Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[byn63]

Oh boy, I get to repeat myself again!:lol:

In August 1979, Jeffrey Robert MacDonald was on trial for the murder of his pregnant wife Colette, his 5 and 1/2 year old daughter Kimberly, and his 2 and 1/2 year old daughter Kristen. The trial lasted 7 weeks. Prosecution attorneys presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence using 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). Even this massive amount of evidence comprised only about 60% of the exculpatory evidence available. The jury convicted inmate in just under 7 hours. <these are facts>

Also, there is the remaining 40% of the evidence and the DNA testing results now available if by some miracle inmate was grantd a new trial.

It is also important to remember that the blood evidence was submitted at trial without objection, and Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine Terry Laber (one of the CIL chemists).

The pj top torn during the initial struggle strew 18 yarns (blue; from body of material) 60 purple sewing threads (from construction of pj top) and 1 blue/black thread (from construction of pj top)

The blood evidence alone is compelling, but the negative evidence is also compelling. Negative evidence includes the fact that NO splinters, Type B blood, or pj threads/yarns were found in the living room. Also, negative evidence includes the fact that no hairs, fibers, or prints that can be traced back to Helena S. or Greg Mitchell were found and THEY HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED from any DNA evidence as well.

Consciousness of guilt creates behaviors that become circumstantial evidence of guilt. No matter how one tries, simply "feeling" him innocent does not diminish the massive amounts of evidence against him.

[cami]

The reasons I believe Jeff is innocent:
-A spotless record before the murders

Has nothing to do with the crime he was charged with.

-He's smart enough to know a divoirce is easier than triple murder

He lost all control during an argument that escalated into a fight between he and his wife. He did not premeditate her murder. Murders triggered by rage iow...not a reason to base an opinion of innocence on.

-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

No, he was only tried once for the murders and he was convicted. It took the jury only 6/7 hours to find him guilty. Who cares if he was praised by his co-workers...just as many have alleged he was bossy and rude and when he didn't get his own way, he lost that famous temper of his.

-The police botched the investigation

LOL, and there lies the fact that you know nothing about this case. The police did not botch the investigation. There were many many mistakes made, that's true but name one investigation that is spotless and error free...I challenge you.

-Two of the first officers DID see a suspicious female in the area when responding to the call, but never stopped/questioned her.

One did, MP you mean, not officers....and why would they stop and question her when they believed they were responding to a domestic argument? They hadn't yet heard Mac's story of what happened in the home that night.

[cami]

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.

LOL, you just have to laugh at posters such as this. The government, the government, the government. It reminds me so much of the last time Ms. Katherine Kurrich was on LKL. Like a robot, she continued the Mac Mantra...."the government, Larry." Isn't it funny though how the government's "theory" was backed with enough facts and evidence from the crime scene that an actual criminal trial was conducted where by goodness, the government was able to prove those facts to a jury. The defence was unable to poke any reasonable doubt holes in that evidence..their experts actually agreed with THE GOVERNMENT under cross-examination.

Ohhh Bunny I'm so scared are you....I am so afraid that this poster might speculate that Mac is innocent...LOL. Facts = Speculation...good one.

Actually, I am the Queen of Attack not Bunny.....and I am not losing my title to her...

[byn63]

LOL, you just have to laugh at posters such as this. The government, the government, the government. It reminds me so much of the last time Ms. Katherine Kurrich was on LKL. Like a robot, she continued the Mac Mantra...."the government, Larry." Isn't it funny though how the government's "theory" was backed with enough facts and evidence from the crime scene that an actual criminal trial was conducted where by goodness, the government was able to prove those facts to a jury. The defence was unable to poke any reasonable doubt holes in that evidence..their experts actually agreed with THE GOVERNMENT under cross-examination.

Ohhh Bunny I'm so scared are you....I am so afraid that this poster might speculate that Mac is innocent...LOL. Facts = Speculation...good one.

Actually, I am the Queen of Attack not Bunny.....and I am not losing my title to her...

Oh boy! are ya'll gonna have a smack down to see who is the reigning queen of attack???? :D but if ya do how to I choose sides:confused:

the heck with it! Ya'll can BOTH be queen!;)

[JTF]

I would like to invite everyone to my new website on this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

I will be adding new material on a monthly basis and there will be a live chat session every Tuesday from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST. I look forward to discussing this case with all of you.

JTF.

[JTF]

I wanted to let everyone know that when you click the Pajamas Topic, you'll see a Subtopics button on the right. If you click Subtopics, you'll find additional topics relating to MacDonald's pajama top.

JTF.

[rashomon]

Natgeo (you sound very much like FCSI on the C&J board): you got that right when you wrote "Queen Bunny". For Bunny is a queen indeed - the queen of dedicated, serious, substantial and very thorough case research. All this in addtion to being a PC wizard whose talent and technical skills have given us access to so much MacD case info on the net.

But you know all that of course - an suitable nick for you would be 'Sourgrapes', since it sticks out a mile that you are just plain envious.

[rashomon]

I would like to invite everyone to my new website on this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

I will be adding new material on a monthly basis and there will be a live chat session every Tuesday from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST. I look forward to discussing this case with all of you.

JTF.
Very clearly structured site, JTF. Synopses like for example the pj pocket evidence are very helpful, for instead of having to wade through Laber's trial testimony again, one quick link will now do the job of refreshing one's memory about the evidence.
Your work dedicated to the truth in this case is much appreciated - congratulations!

I think JMD's reaction will be :cuss:, when he sees yet another site on the net which will counter his cascade of lies with 'just the facts'.

[Honeybee]

Hi,

I'm new here. I don't know much about this case at all but I'm interested in learning more. I read Fatal Vision and watched the movie years ago. I recently reread Fatal Vision and it has renewed my interest so while looking for more information I found this message board. It sounds like you guys really know this case inside and out. :rose:

[Bunny2]

Ohhh Bunny I'm so scared are you....I am so afraid that this poster might speculate that Mac is innocent...LOL. Facts = Speculation...good one.

Actually, I am the Queen of Attack not Bunny.....and I am not losing my title to her...

LOL!!! :beer:

[Bunny2]

Natgeo (you sound very much like FCSI on the C&J board): you got that right when you wrote "Queen Bunny". For Bunny is a queen indeed - the queen of dedicated, serious, substantial and very thorough case research. All this in addtion to being a PC wizard whose talent and technical skills have given us access to so much MacD case info on the net.

But you know all that of course - an suitable nick for you would be 'Sourgrapes', since it sticks out a mile that you are just plain envious.
Rash, I'm flattered. Thanks so much for the kind words! But it's been the posts of you and Jednme and Cami and JTF and Byn and others, and Christina's website, which have taught me what I know about it and kept up my interest. To take just one example, I remember your research into the saran fiber issue, and how you pointed out what none of the rest of us had caught: that two differed from the third (vs. all three being different). That was a real eye-opener! And so it goes...I am always learning new things from the rest of you, so if anyone deserves credit, it's you people!

[Bunny2]

Hi,

I'm new here. I don't know much about this case at all but I'm interested in learning more. I read Fatal Vision and watched the movie years ago. I recently reread Fatal Vision and it has renewed my interest so while looking for more information I found this message board. It sounds like you guys really know this case inside and out. :rose:
Hi there, Honeybee, and welcome!

If you haven't checked out The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site yet, I definitely suggest that you do that...it's one of the best sites on the 'net for information about the case. And don't miss JTF's new site either; he's got lots of good topics there that will give you a very good foundation in learning more about the facts. Links to those sites and more can be found at:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/

:seeya:

[byn63]

Hi,

I'm new here. I don't know much about this case at all but I'm interested in learning more. I read Fatal Vision and watched the movie years ago. I recently reread Fatal Vision and it has renewed my interest so while looking for more information I found this message board. It sounds like you guys really know this case inside and out. :rose:

welcome to the discussions Honeybee! Dive right in the water's fine! A good site to visit for information is also the MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour. I don't have the link handy but you can get there from the tjmis too!

bunny - you and rash, cami, jednme and jtf are the ones who got me hooked on this case.................I think that the research and recall skills of ALL of us complement each other....................that's why we have such a strong firebrigade!

[Honeybee]

Thank you Bunny & Byn for the nice welcome. I'll check out the sites.

[pennnurse525]

Hello all.
New to the boards, certainly not the case. Recently stumbled across Christina's site and JTF's after a google search on the anniversary of the murders. Too great for words, guys.

I have always thought that the argument in the master bedroom occured as follows...i'm pretty sure this is not original, but just wanted to throw it out there.

Either one of two things happens.....Colette (as she told others in the psych class), came home from class and watched some TV herself, falling asleep on the couch, with JMD and Kim/Kristy in bed. She goes in to sleep (or Kim wakes up after wetting the bed, comes to get Colette) and notes that the bed is wet. Tells JMD to get up, she is going to change sheets. He is half asleep, aggrivated because this has happened AGAIN and is tired, amp'ed up,etc (whatever, who cares) and threatens to spank Kim/Kristy (I believe Kim). Thus the conversation ensues that is overheard by the neighbor, "what do you think i am going to be doing....if you touch a hair...) and the fight becomes an argument about not just the bedwetting, but as many marital arguments do, everything else as well. Colette then either shoves JMD or hits him with hairbrush, etc. and the rest is history.
Option B: They are all three sleeping in the bed and the bed becomes wet. Colette gets up to change it, and the rest occurs as above.

Now, Colette has just gotten info and spoken to classmates/professor regarding children who wet the bed, so she knows that spanking, etc is not the right course of action, which she informs Inmate about and the fight is on.
Thoughts????
I have to say that one of the most troubling things to contemplate is Colette sitting on the bed of her only uninjured child and having JMD stumble into the room and attack them both. How truly grotesque to have done!!!!!!!!!!!! I welcome thoughts from all....still learning after all these years!

Thanks

[byn63]

welcome to the discussions penn - you want some thoughts so here goes:

the urine was typed as being either Type A or Type AB; there were no signs that Colette wet herself, so logic says Kimmie wet the bed.

I believe that Colette went to bed after having the liquer with inmate and he came in later and found Kimmie in bed with her, and the bed wet. I believe he woke Colette (possibly by shaking and yelling at Kimmie) and that is when the argument started.

I believe that Kimmie is actually the first one to be traumatically injured - the blow to the side of her head dislocated her facial midline and broke her cheek severely enough to have it break through the skin. This injury would have bled a lot AND is the likely source of the brain serum of hers found in the MBR. In all likelihood Kimmie was rendered unconscious - in an unrecoverable coma by that injury.

The fight continued between Colette and inmate with the results leaving her unconscious on the floor - and it was during this time that he resolved to murder Kristy to save his own sorry ass.

That's a start - and jump on in we love to talk about this case!

[pennnurse525]

Thanks for the info byn...

Question:
That was a hell of a blow, honestly. What do you think of the idea in FV that the club may have hit Kimmy as he swung it to hit Colette?

Also, the phone number on club? How about the Colonel's wife......and where is she now? She scampered away from this issue like a mouse.

Anyone know the status of appeals by inmate?
Also, in case no one has seen, new letter from inmate and wife on his website. What a tool.
Thanks for the reply, I look forward to continuing the discussion!!!!:biggrin:

[JTF]

Penn: My thoughts.

1) Grebner, Ivory, and Shaw all thought that the initial blow to Kimberly's head in the master bedroom was the result of a backswing from MacDonald. I disagree. The initial blow was probably the one that resulted in a fracture of Kimberly's left cheekbone, broke her nose, and sprayed her brain serum on the door frame. In my opinion, that type of damage was caused by MacDonald using a two-handed grip on the club and hitting Kimberly with everything he had.

2) The phone number written on the club was investigated in 1971, brought up by Victor Woerheide at the Grand Jury hearings, but never addressed again after MacDonald was indicted on 3 counts of murder.

3) There are 2 issues that still need to be decided. Judge Fox has to decide on the significance of the DNA test results and the validity of Jimmy Britt's claims. I address these 2 issues on my website. Check it out.

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

JTF:

Thanks, you rock.

Agreeable to idea re: club and Kim. As a trauma nurse, I will tell you, a blow like that takes some force for sure.

Have heard thoughts that Kristy was the tough kill for the inmate. He doesn't seem to discuss her as much as Kim/Colette. But wait, lets face it, he only discusses anything or anyone as they relate to him, never regarding their own selves or beings. Its always a narcissistic ME ME ME..

WAAAA. Poor baby.

What do you look to the outcome to be JTF? Also, can you just catch me up if you don't mind....which DNA are we looking toward now for the appeal?

Thanks a bunch.

[JTF]

Penn: The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA tested 28 hair exhibits found at the crime scene. No blood was DNA tested due to the fact that the blood samples were used up at autopsy. The key results of the tests are as follows:

1) Limb hair found stuck to the left palm of Colette matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. For the past 28 years, the MacDonald defense team argued that the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the murder club. Why? Well, there was a wood splinter from the club that was found in Colette's left hand.

2) A body hair found on the blue bedsheet matched the DNA profile of Colette MacDonald. The body hair was forcibly removed with a piece of skin adhering to the basal area.

3) Body hairs found on the multi-colored bedspread and on top of Kristen's bed matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

4) A bloody fiber matching the material used in the manufacturing of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found entwined around a bloody head hair that matched the DNA profile of Colette.

5) A hair fragment that was allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail remains unsourced. The reason I use the word "allegedly" is due to the fact that Janice Glisson is the only lab technician who lists this fragment as having been discovered under Kristen's fingernail. Several technicians, including Glisson's supervisor, did not list any hair fragments being found under Kristen's fingernails. In addition, these technicians viewed Kristen's fingernail scrapings a full 6 months prior to Glisson.

6) None of the 28 hair exhibits matches the DNA profiles of suspects Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell.

I think that MacDonald and his defense team know that they have no leg to stand on in terms of using the DNA to get them back into court. There were only 3 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene and not 1 of them matches the DNA profile of a known suspect. It seems as though the MacDonald defense team is putting all their eggs in one Britt basket. In my opinion, the chances of MacDonald getting a new trial are slim and Slim left town.

JTF.

[cami]

Thanks for the info byn...

Question:
That was a hell of a blow, honestly. What do you think of the idea in FV that the club may have hit Kimmy as he swung it to hit Colette? :biggrin:

I tend to disagree with that. I think Kim came up behind him to try and stop him from beating her mother. At that point he was at the height of his rage...I think he swung around and hit Kim full force with that club as she was interrupting him. I don't think he was aware it was Kim and when he became aware it was too late to stop his swing.

[byn63]

penn -

I too disagree with the "accidental" swing theory being the one that struck Kimmie in the side of her head. The damage was far too extensive for that to be plausible imo. I also don't give inmate the benefit of the doubt that had he realized it was Kimmie sooner he would not have swung - I think he had a lot of pent up rage at Colette and Kimmie. I think he would have struck no matter what else occured. I think he blamed Kimmie for the circumstances of his life - ie that he HAD to get married. His narcissistic personality would not have allowed him to see that HE was as much to "blame" for the situation as Colette. His mindset was probably "I was just poking fun and SHE took it seriously" which was my father's euphimisitic way of saying someone got pregnant outside the bonds of marriage. I am not even too sure that Kimmie interrupted the fight, I think she was there and most likely the immediate cause of the fight (her wetting the bed) and that he swung like he would at a baseball - the damage certainly matches a powerful swing.

[bailezra]

I am glad I stumbled upon this message board. Like many of the regular posters here, I have been obsessed with the MacDonald case for a number of years (I even chose this case when we were assigned to write a paper on a famous court case in college). I wasn't even born when the MacDonald murders happened. In fact, I was born on May 9, 1970, so I am almost exactly the same age as baby boy MacDonald would have been if he had been born (my birthday is also exactly between Kristen's [5/8] and Colette's [5/10], by strange coincidence). Maybe that is why I have been so haunted by this case ever since I first read about it over 20 years ago--that every day I have been alive is also a day that was taken from all of them. Kristen and my older sister are the same age, and as I said, Baby Boy MacDonald and I would have been the same age had he lived. I can't help but read their story and think back on my life, all of the various milestones, the simple everyday joys, graduations, weddings, births, etc.--all things that were denied to the MacDonald children.

I still find it hard to believe that after all this time and all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are still people out there who buy MacDonald's lies about the "hippie intruders." I know the physical evidence has been discussed rather throroughly here, but if there is a shred of a doubt in anyone's mind, all they have to do is look at the horrific pictures of the crime scene and the autopsies, and then compare them with the photos taken of MacDonald's "injuries" (you might want to grab a magnifying glass to see those). Why did the "intruders" choose to spare MacDonald, when they butchered Colette and her children so savagely? MacDonald was barely injured at all, yet he claims to have been disoriented and to have passed out twice (although there was no physiological reason for him to have done so). In his testimony, he claims to have checked on both of his children twice before the MPs arrived, and yet when he was "resuscitated" at the scene, one of the first things he did was to tell someone to check on his kids because he had heard them crying (when he knew for a fact they were both dead). And if he was innocent, why did he make a point of telling the MPs to make sure the CID knew that he had removed the knife from Colette's chest? Who concerns themselves with such trivial details when your family has just been bludgeoned and stabbed to death?

And that doesn't even take into account the fiber, hair, and blood evidence that all points to one suspect--MacDonald.

From the moment MacDonald made his first phone call to request help, he has acted in his defining narcissistic way, concerned more with himself than for his slaughtered family. The fact that he can't even let his family rest in peace by finally admitting his involvement is further evidence of his selfishness.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself, and hopefully I will have something to offer the board in the way of discussion.

[bailezra]

I also wanted to ask if anyone knew why there wasn't a forum dedicated to questions about the Tate/LaBianca murders and the Manson Family in general. Or is there one and I just missed it?

Thanks.

[byn63]

bailezra - welcome to the discussions!

You brought up many points that MOST of us here have wondered about too! To add to your thoughts, Inmate claimed to have been knocked out at least 2 times. If that were true, then he would not have been able to tell investigators what happened - It is medically impossible to be hit hard enough to lose consciousness and remember the blow that caused it. Also, depending upon the length of the loss of consciousness there would be impairment of the memory prior to the blow and after regaining consciousness - the degree would vary.

I don't know about the Manson case on this board, but I know that there are Manson threads at other boards: check out A&E, Crime and Justice, and Crimeshots. Oh, and for info on the Mac case check out:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

that has links to the MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour and other sites.

Justthefacts has started a new site:

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

happy reading!

[JTF]

If anyone wants to know more about the Manson case, write to Jeffrey MacDonald. He knows all the details.

Reminder: Live chat tonight from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

[bailezra]

byn63,

Thanks for the nice welcome. I actually found both of those sites the other day and bookmarked them. Christine and JTF have certainly done a lot of work, and I thank them for making a lot of the information that was previously unavailable to the public accessible like this.

I must say I had to really brace myself before opening the autopsy and crime scene photos of Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. I knew they would be pretty graphic, just having read about the descriptions of their injuries and how extensive they were. But the thought of actually SEEING them, especially the children, was more than a little daunting.

I was horrified and shocked at what I saw, and my first reaction was to think, "Okay, these pictures should not be available to the public." But then I took a deep breath and really looked at the pictures, one by one, and I realized, "No, on second thought, these SHOULD be here, for anyone who has any doubts at all as to whether Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty." When you see MacDonald's "injuries," which are so small that they actually had to use a pointer in the photos to show you exactly where the scars and bumps were, and then scroll down to see the horrific injuries sustained by his wife and children--that should leave no doubt at all as to his guilt. MacDonald claims to have been knocked out in the hallway--so why didn't the intruders stab him repeatedly, as they did with the others? According to MacDonald, at least one of them had a knife, because he claims to have been stabbed during the living room "struggle." Why not just finish the job, particularly if he was unconscious and incapacitated? I mean, if you just savagely murdered a pregnant woman and her two tiny daughters, why would you have any qualms at all about killing a Green Beret, particularly when he could potentially identify you?

Those pictures, for as graphic and heartbreaking as they are, serve as a reminder to everyone the extent and savagery of MacDonald's killing spree that night. The photos of Kristen's body are particularly heartbreaking, not just because she was just a baby, but because of the deep cut on her right hand, indicating that she must have put her hands up in a defensive position. I can't even imagine what her last few moments on Earth must have been like--to be sound asleep, only to be awakened by an excruciating and most unfamiliar pain in her chest. She opened her eyes, only to find her own Daddy, holding her on his lap and stabbing her repeatedly in the chest. I think that's why he turned her over and stabbed her in the back, because she kept getting her hands in the way, and because he couldn't stand to look her in the eye as he stabbed her to death. It is such a shame that those pajama bottoms were lost, as I think they might have put an end to 37 years of speculation. I imagine that if they were in existence, they would have been discovered to have been covered with a large quantity of blood on the lap area--fair amounts of Type A and AB, but a HUGE amount of Type O blood (from Kristen bleeding out as he held her on his lap). And, of course, not a drop of Type B.

I was crying as I looked through the pictures, and "sadness" does not even begin to describe what I was feeling. After turning off my computer, the first thing I did was to go into my son's room (he is four years old), and look at his precious face as he slept. Then I climbed into his bed and slept next to him all night.

[bailezra]

If anyone wants to know more about the Manson case, write to Jeffrey MacDonald. He knows all the details.JTF

Well, obviously not ALL the details, or he wouldn't have left himself alive.

[natgeo]

penn -

I too disagree with the "accidental" swing theory being the one that struck Kimmie in the side of her head. The damage was far too extensive for that to be plausible imo. I also don't give inmate the benefit of the doubt that had he realized it was Kimmie sooner he would not have swung - I think he had a lot of pent up rage at Colette and Kimmie. I think he would have struck no matter what else occured. I think he blamed Kimmie for the circumstances of his life - ie that he HAD to get married. His narcissistic personality would not have allowed him to see that HE was as much to "blame" for the situation as Colette. His mindset was probably "I was just poking fun and SHE took it seriously" which was my father's euphimisitic way of saying someone got pregnant outside the bonds of marriage. I am not even too sure that Kimmie interrupted the fight, I think she was there and most likely the immediate cause of the fight (her wetting the bed) and that he swung like he would at a baseball - the damage certainly matches a powerful swing.

Thats real interesting that he blames Kimberly for him having to get married. If I am not mistaken I read the Freddie and Mildred tried to get Colette to have an abortion and wait till they were out school to get married. That would have been the perfect opportunity for Jeff to get out of the marriage. Especially if Colette was as meek as you all say she was. It would have been real easy to convince her if all three talked to her. Instead Colette wanted to keep the baby and get married as did Jeff. So, unless Freddie and Mildred lied I would say you have no clue as to what you are saying.

[natgeo]

byn63,

Thanks for the nice welcome. I actually found both of those sites the other day and bookmarked them. Christine and JTF have certainly done a lot of work, and I thank them for making a lot of the information that was previously unavailable to the public accessible like this.

I must say I had to really brace myself before opening the autopsy and crime scene photos of Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. I knew they would be pretty graphic, just having read about the descriptions of their injuries and how extensive they were. But the thought of actually SEEING them, especially the children, was more than a little daunting.

I was horrified and shocked at what I saw, and my first reaction was to think, "Okay, these pictures should not be available to the public." But then I took a deep breath and really looked at the pictures, one by one, and I realized, "No, on second thought, these SHOULD be here, for anyone who has any doubts at all as to whether Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty." When you see MacDonald's "injuries," which are so small that they actually had to use a pointer in the photos to show you exactly where the scars and bumps were, and then scroll down to see the horrific injuries sustained by his wife and children--that should leave no doubt at all as to his guilt. MacDonald claims to have been knocked out in the hallway--so why didn't the intruders stab him repeatedly, as they did with the others? According to MacDonald, at least one of them had a knife, because he claims to have been stabbed during the living room "struggle." Why not just finish the job, particularly if he was unconscious and incapacitated? I mean, if you just savagely murdered a pregnant woman and her two tiny daughters, why would you have any qualms at all about killing a Green Beret, particularly when he could potentially identify you?

Those pictures, for as graphic and heartbreaking as they are, serve as a reminder to everyone the extent and savagery of MacDonald's killing spree that night. The photos of Kristen's body are particularly heartbreaking, not just because she was just a baby, but because of the deep cut on her right hand, indicating that she must have put her hands up in a defensive position. I can't even imagine what her last few moments on Earth must have been like--to be sound asleep, only to be awakened by an excruciating and most unfamiliar pain in her chest. She opened her eyes, only to find her own Daddy, holding her on his lap and stabbing her repeatedly in the chest. I think that's why he turned her over and stabbed her in the back, because she kept getting her hands in the way, and because he couldn't stand to look her in the eye as he stabbed her to death. It is such a shame that those pajama bottoms were lost, as I think they might have put an end to 37 years of speculation. I imagine that if they were in existence, they would have been discovered to have been covered with a large quantity of blood on the lap area--fair amounts of Type A and AB, but a HUGE amount of Type O blood (from Kristen bleeding out as he held her on his lap). And, of course, not a drop of Type B.

I was crying as I looked through the pictures, and "sadness" does not even begin to describe what I was feeling. After turning off my computer, the first thing I did was to go into my son's room (he is four years old), and look at his precious face as he slept. Then I climbed into his bed and slept next to him all night.

Did he have any type "O" blood on his top?

[JTF]

Womack hospital staff testified at the Article 32 hearings that only a small amount of blood appeared to be on MacDonald's pajama bottoms. If you combine that testimony with the fact that no bloody fabric impression evidence or transfer stains were present on Kristen's bottom sheet, it quickly becomes apparent that the Lap Theory carries little weight. There was no Type O blood on MacDonald's pajama top indicating that he pulled Kristen to the edge of the bed in a face down position. This would explain why none of Kristen's blood ended up on her father's pajama top.

JTF.

[bailezra]

Womack hospital staff testified at the Article 32 hearings that only a small amount of blood appeared to be on MacDonald's pajama bottoms. If you combine that testimony with the fact that no bloody fabric impression evidence or transfer stains were present on Kristen's bottom sheet, it quickly becomes apparent that the Lap Theory carries little weight. There was no Type O blood on MacDonald's pajama top indicating that he pulled Kristen to the edge of the bed in a face down position. This would explain why none of Kristen's blood ended up on her father's pajama top.

JTF.

JTF,

Thanks for the info on the pajama bottoms. Too bad we will never know exactly what was on them, though.

As far as none of Kristen's blood being present on the pajama top, that would make sense, considering that MacDonald most likely killed Kristen after the violent struggle with Colette, and after his pajama top was already off. By the time he thought about how to try and cover his tracks and realized that he "had to" stab Kristen to death as well, his pajama top was very likely lying on the bedroom floor or on top of Colette's body.

[JTF]

Bailezra: I took another look at the Article 32 testimony and the word used to describe the amount of blood on MacDonald's pajama bottoms was "moderate." In terms of MacDonald's brutal slaying of Kristen, it seems that he initially stabbed her in the chest. We'll never know whether she awoke after being stabbed for the first time with the Old Hickory knife or she was already awake as her father entered her room, but we do know that the chest wounds came first because she thrust her hands out resulting in a pajama fiber from her father's pajama top being embedded under her fingernail. A ligature mark in her shoulder/neck area indicates that after stabbing her in the chest, MacDonald grabbed Kristen by her pajama top and dragged her face down towards the edge of the bed. He proceded to stab her in the back 12 times with 2 of those wounds penetrating her heart resulting in her death. MacDonald left Kristen's room, Colette regained consciousness in the master bedroom, went into Kristen's room, and MacDonald beat Colette for a 2nd time with the club. MacDonald subsequently retrieved the bedding and transported Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

JTF.

[byn63]

Thats real interesting that he blames Kimberly for him having to get married. If I am not mistaken I read the Freddie and Mildred tried to get Colette to have an abortion and wait till they were out school to get married. That would have been the perfect opportunity for Jeff to get out of the marriage. Especially if Colette was as meek as you all say she was. It would have been real easy to convince her if all three talked to her. Instead Colette wanted to keep the baby and get married as did Jeff. So, unless Freddie and Mildred lied I would say you have no clue as to what you are saying.

You must have some interesting reading material available to you that the rest of us have never seen. During the time of Colette's unexpected pregnancy, abortion would have been (1) illegal (2) hard to find (3) against the beliefs of Colette and her parents. Would the Kassab's have been happier if Colette had finished college, then gotten married, then had a baby? undoubtedly, yes that would have been the choice. However, once the circumstances arose, the situation was handled as it frequently was in that day and age.

[Bunny2]

You must have some interesting reading material available to you that the rest of us have never seen. During the time of Colette's unexpected pregnancy, abortion would have been (1) illegal (2) hard to find (3) against the beliefs of Colette and her parents. Would the Kassab's have been happier if Colette had finished college, then gotten married, then had a baby? undoubtedly, yes that would have been the choice. However, once the circumstances arose, the situation was handled as it frequently was in that day and age.

Absolutely right, Byn. Good post!

And regardless of what Mac may have felt about marrying Colette after getting her pregnant, it doesn't mean that he had or maintained a deep, true love for her or the children throughout the marriage. (In fact, since he was diagnosed as a psychopath, I don't believe he even knows what real love is.) Not only did he repeatedly cheat on Colette and do such things as leaving her with no car so that she had to use a child's wagon to haul things, but he didn't recognize her wedding ring when he was shown it at trial, and he seems to always have wanted to be anywhere else but at home. And of course it was MacDonald who chose to finally end the marriage by smashing Kim's skull with a club so hard that her brain serum ended up in the doorway, then carried her back to her bed where he bludgeoned her again and stabbed her. It was MacDonald who mercilessly beat Colette and stabbed her and dumped her on the floor, writing PIG on the headboard over her side of the bed for good measure, also murdering his baby daughter Kristen in cold blood, and who later said he felt "relief" that his family was gone.

If natgeo thinks these are the actions of a happily married man, maybe it's actually natgeo who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[bailezra]

Bailezra: I took another look at the Article 32 testimony and the word used to describe the amount of blood on MacDonald's pajama bottoms was "moderate." In terms of MacDonald's brutal slaying of Kristen, it seems that he initially stabbed her in the chest. We'll never know whether she awoke after being stabbed for the first time with the Old Hickory knife or she was already awake as her father entered her room, but we do know that the chest wounds came first because she thrust her hands out resulting in a pajama fiber from her father's pajama top being embedded under her fingernail. A ligature mark in her shoulder/neck area indicates that after stabbing her in the chest, MacDonald grabbed Kristen by her pajama top and dragged her face down towards the edge of the bed. He proceded to stab her in the back 12 times with 2 of those wounds penetrating her heart resulting in her death. MacDonald left Kristen's room, Colette regained consciousness in the master bedroom, went into Kristen's room, and MacDonald beat Colette for a 2nd time with the club. MacDonald subsequently retrieved the bedding and transported Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

JTF.Hmm, interesting.

I was always under the impression that Colette was not actually unconscious at that point, but rather incapacitated. My theory was that Colette went into Kristen's room, either to protect her or to try and grab her and run out of the house), and that she did this BEFORE Jeff stabbed her (Kristen). After seeing the blow Kimberley had taken to the head, Colette may have figured it was too late to save her, but she might have thought she could save Kristen. So while Jeff carried Kim into her room to finish the job on her, Colette took the opportunity to sneak into Kristen's room and try to save her.

But Jeff either heard noises or went into Kristen's room to find Colette when he returned to the master bedroom to find her gone. When he found her in Kristen's room, he smashed the club into her again, perhaps twice, and when she was slumped over and unconscious, he wrapped Colette in the bedsheet and carried her back to the master bedroom. I am pretty sure that his pajama top was gone at that point (remember that there was the imprint of a bare left shoulder on the sheet?). And while there were fibers found in Kristen's room, there were not that many. The few that were there could have been stuck to Colette and/or Jeff, both of whom we know were in Kristen's room that night.

[JTF]

Bailezra: Ivory, Grebner, and Shaw felt that the only explanation for the Type A and AB smudges on the dining room floor was MacDonald dropping the blue bedsheet in that area of the apartment. The question then becomes, why would he drop it on the dining room floor? I agree with the investigators theory that MacDonald heard Colette stagger into Kristen's room and he dropped the bedsheet before he got a chance to launder it in the washing machine located in the kitchen. I also don't believe that Kristen would be alive and remain in her bed as MacDonald beat her mother, retrieved the bedding, and transported her mother back to the master bedroom. In terms of the bare left shoulder impression on the bedsheet, MacDonald's pajama top was torn down the left front seam, exposing his left chest/shoulder area. Couple that with the presence of 3 bloody pajama cuff impressions from MacDonald's pajama top on the bedsheet and you have a scenario where MacDonald had his pajama top on when he carried Colette in the bedsheet.

JTF.

[bailezra]

I guess I always figured that the washing machine was in the utility room.

I need to review some of the finer points of the case again it's been a while.

[natgeo]

You must have some interesting reading material available to you that the rest of us have never seen. During the time of Colette's unexpected pregnancy, abortion would have been (1) illegal (2) hard to find (3) against the beliefs of Colette and her parents. Would the Kassab's have been happier if Colette had finished college, then gotten married, then had a baby? undoubtedly, yes that would have been the choice. However, once the circumstances arose, the situation was handled as it frequently was in that day and age.

Byn,

First, regardless that it was illegal, abortions were still happening.
Second, eventually it was not that hard to find since there was approximately 390 in 1963 and then it went up 10 by 1968.
Thirdly, the beliefs are just for that beliefs, people have had those beliefs fro decades, but that has stopped them from getting abortions. Iknwo several Catholic families who are against abortions, but their daughter had abortion.

Now, I will tell you that it was some very interesting reading, how Mildred suggected that Colette get an abotion but her and Jeff would not hear of it. Her and Freddy opposed them getting married and Colette having the baby. You should really read it, I read it all and gained some real insight into the crime and Jeff. Since you have never seen it or read it. Here is what I read, it was "Fatal Vison" By Joe McGinniss, you can find the specific reading on page 49, third paragraph from the bottom. Since I see that Bunny answered, she might want to read it to since from her post she did not know that either.
I think all serious researchers of this case should read it, lots of great information.

[natgeo]

JTF,

Thanks for the info on the pajama bottoms. Too bad we will never know exactly what was on them, though.

As far as none of Kristen's blood being present on the pajama top, that would make sense, considering that MacDonald most likely killed Kristen after the violent struggle with Colette, and after his pajama top was already off. By the time he thought about how to try and cover his tracks and realized that he "had to" stab Kristen to death as well, his pajama top was very likely lying on the bedroom floor or on top of Colette's body.

What is real interesting it that no blood got on his top, but blood got on the stuffed dog by her bed and on his glasses. It would be interesting to see how he held her to stab her and get no blood on him. Hung her over the bed, held her up and away from his body, this is what is said to explain why no blood on his top. Problem is that she had defensive wounds on her hands and blood all over them as well. But yet no blood on his top. HMMMMM!!!!!!!!

Good thing the governments case is only a theory......That speaks volumes......

[natgeo]

If anyone wants to know more about the Manson case, write to Jeffrey MacDonald. He knows all the details.

Reminder: Live chat tonight from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

JTF, love your site well thought out and put together. I do have one question, How long did it take for Peter Kearns to write that 10,000 page report?

Also, is there anywhere I can read it....I love to read long informational items like that. I read the actual Warren Commission Report all 26 volumes and over 50,000 pages. His report must be just as informative at least about this case.

[JTF]

Natgeo: The Type O blood on MacDonald's glasses consisted of a tiny spot on one of the lenses and the blood on the stuffed dog was probably back spatter from the ice pick as MacDonald was in the process of copying the Manson murders (e.g., overkill wounds, multiple weapons). By the time the ice pick was used on Kristen's inert body, MacDonald had already placed his pajama top across his wife's chest. The spot on his glasses could have been the result of blood transfer from his gloved hands. This is a theory that I subscribe to for I don't believe that he was wearing his glasses when he killed Kristen.

JTF.

[JTF]

Natgeo: Thanks. I hope my website was informative. Paul Stombaugh's testimony for the Warren Report was very impressive. He was the man when it came to analyzing hair and fibers. In terms of the work that Peter Kearns put into the reinvestigation report, it took him several months to complete the 10,000 page report. Kearns subsequently produced and narrated a film on the MacDonald case which was presented to the Justice Department. The only way that you can read the entire report is via FOIA.

JTF.

[natgeo]

Natgeo: Thanks. I hope my website was informative. Paul Stombaugh's testimony for the Warren Report was very impressive. He was the man when it came to analyzing hair and fibers. In terms of the work that Peter Kearns put into the reinvestigation report, it took him several months to complete the 10,000 page report. Kearns subsequently produced and narrated a film on the MacDonald case which was presented to the Justice Department. The only way that you can read the entire report is via FOIA.

JTF.

JTF, your welcome, you web site was great. Not to question you on your own site or that your wrong, but in Fatal Vision on page 284 it says the report is only 3000 pages. So, before I request, I just want to make sure long it is. Thanks

[pennnurse525]

Hello all.
Happy Thursday,
Regarding the scenario in Kristen's room.....
My idea has always been that Colette came to after being struck with the club in the Master Bedroom, knew that Kimberly had been hit and harmed badly, and staggered in to check on Kristen, the child whos state of health she was unsure of. When Inmate returned to the Master Bedroom, and found her not there, he went in to Kristen's room to find her sitting on the bed, probably with the intention of scooping up her baby and running out of the house to get away from that maniac and save the only child who was unharmed. I wonder if she thought that by doing so Inmate would follow her and she would be able to get to the neighbors quickly, thus helping to alleviate some damage from Kim as well...
The other thing that crosses my mind after reading the post about the bedsheet in the kitchen to be laundered, I do wonder if she made it out of the bedroom and into the family room with only the head injury from the club. Perhaps she did this first, prior to going in to Kristen's room, when she wasn't bleeding quite as much to try to get out for help. Is there any evidence that the club was in the MBR prior to the killings? Due to the phone number being on the club, maybe it was actually in the kitchen...you know how one writes a number on a scrap of paper while talking on the phone? Perhaps, instead of this all taking place in such an orderly manner in the MBR and kids rooms, it in fact moved throughout the apartment, escalating as it went, with him grabbing the club from the kitchen and perhaps taking it in to the Bedroom. Just some thoughts. May not be plausible, I don't know the evidence as thoroughly as you all, but I am learning.
I just somehow think that such a contained scene as the MBR and Kids rooms may be unlikely. While I do believe inmate snapped, yet another scenario is that one or the other of the MacDonalds came in to the bedroom to go to sleep and found the bed wet, woke the other and began to argue, moving in to the dining room to do so, Inmate grabbed club in kitchen, chased Colette into bedroom, etc. etc.....
Just some random ideas.

[JTF]

Natgeo: Check out page 296 of Fatal Vision. Judge Butler received a 3,000 page SUMMARY of the reinvestigation in 1973. The CID interviewed 699 people and the FBI re-analyzed the forensic evidence found at the crime scene. The result of this massive investigative effort was a 10,000 page report. Don't you ever question me again, LOL!

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Here is what I read, it was "Fatal Vison" By Joe McGinniss, you can find the specific reading on page 49, third paragraph from the bottom. Since I see that Bunny answered, she might want to read it to since from her post she did not know that either.
I think all serious researchers of this case should read it, lots of great information.
Of course I've read Fatal Vision, in fact I have five copies of it and have read it so many times in the last 20 years that I practically have it memorized.

Whatever gave you the idea that I didn't know about Mildred's suggestion re: the abortion?? I only pointed out to you that even if Mac had been wildly in love with the idea of marrying Colette and having Kim (which I don't believe he was), it wouldn't have meant that those feelings couldn't have changed, and obviously, by the evidence, we can see that the things he did to Colette and Kim and Kristen don't exactly seem to be the actions of a loving husband and father. In fact, in the end, he didn't just kill them, he overkilled them, which to me is another indication that these were "personal-cause" murders. And none of that has anything at all to do with my knowing about Mildred's feelings on abortion.

[Bunny2]

Hello all.
Is there any evidence that the club was in the MBR prior to the killings? Due to the phone number being on the club, maybe it was actually in the kitchen...you know how one writes a number on a scrap of paper while talking on the phone? Perhaps, instead of this all taking place in such an orderly manner in the MBR and kids rooms, it in fact moved throughout the apartment, escalating as it went, with him grabbing the club from the kitchen and perhaps taking it in to the Bedroom. Just some thoughts. May not be plausible, I don't know the evidence as thoroughly as you all, but I am learning.
I just somehow think that such a contained scene as the MBR and Kids rooms may be unlikely. While I do believe inmate snapped, yet another scenario is that one or the other of the MacDonalds came in to the bedroom to go to sleep and found the bed wet, woke the other and began to argue, moving in to the dining room to do so, Inmate grabbed club in kitchen, chased Colette into bedroom, etc. etc.....
Just some random ideas.
I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly where the club was just before Mac got hold of it, but it apparently had been used at some time to prop up a broken "footrest" (footboard) on the master bedroom bed. I think it's more likely that the piece of wood was in the master bedroom or utility room rather than in the kitchen, but that's jmo.

I also don't see evidence supporting the idea that they argued in the dining room but who knows...I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility, although it's obvious that Colette was actually injured in the master bedroom and again in Kris's room.

Some people (Christina, for one) theorize that neither Mac nor Colette went to sleep that night, and the argument started as they sat on the sofa, with Colette or Mac kicking the table over at that time. Presumably backing up this theroy was the fact that Colette's footprint was found on the edge of the table, and a "thump" was heard by a neighbor around midnight, which supposedly lends support to the idea that they were arguing at that time. I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that they first began to argue on the sofa, but I don't think any serious struggle took place there, because if nothing else, if that had been the table overturning during an argument or struggle, it would have landed on its top, and the magazines would not have been so neatly placed underneath its edge, and I don't believe Mac's slipper would have landed with one toe so carefully positioned on top of one of the table legs. Considering the evidence as a whole, I think it's much more likely that Colette's footprint was on the table only because she'd rested her foot there at one time, and the table was overturned by Mac when staging the scene.

[bailezra]

Some people (Christina, for one) theorize that neither Mac nor Colette went to sleep that night, and the argument started as they sat on the sofa, with Colette or Mac kicking the table over at that time. Presumably backing up this theroy was the fact that Colette's footprint was found on the edge of the table, and a "thump" was heard by a neighbor around midnight, which supposedly lends support to the idea that they were arguing at that time. I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that they first began to argue on the sofa, but I don't think any serious struggle took place there, because if nothing else, if that had been the table overturning during an argument or struggle, it would have landed on its top, and the magazines would not have been so neatly placed underneath its edge, and I don't believe Mac's slipper would have landed with one toe so carefully positioned on top of one of the table legs. Considering the evidence as a whole, I think it's much more likely that Colette's footprint was on the table only because she'd rested her foot there at one time, and the table was overturned by Mac when staging the scene.bunny,

There didn't appear to be any signs of a struggle at all in the living room, whether it was between Jeff and Colette, or Jeff and the "intruders." Not just because of the lack of blood, fiber, or splinter evidence, but also because of the obviously staged furniture. You mentioned the coffee table, which in repeated tests NEVER came to rest on its side as it was found. There were also some Valentines or other greeting cards that were located on a credenza or other table in the living room, and they were all found to be in place and upright when investigators arrived on the scene. However, they would all fall down pretty easily if someone jumped on the floor, even on the other side of the living room. Yet they somehow survived the struggle between Jeff and the "intruders." The fact that they were upright would also suggest that he and Coletter had not fought in that room.

[Bunny2]

bunny,

There didn't appear to be any signs of a struggle at all in the living room, whether it was between Jeff and Colette, or Jeff and the "intruders." Not just because of the lack of blood, fiber, or splinter evidence, but also because of the obviously staged furniture. You mentioned the coffee table, which in repeated tests NEVER came to rest on its side as it was found. There were also some Valentines or other greeting cards that were located on a credenza or other table in the living room, and they were all found to be in place and upright when investigators arrived on the scene. However, they would all fall down pretty easily if someone jumped on the floor, even on the other side of the living room. Yet they somehow survived the struggle between Jeff and the "intruders." The fact that they were upright would also suggest that he and Coletter had not fought in that room.
Right, bailezra. Obviously there was no serious struggle in the living room, Mac's pj top didn't get torn there, and no one was clubbed or stabbed there. I think what Christina felt was that that is where they might first have started to argue; maybe Mac got upset at something Colette said, they began to argue and one of them kicked over the table (which I don't believe), then maybe Colette walked away rather than continue arguing, maybe Mac followed her and the rest is history. Since Mac will never confess, no doubt we'll never know for sure how things started, but the evidence is overwhelmingly clear as to how things ended!

[rashomon]

JTF,

Thanks for the info on the pajama bottoms. Too bad we will never know exactly what was on them, though.

As far as none of Kristen's blood being present on the pajama top, that would make sense, considering that MacDonald most likely killed Kristen after the violent struggle with Colette, and after his pajama top was already off. By the time he thought about how to try and cover his tracks and realized that he "had to" stab Kristen to death as well, his pajama top was very likely lying on the bedroom floor or on top of Colette's body.
Hi bailezra, welcome to the board!

The forensic evidence indicates that MacDonald was still wearing his pajama top when stabbing Kristen, since bloody cuff imprints from both his and Colette's pajama tops were found on the blue bedsheet with which he had carried Colette back into the master bedroom.

Re there not being any of Kristen's stype 0 blood on his pj top:
I don't think MacD had Kristen on his lap while stabbing her but that he held her away from his body while kneeling beside her bed. He pulled her body down over the edge of the bed, stabbed her in the back,then put her back face-up on the bed and stabbed her in the front. (The autopsy report says that the back wounds probably were inflicted prior to the chest wounds).
The very deep and expertly inflicted stab wounds may also have been of the type which didn't produce blood spatter.

[rashomon]

What is real interesting it that no blood got on his top, but blood got on the stuffed dog by her bed and on his glasses. It would be interesting to see how he held her to stab her and get no blood on him. Hung her over the bed, held her up and away from his body, this is what is said to explain why no blood on his top. Problem is that she had defensive wounds on her hands and blood all over them as well. But yet no blood on his top. HMMMMM!!!!!!!!

Good thing the governments case is only a theory......That speaks volumes......
Kristen did have defense wounds on her hands, but the blood on all over the hands probably got on them as MacDonald later placed her in her bed where the bottom sheet was totally saturated with blood (see crime scene pictures).

MacDonald probably hoped it would all be over soon as he was approaching Kristen's bed, knife in hand. But to his shock she woke up immediately, realized what was going on and flailed her arms in self-defense.
I believe that he couldn't bear to see her face, which is why he pulled her body face-down over the edge of the bed when inflicting the first stab wounds.

[natgeo]

Of course I've read Fatal Vision, in fact I have five copies of it and have read it so many times in the last 20 years that I practically have it memorized.

Whatever gave you the idea that I didn't know about Mildred's suggestion re: the abortion?? I only pointed out to you that even if Mac had been wildly in love with the idea of marrying Colette and having Kim (which I don't believe he was), it wouldn't have meant that those feelings couldn't have changed, and obviously, by the evidence, we can see that the things he did to Colette and Kim and Kristen don't exactly seem to be the actions of a loving husband and father. In fact, in the end, he didn't just kill them, he overkilled them, which to me is another indication that these were "personal-cause" murders. And none of that has anything at all to do with my knowing about Mildred's feelings on abortion.

Sorry, Bunny, I just presumed from your post telling Byn Absolutely Right, that you had not read the book. You are right, what you said has nothing to do with Mildred suggesting to Colette she get an abortion. Which is the point I was making, that in fact Mildred did suggest it, regardless of what Byn stated.

[pennnurse525]

Right, bailezra. Obviously there was no serious struggle in the living room, Mac's pj top didn't get torn there, and no one was clubbed or stabbed there. I think what Christina felt was that that is where they might first have started to argue; maybe Mac got upset at something Colette said, they began to argue and one of them kicked over the table (which I don't believe), then maybe Colette walked away rather than continue arguing, maybe Mac followed her and the rest is history. Since Mac will never confess, no doubt we'll never know for sure how things started, but the evidence is overwhelmingly clear as to how things ended!

I agree. In just thinking about human behavior, it seems to me that in an apartment as small as that, and based on personal experience (not with a rageful, pathological husband) with arguments people tend to walk away from one another when things get heated. Considering the proximity of the kids asleep, I do wonder if Colette walked into the living room or was already there arguing with inmate on sofa prior to the blood shed.
Where did you find Christina's thoughts about the sequence of events on that night? I would be interested to read that.
Also, wasted some time looking at the inmates site. What do you all think of the Larry King transcripts posted there and the verbalization of JMD and wife that the photos widely shown of inmate's "mortal" wounds are later than the day of the murder and where can one find the pictures of jeffie's wounds directly after he killed his pregnant wife and children (all 3)?
Thanks to all.;)
;)

[JTF]

MacDonald's story is preposterous at every level. The forensics prove he is a liar and common sense dictates that he is a bad liar. MacDonald and his minions can't come up with a timeline that fits the physical evidence nor can they piece together a salient story involving suspects not named Helena Stoeckley. She has been their only "link" to these murders and that link was forever severed when her DNA didn't show up anywhere in the MacDonald apartment.

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

JTF:
Agreed. Spin spin spin the info until no one knows which end is up.

[natgeo]

JTF:
Agreed. Spin spin spin the info until no one knows which end is up.

One must not forget, that according the DOJ there is still evidence that has NOT been tested. Now, whether thath will ever be tested in doubtful, but none the less it's still there. Then we also have the UNSOURCED hair under the kids fingers.

He may still be guilty, but let us consider all the facts not just the ones that shows his guilt. While the evidence is overwhelming against him, the rest remains.

[Bunny2]

Then we also have the UNSOURCED hair under the kids fingers.
Were you aware that the defense no longer talks about unsourced hair in Kim's nail scrapings? It appears that it may have been animal hair, which, if true, would explain the defense's deafening siilence on this issue now.

As for hair "under" Kris's nails or in her nail scrapings, no one prior to Glisson observed it (Glisson claims to have seen it about six months after the autopsy).

Among other things, the following record from the filings last year references this hair:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gov_dna_2006-03-15.html

An excerpt:

"There is no evidence in the record that the presence of a hair under Kristen's fingernail was observed, either at the crime scene or at the autopsy. If the hair was in the debris from Kristen's hand. there is no way of knowing how or when it got there...As was brought out at trial by defense counsel Wade Smith...it could have resulted from contamination during the removal of the bodies because their hands were not covered with a protective covering. In highlighting the potential for contamination of the fingernail scrapings, defense counsel was anticipating the testimony of Browning who had found a bloody cotton-polyester fiber matching MacDonald's pajama top, in the fingernail scrapings from Kristen's left hand."

[JTF]

Natgeo: Blood samples for potential DNA testing were used up at autopsy, the AFIP tested all of the remaining hair evidence, and the fiber evidence was analyzed by the CID in 1970, and the FBI in 1974, 1979, and 1990. What evidence is the DOJ allegedly referring to? In terms of the unsourced hair allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail, the hair did not match a known intruder suspect nor did it match the DNA profile of any felon within the current DNA databank. The other 2 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene garnered the same results. Considering that all 3 unsourced hairs were naturally shed, the only logical conclusion is that the source of the hairs were prior tenants or visitors to 544 Castle Drive.

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

JTF:
Exactly.
God only knows how many of us would have random hairs in our homes, ones that did not match anything else. We all pick up hairs etc throughout our daily lives, not to mention animal, strangers, etc. Doesn't make the unsourced hairs that of "intruders". Let's just get real, here...everyone.
The amount of traffic created by three adult intruders into the MacDonald home, in addition to the two adults and two children already there, not to mention the rainy mess that they would have brought in on their clothes, shoes, etc. No footprints exist except for inmate's bloody bare footprint, no mud, no grass, no dirt, etc. How in god's name did those "intruders" leave NO evidence behind. Honestly. Its virtually impossible, especially given the struggle that would have gone on. Let's not forget either that the only heated words overheard thru the paper thin walls of the apartment were heated ones between Colette and inmate.No Jeff, Jeff, Jeff why are they doing this to me! No Daddy, Daddy! No one else. While several scenarios exist in my mind regarding the events of that night between Colette and inmate, none are possible given the factual evidence and scene regarding any one else being in the apartment that nite. :no:
Has anyone ever heard anything regarding Colette and inmate's habit or lack thereof of locking their doors? Just wondering. Thanks!

[JTF]

According to the CID reinvestigation report, the MacDonald's were not in the habit of locking their doors. In addition, Colette allowed neighbors to use her laundry facilities and MacDonald frequently threw little bashes at 544 Castle Drive. For those who believe in drug-crazed intruders being responsible for these murders, I have a question for you. What are the odds that 6 people could slaughter 3 people, fight with a 26 year old Green Beret, and not leave a single trace of their presence at the crime scene?

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

JTF:
Exactly! Slaughter is the perfect word.

[JTF]

During his closing arguments at trial, Brian Murtagh referred to the crime scene as a slaughterhouse. Despite the carnage at this particular crime scene, 6 drug-crazed intruders didn't take a single item from the well-stocked hallway closet, yet they took the time to transport 2 people in the bedding found in the master bedroom. Fairy tales concocted by the campfire at MacFantasy Land.

JTF.

[byn63]

Sorry, Bunny, I just presumed from your post telling Byn Absolutely Right, that you had not read the book. You are right, what you said has nothing to do with Mildred suggesting to Colette she get an abortion. Which is the point I was making, that in fact Mildred did suggest it, regardless of what Byn stated.

Just because Mildred SUGGESTED an abortion (per Fatal Vision) does not mean she tried to FORCE Colette or COERCE Colette into having an abortion. I pointed out, that an abortion would have been illegal and against there beliefs (especially Colette's). Your post made it sound as if Mildred and Freddy were carrying Colette kicking and screaming down a back alley when inmate appeared to save the day! Now, how seriously they pushed the issue is something I cannot say, but, I take leave to doubt it was that forceful a suggestion, mainly because Mildred and Freddy are no longer here to verify the facts of that encounter and I don't believe anything that comes out of inmate's mouth without ironclad evidence to back it up.

That being said, does not change the fact that I believe inmate held a lot of rage AT KIMMIE for the fact that he HAD to get married. Just because he seemingly was all for it at the time (on the face of it) does not mean he didn't resent her. If he really was so ready to settle down to married life, then why did he have a liaison with one of Colette's bridesmaids? Why leave lingere in his former girlfriend's car?

[JTF]

Source: The Journalist and the Murderer

Subject: Newsday reporter, Bob Keeler, speaking with Janet Malcolm.

"Do you have a theory about the motive."

"I don't think it was any one thing, but it's clear from everything Jeffrey has said, and from everything I know and from everything Joe knows, that Jeffrey's penis should go to the Smithsonian Institution when he dies. I mean, this man was extremely sexually active, extremely promiscuous, and it's not clear whether Colette became aware of that or not."

JTF.

[natgeo]

Just because Mildred SUGGESTED an abortion (per Fatal Vision) does not mean she tried to FORCE Colette or COERCE Colette into having an abortion. I pointed out, that an abortion would have been illegal and against there beliefs (especially Colette's). Your post made it sound as if Mildred and Freddy were carrying Colette kicking and screaming down a back alley when inmate appeared to save the day! Now, how seriously they pushed the issue is something I cannot say, but, I take leave to doubt it was that forceful a suggestion, mainly because Mildred and Freddy are no longer here to verify the facts of that encounter and I don't believe anything that comes out of inmate's mouth without ironclad evidence to back it up.

That being said, does not change the fact that I believe inmate held a lot of rage AT KIMMIE for the fact that he HAD to get married. Just because he seemingly was all for it at the time (on the face of it) does not mean he didn't resent her. If he really was so ready to settle down to married life, then why did he have a liaison with one of Colette's bridesmaids? Why leave lingere in his former girlfriend's car?

First, I never stated that Mildred and Freddie took Colette screaming and kicking. My point was that they made the suggestion, one point that supposedly with all you research you forgot. As for your statement about interesting reading, it was interesting and I guess that part of the book you either skipped over or just did not comprehend, which I believe is the latter.
Unless of course you are insisting that Joe M. lied in FV.

Now, my point was that it in fact did take place, and if Jeff wanted OUT of the marriage that would have been the PERFECT opportunity to get out of it. In fact he did not, but I would say that you were not intelligent enough to catch it. I do not see where anyone HAS to get married. There is NO LAW in any state the forces a couple to get married cause the female is pregant.

Your statement "I don't believe anything that comes out of inmate's mouth without ironclad evidence to back it up." is probably the biggest farce I have heard in years. For someone that calls themself a serious researcher you sure do forget awful lot. Maybe I should not tell you what your thinking and leave telling others what they think to you since you are so good at it. After all, from all your posts I can tell you thrive on negativity and can't live without it.

[JTF]

Natgeo: All of Jeffrey MacDonald's claims about this case have to be checked and re-checked. You can't be a serious MacDonald case researcher and not be skeptical of anything or everything that comes out of the mouth of a mass murdering psychopath. The documented record proves that MacDonald is a serial liar and, as a result, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt on any issue that involves this case. In the past, I've been able to verify a number of his claims, but his multitude of lies will always demand a sense of caution. The late Allard Lowenstein once told Freddy Kassab that MacDonald would, "say anything to anybody."

JTF.

[byn63]

First, I never stated that Mildred and Freddie took Colette screaming and kicking. My point was that they made the suggestion, one point that supposedly with all you research you forgot. As for your statement about interesting reading, it was interesting and I guess that part of the book you either skipped over or just did not comprehend, which I believe is the latter. Unless of course you are insisting that Joe M. lied in FV.

Your original post to me stated that Mildred and Freddy tried to FORCE Colette to have an abortion. Then you come back with the quote from FV which shows that an abortion was SUGGESTED which is a long, long way from the use of force. I was looking for some reading material that you had that shows that her parents tried to FORCE Colette to have an abortion, and obviously no such source exists because they didn't do any such thing.

I comprehend just fine what I read in FV, apparently YOU didn't if you turned page 49 into a situation where Colette was being forced. I also do not think that Joe M. lied in FV, I believe he recorded what was provided to him. What I question is the SOURCE of the information. If the data came from Jeff and Perry then I take leave to doubt the accuracy of the statements. Just like I take leave to doubt the comment in FV that the wedding cost more than Freddy could afford. Since Bob Stevenson has stated publicly for years that Freddy and Mildred were not suffering financial strain at any time in the marriage.

Now, my point was that it in fact did take place, and if Jeff wanted OUT of the marriage that would have been the PERFECT opportunity to get out of it. In fact he did not, but I would say that you were not intelligent enough to catch it. I do not see where anyone HAS to get married. There is NO LAW in any state the forces a couple to get married cause the female is pregant.

Let's be realistic - in 1963 there were few legal options available and one illegal option available when a woman became pregnant outside the bond's of marriage. That is plain and simple truth, and I'm sure you know that to be fact. But that is beside the point, just because Jeff was willing to get married at that time, it does not mean that he had (1) ANY intention on settling into a caring, committed relationship nor (2) that he did not then or later develop resentment at Kimmie for the timing of her conception and arrival in his life. The options available were marriage, adoption or abortion and that is the way it was in 1963. No point in attempting to determine what that psychopathic narcissist would do if the situation were NOW with the morals and times of the 21st century.

btw - I am perfectly intelligent, intelligent enough to know that I am not the one who has a problem. Just because you like to post here using a different nick then other places doesn't mean I can't tell exactly who you are. I think it is time you grew up.

[/quote]Your statement "I don't believe anything that comes out of inmate's mouth without ironclad evidence to back it up." is probably the biggest farce I have heard in years. For someone that calls themself a serious researcher you sure do forget awful lot. Maybe I should not tell you what your thinking and leave telling others what they think to you since you are so good at it. After all, from all your posts I can tell you thrive on negativity and can't live without it.[/QUOTE]

I don't thrive on negativity, and I certainly can live without it. sounds more like you are talking about yourself. I don't forget a lot of anything - including facts about this case. It is not at all farcical to doubt statements made by Inmate oo131-177. He is a pathological liar as well as a mass murdering psychopathic narcissist. He lies all the time - perhaps you'd benefit from visiting the MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour which details quite a few of his lies. I said something completely logical - I don't believe anything he says until I have ironclad proof to back it up. For example - look at all the stories he told about what occured during his Article 32 hearing - too bad for him we now have access to the actual transcripts and can point to quite a few lies before getting very far into the documentation.

[cami]

Hi bailezra, welcome to the board!

The forensic evidence indicates that MacDonald was still wearing his pajama top when stabbing Kristen, since bloody cuff imprints from both his and Colette's pajama tops were found on the blue bedsheet with which he had carried Colette back into the master bedroom.

Re there not being any of Kristen's stype 0 blood on his pj top:
I don't think MacD had Kristen on his lap while stabbing her but that he held her away from his body while kneeling beside her bed. He pulled her body down over the edge of the bed, stabbed her in the back,then put her back face-up on the bed and stabbed her in the front. (The autopsy report says that the back wounds probably were inflicted prior to the chest wounds).
The very deep and expertly inflicted stab wounds may also have been of the type which didn't produce blood spatter.

I agree Rash, stab wounds are more seepage type wounds as opposed to spurting blood wounds, unless you directly hit a vein. I don't believe he had Kris on his lap either. You would expect some cast-off as he moved the knife in and out and that's what's on the dog...cast-off blood from the weapon.

Had Ice Pick not removed his pj jacket and left it at the CS, he probably would never have been convicted of this crime.

[cami]

Good thing the governments case is only a theory......That speaks volumes......

It is? Jeesh, you mean they went into court with just a theory..no facts with evidence to back up the facts? Would the courts even accept such a case?

Can you explain what the theory was and why Mac lost then?

[Bunny2]

First, I never stated that Mildred and Freddie took Colette screaming and kicking. My point was that they made the suggestion, one point that supposedly with all you research you forgot. As for your statement about interesting reading, it was interesting and I guess that part of the book you either skipped over or just did not comprehend, which I believe is the latter.Actually, it seems that Byn knows far more about FV and the case itself than you do. You seem to be much more interested in making personal attacks rather than discussing the actual evidence. Why is that? Could it be because you don't know much about the evidence, so have to resort to personal attacks to try to divert attention from that fact?

Now, my point was that it in fact did take place, and if Jeff wanted OUT of the marriage that would have been the PERFECT opportunity to get out of it. In fact he did not, but I would say that you were not intelligent enough to catch it.
From what we know of Mac's personality, I'd say he'd be more inclined to the idea of marriage than the idea of getting someone pregnant and *not* doing "the right thing," which in those days would have meant marriage. After all, he couldn't be sure that Colette wouldn't at some point down the line tell a girlfriend or someone else about the abortion if it had taken place, and that would make him look very bad indeed. And since he's a psychopath, I'd also bet that he was attracted to the idea of marriage for shallow reasons: Because he'd have a chance to shine in the spotlight on the Big Day, all eyes upon him (and Colette, but that would be unimportant in his mind), and for weeks afterwards he could enjoy the accolades and good wishes, gifts and all the rest that would follow once he was a newlywed.

But again, regardless of Mac's feelings about marriage, why did you feel the need to tell Byn she wasn't "not intelligent enough to catch it"? Maybe it's because you have a self-esteem problem and can't help yourself from putting other people down in order to try to make yourself feel better. You ought to try sticking with the evidence itself instead of constantly making personal attacks against others who know more than you do (and who are, imo, obviously more intelligent than you are). You only make yourself look worse every time you choose to attack people on a personal level.

[cami]

First, I never stated that Mildred and Freddie took Colette screaming and kicking. My point was that they made the suggestion, one point that supposedly with all you research you forgot. As for your statement about interesting reading, it was interesting and I guess that part of the book you either skipped over or just did not comprehend, which I believe is the latter.
Unless of course you are insisting that Joe M. lied in FV.

Now, my point was that it in fact did take place, and if Jeff wanted OUT of the marriage that would have been the PERFECT opportunity to get out of it. In fact he did not, but I would say that you were not intelligent enough to catch it. I do not see where anyone HAS to get married. There is NO LAW in any state the forces a couple to get married cause the female is pregant.

Your statement "I don't believe anything that comes out of inmate's mouth without ironclad evidence to back it up." is probably the biggest farce I have heard in years. For someone that calls themself a serious researcher you sure do forget awful lot. Maybe I should not tell you what your thinking and leave telling others what they think to you since you are so good at it. After all, from all your posts I can tell you thrive on negativity and can't live without it.

Get real Natgeo, many many young men and women "had to get married" in the early '60's. Having an illigitimate child was a big shame on the family. Many young women of Colette's age were sent away to relatives or homes for unwed mothers. Just as many were forced to marry the father and then had a "premature" baby.

Yeah MacDonald is a known serial liar so why shouldn't Byn be cautious about what comes out of his mouth.

[cami]

Did he have any type "O" blood on his top?

go look it up. Here's a link for you....www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

[JTF]

It's important to remember how the media/press perceived MacDonald's story prior to the Article 32 hearings. You'd be hard pressed to find a single reporter who believed MacDonald's ridiculous yarn in the Spring of 1970. Incredibly, MacDonald continued to lie after he walked out of the Article 32 hearings a free man. If you want to read more on how the media has covered this case, go to:

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

Topics: Press

C'mon now, did you really think that I wouldn't plug my website from time to time, LOL! I know, I'm shameless.

JTF.

[natgeo]

I never stated in any of my post that Mildred was forcing Colette to have an abortion. I woudl like to you to prove it by givning the post number and date, instead of implying I was lying. The orginal post was...

Thats real interesting that he blames Kimberly for him having to get married. If I am not mistaken I read the Freddie and Mildred tried to get Colette to have an abortion and wait till they were out school to get married. That would have been the perfect opportunity for Jeff to get out of the marriage. Especially if Colette was as meek as you all say she was. It would have been real easy to convince her if all three talked to her. Instead Colette wanted to keep the baby and get married as did Jeff. So, unless Freddie and Mildred lied I would say you have no clue as to what you are saying.

That was the orginal post, there is wording that states "FORCED" as you implied.

[byn63]

I stand by what I said, by using the term "tried to get" implies force rather than that they "suggested an abortion" in order to allow her options. Obviously you read it one way and many of us read it differently.

However, as has been stated several times, even if on the surface inmate was willing to get married it does not change the fact that he could have (and most likely DID) a lot of resentment of Kimmie. A man who is HAPPY to get married doesn't have a liaison with one of the bridesmaids the night before the wedding nor does he give the gift of sexy lingere to an old girlfriend the night prior to the wedding. Not to mention the fact that inmate obviously had difficulty keeping his zipper up and like the quote from City Slickers states "all he needed to have sex with someone was a place". In reality he wasn't even that particular about the places in which he had sex.

[rashomon]

That would have been the perfect opportunity for Jeff to get out of the marriage. Especially if Colette was as meek as you all say she was.
That was the orginal post, there is wording that states "FORCED" as you implied.
Natgeo - remember that MacDonald was only nineteen years old when marrying Colette who was pregnant.
How much emotional maturity is to be expected from a nineteen-year-old?

[JTF]

It speaks to Colette's great inner strength that she chose to save the life of her 2 year old daughter as opposed to saving her own skin by running out the back door and screaming at the top of her lungs. MacDonald must have been surprised by his wife's fight or flight attitude when she tore his pajama top down the left front seam, dug her fingernails into his upper left chest, hit him over the left eye with a hairbrush, and cut his abdomen with the Geneva Forge knife.

JTF.

[natgeo]

I stand by what I said, by using the term "tried to get" implies force rather than that they "suggested an abortion" in order to allow her options. Obviously you read it one way and many of us read it differently.

However, as has been stated several times, even if on the surface inmate was willing to get married it does not change the fact that he could have (and most likely DID) a lot of resentment of Kimmie. A man who is HAPPY to get married doesn't have a liaison with one of the bridesmaids the night before the wedding nor does he give the gift of sexy lingere to an old girlfriend the night prior to the wedding. Not to mention the fact that inmate obviously had difficulty keeping his zipper up and like the quote from City Slickers states "all he needed to have sex with someone was a place". In reality he wasn't even that particular about the places in which he had sex.

There is a difference between "tried to get" and "forced", is one simple fact. One tried to get a job, which means that they are "Attempting to", one does nor "Force" the employeer to give them employment. Look up the phrase "tried to get" and you will see that is means "one is "attemping to." Forced menas required, mandatory, compulsory. Tried to get is a far cry from being forced.

Example: A cop responds to a crime, he tries to get the person to turn around so he can search them by telling them they are under arrrest. He forces them by throwing them to the ground.

Now, show me where I stated that Mildred "Forced" Colette to get an abortion, she did nothing more than make an "Attempt" to convice her to get one and wait to get married.

Also, your quote "A man who is HAPPY to get married doesn't have a liaison with one of the bridesmaids the night before the wedding nor does he give the gift of sexy lingere to an old girlfriend the night prior to the wedding." S you believe his source about that, but if comes to a good comment about Jeff, you don't believe him. Either that author of FV is stating fact which is what a non-fiction should do, or he is just telling a story which is what a fiction book does. It can not be both ways, only one or the other. I have a friend that had sex at his bachelor party the night before the wedding with a former girlfriend, him and his wife have been married for over 30 years with no problems.

[natgeo]

Natgeo: Blood samples for potential DNA testing were used up at autopsy, the AFIP tested all of the remaining hair evidence, and the fiber evidence was analyzed by the CID in 1970, and the FBI in 1974, 1979, and 1990. What evidence is the DOJ allegedly referring to? In terms of the unsourced hair allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail, the hair did not match a known intruder suspect nor did it match the DNA profile of any felon within the current DNA databank. The other 2 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene garnered the same results. Considering that all 3 unsourced hairs were naturally shed, the only logical conclusion is that the source of the hairs were prior tenants or visitors to 544 Castle Drive.

JTF.

That seems to be a real good coincidence that there is no blood left. I personally do not believe in coincidences. Also, just because they did not match anyone in a DNA database by no means does that mean there was no inturder. It just means that who ever left the hair had not commited a crime at that point. We also know that back then if any of the supposed intruders had committed a crime, their DNA would have been entered in the database anyway casue there was no database. Also by the time 1990 came around, I doubt they had committed any crimes to warrant their DNA put into the database...MO

[natgeo]

JTF:

Now, if as you say in your earlier post that the girls were active that night, one would think that they washed thier hands before eating dinner and washed up again before they went to bed. Surely with kids of your own, you know how messy a two year gets when eating....MO

[JTF]

Natgeo: It would be an odd scenario if Murtagh came up with this scenario out of the blue in 1997. The documented record, however, backs Murtagh's claim. Shortly before the trial, Murtagh processed with John Thornton that most of the blood samples were used up at autopsy and the CID could not have foreseen the need to refrigerate blood samples for future scientific procedures. The Bob Crane murder case is another example of this philosophy and that case occurred 8 years after the MacDonald case.

JTF.

[JTF]

Natgeo: The point I tried to make is that there is no evidence that the children were bathed before going to bed on February 16th. Washing up in the bathtub and cleaning your hands in the sink are two different creatures. The key to this issue is the fact that there is no definitive proof that Hair Fragment #7 was actually located under Kristen's fingernail. As a matter of fact, there is more evidence pointing to the hair NOT being located under Kristen's fingernail. In addition, there is universal agreement that a pajama fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail.

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

Not to belabor the discussion regarding handwashing, however...
Lets remember these were little children. I don't know about anyone else here, but it is my experience that small children are not the greatest at thoroughly washing their hands without supervision from an adult. I doubt highly that their frequently (in body and mind) absent father stood over top of them if, indeed, they washed their hands at all. I also have gotten the impression that if we look beyond the pointless debate over the semantics of Colette being encouraged or anything else regarding the abortion issue, a take away point here is that perhaps the message is that Inmate and Colette viewed their family in two very different ways, and viewed the birth of children in two different ways. Colette reportedly stated that things were going so well in their life that they were expecting another baby. Perhaps she viewed the family growing as cementing the relationship that was already problematic between she and inmate. She had to know this, even on a subliminal level.

[byn63]

Not to belabor the discussion regarding handwashing, however...
Lets remember these were little children. I don't know about anyone else here, but it is my experience that small children are not the greatest at thoroughly washing their hands without supervision from an adult. I doubt highly that their frequently (in body and mind) absent father stood over top of them if, indeed, they washed their hands at all. I also have gotten the impression that if we look beyond the pointless debate over the semantics of Colette being encouraged or anything else regarding the abortion issue, a take away point here is that perhaps the message is that Inmate and Colette viewed their family in two very different ways, and viewed the birth of children in two different ways. Colette reportedly stated that things were going so well in their life that they were expecting another baby. Perhaps she viewed the family growing as cementing the relationship that was already problematic between she and inmate. She had to know this, even on a subliminal level.


I agree that Colette probably had at least an inkling that things were not all superduper in her marriage. I also, don't think that she looked at marriage and family in the same way that inmate did. It is obviously true that inmate tomcatted around at every opportunity yet there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Colette ever strayed.

ITA about the handwashing penn - growing up we "washed up" for dinner but that certainly did not necessarily mean that we cleaned our hands so well that anything we'd accumulated under our nails was removed. That kind of "scrubbing" was usually done in the bath and usually only when mom made us use the fingernail brush.

[Bunny2]

That seems to be a real good coincidence that there is no blood left. I personally do not believe in coincidences.So you would agree, then, that it's not coincidence that no forensic evidence whatsoever was ever found which pointed to "intruders" and that no one in the Mac camp has ever been able to provide any kind of comprehensive timeline involving six or more intruders being in the apartment.

You'd agree that it's not coincidence that Mac just happened to not bleed or sustain any defensive wounds or shed any pajama fibers while supposedly being clubbed and stabbed repeatedly on the sofa, yet did bleed in the kitchen and bathroom some time after supposedly being stabbed by "intruders." You'd agree that it's not coincidence that he just happened to leave his bloody footprints in Colette's blood as he exited Kristen's room, and that it's not coincidence that the imprints of his and Colette's pajamas just happened to end up on the master bedroom sheet, and that fibers and threads from his pajamas just happened to end up under the victims and in the bedclothing and under his baby daughter's fingernail and on the club and twisted around a bloody hair of Colette's.

You'd also agree that it's not coincidence that the government just happened to be able to introduce over 1000 pieces of evidence at trial; that Mac's arguments about "unsourced" items went nowhwere with the jury; that time and time again the appeals courts have just happened to find that his appeals have no merit; that the DNA results just happened not to support Mac's contention that intruders committed the crimes; and that he just happens to repeatedly demonstrate the consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes.

[byn63]

Also, your quote "A man who is HAPPY to get married doesn't have a liaison with one of the bridesmaids the night before the wedding nor does he give the gift of sexy lingere to an old girlfriend the night prior to the wedding." S you believe his source about that, but if comes to a good comment about Jeff, you don't believe him. Either that author of FV is stating fact which is what a non-fiction should do, or he is just telling a story which is what a fiction book does. It can not be both ways, only one or the other.

There are other sources besides FV that state the information about inmate's liaison with the bridesmaid AND leaving Penny Wells the red/black lingere.

I have a friend that had sex at his bachelor party the night before the wedding with a former girlfriend, him and his wife have been married for over 30 years with no problems.

Well good for your friend, not something to be bragging about imo. Double standard may be applied here, but there is a difference between sexual contact with the entertainment at a bachelor party and the same thing with a member of the WEDDING party. Still, neither was appropriate imo and I stand behind what I said, if inmate were truly happy to be getting married he would NOT have behaved in that manner. Also, if he was happy to BE married he'd have kept IT in his pants and out of women other than his wife.

[rashomon]

It speaks to Colette's great inner strength that she chose to save the life of her 2 year old daughter as opposed to saving her own skin by running out the back door and screaming at the top of her lungs. MacDonald must have been surprised by his wife's fight or flight attitude when she tore his pajama top down the left front seam, dug her fingernails into his upper left chest, hit him over the left eye with a hairbrush, and cut his abdomen with the Geneva Forge knife.
JTF
I think that by the time Colette (already severely injured) staggered into Kristen's room, she was operating on some kind of auto-pilot prompted by the basic biological instinct to save her child's life.

Posters have also asked on the forums: "But why didn't Colette scream for help earlier in the struggle, when realizing things had gotten out of hand when her husband wielded a club at her and Kim?"
Valid question.
But since Colette had chosen 'fight' over 'flight' in the very early stages of the domestic argument (fighting back by hitting him with the hairbrush, tearing his pj top, digging her fingernails into his chest etc.), this may explain her not calling for help. For a person being in a fight normally does not scream for help, since all her energy is being used for the fight.

[rashomon]

Not to belabor the discussion regarding handwashing, however...
Lets remember these were little children. I don't know about anyone else here, but it is my experience that small children are not the greatest at thoroughly washing their hands without supervision from an adult.
Pennnurse: absolutely. I'm a kindergarten teacher and although the kids know they have to wash their hands before sitting down at the lunch table, my colleagues and I always do a 'handwashing check', for we know how sloppy kids can be when washing their hands without supervision from an adult.

[rashomon]

I have a friend that had sex at his bachelor party the night before the wedding with a former girlfriend, him and his wife have been married for over 30 years with no problems.
Natgeo,
Did your friend tell you if his wife ever found out about this? If yes, how did she react?

Natgeo, also keep in mind that MacDonald kept having his sexual encounters after being married:

Source: The Journalist and the Murderer

Subject: Newsday reporter, Bob Keeler, speaking with Janet Malcolm.

"Do you have a theory about the motive."

"I don't think it was any one thing, but it's clear from everything Jeffrey has said, and from everything I know and from everything Joe knows, that Jeffrey's penis should go to the Smithsonian Institution when he dies. I mean, this man was extremely sexually active, extremely promiscuous, and it's not clear whether Colette became aware of that or not."

It seems that MacD was a serial philanderer. Colette would have had to have been dumb, deaf and blind not to find out about it.

[natgeo]

Natgeo,
Did your friend tell you if his wife ever found out about this? If yes, how did she react?

We are friends to this day, and yes she knew about. The difference is that she is her intelligence. She understands that what happened BEFORE they got married, engaged or not has nothing to do with what happens after the wedding. She was then and to this day is a very forgiving person, neither of them has had an affair since the wedding, they both love each other. They been through some hard times, but have come out on top. They are both very positive people and never speak bad towards anyone and that is also how they have raised their four children. Arguments yes, but they never bring up the past nor do they dwell in it.

A thearipist once said in a trial, that anyone, on dwells on the past, lives in the past and will never move forward in their life. You can not change the past, only learn from it. Those that constantly think and talk about the negativity of the past only stalls their progress and shortens their life.

Any psychiatrist will tell you that negativity breeds negativity. In order to deal with situations that where you were hurt, such as a bad relationship, you must deal with and understand there is nothing that you can do about and move on. That is the other person that has a problem and that is their personal choice. Unless they learn to figure out what it is and deal with it, they will continue to hurt those around them. If you don't then you are no better than the person that hurt you, cause you end up hurting others and alienating yourself.

You can always tell when someone has been hurt by someone else. They look for an outlet, like Jeff, constantly calling him names, arguing about his life, and just in gereral focusing on the negativity of the case. I am not saying what Jeff did was right, but calling him names, and all the others garbage that goes on will in noway bring Colette and the kids back nor will it help those that have had problems in their on life, it only controls their lives in public and private. MO

[AshleyMari]

Do you mean sort of like MacDonald always besmudging Brian Murtagh and anyone else who helped convict him, like the CID, Woerhiede, the Kassabs, etc? Notice there is never any ill wording for Stoeckley, who supposedly slaughtered his family.

I am not trying to be flippant, just that the knife you are using seems to cut both ways.

Glad to hear your friends are doing well. ashley

[JTF]

AM: Good point. Here is a list of the beautiful things that have come out of MacDonald's mouth.

Freddy Kassab: He's an alcoholic fanatic.

Mildred Kassab: She's Colette's so-called mother. She's bizarre.

Bernie Segal: An @#$hole.

Victor Woerheide: A Nazi.

Brian Murtagh: A little viper.

Lucia Bartoli: A thief.

Paul Stombaugh: He's incompetent.

Michael Malone: He's a liar.

Butch Madden: He's Murtagh's lackey.

JTF.

[natgeo]

Do you mean sort of like MacDonald always besmudging Brian Murtagh and anyone else who helped convict him, like the CID, Woerhiede, the Kassabs, etc? Notice there is never any ill wording for Stoeckley, who supposedly slaughtered his family.

I am not trying to be flippant, just that the knife you are using seems to cut both ways.

Glad to hear your friends are doing well. ashley

Yor are right it does cuts both ways. But I was not referring to Jeff or anyone else connected with case...

[JTF]

Live MacDonald case chat on Tuesday 3/13 from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. at:

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

[rashomon]

AM: Good point. Here is a list of the beautiful things that have come out of MacDonald's mouth.

Freddy Kassab: He's an alcoholic fanatic.

Mildred Kassab: She's Colette's so-called mother. She's bizarre.

Bernie Segal: An @#$hole.

Victor Woerheide: A Nazi.

Brian Murtagh: A little viper.

Lucia Bartoli: A thief.

Paul Stombaugh: He's incompetent.

Michael Malone: He's a liar.

Butch Madden: He's Murtagh's lackey.

JTF.

Beautiful list indeed, JTF. He also called Murtagh a 'creep' and 'turd'. "I hate him", he said.
Then there was the secretary with whom he had beeen caught having sex in her office and who as a result was fired from her job. MacDonald's comment:
"I ba**led the girl. Big deal, she was a secretary."

[rashomon]

We are friends to this day, and yes she knew about. The difference is that she is her intelligence. She understands that what happened BEFORE they got married, engaged or not has nothing to do with what happens after the wedding. She was then and to this day is a very forgiving person, neither of them has had an affair since the wedding, they both love each other. They been through some hard times, but have come out on top. They are both very positive people and never speak bad towards anyone and that is also how they have raised their four children. Arguments yes, but they never bring up the past nor do they dwell in it.
Natgeo: I don't now the nearer context of this relationship, but most women would be extremely hurt when learning that their husband had sex with his former girlfriend the day before the wedding. And wouldn't a man be hurt too on learning that his wife had sex with her former boyfriend on the night before getting married? I know I know, women don't have these 'bachelor parties', it is just for the sake of logic that I'm bringing it up.
Nor do I think being able to forgive has to do something with intelligence in the sense of 'cognitive' intelligence. For there exist very intelligent people who nevertheless have a problem with forgiveness.

A thearipist once said in a trial, that anyone, on dwells on the past, lives in the past and will never move forward in their life. You can not change the past, only learn from it. Those that constantly think and talk about the negativity of the past only stalls their progress and shortens their life.
I don't quite see the connection to our discussion here. For this is a true crime forum, and these forums necessarily deal with negative things which happened in the past: the crimes which are being discussed.

And how can you learn from the past without thinking about it? For example, one can learn immensely when thinking about the MacDonald case. One can learn that one brief moment of snapping and losing it can have consequences horrible beyond description. And for example resolve for oneself that no matter how angry you may get at your wife, husband or children in a domestic argument, never, ever resort to physical violence. Not only is it unaccceptable, but theroretically, one simple push or shove can have fatal results. We all have our sore spots and Achilles' heels, and there exist days when our buttons are pushed more easily just because we are stressed-out, sleep-deprived etc. I think it basically was just one of those stressful days in JM's and Colette's life which triggered the initial fight.

Any psychiatrist will tell you that negativity breeds negativity. In order to deal with situations that where you were hurt, such as a bad relationship, you must deal with and understand there is nothing that you can do about and move on.
But how for example should Colette have dealt with the fact that she was married to a serial adulterer? How could she have 'moved on' without 'moving out'? And moving out was easier said that done back in those days for a woman who would have had no job, no money and three small children to care for.
I am not saying what Jeff did was right, but calling him names, and all the others garbage that goes on will in noway bring Colette and the kids back nor will it help those that have had problems in their on life, it only controls their lives in public and private. MO
You make it sound as if the offense Jeff committed was a petty as e. g. pinching a bottle of shaving cream in the supermarket. But the sad truth is that not only did he snap and lose it in a domestic argument, he also diabolically decided to murder his youngest child to save his hide. I think this is what makes this case so haunting for many people: that he was able to commit such an abominable crime for purely egoistic reasons.

[natgeo]

Rash, I know what I said has nothing to do with the discussion. I also stated that I was not talking about Jeff, this case or anyone connected with it.

[JTF]

The 48 Hours program on the MacDonald case is scheduled for March 17th at 10:00 p.m. EST. My assumption is that they will include the DNA test results in this updated version.

Live case chat on March 13th from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST at

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

[byn63]

"those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."


rash - you are correct, Colette would have found it very difficult to move out and move on. She was without a job history, only partially educated, would have had 3 young children, no money, AND no credit history. These things would have made finding an apartment difficult, finding a job that paid enough to live on AND cover day care expenses very hard. We are talking 1970's not year 2000+. It makes no sense that some people want to discuss this case using the filters of the 21st century rather than looking at how things REALLY were back then.

[bandit's mom]

The 48 Hours program on the MacDonald case is scheduled for March 17th at 10:00 p.m. EST. My assumption is that they will include the DNA test results in this updated version.

Live case chat on March 13th from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST at

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.


I've got a bad feeling about this show. MacMurderer is a master at
manipulating alot of the press and I don't see much on 48 Hours to
indicate to me they're the brightest bunch around. Also, I'm not
sure how much of that idiot wife of his I can stomach. Last time I saw
her on Larry King, I wanted to smash the TV in.
I cannot believe anyone actually believes in his innocence. Sad. Really.

[natgeo]

"those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Good words to live by.....at least for some of us....

[JTF]

I've included 2 new topics (e.g., Bathrobe and Suitcase) on my website.

Live chat tomorrow from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. at

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

[byn63]

I've got a bad feeling about this show. MacMurderer is a master at manipulating alot of the press and I don't see much on 48 Hours to indicate to me they're the brightest bunch around.

LOL! I have to agree with you, at least on the lst 48 hours show they tried so hard to be neutral but it was really more frustrating for us who know the facts to sit and watch. I yelled at the TV a couple of times asking "what about this or that".

Also, I'm not sure how much of that idiot wife of his I can stomach. Last time I saw her on Larry King, I wanted to smash the TV in.

YOU were not alone! I know I was right there with you ready to smash that TV!

I cannot believe anyone actually believes in his innocence. Sad. Really.

Sad, pathetic, disappointing, maddening, frustrating, sick, illogical and given time I'd come up with more adjectives to fill out the list.

[Bunny2]

Natgeo: I don't now the nearer context of this relationship, but most women would be extremely hurt when learning that their husband had sex with his former girlfriend the day before the wedding. And wouldn't a man be hurt too on learning that his wife had sex with her former boyfriend on the night before getting married? I know I know, women don't have these 'bachelor parties', it is just for the sake of logic that I'm bringing it up.
Nor do I think being able to forgive has to do something with intelligence in the sense of 'cognitive' intelligence. For there exist very intelligent people who nevertheless have a problem with forgiveness.


I don't quite see the connection to our discussion here. For this is a true crime forum, and these forums necessarily deal with negative things which happened in the past: the crimes which are being discussed.

And how can you learn from the past without thinking about it? For example, one can learn immensely when thinking about the MacDonald case. One can learn that one brief moment of snapping and losing it can have consequences horrible beyond description. And for example resolve for oneself that no matter how angry you may get at your wife, husband or children in a domestic argument, never, ever resort to physical violence. Not only is it unaccceptable, but theroretically, one simple push or shove can have fatal results. We all have our sore spots and Achilles' heels, and there exist days when our buttons are pushed more easily just because we are stressed-out, sleep-deprived etc. I think it basically was just one of those stressful days in JM's and Colette's life which triggered the initial fight.


But how for example should Colette have dealt with the fact that she was married to a serial adulterer? How could she have 'moved on' without 'moving out'? And moving out was easier said that done back in those days for a woman who would have had no job, no money and three small children to care for.

You make it sound as if the offense Jeff committed was a petty as e. g. pinching a bottle of shaving cream in the supermarket. But the sad truth is that not only did he snap and lose it in a domestic argument, he also diabolically decided to murder his youngest child to save his hide. I think this is what makes this case so haunting for many people: that he was able to commit such an abominable crime for purely egoistic reasons.
Excellent post, Rash. I agree 100%.

JTF: I'm looking forward to the Chat tonight and hope to see everyone there!

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

Excellent post, Rash. I agree 100%.

JTF: I'm looking forward to the Chat tonight and hope to see everyone there!

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/


ITA rashomon your post was excellent!

I certainly had fun at the chat!

[JTF]

The Live Chat session last night was incredible. The number of participants was at an all-time high and Christina Masewicz graced us with her presence. I will be increasing the length of the live chat from 2 hrs to 3 hrs (e.g., 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST) and further details will be posted tomorrow night.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[cami]

The Live Chat session last night was incredible. The number of participants was at an all-time high and Christina Masewicz graced us with her presence. I will be increasing the length of the live chat from 2 hrs to 3 hrs (e.g., 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST) and further details will be posted tomorrow night.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

Oh that would be wonderful if you could start earlier.... I am sorry I missed it this week. I actually forgot..will have to write myself a note. I missed Chris, darn...

I hope to join you this Tuesday..maybe someone can pm or email me to remind me, LOL.

[AshleyMari]

The 48 Hours program on the MacDonald case is scheduled for March 17th at 10:00 p.m. EST. My assumption is that they will include the DNA test results in this updated version.

Live case chat on March 13th from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST at

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

NCAA basketball is on instead of the 48 Hours program. Pooh!!!

Loved the chat jtf. Not only was Christina there but Bunny and Byn also. It was great. ashley

[ddlocs]

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[ddlocs]

I think he deserves no pitty. He is a definate Socialpath.

[Bunny2]

I think he deserves no pitty. He is a definate Socialpath.

Hi, ddlocs, just wanted to say welcome to the board, and I agree with your post!

:seeya:

[Bunny2]

NCAA basketball is on instead of the 48 Hours program. Pooh!!!

Loved the chat jtf. Not only was Christina there but Bunny and Byn also. It was great. ashley
Yes, that last chat was wonderful, wasn't it. Very lively, to say the least!

By the way, a new, more "robust" chat script was installed the other day and participants will now have some new options available during chat. Take a look and see what you think:

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/chat.html

Regardless, glad you joined us and hope to see you and lots of other people there next Tuesday!

[byn63]

Yes, that last chat was wonderful, wasn't it. Very lively, to say the least!

By the way, a new, more "robust" chat script was installed the other day and participants will now have some new options available during chat. Take a look and see what you think:

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/chat.html

Regardless, glad you joined us and hope to see you and lots of other people there next Tuesday!

I'm so excited and ready to go with the chat! bunny and I tested the new chat script yesterday - pretty neat imho! See ya'll Tuesday evening!:cool:

[pennnurse525]

Hey to all.
Was unable to see the 48 hours show, pre-empted by B-ball.
Watched some clips online at cbs.com. One question?
What do you all make of Helena's statements regarding the rocking horse and the broken spring? Does anyone know if the information regarding the rocking horse being broken was published prior to her 1982 interview with 60 minutes where she mentions it? The interview clips of her and also of inmate that are available online continue to re-hash same old crap. If anyone saw the show (west coasters) I am interested to hear your thoughts about it, as I am sure are the rest of us east-coasters who were pre-empted. There was a re-creation of the apartment and they did seem to discuss the evidence of inmate's undeniable guilt. Any thoughts?

[Wudge]

Hey to all.
Was unable to see the 48 hours show, pre-empted by B-ball.

SNIP

they did seem to discuss the evidence of inmate's undeniable guilt. Any thoughts?


Undeniable guilt?

This was an extremely weak circumstantial evidence case built from a crime scene that, on a forensic basis, would be labeled a disaster today. Moreover, no evidence was dispositive of guilt, none.

You should reflect on the fact that if it were not true, Helena would have had no motive to have ever told anyone that she and the other known druggies were in MacDonald's home that night. However, if Blackburn threatened Helena as Britt claims, it would explain why she suddenly developed amnesia on the witness stand.

Further, as regards motive, it is certainly not easy to see why Britt would falsely accuse Blackburn. Judge Fox certainly did not find his claim to be less than credible.

We'll eventually see how Britt's claim is resolved, but, sans the sudden discovery of a smoking gun, the MacDonald case will forever remain like Dr. Sheppard's case and the Scott Peterson case, i.e., a conviction considered by many to be wrongful.

[JTF]

PN: A picture of the rocking horse was published in a local newspaper long before Stoeckley ever mentioned it during one of her "confessions." In the 13 years that she inserted herself in this case, there was only one story that Stoeckley ever repeated. That story involved Stoeckley having no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970 due to her excessive drug use. She even told the defense team that same story PRIOR to speaking to the prosecution at trial. Just another in a long line of logistical hurdles facing advocates of the Jimmy Britt fairy tale.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Undeniable guilt?

This was an extremely weak circumstantial evidence caseNo, it wasn't. The case was so strong nothing Segal and Smith did could shake it, the jury convicted in only about six hours, and in all the many years since the verdicts none of Mac's appeals have succeeded unless you count the speedy trial issue which was later reversed. Mac remains in prison to this day and it's likely he'll be there until he draws his last breath.

Moreover, no evidence was dispositive of guilt, none.
All evidence pointed directly to MacDonald as the murderer. No conclusive forensic evidence of any kind was ever found pointing to any "intruders." The DNA results were another nail in Mac's coffin, as not only did they show that there were no matches to Mitchell or Stoeckley, but they proved that the hair "clutched" in Colette's hand--which Mac has always insisted could only have come from her murderer--was his very own.

However, if Blackburn threatened Helena as Britt claims, it would explain why she suddenly developed amnesia on the witness stand.
Helena spoke with the defense before speaking with the prosecution, and Mac's own attorney Wade Smith admitted to Dupree that she had told the prosecution and judge and jury the same thing she told the defense. There are other things in the records which cast doubt on Britt's story. You can read about them at www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com and www.macdonaldcasefacts.net.

Judge Fox certainly did not find [Britt's] claim to be less than credible.
No determination of credibility has yet been made one way or another. Despite Mac's website proclaiming in January 2006 that a hearing had been granted, it was only another lie, no hearing has yet been granted and Fox granted only Mac's right to file his motion.

...the MacDonald case will forever remain like Dr. Sheppard's case and the Scott Peterson case, i.e., a conviction considered by many to be wrongful.
Judging by the jury's verdict and the appeals results over the years, and the many, many posts on the many MacDonald discussion boards, it seems that virtually no one thinks Mac's innocent.

[byn63]

As to the broken spring on the rocking horse - Freddy Kassab said it was not broken. However, as bunny will probably concur WE determined that it may have appeared from the window to have been broken. bunny working on the 3D images and discussing with me - we noted that one part of the horse (in crime scene photos) appears as if it may be partially resting on the bookshelf. That is why it appears to be sitting at an angle. It is doubtful that Kristen rode the horse in that position, it probably was "shoved" to the end of the bed to make a path in and out of the room at night.

As to the strength of the case:
The trial lasted 7 weeks. The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence using 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). The blood evidence went in without objection. The defense experts agreed with Paul Stombaugh in many important parts of the bedsheet examination. The prosecution used only about 60% of the available evidence and said evidence is now stonger than at trial with the DNA results eliminating Helena and Greg Mitchell from having been inside 544 Castle Drive.

Circumstantial Evidence - by definition, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. A finding of guilt may be based on circumstantial evidence so long as it cannot be reconciled with any other rational outcome.

In laymen's terms:
you have just finished icing a chocolate cake when the doorbell rings. You leave the kitchen to answer the door and are gone for a couple of minutes. When you return, you find your two year old in the kitchen, face and hands covered in chocolate, and a hunk of cake missing. You didn't see the two-year old eating the cake, but you have incredibly strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that is indeed what happened.

:D

[bandit's mom]

Hey to all.
Was unable to see the 48 hours show, pre-empted by B-ball.
Watched some clips online at cbs.com. One question?
What do you all make of Helena's statements regarding the rocking horse and the broken spring? Does anyone know if the information regarding the rocking horse being broken was published prior to her 1982 interview with 60 minutes where she mentions it?


They said in the show that the springs were not broken and showed
a crime scene photo of the horse verifying that.

[bandit's mom]

Undeniable guilt?

This was an extremely weak circumstantial evidence case built from a crime scene that, on a forensic basis, would be labeled a disaster today. Moreover, no evidence was dispositive of guilt, none.
.


Circumstantial? Are you joking? There is so much forensic evidence in
this case, they could do a months worth of shows on that alone.
The Peterson case was circumstantial. This one is not. The Blood evidence,
the pajama fibers the footprints. There is, and never has been, a question
of who the murderer is, and he's sitting in Jail, exactly where he belongs.

[JTF]

The physical evidence clearly demonstrates that MacDonald's guilt is a slam dunk. If you want to read about the evidence and its significance, feel free to visit my website on this case. In addition, don't forget about tomorrow night's Live Chat from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Wudge]

Circumstantial? Are you joking? There is so much forensic evidence in
this case, they could do a months worth of shows on that alone.
The Peterson case was circumstantial. This one is not.

SNIP



This post is more for education than anything else.

Other than a confession or eyewitness, all evidence, including forensic evidence, will almost assuredly (and normally) be considered "circumstantial".

Colonel Rock presided over McDonald's Article 32 hearing. He did not find evidence to support the charges, which were dropped. If strong circumstantial evidence existed, it certainly was not evident.

Moreover, MacDonald's father-in-law, Alfred Kassab, strongly supported Colonel Rock's finding.

Most importantly, it should be intuitively obvious that given strong evidence, nine years would not pass before the start of a trial.

[rashomon]

Undeniable guilt?

This was an extremely weak circumstantial evidence case built from a crime scene that, on a forensic basis, would be labeled a disaster today. Moreover, no evidence was dispositive of guilt, none.

You should reflect on the fact that if it were not true, Helena would have had no motive to have ever told anyone that she and the other known druggies were in MacDonald's home that night. However, if Blackburn threatened Helena as Britt claims, it would explain why she suddenly developed amnesia on the witness stand.

Further, as regards motive, it is certainly not easy to see why Britt would falsely accuse Blackburn. Judge Fox certainly did not find his claim to be less than credible.

We'll eventually see how Britt's claim is resolved, but, sans the sudden discovery of a smoking gun, the MacDonald case will forever remain like Dr. Sheppard's case and the Scott Peterson case, i.e., a conviction considered by many to be wrongful.
Groan, oh no, that's probably Wudge from Websleuths, a typical pot stirrer who for reasons we can only speculate on (and I can think of some) just loves to claim that even people who are guilty as hell must be innocent.
Did you get banned on Websleuths, Wudgie? Or do you have withdrawal symptoms because WS has been down for days, so you came over here?

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE=Bunny2;8829088." The DNA results were another nail in Mac's coffin, as not only did they show that there were no matches to Mitchell or Stoeckley, but they proved that the hair "clutched" in Colette's hand--which Mac has always insisted could only have come from her murderer--was his very own.


[/QUOTE]

So, it's nice to know he told the truth about something. The hair did
indeed belong to the murderer, just as he insisted it did.

[JTF]

Wudge: I've researched this case for 22 years, yet I would never feel comfortable in giving a blanket statement about 9 years worth of investigation and litigation. For whatever reason, you do, so I thought I would respond to your post with a few thoughts.

1) Captain Clifford Somers did not have the benefit of presenting the FBI's 1971 and 1974 analysis of the physical evidence in this case at the Article 32 hearings. Colonel Rock heard only a portion of the evidence which ultimately garnered a Grand Jury indictment in 1975, and a conviction at trial in 1979.

2) Freddy Kassab was MacDonald's strongest supporter at the time of the Article 32 hearings, but the only information he received about the case was from MacDonald and his lawyers. The Article 32 hearings were closed after the first day of testimony, so Kassab didn't know what went on during those hearings until MacDonald sent him a transcript of the hearings in 1971. After Kassab read the transcripts, MacDonald calls him with a concocted story about how he and some Green Beret buddies killed a member of the Stoeckley group. Kassab attempted to verify this claim, found that MacDonald had lied to him, and a susequent visit to 544 Castle Drive with Peter Kearns & Jack Pruett convinced Kassab that MacDonald had murdered Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Wudge]

Groan, oh no, that's probably Wudge

SNIP

Did you get banned on Websleuths, Wudgie? Or do you have withdrawal symptoms because WS has been down for days, so you came over here?


(salute)

I discuss cases/assess evidence on private forums and public forums; balance is usually beneficial.

Websleuths has been down.

Dr. MacDonald's case is the most aged on my list of cases that I consider to have resulted in a wrongful conviction. The affidavits of: Britt, Tart, Rouder et al, provide an opportunity for a successful appeal.

I appreciate your gracious welcome.

(chuckle)

[JTF]

Wudge: What does the Britt campfire story have to do with the mountain of evidence collected at the crime scene and the subsequent forensic analysis by the FBI in 1971, 1974, 1979, and 1990? MacDonald has been in prison 25 years for a reason, and the 27 year old recollections of Jimmy "I'm Bored" Britt won't even put a dent in the government's case against MacDonald.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Wudge]

Wudge: I've researched this case for 22 years, yet I would never feel comfortable in giving a blanket statement about 9 years worth of investigation and litigation. For whatever reason, you do, so I thought I would respond to your post with a few thoughts.

1) Captain Clifford Somers did not have the benefit of presenting the FBI's 1971 and 1974 analysis of the physical evidence in this case at the Article 32 hearings. Colonel Rock heard only a portion of the evidence which ultimately garnered a Grand Jury indictment in 1975, and a conviction at trial in 1979.

2) Freddy Kassab was MacDonald's strongest supporter at the time of the Article 32 hearings, but the only information he received about the case was from MacDonald and his lawyers. The Article 32 hearings were closed after the first day of testimony, so Kassab didn't know what went on during those hearings until MacDonald sent him a transcript of the hearings in 1971. After Kassab read the transcripts, MacDonald calls him with a concocted story about how he and some Green Beret buddies killed a member of the Stoeckley group. Kassab attempted to verify this claim, found that MacDonald had lied to him, and a susequent visit to 544 Castle Drive with Peter Kearns & Jack Pruett convinced Kassab that MacDonald had murdered Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

After listening to Dr. MacDonald on the Dick Cavett show, I became interested in the case particulars, for I had followed Dr. Sheppard's case from the beginning through to his acquittal in 1966 after ten years of imprisonment.

At face value, I immediately recognized some parallels between the cases. Though I never thought at that time that this case would develop along the lines of Sheppard's case.

The case has a truly sordid history. I could easily give back to you quid pro quo arguments on evidentiary inferences or on the exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors/lab withheld or had withheld. However, such micro analyses or arguments at this stage would resolve nothing.

Based Judge Fox's ruling that the case could move forward, a hearing will either granted or not. If there is a hearing, credibility and motive(s) will undoubtedly become key.

I do know how the system of jurisprudence works in North Carolina. I wish I didn't. However, I don't know Britt or know what motive would cause him to aver falsely. And I have only had the pleasure of leaving a small tip for Blackburn after he served me dinner. He wasn't very good at that either. (snicker)

Net, hope springs eternal.

[Wudge]

Wudge: What does the Britt campfire story

SNIP

forensic analysis by the FBI in 1971, 1974, 1979, and 1990?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/


JTF.


Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

As evidenced by Judge Fox's ruling, MacDonald met his requirement to show a prima facie case that established (in Judge Fox's mind) reasonable due diligence would not have uncovered the clear and convincing predicative evidence (Britt et al), which if heard by reasonable jurors would have resulted in a not guilty verdict.

In other words, Judge Fox did not take Britt's affidavit lightly.

[JTF]

Wudge: There are more differences than similarities between the two cases. The biggest difference is that Sheppard's son was not harmed in the slightest whereas MacDonald's children were brutally murdered. In terms of the legal history of this case, you're overstating the decisions rendered by several appellate judges. In 1989, Judge Dupree admitted that Silverglate had presented evidence that was exculpatory, but not to the level that warranted a new trial. Appellate decisions in 1992 and 1998 clearly state that the government did not knowingly suppress any evidence, and that the defense team had most of the lab notes that referred to the exculpatory evidence in their possession as early as 1983. The appellate courts rightfully chastised the defense team for their lack of due diligence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Wudge]

SNIP

In terms of the legal history of this case, you're overstating the decisions rendered by several appellate judges.

SNIP

JTF.

Regarding any "appeal", I've only referenced the fact that Judge Fox ruled the case could move forward.

[Bunny2]

As evidenced by Judge Fox's ruling, MacDonald met his requirement to show a prima facie case that established (in Judge Fox's mind) reasonable due diligence would not have uncovered the clear and convincing predicative evidence (Britt et al), which if heard by reasonable jurors would have resulted in a not guilty verdict.
Regarding any "appeal", I've only referenced the fact that Judge Fox ruled the case could move forward.
To clear things up for newcomers to the case, Fox hasn't made any final decisions one way or another about Britt's claims. Mac was granted only the right to file his motion, the motion was filed more than a year ago, and as far as I know, there has yet been no indication at all that any hearing is even going to be granted, much less that Mac has established in Judge Fox's mind that reasonable due diligence would not have uncovered this evidence and that jurors would have voted not guilty if they'd heard these claims.

The January 12, 2006 order states only the following:

"Upon consideration of the motion of Jeffrey R. MacDonald, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2244, it is adjudged and ordered that the motion is granted insofar as MacDonald may file in the district court the proposed 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion now attached to his 2244 motion. Entered at the direction of Judge Niemeyer with the concurrence of Judge King and Judge Duncan."

JMO that the Britt affidavit isn't worth the paper it's written on, and it has yet to be established that events occurred the way Britt claims they did. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the claims were true (which seems very doubtful, given the evidence), I don't think it's likely that it would result in any judge's determination that each and every juror would have found this so weighty that it would have overcome that mountain of evidence against Mac had they known of it.

Mac has been granted the right to file the same sort of motions in the past, and ultimately all of his appeals failed. IMO this one will too.

[ladyb]

I'm new to this, but over the years I have heard about this case, inmate is now remarried, correct? Or engaged? I saw part of a TV show where she said he was innocent and trying to get a new trial for him with the "new" evidence. Is that why this is being discussed? He got a new trial date?

[pennnurse525]

PN: A picture of the rocking horse was published in a local newspaper long before Stoeckley ever mentioned it during one of her "confessions." In the 13 years that she inserted herself in this case, there was only one story that Stoeckley ever repeated. That story involved Stoeckley having no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970 due to her excessive drug use. She even told the defense team that same story PRIOR to speaking to the prosecution at trial. Just another in a long line of logistical hurdles facing advocates of the Jimmy Britt fairy tale.

JTF.

Thanks JTF and all for the response to my question about the rocking horse. I am sorry if my post started controversy on the board. Definately selective cut and paste by CBS on the selected clips available online to those of us who did not see the show.
I must say that the use of the word "circumstantial" with reference to this case as posted in this thread is ridiculous. The piles of SCIENTIFIC evidence in this case is OVERWHELMING...

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks JTF and all for the response to my question about the rocking horse. I am sorry if my post started controversy on the board. Definately selective cut and paste by CBS on the selected clips available online to those of us who did not see the show.
I must say that the use of the word "circumstantial" with reference to this case as posted in this thread is ridiculous. The piles of SCIENTIFIC evidence in this case is OVERWHELMING...


Scientific evidence is circumstantial evidence..

A confession..an eyewitness to the crime as being committed are the only direct evidence...

[Wudge]

To clear things up for newcomers to the case, Fox hasn't made any final decisions one way or another about Britt's claims.

SNIP

The January 12, 2006 order states only the following:

"Upon consideration of the motion of Jeffrey R. MacDonald, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2244, it is adjudged and ordered that the motion is granted insofar as MacDonald may file in the district court the proposed 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion now attached to his 2244 motion. Entered at the direction of Judge Niemeyer with the concurrence of Judge King and Judge Duncan."

SNIP




[Note: By "Britt" I mean, the affidavit of James Britt and other affidavits that might be seen to corroborate same.]


I think we can agree that by "granting" MacDonald's motion, Judge Fox let the case "move forward" to the District Court. Further, I think we can agree that the District Court granting a hearing on "Britt" is more probable than not.

Beyond the other affidavits that support "Britt", another question/matter is the extent to which a hearing might allow the inclusion of crime scene evidence that could directly support "Britt", e.g., unsourced candlewax, unsourced wig hair, etc..

Still further, allowing other evidence at a hearing beyond that that could directly support "Britt" would be yet another question/matter.

[byn63]

[Note: By "Britt" I mean, the affidavit of James Britt and other affidavits that might be seen to corroborate same.]


I think we can agree that by "granting" MacDonald's motion, Judge Fox let the case "move forward" to the District Court. Further, I think we can agree that the District Court granting a hearing on "Britt" is more probable than not.

No, actually once again you are incorrect. It was Judge Neimeyer of the Appellate Court not Judge Fox of the District Court who granted the approval for inmate to file a successive habeas petition.

A prima facie case, btw, simply means that without argument the case appears to have some merit. As is true in most cases, and this one certainly, once the prosecution gets to contradict the evidence as stated in the petition of inmate there will not be any merit found.

Beyond the other affidavits that support "Britt", another question/matter is the extent to which a hearing might allow the inclusion of crime scene evidence that could directly support "Britt", e.g., unsourced candlewax, unsourced wig hair, etc..

First, Helena met with the DEFENSE before she met with the prosecution and Defense Attorney Wade Smith stated in open court to Judge Dupree that she had testified to the same things she told them during the interview. This makes Britt's allegations even more implausible imho.

The wax and the saran fibers are res judicata which is latin for "the thing has been judged"; the defense is not going to be allowed to retry the case or relitigate issues that have already been resolved. The candlewax drippings (3 that were found) do not match in chemical composition, one matched birthday candle wax and at least one was old, brittle and filled with household debris. Most people do not save candles once they've been burned to a nub - even candle lovers get rid of candles that can no longer be burned. Therefore, finding wax drippings in the home of a candle lover but no matching candles is not exactly ODD. The saran fibers - one was already matched to an exemplar of doll hair inthe FBI resources. And in a household with two little girls, it is more likely that the hairs are in fact doll WIG hairs rather than to believe that a hippie on a blood lust murder spree would stop and brush her wig during the bloodbath. That is just illogical to the nth degree.

Still further, allowing other evidence at a hearing beyond that that could directly support "Britt" would be yet another question/matter.

If inmate and his attorney's du jour get to put on evidence in a hearing, the prosecution gets to contradict that evidence if they are able. In 1979, the prosecution used only about 60% of the evidence available - so they still have 40% more evidence to use AND the addition of the DNA results.

[Wudge]

SNIP

It was Judge Neimeyer of the Appellate Court not Judge Fox of the District Court who granted the approval

SNIP


The wax and the saran fibers are res judicata which is latin for "the thing has been judged"



If it will make you happy, I am peachy fine with saying that the case is moving forward because Judge Neimeyer granted the motion.

(double chuckle)

Regarding "res judicata", I have long been a fan; it always sounded so firm and final to me. Still, I'll wait to hear what the Court decides.

[rashomon]

I must say that the use of the word "circumstantial" with reference to this case as posted in this thread is ridiculous. The piles of SCIENTIFIC evidence in this case is OVERWHELMING...
Every criminal case in which you have neither eye-witness testimy nor a confession is a so-called circumstantial evidence case.
Circumstantial evidence is a fact from which the inference can be drawn as to the existence of another fact.

For example, if Jimmy misses his bicycle and later finds it in Johnny's garage, the bicycle found there is 'circumstantial evidence' from which one can infer that Johny had to do something with its disappearance.

In the JMD case, for example from the fact that bloody cuff imprints of both Colette's and Jeff's pajamas, one can draw the inference that he carried her in that sheet.

Circumstantial evidence includes everything: the suspect's alibi, behavior, phone records, pay stubs, gas receipts etc. And of course also the forensic evidence (I think this is what you meant by 'scientific' evidence).
And indeed, the forensic evidence against MacD was overwhelming. Blood, hair, fibers, and also the lack of forensic evidence pointing to intruders - everything implicated MacDonald.
He'll never admit his guilt though, and in the course of more than three decade has strung along countless people into his self-constructed parallel "I'm innocent" universe, where his current wife is still floating around in her bubble. Not even the devastating DNA results seem to have bursted it. Fascinating. Kathryn seems to possess the same capacity for denial like the murderer she has fallen for.

[byn63]

If it will make you happy, I am peachy fine with saying that the case is moving forward because Judge Neimeyer granted the motion.

it is not a question of making me happy, it is a question of being FACTUAL. And, as I've stated before, just because the appellate court found a prima facie (meaning on its surface) does not mean that the District Court will find merit in the appeal.

Regarding "res judicata", I have long been a fan; it always sounded so firm and final to me. Still, I'll wait to hear what the Court decides.

That is the whole point, the saran issue and the wax issue have been decided. Mac and his attorney's du jour are not going to be allowed to relitigate issues that have already been ruled upon.

[Wudge]

SNIP

the saran issue and the wax issue have been decided.



If "Britt" is deemed to have merit, the doctrine of cumulative error could well attach.

[byn63]

If "Britt" is deemed to have merit, the doctrine of cumulative error could well attach.

Britt will not be found to have merit in all likelihood. In the defense attempts to expand the record, it is really just another attempt to circumvent the prohibitions against recycling claims. In other words, they are trying once again to relitigate items that are res judicata. If the Britt issue gets a hearing Brian Murtaugh will have the opportunity to cross examine the defense witnesses and I don't think Britt will stand up well under the close scrutiny.

[Wudge]

SNIP

I don't think Britt will stand up well under the close scrutiny.




....... Why?

[byn63]

....... Why?

Let's start with his alleged reason for waiting 26 years to come forward. A Federal Marshall DOES have an obligation to the Court, an obligation that would include coming forward IMMEDIATELY to report misconduct on the part of the prosecution, defense, judges whomever.

Not to mention, that he alleges Blackburn threatened Helena, yet the prosecution talked to her AFTER Segal and Smith interviewed her and Smith admitted in open court before Judge Dupree that she testified as she had answered in their interview. So, that being the case than how is it possible that anything Blackburn said to her changed her testimony???????

Let's also not forget that Helena called Judge Dupree during the weekend and reported being frightened of BERNIE SEGAL not Jim Blackburn.

[Wudge]

SNIP

So, that being the case than how is it possible that anything Blackburn said to her changed her testimony?

SNIP


Through the Court agreeing a prima facie case was made.

[JTF]

In addition to the excellent post by Byn, there are others factors that make Britt's claims problematic in the context of a hearing.

1) Britt's memory of this alleged meeting is both sketchy and selective. He remembers exactly what Blackburn told Stoeckley, yet he can't provide an accurate description of the room where this alleged meeting took place and he can't remember whether Brian Murtagh or George Anderson were present when Blackburn made this alleged threat.

2) Britt was chastised in the past by the CID for inappropriate behavior and told if this behavior did not cease, he would be shipped off to Biloxi, Mississippi. The nature of this behavior is not known by the general public, but you can bet that Brian Murtagh would get into the details of this incident(s) at a potential hearing.

3) Britt was suspended and tried in North Carolina, but was later reinstated. Similar to the incident with the CID, details of that suspension would be presented by Murtagh at a hearing.

4) Britt was having severe financial problems at the same time he contacted the defense team.

5) Britt admitted to the Fayetteville Observer that he has a history of alcohol dependence.

JTF.

[Wudge]

In addition to the excellent post by Byn, there are others factors that make Britt's claims problematic in the context of a hearing.

1) Britt's memory of this alleged meeting is both sketchy and selective. He remembers exactly what Blackburn told Stoeckley, yet he can't provide an accurate description of the room where this alleged meeting took place and he can't remember whether Brian Murtagh or George Anderson were present when Blackburn made this alleged threat.

2) Britt was chastised in the past by the CID for inappropriate behavior and told if this behavior did not cease, he would be shipped off to Biloxi, Mississippi. The nature of this behavior is not known by the general public, but you can bet that Brian Murtagh would get into the details of this incident(s) at a potential hearing.

3) Britt was suspended and tried in North Carolina, but was later reinstated. Similar to the incident with the CID, details of that suspension would be presented by Murtagh at a hearing.

4) Britt was having severe financial problems at the same time he contacted the defense team.

5) Britt admitted to the Fayetteville Observer that he has a history of alcohol dependence.

JTF.



If Murtaugh cannot impeach Britt through a sinister motive, a ruling reversing the verdict would not surprise -- a ruling that includes "with prejudice" would surprise.

[natgeo]

Let's start with his alleged reason for waiting 26 years to come forward. A Federal Marshall DOES have an obligation to the Court, an obligation that would include coming forward IMMEDIATELY to report misconduct on the part of the prosecution, defense, judges whomever.

Not to mention, that he alleges Blackburn threatened Helena, yet the prosecution talked to her AFTER Segal and Smith interviewed her and Smith admitted in open court before Judge Dupree that she testified as she had answered in their interview. So, that being the case than how is it possible that anything Blackburn said to her changed her testimony???????

Let's also not forget that Helena called Judge Dupree during the weekend and reported being frightened of BERNIE SEGAL not Jim Blackburn.

We know that Blackburn was worried during Helena's meeting with the defense. He was concerned that Helena would fall under the spell of the defense and might testify that she was in the apartment the night of the murders. One of the law clerks told him that morning that it looked like Helena would be delivering for the defense. Blackburn's heart sank when he heard that. Of course that is not the way it turned out in court but Blackburn didn't know that at the time. But we do know what Blackburn's state of mind was before the prosecution meeting with Helena and I would say he was mighty worried IMO

[Wudge]

We know that Blackburn was worried during Helena's meeting with the defense. He was concerned that Helena would fall under the spell of the defense and might testify that she was in the apartment the night of the murders. One of the law clerks told him that morning that it looked like Helena would be delivering for the defense. Blackburn's heart sank when he heard that. Of course that is not the way it turned out in court but Blackburn didn't know that at the time. But we do know what Blackburn's state of mind was before the prosecution meeting with Helena and I would say he was mighty worried IMO

Like Blackburn's ethics, Helena was a wild card.

[byn63]

Through the Court agreeing a prima facie case was made.

prima facie simply means "on the surface" without evidence to the contrary. In other words, the prosecution would still get to present evidence to contradict the items in mac's appeal. Brian Murtaugh will not have a problem doing just that, as he STILL knows the evidence in this case backwards and forwards. Of course, that is assuming that a hearing is granted, and that is still far from a sure bet.

[Wudge]

SNIP

the prosecution would still get to present evidence to contradict

SNIP



Britt's motive.

[byn63]

Britt's motive.

15 minutes of fame? or just maybe there was a financial incentive it really doesn't matter at this point. showing a prima facie case simply means that without contradiction the brief shows the possibility of merit. It does not necessarily mean that there is a PROBABILITY of merit. Nor does it mean that a hearing will be granted.

[Wudge]

15 minutes of fame? or just maybe there was a financial incentive it really doesn't matter at this point.

SNIP



Wrong. Motive is paramount.

Tart establshes Britt did not just suddenly decide to aver. Moreover, Britt claims Helena told him (as well as Blackburn) she was in the home. Rouder's aver supports that Helena was telling people that. Thus, their avers support and cumulate. Blackburn could well have been told same. Thereby, giving Britt significant merit.

Given Blackburn's history, Murtaugh is unlikely to win by comparing character. He needs to impeach motive.

[Bunny2]

We know that Blackburn was worried during Helena's meeting with the defense. He was concerned that Helena would fall under the spell of the defense and might testify that she was in the apartment the night of the murders. One of the law clerks told him that morning that it looked like Helena would be delivering for the defense. Blackburn's heart sank when he heard that. Of course that is not the way it turned out in court but Blackburn didn't know that at the time. But we do know what Blackburn's state of mind was before the prosecution meeting with Helena and I would say he was mighty worried IMO
"Mighty worried"?? Where did you get that from? Did you know it was the prosecution, not the defense, who sought and found her? She was located and arrested by FBI Special Agent Frank J. Mills, who was executing a Material Witness Warrant issued by the Court on the Government's motion.

Helena did ultimately testify at trial, but the defense didn't even want to call her to the stand. Why not, if they believed her testimony would establish that she was there?

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

MR. SMITH: Maybe the Government would like to call her.

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. SMITH: At least at this moment, we do not.

THE COURT: Well, now, listen, enough of the thing is enough, Wade. If you are going to ever call her, you call her right now or I am going to release her from her subpoena.

MR. SMITH: Judge, I understand what you are saying. Let me just say this: that woman made the most outrageous statements to a lady at the hospital when she got her nose fixed that you have ever heard.

THE COURT: They could not be any more outrageous than the ones she has made.

MR. SMITH: They are. They are more outrageous. They are more incriminating, and, Judge, we don't know what she is going to do. We don't know what she is going to say.

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

[Bunny2]

Like Blackburn's ethics, Helena was a wild card.Blackburn and Murtagh were praised for their impeccable conduct in the MacDonald case. No court ever found any wrongdoing in the case by either one of them.

On the other hand, Helena was ruled to be untrustworthy. In addition, the defense would have people believe that Helena was a good informant, despite their belief that she knew that the murders were going to take place but said nothing about it to Beasley or anyone else.

If you so strongly believe she was there, which apparently you do since you support Britt, then you must also believe her statement that she saw MacDonald committing the murders, and also that she had sex with him. Mac says this didn't happen, so I assume you believe Mac is lying.

[Bunny2]

Tart establshes Britt did not just suddenly decide to aver.
Although Tart's affidavit hasn't technically "established" anything since no hearing has ever been held on this issue, I'd agree that Britt's statements weren't sudden. He apparently decided to wait a few decades before coming forward with this information. Surprisingly, despite Mac's belief that this information is enough to vacate his sentence, he seems ok with the fact that Britt waited so long to come forward, and actually thanked him for it.

For those who are interested in seeing the government response to Britt's allegations:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/gov_2006-03-30.pdf

[byn63]

It still comes down to trustworthiness of the statements made by Britt and/or Helena, Tart, Rouder etal.

First, Helena was located and arrested on the motion of the govt.
Second, Helena was interviewed by the DEFENSE first AND told them the same things to which she later testified.
Third, Wade Smith told Judge Dupree in Court that Helena had testified to the same things she'd said during the interview.
Fourth, Wade Smith and Blackburn agreed in Court that Helena told the prosecution the same things she testified to during EACH interview (defense first, then prosecution)
Fifth, Helena telephoned Judge Dupree during the weekend she was in Raleigh for her trial appearance complaining that she was terrified of BERNIE SEGAL which can in no way be confused with Jim Blackburn.
Sixth, from the court records:

quote: these proposed statements do not comply with the trustworthy requisites of Rule 804 (b)(3) or (b)(5); that far from being clearly corroborated and trustworthy they are about as clearly untrustworthy as any statements that I have seen or heard. (Tr. 5806-07) endquote

this ruling was reduced to written order: US vs JRM 485 F. Supp 1087 (EDNC 1979) in which it was stated:

Quote:"the court gained the unmistakable impression which it believes was shared by the jury that this pathetic figure was suffering from drug induced mental distortion and that she could be of no help to either side in the case." Endquote

Now, IF as Britt claimed Blackburn made a threat to Helena, how did that manage to alter what she HAD ALREADY TOLD the defense in their interview? How is it that Wade Smith and Jim Blackburn both agreed as to what Helena stated to their respective questions? How is it that Helena was NOT afraid of Blackburn at trial but SEGAL?

Motive is only one piece of an evidentiary puzzle and as a matter of fact the prosecution has no legal requirement to provide evidence of motive. It is still going to come down to credibility and corroboration.

[Wudge]

SNIP

Now, IF as Britt claimed Blackburn made a threat to Helena

SNIP



Then MacDonald would prevail (witness coercion, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.).

[Wudge]

SNIP

then you must also believe her statement that she saw MacDonald committing the murders, and also that she had sex with him. Mac says this didn't happen, so I assume you believe Mac is lying.

False premises, fallacious assumption.

[JTF]

In my book, there is no negative for the government in either scenario. If the Britt motion doesn't result in a hearing, the government obviously presented a clear and convincing case in their responses to the motion. If a hearing is granted, all of the information that Brian Murtagh and John Depue have gathered on Britt in the past year, will be put on full display. Sweet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Wudge]

In my book, there is no negative for the government in either scenario. If the Britt motion doesn't result in a hearing, the government obviously presented a clear and convincing case in their responses to the motion. If a hearing is granted, all of the information that Brian Murtagh and John Depue have gathered on Britt in the past year, will be put on full display. Sweet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

Given Britt claims James Blackburn threatened Helena (suborning perjury and obstructing justice), Feds have a minor stake. Like Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse infamy), James Blackburn was a state prosecutor from North Carolina. Should the District Court rule that Blackburn obstructed justice, the black mark would accrue to North Carolina.

In spite of Supreme Court rulings (Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, et al), North Carolina's Attorney General long ago established State policy that said prosecutors could withhold exculpatory evidence. Thus, because obstruction of justice is State policy and because Blackburn was previously disbarred for obstructing justice, this would be considered much ado about nothing in NC.

[natgeo]

"Mighty worried"?? Where did you get that from? Did you know it was the prosecution, not the defense, who sought and found her? She was located and arrested by FBI Special Agent Frank J. Mills, who was executing a Material Witness Warrant issued by the Court on the Government's motion.

Helena did ultimately testify at trial, but the defense didn't even want to call her to the stand. Why not, if they believed her testimony would establish that she was there?

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

MR. SMITH: Maybe the Government would like to call her.

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. SMITH: At least at this moment, we do not.

THE COURT: Well, now, listen, enough of the thing is enough, Wade. If you are going to ever call her, you call her right now or I am going to release her from her subpoena.

MR. SMITH: Judge, I understand what you are saying. Let me just say this: that woman made the most outrageous statements to a lady at the hospital when she got her nose fixed that you have ever heard.

THE COURT: They could not be any more outrageous than the ones she has made.

MR. SMITH: They are. They are more outrageous. They are more incriminating, and, Judge, we don't know what she is going to do. We don't know what she is going to say.

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

Here again I thought for sure you guys had read all the available material on the case. I guess not. In his book "Flameout" he was concerned enough to be worried about what Helena would say to the defense. I apoligize if my assumptions were wrong about your research.

[natgeo]

In my book, there is no negative for the government in either scenario. If the Britt motion doesn't result in a hearing, the government obviously presented a clear and convincing case in their responses to the motion. If a hearing is granted, all of the information that Brian Murtagh and John Depue have gathered on Britt in the past year, will be put on full display. Sweet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

JTF, I did not know you wrote a book about the case. Where could I purchase the book, I would love to read it. :read: I would also enjoy reading your professional and expert analysis on the case. BTW do you have expertise in solving crimes, investigation or any other law enforcement activity other than getting tickets. :lol:

[Bunny2]

Then MacDonald would prevail (witness coercion, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.).False premises, fallacious assumption.

[Bunny2]

False premises, fallacious assumption.

Are you saying that Helena's statements were false? Apparently so. Good to know that you've seen the light at last!

[Bunny2]

JTF...I would also enjoy reading your professional and expert analysis on the case.

You can do that at http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/ .

[Bunny2]

Here again I thought for sure you guys had read all the available material on the case. I guess not. In his book "Flameout" he was concerned enough to be worried about what Helena would say to the defense. I apoligize if my assumptions were wrong about your research.
Here again I thought for sure you'd read at least my post and/or the trial transcripts, where you can see for yourself that the defense itself was worried about what Helena might say, so worried in fact, that they didn't even want to call her to the stand.

In the end, the defense had nothing to worry about in this regard, since they admit that she said the same things to them as she told the prosecution and jury. Too bad for them that Wade Smith admitted this, since now this fact has come back to haunt them. LOL!

[JTF]

Typical tactics employed by MacDonald coverts. Focus on everything but the physical evidence, drone on about what decision Judge Fox could or should make in regards to a hearing, and hope that the blood, fiber, hair, and fabric impression analysis magically goes away.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Wudge]

Are you saying that Helena's statements were false? Apparently so. Good to know that you've seen the light at last!

I'm sure you know that In MacDonald’s first appeal, the Court wrote: “Had Helena Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might
have testified, (admitting to participating in the crime) the injury to the government’s case would have been incalculably great.”

Given that Helena was a key witness, the issue with "Britt" is whether or not witness coercion, subornation of perjury and/or obstruction of justice occurred. The issue is not whether a witness who is alleged to have been coerced into perjury made conflicting and/or inconsistent statements prior to their testifying.

If a witness for the defense tells a prosecutor something that supports the defense's case, the prosecutor is not permitted to tell the witness that if they testify to such, they will be prosecuted. If Blackburn did not like what Helena told him, he should have conducted his cross-examination of her in a manner the Court would allow while she was on the witness stand.

I'll wait for the Court to hear "Britt" and decide if that is what Blackburn did. But the point is: Prosecutors are not permitted to suborn perjury or obstruct justice, period.

[JTF]

Wudge: That same judge, Circuit Court Judge Murnaghan, also turned down MacDonald's 1992 appeal for a new trial. In several instances, the Fourth Circuit's opinion was referenced by Judge Fox during his 1997 denial of the defense motion arguing that Michael Malone committed fraud upon the court.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.

[Wudge]

Wudge: That same judge, Circuit Court Judge Murnaghan, also turned down MacDonald's 1992 appeal for a new trial. In several instances, the Fourth Circuit's opinion was referenced by Judge Fox during his 1997 denial of the defense motion arguing that Michael Malone committed fraud upon the court.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

JTF.


Please understand I used the Court's words to establish that Helena was, without doubt, a key witness. "Britt" would be adjudicated on that basis. Harmless error is not on the response menu.

[Bunny2]

I'm sure you know that In MacDonald’s first appeal, the Court wrote: “Had Helena Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might
have testified, (admitting to participating in the crime) the injury to the government’s case would have been incalculably great.”
Actually, it wasn't "the Court" per se who wrote that, it was Murnaghan alone, and I do believe he was the only judge who felt that way.

I also note that you left out more of Murnaghan's words, and failed to point out that he ended by concurring with the opinion of the Court:

"I conclude with the observation that the case provokes a strong uneasiness in me. The crimes were base and horrid, and whoever committed them richly deserves severe punishment. As Judge Bryan has pointed out, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

While he felt that if he had been the judge he probably would have allowed the Stoeckley witnesses to testify in front of the jury, he also wrote "In the end...I am not prepared to find an abuse of discretion by the district court, and so concur."

Regardless, as Kassab and others have pointed out, the idea that it would be "reasonable" that Stoeckley would testify that she witnessed the murders doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence, since when she was detained on Feb. 18 she said she didn't know where she was, and said the same thing to others, including to the defense and prosecution prior to giving her testimony. On the stand she testified the same way, saying she didn't know where she was, and adding that to the best of her knowledge she had never been inside the MacDonald apartment. And indeed, no evidence ever surfaced to show that she or any other "intruder" had been in the apartment on the night MacDonald murdered his family.

[Wudge]

Actually, it wasn't "the Court" per se who wrote that, it was Murnaghan alone

SNIP



I'm not sure the points I tried to make came through.

First, Helena was recognized as a key witness. Therefore and secondly, "Britt" goes to potential witness coercion (suborning of perjury, obstruction of justice) of a "key" witness. Third, since this is not a minor issue that could reasonably be covered by a finding of harmless error, if "Britt" is found to have merit, the verdict will almost assuredly be vacated or reversed (possibly with prejudice).

Fourth but more minor, regardless of whether a witness has made prior inconsistent and/or conflicting pre-trial statements, a prosecutor can never threaten them, never.

[natgeo]

You can do that at http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/ .

I doubt he is an expert and can give any analysis from an expert or professional point of view since all the research has already been done. The above site is nothing more that a rehash of what CM has on her site. When anyone can come up with something new it might be worth reading. But, until then it not worth my time.

I doubt anyone wants to see or hear any new information, all they want to argue about is the old and rehash over and over agin what everyone already knows. That definitely shows a lack of imagination and being able to think for yourself.

Also, just in case anyone wants to make a backhanded comment, I am not jealious or envious of anyone on this or any other board. In fact, I am proud "not" to be like any of them..

[JTF]

Natgeo: It's ironic that you use the word "rehash" in your post. Isn't that what your hero has been doing the last 37 years? Isn't that the crux of the defense motions? MacDonald and his minions have, for the most part, presented nothing "new" in the past decade. In terms of your childish comments regarding the content of my website, didn't Bernie Segal and Harvey Silverglate already do all of the "work" for Tim Junkin? I suppose that Joe McGinniss shouldn't have presented any evidentiary arguments in his book because the CID and FBI had already done the work for him. Sorry to burst your groupie bubble, but most of the content on my website is written by me and for good reason. I wanted to be the first and only public resource for MacDonald case material that presented the significant issues in text format. Not everyone wants to read through the Grand Jury and/or trial transcripts. Not everyone wants to look through the CID and FBI lab notes. Not everyone has access to the case literature that I have in my possession. By the way, I'm also the first and only true crime website that offers 3 hours of Live Case Chat on a weekly basis. Unlike the MacDonald camp, I'm not afraid to discuss the evidence in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Now, IF as Britt claimed Blackburn made a threat to Helena...
Then MacDonald would prevail (witness coercion, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.).
...if "Britt" is found to have merit, the verdict will almost assuredly be vacated or reversed (possibly with prejudice).
I don't think so.

Mac has quite a few hurdles to overcome in regard to the Britt issue, if he hopes to convince the court of its merit.

Not only does he have to prove to the court (1) that Britt's affidavit is true and (2) that Stoeckley changed her testimony because of Blackburn's [alleged] statement, but (3) he also has to show that had the jury known of Blackburn's [alleged] misconduct, it would have resulted in every single juror--all of them--disregarding the mountain of evidence the government presented against Mac, and finding Mac innocent. I doubt seriously that that will happen.

[Bunny2]

Natgeo: It's ironic that you use the word "rehash" in your post. Isn't that what your hero has been doing the last 37 years? Isn't that the crux of the defense motions? MacDonald and his minions have, for the most part, presented nothing "new" in the past decade. In terms of your childish comments regarding the content of my website, didn't Bernie Segal and Harvey Silverglate already do all of the "work" for Tim Junkin? I suppose that Joe McGinniss shouldn't have presented any evidentiary arguments in his book because the CID and FBI had already done the work for him. Sorry to burst your groupie bubble, but most of the content on my website is written by me and for good reason. I wanted to be the first and only public resource for MacDonald case material that presented the significant issues in text format. Not everyone wants to read through the Grand Jury and/or trial transcripts. Not everyone wants to look through the CID and FBI lab notes. Not everyone has access to the case literature that I have in my possession. By the way, I'm also the first and only true crime website that offers 3 hours of Live Case Chat on a weekly basis. Unlike the MacDonald camp, I'm not afraid to discuss the evidence in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.
Great post (and great website), JTF! I too find it to be interesting that natgeo puts down your website as being a "rehash," yet Mac's own (and constant) rehashes aren't mentioned. Typical supporter hypocrisy, IMO. "Stop the presses and shut down all the discussion boards--no one is allowed to talk or write about the evidence anymore because it's already been talked about." (Yet here they are, unable to even keep themselves from talking and writing about it.) IMO, what people like this *really* mean but can't bring themselves to say is that they don't want the evidence talked about if it's anything against Mac. LOL!

Your website at www.macdonaldcasefacts.net is informative and well-written, and you've presented the issues in a way that's easily digested even by people unfamiliar with the case. And the chat is wonderful: I know I'm not the only one who has Tuesdays marked in big red letters on my mental calendar!

:beer:

[rashomon]

I doubt he is an expert and can give any analysis from an expert or professional point of view since all the research has already been done. The above site is nothing more that a rehash of what CM has on her site. When anyone can come up with something new it might be worth reading. But, until then it not worth my time.

I doubt anyone wants to see or hear any new information, all they want to argue about is the old and rehash over and over again what everyone already knows. That definitely shows a lack of imagination and being able to think for yourself.

Also, just in case anyone wants to make a backhanded comment, I am not jealious or envious of anyone on this or any other board. In fact, I am proud "not" to be like any of them..
Lol, Natgeo - your sour grapes are just too obvious. You're not that different from little Maria, one of my kindergartners, who the other day told another little girl "Laura, your dress is ugly!" But actually Laura's dress was very beautiful - ruffles, sequins and all. It was a little girl's dream. I took Maria by the hand and told her "You'd like to have such a nice dress too, Maria, don't you? I can understand that - it is really a wonderful dress. Maybe your Mommy can ask Laura's Mommy where she bought it, and Mommy will buy you one too - maybe for your next birthday?" Maria answered with an eager nod.
And adults are not that different from children when it comes to things like envy. :)

Your directing snide remarks at the two posters (Bunny and JTF) who have done a tremendous amount of case research, speaks volumes in that respect.

Feel free to create your own website with 'factual' info re JMD's 'innocence'. But be warned: you won't find anything.
JMD is right where he belongs.

[Wudge]

I don't think so.

Mac has quite a few hurdles to overcome in regard to the Britt issue, if he hopes to convince the court of its merit.

Not only does he have to prove to the court (1) that Britt's affidavit is true and (2) that Stoeckley changed her testimony because of Blackburn's [alleged] statement, but (3) he also has to show that had the jury known of Blackburn's [alleged] misconduct, it would have resulted in every single juror--all of them--disregarding the mountain of evidence the government presented against Mac, and finding Mac innocent. I doubt seriously that that will happen.

My post was clear. Nevertheless, I will boil it down still further: If Blackburn is deemed to have threatened Helena, MacDonald will prevail.

[JTF]

Bunny and Rashomon: Thanks for supporting my website. I appreciate it. The Helena Stoeckley portion of the Suspects topic has been beefed up. Check it out!

JTF.

[byn63]

Writing for the court of appeals in Brainard Judge Murnaghan noted that Rule 804 (b)(3) "requires not a determination that the declarant is credible, but a finding that the circumstances clearly indicate that the statement was not fabricated. It is the statement rather than the declarant that must be trustworthy."609 F.2d @1124

In the opinion 742 F.2d 146 (4th Circuit 1984) also authored by Murnaghan "even in light of the caveat that it is 'the statment rathern than the declarant which must be trustworthy' US vs Brainard, we conclude that the.....affidavits lack reliability and, therefore, fail to satisfy the trustworthiness requirement of .......[Rule 804 (b)(3)"

(quote same document) If after Carvalho the declarant's credibility remains a valid consideration for the trial judge to weigh in ruling upon admissibility of statements against interest in rule 804 (b)(3), the admissibility of the statements by Stoeckley, Mitchell, and Williams at a second trial would be even more doubtful.(endquote)

It still all boils down to the simple fact that the defense interviewed Helena BEFORE she talked to the Prosecution AND Wade Smith is on the record as stating that she testified to the same thing she told them in the interview. So, how exactly did anything the prosecution said to her alter what the defense expected to hear?????? If the interviews took place in the reverse order, it might be plausible but they did not.

[Jena Wade]

My God, is this just a bunch of immature people trying their hand at having a civilized conversation?

What difference does make anyway?!!!

JTF- you want to pushing your ideas and interpretations on everyone. We are able to read and comprehend for ourselves. You want to pat yourself on the back because you have the first chat. You are not.

You have set yourself up as a leader with a few followers who are acting like love sick high school dropouts.

As to the case literature in your possession – big joke.

There are many who have far more and truthful knowledge and information about the case than you will ever have. We were there and lived it. We know MacDonald and what he is like.

Jena

[Wudge]

My God, is this just a bunch of immature people trying their hand at having a civilized conversation?

What difference does make anyway?!!!

JTF- you want to pushing your ideas and interpretations on everyone. We are able to read and comprehend for ourselves. You want to pat yourself on the back because you have the first chat. You are not.

You have set yourself up as a leader with a few followers who are acting like love sick high school dropouts.

As to the case literature in your possession – big joke.

There are many who have far more and truthful knowledge and information about the case than you will ever have. We were there and lived it. We know MacDonald and what he is like.

Jena


Be gracious. "Britt" is a potential trump card to all cards (evidence) previously played. It represents the sword of Damocles to all of the exposed cards in the center of the table. That makes some people nervous.

We simply have to wait to see if the hand that holds it, plays it as a trump card.

[JTF]

Jena: Where do I begin?

1) I do not own the idea that MacDonald is a mass murderer. The idea was originated by dedicated individuals such as William Ivory, Franz Grebner, and Robert Shaw. That idea was subsequently echoed by scores of CID and FBI investigators. The idea became official when jurors convicted MacDonald of 3 counts of murder in 1979.

2) I haven't pushed my ideas and/or interpretations of the evidence in this case on anyone. I simply state the truth on my website and the truth is backed by the documented record. People can visit my website, compare what I have to say with other sources, and judge for themselves. If you dislike what I have to say about the MacDonald case, don't visit my website. Ah, the beauty of choice.

3) You have no idea what MacDonald case literature I have in my possession, so your snide remark is worthless.

4) "We were there and lived it." You were present when the psychopath murdered his family on February 17, 1970? "We know MacDonald and what he is like." Spoken like a true groupie. The evidence collected at the crime scene demonstrates that your "interpretation" is false.

5) By the way, who is "We?" Char, is that you? Kathryn?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Bunny2]

My post was clear. Nevertheless, I will boil it down still further: If Blackburn is deemed to have threatened Helena, MacDonald will prevail.My post was also clear. It's very doubtful indeed that Mac will even be able to prove to the court that Britt's statements about Blackburn are true, particularly in view of the fact that the defense admits that she told the defense the same thing she told the prosecution and jury. Even assuming that were to happen, it's not likely IMO that any judge would feel that this would have been weighty enough to cause every juror to ignore the mountain of evidence against Mac. Most likely, Mac will remain in prison until he draws his last breath.

[Bunny2]

Be gracious. "Britt" is a potential trump card to all cards (evidence) previously played. It represents the sword of Damocles to all of the exposed cards in the center of the table. That makes some people nervous.
:lol:

LOL! Thanks for the good laugh, Wudge!

[Bunny2]

There are many who have far more and truthful knowledge and information about the case than you will ever have. We were there and lived it. We know MacDonald and what he is like.So, let's see it...where's all that "truthful knowledge and information about the case" that none of the rest of us know about? I didn't see any details about that at all in your post. BTW, we already know what Mac is like: He's a triple convicted murderer who took the lives of his pregnant wife and his two little girls, a narcissistic psychopath who lies as easily as he breathes.

[A_seeker]

I've been mostly lurking here for a while; been following the case for years.
I don't think I've ever seen a case with MORE evidence documented. Inmate is as guilty as they come. But it's to be expected that groupies would appear....and "fall in love" with him, blinding them to obvious facts.
Have any of you read the book about women who fall in love with convicted murderers? It's a fascinating case study as to how warped minds believe only what matches their fantasies.

[natgeo]

Jena, you are absolutely correct. In fact that is not the first and only chat on a True Crime site. There are others, also most of the information he has is from other sites. he has definitely pushed his idea and opinions on others, just read all the posts, you can tell that if you do not agree with him the attacks and name calling begins. You will find that with alot of them out here. That is one reason I do not post regularly, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion of differing opinions when you get called names, vilafied for your opinions and lied about.

[Bunny2]

Jena, you are absolutely correct. In fact that is not the first and only chat on a True Crime site. There are others, also most of the information he has is from other sites. he has definitely pushed his idea and opinions on others, just read all the posts, you can tell that if you do not agree with him the attacks and name calling begins. You will find that with alot of them out here. That is one reason I do not post regularly, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion of differing opinions when you get called names, vilafied for your opinions and lied about.No one ever said JTF had the first Chat available on any true crime site. JTF indeed does seem to have the first regular Chat available on any MacDonald case website.

And of course it's ludicrous to say that JTF has "pushed his idea [sic] and opinions on others." The site is there for anyone to read and it outlines case fact, with virtually none of it being only JTF's "opinion." But of course as usual, as you do on other boards when you post under your other various aliases, all you do is complain when others do research and point out those facts to you, and as a groupie you quite naturally can't stand any website which shows the truth about the case. Yet the inmate's own website which is filled to overflowing with misrepresentations, misstatements and outright lies bothers you not at all. Can you say "hypocrisy"? It seems that all you want to see are Mac-groupie "opinions" and that you'd be happiest if no one ever discussed the voluminous evidence against him at all.

If you don't want to face the facts about Mac's guilt and don't want to read discussions about that, I suggest that you visit some other site where fantasy prevails, perhaps one of the Disney boards or something along those lines.

[Bunny2]

I've been mostly lurking here for a while; been following the case for years.
I don't think I've ever seen a case with MORE evidence documented. Inmate is as guilty as they come. But it's to be expected that groupies would appear....and "fall in love" with him, blinding them to obvious facts.
Have any of you read the book about women who fall in love with convicted murderers? It's a fascinating case study as to how warped minds believe only what matches their fantasies.
Welcome, seeker!

Yes, this case has a great deal of evidence, much of which is stated and talked about in the records online and in discussion boards like this one. The evidence was overwhelming against Mac at trial, the jury deliberated and reached their verdicts in just six short hours or so, and in all the years since, none of Mac's arguments have made a dent in any of it (unless you want to count the speedy trial issue which was later reversed). If I'm not mistaken, his case has been before the Supreme Court more than any other murder case (I also believe that at one point he was told by the Court not to bring this case before them again).

Anyway, I'm glad you've come out of your lurker state and have joined us here. Hope to see many more posts from you in the days and weeks to come!

:seeya:

[JTF]

Natgeo: Intelligent conversation? This coming from the same guy who had a groupie tantrum and proceded to attack me via 3 e-mails less than 24 hours after my website was up and running. None of your e-mails contained a shred of salient commentary about the information that is on my website. This, coupled with the content of your posts, indicates how disingenuous you are when you claim that you want to discuss the evidence in this case. You have no real interest in debating the evidence because the evidence points to your master's guilt. If you've found a true crime website that has 3 hours of weekly Live Chat on a specific case, which case are we talking about? I haven't seen this option available at any of the websites that cover the Manson murders, Zodiac, WM3, etc., etc., etc. If there is such a website, I stand corrected. In terms of the MacDonald case, however, my website is the only option for weekly Live Case Chat. You'll never find that option on the inmate's website. The MacDonald camp has avoided the evidence in this case like the plague for the last 37 years, so why start now?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[natgeo]

Natgeo: Intelligent conversation? This coming from the same guy who had a groupie tantrum and proceded to attack me via 3 e-mails less than 24 hours after my website was up and running. None of your e-mails contained a shred of salient commentary about the information that is on my website. This, coupled with the content of your posts, indicates how disingenuous you are when you claim that you want to discuss the evidence in this case. You have no real interest in debating the evidence because the evidence points to your master's guilt. If you've found a true crime website that has 3 hours of weekly Live Chat on a specific case, which case are we talking about? I haven't seen this option available at any of the websites that cover the Manson murders, Zodiac, WM3, etc., etc., etc. If there is such a website, I stand corrected. In terms of the MacDonald case, however, my website is the only option for weekly Live Case Chat. You'll never find that option on the inmate's website. The MacDonald camp has avoided the evidence in this case like the plague for the last 37 years, so why start now?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

The only thing I have to say is that you better be able to prove your accusation that I emailed you. For one thing I would never email you cause I have better things to do. I personally think your web site is not as good as you think it is. If you think your web site is so good, you people constantly complain that Jeffs site does not mention much of Colette and the kids, but then again neither does your site, now that is the true meaning of hipocrisy.
This coming from people that continually state they care more for them than he does...:lol:

[Sprocket]

I've been mostly lurking here for a while; been following the case for years.
I don't think I've ever seen a case with MORE evidence documented. Inmate is as guilty as they come. But it's to be expected that groupies would appear....and "fall in love" with him, blinding them to obvious facts.
Have any of you read the book about women who fall in love with convicted murderers? It's a fascinating case study as to how warped minds believe only what matches their fantasies.

Hi A_seeker. Welcome. I have a net friend "seeker" on some other forums. Is this the same seeker, or a new seeker?

Again, welcome to the Mac case thread.

[Sprocket]

The only thing I have to say is that you better be able to prove your accusation that I emailed you. For one thing I would never email you cause I have better things to do.
Oh geez sporkin' louise!

I personally think your web site is not as good as you think it is. If you think your web site is so good, you people constantly complain that Jeffs site does not mention much of Colette and the kids, but then again neither does your site, now that is the true meaning of hipocrisy.
What does that have to do with the case facts? ??? Spoken like a true Mac groupie though.

This coming from people that continually state they care more for them than he does...:lol:

Well, natgeo, JTF was not married to one of the victims. He was not a father to the murdered children. What he has done though, is show the documented record. He's followed the case for years.

One would think (well, most thinking people) that, the individual wrongly convicted (supposedly :rolleyes: ) would, at least, on his website, be mentioning the family that he lost, and how much he loved them.....at least, every once in a while, or on their birthdays, or wedding anniversary. Oh that's right. Jeff moved on and married a woman who fell in love with a convicted murderer. He's past remembering about Collette.

[Jena Wade]

natego- Jena, you are absolutely correct. In fact that is not the first and only chat on a True Crime site. There are others, also most of the information he has is from other sites.

Exactly. Someone by the name of Christine put the documents on the internet and now he is claiming them as his own. It’s called process of elimination as to where he got his material. Going back over his posts, it is very clear where he got 95% of it.

If you dislike what I have to say about the MacDonald case, don't visit my website. Ah, the beauty of choice.

JTF – I am neither Char nor Kathryn, and I am not a groupie. I don’t visit your website, once was enough. The problem is you don’t use your website to voice your opinions; you bring them to the boards as well. Anyone can go to the boards and see how you along your bunch of groupies have made it impossible for people to discuss this case without being attacked. They can read your post when you started out starved to find out information and what they are today and see how you have all of a sudden gained this vast knowledge and it certainly does not amount to 22 years of research.

Bunny2 - So, let's see it...where's all that "truthful knowledge and information about the case" that none of the rest of us know about? I didn't see any details about that at all in your post. BTW, we already know what Mac is like: He's a triple convicted murderer who took the lives of his pregnant wife and his two little girls, a narcissistic psychopath who lies as easily as he breathes.

Why should I give you anything that you can add to your collection and build your shrine to JTF? I remember a while back when you were all in ah over another website that had the information. Did you jump from one band wagon to another? I guess so for the popularity. MacDonald without a doubt is a narcissistic psychopath and he is a liar. Sadly, he is not the only one if you get my drift.

You are a taunter and you along with your handful "groupies" have caused many people to leave the boards and then you laugh when you succeed and are bold in expressing your joy of getting rid of any competition.

Jena

[natgeo]

natego- Jena, you are absolutely correct. In fact that is not the first and only chat on a True Crime site. There are others, also most of the information he has is from other sites.

Exactly. Someone by the name of Christine put the documents on the internet and now he is claiming them as his own. It’s called process of elimination as to where he got his material. Going back over his posts, it is very clear where he got 95% of it.

If you dislike what I have to say about the MacDonald case, don't visit my website. Ah, the beauty of choice.

JTF – I am neither Char nor Kathryn, and I am not a groupie. I don’t visit your website, once was enough. The problem is you don’t use your website to voice your opinions; you bring them to the boards as well. Anyone can go to the boards and see how you along your bunch of groupies have made it impossible for people to discuss this case without being attacked. They can read your post when you started out starved to find out information and what they are today and see how you have all of a sudden gained this vast knowledge and it certainly does not amount to 22 years of research.

Bunny2 - So, let's see it...where's all that "truthful knowledge and information about the case" that none of the rest of us know about? I didn't see any details about that at all in your post. BTW, we already know what Mac is like: He's a triple convicted murderer who took the lives of his pregnant wife and his two little girls, a narcissistic psychopath who lies as easily as he breathes.

Why should I give you anything that you can add to your collection and build your shrine to JTF? I remember a while back when you were all in ah over another website that had the information. Did you jump from one band wagon to another? I guess so for the popularity. MacDonald without a doubt is a narcissistic psychopath and he is a liar. Sadly, he is not the only one if you get my drift.

You are a taunter and you along with your handful "groupies" have caused many people to leave the boards and then you laugh when you succeed and are bold in expressing your joy of getting rid of any competition.

Jena

Great post Jena and you hit the nail on the head. (several times) When they people "a groupie" they really need to look in the mirror, Especially since they are the ones with well over a thousand post over boards, now that is a true Groupie....

[JTF]

Jena: I've never claimed that the documents on Christina's website are my own. Obviously, you didn't take the time to actually read my website. In the About Me section, I clearly state that my website would present the evidence in text form. In addition, I state that my hope is that my website will provide the impetus for people to read the actual case documentation at, you guessed it, Christina's website. As I mentioned in my prior post to you, not everyone wants to read through the Grand Jury and trial transcripts. Not everyone wants to go through the CID and FBI lab documentation. I've worked hard on that website and I'm extremely proud of it.

In terms of the discussion boards, I can post anywhere I want. The fact that you're fearful of anyone who expresses the truth in this case only energizes me. I've dealt with MacDonald's advocates for the last 8 years, so your rantings are old news. My website went online February 17th, but I've posted on MacDonald case discussion boards for the past 3 years, which is further proof that your argument is absurd. Your attack on Bunny is equally ridiculous. Bunny is a dedicated MacDonald case researcher and meticulous in how he/she presents the documented record in this case.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

SNIP

One would think (well, most thinking people) that, the individual wrongly convicted (supposedly :rolleyes: ) would, at least, on his website, be mentioning the family that he lost, and how much he loved them.....at least, every once in a while, or on their birthdays, or wedding anniversary. Oh that's right. Jeff moved on and married a woman who fell in love with a convicted murderer. He's past remembering about Collette.

Behavioral evidence 37 years later. (dum de dum dum...chuckle)

Do behavioral bongo drums never stop beating?

[Bunny2]

This coming from people that continually state they care more for them than he does...:lol:
Great post Jena and you hit the nail on the head. (several times) When they people "a groupie" they really need to look in the mirror, Especially since they are the ones with well over a thousand post over boards, now that is a true Groupie....
Oh yeah, IMO you're FrmrCSI/Classified1/Spook, all right. No doubt in my mind about that at all.

[Bunny2]

[B]Why should I give you anything that you can add to your collection and build your shrine to JTF? I remember a while back when you were all in ah over another website that had the information. Did you jump from one band wagon to another? I guess so for the popularity. MacDonald without a doubt is a narcissistic psychopath and he is a liar. Sadly, he is not the only one if you get my drift.

You are a taunter and you along with your handful "groupies" have caused many people to leave the boards and then you laugh when you succeed and are bold in expressing your joy of getting rid of any competition.

Jena
So, you have nothing to support what you've claimed. Somehow I'm not surprised.

Question for you: Do you plan on making actual contributions to the discussions anytime soon, or are you only here to flamebait?

[Bunny2]

Oh geez sporkin' louise!


What does that have to do with the case facts? ??? Spoken like a true Mac groupie though.


Well, natgeo, JTF was not married to one of the victims. He was not a father to the murdered children. What he has done though, is show the documented record. He's followed the case for years.

One would think (well, most thinking people) that, the individual wrongly convicted (supposedly :rolleyes: ) would, at least, on his website, be mentioning the family that he lost, and how much he loved them.....at least, every once in a while, or on their birthdays, or wedding anniversary. Oh that's right. Jeff moved on and married a woman who fell in love with a convicted murderer. He's past remembering about Collette.
Hey there, Sprocket...nice to see you here!

:seeya:

[Bunny2]

In terms of the MacDonald case, however, my website is the only option for weekly Live Case Chat. You'll never find that option on the inmate's website. The MacDonald camp has avoided the evidence in this case like the plague for the last 37 years, so why start now?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/
LOL! Good one, JTF. You're right, it's a pretty safe bet that we'll never see a weekly (or even a yearly) chat session on Mac's site. To Mac and his groupies, it's all about ignoring the evidence against him or coming up with absurd theories in attempts to explain it away (need I mention gurneys here...?), and any chat session would leave them looking even more ridiculous than they already do.

Speaking of chat, though, a reminder to all to join in tomorrow (Tuesday) at 8-11 EST. Hope to see everyone there!

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/chat.html

[byn63]

Seems like we case researchers have hit a sore spot with the macalites. Still, what it all comes down to is:

In 1979 Jeffrey Robert MacDonald went on trial for the murder of his pregnant wife and two young daughters. The trial lasted 7 weeks, during which the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence through 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). The blood evidence went in without objection, Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine Terry Laber about it. The defense experts agreed on several salient points with the prosecution experts. The jury convicted inmate in just over 6 hours.

The Supreme Court in the reversal of the Speedy Trial issue stated The right to a speedy trial does NOT include the right to NOT be tried. Although it is apparent that inmate sure did hope that was the case.

To those complaining about JTF's site I doubt you've actually read it but there is nothing on it that is not backed up with documentation. There are those of us who take our research and discussions on this case seriously. If you wish to discuss the case that is fine, but why attack JTF or any of the other posters here? All that accomplishes is showing that you aren't interested in truth or justice.

Seeker - thanks for joining in, lurking no more but a viable part of our talks. Sprocket good to see you here. JTF -see you at chat.

[rashomon]

[B]
JTF – I am neither Char nor Kathryn, and I am not a groupie. I don’t visit your website, once was enough. The problem is you don’t use your website to voice your opinions; you bring them to the boards as well.
LOL - what do you think is the purpose of a true crime discussion board: that people should not voice their opinions there?
There are many who have far more and truthful knowledge and information about the case than you will ever have. We were there and lived it. We know MacDonald and what he is like. Jena

[Jena]MacDonald without a doubt is a narcissistic psychopath and he is a liar.
So you know MacDonald and came to the conclusion that he is a narcissistic psychopath and liar? Sounds interesting. Tell us a little - we're all ears.

[rashomon]

Be gracious. "Britt" is a potential trump card to all cards (evidence) previously played. It represents the sword of Damocles to all of the exposed cards in the center of the table. That makes some people nervous.

We simply have to wait to see if the hand that holds it, plays it as a trump card.
Wudge - I'm afraid that 'sword of Damocles' is actually Brian Murtagh, who will come down on Britt should a meeting be granted. Not much will be left afterward of Britt's unsubstantiated allegations, believe me. Read Murtagh's written response to MacDonald's parole application if you dont know what I mean. That little attention seeker Britt will forever regret having wanted his fifteen minutes of fame.
Brian Murtagh is a true justice seeker. To this day, he has remained the lawyer of Colette and her children. They couldn't have had better and more committed lawyer than Brian.

[byn63]

Wudge - I'm afraid that 'sword of Damocles' is actually Brian Murtagh, who will come down on Britt should a meeting be granted. Not much will be left afterward of Britt's unsubstantiated allegations, believe me. Read Murtagh's written response to MacDonald's parole application if you dont know what I mean. That little attention seeker Britt will forever regret having wanted his fifteen minutes of fame.
Brian Murtagh is a true justice seeker. To this day, he has remained the lawyer of Colette and her children. They couldn't have had better and more committed lawyer than Brian.

rashomon - I'll say an amen to this! Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen could not have asked for a more committed lawyer.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how anything Blackburn may have said or not said is in any way relevant to the testimony of Helena. Helena met with the defense before she met with the prosecution and the defense is on record as her having testified to the same things she stated in her meeting with them. So, the DEFENSE knew Helena was not going to get on the stand as say she did it as did the prosecution. Also, in the transcripts I remember reading that Helena had called Judge Dupree's home a couple of times over the weekend stating she was scared of Bernie Segal. I doubt Jim Blackburn registered to deeply in Helena's mind (or what was left of it) after her extensive drug use AND her stroke.

[JTF]

Byn and Rashomon: Tremendous posts. Not surprisingly, you can literally smell the fear of the truth coming from the posts of MacDonald's advocates. In terms of the whole Britt nonsense, I find it laughable that Stoeckley would talk about anything and/or everything under the sun, yet she takes this "threat" by Blackburn to the grave? She tells Gunderson this rambling story about an unnamed CID agent being part of this satanic cult, yet nary a word to anyone about Blackburn threatening her? Please.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge - I'm afraid that 'sword of Damocles' is actually Brian Murtagh, who will come down on Britt should a meeting be granted. Not much will be left afterward of Britt's unsubstantiated allegations, believe me. Read Murtagh's written response to MacDonald's parole application if you dont know what I mean. That little attention seeker Britt will forever regret having wanted his fifteen minutes of fame.
Brian Murtagh is a true justice seeker. To this day, he has remained the lawyer of Colette and her children. They couldn't have had better and more committed lawyer than Brian.

Other than to say Britt's affidavit is supported by other affidavits, I won't pretend to be able to accurately assess Mr. Britt's credibility. Moreover, despite what others believe or might wish to believe, Mr. Britt's credibility will be key, and it will be put in play along with Mr. Blackburn's credibility. Sans clear and unyielding proof either way, that's the intrinsic nature of adjudicating a "he said/I never said" claim.

I do not personally know Mr. Murtaugh, what his skill set is or how he comes across to jurists who will be assessing personals, facts and arguments. I trust he will be a strong advocate.

As regards "justice". It's not taught in law schools. It may or may not happen in a Courtroom. It might take years or it might never happen, at least not in this world -- as posthumous clearings such as Louis Greco et al, demonstrate.

I simply enjoy that there will almost assuredly be a hearing. So, Dr. MacDonald will probably have, by my measure, another chance for justice here on earth. That's encouraging to me.

[pennnurse525]

Hey.
Courttv boards not allowing registration, I have never posted there before.
Sorry. Question from last nite that I shot out at last minute for you was...
What do you think started the final argument that led to Macinmate slaughtering his family? Thanks.

[pennnurse525]

Read your info on the site re: suitcase. Wondering....you stated that JRM emptied contents of it into Colette's drawers. Do you think she was in the process of packing to leave inmate and that is what he dumped back into the drawers? I'm not sure if she was planning an upcoming trip to see family, etc. Just thinking that maybe after a small argument, she decided to pack a few things and then the fight escalated in the bedroom during her packing, etc. Nothing packed for the kids right? Either that or he was packing to take his sorry butt out of dodge and avoid the murder investigation after the killings.

[byn63]

Hey.
Courttv boards not allowing registration, I have never posted there before.
Sorry. Question from last nite that I shot out at last minute for you was...
What do you think started the final argument that led to Macinmate slaughtering his family? Thanks.

pennnurse - I personally believe that the argument started over Kimmie wetting the bed. Seems silly to many, but add all the factors together ie: hours inmate worked without sleep, ingestion of Eskatrol, and Colette's going to others for advice (her class) and it equals to an explosion of rage. It is also possible that Colette rebuffed him or made condescending remarks about his "abilities" as an additional factor. Prick his machismo pride and he'd be like the Lion with a Thorn in its Paw. imho of course

[byn63]

Other than to say Britt's affidavit is supported by other affidavits, I won't pretend to be able to accurately assess Mr. Britt's credibility. Moreover, despite what others believe or might wish to believe, Mr. Britt's credibility will be key, and it will be put in play along with Mr. Blackburn's credibility. Sans clear and unyielding proof either way, that's the intrinsic nature of adjudicating a "he said/I never said" claim.

it is not anywhere near clear or absolute that the affidavits are going to be considered corroborating evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (b)(3) and (b)(5) refers to the trustworthiness of the statements AND that doesn't just mean the statement itself but it also means the circumstances under which said statements are made. I don't think the affidavits or Britt's claim is going to be able to meet the standard of law.

I simply enjoy that there will almost assuredly be a hearing. So, Dr. MacDonald will probably have, by my measure, another chance for justice here on earth. That's encouraging to me.

inmate has had his shot at justice and then some. he has been heard more than any other murderer in the history of US jurisprudence and this Britt filing is his last gasp and will likely not change anything for inmate. If there is a hearing, it will still not clear inmate - the evidence is too strong against him.

:rose: :rose: :rose: One for each angel ~ Colette, Kimberly, Kristen

[JTF]

Penn: Freddy Kassab called this part of the case, "a dark area." I think it was a combination of factors. They include.

1) Kimberly wetting the bed in the master bedroom.

2) Colette calling her mother shortly before the murders asking her if she and the kids could come for a visit.

3) Colette calling Pep Stevenson and venting about MacDonald's cheating ways.

4) MacDonald's ingestion of Eskatrol.

5) MacDonald being physically exhausted, yet seeking another moonlighting job.

I'm guessing that a verbal confrontation ensued as a result of Kimberly wetting the bed. The argument got even more heated after Colette told MacDonald that she was aware that he was cheating on her. She then admitted to calling her mother to inquire about the possibility of leaving him for an undetermined period of time. To prove to MacDonald that she was serious, she pointed to the suitcase in the closet and said that she had already begun to pack some of her things. MacDonald told her that she and the kids were not going anywhere. He then hit her in the face and all hell broke loose.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

inmate has had his shot at justice and then some. he has been heard more than any other murderer in the history of US jurisprudence and this Britt filing is his last gasp and will likely not change anything for inmate. If there is a hearing, it will still not clear inmate - the evidence is too strong against him.

:rose: :rose: :rose: One for each angel ~ Colette, Kimberly, Kristen


Because you predict the future with absolute certainty, I must add you to my ignore list. I can't compete with psychics.

[Jena Wade]

Jena: I've never claimed that the documents on Christina's website are my own. Obviously, you didn't take the time to actually read my website. In the About Me section, I clearly state that my website would present the evidence in text form. In addition, I state that my hope is that my website will provide the impetus for people to read the actual case documentation at, you guessed it, Christina's website. As I mentioned in my prior post to you, not everyone wants to read through the Grand Jury and trial transcripts. Not everyone wants to go through the CID and FBI lab documentation. I've worked hard on that website and I'm extremely proud of it.

In terms of the discussion boards, I can post anywhere I want. The fact that you're fearful of anyone who expresses the truth in this case only energizes me. I've dealt with MacDonald's advocates for the last 8 years, so your rantings are old news. My website went online February 17th, but I've posted on MacDonald case discussion boards for the past 3 years, which is further proof that your argument is absurd. Your attack on Bunny is equally ridiculous. Bunny is a dedicated MacDonald case researcher and meticulous in how he/she presents the documented record in this case.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

As to the case literature you claim to have in your possession – did you have all the records before they were posted?

Most of you seem to think because some of us know Jeff MacDonald and was in associated in some way; we are “MacDonald groupies”. Not the case. There are reasons why we were involved at whatever time. Perhaps we thought it was the right thing at the time. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. Some want to castrate us and call us groupies and mac lovers. In my case I learned a hard lesson, but I am a better person today because of it.

Many people, the mac groupies - mac lovers as we are referred to could educate you, but your contempt for anyone who was involved is so strong that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Bunny meticulous - as long as no questions her.

Jena

[rashomon]

[Jena] There are many who have far more and truthful knowledge and information about the case than you will ever have. We were there and lived it. We know MacDonald and what he is like.

[Jena]MacDonald without a doubt is a narcissistic psychopath and he is a liar.

Most of you seem to think because some of us know Jeff MacDonald and was in associated in some way; we are “MacDonald groupies”. Not the case. There are reasons why we were involved at whatever time. Perhaps we thought it was the right thing at the time. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. Some want to castrate us and call us groupies and mac lovers. In my case I learned a hard lesson, but I am a better person today because of it.

Many people, the mac groupies - mac lovers as we are referred to could educate you, but your contempt for anyone who was involved is so strong that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Jena
Jena, why do you think anyone would contempt you for once having been a MacDonald supporter? We know how manipulative that psychopath is - he has fooled countless people, many of them very intelligent - just think of Fredy Kassab.
You have come to a discussion forum and therefore I assume you want to share your thoughts and insights. It seems you have had personal contact with MacDonald and came to the conclusion that he is a psychopath and a liar.
Most of us here would agree with you 100 per cent about him being a psychopath and a liar. So where is the "forest" which we can't see for the trees?

[JTF]

Penn: I answered your question on the prior page.

Jena: So, you believe that MacDonald is a liar and a psychopath, yet you trash a website that is dedicated to proving it? So, you agree with the content of my website, yet you trash me for the manner in which I present the data? I wonder if you have the same feelings towards Robert Sam Anson, Joe McGinniss, Laurie Cohen, Dennis Rogers, Harvery Silverglate, Fred Bost, John Boston, and/or Kathryn MacDonald?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

JTF:
I agree with your theory. Think that the blatant decision Colette had made pushed inmate over the edge that night. Looked over the crime scene photos of the interior of the house, two questions for all to ponder...
Kimberly must have been inside the bedroom when struck and then fell to the floor just inside the doorway, where she bled heavily. Perhaps it is just schematics when looking at the photos, but it would appear as if the doorway was much too small for inmate to have stood and wielded the club. Thus, Kim was either still in the room, or walked all the way in to the room after hearing the argument, etc. Just thinking of this for my own greater comprhension of the situation and incorporation as I continue to learn the evidenciary facts. Secondly, My original understanding of the suitcase issue was that it was open and on the floor. In several photos showing the suitcase, it is shown closed and standing up. Did I miss something?

Jena: Would you elaborate on your personal experience with inmate? I think it would be useful for those of us continuing to learn of his psychological processes and also dealings with those whom he considers supporters of his so called "factual innocence". I always find this term telling.

Thanks,
Penn

[JTF]

Penn: The suitcase was closed when investigators arrived at the crime scene and when they later checked it's contents, it was empty. The key is that blood spatter from Colette was found directly under the suitcase, but no spatter was found on the suitcase itself. Investigators knew that the suitcase was moved, but it will always be pure speculation as to why it was moved.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Honeybee]

Penn: The suitcase was closed when investigators arrived at the crime scene and when they later checked it's contents, it was empty. The key is that blood spatter from Colette was found directly under the suitcase, but no spatter was found on the suitcase itself. Investigators knew that the suitcase was moved, but it will always be pure speculation as to why it was moved.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF:
Do you know if any of the MP's testified to seeing the suitcase in the room that morning?

[JTF]

Honeybee: I believe that the first documented mention of the suitcase was by William Ivory. In a document provided to Peter Kearns for the CID reinvestigation, Ivory described the layout of the apartment and he mentioned the suitcase by the right corner of the footboard. As far as I know, the first document of any sort that mentions the significance of the blood spatter under the suitcase was in Freddy Kassab's notes. Later, of course, McGinniss mentions his discussion with Paul Stombaugh on this very same subject in Fatal Vision. Hope this helps.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Any thoughts on the bloody print on the footboard. Whose? Hand/foot? Were these typed? Also, in testimony that I read from 1979 trial by the coroner re: autopsy done on Colette, he stated NO blood on her feet. In looking at crime scene photos it does appear as if there was blood on her foot, at least one that was shown in photo. Don't know if its just the photo or if it is there. Wonder about the print on footboard? Made when leaning over to pick up suitcase, pick up body, write PIG on headboard, move evidence? What are your thoughts all? Was Colette grabbing it after being struck and had blood on her hand and was trying to steady herself or lean over to pick up Kim, etc?
Interested to hear all your thoughts?
Penn

[JTF]

Penn: I discuss this print in the Defense Claims section of my website. There was no "bloody" palmprint found at the crime scene. What Bost and Potter did was combine two separate lab notes to create a mythical evidentiary item. An unidentified palmprint was found on the footboard in the master bedroom and blood was also present on the footboard. Considering that the partial print exemplars from Colette were of poor quality, I believe that when she regained consciousness after the initial attack, she grabbed the footboard in order to get to her feet. During this process, she created the non-bloody palmprint. Hope that makes sense.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Jena Wade]

Penn: I answered your question on the prior page.

Jena: So, you believe that MacDonald is a liar and a psychopath, yet you trash a website that is dedicated to proving it? So, you agree with the content of my website, yet you trash me for the manner in which I present the data? I wonder if you have the same feelings towards Robert Sam Anson, Joe McGinniss, Laurie Cohen, Dennis Rogers, Harvery Silverglate, Fred Bost, John Boston, and/or Kathryn MacDonald?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JFT – It’s your overbearing attitude that is objected to. You put forth your thoughts in a patronizing way.

The truth of what really occurred will never be known for sure. Therefore, all anyone can do is to speculate their opinions. But the way you come across some could say that you encroach your thoughts on others. Don't you think you should mention that it is only your opinion?

As to your question - Anson, Cohen, and Rogers are reporters. They are the same as any other reporter, they write for money and what is important to them is to sell what they write. Many sell their stories based on the number of words written. The reporters don't ask the right questions in my opinion, they skim over the issues. Fred Bost writes one thing and does another. John Boston is a joke and writes under a pseudonym. While he has written some good things, what he wrote about the MacDonald murders is pure junk. Kathryn MacDonald - I reserve my opinion other than to say she knows little about the case and is serving as her husband's mouth piece.

Harvey Silverglate is an attorney who writes and has been won an impressive number of cases. Most attorneys take on a number of pro-bono cases in their career. How often does an attorney defend someone he never meets? In my opinion he made a bad judgment in taking on the case.

McGinniss – good writer. Fatal Vision was a masterpiece that I discovered after I departed from the supporters side. However, I do not think it is the best book he has ever written.

For anyone to really know Jeff, it needs to be from people who have been involved with him. They know how he is from first-hand experience. His temper tantrums, forcefulness, threats, and lies. How he uses others to get what he wants and then discards them as garbage. How he gets things smuggled into him and how he gets things smuggled out.

I have contacted Christine and provided her with a number of things as to my dealings with him and friends of mine who was involved as well who are willing and able to provide many insightful things. If she chooses to put them on her website then all can read them. I can't come to terms with bearing my soul on boards that have so much contempt for anyone who has supported Jeff at one time and then changed their views.

You refer to us as mac groupies, how are you and your followers any different? You are mac groupies who voice hate to anyone who disagrees with your thoughts.

Jena

[JTF]

Jena: Your post is further evidence that you've not taken the time to read the content of my website. Midnight Thoughts and Jimmy Britt are the only sections of my website where you can find my personal opinion on specific case issues. Christina's website, however, is replete with examples of her personal opinion on this case. Considering the fact that it is her website, she is free to say whatever she wants to say. Whether you like it or not, I have that same freedom. Hopefully, you'll begin to post on the evidence in this case in the near future.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

Jena: I meant to say that Christina's website contains more personal commentary than my website.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

Penn: In terms of the speculation put forth by investigators as to why the suitcase was moved, there are two theories.

1) Paul Stombaugh felt that MacDonald was contemplating skipping town, but eventually changed his mind.

2) William Ivory and Robert Shaw testified to a drawer in Colette's dresser being opened slightly. MacDonald may have unpacked the contents of the suitcase back into Colette's dresser.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

I wanted to express how impressed I was by all of the people who participated in Live Chat the past 2 weeks. The exchange of ideas has been a fascinating process and I hope it continues in the coming weeks. Since its inception on February 20th, the Live Chat format continues to get better and better.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

Byn: I found the document that makes a reference to Stoeckley's stroke.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stoeckley_med_1978-11-02_p1.html

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Jena:
I have to disagree with you. I have found JTF's site to be pretty devoid of his thoughts, and in looking to get those thoughts, I have asked him directly in both this message board forum and the online chat that he hosts.
I think everyone here is looking for information, and the time and energy that both he and Christina have put into their sites is really a large and tremendous undertaking.

You had stated that after being in inmate's circle, you changed your mind and now feel that he did indeed, murder his family. I asked you before if in the interest of sharing information you wouldn't mind sharing some of your knowledge with us all. How do you feel about that?

I have spent much time looking at JTF's site and Christina's and have to say that the evidenciary summaries and the incorporation that JTF has made so succint and thorough in a point by point way has been helpful to me as I look at the scans and documents on Christina's site for myself.

So, I have to ask you, what exactly do you object to? Maybe I am missing your point, but I don't see what the issue is here?!
PennRN

[pennnurse525]

Interesting JTF:
Lists Personality D/O on scan you linked to. Classic Borderline behavior by Helena in her admittals/recusals/refusals etc.....
Attention seeking and over the top. Hallmarks of the D/O.
She was a very sick girl.

I read something on JTF's website regarding letters Dorothy MacDonald left at the gravesites...what did they say or are there scans?
PennRN

[JTF]

Penn: Freddy Kassab gave the notes to Peter Kearns and Joe McGinniss provides his readers with the contents of the notes. Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to my copy of Fatal Vision, so I'm unable to post the contents of Dorothy's notes. Sorry. In terms of Stoeckley, she was simply a physical and emotional wreck by the late 70's. This fact is germane to the issue of reliability for most of her "confessions" occurred between 1980-1982.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

JTF:
Indeed, she was a mess. Poor girl. Its a shame to waste a life in any respect.
Copy of FV in Storage pending a move. I will have to remember to look later.

Thanks, and thanks for the chats.
PennRN:)

[Honeybee]

The notes Dorothy MacDonald left at the gravesites:

Dearest Colette-You were every inch a woman. God forgive me for not telling you this but I always respected you. All my love, Mom.

Dearest Kim-You were more precious to me than life itself. God keep you from any more pain. I love you, Nana.

Dearest Kristy-You were always the toughie. May your spirit endure. Love you, Nana.

Fatal Vision p 282 (paperback)

[pennnurse525]

Hey Honeybee,
Thanks.
Shame her wretched son was responsible.
How do ya live with that?

[Honeybee]

Your welcome PennRN

My copy of FV was right here beside my computer. Glad I could be of some help while you were FV free.

[rashomon]

I have contacted Christine and provided her with a number of things as to my dealings with him and friends of mine who was involved as well who are willing and able to provide many insightful things. If she chooses to put them on her website then all can read them.
That would be great, Jena!

[rashomon]

Anson, Cohen, and Rogers are reporters. They are the same as any other reporter, they write for money and what is important to them is to sell what they write. Many sell their stories based on the number of words written.
"They are the same as any other reporter" is an overgeneralizing statement.
The reporters don't ask the right questions in my opinion, they skim over the issues.
What issues do they skim over? Would you elaborate?

[rashomon]

John Boston is a joke and writes under a pseudonym. While he has written some good things, what he wrote about the MacDonald murders is pure junk.
What is John Boston's real name? That's what we always wanted to know too. We even suspected he might be Fred Bost (Boston/Bost), for the CL article is every bit as lousy as Fatal Justice.

Kathryn MacDonald - I reserve my opinion other than to say she knows little about the case and is serving as her husband's mouth piece.

I think you hit it dead center with your assessment of Kathryn.

[rashomon]

McGinniss – good writer. Fatal Vision was a masterpiece that I discovered after I departed from the supporters side. However, I do not think it is the best book he has ever written.
What do you think was his best book? After FV, I read two other books on true crime cases by Joe McGinniss, but imo they in no way can compare to his masterpiece FV.
His latest was I think The Miracle of Castel di Sangro, about the rise of an Italian soccer club, but to McGinniss' disappointment, the book was no success. This shouldn't surprise me - I don't think soccer is as popular in the US as it is in Europe, where it is the national sport, so to speak.
The truth of what really occurred will never be known for sure. Therefore, all anyone can do is to speculate their opinions. But the way you come across some could say that you encroach your thoughts on others. Don't you think you should mention that it is only your opinion?
Jena, it goes without saying that all our theories as to the exact time line of events are speculation, therefore it is not necessary to put 'imo' after every sentence.
What is not speculation is that MacDonald killed his whole family.
Or do you think this is speculation too? Just curious.

[byn63]

I will add my two cents in here and state that I enjoy JTF's website, and the live chat too!

many of us on this forum are sometimes called "macguilties" since we firmly believe he is murdering sociopathic narcissistic pond scum. But, officially we are usually referred to as the Fire Brigade. Some come to the boards strictly to flame - we put those sparks out.

So, it certainly would be nice if you shared your personal experiences with that "being" and drop the attacks on JTF's site/or person. He is free to express his opinion and has spent over 20 years researching this case - so if it is documented, he's probably at least READ IT several times over.

JTF - thanks for finding that document - I KNEW I'd read it somewhere!!!!!

[JTF]

I wanted to let everyone know that I spoke with Janice Glisson on April 1, 2007. The nature of our conversation can be viewed in the And More section of my website. Enjoy.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

I wanted to let everyone know that I spoke with Janice Glisson on April 1, 2007. The nature of our conversation can be viewed in the And More section of my website. Enjoy.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/
Cool, JTF! Info from a 'primary source': Janice Glisson, who played such a pivotal role in the lab testings. Very interesting!

She was surprised at this outcome because she thought that the hair would be too small to extract a DNA profile.
I always thought the drawing of the hair in the picture section of FJ was the original size (and had wondered how a torn limb hair could still be that long), but it seems it was merely a drawing by Glisson to show how the hair looked like under the microscope.

[byn63]

oh boy NEW material - JTF you are aces!:beer:

[Bunny2]

Reminder: Chat's happening NOW (8 p.m.-11 p.m. EST)...come join us!

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/chat.html

[AshleyMari]

JFT – It’s your overbearing attitude that is objected to. You put forth your thoughts in a patronizing way.

McGinniss – good writer. Fatal Vision was a masterpiece that I discovered after I departed from the supporters side. However, I do not think it is the best book he has ever written.

Jena

I seem to have arrived at "crimestories". That's an inside to byn, bunny, etal. JTF's chat was great last night. Lots of new stuff on the website, too. I found his talk with Glisson so fascinating. Almost like history from the past reaching out to us. Thanks JTF. You know how to do it right.

Jena, which of McGinniss's book was your favorite? Cruel Doubt? Blind Faith? I can't imagine. You have piqued my curosity. Please tell. And thanks for sharing with us the inside traits of MacD known only to those chosen few. ashley

[JTF]

Rashomon: I think Glisson's surprise in regards to the DNA test results for CID Exhibit E-5 was due to the fact that it was the distal portion or tip of a limb hair. Even if microscopic comparisons could be made on limb hairs, the hair was so tiny that there wasn't enough there for comparison purposes. The interesting thing about the DNA test results is that the hair fragment allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail was significantly smaller than the limb hair found in Colette's left hand, yet a DNA profile was extracted from that hair as well. It's amazing what they can do with DNA testing.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

I wanted to look up something in Colette's autopsy report but couldn't find it in the Scanned Documents on Christina's site. Could anyone give me a link to it? TIA.