.
And imo his reason for wiping weapons clean which he had obviously used while wearing gloves was: 'better safe than sorry'.
Lanna: another reason why MacD wiped the weapons clean despite having worn gloves could have been that he wanted to make believe the weapons did not come from his own house, but that the intruders had brought them. Which is why he wiped possible prints which might have been there from his family off the knives and icepick.

MacD always denied the knives and icepick came from his own home, but William Ivory discovered that e. g. the club was made from the same wood as the bedslats under Kimberly's bed.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
BM: Looks like Fred Bost or Char Laba is at it again on the Crime Library website. The way that the DNA test results are spun into something positive for MacDonald is hilarious. The thing that I wonder about is the selection process for the author of each murder case. Did Fred or Char slip the website moderators a 50 or do they pick their respective case authors out of a small hat? The mind boggles.

JTF.
I have always been a bit suspicious because of the author name 'John Boston' on the Crime Library website, which might indeed be Fred Bost. And the Crime Library's book recommendation would fit in perfectly too:

"The Crime Library highly recommends Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost's excellent book called as the very best book on this subject. The book is meticulously researched and persuasively written. This feature story draws heavily from that book, particularly as it relates to the evidence uncovered by Freedom of Information documents subsequent to MacDonald's trial."

LOL!! But doesn't the Crime Library website have a reputation to lose if they are so one-sided, I ask myself. They ought to be ashamed for their unprofessional journalism.

[Lanna89]

Just read the biased garbage they've got on MacDonald in the crime library.Sent them an e-mail to object.Doubt it'll make a difference.Maybe if enough people write them they'll feel compelled to write something akin to the truth instead of that propaganda.

L

[weepy willa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rashomon

Lanna: another reason why MacD wiped the weapons clean despite having worn gloves could have been that he wanted to make believe the weapons did not come from his own house, but that the intruders had brought them. Which is why he wiped possible prints which might have been there from his family off the knives and icepick.

MacD always denied the knives and icepick came from his own home, but William Ivory discovered that e. g. the club was made from the same wood as the bedslats under Kimberly's bed. [/QUOT


This Dr.Jeckel ,said Manson types killed his pregnant wife and two toddlers. The copy cat killers BUTCHERED his babies and pregnant wife,and he had only flesh wounds. He had been reading a story about the Manson murders.SICK,SICK,SICK!!!:flamemad:

[Lanna89]

WW:Thanks for the insight.It really had not occured to me that he might be concerned with wiping off possible prints of Colette's or her family as well as his own.But that's quite possible.It just seemed strange to me that he thought to put on gloves relatively late in the commission of the crime.And since he also wiped the weapons clean before throwing them out.

After reading the CL story on him I am convinced that this psychopath really is trying hard to sway public opinion in his favor.He believes he can twist the facts to fit his story.

L

[Deb B]

Originally posted by Lanna89
...After reading the CL story on him I am convinced that this psychopath really is trying hard to sway public opinion in his favor.He believes he can twist the facts to fit his story.

L

He has constantly been trying to sway public opinion rather than focus on facts - he sees himself as some sort of celebrity and always has his mind on garnering attention, and building outrage over his conviction and imprisonment. He's a creepy attention ho.

[JTF]

MacDonald's most recent ruse is to proclaim that the government "knows" what "really" happened inside 544 Castle Drive, yet for some unknown reason, is covering up the "facts" of the case. Read MacDonald's 2003 interview with Larry King and you'll see MacDonald use this ruse several times. That interview is a prime example of the thought process of a psychopath.

JTF.

[Revned]

Many of you seem to know that he committed this crime as if you were there and witnissed the whole thing. I am not so sure he did this, nor that he didn't. I can say that after reading much detail regarding this case I am still confused to why would Helena admit to the crime and reference so much detail. I know she was a drug addict, but still cannot understand why should would admit. I've heard many sides to each story and both seem highly possible to me. I just read Helenas confession and to me, it does sound like it could hold some truth.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stoeckley_confession_01.html

Could anyone help me understand why this was ignored.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Revned
Many of you seem to know that he committed this crime as if you were there and witnissed the whole thing. I am not so sure he did this, nor that he didn't. I can say that after reading much detail regarding this case I am still confused to why would Helena admit to the crime and reference so much detail. I know she was a drug addict, but still cannot understand why should would admit. I've heard many sides to each story and both seem highly possible to me. I just read Helenas confession and to me, it does sound like it could hold some truth.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stoeckley_confession_01.html

Could anyone help me understand why this was ignored. Hi, Revned.

False confessions are made in many notorious murder cases, and this case was no different.

Helena's "confession" wasn't ignored, but it came more than a decade after the murders and about two years after trial. Also, it did not coincide with the physical evidence or MacDonald's accounts. MacDonald didn't even recognize Stoeckley when shown her picture in 1970 and again in 1971. Stoeckley was a pathetic drug abuser who wanted and needed attention. She later recanted, and the courts found that Gunderson and Beasley had coerced these statements from her (as well as altering the tapes they submitted to the court).

In 1985, the court noted that "It is clear from these statements that the only truly consistent account that she gave of her actions on February 17, 1970 was that she had taken so many drugs that day that she could not remember what she had done during the night or early morning." And: "Not only does the size and composition of Stoeckley's group on the night of the murders vary from statement to statement, her certainty about whether the events took place at all changes depending upon whether she is talking to MacDonald's investigators or to the FBI. "

In addition, MacDonald offered other affidavits in an attempt to support Stoeckley's stories, but the court found that "These affidavits, like those previously discussed, suffer from either factual inaccuracies or contradictions which render them of no use to MacDonald in proving that Stoeckley and her group committed the murders."

The final nail in MacDonald's coffin came with the long-awaited DNA results, which showed that neither Stoeckley's nor any other "intruder's" DNA matched that in any of the exhibits tested.

If you haven't read it already, you might want to take a look at a couple of the 1984 and 1985 documents which among other things addresses the issues of Stoeckley, Mitchell, Gunderson and Beasley at some length:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip-court1984dec.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_vs_macdonald_1985mar1.html

[barskin&co.]

I have posted a reply to the "Is J M innocent" thread on this page which was started by a moderator and seems to be endorsing the Crime Library's horrible article about the case. I continued to be ashamed by this part of the otherwise excellent Court TV web site.

[JTF]

Bunny: Excellent response.

Revned: You're going to have come up with something better than that before addressing the facts of this case. I wasn't inside 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970, but as Bunny pointed out, neither was Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell. Bob Stevenson called Stoeckley and Mitchell the MacDonald camp's, "stand-in murderers." What is MacDonald going to do now, Revned? Who is he going to blame for the brutal murders of Colette, Kristen, and Kimberly? To find that answer, all he needs to do is look in the mirror.

JTF.

[byn63]

Welcome to all the newcomers! I haven't been here for a few weeks so just some points to add to the discussions:

1. Crime Scene Inproperly Secured:

(a) SOP at the time of these murders was that ALL POSSIBLE AID be provided to the living, even at the expense of the crime scene.

(b) JRM himself made great strides at disturbing/destroying evidence by his "struggling" with MPs, his convenient position when he "passed out" drapped full length beside and on Colette, and his staging of the scene.

2. About the Blood Types:

Even though JRM was a physician it is not all that unusual that he would not know the blood types of his family. The family was a statistical anomaly by virtue of the fact that each family member had a different blood type. This anomaly came in very handy when it came to reading the crime scene.

3. Identifying the Bloody Footprint:

Hilyard Medlin is the only print examiner who compared prints with the patent print "in situ". His testimony states clearly that he identified enough ridge detail to be able to state that it was JRMs footprint exiting Kristen's room in Type A blood. However, since none of the other examiners were available to verify his identification, and the photos do not bring up the ridge details the CID did not/would not allow the determination to be stated "The print belonged to Dr. MacDonald". 2 examiners are required to make the positive identification so the best that has ever been said is "APPEARS to be JRM".

Unfortunately, the print was destroyed when they attempted to remove that section of floor. This day and age there would probably be a better method in wide use. However, let's not forget that the team from Ft. Gordon was highly skilled but had never been to a crime scene of such magnitude. I believe there is a document on TJMIS that included suggestions for improvement so that Ft. Gordon Lab Techs could do a better job on a preceeding crime.

4. WHY So many of us KNOW he DID IT?

We have spent a lot of time reading at TJMIS, Fatal Vision, Fatal Justice etc., watching every TV show about the case, and in JTF's case correspondence with several key players. Of course, the Infamous hair found "clutched in" Colette's hand that would prove who attacked her was a final nail in the coffin. Yes indeedy - E5 matched Inmate 00131-177 (JRM).

:seeya:

[jacsmompat]

i dont get why we are still talking about this animal. He murdered his entire family almost go away with it and now wants to be paroled. This man should never be allowed to see the light of day again. He has used the system to try to prove he was innocent when we all knew he was guilty.
Jefferey Mcdonald should never be allowed to walk the streets again.

[JTF]

The reasons that we continue to discuss this case are two-fold:

1) Despite 7 appellate decisions, MacDonald continues to use the court system as his personal lap dancer. Incredibly, there are still 2 motions pending, 1 for the DNA test results and the other for Jimmy Britt's fairy tales.

2) There is no murder case like it for it covers all bases. If you are interested in forensics, this case contains a mountain of evidentiary items. If you like to follow the machinations of the court system, this case is the most litigated murder case in the history of law. Interesting players on both sides of the fence? This case has that in abundance.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

Just read a transcript that says that while still hospitalized in Womack Hospital immediately after the murder of his wife and children MacDonald asked a friend to buy a bottle of champagne for him to consume with his visiting relatives. What was he celebrating? Getting away with having murdered his family?There was evidently a lot of talk about it amongst the hospital staff. He couldn't understand why anyone saw this as odd.

Lanna

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Lanna89
Just read a transcript that says that while still hospitalized in Womack Hospital immediately after the murder of his wife and children MacDonald asked a friend to buy a bottle of champagne for him to consume with his visiting relatives. What was he celebrating? Getting away with having murdered his family?There was evidently a lot of talk about it amongst the hospital staff. He couldn't understand why anyone saw this as odd.

Lanna Hi, Lanna -

Yes, according to his best friend, Ron Harrison, MacDonald asked Harrison to buy a bottle of champagne for him, and Harrison did that. Naturally, MacD has a different take on it, claiming that Harrison bought the champagne of his own volition because everyone was "down" and he thought it might cheer them up. I believe this incident took place after he'd been in the hospital for a few days, but regardless, given the countless lies MacD has told over the years, I don't have any trouble deciding whose story is probably the correct one. :)

I do think Mac was in a celebratory mood, relieved that his family was gone, and was basking in the spotlight as the center of attention. I think he thought investigators would believe whatever he told them and he'd get out of the whole mess with barely a scratch (literally) and would be able to continue carrying on as Dr. Stud without the pesky baggage of wife and children dragging him down. How satisfying it is to know that things didn't turn out like he thought they would, and that he will continue to pay the price for his horrendous crimes until the day he draws his last miserable breath.

[Lanna89]

Hi Bunny:I don't have any doubt about whose lying either about the purchase of the champagne. MacDonald asked Harrison to buy it and he did. He seemed to have no grasp at all that this behavior was bizarre.Just as he had no grasp that having an affair with a secretary while confined in the BOQ and under investigation by the CID was a stupid move.The only explanation I can come up with for this behavior is his incredible arrogance.He thought he'd gotten away with it and was relieved as he said to have his family dead.Time to party I guess.He forgets that Colette,Kim and Kristin were stuck with him too.I doubt life with him was exactly a picnic.

As far as his staying behind bars.I think it's concievable that he could snow enough people(like the misinformed airheads in the CR)to get a new trial.He is campaigning hard to get out of prison.He is trying to talk his way out of jail.I think he figures that enough time has passed that he can start changing his story and convolute the evidence in his favor.Convienently, the so called confessors to the crime he is purporting did this are both dead.I hope they keep this monster in prison where he belongs.Enough people have suffered as a result of his crimes.Including I will add the paranoid drug addicts Stoeckley and Mitchell.Who were convinced after years of harrassment of their involvement.They were no saints I'm sure but I don't believe they did this.That just doesn't add up.Drug addicts don't go into a house looking for drugs and leave them behind.

[byn63]

Hi Lanna!

Yes, Inmate has a history of being able to "snow" people into believing his story. However, the most vulnerable are like his trophy wife who obediently and blindly continues to spout the party line.

That being said, I find it less and less likely that Inmate will even get so much as a hearing on his latest round of shotgun motions. Even if he does, he has one HUGE hurdle to face:

The Little Vipr - Brian Murtaugh

BM has continued with this case from the beginning and has stated publicly that he will quit when Inmate quits. Inmate is showing few signs of quitting (if we go by the obvious spin party the macalites have held since DNA results were released) but the "average joe" supporters are fewer and farther between.

Inmate will rot in his prison cell - the only thing I dislike about that is the fact that he befouls the beauty of my State with his presence.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Lanna89
Just read a transcript that says that while still hospitalized in Womack Hospital immediately after the murder of his wife and children MacDonald asked a friend to buy a bottle of champagne for him to consume with his visiting relatives. What was he celebrating? Getting away with having murdered his family?There was evidently a lot of talk about it amongst the hospital staff. He couldn't understand why anyone saw this as odd.

Lanna

What's even more bizarre is that HIS family apparently didn't see "this as odd" either. I would have been horrified!

[Lanna89]

In my mind it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if MacDonald ASKED his friend Harrison to buy the champagne or Harrison bought it as a gift unbeknownst to him.Drinking champagne with your relatives in a hospital room just after your wife and children have been slaughtered was bizarre behavior to the extreme.And his relatives certainly should have seen it as such.For him to be oblivious to this is beyond my comprehension.And how must the Kassabs have felt as this "celebration"went on?I cannot think of anything more insensitive to their grief.But I suppose it is no more bizarre than his writing his commanding officers name and phone number on the murder weapon.And then acting really suprised about it. "Oh.......my commanding officers name and phone number was written on the murder club.How did that happen?What an odd coincidence.The hippies must of done that."Or his claiming to have murdered one of the hippies that committed the crime.When in actuality he made the whole story up."I know I'll ease the Kassabs minds.I just lie and claim I murdered a hippie.That will make them feel better."

I cannot believe there are women out there gullible enough to be attracted to this psychopath. "Wow,he's famous.He's accused of slaughtering his wife and kids.I want to date him." Barf......


Lanna

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
What's even more bizarre is that HIS family apparently didn't see "this as odd" either. I would have been horrified!If Perry had thought it was odd, she probably wouldn't have said anything anyway. I get the impression that with her, it was "whatever Jeffy wants, Jeffy can have. My job is to be supportive, and if celebrating the murders of his family makes him feel better, it's not my place to say anything about it..." But I also think that as some time passed, she began to wonder if he was the murderer, especially given that at some point during the time Kassab supported MacD, she apparently said to Freddy something like, "But how can you be so sure he's innocent, Freddy?" An interesting statement for her to make, to say the least.