Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Lanna89
...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." Yet he can't explain why he told the same story to Bob Stern three months before he told it to Freddy...

[Lanna89]

Bunny: Who is Bob Stern? That's the first time I've heard that name mentioned.Would he have told the same lie more than once in an effort to throw people off track about his having committed the crime and make it look like he was actually trying to take retribution on the so-called hippies?

Lanna

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Lanna89
<snip>
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

Wait, it gets worse! In just one of the disgusting moments in Mrs. Inmate's recent and overwhelmingly nauseating appearance on "Larry King Live," she compared herself to Dana Reeve, valiantly supporting her man as he endures the hardship of his "unfortunate situation" (like he was the victim of a tragic accident rather than being incarcerated for life after having been rightfully convicted of slaughtering his wife and infant daughters).

[Lanna89]

Barskin: Man,that's revolting.He certainly is the consumate con artist.Their Mr. & Mrs. Reeve and I'm related to Gandhi.Any donations you'd care to make to my "humanitarian cause"just send them along to my longsuffering soul. Yuck!I'm not sure what grosses me out more.The psychopathic child killer or the women who become their groupies.He's even managed to set up a little extra martial letter writing for himself in prison.He never quits.Thank God Brian Murtaugh is still around to keep an eye on him.I'd sooner write a romantic missive to "the little viper"than I would to MacDonald.He may not have the charisma or the looks but he's a hero in my book.Prison inmates by in large are con artists looking to dupe lonely women into relationships so they can use them.Case in point the new Mrs. MacDonald.The old Mrs. MacDonald is unavailable due to the fact that her husband bashed her head in.Something for the new Mrs. MacDonald to look forward to if he ever gets out.And they bear an eerie resemblance to one another.

Lanna

[awareness]

Barskin: I too am confused by the article at CL. It seems to be favoring Dr. Death. IMO they also minimized some of his other crap like [among other things] A) lying about killing "one" of the hippies afterwards (JM admitted later it was a lie) and B) minimizing his MAJOR serial adulter personality as if he'd had one indescretion or something (which IMO in itself makes you a cheater/liar). For someone to be on the stand, deny they know a woman - then the prosecutor reminds JM about the company he knew her from - and for him to say "I balled the girl, so what?" as if he didnt KNOW who they were talking about in the FIRST PLACE! Come ON!

The CL article said something like part of the 06 DNA discoveries did link Helena Stockley to the scene? Was that false? And if so, CL needs to RETRACT it. Furthermore they need to enhance the statement that INMATES hair was found clutched in Collette's hand oh but hey JM was performing CPR, right?

-------

On another note, the Kassab's were on JM's side of things at first... who knows what they thought of the champagne being brought to the hospital. After they changed their minds though they saw stuff like this as "red flags" they missed previously.

That's rich Mrs. Inmate referring herself like "Dana Reeve". LOL let's hope Mrs. Inmate's husband dies, then she can pick up his cause with Foundations.

IMO

[JTF]

The Stern family were longtime friends of the MacDonalds and Jeff spent some time with the Sterns after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearing. In doing research for Fatal Vision, Joe McGinniss spoke with Bob Stern, who told McGinniss that MacDonald told him that he and some Green Beret buddies had killed one of the Stoeckley group. McGinniss discovered that MacDonald told Stern this story 3 months prior to telling Freddy Kassab the SAME STORY during their infamous 1971 phone conversation.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Lanna, I was gathering all the info I've ever found about Stern, but see JTF beat me to it (good for him!). So as not to waste the last half-hour of my life, though, here's what I have on Stern. More than you probably wanted to know, but oh, well.

Quotes are from Fatal Vision:

p. 78: A close family friend named Bob Stern, who was in the computer business and who had access to a private plane, had obtained Jay's release from the hospital in order that the two of them might fly to Fort Bragg to attend the funeral on February 21. Afterward, Stern had flown back to New York with Jay and had helped him transfer his belongings from the Greenwich Village apartment he was sharing with a merchant seaman to the Stern home in New Hope, Pennsylvania, about thirty miles north of Philadelphia. Arrangements had been made for Jay to recuperate at the Stern residence while undergoing psychotherapy as an outpatient.

p. 175: Five minutes after Jeffrey MacDonald's mother got home from work on the evening of Monday, April 6, 1970-her first day back since Monday, February 16-she received a phone call from a captain at Fort Bragg informing her that her son was being held under armed guard in his BOQ room, a suspect in the murder of his family.

Within half an hour, Bob Stern called from New Hope, having just heard the news from Walter Cronkite. He told Dorothy MacDonald to hire a civilian lawyer immediately. She said she didn't know any lawyers. He said he would call his corporate attorney and ask him to recommend someone who specialized in criminal work. Half an hour later, he called back to say that Bernard L. Segal of Philadelphia would meet with them at 10 o'clock the next morning.

p. 253: From mid-November through March of his sophomore year of high school, Jeffrey MacDonald had been absent from Patchogue. With no advance word to teachers or friends, he had abruptly departed for Baytown, Texas, to live with a family named Andrews-friends of the Stern family of New Hope, Pennsylvania, but people whom MacDonald himself had met only briefly and casually.

p. 420: (Dorothy MacDonald and Woerheide at the grand jury): "How long did Jay remain in the hospital? Isn't it true that
he was at the funeral service?" "Yes, that was because our family has this marvelous friend, Mr. Robert Stern, from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and when he heard Jay was in difficulty, he contacted a doctor in Bucks County and explained the situation and arranged for private, follow-up care, and for Jay to live with his family, because he had known Jay almost all his life, and the next day it was arranged for Jay to be released in his custody when it was decided that Jay was now manageable, and Mr. Stern took Jay from the hospital down into the Village to remove his clothing from the place where he was staying and took him back to Bucks County, to his own home.

"On the following day Mr. Stern felt it was imperative that Jay be present at the service, so that his presence would support the family and so there would be no conjecture as to why the brother was not there. So he flew down in his company plane, bringing Jay, and then went back on the plane to Bob's home.

"The day after the internment in Long Island, I drove to Bucks County and spent probably a good part of that day talking with the psychiatrist who Mr. Stern had arranged for, trying to establish some background and then I drove back on down to Fort Bragg."

p. 623: There was no truth either to the story he told benefactor Bob Stern late one night in August of 1970, toward the end of the Article 32 hearing. This was during the week that the proceedings had been recessed to allow MacDonald to undergo psychiatric interview and testing at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington. In the midst of this trip, he had flown to Philadelphia to visit the Sterns for a weekend.

At that time--three months before he spoke to Freddy Kassab about it on the phone--Jeffrey MacDonald told Bob Stern that he had already tracked down and killed one of the hippies who had attacked him and had murdered his wife and children.

Stern also testified at the Article 32, Vol. 14: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article32_14.html

If you're interested, he also turns up in the following documents on Christina's website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac_boq-phone-list_1970-05-05.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article-32_rock_1970-10-13.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gj_1974-08-12-13_macdonald.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gj_1974-08-14_macdonald.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_us4th_1975sep.html (page 49)
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/gov_2006-03-30_appndx_tab05_ptb_thru_tab09.pdf (page 14)

[Lanna89]

Thank you Bunny and JTF for the information. You guys are good.It's been many years since I read "Fatal Vision".I can't believe he made up this bizarre story about having murdered a hippie and told it to TWO people.Apparently he thought his lies would never be exposed.He must have been pretty confident they would never check out his story.It does say something about him psychologically though.He had to admit to someone that he really was a murderer.He just couched the truth in a lie.Which is indicative of a GOOD liar and an exprienced one.

Lanna

[2L8 4A D8]

Just curious. What was JM's specialty as a doctor, i.e., General Practioner; Internal Medicine, etc. It doesn't really matter, I was just wondering. Thanks!

[Lanna89]

2L8 4A D8:If I'm not mistaken he was a surgeon in Long Beach California.I'm not sure what his specialty was.He also gave lectures on child abuse.

L

[bandit's mom]

I don't remember what his specialty was either, but I grew up in Long Beach and remember well when the murderer was working there. Just as a somewhat interesting aside, when he moved
here to H.B., and was working in Long Beach, one of the
first things he did was ingratiate himself with Law Enforcement.
He let it be known that he was available 24/7 if any member
of LE was brought in to the emergency room and wanted
to be notified ( perhaps for that reason I'm thinking his
specialty may have been emergency medicine). At any rate,
it worked. At the time I was dating an Arson Investigator for
the Long Beach Fire Dept. and he was totally convined of
his innocence. The LBPD even held fundraisers (probably wasn't
official PD involvment, I don't really remember, but the department was most definitely involved), when he was
finally indicted. Seeing how his mind has worked over the
years, I don't doubt his "concern" for LE was as calculating
as everything else he's done.

[Deb B]

There is a 1979 letter on TJMIS from the Long Beach Police Department to Mildred Kassab - it basically says that the LBPD was not supporting MacDonald, rather it was the Long Beach Police Officer's Association that supported him, although members were upset about the support - the Association didn't take a membership vote before deciding to support MacDonald, that the Board of Directors decided to support him.

Then there's the Beane Intervention, written by MacDonald about his work to save the life of a Long Beach police officer. More narcissistic ramblings from the psychopath MacDonald. I'm surprised he didn't write that he was wearing a Superman cape during that supposed episode. :rolleyes:

My recollection is that his specialty was emergency medicine - he taught on that specialty, in addition to practicing in it.

[JTF]

According to William Ivory, the Long Beach Police Association have distanced themselves from this case, and no longer look upon MacDonald as a great guy. Life is beautiful.

JTF.

[Spamela]

Wasn't the reason for the negative opinion of some police officers concerning Inmate was his nasty aggresiveness when playing football? Typical of Inmate....all those little "shoving matches" he could not remember, when asked about his aggresive nature in the trial. Like this was a man who was able to control his temper.

I always found it interesting that Inmate became an authority on child molestation, given the conjecture about the situation with his daughter in his bed, that Colette brough up in her class. I mean, how does an emergency doctor become so knowledgable about child abuse symptoms? Maybe because he saw it in his own children?

It was an effective strategy for Inmate to suck up to the local police force. He probably saw it as an ace up the sleeve for his next run-in with law enforcement. In this situation, he seems to have learned from his past experience.....make them believe he is Mr Nice Guy.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Lanna89
2L8 4A D8:If I'm not mistaken he was a surgeon in Long Beach California.I'm not sure what his specialty was.He also gave lectures on child abuse.

L

Lectures on child abuse huh? JM's lucky that I wasn't in the audience. The LBPD would have taken me to jail for sure!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
I don't remember what his specialty was either, but I grew up in Long Beach and remember well when the murderer was working there. Just as a somewhat interesting aside, when he moved
here to H.B., and was working in Long Beach, one of the
first things he did was ingratiate himself with Law Enforcement.
He let it be known that he was available 24/7 if any member
of LE was brought in to the emergency room and wanted
to be notified ( perhaps for that reason I'm thinking his
specialty may have been emergency medicine). At any rate,
it worked. At the time I was dating an Arson Investigator for
the Long Beach Fire Dept. and he was totally convined of
his innocence. The LBPD even held fundraisers (probably wasn't
official PD involvment, I don't really remember, but the department was most definitely involved), when he was
finally indicted. Seeing how his mind has worked over the
years, I don't doubt his "concern" for LE was as calculating
as everything else he's done.

Small World bandit's mom. I also grew up in Long Beach. Where did you go to high school? Poly or Jordan? If you didn't know this, Cameron Diaz also grew up in Long Beach and went to Poly.

I knew there was a reason why I liked you so much! LOL!!

[rashomon]

Then there's the Beane Intervention, written by MacDonald about his work to save the life of a Long Beach police officer. More narcissistic ramblings from the psychopath MacDonald. I'm surprised he didn't write that he was wearing a Superman cape during that supposed episode.
I don't know what exactly happened there, but as a doctor it would have been his duty anyway to save lives. Was this an emergency case where he helped the officer?
Originally posted by Spamela
Wasn't the reason for the negative opinion of some police officers concerning Inmate was his nasty aggresiveness when playing football? Typical of Inmate....all those little "shoving matches" he could not remember, when asked about his aggresive nature in the trial. Like this was a man who was able to control his temper.
Remember at the Grand Jury hearing when Mac told Victor Woerheide if he wanted him to remember every little fistfight? One would think a member of a street gang was speaking here, and not a Princeton-educated doctor, lol.
MacDonald was full of aggressive feelings, no question about it, and that football match ws just one of these occasions where that part of his personality showed itself.
I mean, how does an emergency doctor become so knowledgable about child abuse symptoms? Maybe because he saw it in his own children?
Maybe this was in connection with his job as an emergency room doctor, because ER docs often get to see children who are brought to the hospital allegedly having had an accident while in reality it was their parents who hurt them.
I personally don't believe he sexually abused his children, but he sure physically abused Kimberly with deadly results on Feb 17.

[Lanna89]

JTF:Glad to hear the Long Beach Policeman's Association has finally come to their senses. Did MacDonald actually save a cops life as was portrayed in the movie "Fatal Vision?" Or is this yet another lie told by him to ingratiate himself with people of influence.

L

[JTF]

Lanna: That incident did happen, but as Freddy Kassab once said, "you can either bury your head in the sand or look at the facts." It appears that most members of the Long Beach Police Association decided to focus on the facts.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

Thanks for the clarification JTF.As far as I'm aware there was never anything negative with regards to MacDonald's medical career reported.With the exception of some inapproriate rage directed at nurses he worked with.The fact that he was a talented medical professional in no way negates that he is and was a psychopathic murderer.There was also the "fear of what he is subject to do with his hands"reported by Dr. Sadoff in his psychological profile.Which also hints at his psychopathology.Can you imagine how creepy it would be to have him perform surgery on you or a loved one?

Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: During the 1987 MacDonald vs. McGinniss civil trial, a psychiatrist told Freddy Kassab that if he had to choose between being with MacDonald or Charles Manson on a desert island, he would pick Manson. When Kassab inquired as to why he would choose Manson, the psychiatrist replied, "because I would be safer." Classic.

JTF.

[Spamela]

Originally posted by XOSETIHW
NOT GUILTY AS IN INNOCENT!!

I so agree.

He is NOT GUILTY of not murdering his family and INNOCENT of speaking any truths about his guilt.

[Lanna89]

rashomon: I agree with you that there is not solid evidence to support MacDonald's having molested Kimberly. However,it is very odd that he would want his wife to go sleep on the couch in favor of having his daughter stay in bed with him. That definitely sends up a red flag for me.I think he associated Kim with Colette a great deal in his mind.

Lanna

[JTF]

XOSET: What "drivel" are you referring to? I hope it's not the 1,000 evidentiary items presented at trial or the fact that there was no trace evidence of an alien being present at 544 Castle Drive.

JTF.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Small World bandit's mom. I also grew up in Long Beach. Where did you go to high school? Poly or Jordan? If you didn't know this, Cameron Diaz also grew up in Long Beach and went to Poly.

I knew there was a reason why I liked you so much! LOL!!


Small world it is. I actually went to Milliken. I hate to tell
you the year I graduated though. Let's just say it was well
before Cameron Diaz! I didn't know she went to Poly or that
she grew up in L.B. My dad actually graduated from Poly
in 1928!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bandit's mom

Small world it is. I actually went to Milliken. I hate to tell
you the year I graduated though. Let's just say it was well
before Cameron Diaz! I didn't know she went to Poly or that
she grew up in L.B. My dad actually graduated from Poly
in 1928!

Isn't Milliken in Lakewood? You are the second person that has stated to me that they grew up in Long Beach, but went to Milliken. I grew up in North Long Beach and graduated from Jordan, as did my Mother, my 2 Uncles (her brothers) and an Aunt (by marriage). She and my Uncle were highschool sweethearts. Jordan and Poly were high school rivalries in my day. Don't know if it is still the same now though. Read about Cameron Diaz graduating from Poly in one of her bio's.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[B]

Isn't Milliken in Lakewood?

No, it's in Long Beach, right off of Spring St. and Palo Verde.
Lakewood High School is, of course, in Lakewood, but
it's part of the L.B. Unified School District. When I was
there, the 5 Schools in our football division were Milliken,
Lakewood (our arch rivals), Wilson, Poly and Jordan. I did
actually live in North Long Beach until I was 4 and then
we moved to the East side, near El Dorado Park.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[B]

Isn't Milliken in Lakewood?

No, it's in Long Beach, right off of Spring St. and Palo Verde.
Lakewood High School is, of course, in Lakewood, but
it's part of the L.B. Unified School District. When I was
there, the 5 Schools in our football division were Milliken,
Lakewood (our arch rivals), Wilson, Poly and Jordan. I did
actually live in North Long Beach until I was 4 and then
we moved to the East side, near El Dorado Park.

Geez. I completely forgot about Lakewood and Wilson. I know that we played all of them in Football and Basketball, etc. But it was always just Poly, Poly, Poly! LOL!!

[byn63]

Originally posted by Spamela


I so agree.

He is NOT GUILTY of not murdering his family and INNOCENT of speaking any truths about his guilt.


spammy - once again you are being too subtle. How is one ever supposed to know how you feel about this case? LOL!

Don't you agree that the worst thing about Inmate is the fact that he befouls our beautiful state?

[cami]

Originally posted by 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

Yeah it's strange. I've often thought he donned the gloves to write PIG on the headboard..........to obscure his prints.

[Lanna89]

Cami:MacDonald's behavior during the commission of this crime was just so incongruent. He puts on gloves to obscure prints.But he writes the phone number of his commanding officer on the murder weapon that he wants us to believe came from outside the house.I too believe he wore gloves when he wrote the word "pig" on the headboard.Did they do handwriting analysis on him as far as the formation of the letters?I have speculated that there was something weird going on psychologically with him that he put on the gloves ostensibly in the middle of the murders.To distance himself and make them clinical in his mind.Almost as if he could pretend he was performing a medical procedure rather than a heinous crime.That is my theory anyway for what it's worth.

Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: According to the CID lab reports.

1) The word PIG was written in Colette's blood.

2) The "author" of the word was right-handed. Jeffrey MacDonald is right-handed.

3) The "author" of the word had to go back to Colette's body at least once in order to complete the word.

4) The finger section of a surgeon's glove found in the rumpled bedding was stained with Colette's blood.

5) The word contained no ridge lines, indicating that PIG was written by someone wearing gloves.

JTF.

[byn63]

Originally posted by JTF
Lanna: According to the CID lab reports.

1) The word PIG was written in Colette's blood.

2) The "author" of the word was right-handed. Jeffrey MacDonald is right-handed.

3) The "author" of the word had to go back to Colette's body at least once in order to complete the word.

4) The finger section of a surgeon's glove found in the rumpled bedding was stained with Colette's blood.

5) The word contained no ridge lines, indicating that PIG was written by someone wearing gloves.

JTF.

Lanna - I would add to this list of excellent data:

there were not enough different letters to make a true handwriting comparison

AND

the letters were oversized and written on an unusual surface in an unusual "medium"

AND

the word was written at an odd "position/angle"

All of these minor factors make a MAJOR difference in the ability of an analyst to make a determination.

[Lanna89]

Thanks JTF and Byn. That makes sense.An unusual medium to say the least!Interesting that MacDonald chose that word and that location for the word "Pig."The Manson family actually wrote several things in blood when they committed their crime.I don't believe any of them were written on the headboard of a bed.Among hippies the word "pig" would have signified the Police or other authority figure in the establishment.Macdonald wrote it on the headboard over where his wife slept.And I don't think the implied meaning was the same for him.Somehow I don't think hippies would have written it on the headboard at all.More likely scrawled on a wall or mirror and they would have been referring to MacDonald who they saw as a member of the establishment not his wife.Pretty disgusting to think of him doing that.

Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: In my opinion, his decision to write PIG on the headboard was a three-fold process.

1) Culling details from the Manson murders.

2) Colette's body was positioned right next to the bed. If Jeff had left Colette on top of Kristen's bed, I believe he would have written PIG on Kristen's wall or on another item in Kristen's room.

3) The word was written in the singular and was located on Colette's side of the bed.

In addition, the pajama fiber evidence provides further proof that Jeffrey MacDonald was the "author" of the word PIG. There were 6 pajama fibers found on top of the pillow located directly under the word and a pajama fiber was located on the floor near the headboard.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF:In my mind that raises another interesting question. Why did MacDonald move the bodies at all?He was ignorant of the blood types.It would have more indicitive of an attack by multiple disorganized assailants if he had just let the bodies stay where they fell.Tucking the children back into bed Kim with her security blanket and Kris with her bottle is just another factor that points straight at a parent as the killer.The pajama top fibers were very incriminating.So is the fact that the alleged hippies would write the word "pig" right over where Colette slept as opposed to anywhere else.For instance it was not written over where MacDonald slept or on the bedroom mirror.All of the rage and degredation was focused on Colette and the children.Not on their alleged target the doctor who denied them drugs.I believe the neighbor who recollected a muffled argument and Colette's angry voice got pretty much the jist of the conflict that went on that night.She said she couldn't swear to what she heard but it sounded something like Colette said "What do you think I'm going to be doing while your doing this just standing here?If you touch one hair on the heads of those children."I believe MacDonald may have injured or threatened to injure Kimberly.Possibly over the bed wetting.Possibly if Colette threatened to use her as a witness if she walked in on MacDonald molesting her. He may have threatened to kill them both if they disclosed what he was doing.

Lanna

[cami]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.


Wait, it gets worse! In just one of the disgusting moments in Mrs. Inmate's recent and overwhelmingly nauseating appearance on "Larry King Live," she compared herself to Dana Reeve, valiantly supporting her man as he endures the hardship of his "unfortunate situation" (like he was the victim of a tragic accident rather than being incarcerated for life after having been rightfully convicted of slaughtering his wife and infant daughters).


And when she said she felt an "affinity" with Colette, I wanted to reach into that tv and grab her by the throat.

Colette was more woman in her baby finger than that Barbie Doll.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Lanna89
Thanks JTF and Byn. That makes sense.An unusual medium to say the least!Interesting that MacDonald chose that word and that location for the word "Pig."The Manson family actually wrote several things in blood when they committed their crime.I don't believe any of them were written on the headboard of a bed.Among hippies the word "pig" would have signified the Police or other authority figure in the establishment.Macdonald wrote it on the headboard over where his wife slept.And I don't think the implied meaning was the same for him.Somehow I don't think hippies would have written it on the headboard at all.More likely scrawled on a wall or mirror and they would have been referring to MacDonald who they saw as a member of the establishment not his wife.Pretty disgusting to think of him doing that.

Lanna

I see what you are saying, but let's not forget, the Manson family was not made up of hippies. They were a cult of lost young people lead by a racist lifetime criminal/jailbird. Hippies did not write things in the blood of people they wantonly murdered, because hippies were not wanton murderers, criminals, or racists.
The Manson followers were.

[Lanna89]

barskin: Point taken.No offense meant to current or former hippies out there.LOL. What I meant was that in my opinion disorganized killers would be hard pressed to find surgical gloves in a house they had never been in before.And would most likely not put them on and write the word "pig"in blood coincidentally on Colette's side of the headboard.Nothing about that crime scene smacked of the kind of disorganized behavior you would have expected to see from a group of drug crazed killers on a murderous rampage.The whole counterculture thing was a little before my time but my apoligies to anyone in that group I may have offhandedly offended.

L

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Lanna89
barskin: Point taken.No offense meant to current or former hippies out there.LOL. What I meant was that in my opinion disorganized killers would be hard pressed to find surgical gloves in a house they had never been in before.And would most likely not put them on and write the word "pig"in blood coincidentally on Colette's side of the headboard.Nothing about that crime scene smacked of the kind of disorganized behavior you would have expected to see from a group of drug crazed killers on a murderous rampage.The whole counterculture thing was a little before my time but my apoligies to anyone in that group I may have offhandedly offended.

L

No, no, I meant that I felt no offense, even though I (a fellow Bostonian, by the way) am indeed a former card carrying hippie. I think I even still have that frayed old card. No, I just wanted to stop the confusion people still have about the Manson family. They were not counter-culture, they were not "protesting against society" (as I have heard some misinformed current Manson fans proclaiming). They were anti-social, which is a rather big difference. However, I understood the gist of what you were saying, and I agree.

[barskin&co.]

Lanna, also, Charlie Manson was an experienced (very experienced) criminal. Too experienced to send his crew out while drug-crazed. As one expert put it, in discussing the MacD case, a group of hippies on LSD couldn't organize a trip to the bathroom together, much less carry out a murder plot . Oh, sure, they took LSD between crime gigs, but he had them straight to do a job for him. The acid-crazed killer another MacMyth. There is very little (if any) evidence that LSD and psychadellic drugs led to violence (unlike, for instance, meth amphetamines). Not that these drugs were safe; they were highly mind altering, and "bad trips" could lead to (inwardly) psychological harm.

[Lanna89]

Okay barskin,glad to hear I didn't offend you.I have been known to inadvertantly put my foot in my mouth on occasion.I wouldn't want to step on the toes of a fellow Bostonian either.Although I'm not really from Boston proper.I live in an outlying suburb.I'm in love with New England.After ten years living in the deep South I can breathe again.Now I'm going to get in hot water with all the Southerners out there!Please don't write me y'all I like the South.Just not a good fit for me personally.

I've got nothing against hippies to be sure.That was the generation before me but I probably would have been one myself if I'd been legal.I get the distinction between anti-social and counter culture.The Manson family was probably as anti-thesis to the ideals of the peace loving counter culture groups of the time as it could be.I know much less about the Manson murders.And apparently MacDonald didn't know much either.His attempt at pinning the murders on a group of murderous hippies was ridiculous to say the least.

Lanna

[Lanna89]

barskin: We are certainly in agreement that the MacDonald crime scene was not consistent with a group of murderous hippies on a drug crazed rampage.They left a closet full of drugs and syringes behind.I have no doubt that Helena was trashed that night and remembers little of what she did.But that doesn't mean she was at the crime scene.She was a hard core drug abuser with paranoid delusions.So was Greg Mitchell.

L

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Lanna89
barskin: We are certainly in agreement that the MacDonald crime scene was not consistent with a group of murderous hippies on a drug crazed rampage.They left a closet full of drugs and syringes behind.I have no doubt that Helena was trashed that night and remembers little of what she did.But that doesn't mean she was at the crime scene.She was a hard core drug abuser with paranoid delusions.So was Greg Mitchell.

L

Absolutely agree . As a matter of fact, who knows how many people in that area were trashed that night. The only persons who were at the crime scene that evening, however, were MacKiller and his poor wife and daughters.

[JTF]

The nature of modern day media in conjunction with how they've presented MacDonald's side of the story (i.e., intruders) has obscured the fact that the whereabouts of several Stoeckley group members were established as early as 1971.

GREG MITCHELL: Mitchell was home at his parent's residence on February 17, 1970.

BRUCE FOWLER: Kathy Smith, a roomate of Helena Stoeckley at 1108 Clark Street, was with Fowler at his trailer on February 17, 1970.

DON HARRIS: Harris was at 1108 Clark Street on February 17th, with Stoeckley's other roomate, Diane Cazares.

ALLEN MAZZEROLLE: Mazzerolle was in jail on February 17th on LSD possession and distribution charges.

DWIGHT SMITH: Smith was home alone on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Lanna89
I get the distinction between anti-social and counter culture.The Manson family was probably as anti-thesis to the ideals of the peace loving counter culture groups of the time as it could be.I know much less about the Manson murders.And apparently MacDonald didn't know much either.His attempt at pinning the murders on a group of murderous hippies was ridiculous to say the least.

Charles Manson was a fascist and a racist who had far more in common with Hitler than with any hippie. Hippies preached love and were anti-racist, but Manson preached war: he wanted to instigate a race war.
Interesting that the 'number one drug expert' in the MacD case, Helena Stoeckley, said that someone on LSD could not have committed the crimes in the MacD home, but someone on speed (amphetamines) could have. And we all know who had taken amphetamines on that night - JMD.

[cami]

Originally posted by JTF
The nature of modern day media in conjunction with how they've presented MacDonald's side of the story (i.e., intruders) has obscured the fact that the whereabouts of several Stoeckley group members were established as early as 1971.

GREG MITCHELL: Mitchell was home at his parent's residence on February 17, 1970.

BRUCE FOWLER: Kathy Smith, a roomate of Helena Stoeckley at 1108 Clark Street, was with Fowler at his trailer on February 17, 1970.

DON HARRIS: Harris was at 1108 Clark Street on February 17th, with Stoeckley's other roomate, Diane Cazares.

ALLEN MAZZEROLLE: Mazzerolle was in jail on February 17th on LSD possession and distribution charges.

DWIGHT SMITH: Smith was home alone on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

Ironically, it was Helena who snitched on Mazzerole which led to his arrest and incarceration on the night of the murders.

[byn63]

Irony maybe but just a few tidbits that I've been thinking about:

1) The word PIG in singular form on the headboard of the bed - on Colette's side of the bed.

Later, Inmate tried to distance himself from this blunder. During his testimony before the Grand Jury (I think it was) he claimed that he and Colette didn't really HAVE a side of the bed.

Also, as has already been pointed out Inmate would have been considered a PIG by hippies, but not Colette.

2) Didn't know the family blood types.

this little tidbit can be forgiven, the whole family was a statistical anomaly in the fact that each member had a different blood type. BUT, it lead to several errors that helped get Inmate convicted.

3) Why move the bodies?

I believe he moved the bodies around because he wanted to make it appear that the family was attacked in their sleep. Of course, the different blood types allowed chemists/serologists to READ the crime scene and blow that scenario out of the water.

In part, I think it is possible that by tucking in Kimmy and giving Kristy her bottle Inmate was psychologically "undoing" some of the severe damage he'd inflicted.

I find it amusing to associate these and some of the more ironic little "miscues" to the psychological profile done by Dr. Silverman. These sort of inconsistencies seem to me to point out very clearly that Inmate has trouble SEEING the WHOLE PCITURE. Of course, the most ironic thing is if he'd kept his mouth shut, or claimed to have no memory of what transpired it would have been EVEN MORE difficult to have gotten him convicted. Inmate's own words is what first brought Freddy's attention to focus on him as the criminal.

[Lanna89]

byn:I don't believe for one second that MacDonald and Colette didn't have their own sides of the bed.That is highly unlikely as most married couples would attest.About as unlikely as murderous hippies coming into the home and just coincidentally writing the word "pig" on the side of the bed Colette slept on.And randomly dropping rubber glove fragments with blood on them and PJ fibers right under where the word was written.The fact that the children were not just in bed but "tucked" into bed with their respective blanket and bottle was the real clincher for me as far as confirming MacDonald's guilt.And it was pretty damn clear from the extent of Colette's injuries that she didn't die in her sleep.The only victim without defensive injuries to my knowledge was Kim.And she wouldn't have been able to fight after MacDonald knocked her out with the club.
As other posters have pointed out as much as MacDonald has tried to vilify the drug culture around Fort Bragg he has failed. It is much more likely that he himself was taking an excess of speed in his diet pills and that contributed to his frenzy during the murders.

Lanna

[JTF]

Lanna: Despite claims to the contrary by Bost and Potter, the first thing that MacDonald wrote about in his "diary" was his consumption of amphetamines. The crime scene indicates multiple rage reactions, the type of reactions attributed to amphetamine, not acid consumption. The blood, hair, and fiber evidence are virtual maps of MacDonald's rage on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

[Lanna89]

JTF:Yes,I believe implicitly that MacDonald was abusing amphetamines at the time of the murders.It's a shame there wasn't a test available at that time to measure the amount of speed in his system.It's very ironic that when he pointed a finger at alleged hippies for the murders he tried to villify them for their drug abuse when it was he who was abusing them. As do the majority of liars he interjects some of the truth.He did this numerous times as in his use of Colette's and Kim's last words in his cover story.

[byn63]

I honestly believe that Inmate STILL doesn't think he ever ABUSED drugs in any shape, manner or form. See, he was the "golden boy" the "Princeton Educated Doctor" and unlike the rest of us meer mortals HE could handle the use of amphetamines. (Like the MASH episode where Charles did). Therefore, WE who even mention SPEED are bringing up trivial insignificant data.:shrug:

[Lanna89]

byn:I don't believe MacDonald will ever admit to abusing the Eskatrol diet pills.Or that he is no better than the drug abusers he looks down upon.It is interesting to me in reading threw some of Christina's documents on the MacDonald web site that he muses on and on about the evil drug culture in dirty old Fayetteville.I don't believe he really knows anything about the counter culture of that time.He emphasizes the stereotypes because they serve his purpose.Not that I am enamored of drug abusers.But they weren't responsible for killing his family.Meth of the kind he was abusing at the time of the murders is extremely dangerous and many people become psychotic and homicidal while using it.

Lanna

[cami]

Originally posted by Lanna89
byn:I don't believe MacDonald will ever admit to abusing the Eskatrol diet pills.Or that he is no better than the drug abusers he looks down upon.It is interesting to me in reading threw some of Christina's documents on the MacDonald web site that he muses on and on about the evil drug culture in dirty old Fayetteville.I don't believe he really knows anything about the counter culture of that time.He emphasizes the stereotypes because they serve his purpose.Not that I am enamored of drug abusers.But they weren't responsible for killing his family.Meth of the kind he was abusing at the time of the murders is extremely dangerous and many people become psychotic and homicidal while using it.

Lanna

Yeah I agree. Did you know that Darlie Routier was doing diet pills in the months before she committed murder. As was Jean Harris, she was taking amphetemines for years.

In 2003 or 04 can't remember which now, when he was on Larry King Live, he told Larry that the intruders ingested five different drugs that night. If they had ingested that many drugs, they would have been comatose. He's Larry's favourite guest so his appearances all run together for me, LOL.

[Lanna89]

cami:How in the world does MacDonald purport to know what drugs Helena Stoeckley or anyone else consumed on the night of the murders?In any case it is really irrelevant what drugs were consumed by Stoeckley,Mitchell or anyone else besides MacDonald himself. Why the press gives him a venue to discuss his case is beyond me.Just because he was a good looking educated doctor does not mean he could not have been abusing drugs or exempt him from commiting an act of domestic violence.Occam's Razor,the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.He murdered his family.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Lanna89
cami:How in the world does MacDonald purport to know what drugs Helena Stoeckley or anyone else consumed on the night of the murders?In any case it is really irrelevant what drugs were consumed by Stoeckley,Mitchell or anyone else besides MacDonald himself. Why the press gives him a venue to discuss his case is beyond me.Just because he was a good looking educated doctor does not mean he could not have been abusing drugs or exempt him from commiting an act of domestic violence.Occam's Razor,the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.He murdered his family.

Yes. Exactly. It is simply one of the many inherently ludicrous details in MacKiller's ridiculous story.

[JTF]

During the April 6, 1970 CID interrogation, Robert Shaw points out the prodigious list of medications/supplies in his hallway closet, and MacDonald admits to Shaw that the list looks "excessive." Shaw responds by stating that the list looks, "more than a little excessive." Classic.

JTF.

[bandit's mom]

Just happened to catch "Notorious" on the Biography chanel
last night. It's actually "American Justice" reruns with a new
name and last nights was the one on the baby killer. Of course,
I've seen it before, but just couldn't turn the station and
sat through it again. The man is such an arrogant A##, it's
just amazing. Talking about his right to "move on with his
life" and How he's not going to apologize for it. How's that
workin' out for ya Jeffy boy?

[JTF]

Bandit's Mom: One of my favorite parts of the show is when the psychopath states that Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw accusing him of murder, "hit me right between the eyes," and that, "I thought, you guys are crazy." MacDonald couldn't even recognize how poorly he performed during that interview on April 6, 1970.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
The man is such an arrogant A##, it's
just amazing. Talking about his right to "move on with his
life" and How he's not going to apologize for it. How's that
workin' out for ya Jeffy boy? LOL, b-mom! Not working out too well for him at all, is it? He thought he was in prison during his marriage, but now he's experiencing the real thing.

Originally posted by JTF
Bandit's Mom: One of my favorite parts of the show is when the psychopath states that Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw accusing him of murder, "hit me right between the eyes," and that, "I thought, you guys are crazy." MacDonald couldn't even recognize how poorly he performed during that interview on April 6, 1970.
No, of course he couldn't recognize how poorly he performs. He's blind to the evidence (or pretends to be), blind to the horror of the crimes he commited, in fact blind to everything except his own ego. Too bad they couldn't add charges of "impersonating a human being" to his list of offenses.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by JTF
Bandit's Mom: One of my favorite parts of the show is when the psychopath states that Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw accusing him of murder, "hit me right between the eyes," and that, "I thought, you guys are crazy." MacDonald couldn't even recognize how poorly he performed during that interview on April 6, 1970.

JTF.

Yes, that was another surreal part of the interview. Like
he really had no clue? Please. He's really not a very good actor,
I don't find his monogues the least bit convincing. Obviously the
jury didn't either.
It was just the arrogance of the comment about moving on
with his life that got to me. That, and the fact that as he's discussing the brutal murder fo his family the ONLY emotion
you can detect is his rage at having HIS life interrupted. Not
one single sign of emotion about his babies. I mean, even
if you are totally done with your spouse, your babies??
Not to go too far off topic, but for some reason in this most
recent viewing of the show I was struck by how much Scott
Peterson reminds me of MacDonald. Both golden boys, tired
of the "burden's" in their lives, both with families and supporters
that are either blind or dumb, and neither with the slightest
ounce of compassion or grief for the victims.
I just really don't see how anyone is taken in my Jeffy boy.
He's such a sleaze.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Yes, that was another surreal part of the interview. Like
he really had no clue? Please. He's really not a very good actor,
I don't find his monogues the least bit convincing. Obviously the
jury didn't either.
It was just the arrogance of the comment about moving on
with his life that got to me. That, and the fact that as he's discussing the brutal murder fo his family the ONLY emotion
you can detect is his rage at having HIS life interrupted. Not
one single sign of emotion about his babies. I mean, even
if you are totally done with your spouse, your babies??
Not to go too far off topic, but for some reason in this most
recent viewing of the show I was struck by how much Scott
Peterson reminds me of MacDonald. Both golden boys, tired
of the "burden's" in their lives, both with families and supporters
that are either blind or dumb, and neither with the slightest
ounce of compassion or grief for the victims.
I just really don't see how anyone is taken in my Jeffy boy.He's such a sleaze

Well, fortunately, not many people are taken in, anymore. MacMonster has had many supporters over the years who didn't know much of the totality of the case against him. Whenever they do learn the facts, people like Allard Lowenstein and Christina Masewicz (who runs the most exhaustively extensive informational web site on the case) have turned against him and realized the obvious truth; he is guilty, guilty, guilty.

[JTF]

During the process of Franz Grebner reading MacDonald his rights, MacDonald stated, "this is sounding ominous." So, he basically knew before Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw asked him question one, that the CID thought he was the main suspect. MacDonald was basically playing the tortured innocent when he stated that the CID's reaction hit him, "right between the eyes." This is similar to his claim that the phone call to Freddy Kassab (i.e., MacDonald and some Green Beret buddies killing one of the Stoeckley group) was an "impulsive" decision. MacDonald told family friend, Bob Stern, that same story 3 months prior to his call to Kassab. The late Allard Lowenstein said it best when he told Freddy Kassab that MacDonald, "will say anything to anybody."

JTF.

[singaporesling]

I am new to the board and have been impressed with all of the new information I have leaned from these postings on JMD. After reading Fatal Vision years ago I am convinced beyond any doubt that he is guilty.

When do you think that the decision will come down on his last appeal?

[JTF]

The MacDonald defense team recently filed a new motion, so we're looking at a decision sometime in the Fall. In my opinion, the DNA test results hurt MacDonald's cause, so that motion will go no further. I believe that Judge Fox will grant a hearing for the Jimmy Britt motion, but once Brian Murtagh gets to grill Britt on the stand, the ballgame will be over.

JTF.

[caphill]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JTF
The MacDonald defense team recently filed a new motion, so we're looking at a decision sometime in the Fall. In my opinion, the DNA test results hurt MacDonald's cause, so that motion will go no further. I believe that Judge Fox will grant a hearing for the Jimmy Britt motion, but once Brian Murtagh gets to grill Britt on the stand, the ballgame will be over.

JTF. [/QUOTE

When was this motion filed. Are you such these were not just amendments to a existing motion. What source do you have the motion was filed by the defense and not the Government?

What was the result of the last motion filed by the Government that asked the Court to deny MacDonald the right to expand the record. Also the Goverment did not want the Court to allow inclusion of the DNA results.

Why do you think the Government is fighting to keep MacDonald from including the DNA in his motions to vacate the verdict.

Why is the Government so concerned by the DNA results.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
The MacDonald defense team recently filed a new motion, so we're looking at a decision sometime in the Fall. In my opinion, the DNA test results hurt MacDonald's cause, so that motion will go no further. I believe that Judge Fox will grant a hearing for the Jimmy Britt motion, but once Brian Murtagh gets to grill Britt on the stand, the ballgame will be over.

JTF.

The only one that can try to refute Britt is Blackburn.

How do you think he will fare to these allegations against him. Do you think he may have credibility issues?

How do think Marshall Britt's professional history will weigh against the professional history of the disbarred Blackburn?

[JTF]

Caphill: Bunny discovered that the defense team filed another response to a prior motion from the government. Apparantly, the nuts and bolts of that motion cannot be accessed at this time via computer, but that information will eventually be made available to the public. In terms of the Britt motion, it will be Brian Murtagh, not Blackburn who will be challenging the validity of Britt's claims. Britt has already admitted to the press that he is a recovering alcoholic and Peter Kearns has alluded to Britt's troubles with the CID in the early 1970's. Common sense dictates that this is just the tip of the iceburg in terms of Britt's past. In essence, we know what Blackburn has done, so it's up to Murtagh to bring out Britt's skeletons. By the way, the government did not try to squash a DNA hearing, they are simply asking that the DNA and the Britt issue be handled SEPARATELY. Why would the government shy away from a DNA hearing when the test results FAVOR their side? Jeff's limb hair found stuck in the palm of Colette's left hand and the absence of a matching DNA profile for Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell in regards to ALL 28 hair exhibits, was a devastating blow to the MacDonald defense team.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Bunny discovered that the defense team filed another response to a prior motion from the government. Apparantly, the nuts and bolts of that motion cannot be accessed at this time via computer, but that information will eventually be made available to the public. In terms of the Britt motion, it will be Brian Murtagh, not Blackburn who will be challenging the validity of Britt's claims. Britt has already admitted to the press that he is a recovering alcoholic and Peter Kearns has alluded to Britt's troubles with the CID in the early 1970's. Common sense dictates that this is just the tip of the iceburg in terms of Britt's past. In essence, we know what Blackburn has done, so it's up to Murtagh to bring out Britt's skeletons. By the way, the government did not try to squash a DNA hearing, they are simply asking that the DNA and the Britt issue be handled SEPARATELY. Why would the government shy away from a DNA hearing when the test results FAVOR their side? Jeff's limb hair found stuck in the palm of Colette's left hand and the absence of a matching DNA profile for Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell in regards to ALL 28 hair exhibits, was a devastating blow to the MacDonald defense team.

JTF.


The preaching to your choir may work for you.

To many others who have no emotional ties to anyone involved in this case or any need to try to rewrite history to try to rehabilitate the investigators of the CID, this limp hair belonging to Dr. MacDonald is not inculpatory.

There is reason to expect that hairs and fibers from MacDonald would be found on or around all the bodies.

To find foreign hair embedded under litte Kristen's bloody fingernails is proof that someone other than MacDonald was likely being clawed at the time of her death.The 2/1/2 inch hair found under or on Colette's body was not Jeff's and the third foreign hair was not Jeff's.

These hairs were determined to not be Helena or Mitchell's hair. Helena has always maintained she was there but she did not kill any of the victims. Dr. MacDonald has always maintained he saw at four intruders and it is believed by other investigators for the defense there were seven intruders in that house.

These few hairs that were examined and yielded any results were compared to only two of the suspected intruders. What about the others that were suspected of being in that house.

Many foreign fibers were found on and around the victims, including the mouth of Colette and one of the murder weapons. A 22 inch long synthetic hair was also found at the murder scene. Is it possible it came from a wig that Helena admittedly wore along with a floppy hat?

These are now known facts of this other forensics found at the scene and this can't not be disputed. Unfortunately this evidence was hidden from the jury at the time of the trial.

I have access to filed court records and filed motions. There is no record of a new motion filed. As I stated previous, there could be an amendment or correction that is filed as an attachment to a motion already on file that would not be considered a new motion and therefore not accessible.

[JTF]

Caphill: Here we go again. Like MacDonald's other minions, you regurgitate the same propaganda in the hopes that some poor soul will agree with you. ALL of your arguments have been shown to be false time and time again, but you repeat them anyway. Well, in the interest of listing DOCUMENTED FACT, here goes:

1) For the past 26 years, your fellow MacDonald advocates have stated that the limb hair found in Colette's hand would "prove" that Greg Mitchell killed Colette and MacDonald himself stated in 1999, that this limb hair was the "most important" piece of trace evidence in this case. Now that the limb hair was matched to Jeffrey MacDonald, he and his groupies are attempting to backtrack as quickly as possible, while leaving out the FACT that a wood splinter from the club was found in the SAME HAND as the limb hair. Bost and Potter pointed out in Fatal Justice that the significance of this splinter is that it ties the wielder of the club to the limb hair.

2) Sans Glisson lab note R-11, there is no accompanying evidence indicating that the hair fragment was found under Kristen's fingernail. Dillard Browning looked at the fingernail scrapings of Kristen 6 months prior to Glisson, and he found no such fragment. Even if the fragment was found under Kristen's fingernail, it means nothing because it did not match a SPECIFIC suspect. In addition, Kristen's hands were not bagged, she was active on February 16th, spent time on a farm, and she was not bathed prior to going to bed. To state that the fragment is evidence of Kristen ripping a hair from an intruder is flat-out false.

3) The 22 inch saran fiber found at the crime scene differed in chemical composition to the 24 inch saran fiber found in the same clear-handled hairbrush. The 24 inch fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection, the MacDonald children had a collection of over 20 dolls, and Helena Stoeckley admitted at trial that she was not wearing a wig on February 17, 1970.

4) Jeffrey MacDonald discarded most of the clothing items inside 544 Castle Drive shortly after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearing, so there were no clothing items in existence for comparison purposes. Four of the 5 woolen fibers differed in chemical composition indicating 4 different types of woolen clothing. Helena Stoeckley is the ONLY member of her "group" who wore woolen clothing items and similar to her trial testimony regarding her wig, she stated in numerous "confessions" that she was not wearing wool clothing on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill:

snipped for space

Well, in the interest of listing DOCUMENTED FACT, here goes:

3) The 22 inch saran fiber found at the crime scene differed in chemical composition to the 24 inch saran fiber found in the same clear-handled hairbrush. The 24 inch fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection, the MacDonald children had a collection of over 20 dolls, and Helena Stoeckley admitted at trial that she was not wearing a wig on February 17, 1970.


JTF.


Please explain why the CID investigators, lab and prosecutors did not put the 22 and 24 inch saran hair found in the clear handled brush into evidence.

Was there a doll in the MacDonald house that had hair 24 inches long? With all the pics taken in the hours right after the murders there is no sight of a doll with these rare length of hair.

Where is the documented fact that the FBI had a such doll in their exemplar collection?

What was the name of that doll. Who made this doll in 1969 that had 24 inch blond hair?

Just the facts, please.........

[JTF]

Caphill: The saran fiber evidence was available to the defense at the 1979 trial. The defense team had copies of Paul Stombaugh's lab notes, John Thornton read those notes, and Stombaugh's analysis of all 3 saran fibers are in his notes. Ironically, Stombaugh classified the saran fibers as coming from a, "doll, Halloween costumes, etc." How right he was. It took the MacDonald camp over a decade to put 2 and 2 together to equal 9 in terms of the saran fibers coming from a wig that Stoeckley stated she didn't wear on February 17, 1970. Jeffrey MacDonald discarded all of the children's dolls shortly after the Article 32 hearing, so the length of each doll's hair will always be a mystery. In terms of the 24 inch fiber, the FBI focused on the chemical composition of that fiber, not the length. That saran fiber was made of the same material used in making doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection. Plain and simple.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill:

snipped for space

Well, in the interest of listing DOCUMENTED FACT, here goes:

Helena Stoeckley is the ONLY member of her "group" who wore woolen clothing items and similar to her trial testimony regarding her wig, she stated in numerous "confessions" that she was not wearing wool clothing on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

Do you just pick out the parts of Helena's "confessions" you like and disregard the rest.

When did Helena become a credible witness or a source of documented facts that you would quote anything she said to support your arguments?

Didn't she say in one of her many "confessions" that she brushed her hair while at the scene. Didn't she say she had disarded the wig because she was afraid it would incriminate her.

This blond wig that Helena was known to have worn was such a item of interest. Why didn't the CID immediately retrive this wig from her and hold it. A comparison of the wig strands to the saran strands found in the brush would have put to rest the question of whether the strands came from a human wig or a phantom doll with 24 inch hair.

Oh, I forgot, the 22 and 24 inch saran strands were not a issue when the CID was gathering evidence from the MacDonald house. They were such a non issue that the defense did not know these strands existed until many years after the trial.

When Dr. MacDonald described seeing a person with long blond hair and a floppy hat and his description matched Helena and her friends, the local people and the CID admittedly talked with her.

One would think that CID finding a long blond wig strand at the crime scene would have rung a bell that these strands should have been compared to someone known to have worn a blond wig and dressed in dark clothes.

Why do you think the CID and their lab hid the black fibers on Colette's mouth and the one of the murder weapons from the defense and the jury?

Why do you think the CID and their lab made so many mistakes in destroying fingerprints and even the photos of fingerprints?

Were there fingersprints found on the baby bottle found lying on the edge of the bed next to Kristen's head?

Just the facts, JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: The saran fiber evidence was available to the defense at the 1979 trial. The defense team had copies of Paul Stombaugh's lab notes, John Thornton read those notes, and Stombaugh's analysis of all 3 saran fibers are in his notes. Ironically, Stombaugh classified the saran fibers as coming from a, "doll, Halloween costumes, etc." How right he was. It took the MacDonald camp over a decade to put 2 and 2 together to equal 9 in terms of the saran fibers coming from a wig that Stoeckley stated she didn't wear on February 17, 1970. Jeffrey MacDonald discarded all of the children's dolls shortly after the Article 32 hearing, so the length of each doll's hair will always be a mystery. In terms of the 24 inch fiber, the FBI focused on the chemical composition of that fiber, not the length. That saran fiber was made of the same material used in making doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection. Plain and simple.

JTF.


Plain and simple, were are the documented facts you mentioned that the FBI had exemplar dolls in their collection?

If that is the case ,as you stated, plain and simple, what company made this doll and what was the name of this doll. Plain and simple was there any evidence from anyone that the MacDonald children ever owned a doll that had 24 inch hair.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
To find foreign hair embedded under litte Kristen's bloody fingernails is proof that someone other than MacDonald was likely being clawed at the time of her death.Then to find MacDonald's bloody pajama fiber under Kristen's fingernail is proof that MacDonald murdered her. Not to mention his bloody footprint in Colette's blood leaving Kristen's room, the bedding evidence, the other fiber and blood evidence, the lack of fibers and blood where MacD claims to have been attacked, and on and on and on. But of course you also failed to point out all the many facts others have told you in the past, such as the fact that Kristen wasn't bathed that evening, that she visited the Edwards' residence and perhaps the stables also, that her hands were not bagged, etc.

Now a question for you, Cappy: Why did the defense claim for so many years that hair under Kim's fingernail was exculpatory, but now they don't mention it at all anymore?

Another question for you: Why does the defense no longer mention any of the other "intruders"? Why have they dropped Fowler, Smith, Harris, Perry, et al, leaving only Stoeckley and Mitchell?

The evidence is overwhelming that no intruders were ever in the apartment and that MacDonald murdered his family, and as I will never tire of pointing out, he admits it every time he demonstrates the consciousness of his guilt, which he has done countless times over the years and which he continues to do.
The 2/1/2 inch hair found under or on Colette's body was not Jeff's and the third foreign hair was not Jeff's.Unsourced items are forensically worthless, as you knew before you posted. It is the sourced, not the unsourced, items which are significant. The hair in Colette's hand, which MacDonald and his supporters have for decades insisted could only have come from her murderer, turned out to be his very own. The hair in the bedding which was also held up as evidence of intruders was Colette's.I have access to filed court records and filed motions. There is no record of a new motion filed. As I stated previous, there could be an amendment or correction that is filed as an attachment to a motion already on file that would not be considered a new motion and therefore not accessible. There is nothing I can find that indicates this motion was an "attachment" or amendment or correction. It is labeled by the court as a motion:

Filed: 07/17/2006
Entered: 07/17/2006
Entered By: GM Deputy Clerk,
Event Name(s): Motion Submitted
Full Docket Text:
Motion Submission as to Jeffrey MacDonald re [122] MOTION to Amend/Correct, [129] MOTION to Strike Exhibits Submitted in Connection with Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. 2255, and for Additional Relief, [124] MOTION to expand the record to include the itemized authenticated evidence (Deputy Clerk, GM)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
...Plain and simple was there any evidence from anyone that the MacDonald children ever owned a doll that had 24 inch hair.Plain and simple, Cappy, was there any evidence at all that any saran fiber in the MacDonald apartment was ever matched or sourced to any "intruder"?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2

snipped for space

[There is nothing I can find that indicates this motion was an "attachment" or amendment or correction. It is labeled by the court as a motion:

Filed: 07/17/2006
Entered: 07/17/2006
Entered By: GM Deputy Clerk,
Event Name(s): Motion Submitted
Full Docket Text:
Motion Submission as to Jeffrey MacDonald re [122] MOTION to Amend/Correct, [129] MOTION to Strike Exhibits Submitted in Connection with Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. 2255, and for Additional Relief, [124] MOTION to expand the record to include the itemized authenticated evidence (Deputy Clerk, GM) [/B]


Bunny your interpretation and comprehension of what the above filing says is much different from mine.

It says re [122] Motion to Amend/Correct ...also [129] Motion to strike Exhibits Submitted in Connection with Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C 2255 and for Additional Relief, ....also [124] Motion to expand the record to include the itemized authenticated evidence.



That explains why there is not access to the filing on 7-17. This appear to not be a new Motion but changes and additions to an existing Motion on file.

I can not determine from this filing whether it is the defense or the government that is filing.

It says Motion Submission as to Jeffrey MacDonald. So is this to Amend/Correct the Gov. Motion of April 17th or it is the Defense asking to Amend/Correct their Motion of May 8th?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Plain and simple, Cappy, was there any evidence at all that any saran fiber in the MacDonald apartment was ever matched or sourced to any "intruder"?


Plain and simple, was there any evidence that the MacDonald children ever owned a doll that had 24 inch saran hair.

Plain and simple, what is the name of the doll and the maker of the doll that JTF claims the FBI has in their exemplar collection.

What is so difficult with that plain and simple question.

If there was no doll that had 24 inch hair and Colette did not have a wig with 24 inch strands, then pray tell where do you think these saran strands came from that were found in the clear handled hair brush.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Plain and simple, Cappy, was there any evidence at all that any saran fiber in the MacDonald apartment was ever matched or sourced to any "intruder"?

If my husband or boyfriend came home with lipstick on his collar and a 25 inch blond wig strand or hair on his person, I don't need to know the source to kick his arse to the curb.

Sorry for laughing at the idea forensics have to have a known source to be considered important in a crime scene.

Tell that to the Courts that are releasing people from prison when the DNA in rape cases show the accused was not the donor.

As long as the evidence shows the accused was not the donor, the Courts do not require the accused have to identify the real donor to get a pass out of jail.

Now you know that, so why do you repeatedly say that all the forensics found in the MacDonald house that could not be linked to him or his family or any of the known people they were in that house is of no consequence.

The argument to the jury by the prosecution was the lack of any trace evidence of any unknown hairs, fibers etc. was reason to find MacDonald guilty.

Lo and behold, it is found later that there was a number of fibers, hairs, and 22-24 inch saran hair strands found in and around the house and under the fingernails of the children, on the mouth of Colette, on the one of the murder weapons.

The jury was deceived when they were told there was no forensics found other that what was linked to MacDonald.

Do you deny the closing arguments of Blackburn?

[JTF]

Caphill: I'll give you this, you always follow the MacDonald camp mantras to a tee. Ignore the mountain of forensic evidence which points to Jeffrey MacDonald as a murderer, repeat the same handful of forensic needles in a haystack, and hope that people don't realize that ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS have prosaic explanations. In regards to your odd saran/woolen fiber challenge, you can't prove an unknown. You can't source a fiber without an EXISTING exemplar. Your circular argument may work on people who are new to this case, but it won't wash with anyone who has even a base knowledge of the evidence. In terms of the validity or lack thereof of Helena Stoeckley's ramblings, notice how I only used information that she provided UNDER OATH, not information that she provided to the likes of Ted Gunderson. The Stoeckley "confessions" that you hold so dear, are essentially worthless, especially when one considers the tactics that Gunderson used to elicit the information from Stoeckley.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Bunny your interpretation and comprehension of what the above filing says is much different from mine.

It says re [122] Motion to Amend/Correct ...also [129] Motion to strike Exhibits Submitted in Connection with Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C 2255 and for Additional Relief, ....also [124] Motion to expand the record to include the itemized authenticated evidence.

That explains why there is not access to the filing on 7-17. This appear to not be a new Motion but changes and additions to an existing Motion on file.I don't believe that's correct, Cappy. Reread the post carefully. It said:

Motion Submission as to Jeffrey MacDonald re [122] MOTION to Amend/Correct, [129] MOTION to Strike Exhibits Submitted in Connection with Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. 2255, and for Additional Relief, [124] MOTION to expand the record to include the itemized authenticated evidence (Deputy Clerk, GM)

The "re" is telling you what the current motion applies to. As you can see, it applies to [122] which was a prior motion to Amend/Correct, and [129] which was another, prior motion to strike exhibits, and [124] a prior motion to expand the record.
I can not determine from this filing whether it is the defense or the government that is filing.It is a defense motion. First, Christina and I studied all the filings we could find, and for every government filing, it is noted that the filing was entered by Brian Murtagh. All the defense filings show "Entered By: GM Deputy Clerk," and that same notation is on the current filing. The results of our research were apparently correct, and Brian Murtagh confirmed in a phone conversation with Christina that it is indeed a defense motion.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
If my husband or boyfriend came home with lipstick on his collar and a 25 inch blond wig strand or hair on his person, I don't need to know the source to kick his arse to the curb.Lipstick on a collar would be slightly more incriminating than a simple stray hair or fiber on someone's person, wouldn't it? Are you saying that if your husband or boyfriend had a stray hair or fiber on him you'd "kick his arse to the curb"?? You wouldn't even stop to consider that he could have picked it up anywhere at all? That he could have been sitting in a restaurant booth and it had actually been shed by a prior customer? Or that someone shed it in a library or department store or supermarket or any of hundreds of other places and it was picked up totally innocently? Or that you yourself could have picked it up somewhere and transferred it to him? Wow. That's kind of scary. I feel sorry for your husband or boyfriend if that's the case.Sorry for laughing at the idea forensics have to have a known source to be considered important in a crime scene.You're forgiven, since we (or at least I) realize that it comes from not having an understanding of the principles of basic forensics or the Transfer Theory of Locard.

Since unsourced hairs, fibers and other such items are found in every household, and since you insist (just like your alias ArthurThorp used to do) that these unsourced items can only have come from intruders, please tell us about all the many intruders who have been in your home and in the homes of your friends. I can't wait to read about that!

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Plain and simple, was there any evidence that the MacDonald children ever owned a doll that had 24 inch saran hair... .

Plain and simple, what is the name of the doll and the maker of the doll that JTF claims the FBI has in their exemplar collection.

What is so difficult with that plain and simple question.

If there was no doll that had 24 inch hair and Colette did not have a wig with 24 inch strands, then pray tell where do you think these saran strands came from that were found in the clear handled hair brush. But you're the one implying that there were "intruders," Cappy, even though there's never been a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence of that and even though neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched that in any of the most crucial exhibits the defense wanted tested, so it's up to you to show some evidence of that.

What evidence do you have that any saran fiber was ever proven to have come from any "intruder"? What is so difficult with that plain and simple question?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: I'll give you this, you always follow the MacDonald camp mantras to a tee. Ignore the mountain of forensic evidence which points to Jeffrey MacDonald as a murderer, repeat the same handful of forensic needles in a haystack, and hope that people don't realize that ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS have prosaic explanations. In regards to your odd saran/woolen fiber challenge, you can't prove an unknown. You can't source a fiber without an EXISTING exemplar. Your circular argument may work on people who are new to this case, but it won't wash with anyone who has even a base knowledge of the evidence. In terms of the validity or lack thereof of Helena Stoeckley's ramblings, notice how I only used information that she provided UNDER OATH, not information that she provided to the likes of Ted Gunderson. The Stoeckley "confessions" that you hold so dear, are essentially worthless, especially when one considers the tactics that Gunderson used to elicit the information from Stoeckley.

JTF. Good post, JTF!

Cappy would probably give her right arm to have even ONE bit of forensic evidence, no matter how minute, which was shown to have come from intruders. Had there been even a microscopic bit of fiber or one molecule from a hair that could be sourced to any "intruder," that would probably wrap up the entire case for her. Yet she completely and totally ignores the incredibly overwhelming number of evidentiary items which point directly to MacD and no one else as the perpetrator. The bloody footprint, the imprints of Colette's and MacD's pajamas and other imprints on the bedding, the hair and fiber evidence, the fact that Helena's stories were shown not to match the evidence or MacD's own stories, and even the fact that MacD has shown countless times that he is conscious of his guilt in these crimes...all of that and more means nothing whatsoever to her. Instead, she will continue to insist that saran fibers not matched to anyone or anything are all she needs to know he's "innocent." Sometimes supporters just get so silly it's almost impossible to take them seriously.

[JTF]

Bunny: Stating that the thought process of MacDonald advocates is "silly," is a nice way of putting it. They'll spew venom with the best of them, however, when you confront them with documented fact. It doesn't matter if it's a poster on a MacDonald case discussion board or the strip mall queen herself, not a single one of them can deal with the truth. Joe McGinniss said it best when he stated, "Truth is truth, and when it cuts this deep, it can't be overcome by hype. And guilt is guilt, and it doesn't go away either---no matter how often or how strenuously it is denied."

JTF.

[audpaud]

caphill is back.

groovy.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Bunny: Stating that the thought process of MacDonald advocates is "silly," is a nice way of putting it. They'll spew venom with the best of them, however, when you confront them with documented fact. It doesn't matter if it's a poster on a MacDonald case discussion board or the strip mall queen herself, not a single one of them can deal with the truth. Joe McGinniss said it best when he stated, "Truth is truth, and when it cuts this deep, it can't be overcome by hype. And guilt is guilt, and it doesn't go away either---no matter how often or how strenuously it is denied."

JTF.


You made a bold statement about documented facts.

I asked, plain and simple, about these documented facts you mentioned regarding the FBI having doll exemplars that had 22-24 inch saran hair.

I am still waiting. Also is there documented facts that the macDonald children ever owned a doll with 22-24 inch hair. That is such an unusual large doll with unusual long hair that one would think neighbors or friends would have remember seeing such a doll in the home.

In your storehouse of documented facts, please tell me which FBI agent made statements there was the 22-24 inch saran haired doll in their exemplar collection? Also who was the doll manufacturer that has given documented evidence that they made a doll with 24 inch hair in 1969 0r 1970?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
You made a bold statement about documented facts.

I asked, plain and simple, about these documented facts you mentioned regarding the FBI having doll exemplars that had 22-24 inch saran hair.

I am still waiting....And we are still waiting for your answers regarding evidence that any saran fiber of any kind was ever matched or sourced to any wig of Helena Stoeckley's.

I am also still waiting for your answer as to why the defense for so many years touted the "hair" under Kim's fingernail as being exculpatory, yet now they're silent as can be about that.

I'm also still waiting for your answer about why the defense no longer mentions Mazerolle, Smith, Harris, Perry, et al, as being the "intruders"?

And of course you have yet to provide any sort of timeline at all to show us where these six or more "intruders" were before, during and after the murders and how they managed to commit these three horrific murders without leaving a single shred of any kind of evidence of their presence in the apartment.

Why is it taking so long for you to answer these questions?

[JTF]

Bunny: She is simply picking a needle from a giant forensic haystack and focusing on it for 1 simple reason. She knows that you cannot make comparisons to source material that is no longer in existence. I'm surprised that she isn't challenging me to prove the existence of aliens via stories from "abductees."

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Bunny: She is simply picking a needle from a giant forensic haystack and focusing on it for 1 simple reason. She knows that you cannot make comparisons to source material that is no longer in existence. I'm surprised that she isn't challenging me to prove the existence of aliens via stories from "abductees."

JTF.



JTF, You were the one who made statements of documented facts. I have no documented facts that in 1969 or 1970 the FBI had a doll with 24 inch saran blond hair in exemplar collection.

Since, according to you, this is documented fact, I am asking where to find these documented facts and who made these dolls.

Your only response is a personal attack on me for asking.

Is it possible you make a mistake and there is no documented FBI exemplar collection that has the dolls with unusual long blond hair.

I have read everything I could find available and could not find this documented fact you boldly said existed.

[JTF]

Caphill: As usual, I was thorough in responding to your original post, and your follow-up post merely addressed the issue of unsourced fibers. Any comparison of the length of the hair of the dolls owned by the MacDonald children to the 22 and 24 inch saran fibers is now a moot point. Every single doll owned by the MacDonald children were discarded by their father in the late Fall/early Winter of 1970. The FBI apparantly had dolls in their exemplar collection with hair that was up to 18 inches in length. Considering that doll hair is double-looped into the scalp, you could extract a 36 inch saran fiber from that particular doll. Again, we will never know whether the MacDonald children had such a doll in their collection, but considering................

1) The 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection.

2) Due to the double-looping process, a doll owned by the MacDonald children would only have to be 12 inches to account for the fiber in the clear-handled hairbrush.

What is a more feasible scenario, Caphill? Two little girls brushing their doll's hair with their mother's hairbrush or Helena Stoeckley brushing her wig as 6 of her friends are in the midst of slaughtering an entire family? Common sense, please.

JTF.

[caphill]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JTF
Caphill:

1) The 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection.

snipped

JTF. [/QUOTE


Which doll had 24 inch saran hair?

Who was the manufacturer?

What s the name of the doll?

Why do you think the CID did not make pics of everything in the house? Why do think the CID did not collect the any doll that would have the source of the unusual saran strands in the hair brush?

[JTF]

Caphill: I've never come across an FBI document that was specific about the type of doll used in their exemplar comparison. I've seen pictures of side by side comparisons of the 24 inch saran fiber and the exemplar fiber, and the fibers are identical. You have to remember that the exemplar comparison was to prove that the material in the 24 inch fiber was the SAME material used in the manufacturing of doll hair. In addition, the saran fibers were never an issue in this case until 1989, when the MacDonald defense team put together the wig scenario. There is nothing nefarious about this issue. NOTHING. You seem to forget the FACT that other synthetic fibers were found at the crime scene, but since they were matched to Mildred Kassab's wig and Colette's fall, they didn't serve a purpose for the MacDonald defense team. Cut and paste. Select and ignore. Classic tactics used by the MacDonald camp for the past 26 years.

JTF.

[caphill]

Speaking of documented facts, is it not documented that Michael Malone gave false testimony regarding the saran strands.

Isn't it documented fact that Malone gave false testimony in the Alcee Hastings case.

Isn't it documented fact that Anthony Bragdon's conviction based on Malone's false fiber testimony was reversed and he was released from jail.

Knowing of Malone's documented history of false testimony including his statements regarding the saran strands in the macDonald case, do you still stand in defense of Malone and his statements? Would you trust this man to be handling anything involving you in a criminial case?

The FB retired him in 1999 when they could no longer trust his work.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Speaking of documented facts, is it not documented that Michael Malone gave false testimony regarding the saran strands.I'm sure JTF will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if you read the court documents you will find that the courts found no false testimony by Malone in the MacDonald case.

[JTF]

Caphill: Bunny is correct. The appellate courts determined that Malone did not give false testimony in the MacDonald case and lost in this side argument is the fact that the FBI also backed his work in this case. It's important to remember that Paul Stombaugh came to the same conclusion about the source of the saran fibers 16 years prior to Malone's analysis. Robert Webb also provided the chemical composition analysis of the 3 saran fibers, not Malone, and he concluded that the 3 fibers had 2 separate source materials. Last time I checked, Stoeckley is the only known suspect who wore a wig. In terms of the MacDonald camp's attempt to throw the baby out with the bath water, please give me an example of a high profile pathologist or lab technician that has gone through his or her entire career, without raising some eyebrows. Cyril Wecht is a reminder that we're dealing with human beings here, not robots. You have to look at the totality of someone's work and based on this criteria, Michael Malone's resume is quite impressive.

JTF.

[caphill]

JTF, you know of Malone's documented history. You know, in your words, Malone's impressive resume is in contradiction to his shame and the shame he brought to the FBI. The FBI retired him because of his known lies.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2003/000027.html

This is just one case that exposed problems with Malone.

[JTF]

Caphill: That website focuses on playing advocate for certain individuals, so it is not a reliable resource for case background information. If one favors a one-sided analysis of a particular case or individual, then this website could be of some assistance. In terms of Michael Malone's retirement, there is not a shred of proof that he was forced out of the FBI. In regards to the MacDonald case, please give me a documented example of where he gave false testimony. Despite an exhaustive overview of the MacDonald case, the appellate courts certainly didn't find anything to pin on Malone. Malone's work on the MacDonald case was above reproach and any whining from the MacDonald camp concerning his forensic analysis is merely a case of sour grapes.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
JTF, you know of Malone's documented history. You know, in your words, Malone's impressive resume is in contradiction to his shame and the shame he brought to the FBI. The FBI retired him because of his known lies.Hey, Cappy, MacDonald lied to Colette, lied to the Kassabs, lied at the Article 32, lied at the grand jury, lied at trial and is still lying today. What do you think of that?

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

[Bunny2]

JTF, thanks for the good posts re: Malone.

I still think it's amusing that Caphill wants to grill you on Malone and the saran but she completely ignores the questions she's been asked. No answer about the hair under Kim's nail, no answer about the defense's silence re: Mazerolle, Harris, Smith, etc., and of course not one word related to any kind of timeline for these "intruders." Speaks volumes to me.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: That website focuses on playing advocate for certain individuals, so it is not a reliable resource for case background information. If one favors a one-sided analysis of a particular case or individual, then this website could be of some assistance. In terms of Michael Malone's retirement, there is not a shred of proof that he was forced out of the FBI. In regards to the MacDonald case, please give me a documented example of where he gave false testimony. Despite an exhaustive overview of the MacDonald case, the appellate courts certainly didn't find anything to pin on Malone. Malone's work on the MacDonald case was above reproach and any whining from the MacDonald camp concerning his forensic analysis is merely a case of sour grapes.

JTF.


Do you deny the reversal of the conviction of Anthony Bragdon based on the Malone false testimony? Do you deny the false testimony inthe Alcee Hastings case?

It says soomething about the messenger who defends or condones LE wrong doings in their to attempt to secure a win in a criminial case.

A win in a criminial case based on omitted or false info is not a legal win whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

How can a jury make a sound judgement wne ALL the evidence is not before them or if any of the evidence is compromised by false or incompetent testimony.

It is doucmented that Malone had imcompetent and false testimony. He was investigated by the FBI and retired by them.

To continue to sing the praises of this type person says something about you.

I get the impression the clique of you and the other posters that comprise most of this and other MacDonald forums are devoted to trying to rehabilitate the image of Kearns , the CID and the prosecution.

Many known facts about the MacDonald case, the investigation, the lab work, and the trial makes this a mighty big job to rewrite the history of this case.

It is understandable that a retrial for MacDonald is not in best interest of the likes of Kearns, Blackburn, Murtagh, the CID investigation, the CID lab.

Guilty or not guilty, there is no denial that MacDonald did not get a fair and legal trial in front a jury.

Why fight a retrial? Bring it on. If the evidence is as strong as you and the clique proclaim, then there is nothing to worry about, right?

[JTF]

Caphill: So, you now include Peter Kearns in your massive CID/FBI conspiracy to get the Golden Boy. Please. That kind of nonsense is just another desperate attempt by a MacDonald advocate to divert attention away from the mountain of evidence which points to Jeffrey MacDonald as a mass murderer. Kearns' integrity has never been an issue with anyone except Jeffrey MacDonald. Notice how MacDonald has thrown out accusations about Kearns without a shred of proof to back up his pathetic claims. MacDonald knows how impossible a task it is to put a dent in the Kearns authored CID reinvestigation report, so rather than challenge the information from that same report, the psychopath resorts to calling Kearns names. In terms of Michael Malone, let's just say that we agree to disagree. Malone's forensic work in the MacDonald case speaks for itself. It has withstood the weak attacks from the MacDonald defense team, an internal investigation by the FBI, and intense scrutiny from the appellate courts. I'll take that over your opinion any day of the week.

JTF.

[JTF]

Caphill: In regards to the hollow argument regarding a new trial, there is no reason for it other than to waste tax dollars, and to appease the small number of MacDonald advocates. This is not a best 2 out of 3 game of horse out in the backyard. Jeffrey MacDonald had his chance to prove his innocence in 1979. His highly paid lawyers had over 9 years to prepare for such an event, yet the jury convicted him in less than 7 hours based on the inclusion of over 1,000 evidentiary items, and MacDonald's horrible performance on the stand. Every single argument brought forth since that trial has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED HIM AT TRIAL. That is a message that MacDonald and his minions have studiously avoided addressing since the 1984-1985 appellate hearings.

MacDonald has received more chances to be heard (i.e., going on 8 appellate motions) than any murderer in the history of law. Please spare me the What Is The Government Afraid Of challenge when the only basis for it is that MacDonald lost. In the sports world, your challenge is called a "loser's lament." MacDonald's anger stems from the fact that he got caught. He got caught because of the passion and diligence of Freddy Kassab, Franz Grebner, William Ivory, Robert Shaw, Paul Stombaugh, Shirley Green, Janice Glisson, Terry Laber, Dillard Browning, Craig Chamberlain, Butch Madden, Mike Pickering, Jack Bennett, Peter Kearns, Jack Pruett, Hilyard Medlin, Michael Malone, Dick Mahon, Brian Murtagh, James Blackburn, George Anderson, Victor Woerheide, and John Depue. In a perfect world, every single family who has had a loved one murdered, would receive this type of professional roll call.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Guilty or not guilty, there is no denial that MacDonald did not get a fair and legal trial in front a jury.Oh, I think there's a denial, all right, and it seems to have come directly from one of Mac's own lawyers:

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

(emphasis added):
"...the defendant has never made the claim on the record that he did not receive a fair trial. On the contrary one of his trial attorneys has on more than one occasion expressed the view that the trial was fairly conducted."


http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_1991-07-08_02.html

"While there have been sharp conflicts over a multiplicity of procedural and substantive issues, the court has not perceived any instance where attorneys for either side crossed the boundary between zealous advocacy and impropriety. Any suggestion that the government engaged in conduct intended to deny MacDonald his right to a fair trial is unsupported by the extensive record in this action."

And also:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab_evidence_notes-1.html

"Even the U.S. Supreme Court stated that MacDonald had never claimed he did not get a fair trial."

[Bunny2]

Cappy, I hope you're paying close attention to JTF's posts. You're seeing a Master of Truth at work!

JTF: Wonderful posts...keep 'em coming!

[minischnauzer]

Been a while since I've posted, but in my mind nothing's changed regarding the guilt of "Mac the Knife". I have to admit though that this Caphill person really gets on my nerves. She reminds me of someone whose back is up against a brick wall, and they'll say ANYTHING, whether it makes sense or not, just to try to prove their point. It's just really irritating to read the posts of someone who apppears to be delusional and can't see the forest for the trees. Another "captivated" admirer I guess.

Someone brought up the subject of the bodies being placed back in their beds. You're right, a group of derranged, drug crazed "hippies" would have never done that. There would have been such chaos in that house with all those murdering people, that bodies (including Mac's) would have been everywhere.

These angels were put back in their beds, or next to it, in Collettes case, to make it look as though they had been ambushed in their sleep. You know, no signs of an argument or struggle. At least that's my opinion on the subject. Excuse me, on BOTH subjects!:rolleyes:

[JTF]

In terms of trace evidence, Jeffrey MacDonald's decision to place Kimberly back in her bed and Colette back into the master bedroom, provided jurors at the 1979 trial with an impetus for their verdict. When Jeff placed Colette down on the master bedroom floor, he unknowingly placed her on top of 24 pajama fibers that had been shed in the initial fight with his wife. In addition, when he placed Kimberly in her bed, he unknowingly shed 14 pajama fibers which ended up under her bedcovers.

JTF.

[byn63]

Originally posted by JTF
In terms of trace evidence, Jeffrey MacDonald's decision to place Kimberly back in her bed and Colette back into the master bedroom, provided jurors at the 1979 trial with an impetus for their verdict. When Jeff placed Colette down on the master bedroom floor, he unknowingly placed her on top of 24 pajama fibers that had been shed in the initial fight with his wife. In addition, when he placed Kimberly in her bed, he unknowingly shed 14 pajama fibers which ended up under her bedcovers.

JTF.

JTF - your posts have been, as usual, OUTSTANDING here! I find it incredible that anyone is still trying to claim that E-5 (the mystery hair) the distal portion of a limb hair that would PROVE to be the murderers own is now not very important. The dance the macalites are trying to do by the music of the spin Drs. should be called the CHICKEN dance! I've noticed that certain posters are once again asking WHY the saran fibers were not used as evidence in 1979. My answer would be because the prosecution presented OVER 1,100 pieces of evidence using 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) and that these pieces of evidence comprised only about 60% of the evidence available to them. IF some weird circumstance does occur, and there were to be a retrial, that 60% and probably theother 40% would all be brought to bear on Inmate. Of course, Inmate would absolutely HATE IT! And, so would most macalites because they can not stand it when any of us cloud the issue with FACTS!

mac is a :chicken: This is for Colette, Kristy, Kimmie & son:rose:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bunny2
I'm sure JTF will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if you read the court documents you will find that the courts found no false testimony by Malone in the MacDonald case.
And Caphill, it might interest you that Malone also based his conclusions on another fiber expert's findings (I think his name was Webb).

[minischnauzer]

JTF, you're exactly right! I think he put them back in bed to make it look like an "ambush", but just as you are saying, he was "unknowingly" shedding those pj fibers everywhere, so whatever he was thinking when moving those bodies, the plan backfired! I agree it is one of the major factors that nailed him in court. (other than his obvious guilt, of course) There's just no valid explanation that he can give, even now, for those fibers UNDER the bodies.

[JTF]

Byn: Thanks for the compliment. What's interesting about the 3 saran fibers is that it was the defense team's fault that they were not introduced at trial. They had Paul Stombaugh's lab notes, Stombaugh lists the 3 fibers as Q46 and Q49, and states that the fibers were used in dolls and Halloween costumes. It wasn't until 1989 that the defense team attempted to link Stoeckley to the saran fibers by presenting a theory that Stoeckley was brushing her wig with the clear-handled hairbrush. The defense team, of course, continued to ignore the black fibers from Mildred's wig and the platinum-colored fibers from Colette's fall.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
It wasn't until 1989 that the defense team attempted to link Stoeckley to the saran fibers by presenting a theory that Stoeckley was brushing her wig with the clear-handled hairbrush. The defense team, of course, continued to ignore the black fibers from Mildred's wig and the platinum-colored fibers from Colette's fall.
JTF.
I try to put myself into other people's shoes as often as possible, and see things from their own perspective to find out if there is some validity to their claims - if it could have been like that, etc.
But in a scenario where Helena was allegedly brushing her wig during a killing spree, my imagination fails me.
For this is so hilarious that it could be a scene from the realm of fiction, like from one of Eugène Ionesco's absurd dramas.
And it is a scene from the realm of fiction of course, for it never happened.
But when I imagine the Mac team with their high-class defense lawyers sitting there, outlining this as a possibility in all seriousness ("Helena could have brushed her wig, and that's how the saran fibers got there"), and apparently not one among them said: "But that sounds absurd - we can't get that scenario through?" Incredible.
This just shows how much they were in an "any port in a storm" situation which drove them to grasp at some saran fibers and present the idiotic theory with Helena brushing her wig. ROFL!

[JTF]

Rashomon: Your scenario was probably played out with respect to the Gurney and Mirror Surface theories. Tainting the mountain of evidence against their client has been so daunting that the defense team will grasp at any evidentiary straw. To the MacDonald camp, it matters little how absurd their theories really are, for their focus is on the old adage that saying something is sometimes better than saying nothing at all.

JTF.

[byn63]

Originally posted by JTF
Rashomon: Your scenario was probably played out with respect to the Gurney and Mirror Surface theories. Tainting the mountain of evidence against their client has been so daunting that the defense team will grasp at any evidentiary straw. To the MacDonald camp, it matters little how absurd their theories really are, for their focus is on the old adage that saying something is sometimes better than saying nothing at all.

JTF.

Ahaa haa haa haa ha! JTF, I got the funniest mental image of all these attorneys sitting around taking different "roles" (eg MPs, medics, Inmate etc) and working their way through an attempt at a reasonable gurney theory. Seriously, can't you just picture Bernie, Eisner, Harvey and other of his attorney's du jour trying to make it happen?
:lol:

[JTF]

Byn: The sad thing about the various theory droppings and I do mean droppings in every sense of the word, within the MacDonald camp is that most, if not all, of the current camp theories were concocted by only 2 men. Fred Bost and Ray Shedlick were the Abbott and Costello of forensic scenarios. Pesky things as measurements and placement of fabric impressions, footprints, and fibers could all go hang as far as they were concerned. Their lone focus was to appear to have all the answers, to appear competent, but all they really did was demonstrate how ridiculous MacDonald's claims really were.

JTF.

[poohbear1961]

Hello to all. This is my first post. I've read the eighty-something pages of this board, and also some on the other boards. Please bear with me, this will be rambling, as there are several points I'd like to address.

I've followed this case as well as the Simpson case (like Bugliosi, I will never again favor the man with an affectionate nickname like "OJ"), and have read most of the documents on the excellent websites by CM and Bunny. I viewed the crime scene and autopsy photos, and like most of you, I'm sure, cried and was physically sick at seeing what was done to Colette and her babies by this monster. I'm not sure what it is exactly that leads folks to actually believe this man is innocent, and continue to believe it despite the overwhelming evidence that clearly points to him and to him alone. Sometimes I think it's just blind faith. Sometimes I think it's what some of you have labeled "flamebaiters" or maybe just someone who likes to stir up trouble.

For me personally, I knew he was guilty just seeing his very light injuries compared to his family's monstrous ones, and there are pics of some of them on CM's site, the abrasion on his forehead is so light someone is holding a pen to it so you can see it. There is just no way that any man, Green Beret or not, will be let off with a bump on the head if he's "fighting" with murderous thugs. No way. I won't go into all the reasons I find him to be guilty, you've all covered them completely, let me just say that I agree with you all.

I do have a couple of questions. Isn't there a limit on how many times a defendant can appeal the conviction? How long will this man continue to waste the government's time and taxpayer's money?

My other question is this: How do any of you feel about Simpson's guilt? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Have any of you read Bugliosi's "Outrage"? He mentions Inmate on ppg. 373-4. He says that a woman friend of Inmate's approached him about defending inmate. Bugliosi asked that Inmate take a polygraph test, and himself called the prosecution in NC to see what evidence they had against Inmate. He wasn't told much, but among them was the fiber underneath Kristen's fingernail, and that was enough for him to decide not to represent Inmate. Bugliosi said he had a horrifying image of the poor baby trying to defend herself against her father, and could not do it. By the way, Inmate decided not to take the polygraph. :rolleyes:

Thanks for bearing with me, I'll be posting more, and am interested in your thoughts.

:rose: for Colette, baby boy, Kimberly, and Kristen

[JTF]

PB: You could have convicted 20 people on the forensic evidence presented at the Simpson trial. DNA, hair, and fiber evidence clearly point to Simpson as the murderer of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. In terms of the MacDonald case, he can file a hundred motions if he wants to, so it's up to the court system to refuse to grant hearings in regards to MacDonald's specious claims. There were over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the government at the 1979 trial and that was only about 60 percent of what they could have presented. Similar to the Simpson case, the evidence against MacDonald was/is overwhelming.

JTF.

[Lynne]

I am thrilled to have found this thread. I am new to all of this computer stuff, but I've had an intense interest in the MacDonald case since the 1970's. I've read books on the case, watched anything I could on television, even watched MacDonald's new wife on talk shows. I have learned more on the first 2 pages of this thread than in all my other reading! Thanks to all of you for the great links and personal insights! We are going to get slammed by Ernesto this weekend, so outdoor plans have been scrubbed. I no longer feel badly about it though because thanks to you all I have PLENTY of catching up to do on this very interesting case. Have a happy and safe Labor Day!

:patriot:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
PB: You could have convicted 20 people on the forensic evidence presented at the Simpson trial. DNA, hair, and fiber evidence clearly point to Simpson as the murderer of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. In terms of the MacDonald case, he can file a hundred motions if he wants to, so it's up to the court system to refuse to grant hearings in regards to MacDonald's specious claims. There were over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the government at the 1979 trial and that was only about 60 percent of what they could have presented. Similar to the Simpson case, the evidence against MacDonald was/is overwhelming.

JTF.
JTF said it all, PB. Just my opinion too.

'Outrage' by Bugliosi is fascinating, isn't it? I like Bugliosi's outspokenness and convincing argumentation.

[poohbear1961]

Thank you, JTF, and rashomon, for your replies. I look forward to sharing thoughts and ideas on this board.

Yes, I enjoyed reading "The Bug's" take on the Simpson case. I wish like others that he'd been the one to prosecute Simpson. I thought the fact that Inmate's friend contacted him regarding defense of said Inmate and the resulting events very interesting.

Hello to all and here's to hoping Inmate stays right where he is, which is a lot more than he deserves. :beer:

[Bunny2]

To poohbear and Lynne - a BIG welcome to you both! Not much time to write any comments right now (maybe later) but I read the posts you put up and am looking forward to seeing more from both of you!

:seeya:

[caphill]

Who was in the house that wiped down the fingerprints on the knife in the bedroom, the phones and Kristin's baby bottle.

These were wiped down after MacDonald was taken out of the house to the hospital.

Who was at that house that wiped these items clean and why?

[JTF]

Cappy, Cappy, Cappy. Are you implying that as part of their Let's Get The Golden Boy mantra, unnamed CID staff wiped down the phones and the Geneva Forge knife? Well, in regards to no discernable prints on the knife, don't forget that your boy wiped down the ice pick and the Old Hickory knife on the Hilton Hotel bathmat, so why not the Geneva Forge knife? In terms of the phones, some of the investigators felt that MacDonald was wearing surgeon's gloves when he used the phones, resulting in blood smudges rather than ridge lines on the phone receivers. In relation to who killed Colette, Kristen, and Kimberly, this is a non-issue. I know it and you know it.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Cappy, Cappy, Cappy. Are you implying that as part of their Let's Get The Golden Boy mantra, unnamed CID staff wiped down the phones and the Geneva Forge knife? Well, in regards to no discernable prints on the knife, don't forget that your boy wiped down the ice pick and the Old Hickory knife on the Hilton Hotel bathmat, so why not the Geneva Forge knife? In terms of the phones, some of the investigators felt that MacDonald was wearing surgeon's gloves when he used the phones, resulting in blood smudges rather than ridge lines on the phone receivers. In relation to who killed Colette, Kristen, and Kimberly, this is a non-issue. I know it and you know it.

JTF.


And you know that a MP picked up the phone in the bedroom while Mica was doing CPR on MacDonald. What did MacDonald do with the gloves he was wearing? Eat them?

Who wiped down that baby bottle after MacDonald was rolled out of the house?

Who rolled the children from their backs to their sides after the arrival of the MPs?

[JTF]

Caphill: I'm still trying to figure out why you brought forth this issue out of the blue. What does the lack of fingerprints on the baby bottle or the phones have to do with MacDonald's guilt or innocence? I'm assuming you, gasp, want to tell the world that the CID made mistakes at the crime scene. Anyone who has researched this case knows that the CID made mistakes, as did the investigators in the Simpson case, as did the investigators in the Ramsey case, as did the investigators in every case known to mankind. The mistakes made by the CID did nothing to damage the mountain of evidence that pointed directly at Jeffrey MacDonald as the murderer of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen. Oh, by the way, the only body that was moved was Kristen's. The physician who moved Kristen's body is the only person to claim that Colette's body was moved. His claims were not backed by William Ivory and/or Robert Shaw who were present when he examined Colette's body in the master bedroom.

JTF.

[caphill]

I don't question mistakes are made at crime scenes. MPs walking into the horror at the MacDonald murder scene were likely shocked at the slaughter and their first thoughts were not to preserve the crime scene. After all the MPs are not criminalists.

It is what happened after the brass arrived that is mind blowing on how the scene was handled.

The phones, the knife in the bedroom and the baby bottle had been wiped down of all fingerprints. All of these items should have had Macdonalds prints on them and understandably so.

Why were they wiped down sometime between the time MacDonald was removed from the house and the criminalists arrived to collect the evidence.

It was admitted that one of the MPs picked up the bedroom phone and hung it up. There should have been fingerprints of the MP as well as MacDonald's prints.

The baby bottle should have had Kristin's prints, MacDonald's prints and at least the coroner's prints. The baby bottle was obviously placed on the edge of the bed next to Kristin's head.

The blood on Kim's hair and the blood pattern on Kristen's sheets are visable proof the bodies were moved to their sides after their death. The first responding MPs said the bodies were on their backs when they arrived.

The crimes scene photos speak for themselves.

The lack of any prints on these items is evidence the crime scene was deliberately altered very soon after the murders.

There is a big difference between making mistakes in securing a crime scene and deliberate manipulation of the evidence.

[poohbear1961]

caphill, I am at a loss to explain why everyone involved in the Macdonald murder scene so hated Inmate that ALL of them immediately began work to implicate him, right from the get go. It's been proven time and again on this board that logic and documented fact does not work with you. To me, it sounds like you're spouting the same tired old Inmate party line, that EVERYONE who does not believe his BS actively worked to "railroad" him from the first minutes after the scene was discovered. Your posts to this effect are complete and total fantasy.

Inmate is guilty of the brutal murder of his family and is in prison where he rightfully belongs. No amount of mudslinging, accusations, and sleight-of-hand legal manuevering will change that fact.

[poohbear1961]

to amend my previous post, what I should have said, and say now, is that will you explain why everyone connected with LE, Army or otherwise, so hated Inmate that automatically, right from the discovery of the murders, EVERYONE worked hard to "frame" him? This just does not work. I'm not conceding for a moment that anything was "wiped clean of prints", but if a baby bottle was wiped clean, so what? It doesn't prove Inmate's innocence. Same for the phones. You cannot tell me that.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill
..The blood on Kim's hair and the blood pattern on Kristen's sheets are visable proof the bodies were moved to their sides after their death. The first responding MPs said the bodies were on their backs when they arrived.

The crimes scene photos speak for themselves....

Who are the first responding MPs you refer to who you claim saw the children on their backs? Where are you getting that from?

I read MP Tevere's trial testimony (he was the first MP who went to look in the children's bedrooms after MacDonald said, "check my kids") and he testified that Kristen was on her side, which is as she appears in the crime scene photos.

Also, a lot of the blood distribution looks consistent with how her body was found (e.g., large blood spot on the bottom sheet where her injured hand came to rest and dripping down onto the floor), so where are you getting that from?

[JTF]

There is not a shred of hard evidence that demonstrates that CID staff deliberately wiped down items at the crime scene. In regards to the positions of the children, the testimony is quite contradictory. This is no different than the testimony regarding the postion of Jeff's pajama top, the Hilton Hotel bathmat, and the sheets on the bed in the master bedroom. This is just another example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. This case was about the physical evidence. Physical evidence is not altered by emotion. It is what it is. Four Type A blood stains that are bisected by tears in Jeff's pajama top is evidence of Colette's blood being on that top before it was torn. That is a cold, hard fact that cannot be washed away by innuendo, recollections altered by trauma, or cut and paste reporting of the documented record. The same goes for the 6 Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, the 24 pajama fibers found under Colette's body, the bloody cuff impressions found on the blue bedsheet, the limb hair from Jeff found stuck to Colette's left palm, etc., etc.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
There is not a shred of hard evidence that demonstrates that CID staff deliberately wiped down items at the crime scene. In regards to the positions of the children, the testimony is quite contradictory. This is no different than the testimony regarding the postion of Jeff's pajama top, the Hilton Hotel bathmat, and the sheets on the bed in the master bedroom. This is just another example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. This case was about the physical evidence. Physical evidence is not altered by emotion. It is what it is. Four Type A blood stains that are bisected by tears in Jeff's pajama top is evidence of Colette's blood being on that top before it was torn. That is a cold, hard fact that cannot be washed away by innuendo, recollections altered by trauma, or cut and paste reporting of the documented record. The same goes for the 6 Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, the 24 pajama fibers found under Colette's body, the bloody cuff impressions found on the blue bedsheet, the limb hair from Jeff found stuck to Colette's left palm, etc., etc.

JTF.


There is evidence these items were wiped down. There is no evidence as to who wiped them down or why.

One would expect that Macdonald, who lived in the house and had on a pair of PJs that had bottoms ripped out in the crotch and legs and a top with 48 puncture holes and ripped down the back, would be shedding off fibers. These fibers being found all over the house would not be unusal.

What is unusual is the 5 unidentified black woolen fibers found on the club, on Colette's top and on her mouth as well as an unidentified pink fiber.

If no fibers from the PJs top or bottoms were not found on or around Colette, I would find that unusal since it was known MacDonald was found lying next to her and had place the torn top over her.

Wonder why there was no fiber or fragments found in the puncture wounds on Colette since the theory presented was MacDonald had stabbed her through the layers of the PJ top.

Why is the fact he was wearing torn PJ bottoms not considered as a another source of fibers being dropped on and around the bodies. He has stated he moved Colette from a propped position against the chair to a flat positon on the floor. He has stated he went from bedroom to bedroom and was touching the children. Common sense dictates there should be blue PJ fibers either from the top or the bottom all over the crime scene.

Finding a limp arm hair from MacDoanld on Colette's hand is proof that he was there and likely touching her when he moved her body and tried CPR. It is not evidence that he was or was not the killer.

[Deb B]

The doctor who performed Colette's autospy testified at trial that a sharp object would not leave fibers in a wound, so if no fibers were found in Colette's wounds, that would not be usual.

What is unusual about the fact that so many of his pj fibers were found in the master bedroom is that fibers were found under Colette's body, under the covers with Kimberly, and none were found where MacDonald supposedly had his top ripped - in the living room.

Caphill - did you see my question as to who are the MPs you mentioned who saw the children on their backs? I really need to see their testimony in order to begin to ascribe any credibility to your stagging-by-the CID theory, especially as the testimony I do see contradicts what you say about that.

[JTF]

Caphill: There you go again, repeating the same tired MacDonald camp arguments for the 100th time on this board, and I guess I'll have to repeat for the 100th time why your wrong at every level.

1) Your description of Jeffrey MacDonald's limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5, is laughable. The hair was not located on her hand, but in her hand along with a splinter from the club. I have no idea where you came up with the "limp" description for the arm hair, but it is an appropriate description for your argument. There is no evidence that Jeff attempted to give Colette CPR, yet ample evidence that he ended her life.

2) Ah, the infamous black wool argument. What exactly is "unusual" about the woolen fibers? MacDonald discarded all of the family clothing items in late 1970, and photographs/home movies demonstrate that the MacDonald family owned several pieces of woolen clothing items. The source of the woolen fibers were members of the MacDonald family, not mythical intruders.

3) Your boy said he never got on any of the beds, yet 22 pajama fibers were found on the bed in the master bedroom, 19 pajama fibers were found on Kimberly's bed with 14 of those fibers found under her bedcovers, and 2 pajama fibers were found under Kristen's bedcovers. Considering that Jeff's pajama top was ripped from the V-neck portion of the top down the left front seam and down the left sleeve all the way through the cuff area, as opposed to his bottoms having only a small tear in the crotch area, the source for most of the pajama fibers was his pajama top.

JTF.

[sturetroll]

JM is a very guilty man. A killer of woman and kids... Should never see day of light. Where did the death-penalty go??

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: There you go again, repeating the same tired MacDonald camp arguments for the 100th time on this board, and I guess I'll have to repeat for the 100th time why your wrong at every level.

<snipped>

JTF.

Man oh Man, If I didn't know it, I would think that I was on the OJ Simpson Board. Constantly, ad nauseum, the NG's are "repeating the same tired OJ Simpson Camp arguments" and our illustrious G's are having to repeat "why they are wrong at every level." It gets so tiring and frustrating. However, I guess if they didn't constantly post their repetitions, they wouldn't be posting at all!

JMO and MOO!!

[poohbear1961]

2L8, I've noticed the same thing on both boards. Sometimes I wonder if it's the same person/persons posting on them both. I wouldn't have had the patience that JTF, bunny, and the rest have on this board, and bobaugust and others on the Simpson board, have had with these people who just will not listen to and see logic. A big thank you to you all.

:rose: Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, and baby boy

:rose: Nicole and Ron

May you rest in peace, soon, finally, and may your murderers burn in Hell.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
What is unusual is the 5 unidentified black woolen fibers found on the club, on Colette's top and on her mouth...I believe the unidentified fibers on Colette's mouth area (Q-100) were two dark purple (not black) fibers, Cappy. If memory serves, this was in addition to two purple cotton threads identical to the purple cotton threads of MacDonald's pajama top, and a blue polyester cotton yarn which had the same microscopic and optical properties as the blue polyester and cotton yarns of MacDonald's pajama top.

I don't believe there were any black unidentified fibers at all, not on the mouth area and not on her arm (Q-88) nor on the club (Q-89). Q-88 was a bluish-black fiber and Q89 were one fine bluish-black fiber (different from Q-88) and one fine green wool fiber.

Also, the fibers on the mouth, the arm and the club were all from different sources. That, in addition to the information given above, shows that the entire "Stoeckley in black wool" argument is worthless.

[Bunny2]

As Jednme mentioned once on another board a long time ago, isn't it interesting how the defense's ties their three "major" pieces of "unidentified" evidence to Helena, and only Helena? They tout saran fibers (supposedly from her wig), "black wool" supposedly from her clothing (even though Posey said she was dressed in white hat, white blouse and white boots when he saw her), and candle wax (supposedly from her candle) as evidence that she was there, but considering that there were supposedly six or more "intruders," how is it that Helena was the only one who supposedly left trace evidence of her presence? And she didn't even take part in the murders according to the defense!

:confused:

[JTF]

Bunny: Excellent points regarding the dark woolen fibers. In a 2003 newspaper interview, MacDonald states that before the television program, CSI, people would roll their eyes at the mention of unidentified fibers found at a crime scene. MacDonald added that a jury would now see the significance of these fibers and acquit him on the spot. I wonder what a jury immersed in the CSI culture would think of DNA test results showing MacDonald's limb hair stuck in the palm of his dead wife's hand? Classic.

JTF.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by poohbear1961
2L8, I've noticed the same thing on both boards. Sometimes I wonder if it's the same person/persons posting on them both. I wouldn't have had the patience that JTF, bunny, and the rest have on this board, and bobaugust and others on the Simpson board, have had with these people who just will not listen to and see logic. A big thank you to you all.

:rose: Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, and baby boy

:rose: Nicole and Ron

May you rest in peace, soon, finally, and may your murderers burn in Hell.

Poohbear ~ MOO, but I feel that there is one person on the OJ Board that is alternating between nics. All of them are NG's, of course. When one nic gets real hot, that nic is then put on permanent vacation, never to return and a new nic is then created in its place. It's maddening and frustrating. On Boards such as this, JM and OJ, you just don't need all of the game playing. I also applaud all of our illustrious G's who keep on posting to these ***holes trying to set them straight! However, they are fighting a losing battle because 'Ya Can't Fix Stupid!

JMO and IMO!!

:rose: For Collette and the babies!

[JTF]

The main purpose for responding to MacDonald advocates is to ensure that someone reading this board for the first time doesn't buy into the MacDonald camp propoganda. Perfect example is the Crime Library website and the fictional history it provides on the MacDonald case. I'm sure that some people read that website, immediately feel that MacDonald has been railroaded, and set out to seek some sort of confirmation via MacDonald case discussion boards. That is where serious researchers of this case come into play. I feel strongly that it is our duty to set the record straight for these individuals. What's the sense of spending countless hours gathering the facts if you're going to remain silent and allow MacDonald's fairy tales to flourish? Heck, I don't even let it slide in the world of newspaper journalists/book authors. I've pointed out factual distortions/inaccuracies to journalists/authors via e-mail, letters, and telephone calls. It's important to remember that the MacDonald camp does not corner the market on persistence in conveying their message to the general public.

JTF.

[poohbear1961]

What I fail to understand, JTF, is how someone with some common sense and intelligence can look at all the evidence, Inmate's lack of wounds, all of his documented lies, etc, and STILL believe this man innocent. And coming on message boards such as this one, or create websites, to trumpet his cause. Some of the posters that you've corrected, or tried to correct, are just repeating the same old tired propaganda he puts out, and your corrections seem to fall on deaf ears. I do not understand.

Again, I thank you, bunny, cami, and the others who know enough about the case to patiently correct errors and catch the propaganda quickly. It's good to know that there are people who truly care about Colette and her children, who are the real victims in this case, not their killer.

[JTF]

Poohbear: Take heart, for the MacDonald camp's numbers dwindle every single year. The height of MacDonald advocacy arrived in 2 time frames, post-1985 appellate decision to the 1992 appellate process, and the 1995 publication of Fatal Justice to the year 2000. From 1985-1992, MacDonald's message came through his now defunct newsletter, and Bost/Potter formed some allies within the newspaper/publishing world who subsequently assisted them in the getting the word (i.e., Fatal Justice) out. Unlike Fatal Vision, however, Fatal Justice has had a limited shelf life. By 2000, many in MacDonald's inner circle had left him, Fred Bost became a recluse, and many former allies in the publishing world seemed to lose their thirst for backing this psychopath.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Man oh Man, If I didn't know it, I would think that I was on the OJ Simpson Board. Constantly, ad nauseum, the NG's are "repeating the same tired OJ Simpson Camp arguments" and our illustrious G's are having to repeat "why they are wrong at every level." It gets so tiring and frustrating. However, I guess if they didn't constantly post their repetitions, they wouldn't be posting at all!

JMO and MOO!!
Fascinating how all these perps seem to have their personal fan club. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is which points to their idol, they will repeat mantra-like, the same messages over and over again. Maybe this is a form of magic thinking, and they believe if they repeat it often enough, it will work and convince people.

JTF pointed out the MO of those people (you come across them in every true crime forum where circumstantial evidence cases are being discussed):

- they fanatically stick to message
- they deliberately ignore the evidence ('ignorance is bliss')
- and when at a loss for arguments, they start personal attacks.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bunny2
As Jednme mentioned once on another board a long time ago, isn't it interesting how the defense's ties their three "major" pieces of "unidentified" evidence to Helena, and only Helena? They tout saran fibers (supposedly from her wig), "black wool" supposedly from her clothing (even though Posey said she was dressed in white hat, white blouse and white boots when he saw her), and candle wax (supposedly from her candle) as evidence that she was there, but considering that there were supposedly six or more "intruders," how is it that Helena was the only one who supposedly left trace evidence of her presence? And she didn't even take part in the murders according to the defense!

:confused:
Lol, Helena Stoeckley, the ubiquitous multitasker in the MacDonald murders: lighting three different candles and brushing her (at least two) wigs during the killing spree, while at the same time being both in the living room chanting 'Acid is Groovy', and in the MB clubbing Colette. Totally idiotic scenario.

Caphill: MacD probably wiped the weapons because he wanted to create the impression that they didn't come from the MacD household.

And there was no need fopr him to 'eat' the surgical gloves. Flushing them down the toilet would do the job perfectly.

[kathyl777us]

This pig is as GUILTY AS THE OTHER PIG, O. J. SIMPSON!!!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rashomon

Fascinating how all these perps seem to have their personal fan club. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is which points to their idol, they will repeat mantra-like, the same messages over and over again. Maybe this is a form of magic thinking, and they believe if they repeat it often enough, it will work and convince people.

JTF pointed out the MO of those people (you come across them in every true crime forum where circumstantial evidence cases are being discussed):

- they fanatically stick to message
- they deliberately ignore the evidence ('ignorance is bliss')
- and when at a loss for arguments, they start personal attacks.

Excellent Post rashomon and so true! What's even more frustrating is the fact that the Moderator(s) let them get away with all of their lies and exaggerations, without so much as being banned, receiving a warning or a slap on the hand!

JMO and MOO!!

[Jespeh]

My favorite is the one who started a disco-looking site to squee about her wonderful, misunderstood husband. Gag. If I see one more pic of that bottle blonde hamming it up for the camera I'll toss my cookies.

Fame for fame's sake. Even if it means marrying (or panting after) a cold-blooded child killer.

[poohbear1961]

For those who are interested, caphill is posting on the Simpson boards. His/her position? You guessed it: he's innocent. :rolleyes:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by poohbear1961
For those who are interested, caphill is posting on the Simpson boards. His/her position? You guessed it: he's innocent. :rolleyes:
Ah, I see. Very interesting. Thanks for the info poohbear. If Caphill's position is that both Simpson and MacDonald are innocent, then she may be someone who thoroughly enjoys playing devil's advocate just to see what her 'opponenets' can come up with. But this is a somewhat ridiculous attempt when it comes to murder cases like MacD and Simpson.
I'm tempted to ask Caphill if she thinks Darlie Routier is innocent too ... :)

[poohbear1961]

It may be that she's "devil's advocate" or that she just enjoys riling folks up. I'm not sure. I thought it was interesting myself, though.

I can't say about Routier, I'm not familiar with her case. Not to "rile folks up" but the only thing I read on her case was the Crime Library article on her, and I do not trust that to tell me the truth. I don't have an opinion on her, sorry.


:shrug:

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill



Why is the fact he was wearing torn PJ bottoms not considered as a another source of fibers being dropped on and around the bodies. He has stated he moved Colette from a propped position against the chair to a flat positon on the floor. He has stated he went from bedroom to bedroom and was touching the children. Common sense dictates there should be blue PJ fibers either from the top or the bottom all over the crime scene.

Finding a limp arm hair from MacDoanld on Colette's hand is proof that he was there and likely touching her when he moved her body and tried CPR. It is not evidence that he was or was not the killer.

If no fibers from the PJs top or bottoms were not found on or around Colette, I would find that unusal since it was known MacDonald was found lying next to her and had place the torn top over her.

Then how did the pj fibres get strung out underneath Colette's torso if the top was over her Cappy?

Wonder why there was no fiber or fragments found in the puncture wounds on Colette since the theory presented was MacDonald had stabbed her through the layers of the PJ top.

Could be because the ice pick had to go through her own pajama jacket Cappy. As well by the time the jacket was laid over her the majority of the fibres from the ripping had been shed...


Why is the fact he was wearing torn PJ bottoms not considered as a another source of fibers being dropped on and around the bodies. He has stated he moved Colette from a propped position against the chair to a flat positon on the floor. He has stated he went from bedroom to bedroom and was touching the children. Common sense dictates there should be blue PJ fibers either from the top or the bottom all over the crime scene.

The pajama top was ripped down the front causing it to fray on the ends and shed fibres and threads. The pajama bottoms were not ripped, they had come apart due to age and frequent washings. He lied when he stated he propped Colette up against the chair. Read his April 6, 1970 interview when he exclaims that he did not move her. Once he learned about the fibres, he changed his story when he testified at the Article 32.



Finding a limp arm hair from MacDoanld on Colette's hand is proof that he was there and likely touching her when he moved her body and tried CPR. It is not evidence that he was or was not the killer. [/B]

It's also proof that she ripped that hair from his arm as she fought for her life against him. He did not try CPR, what a crock. Why would he try to revive her after he had just killed her. It's also just one piece of the factual evidence that proves his guilt Cappy. Look at the whole picture...

Hey people...couldn't resist..How is everyone...:seeya:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by poohbear1961
It may be that she's "devil's advocate" or that she just enjoys riling folks up. :

Caphill is one of a cadre that posts on the boards that never believes anyone is guilty of anything. It's funny; murders are committed every day, but no one did them.

[cami]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: There you go again, repeating the same tired MacDonald camp arguments for the 100th time on this board, and I guess I'll have to repeat for the 100th time why your wrong at every level.

1) Your description of Jeffrey MacDonald's limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5, is laughable. The hair was not located on her hand, but in her hand along with a splinter from the club. I have no idea where you came up with the "limp" description for the arm hair, but it is an appropriate description for your argument. There is no evidence that Jeff attempted to give Colette CPR, yet ample evidence that he ended her life.

2) Ah, the infamous black wool argument. What exactly is "unusual" about the woolen fibers? MacDonald discarded all of the family clothing items in late 1970, and photographs/home movies demonstrate that the MacDonald family owned several pieces of woolen clothing items. The source of the woolen fibers were members of the MacDonald family, not mythical intruders.

3) Your boy said he never got on any of the beds, yet 22 pajama fibers were found on the bed in the master bedroom, 19 pajama fibers were found on Kimberly's bed with 14 of those fibers found under her bedcovers, and 2 pajama fibers were found under Kristen's bedcovers. Considering that Jeff's pajama top was ripped from the V-neck portion of the top down the left front seam and down the left sleeve all the way through the cuff area, as opposed to his bottoms having only a small tear in the crotch area, the source for most of the pajama fibers was his pajama top.

JTF.

Oh come on JTF, you know the big bad CID did all those things, stop teasing Cappy, LOL. How are you old buddy?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Originally posted by caphill



You made a bold statement about documented facts.

I asked, plain and simple, about these documented facts you mentioned regarding the FBI having doll exemplars that had 22-24 inch saran hair.

I am still waiting. Also is there documented facts that the macDonald children ever owned a doll with 22-24 inch hair. That is such an unusual large doll with unusual long hair that one would think neighbors or friends would have remember seeing such a doll in the home.

In your storehouse of documented facts, please tell me which FBI agent made statements there was the 22-24 inch saran haired doll in their exemplar collection? Also who was the doll manufacturer that has given documented evidence that they made a doll with 24 inch hair in 1969 0r 1970?

caphill, i'm sure you're well aware that there were no dolls listed having hair of that length~~HOWEVER the state's expert stated that some dolls were made with hairs that length that were sewn in doubled to make two hairs.

i'm sure you're also aware that according to the same witness wigs weren't at that time made of saran.

btw, good to 'see' you posting again.

:seeya:

~~c~~

[JTF]

Cami: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I hope life is treating you well. It's always great to see you post on the MacDonald case. I know this case got to you after seeing the home movie clips of Kristen and Kimberly, but I miss your presence on the MacDonald case discussion boards. As you can see, some things never change. MacDonald groupies, advocates, and apologists are still in existence. Their numbers have dwindled, but a few still chirp from the fictional trees. The DNA test results were flat-out beautiful. They were the final nail in the evidentiary coffin. I talked to Bunny today about what the MacDonald camp now has in a world of best case scenarios. We quickly realized that it wasn't much, especially when compared to the government's mountain of evidence. In essence, what the MacDonald has is 3 candle wax drippings, 3 saran fibers, 5 dark woolen fibers, 30 fingerprints, and 3 unsourced hairs. Every single item has a prosaic explanation that does not involve intruders in any way, shape or form. The MacDonald defense team doesn't have that same luxury. As a matter of fact, they can't provide salient explanations for most of the government's evidence, so they simply repeat "their evidence" over and over again. The problem for them is that nobody is listening, at least nobody that can alter MacDonald's legal fate.

JTF.

[Spamela]

Originally posted by JTF
The MacDonald defense team doesn't have that same luxury. As a matter of fact, they can't provide salient explanations for most of the government's evidence, so they simply repeat "their evidence" over and over again. The problem for them is that nobody is listening, at least nobody that can alter MacDonald's legal fate.

JTF.

That is the truth of it--those who fall for the MacGibberish can't change his legal situation. He can get all the strip mall queens on the East Cost to donate their hard earned dollars to the "Defense Fund', and it won't do Inmate a darn bit of good, except to let him subscribe to 50 magazines a year. While he sits, year after year after year, until he drops dead (which can't happen too soon). I pray that for the sake of Bob Stevenson and for all the people whose lives have been permanently injured by the aftermath of Inmates mass murder, that Inmate become worm food very soon. It is the only way he will shut up. Although a massive stroke would also be good, locked in his own mind, unable to talk or move and unable to direct his minions.

[JTF]

Spamela: Amen. MacDonald has become the proverbial stuck needle on the true crime turntable. Shouting from the rooftops about the same stuff to anyone that will listen. So far, the only professionals who have bought into his propaganda are lawyers looking to increase their current caseload by representing a high profile client. Harvey Silverglate and Tim Junkin are prime examples of this philosophy. I guess you could add forensic pathologists who are past their prime and now fancy themselves as investigators. Cyril Wecht and Thomas Noguchi come to mind. Let's all hope and pray that common sense will continue its winning streak in this case. It's a streak that, for the most part, has endured for the past 27 years.

JTF.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by poohbear1961 . . .

I can't say about Routier, I'm not familiar with her case. Not to "rile folks up" but the only thing I read on her case was the Crime Library article on her, and I do not trust that to tell me the truth. I don't have an opinion on her, sorry.



For Pooh and anyone else interested in reading up on the Routier case (and many others) w/o a bias---www.crimeshots.com--has tons of factual info and civil discussion.

I can't BELIEVE courtv still has that ridiculous, slanted synopsis of the MacDonald Family Murder up in its "CrimeLibrary!":rolleyes: :flamemad:

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by audpaud





I can't BELIEVE courtv still has that ridiculous, slanted synopsis of the MacDonald Family Murder up in its "CrimeLibrary!":rolleyes: :flamemad:

"Slanted" is a mild description. Outrageous is more like it. I have emailed Nancy Grace, Catherine Crier, and Lisa Bloom with our plight in dealing with the Crime Library's horrible reportage of this crime.

[JTF]

Barskin: Beautiful! Last week, I did my part by e-mailing former MacDonald attorney, Harvey Silverglate. I blasted Silverglate for several erroneous claims he made about the MacDonald case in an August article he authored in the National Law Journal. I sent the e-mail on September 12th and Silverglate has not responded.

JTF.

[poohbear1961]

...for the crimeshots site. I did some reading, and there are some questions for me as to her (Darlie Routier) guilt.


barskin, I have e-mailed Grace and Crier. Maybe if enough people kick up a fuss, the Crime Library will become more balanced.

JTF, a question: In all these years, has Inmate ever appeared in any public capacity, stated he was innocent of the slaughter of his family, and then asked for anyone with any info to step forward? In other words, has he seriously at least attempted to find the "guilty party"? One of many things that convinced me of his guilt was that he moved to CA so quickly after the murders. While none of us can say how we'd act if such a thing befell us, I know I'd search the ends of the earth for anyone who commited a crime against my family, not go on TV and newspapers and cry about how I am/was a victim. TIA

[JTF]

PB: To my knowledge, the first serious attempt he made to reach out to the general public was in 1979. MacDonald initially had his infamous hypnosis sessions, police drawings of the intruder suspects were created, and subsequently presented in the print media. MacDonald went on trial a few months later. Since the trial, MacDonald has basically had potential leads communicated to his various advocates which included Melinda Stephens, Ray Shedlick, Fred Bost, Ellen Danelly, Brian O'Neil, Jerry Allen Potter, and Lucia Bartoli. MacDonald's current advocates include Kathryn MacDonald, Char Laba, and Tim Junkin. The thing that stands out for me is the fact that MacDonald did not seek any public assistance in terms of finding the "real" killers from the time of his 1975 Grand Jury indictment to his 1979 hypnosis sessions. I guess Jeff needed to put a face or faces on the mythical intruders.

JTF.

[poohbear1961]

Thanks for the info, JTF. I did not remember him doing anything concrete, but had to be sure.

[Ang Disaster]

Originally posted by poohbear1961
Thanks for the info, JTF. I did not remember him doing anything concrete, but had to be sure.

The only concrete thing Inmate seems to do is whine and complain about how he has been wronged and conspired against. The worldest tiniest violin plays for him. :rolleyes:

I recorded the most recent LKL interview with Kathryn MacDonald, but don't have the stomach to endure her delusions for a second time. GMAB.

And thanks to JTF, cami, Bunny, barskin, and everyone else who has done such a wonderful job educating others and dispelling ridiculous fairytale scenarios and rumors. Inmate is right where he belongs.

JMO

[JTF]

AD: You're welcome. The MacDonald camp has periodic stretches of heightened energy which results in a barrage of their propaganda to various media outlets. I've always felt it was important to cut the head off of that snake before it enters the evidentiary garden. The MacDonald camp is like any other parasite, it will fester and grow without some sort of intervention from those who know the facts of the case. This intervention comes in the form of e-mails, telephone calls, and posts on MacDonald case discussion boards. I've e-mailed Kathryn MacDonald and Harvey Silverglate in the recent past, and this process will continue as long as the MacDonald camp puts their faith in the public's apathy towards the documented record in this case. For the most part, the general public has not embraced the MacDonald camp's agenda, but there are still a few people who buy the MacDonald camp b.s. hook, line, and sinker.

JTF.

[Kat]

I have to admit that not much about this case makes sense. If anyone can help me with these questions I would appreciate it.

1. If the defense is full of B.S. , why doesn't the government just let all of the evidence be examined and be done with it? Obviously Mac is not going to shut up EVER until this happens. If he's guilty the prosecuters have nothing to worry about.

2. Does it say in the autopsy if the wife's ribs were cracked? He claims he tried to perform CPR on her. It seems to me that if someone was in a panic, trying to revive their LOVED one, they might press too hard with the compressions. It is not uncommon for people to do damage to the rib cage while performing CPR. Just curious.

3. Did Helena ever say who was "with her" that night? I find it odd that she has been the main focus when everyone pretty much agrees she wasn't the killer.

4. Don't you think if someone took the time to bring gloves to commit a crime they would take them with them and dump them somewhere else?

5. Why didn't the goverment convict him the first time? Why did it take a decade to convict?

6. Am I wrong or did someone (a woman) answer the phone at the residence after the crime was committed?

7. We know that Jeff was playing the field, does anyone know if perhaps his wife was having an affair also?

I admit I don't understand why the "target" of this crime was the only one left alive. That makes no sense at all. Jeff didn't help his case at all with the way he acted after the murders. He didn't portray the grieving husband and father very well. People argue that this murder was an out of control rage. If I understand correctly there was more than one murder weapon at the scene. This crime, if committed by one person, was thought out. This wasn't just someone "snapping". Unless one of the murder weapons was broken it makes no sense to use more unless it was planned to make it look like more than one person committed the crime. People will always argue this case because all of the mistakes made with the crime scene. The only people who know for sure can't tell us.
I

[JTF]

Kat: Welcome to the board! In regards to your questions.

1) All of the evidence has been presented in court. By 1992, the MacDonald defense team had every single CID and FBI document in their possession, and anything/everything that raised eyebrows in the MacDonald camp was presented to the appellate courts. MacDonald has presented his evidence to the appellate courts in 1985, 1990, 1992, 1997, and 1998.

2) Colette did not have cracked ribs. All of her blunt trauma injuries were to her face, head, and arms. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that Jeff performed CPR on Colette.

3) It depends on what Helena Stoeckley story you're referring to. She implicated about 15 people over the course of multiple confessions between 1970-1982. Stoeckley also stated several times that she had no memory of her whereabouts the morning of February 17, 1970. There is no trace evidence of the existence of any of the individuals who Stoeckley claimed took part in the murders. DNA test results demonstrated that Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were never present inside 544 Castle Drive.

4) There were only 3 pieces of surgeon's gloves found at the crime scene. One piece was the size of a dime, one piece the size of a quarter, and a finger section was found in the rumpled bedding used to transport Colette's body. The gloves were similar in chemical composition to a package of surgeon's gloves found under the kitchen sink. Jeff's Type B blood was found on the kitchen floor near the sink.

5) It took a decade because the original Justice Department lawyers wouldn't prosecute because they weren't comfortable prosecuting a circumstantial case. In addition, the FBI did not get involved in the forensics of the case until after the Article 32 hearing, so it wasn't until 1974 that the Justice Department garnered enough confidence to prosecute MacDonald for murder. MacDonald was indicted by the Grand Jury in 1975, but a trial did not get underway until 1979, due to several defense motions based on speedy trial issues.

6) That claim was so ridiculous that MacDonald's own attorneys wouldn't present it at the 1979 trial.

7) There was no indication that Colette ever had an affair. Jeff, on the other hand, had sexual encounters with at least 9 women during his marriage to Colette.

This was not a well thought out crime. This was a rage killing and the only reason that multiple weapons were in place was due to Jeffrey MacDonald's attempt to copy the Manson murders. The autopsy reports clearly indicate that the blunt trauma injuries to Colette/Kimberly were inflicted before the Old Hickory knife came into play. As a matter of fact, both Colette and Kimberly were near death by the time that Jeff used the Old Hickory knife.

JTF.

[Kat]

Thank you for helping me clarify. Not very bright to use your own gloves (while there are some still in the house mind you). When I said thought out, I didn't mean well thought out. What I meant was this was something that he had planned on doing before it happened. To use gloves , wipe prints, try to move the bodies, and then try to duplicate another murder to throw suspicion on druggies. I agree with what another poster here said about how he said the druggies said "acid is groovy" is just plain dumb. It is obviously something that someone who is not in the drug culture would think someone would say. Completely stereotypical. I've seen people doing acid and most of the time they are trying to avoid a bad trip. You don't avoid a bad trip by killing 3 people. If they were such big druggies, why didn't they take any drugs?? Isn't that what they were there for? I think the good doctor's major problem was he outthought himself. He wanted to be free and the only way he was going to do that was by killing his family. I really don't think it was a rage killing at all. Instead I think that's what he tried to make it look like. Why would he need to kill the youngest child? She sure couldn't of testified against him. He did it because if he hadn't he would still be saddled with the child. He didn't want to be a father or a husband any longer.

[JTF]

Kat: Agreed. Once he culled information about the Manson murders from the Esquire magazine in the living room, he set in motion a series of events involving obtaining a bathmat, wiping down the weapons, inflicting overkill wounds, throwing the weapons out the back door, discarding the surgeon's gloves, and inflicting a wound in his chest which resulted in a collapsed lung. I don't know if you were aware of the fact that Jeffrey MacDonald visited his brother at Fire Island in the Summer of 1969. Jay MacDonald had 4 people living with him, 2 white males, a black male, and a woman with blond hair who frequently wore a floppy hat and hip boots. CID investigators felt that Jeff's descriptions of the "intruders" were formulated from this visit to his brother's residence. If interested, read the Article 32 testimony of CID agent, Bennie Hawkins, Volume 11 at

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

JTF.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Kat
He wanted to be free and the only way he was going to do that was by killing his family. I really don't think it was a rage killing at all. Instead I think that's what he tried to make it look like.
Hi Kat, welcome to the board. You raised very important points, but I don't think MacDonald went home from work on Mon Feb 16, thinking: "this is the day I'm going to kill them all." No way.
For JMD's pajama top had ben stained with Colette's blood before it was torn, which points to them having been in a fight when MacDonald hadn't yet armed himself with a weapon.
Everything in this case points to it having started as a rage killing. A domestic argument got physical and MacDonald found himself in a 'point of no return' situation: he had injured his wife and older child so badly that he as a doctor knew instantly that irreparable damage was done.
But after that, reasoning set in. Unlike most other people who find themselves in such a situation, MacDonald neither broke down, nor did he committ suicide himself or call the police to turn himself in.
Instead, he decided to sacrifice the live of his youngest child to create a Manson-like scenario with a family overkill (multiple victims, and multiple weapons pointing to multiple intruders).

This makes the JMD case a horrifying standout in criminal history: for this was not just a rage killing, but the rage killings of Colette and Kim were followed by the first-degree murder of Kristen and the subsequent stabbings of Colette and Kim (who were already near-death when this happened) becasue MacDonald wanted to save is hide.
But by the time JMD decided that he 'had to' kill Kristen, the thought that getting rid of his whole family might free him from all his responsibilities may very well have played a role.

[cami]

Originally posted by poohbear1961
...for the crimeshots site. I did some reading, and there are some questions for me as to her (Darlie Routier) guilt.


barskin, I have e-mailed Grace and Crier. Maybe if enough people kick up a fuss, the Crime Library will become more balanced.

JTF, a question: In all these years, has Inmate ever appeared in any public capacity, stated he was innocent of the slaughter of his family, and then asked for anyone with any info to step forward? In other words, has he seriously at least attempted to find the "guilty party"? One of many things that convinced me of his guilt was that he moved to CA so quickly after the murders. While none of us can say how we'd act if such a thing befell us, I know I'd search the ends of the earth for anyone who commited a crime against my family, not go on TV and newspapers and cry about how I am/was a victim. TIA

Poohbear, our thread on Darlie Routier has been resurrected. If you want to discuss her case, I will join you over there. We also have a discussion on other websites that I can point you to if you want to pm me.

[cami]

Originally posted by rashomon

Ah, I see. Very interesting. Thanks for the info poohbear. If Caphill's position is that both Simpson and MacDonald are innocent, then she may be someone who thoroughly enjoys playing devil's advocate just to see what her 'opponenets' can come up with. But this is a somewhat ridiculous attempt when it comes to murder cases like MacD and Simpson.
I'm tempted to ask Caphill if she thinks Darlie Routier is innocent too ... :)

She does. I've posted with her on the old thread and yes Cappy believes Darlie is innocent.

[JTF]

Cami: Thought you'd find the following interesting.

Harvey Silverglate wrote an article on the MacDonald case in the August 2, 2006 issue of the National Law Journal. Silverglate spews out the same old fecal matter that he did when he represented MacDonald from 1988-2004. Silverglate adds that the 3 unsourced hairs included in the AFIP's DNA report are proof of intruders.

Silverglate made no mention of the limb hair found in Colette's hand matching Jeff's DNA profile or that the body hair found on the blue bedsheet matched Colette's DNA profile. I sent an e-mail to Silverglate's website and tore him a new you know what in regards to his article. I sent the e-mail on September 10th, and as of today, I've yet to receive a response. Big surprise, eh?

JTF.

[cami]

Originally posted by JTF
Cami: Thought you'd find the following interesting.

Harvey Silverglate wrote an article on the MacDonald case in the August 2, 2006 issue of the National Law Journal. Silverglate spews out the same old fecal matter that he did when he represented MacDonald from 1988-2004. Silverglate adds that the 3 unsourced hairs included in the AFIP's DNA report are proof of intruders.

Silverglate made no mention of the limb hair found in Colette's hand matching Jeff's DNA profile or that the body hair found on the blue bedsheet matched Colette's DNA profile. I sent an e-mail to Silverglate's website and tore him a new you know what in regards to his article. I sent the e-mail on September 10th, and as of today, I've yet to receive a response. Big surprise, eh?

JTF.

I'm not surprised at anything any of these lawyers advocating for Macdonald do. They are almost as bad as he is spewing lies to the public. Oh and I bet you never receive a reply. Silverglate just strengthens the position that defence attorneys are sleazy liars. IMO

[byn63]

I emailed good ol Harv about his article, but funny, he never responded! Wonder why?

Also, I sent an email to Vanity Fair in re: the poorly written, badly researched, incredibly lacking postscript to the RSAnson article "The Devil and Jeffrey MacDonald". I was polite but forthright and you know, I haven't received a response from them either. The lack of journalistic integrity really annoys me!

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Kat
I have to admit that not much about this case makes sense. <snip>

Welcome, Kat. Actually, this case makes perfect sense. Criminal history is filled with fathers killing wives/children, mothers killing husbands/children, children killing parents, and then claiming a "bushy haired stranger," "African-American car jacker" (that was pretty popular), "someone or persons in a tan van," etc. did it. MacDonald used a new one (the "drug crazed hippies" holding candles chanting "acid is groovy, kill the pigs"), but that wasn't even original. It was idea he took from reading an article in Esquire about the Manson family. Of course, he didn't understand the article; Manson was a career criminal who wouldn't send out a crew tripping on acid. But, alas, there is nothing so unusual about this case, just another sociopathic murderer like Diane Downs, Robert Marshall, Susan Smith, and on and on.

[cami]

Originally posted by byn63
I emailed good ol Harv about his article, but funny, he never responded! Wonder why?

Also, I sent an email to Vanity Fair in re: the poorly written, badly researched, incredibly lacking postscript to the RSAnson article "The Devil and Jeffrey MacDonald". I was polite but forthright and you know, I haven't received a response from them either. The lack of journalistic integrity really annoys me!

Where did you find these magazines? I don't think we get them in Canada....LOL. Not where I live anyway....we just got Sunday shopping! HeeHaw progress.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by cami


Where did you find these magazines? I don't think we get them in Canada....LOL. Not where I live anyway....we just got Sunday shopping! HeeHaw progress.

Here ya go, cami.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060918fege01

My favorite line:

"He is the American Dreyfus," says Bernard L. Segal, the first of more than 20 attorneys who have represented him through the years.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by byn63

Also, I sent an email to Vanity Fair in re: the poorly written, badly researched, incredibly lacking postscript to the RSAnson article "The Devil and Jeffrey MacDonald". I was polite but forthright and you know, I haven't received a response from them either. The lack of journalistic integrity really annoys me!

And here it is. (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060918fege) Read it and weep.

[byn63]

I posted the text of my email to Vanity Fair on c&j. I believe it is under the thread Thoughts on new Uploads.:seeya:

[JTF]

I would love to know how Robert Sam Anson reacted to the Postscript's interpretation of the significance of the DNA test results.

Robert Sam Anson in 1999: The wonder of this case is not that MacDonald was found guilty of these murders, but that there are people out there who continue to believe in his innocence.

Amen, brother!

JTF.

[Dame Margot]

Just a thought. they reran the McDonald American Justice on A&E yesterday. McDonald's own words stating that the "girl in the floppy hat" had long blonde hair that appeared to be dirty. How could the hair be dirty if it was a wig?

[Spamela]

Originally posted by Dame Margot
Just a thought. they reran the McDonald American Justice on A&E yesterday. McDonald's own words stating that the "girl in the floppy hat" had long blonde hair that appeared to be dirty. How could the hair be dirty if it was a wig?

Maybe she wore it to one too many murders?

[byn63]

spammy you crack me up!

I don't think it matters much what Inmate says in describing the "alleged intruders" because there is absolutely no way on this earth that he would have been able to give a VISUAL description. WHY?

1) He was not wearing his glasses.
2) It was dark in the living room.
3) The "people" would have been backlit from the kitchen light.

All anyone would have been able to see is dark shapes - nothing more.


RIP Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, Son:rose:

[JTF]

Byn: Darkness has nothing on the power of hypnosis. MacDonald was able to provide specific descriptions of each intruder during his 1979 hypnosis sessions, despite the fact that hypnosis doesn't improve visual clarity nor does it fill in the blanks in terms of short or long term memory. The sessions were a joke, just another tool of manipulation for a stone cold killer.

Justthefacts.

[2L8 4A D8]

Didn't POS Inmate state that the supposed killers were walking around with candles and chanting? If that's what he said, then why couldn't he give a "visual description" of them? Oh yeah, there wasn't any other intruders in the house except for the quadruple murdering and lying POS Inmate!

JMO and MOO!!

[merdrew]

"Explain the bloody footprint in colettes blood type matching macdonalds foot coming out of Kimberly's rooms, but not one going into the room?"

I solved this one! An explanation on this for MacGroupies. How's this? He walked into the room backwards, tracking the blood as went. Then, as he left the room, carefully retraced his EXACT footprints from walking backwards on his way in, thereby fooling us all into thinking the bloody footprints were ONLY left on the way out! How could we not have seen this before????

Hello everyone. I've been lurking for a while because I wanted to read all the posts before I posted anything myself. I have to say that I thought I knew a lot about this case before, but you folks have really educated me. I have read FV twice and seen the American Justice show a couple times. I have always thought he was guilty. I got about as far as realizing his family was literally slaughtered and he was left with a few 'scratches' before I was convinced. The forensic evidence was just icing on the cake IMHO.

Thanks for all the great information! Keep it coming.
:)

[rashomon]

Originally posted by merdrew
"Explain the bloody footprint in colettes blood type matching macdonalds foot coming out of Kimberly's rooms, but not one going into the room?"

I solved this one! An explanation on this for MacGroupies. How's this? He walked into the room backwards, tracking the blood as went. Then, as he left the room, carefully retraced his EXACT footprints from walking backwards on his way in, thereby fooling us all into thinking the bloody footprints were ONLY left on the way out! How could we not have seen this before????

Hello everyone. I've been lurking for a while because I wanted to read all the posts before I posted anything myself. I have to say that I thought I knew a lot about this case before, but you folks have really educated me. I have read FV twice and seen the American Justice show a couple times. I have always thought he was guilty. I got about as far as realizing his family was literally slaughtered and he was left with a few 'scratches' before I was convinced. The forensic evidence was just icing on the cake IMHO.

Thanks for all the great information! Keep it coming.
:)
Hi, merdrew, welcome. It sond unbelievable, but it is true: the Mac camp actually did try to come up with explanation for the bloody footprint using an argumentation not that different from your own ironically laid-out scenario. Posters her have dubbed it the 'gurney theory':
The authors of Fatal Justice want to make us believe that MacDonald, as he was being wheeled down the hallway on the gurney, grabbed a doorjamb because he wanted to jump of the gurney to "get to his kids", and partly succeeded because he was able to swing himself far enough into Kristen's room to leave his bloody footprint there (per the Mac camp, the blood had gotten on his foot there before, while he was in the MB which was full of Colette's blood).
It is true that MacD did try to get off the gurney, but in order for his footprint to point out of Kristen's room, he must have done some back flip from the gurney. Totally absurd scenario of course.
But these desperate explanations just show how much that footprint kept bothering the Mac camp. .

[merdrew]

Another thing the Mac camp has ever been able to satisfactorily explain (IMO) is why a group of drug-crazed 'hippies' in a frenzy to find drugs, would slaughter a helpless baby, sleeping in her bed but then fail to ransack the house looking for the drugs they supposedly came for in the first place. None of them even bothered to check that closet? After slaughtering Colette and the girls they put rubber gloves on, opened the closet and decided they didn't like the drug selection in there, so they left?:confused:

[Spamela]

Originally posted by merdrew
Another thing the Mac camp has ever been able to satisfactorily explain (IMO) is why a group of drug-crazed 'hippies' in a frenzy to find drugs, would slaughter a helpless baby, sleeping in her bed but then fail to ransack the house looking for the drugs they supposedly came for in the first place. None of them even bothered to check that closet? After slaughtering Colette and the girls they put rubber gloves on, opened the closet and decided they didn't like the drug selection in there, so they left?:confused: '

Well, they suddenly got the urge to go to Dunkin Donuts and they completely forgot about obtaining drugs, stealing valuables, and killing the lump in the hallway. MacCamp would have us believe their fairy tales, and some people do, but those who fall for stupid explanations are just deluded.

[byn63]

welcome merdrew! you've mentioned a couple of the more inane theories the macalites have proferred over the years. however, I believe it is safe to say the majority of sentient beings realize that they are nothing more than fantasy and have no basis in fact. Especially, imo, when it comes to the "gurney theory" which had Inmate done backflips from the gurney would probably ended up stuck in the ceiling with his legs dangling since the ceilings were rather low in the apartment.:biggrin:

[lucky13]

All of the evidence points to him being the guilty party IMO.

[JTF]

The DNA test results are akin to a ribbon being tied to a huge evidentiary gift box. The items contained in that box include the over 1,000 pieces of evidence presented by the government at trial, a number representing about 60 percent of the evidence they could have presented, plus the remaining 40 percent that jurors did not get an opportunity to see. Despite any woulda, coulda, shouldas, MacDonald was still convicted in less than 7 hours.

JTF.

[byn63]

:beer: ITA with the analysis JTF. I was reviewing several comments etc. that have been made by the defense in regards to the results of the DNA testing. Of course, I expected that they'd put (or attempt to put) a positive spin on the results, but what I didn't expect was statements made by Scheck.

Barry Scheck's comments about the "unsourced" items gave me pause. This man started the Innocence Project, and is probably one of the best informed attorney's there are in re: DNA testing and the legal ramifications. I realize that he may not have had long to review the case data and compare it to the DNA results before he was ushered in front of the cameras, but, still it seems a shoddy action, imo. Does anyone else think that Barry may have done damage to his credibility or the credibility of the Innocence Project?
:read:

[fdusa]

My brother in law was stationed at Fort Bragg when all this happened.

When I moved to North Carolina and we went to visit he and his family he took us on base. I asked if he would drive by the house/apartment where this happened. The look on his face was amazing. It turned stone hard. He refused to take me and and looked me straight in the eye and said we don't talk about that.
Believe me I did not ask him about anything else that had to do with the case.

What I did do was some research while I lived there since I lived close to where the trials took place.

I was, like so many, completely convinced of his guilt after watching and reading Fatal Vision. Then after I started doing research of court documents and the history of the prosecutors that tried the case, my belief that he was guilty changed.

There was enough evidence in my research to make me doubt.


Then the book Fatal Justice came out and some of the same things I had discovered in my research showed up in that book.

I am not convinced he is guilty but also not convinced he is innocent.

Too many questions remain and far too many people did not uphold their responsiblities as officers of the court.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by nomi21


:read: While I don't deny his Innocence Project has done a lot of good...I am not fond of the man...ever since he helped let a killer by the name of O.J. Simpson(the wifebeater)go free. There was barrels of proof he did it, and until now noone else has ever been found who fits the bill, but the wifebeater. I have never liked Barry Sheck for that reason. As far as MacDonald...this is my own opinion and I have explained myself over and over(so I won't do it again)I never have and never will, believe he is guilty.
Belief is one thing, Nomi. Knowledge is another thing.
Jeffrey MacDonald is every bit as guilty as OJ Simpson is guilty. There exist few criminal cases where so much physical evidence points to one specific person than in the Simpson and the MacDonald case.
You wrote there was barrels of proof that Simpson did it. Well, he same is true when it comes to Jeffrey MacDonald. JTF wrote:

The DNA test results are akin to a ribbon being tied to a huge evidentiary gift box. The items contained in that box include the over 1,000 pieces of evidence presented by the government at trial, a number representing about 60 percent of the evidence they could have presented, plus the remaining 40 percent that jurors did not get an opportunity to see. Despite any woulda, coulda, shouldas, MacDonald was still convicted in less than 7 hours.

So true JTF. The DNA results are the icing on the evidentiary cake.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by nomi21


:read: I respect your view, but I don't agree. I will never believe the "evidence" shows Mac as guilty.

Well, then I do not believe you really know all the evidence and the story it tells. The blood and fibers tell a story and it is radically different from the inmate's story, in any of its many variations.
Of course, you don't believe any one is guilty. You said this about Roger Keith Coleman:

nomi21
Member

Registered: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 715
Roger........
I followed the case. I also have a time magazine that explored all the evidence and such. I always have and always will believe he was an innocent man who was executed. I have little, or no faith in the judicial system in Virginia. I do not believe as it stands at this time...is just, or fair to the poor. I believe money plays a BIG part in who gets what kind of sentence in this state. If you can afford big name lawyers you might do well, if you are poor(which Roger was), forget mercy...there is none here in this state. I am hoping the new governor might see the need for some positive changes in the judicial system in the state. I guess time will tell.

Well, the DNA tests were run and it confirmed his guilt. He had a progressively more violent criminal record which led up to his final rape/murder, and you cried for him, too. Well, you were wrong about Coleman, and I believe you remain terribly wrong about MacDonald.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html

[JTF]

Truth and a belief system are often at odds with one another. It's very hard to believe that an individual who had everything going for him would slaughter his wife and 2 daughters. The beauty of truth is that the facts don't lie, they aren't tainted by agendas, they're not swayed or altered by human emotion. MacDonald's guilt is what it is. This case is about as open and shut as one can find in the history of high profile murders.

JTF.

[byn63]

well said JTF! It's sad that some otherwise intelligent persons cannot see the forest for the trees. Oh well, the rest of us can just keep laying the truth out as often as it takes!

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by JTF
Truth and a belief system are often at odds with one another. It's very hard to believe that an individual who had everything going for him would slaughter his wife and 2 daughters. The beauty of truth is that the facts don't lie, they aren't tainted by agendas, they're not swayed or altered by human emotion. MacDonald's guilt is what it is. This case is about as open and shut as one can find in the history of high profile murders.

JTF.

I so agree, JTF. This was the strongest circumstatial case I can remember. The wounds, the blood, the remarkable abscence of any evidence of a sizable number of "drug crazed" intruders- everything makes it impossible for the inmate's story to be true.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by byn63
well said JTF! It's sad that some otherwise intelligent persons cannot see the forest for the trees. Oh well, the rest of us can just keep laying the truth out as often as it takes!

We have the same problem over at the OJ Simpson Board. Yes, it is amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees. You're nicer than me. Intelligent doesn't even come close to describing these people! LOL!

JMO and MOO!!

[JTF]

2L8: The case against Simpson is even stronger than the case against MacDonald, yet there are still people who believe that Simpson was railroaded. You could have convicted 25 people on the evidence pointing to Simpson's guilt and probably 20 people in the MacDonald case. The only difference between Simpson and MacDonald is that Simpson had a long history of abusing his wife. This included photographs, incident reports filed by the police, and the infamous 911 tape by Nicole Simpson.

JTF.

[poohbear1961]

Has anyone here read Ann Rule's "Everything She Ever Wanted"? In the book, she describes the family of a convicted killer (who is female) in an interesting way. The woman's entire family except for one daughter, who finally brought her to justice, believed implicitly in her innocence, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. Sort of like, "Do you believe me or your lying eyes?"...Ms. Rule opined that the family HAD to believe in the convict's innocence, or else admit that they'd been duped and used for a very long time, which a lot of people refuse to do. I thought that may apply in this case, as well as the Simpson case.


Thoughts, anyone?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by barskin&amp;co.

<snipped>

Of course, you don't believe any one is guilty...

<snipped>

Well, the DNA tests were run and it confirmed his guilt. He had a progressively more violent criminal record which led up to his final rape/murder, and you cried for him, too. Well, you were wrong about Coleman, and I believe you remain terribly wrong about MacDonald.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html
IIRC, she also thinks that Darlie Routier is innocent.

JMO and MOO!!

[Bunny2]

JTF, see the PM I just sent you here...

[JTF]

Bunny: Thanks a bunch.

JTF.

[byn63]

Originally posted by poohbear1961
Has anyone here read Ann Rule's "Everything She Ever Wanted"? In the book, she describes the family of a convicted killer (who is female) in an interesting way. The woman's entire family except for one daughter, who finally brought her to justice, believed implicitly in her innocence, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. Sort of like, "Do you believe me or your lying eyes?"...Ms. Rule opined that the family HAD to believe in the convict's innocence, or else admit that they'd been duped and used for a very long time, which a lot of people refuse to do. I thought that may apply in this case, as well as the Simpson case.


Thoughts, anyone?

I haven't read the book, but the hypothesis is still sound that the believers in innocence MUST believe that way. It is sad, but, a perfect example is Mrs. Inmate - she MUST believe in his innocence even though her garage is full of documentation that would show her otherwise. In all honesty, I doubt she's ever read more than snippets of ANY of the masses of information.
I started a new thread over at the A&E mac board that gives the legal definition of circumstantial evidence. Just FYI:read:

[poohbear1961]

Thanks for the info byn. :) I also understand there are posters known as "baiters" or "flamers" who like to cause trouble and ruffle feathers. IMO some of the folks on this board and others who argue for Inmate's innocence (also Simpson's, etc) are that. I'm especially suspicious whenever a poster says "I believe he/she is innocent just because", giving no real reason. JMO

[byn63]

I know exactly what you mean Poohbear! It can be frustrating because the "I believe just because" crowd is often made up of trolls and baiters. Over at A&E we have the firebrigade that comes out in fullforce whenever a baiter starts shooting off sparks.

Many of us that post here are members: JTF is the Chief, bunny, rash, cami are the "bulls" and I ride up front working the lights and sirens because I LIKE TO MAKE NOISE. We also have Oftenwonder, Lady4justice, DebB and others who are always ready to douse the flames!

come on over and join the fun!:D

[cami]

IIRC, she also thinks that Darlie Routier is innocent.

JMO and MOO!!

I'm shocked to see she believes in Simpson's guilt! There's hope for you yet Nomi..

Joyeaux Noel/Merry Christmas

:seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

I'm shocked to see she believes in Simpson's guilt! There's hope for you yet Nomi..

Joyeaux Noel/Merry Christmas

:seeya:

I have my own opinions of why she thinks OJ is guilty, but will keep them to myself. LOL!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to You and Yours, Cami!

[byn63]

I have my own opinions of why she thinks OJ is guilty, but will keep them to myself. LOL!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to You and Yours, Cami!

I wonder what you might insinuate if you DID NOT keep your opinions to yourself? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Oh, I've got a real good idea, and it probably matches the same reason I think why she thinks Simpson is guilty.

LOL!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2L8!:rose: :rose: :rose:

[2L8 4A D8]

I wonder what you might insinuate if you DID NOT keep your opinions to yourself? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Oh, I've got a real good idea, and it probably matches the same reason I think why she thinks Simpson is guilty.

LOL!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2L8!:rose: :rose: :rose:

I am sure that our opinions are the same. GR8 minds think alike, right? LOL!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too, byn63!

[cami]

IIRC, she also thinks that Darlie Routier is innocent.

JMO and MOO!!

Yeah just because. And when Darlie is executed, they'll all cry an innocent woman has been executed. It will be Coleman all over again.

[cami]

I have my own opinions of why she thinks OJ is guilty, but will keep them to myself. LOL!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to You and Yours, Cami!

Right back at yah, 2L

Jeez is Colorado getting the blizzard today!!!

We're having a green Christmas in Canada...well where I live anyway.


HaH, I love the new smilies...there I am on my throne with all the little people bowing to me.

[cami]

Here ya go, cami.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060918fege01

My favorite line:


Thanks Barsk..going to read it now...

[cami]

Here ya go, cami.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060918fege01

My favorite line:

Darn, it's not there, I was too late I guess...

[byn63]

well, I am still trying to find ANYTHING logical in the workings of the brains of some posters.....................

but, I just don't see how "feel" has anything to do with guilt for Inmate or Darlie either! The evidence against them is OVERWHELMING!

Colorado is supposed to get another 18 inches of snow today - glad I'm not there!!!!!!:beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

well, I am still trying to find ANYTHING logical in the workings of the brains of some posters.....................

but, I just don't see how "feel" has anything to do with guilt for Inmate or Darlie either! The evidence against them is OVERWHELMING!

Colorado is supposed to get another 18 inches of snow today - glad I'm not there!!!!!!:beer:

Hi Byn! I am glad that I am not in Colorado too!

Yep, the evidence against the likes of JM, DR and OJ is OVERWHELMING, but you still have your Bleeding Hearts. It's amazing what a lack of logic and common sense can do to people!

JMO and MOO!!

[AmyW]

Yep, the evidence against the likes of JM, DR and OJ is OVERWHELMING, but you still have your Bleeding Hearts. It's amazing what a lack of logic and common sense can do to people!

JMO and MOO!!

I agree. I've never been convinced of the innocence of either JM or OJ, but freely admit I was on the fence with DR until very recently. All goes to show that if you don't allow your heart and feelings to rule, and you careful look at the evidence yourself, the truth becomes evident.

[byn63]

I agree. I've never been convinced of the innocence of either JM or OJ, but freely admit I was on the fence with DR until very recently. All goes to show that if you don't allow your heart and feelings to rule, and you careful look at the evidence yourself, the truth becomes evident.

ITA!

In the case of Inmate (aka JM) the evidence against him is stronger today than it was when he was originally convicted. In 1979 the trial of Inmate took 7 weeks. The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence through 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). [i]This evidence comprised only about 60% of the available evidence at the time. Now the DNA tests would also be available.[/] MOST of the blood evidence went in without even a serious cross examination and without objection. The jury deliberated just over 6 hours and returned a verdict of 1st degree murder - Kristen; 2nd degree murder - Kimberly; 2nd degree murder - Colette. Judge Dupree sentenced Inmate to 3 CONSECUTIVE life sentences which was the harshest penalty applicable at the time.

Since that time, Inmate has had more appeals and been heard by the USSC more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence history. Yet still, people find Inmate's personal site or some of the other less than accurately reporting sites and jump on the Fatal Justice bandwagon. Yes, we have the advantage of CMs site tjmis - but some posters can seem to FIND the truthful sites!:shrug:

[KC Sierra]

I see Barry Sheck was the topic of discussion some time ago. I interviewed him (or attempted to) about it a couple of years ago when he was in Florida promoting his book, Actual Innocence. I asked him if the Innocence Project would fare better among legislators if they called it the Guilt Confirmation project. He ignored the question, even though I posed it to him twice and was the only reporter in the room asking questions. It was a deliberate dodge.

If the Innocence Project helps free innocent people, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's his purpose.

[cami]

well, I am still trying to find ANYTHING logical in the workings of the brains of some posters.....................

but, I just don't see how "feel" has anything to do with guilt for Inmate or Darlie either! The evidence against them is OVERWHELMING!

Colorado is supposed to get another 18 inches of snow today - glad I'm not there!!!!!!:beer:

LOl, they are getting the snow for both countries aren't they? We haven't had a flake yet but that's typical of Nova Scotia. We're dreaming of a white Easter....but boy it's so cold and the north wind just cuts the cheeks right off you.

[rosemadder]

I have read a lot on this case, and have always been convinced of Jeff's guilt. The thing that I could never get past was that his wife and children were over-killed and he had a few minor injuries. Why would someone do such horrendous damage to a baby, and leave the big strong man barely injured? The "intruders" could have killed him easily after they "knocked him unconscious". There is way too many things that don't make sense if you listen to Jeff's side. I honestly don't understand how anyone could even consider he was innocent. He saw 3 intruders standing over him, but also heard his wife and daughter screaming, so there were obviously more people in the house. The livingroom didn't look as if a life or death struggle took place there. Plus, how can anyone discount the blood type evidence? Nothing that Jeff tried to explain made any sense. I hope Jeff is never paroled. This case has always affected me deeply, it is so hard to read about or watch on tv. I have often thought not only of Collette, Kimberly, Kristen, and the baby, but also of Freddy and Mildred and all that they went through. The shear cold bloodedness of Jeff's actions that night were almost beyond belief.

[Bunny2]

Hi, Amy! Just wanted to say I like the graphic you used in your post. I just "discovered" Michael Baden last year and I've read his book Dead Reckoning several times. Obviously you're a fan, too.

:beer:

[byn63]

I see Barry Sheck was the topic of discussion some time ago. I interviewed him (or attempted to) about it a couple of years ago when he was in Florida promoting his book, Actual Innocence. I asked him if the Innocence Project would fare better among legislators if they called it the Guilt Confirmation project. He ignored the question, even though I posed it to him twice and was the only reporter in the room asking questions. It was a deliberate dodge.

If the Innocence Project helps free innocent people, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's his purpose.

Officially Barry Scheck is the macalite DNA expert, BUT Inmate himself IS NOT a client of the Innocence Project. Seems to ME that if Scheck truly believed in Inmate then he would have taken on his case under its auspices. The fact that he DID NOT do so is very telling imho.

In fairness, the Innocence Project HAS cleared quite a few unfairly convicted persons. I personally think that everyone needs to remember to keep the two separate "Barry Scheck" and the "Innocence Project" are not one and the same.

[Travis Twitt]

The reasons I believe Jeff is innocent:
-A spotless record before the murders
-He's smart enough to know a divoirce is easier than triple murder
-He was aquitted in his first trial and had a spotless record after that, working long hours at a hospital and praised by his co-workers
-The police botched the investigation
-Two of the first officers DID see a suspicious female in the area when responding to the call, but never stopped/questioned her.

[bandit's mom]

I have read a lot on this case, and have always been convinced of Jeff's guilt. The thing that I could never get past was that his wife and children were over-killed and he had a few minor injuries. Why would someone do such horrendous damage to a baby, and leave the big strong man barely injured? The "intruders" could have killed him easily after they "knocked him unconscious". There is way too many things that don't make sense if you listen to Jeff's side. I honestly don't understand how anyone could even consider he was innocent. He saw 3 intruders standing over him, but also heard his wife and daughter screaming, so there were obviously more people in the house. The livingroom didn't look as if a life or death struggle took place there. Plus, how can anyone discount the blood type evidence? Nothing that Jeff tried to explain made any sense.


Ah, you have the same problem I do, that annoying common sense. It
completely baffles me that people believe the lies of so many of these
murderers. I think it's often that people just find it too hard to believe
that a Father could butcher his children, or a mother hers, the way
MacMurderer and Darlie did to theirs. In Jeff's case, IMO, it was
simple self preservation. People have a hard time understanding someone
can do when not burdened by a conciense.

[rashomon]

The reasons I believe Jeff is innocent:
-A spotless record before the murders
-He's smart enough to know a divoirce is easier than triple murder
-He was aquitted in his first trial and had a spotless record after that, working long hours at a hospital and praised by his co-workers
-The police botched the investigation
-Two of the first officers DID see a suspicious female in the area when responding to the call, but never stopped/questioned her.
Are you 'Albert Webb' aka 'Arthur Thorp'? You sure sound like this poster.

You are woefully misinformed about the case if you think MacDonald ever had 'a first trial' in which he was acquitted.
Aside from that, have you ever heard that there exists a double jeopardy law in the US?
- A spotless record before the murders means nothing. Countless perps had such a spotless record too.
- The crime was not premeditated, but most likely a rage attack followed by a cover-up. MacD did not 'plan' to get rid of his family on that particular day.
- a botched investigation does not make a defendant innocent. It may make it more difficult to prove the defendant's guilt, but in the JMD case, despite the botched crime scene, there was more than enough forensic evidence left to convict him of the crimes.
- according to Mica, a female was found standing at the corner wearing a raincoat/rain hat, and who had 'nice legs'. No mention of a 1970's style floppy hat and boots.

[Bunny2]

From the latest on Christina's website, on the "Some Interesting Things Occurring" page:

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

"The latest is an attempt to spin the AFIP DNA results into a claim that an unidentified hair found on Kristen’s bedspread probably came from an African-American, thereby proving, once again, the truth of MacDonald’s account of intruders. The claim is specious for the following reasons: The hair in question (AFDIL 58A(1) is a 5mm, naturally shed Caucasian hair recovered from Kristen’s green bedspread along with numerous fibers, a black dog hair, and MacDonald’s own hair. The AFDIL DNA results show that this hair has seven polymorphisms, or unusual genetic sequences. AFDIL ran the whole profile against the database and found no matches for anyone including Africans or African-Americans. Apparently MacDonald’s expert, Terry Melton, has told Tim Junkin, one of MacDonald's attorneys that one or more of the polymorphisms was 'most similar in database research to African/African-American.' This may well be the case for a particular polymorphism, but it is not true with respect to the full DNA profile. Nor is it accepted scientifically to determine that a hair came from a particular population using a partial profile instead of the full profile. Put plainly and simply, it would be like saying that the presence of a genetic sequence for brown eyes means that the donor was most likely an African American.

"You can bet your bottom dollar that this will not hold up in court and the appropriate measures are being taken to counter this latest ploy."

Mac's defense team must be getting desperate to have come up with this one.

[byn63]

The reasons I believe Jeff is innocent:
-A spotless record before the murders
-He's smart enough to know a divoirce is easier than triple murder
-He was aquitted in his first trial and had a spotless record after that, working long hours at a hospital and praised by his co-workers
-The police botched the investigation
-Two of the first officers DID see a suspicious female in the area when responding to the call, but never stopped/questioned her.

Let's take these contentions in order:

First: Inmate had a spotless LEGAL record, but he was far from the lily-white purity seemingly implied by your statement. The man is a psychotic narcissist who flew into a rage. Plus, what he did BEFORE that night has no bearing on what he did DURING that night.

Second: There are plenty of incredibly intelligent murderers on record. Intellect is not a deciding factor in whether or not someone behaves in a criminal manner. Also, why would he divorce? He was enjoying the gravy train of having a floating loan from his inlaws, the car provided by Colette's Aunt, AND still managed to tomcat around as often as he wanted.

Third: Inmate has had only one TRIAL. The trial lasted 7 weeks in the summer of 1979. The prosecution presented over 1,100 items of evidence comprising only about 60% of the available inculpatory evidence, and it was presented using 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). The jury convicted in just under 7 hours. Since that time, inmate has been heard before the various courts more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence history.

Fourth: The preservation of the crime scene was less than perfect, no doubt. However, it is important to note that the MPs first priority was to provide aide to the living even at the expense of a perfectly preserved crime scene. However, even with the errors made, there was plenty of evidence that was there that pointed directly to inmate's guilt, not to mention his consciousness of guilt. The blood spatter, weapons, pj top, fibers, and hairs that were found all point directly to his guilt. The fact that NO blood, pj fibers or club splinters were found in the living room where he allegedly fought of the mythical intruders being prime among the evidence. All three bedrooms had blood, fibers and splinters where the club, knife and ice pick were ACTUALLY used.

FIFTH: MP Kenneth Mica reported seeing a lone woman wearing a raincoat and hat at a nearby street corner as he was making his way to 544 Castle Drive. Mica was unable to give any type of true physical description (ie face, hair color, clothing style) except to say that she had "nice legs". No mention of the floppy hat or bare knees above boots. In truth, inmate's description of the female intruder is cookie cutter for that time and place. Most young women wore their hair long and straight, wore floppy brimmed hats and knee high boots - it was the uniform of the day, so to speak. Mica's partner never reported seeing the woman.

These are just a few of the facts. The biggest FACT of all is that the DNA testing has been completed and the big E5 hair - the one found clutched in Colette's hand (along with a splinter from the murder club) - and which inmate and his attorney's have always said would come from the murderer - did indeed - it came back 100% match of the DNA of Jeffrey Robert MacDonald aka Federal Correctional Inmate 00131-177.

:rose: :rose: :rose: A rose each for Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen - May they rest in peace knowing the monster that killed them is rotting in prison.

[Bunny2]

Excellent post, Byn...right on the mark, as usual!

:beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

I stop in every now and then to read Posts. I am just in awe of all of the GR8 Posters that are on this Board and what they have to say. I am talking about the G's, of course! Keep up the good work! And I will just keep on :read: !

[byn63]

seems as if several of the boards have experienced hit and run posts from persons poorly informed on this case. One of these days, I am going to end one of my responses with: this is a recording...........................beep I've thought about it a few times recently, but, no matter how many times I have to repeat myself, I will continue to do so.........

:patriot:

[2L8 4A D8]

seems as if several of the boards have experienced hit and run posts from persons poorly informed on this case. One of these days, I am going to end one of my responses with: this is a recording...........................beep I've thought about it a few times recently, but, no matter how many times I have to repeat myself, I will continue to do so.........

:patriot:

Yes, we have the same problems over on the OJ Simpson Board. Only I call it "The OJ Simpson Double-Murder Case 101 is now in session!" It drives me nuts!

[byn63]

Yes, we have the same problems over on the OJ Simpson Board. Only I call it "The OJ Simpson Double-Murder Case 101 is now in session!" It drives me nuts!



Well, at least when YOU pop in you don't type anything stupid! I don't know how much actual case documentation you guys on the oj topics have to access, but in the case of the murders Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen there is an abundance of records available thanks to Christina M. and tjmis! So, what excuse do these hit and run types have for spouting such inanities?

I swear they are going to drive me to drink!:beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

Well, at least when YOU pop in you don't type anything stupid! I don't know how much actual case documentation you guys on the oj topics have to access, but in the case of the murders Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen there is an abundance of records available thanks to Christina M. and tjmis! So, what excuse do these hit and run types have for spouting such inanities?

I swear they are going to drive me to drink!:beer:

None! They are not hit and run types. They are all going out in pine boxes, trust me! No matter how many Links are provided, no matter what the Testimony states, no matter all of the lies that OJ told on the witness stand in the Civil Trial! It just doesn't matter to them and they're relentless in their devotion to their hero and idol, OJ Simpson! It was a conspiracy by one and all to frame OJ Simpson and not anyone was credible, except for OJ that is! They just keep up with the mantra of "Reasonable Doubt this and Reasonable Doubt that!" Be damned the DNA evidence and all of the other evidence! They just want to fight and argue with you all day long about it, even going so far as to constantly ask the same questions over and over again and repeating themselves ~ ad nauseum!

Nothing works! However, they call us "G's" closed-minded. Yeah, right!

This is just my two cents and also JMO and MOO!!

[byn63]

I don't see where someone coming on the board, giving their opinion about Jeffs innocence is stupid. The only thing stupid is not giving that person a chance to say why, or didn't your mother teach there is no such thing as a stupid question only a stupid answer.

The only spouting of inanities I see or hear comes from people that attempt to force their views on others.

I would also venture to say the you already drink, cause you sound like a mean drunk on a Friday night.


imo it is stupid to say "I feel" such and such but when ASKED to give a basis for their comments you get the same response "I feel". There is no excuse for that when there is actual case documentation to study. If someone comes here and says I don't think the pj top blah blah blah, then the rest of us can respond with counter arguments. BUT, if someone just FEELS that this mass murderer is innocent but cannot use evidence to back it - then imo it is inane. I don't have a problem with someone believing it to be innocent, but I expect them to have something upon which to base that argument that counters the evidence.

in case you do not know:

the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence at the August 1979 trial using 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). That evidence comprised only about 60% of the available exculpatory evidence and NOW the DNA evidence has only made the case against inmate stronger. The trial lasted 7 weeks, and inmate was convicted in just under 7 hours.

inmate has been heard by the Courts (including the Supreme Court) more than any other murderer in the history of US jurisprudence. There has been nothing to show that he was "wrongfully convicted" and the evidence against him is compelling. He has shown consciousness of guilt and he has altered his story continuously in vain attempts to make it match the evidence. However, no matter what he does, he cannot change the fact that it was PROVEN that Colette's blood was on his pj top BEFORE it was torn, that the pocket of the top was torn off early in the events, that there was no forensic evidence inthe living room to back his tale of intruders: no blood, no fibers, no splinters yet all three of those things were found in all three bedrooms. He also cannot change the fact that he was barely injured yet his pregnant wife and 2 young daughters were viciously butchered. AND his favorite patsies (alternate murderers) have been proven to NOT have been involved - no fingerprints, hairs, etc. of Greg Mitchell or Helena Stoeckley were present. The DNA testing confirmed that - so no way were they involved.

been a long time since I drank enough to get drunk since I rarely drink - but even if I did, I am not a mean drunk. I am a person with a righteous indignation that inmate still keeps up his whiney pretense, and people continue to fall for his lies. There are former supporters who post various places, and they all point out how they were used, and how they no longer believe his tales.

[amerbelle]

HI, I'am new around here, but Jeffery M is as guiltly as they come. AS bad as his wife & kids were murdered he came out with a couple of cuts. When people are out to kill others they are going to take out the biggest threat. Which in this case was him. He is a evil man & deserves to stay in prison for the rest of his life.

[natgeo]

imo it is stupid to say "I feel" such and such but when ASKED to give a basis for their comments you get the same response "I feel". There is no excuse for that when there is actual case documentation to study. If someone comes here and says I don't think the pj top blah blah blah, then the rest of us can respond with counter arguments. BUT, if someone just FEELS that this mass murderer is innocent but cannot use evidence to back it - then imo it is inane. I don't have a problem with someone believing it to be innocent, but I expect them to have something upon which to base that argument that counters the evidence.



Byn, so from your answer you thinks it is stupid for people to have feelings about this case that is opposite of yours. A person has to start somewhere and those are generally with feelings. If I remember right a good cop calls them hunches, but I guess that you are so smart and know everything you don't have them. Feelings are an important part of a person and without them that person becomes empty and lonely.

Your only belief of his guilt is the evidence? Believing a person is innocent goes beyond the evidence, it is a feeling, that what people use to prove anothers innocence. Everything starts with a feeling, unless they are like you, maybe you have no feeling about anything, which makes everything with you black and white, no gray area. Just my opinion, but from I read here and other places, other peoples opinion don't mean much to you, cause you think your always right, and when you are wrong, you don't admit it or apologize. Which goes to show you have NO feelings.

[Bunny2]

Byn, so from your answer you thinks it is stupid for people to have feelings about this case that is opposite of yours. A person has to start somewhere and those are generally with feelings. If I remember right a good cop calls them hunches, but I guess that you are so smart and know everything you don't have them. Feelings are an important part of a person and without them that person becomes empty and lonely.

Your only belief of his guilt is the evidence? Believing a person is innocent goes beyond the evidence, it is a feeling, that what people use to prove anothers innocence. Everything starts with a feeling, unless they are like you, maybe you have no feeling about anything, which makes everything with you black and white, no gray area. Just my opinion, but from I read here and other places, other peoples opinion don't mean much to you, cause you think your always right, and when you are wrong, you don't admit it or apologize. Which goes to show you have NO feelings.

OMG, it's FrmrCSI/Classified1/Spook (imo)!

Byn didn't say it was stupid for people to have an opinion different than hers. That's just your own desire to cause problems that made you write that and the other garbage you spewed out. She's trying to tell you that people who just say "I feel" that Mac's innocent but who haven't studied the evidence and who have nothing to back up their thoughts are inane, and I agree with her. Anyone can have a "feeling," but of course it's the evidence which tells the true story, and in the MacDonald murders, there were people who "felt" he was innocent but who were proven wrong when the evidence showed without any question that MacDonald was 100% responsible for the murders of his family.

[Bunny2]

HI, I'am new around here, but Jeffery M is as guiltly as they come. AS bad as his wife & kids were murdered he came out with a couple of cuts. When people are out to kill others they are going to take out the biggest threat. Which in this case was him. He is a evil man & deserves to stay in prison for the rest of his life.

Hi, amerbelle, and welcome. Oh yes, Mac is guilty, guilty, guilty, all right, and imo the only way he'll ever leave prison is in a pine box. (What a waste of good wood.)

In Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England ("Book the Fourth - Chapter the Fourteenth: Of Homicide") that "By the Roman law, parricide, or the murder of one's parents or children, was punished in a much severer manner than any other kind of homicide. After being scourged"--apparently meaning whipped or lashed--"the delinquents were sewed up in a leathern sack, with a live dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and so cast into the sea."

As one lawyer said after reading that, "Now that's heavy."

I venture to say that there are quite a few people who think that even if Mac had gotten a punishment like that, it wouldn't have been enough. He ought to count himself lucky that he can live out his days seeing, hearing, talking, reading, visiting with people and more. Colette, Kim and Kristen didn't get that chance, because he made the decision to take that from them. May they rest in peace!

[natgeo]

OMG, it's FrmrCSI/Classified1/Spook (imo)!

Byn didn't say it was stupid for people to have an opinion different than hers. That's just your own desire to cause problems that made you write that and the other garbage you spewed out. She's trying to tell you that people who just say "I feel" that Mac's innocent but who haven't studied the evidence and who have nothing to back up their thoughts are inane, and I agree with her. Anyone can have a "feeling," but of course it's the evidence which tells the true story, and in the MacDonald murders, there were people who "felt" he was innocent but who were proven wrong when the evidence showed without any question that MacDonald was 100% responsible for the murders of his family.

You know, I read the other crime sites and it seems to me that you accuse everybody that doesn't agree with you or your friends of being someone else. I find that pathetic, you don't know me from Adam and are accusing me of being someone else.

All this proves is that you don't know as much as you think you do. JM is guilty, but you only about 10% of the information. You can't think for yourself and must rely on what the government has already said. Your afraid to consider what wasn't said or made public. I feel sorry for people that just go along because that generally they are followers not leaders. You just follow along and do what your told to do, without even thinking for yourself.

[Bunny2]

You know, I read the other crime sites and it seems to me that you accuse everybody that doesn't agree with you or your friends of being someone else. I find that pathetic, you don't know me from Adam and are accusing me of being someone else.

All this proves is that you don't know as much as you think you do. JM is guilty, but you only about 10% of the information. You can't think for yourself and must rely on what the government has already said. Your afraid to consider what wasn't said or made public. I feel sorry for people that just go along because that generally they are followers not leaders. You just follow along and do what your told to do, without even thinking for yourself.

I've read every page of every document available on Christina's site and more. Moreover, I've actually studied those documents. For years, I've made countless notes and done comparisons, constructed the Magical Mystery Tour from the available facts, created the Names page which contains references to any name found on any page of any document on TJMIS, transcribed the CID records, created 3D views of the apartment, created a template whereby people can make their own model of the apartment, made lists of resources and more. None of that has the slightest thing to do with following along like a sheep, but I've noticed in your posts that this seems to be a primary intent of yours, to imply that other people who have actually spent months and often years studying the evidence and who have come to the conclusion that Mac murdered his family haven't done any research and can't think for themselves.

Why does it upset you so much that people who have actually taken the time to study the evidence (which I don't see any evidence of your doing) have concluded--like the jury and appeals courts--that MacDonald certainly murdered his family beyond any reasonable doubt? Why do you attack knowledgable people because you can't get them to believe what *you* believe?

[natgeo]

I've read every page of every document available on Christina's site and more. Moreover, I've actually studied those documents. For years, I've made countless notes and done comparisons, constructed the Magical Mystery Tour from the available facts, created the Names page which contains references to any name found on any page of any document on TJMIS, transcribed the CID records, created 3D views of the apartment, created a template whereby people can make their own model of the apartment, made lists of resources and more. None of that has the slightest thing to do with following along like a sheep, but I've noticed in your posts that this seems to be a primary intent of yours, to imply that other people who have actually spent months and often years studying the evidence and who have come to the conclusion that Mac murdered his family haven't done any research and can't think for themselves.

Why does it upset you so much that people who have actually taken the time to study the evidence (which I don't see any evidence of your doing) have concluded--like the jury and appeals courts--that MacDonald certainly murdered his family beyond any reasonable doubt? Why do you attack knowledgable people because you can't get them to believe what *you* believe?

Actually, I have read both books, seen the movie, read CMs web site and even your 3D which I must admit is good.

As far as the thinking part, you refuse to allow other to have their opinions by attacking them, calling them stupid, and attempting to force them believe your views. You have consistently and publicly bashed posters for what they have siad or done. All in the name of I am right your wrong. I am glad I do not know your personally, I have to deal with enough people like you at work, they are also knowledge but have no personality or sense of respect for others views. That is really sad.

I not coming back to board where freedom of speech is not allowed, cause a few run it like a dictator. I do not want to part of your negative and depressing world.

[Bunny2]

Actually, I have read both books, seen the movie, read CMs web site and even your 3D which I must admit is good.

As far as the thinking part, you refuse to allow other to have their opinions by attacking them, calling them stupid, and attempting to force them believe your views. You have consistently and publicly bashed posters for what they have siad or done. All in the name of I am right your wrong. I am glad I do not know your personally, I have to deal with enough people like you at work, they are also knowledge but have no personality or sense of respect for others views. That is really sad.

I not coming back to board where freedom of speech is not allowed, cause a few run it like a dictator. I do not want to part of your negative and depressing world.
Anyone who reads the posts that have been put up on various boards for the past several years can clearly see that to people like you, it's always an "attack" when the facts are shown. We post facts, you make personal attacks, we reply with fact, you attack again, and so it goes.

If you want to discuss the evidence in the case, people will be glad to hear you out. If your only intent is to put people down, though, which seems to be what's happening, perhaps you're better off not posting on the boards at all.

[natgeo]

Anyone who reads the posts that have been put up on various boards for the past several years can clearly see that to people like you, it's always an "attack" when the facts are shown. We post facts, you make personal attacks, we reply with fact, you attack again, and so it goes.

If you want to discuss the evidence in the case, people will be glad to hear you out. If your only intent is to put people down, though, which seems to be what's happening, perhaps you're better off not posting on the boards at all.

I changed my mind. You said it Bunny, you only want to hear from people that talk the facts, from what I have read there is very few facts. The government had a great theory of how the crime was committed. But aside from the weapons, they have no clue how is actaully went down. Just theory and speculation. You are totally afraid of people that may do their own speculation of the case. As for attacking you really have alot of room to talk. I have read your posts on other boards, and I must say you are the Queen of attacking.

[Bunny2]

I changed my mind. You said it Bunny, you only want to hear from people that talk the facts, from what I have read there is very few facts. The government had a great theory of how the crime was committed. But aside from the weapons, they have no clue how is actaully went down. Just theory and speculation. You are totally afraid of people that may do their own speculation of the case. As for attacking you really have alot of room to talk. I have read your posts on other boards, and I must say you are the Queen of attacking.

Poor natgeo, trying *so* hard to flamebait by lying, and getting nowhere at all. A baiter's life is tough sometimes, isn't it?

The evidence shows that MacDonald's pajama top was torn in the master bedroom, showering fibers there, and that Colette was attacked by him in that room and again in Kristen's room.

Evidence also shows that MacDonald, either by accident or on purpose, also slammed a club into his 5½-year-old daughter Kimberley's head hard enough to result in her brain serum and blood being in the doorway to the master bedroom, and that he also murdered his baby daughter Kristen by stabbing her repeatedly.

Evidence also showed that MacDonald carried Kim back to her own bedroom and put her in her bed with her "security blanket" and bludgeoned her again with the club and stabbed her repeatedly. Iimprints on the master bedroom sheet, including imprints which matched the imprints of Mac's and Colette's pajama cuffs, and MacDonald's bloody footprints made in Colette's blood and which were exiting Kristen's room, indicated that MacDonald carried Colette from Kristen's room back to the master bedroom, where he laid her on the floor, covered her with his pajama top and stabbed her through it.

For more information you can visit:

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour and more:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com

[Bunny2]

He has shown consciousness of guilt and he has altered his story continuously in vain attempts to make it match the evidence. However, no matter what he does, he cannot change the fact that it was PROVEN that Colette's blood was on his pj top BEFORE it was torn, that the pocket of the top was torn off early in the events, that there was no forensic evidence inthe living room to back his tale of intruders: no blood, no fibers, no splinters yet all three of those things were found in all three bedrooms. He also cannot change the fact that he was barely injured yet his pregnant wife and 2 young daughters were viciously butchered.

Yes, Mac has shown the consciousness of his guilt many times, in fact he does it almost every time he opens his mouth. Over and over again he's tried to alter his stories to make them fit the evidence as he learned of it, and if his current stories don't match his earlier ones, his reaction is basically "so what"? He doesn't care that people can see how much he lies, and he doesn't care that his lies don't fit the evidence; he just goes on doing it. I guess that's where his few remaining supporters got the idea that if they repeat his lies often enough, they can change history, but of course they never will. Mac can *never* escape what he did, in my opinion he knows every minute of every day what he did, but he'll go on lying until his dying day, hoping to keep on pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. Too bad for him that since The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site came into being, he's not able to pull that wool over the eyes of the public as easily as he used to! I would have given just about anything to see his face--and Kathryn's!--when he realized TJMIS was online!