Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[Honeybee]

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.

Rashomon: As far as I can tell I don't think it's a seperate autopsy record on Christina's site like the autopsy record for Kim and Kristen. I have seen part of Colette's autopsy report in the Feb 17, 1970 CID report in the scanned documents.

[JTF]

In the near future, my 1999 contacts with Fred Bost and my 2005-2006 contacts with Lucia Bartoli will be added to my website. I encourage everyone to join the Live Chat this evening beginning at 8 p.m. EST.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Anyone seen a site to purchase or download a copy of FV?
Hasn't been on in SOO long and would love to see it again.
TIA,
PENN

[JTF]

In my opinion, the following testimony should end any/all speculation about the source of the bloody footprints found exiting Kristen's room.

Trial testimony of Hilyard Medlin

Seeing this in the latent print, and seeing other characteristics in that area, I searched in the same general area, which was the ball pattern zone of the left foot, which is this area right below the big toe, and could not find any matching characteristics in Colette's record footprint---that which we had---or Lieutenant Harrison's footprint which we had. However, I found more than 14 points of comparison between the fixed footprint in the blood and the record footprint of Jeffrey MacDonald's left foot. I so told Mr. Murphy, and he thanked me very much.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

And again, the ridiculous assertion by inmate that he had gotten blood on his feet when "checking" on Colette, and subsequently left the footprint when he supposedly got off the stretcher in the hallway that morning to see Kris is again ludicrous because the footprint was a print from a foot walking OUT of the room, not in. Again, as was said at trial, unless he did a back flip off the stretcher into the room. Another instance of inmate trying to explain away evidence and getting caught by it anyway!!!

[rashomon]

And again, the ridiculous assertion by inmate that he had gotten blood on his feet when "checking" on Colette, and subsequently left the footprint when he supposedly got off the stretcher in the hallway that morning to see Kris is again ludicrous because the footprint was a print from a foot walking OUT of the room, not in. Again, as was said at trial, unless he did a back flip off the stretcher into the room. Another instance of inmate trying to explain away evidence and getting caught by it anyway!!!
That footprint is very damaging evidence, although MacD tried to downplay its significance: "Im sure I had bloody feet" he said. But none of Colette's blood was on the floor in Kristen's room, so how on earth did he get Colette's blood on his feet exiting the room? Where in Kristen's room did he step in Colette's blood? Her blood was on the top sheet of Kristen's bed, but it is unlikely that he stepped onto the bed.
But Paul Stombaugh's theory about how the footprint was made is very convincing. It is extremely fascinating how Stombaugh was able to put the pieces of the forensic puzzle together in the MacD case.

[cami]

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

Ha ha aha,and not even an answer to the rules of evidence that Bunny quoted for you....except to put her/him on ignore. That speaks volumes. reminds me of an old Roy Orbison song...Running Scared

[cami]

Anyone seen a site to purchase or download a copy of FV?
Hasn't been on in SOO long and would love to see it again.
TIA,
PENN

Penn,you can buy it at Amazon...if you want to pay their exhorbitant prices. Try Ebay or google it.

Here's a link to it on dvd.

http://www.sell.com/229S4S

[Wudge]

Ha ha aha,and not even an answer to the rules of evidence that Bunny quoted for you....except to put her/him on ignore. That speaks volumes. reminds me of an old Roy Orbison song...Running Scared

Before Websleuths shut down the MacDonald thread on their website, because of insults, sarcasm and slurs, I told you that North Carolina was saturated with crooked prosecutors who had no ethics such as Blackburn confessed to being, and for which he was justly imprisoned. I'll let you figure out how Michael Nifong relates to this truth.

Kevin Miller and others have moved from just airing this fact on radio to appearing on Fox and CNN to talk about the problem North Carolina has with crooked prosecutors and a State policy that allowed them to withhold exculpatory evidence.

"Britt" is no stretch.

[JTF]

Wudge: The problem with your thesis is two-fold.

1) The appellate courts have already decided that the prosecution in the MacDonald case didn't knowingly withold exculpatory evidence. Bernie Segal had his chance to examine all of the evidence in this case, but blew his opportunity by insisting that the evidence be shipped to California.

2) Every single evidentiary item in this case has been litigated.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: The problem with your thesis is two-fold.

1) The appellate courts have already decided that the prosecution in the MacDonald case didn't knowingly withold exculpatory evidence. Bernie Segal had his chance to examine all of the evidence in this case, but blew his opportunity by insisting that the evidence be shipped to California.

2) Every single evidentiary item in this case has been litigated.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Cite case authorities that will preclude "Britt" being adjudicated on its merits.

[JTF]

Wudge: My post was in response to your weaving Michael Nifong and Kevin Miller into a narrative involving the legalities of the MacDonald case.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

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

What is the truthful knowledge that you have? If there was information that supported Inmate's innocence, he would have used that information to his legal advantage.

We would love to hear some bombshell that would counter all the evidence the government has.

If you don't like Inmate then why would you spend your time on someone who did not appreciate your efforts?

[Spamela]

Before Websleuths shut down the MacDonald thread on their website, because of insults, sarcasm and slurs, I told you that North Carolina was saturated with crooked prosecutors who had no ethics such as Blackburn confessed to being, and for which he was justly imprisoned. I'll let you figure out how Michael Nifong relates to this truth.

Kevin Miller and others have moved from just airing this fact on radio to appearing on Fox and CNN to talk about the problem North Carolina has with crooked prosecutors and a State policy that allowed them to withhold exculpatory evidence.

"Britt" is no stretch.

Blackburn's conviction had nothing to do with his actions during the MacTrial. So, you point would be...what, exactly? :shrug:

[Wudge]

Blackburn's conviction had nothing to do with his actions during the MacTrial. So, you point would be...what, exactly? :shrug:

Blackburn is being accused of obstructing justice by intimidating a witness so as to suborn perjury. Prior to "Britt", he confessed to obstructing justice.

"Britt" is he said/he said. "Britt" is Britt v. Blackburn. Despite what some people think, credibility will be key. A prior conviction for obstructing justice stands out like tar on a snowman.

Blackburn's prior give Britt a clear credibility edge. If James Britt is lying, an ulterior motive exists. Murtaugh has to present motive.

[Spamela]

Blackburn is being accused of obstructing justice by intimidating a witness so as to suborn perjury. Prior to "Britt", he confessed to obstructing justice.

"Britt" is he said/he said. "Britt" is Britt v. Blackburn. Despite what some people think, credibility will be key. A prior conviction for obstructing justice stands out like tar on a snowman.

Blackburn's prior give Britt a clear credibility edge. If James Britt is lying, an ulterior motive exists. Murtaugh has to present motive.

Blackburn's conviction had nothing to do with the MacDonald trial, and it occured years later. Also, his convinction had nothing to do with intimidating a witnesses.

The validity issue has to do with Britt waiting all this time, and then suddenly he puts this on the table.

Also, don't you think that MacDonald has annoyed the judge by claiming that the judge does not have the jurisdiction to determine the DNA ruling?

[Wudge]

SNIP

The validity issue has to do with Britt waiting all this time, and then suddenly he puts this on the table.

SNIP



Motive!

I addressed this.

[Spamela]

Motive!

I addressed this.

You never address this post by byn, however:
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.

Britt' statements just come across as hinky.
I believe a hearing would annihilate Inmate, but I hate to see the waste of tax payers' money.

And as for motive, I think he was looking for some money from his 15 minutes of fame. But, there does not have to be a motive. What was the motive of the man who confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey? Many people attachment themselves to high profile crime cases.

[Wudge]

You never address this post by byn, however:

SNIP




... Correct.

[Spamela]

... Correct.

My, what a loquacious response. You may not want to think about the subjects in byn's post, but I assure you that the judge will have thought about them, as any logical person would. Britt's allegations are weak, imo, but we will have to see what the judge thinks.

[JTF]

Speaking of merits, this isn't going to be a case where an individual with a troubled past is up against someone with a pristine resume. Britt admitted to the Fayetteville Observer that he has a history of alcohol dependence and when he came forward with the Blackburn accusations, he was apparantly having financial difficulties. In addition, he had several work related incidents and his memory of the alleged Blackburn/Stoeckley meeting is, at best, selective.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

My, what a loquacious response. You may not want to think about the subjects in byn's post, but I assure you that the judge will have thought about them, as any logical person would. Britt's allegations are weak, imo, but we will have to see what the judge thinks.

spammy - Wudge is not going to respond to my post (quoted by you) for two reasons.
One, he has put me on ignore because he says he can't compete with a psychic. Wudge has decided that since I'm so certain that Britt and his allegations will not get a hearing, then I must believe myself to be a psychic and therefore, I am not worth his/her time and attention. LOL

Of course, since the post you quoted was earlier than the post in which the accusations of "psychic" phenomena being used to determine my opinions there is the real reason Wudge will not respond.

He/she CANNOT respond. There is no way to show that Helena's testimony was in any way altered by her meeting with Jim Blackburn. The defense attorney's met with her first, she answered as she later testified and as the defense expected she would testify. No matter how one attempts to manipulate the data to make Britt believable, it comes down to the same facts. As the robot on Lost In Space would say "it does not compute!"

[Spamela]

Byn,
It seems The Wudgie will not respond to anything that is a challenge to his little reality. Your post contains logical information that the judge will also consider, and he will also conclude that it does not compute.

[Wudge]

Byn,

SNIP

Your post contains logical information that the judge will also consider, and he will also conclude that it does not compute.

Let's see, the post contains logical information that the Judge will also consider, but the Judge will conclude it does not compute.

(oh man ... and people want me to respond ...... chuckle)

[Spamela]

Let's see, the post contains logical information that the Judge will also consider, but the Judge will conclude it does not compute.

(oh man ... and people want me to respond ...... chuckle)

Scuz me, my darling Wudgie, bad wording on my part, I meant that the judge would conclude that Britt's claim did not compute, once the judge evaluated Britt's claim from a logical perspecctive.

[Sandman]

Those double standards in our judicial system have been around for many years now, we have just been blind to the fact of the matter. Black or White, Hispanic or Asian, Buddhist, or if you embrace the teachings of Islam the rule of law obviously doesn't remain the same for all. If you're rich like a grossly overpaid flesh and blood Hollywood movie star “God”, then you have a damn good chance of beating the rap so to speak. However from a poor man's perspective those unpaid speeding or parking tickets will get you a nice clean Jail-cell. And as a courtesy of your honest government of the people, you will be charged an astronomical amount per day until you are finally released. I know a man who was sentenced to a year in jail, and when he was released after several life-threatening beatings he had to pay back six thousand dollars or go back to jail for violating his parole conditions. For some stupid foolish reason of which I don't think they'll ever understand, crime in America truly pays if you're on the Justice end of the equation. If we don't change the laws that force people after serving time into hardship situations by begging, borrowing or re-mortgaging their homes just to stay out of jail, then the old term of paying their debt to Society becomes a ludicrous endeavor.

Sandman

[Spamela]

It is a well known fact that the poor and minorities suffer in the American justice system. That is why profiling is now illegal, it still happens, but at least there is a law that addresses the issue. In Texas, the home of capital punishment, most of those executed are poor or black.

In the MacDonald case, however, the police could have gone after the suspects who were poor, but they didn't. If they wanted to make a conviction just to get the case off their books, they could have. By the time the case when to trial, years after the murder, MacDonald was a doctor with money to pay top attorneys. The government did not think that the would win the case, but the continued because the crimes that MacDonald committed were so horrendous, the murder of his pregnant wife and his daughters 2 and 5. MacDonald was the type of person, arrogant and with a sense of entitlement, who never thought he would have to pay for his crimes, but he did. However, he has tied up the judicial system by constantly making appeals. If her were poor or a minority, he could not have done that, but people want to believe that a white doctor could not have slaughtered his family, so they contribute their time and money to his cause.

There are not too many white doctors in prison for life, but MacDonald is one of the few.

[JTF]

Jeffrey MacDonald has retained 21 lawyers since 1970, many of them near the top of their profession including Bernie Segal, Harvey Silverglate, and Tim Junkin. MacDonald has even attempted to have the likes of Vincent Bugliosi represent him, so he has never wanted for representation.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

It is update letter time, folks. Get this...Helena told her mother that she was afraid of the big bad prosecutor who threatened her.

I am sure Helena told he mother lots of things. Helena told everybody lots of things.

Why Inmate thinks this will make a difference, as it is hearsay, is beyond me.

[byn63]

It is update letter time, folks. Get this...Helena told her mother that she was afraid of the big bad prosecutor who threatened her.

I am sure Helena told he mother lots of things. Helena told everybody lots of things.

Why Inmate thinks this will make a difference, as it is hearsay, is beyond me.

It still comes back to the vicious circle: Helena was interviewed by the defense first. Wade Smith stated in open court that Helena testified as she had stated in the interview. So, once again, I'd really like to know how anything the prosecution said or did had any bearing on Helena and her testimony? Plus, let us not forget that Helena called Judge Dupree over the weekend she was in Raleigh to testify stating that she was afraid of Bernie Segal - the attorney for the defense.

[Bunny2]

Aside from Stoeckley's mother saying that she gave this affidavit because she thinks Mac shouldn't be in prison, yet waiting almost 30 years to come forth with this information, I find it amusing that suddenly both the mother and the defense are trying to claim that this affidavit is valid because it comes from a "close mother-daughter relationship." If I'm recalling correctly, I do believe Stoeckley's mother said long ago that she didn't know where Stoeckley was and that she didn't want to know, and also said that if they wanted hair samples from Stoeckley, she'd be glad to shave Stoeckley's head herself. Some "close" relationship.

[byn63]

Aside from Stoeckley's mother saying that she gave this affidavit because she thinks Mac shouldn't be in prison, yet waiting almost 30 years to come forth with this information, I find it amusing that suddenly both the mother and the defense are trying to claim that this affidavit is valid because it comes from a "close mother-daughter relationship." If I'm recalling correctly, I do believe Stoeckley's mother said long ago that she didn't know where Stoeckley was and that she didn't want to know, and also said that if they wanted hair samples from Stoeckley, she'd be glad to shave Stoeckley's head herself. Some "close" relationship.


Yes bunny funny indeed. Funny like the woman's mind is going, going, gone. I know I've read either an interview or affidavit by Helena's mother where among other things she discussed:
1) not knowing or wanting to know where Helena currently lived.
2) noting that Helena would say anything Papa Beasley wanted her to say.
3) noted that Helena had a severe stroke and did due part of her recovery at her parents home.

I know that Helena said she moved out after graduation at her own choice, but, I remember reading somewhere that her parents actually gave her an ultimatum - clean up or get out.

Still, none of this does any good for inmate imo, since there is NO DNA or other physical evidence to show Helena's presence at 544 Castle Drive. I can't help but think that Helena's mother is no longer competent to give evidence of her daughter's behavior. Just combining the two factors of Helena's excessive drug use and her stroke makes anything she claimed for 1970 highly suspect. Then add to that her noted penchant for telling tall tales of her heroics as spy, benevolent witch, drug agent etc. and you have a pathetic, drug-addled attention seeker that attached herself to a case for the fame. Too bad none of Helena's confessions match inmate's story or the evidence - too bad for inmate that is...................

[pennnurse525]

So, update letter time again...how interesting. So superficial. No mention of the facts of the case yet again, just blah blah blah to attempt to "exonerate" inmate. The fact is, he will never be "exonerated", as he butchered his wife and THREE children. The last line of the letter is the most telling, though....
And by the grace of such humanity, the truth cannot be denied.
INDEED.
Penn

PS: See you all at chat tonite.

[Spamela]

So, update letter time again...how interesting. So superficial. No mention of the facts of the case yet again, just blah blah blah to attempt to "exonerate" inmate. The fact is, he will never be "exonerated", as he butchered his wife and THREE children. The last line of the letter is the most telling, though....
And by the grace of such humanity, the truth cannot be denied.
INDEED.
Penn

PS: See you all at chat tonite.

Mrs Inmate writes in the overly dramatic style of high school teenage angst.

"Within the frail condition known as humanity, a person's inner voice, which tells them what is right, resides. And by the grace of such humanity, the truth cannot be denied."

Is humanity a frail condition? Or is it even a condition, much less frail?

Although it is frail enough that blows to the head and stab wounds to the body will cause a person to die. Inmate knows all about that.

And she hears little inner voices, does she? That "tells" her what to do. Mmmm....She should see someone about that, they have good drugs these days for that sort of problem.

Now, I am all for the truth not being denied---LADY, you dumb chick, you married a mass murderer!!! Get a life, you media ho!!

THAT is what my frail voice of humanity is telling me.

[JTF]

Kathryn is simply using the same tactics she teaches her drama school students. She understands that at the age of 45, any chance of fame in the acting biz is long gone, so she'll settle for the unconventional fame that comes with being married to a notorious mass murderer. Kathryn knows that Stoeckley told Bernie Segal that she had no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970, before she even met with James Blackburn, but she doesn't care. Kathryn knows that the prodding of Eugene Stoeckley is the reason why his mother agreed to sign an affidavit, but she doesn't care. Kathryn knows that the limb hair matching her husband's DNA profile was found in Colette's left palm, not on her hand, but she doesn't care. Kathryn is not interested in the truth in any way, shape, or form.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

From the update letter:

QUOTE
"Within the frail condition known as humanity, a person's inner voice, which tells them what is right, resides. And by the grace of such humanity, the truth cannot be denied."


Priceless how they try to 'justify' Britt and Mrs. Stoeckley allegedly waiting for 25 years before 'coming forward'. "The frail condition of humanity" - that 's it! Now can't we all identify with that? Human weakness made poor innocent Jeff rot in prison for twenty-five years. And Jeff fully understands that of course. His heart goes out to Britt and Helena's mother.
But now finally, lo and behold, the people who have kept their mouth shut for so long, in a strange synchronization of their 'inner voices' rising to the surface, suddenly speak up. I'm touched to tears - where's my handkerchief?

The unctuous sermon should be rephrased:

"Within the well-known condition known as psychopathy, a person's inner voice which tells them what is right does not reside in them. And when looking at the forensic evidence marking JMD as the killer - indeed, the truth cannot be denied."

[pennnurse525]

Additionally interesting was the parenthesis use by Kathryn in the update letter. The (who threatened her) statements regarding Helena were priceless. She paints this picture of the poor Helena, threatened and guilt ridden, trying to exonerate her "poor husband" and being denied the priviledge of saving poor Jeffy's a**. Humpf! Reality is not a place where the 2nd Mrs. MacDonald lives or thrives, apparently.

So, for those of you at chat this week, what's the verdict on the visitors this week? Kathryn or inmate? I have to say that the verbage used by
guest1/rancher (they were the same person) is very similar to the scans of some of the documents on CM's website written in inmate's own hand to female "supporters". Sad that the truth and the scanned documents and volumes of information contained on CM's site is so very threatening to the Mac camp. These aren't manufactured documents, after all. They are actual scans and downloads of the multitude of evidence available through the freedom of info act. Perhaps a more appropriate sentiment for Kathryn to live by is "the truth shall set you free." Free of a mass murderer that is.

Penn

[Spamela]

Inmate could not be on chat, he does not have access to a computer. I missed chat, I could not get into the site, I had errors. What did the person(s) on chat have to say?

The other major writer for the Mac site is Char, so she would be familiar with what is on the site.

[JTF]

I will be out of town on 4/24, so Live Chat will be held on 4/25 from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

Inmate could not be on chat, he does not have access to a computer. I missed chat, I could not get into the site, I had errors. What did the person(s) on chat have to say?

The other major writer for the Mac site is Char, so she would be familiar with what is on the site.

among other things chicagomoll thought that suggesting we castrate inmate using scissors was immature on my part. What do you think spammy?

basically chicago seems to hold a grudge of immense proportions against Lucia B, that Lucia wanted to marry inmate, that Lucia is a turncoat for now writing that inmate is guilty, etc etc etc.

OH, and apparently chicago and joy felt that we weren't having a discussion, we were all just entertaining ourselves by agreeing with each other. I didn't realize that disagreement was a requirement of discussion. I thought discussion was I say something, you say something, someone responds, we respond again and so on and so on and so on. Also, it seems that someone was confused about the difference between fact and opinion.

[Spamela]

among other things chicagomoll thought that suggesting we castrate inmate using scissors was inmature on my part. What do you think spammy?

basically chicago seems to hold a grudge of immense proportions against Lucia B, that Lucia wanted to marry inmate, that Lucia is a turncoat for now writing that inmate is guilty, etc etc etc.

OH, and apparently chicago and joy felt that we weren't having a discussion, we were all just entertaining ourselves by agreeing with each other. I didn't realize that disagreement was a requirement of discussion. I thought discussion was I say something, you say something, someone responds, we respond again and so on and so on and so on. Also, it seems that someone was confused about the difference between fact and opinion.

Immature!?!?!? Now, if you suggested that you use scissors that had spent the last year in the New York harbor, and the surgery was performed by someone legally blind, with DTs, NOW THAT might be immature. But…no, the scissors was a fine idea. Geez, SOME people just get all bent over the silliest little things…..

Well, so what about LB? If she saw the light…..she saw the light….hallelujah, and praise the lord!!! Oh yeah, let us wave our arms up high and shout it from the steeple roof “INMATE IS GUILTY!” Oppss, got a little carried away there….I’m better now…

[byn63]

:beer:


I pointed out once again that the macalites really do hate it when we macguilties cloud the issues with FACTS!:cool:

[Spamela]

:beer:


I pointed out once again that the macalites really do hate it when we macguilties cloud the issues with FACTS!:cool:

Did the Macolite have any facts to support her stance? Guess the old DNA didn't work out the way the MacFans thought it would. Darn.

What was the Macolite's level of involvment with Mr. Sleeze Letters? Did she get some of his horn dog mail bombs? Or maybe she wished that she did? Yuck, yuck, yuck. I takes a special kind of man to do the deed in an envelope for his lady love. Just to think of such a thing requires a level of perversity that I have not found in other human beings of my acquaintance. Thank goodness.

Hope I can join the fun next week. :seeya:

[byn63]

seems I recall repeated comments about why "all the evidence" was not DNA tested. Once again, it was noted that most of the blood evidence was used up in the initial testing since back in 1970 it took more blood to get less data. I don't believe that the Courts felt destroying evidence such as the bloody sheet impressions to confirm that they were made in Colette's blood was very logical or practical. Too bad the smear of Type O from inmate's glasses no longer exists - since I'm sure the amount was barely enough to type let alone leave any for future testing. Still, would really knock the wind out of the macalites sails when the Type O from his glasses came back matching Kristen and thereby blowing the last shred of hope for any doubt right out of the water. Somehow we are all still supposed to believe that Greg Mitchell left that and only that evidence at the crime scene.

Seems strange that it is Tuesday and no live chat - I guess I can hold out until tomorrow - hope you can make it spammy!;)

[JTF]

I've returned from my vacation a day early, so there will be Live Chat this evening from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

I've returned from my vacation a day early, so there will be Live Chat this evening from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

happy happy joy joy - spammy hope you can make it along with the rest of us

[pennnurse525]

Printed out Brian's article after last nite's chat. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but question for all....On pg. 88, top paragraph, there is a statement regarding the use of the Geneva Forge knife. Murtagh states that the "evidence supports the inference that Colette used the knife to defend Kimberly from her father." So, my question is: Where was the knife that Colette grabbed it? Do we contend then that Colette happened upon the knife in the bedroom, sitting on a dresser or something and wielded it against Inmate? Or is there some school of thought that would suggest that the struggle was more protracted and she made her way to the kitchen and obtained it? I find it hard to believe that with two small girls there would be knives of any kind left laying on a dresser or in a bedroom for them to get a hold of? Any thoughts? Thanks Penn :read:

[pennnurse525]

Sorry folks, that is what happens when you read while tired. You won't find a page 88. The statement I referenced is on page 69 of 73 of the documentation, or page 21 of the magazine itself. What can I say? :-) Penn

[byn63]

Sorry folks, that is what happens when you read while tired. You won't find a page 88. The statement I referenced is on page 69 of 73 of the documentation, or page 21 of the magazine itself. What can I say? :-) Penn

no problem penn -

I believe the contention is that the bent Geneva Forge knife was in the utility room. The back entrance of 544 Castle Drive entered into the utility room, with the dryer and odds and ends then opened into the MBR. I believe the supposition is that knife was probably used for prying open cans of paint etc.

Hope that answers your questions!:patriot:

[byn63]

Anything that Helena ever said about any subject should be viewed with at least a modicum of skepticism. Helena had a psychiatric diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder - that is a serious mental condition. Add to that fact her prolonged substance abuse and her 1977 stroke and you have eliminated credibility imo.

Borderline Personality Disorder

characterized primarily by emotional dysregulation; extreme black and white thinking* or "splitting" and chaotic relationships. Serious mental illness with pervasive instability of mood, interpersonal relationships, self-image, identity and behavior, as well as a distrubance of "sense of self".

*strong belief that things are either one of 2 possibles; unable to see any "in betweens" no shades of gray.

there are 9 criteria from which at least 5 must be present for a long period of time to get a diagnosis of BPD.

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment (not incl suicide/self-mutilation)
2. pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.
3. identity disturbance: marked and persistent unstable self image or sense of self.
4. impulsive in at least 2 areas: promiscuous sex, eating disorders, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating. (not incl suicide/self mutilation)
5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, threats, self mutilation.
6. Affective instability due to marked reactivity of mood.
7. Chronic feelings of emptiness.
8. Inappropriate intense anger or difficulty controlling anger.
9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or sievere dissociative symptoms.

etiology-researchers commonly believe that BPD results from a combination that can involve a traumatic childhood, a vulnerable temperament, and stressful maturational events during adolescence or adulthood.

many but not all BPD patients report a history of abuse, neglect or separation as young children.

BPD patients are more likely to report having caretakers deny the validity of their thoughts and feelings.

BPD patients also report that parents were typically withdrawn emotionally from the child and treated the child inconsistently.

it seems to me that Helena's childhood as an Army Brat would certainly fit parts of these descriptors. imo, this description sounds like Helena completely.

:read:

[JTF]

My website now includes a section entitled Conversations with Callahan. It focuses on conversations that I've had with Janice Glisson, Lucia Bartoli, Dennis Rogers, Fred Bost, and Christina Masewicz. I hope to contact other major players in this case in the near future. Enjoy.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

no problem penn -

I believe the contention is that the bent Geneva Forge knife was in the utility room. The back entrance of 544 Castle Drive entered into the utility room, with the dryer and odds and ends then opened into the MBR. I believe the supposition is that knife was probably used for prying open cans of paint etc.

Hope that answers your questions!:patriot:


Yeah, that is what I figured. I guess I just never reallly thought about Colette getting very far outside of the master bedroom other than to go to Kimberly and Kristen's bedside. Its really an issue of changing the series of events in my mind to include her getting away from psycho killer and making her way into the util/laundry room to get the geneva forge knife. I never really pictured that happening. I guess I just pictured more of a contained altercation until Inmate became frenzied throughout the house. I understand and know that Colette moved into the other bedrooms to see the girls (which breaks my heart) and try to protect them from his savagery. But I always just pictured that she and inmate struggled and she either threw the brush at him or struck out at him, and then it was on. Never thought that the events were maybe a bit more protracted in that way. Thoughts anyone??

[pennnurse525]

The research indicates that both bipolar disordered individuals and anti social personality d/o individuals (old term was "sociopathic" aka JMD) suffer from a lack of attachment at the earliest of developmental stages to a significant caregiver. Additionally, usually something has happened to them at around the age of two which inhibits the formation of a concience. Normally, when one looks back on the lives of such individuals, their parents and others who cared for them will note some difference about them as children, whether it was that they were difficult to manage as babies, irritable, etc. and this made it difficult to bond with them, thus creating a lack of attachment to a significant caregiver. Many times, something occured in the lives of the caregivers themselves....a divorce, separation, death, trauma, etc. that impacted upon the ability of the caregivers to significantly bond with the child. This allows for an incomplete or inappropriate formation of personality. One can cite Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. and see these distinctions specifically; as well as the homicidal triad of bedwetting, playing with fire and cruelty to animals. Helena, in my opinion, would have been disturbed and psychiatric with or without drugs. She has a mother who is obviously not appropriate, as evidenced by both her previous behavior and her current affadavit......and a brother who has issues as well. Me thinks the Stoeckley home was not so nuturing and stable.

Scary how you can totally screw up your kids. All of these individuals would most likely have otherwise been "normal", whatever that is......

[JTF]

Lucia Bartoli has made me aware of the fact that she is uncomfortable with my presentation of our conversations, so I will be removing that text from my website. I will no longer express my thoughts regarding Lucia's role in this case on discussion boards or on my website.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

JTF:
Sorry to hear that and I hope you didn't take too much heat from Lucia. Her insights were nice to read.
Penn

[Spamela]

Borderline Personality Disorder

The attachment issue may be related to her being a twin. It is hard enough taking care of one newborn, much less two. Perhaps her brother was the favored twin. He was the first boy, in the family, right? Another factor, as the brother would have received the father's attention of the two of them, as the first boy. Helena might have been the spare child. Especially, if she was colicky and her brother was not.

I remember reading comments from her high school teacher who described Helena as a lost girl, who made up stories. It is no wonder she fell into the drug scene of the times.

There is a letter she wrote to Kathy Perry, that is on TJMIS, in which she refers to Kathy as being like one of her family. She does not mention her own family, so it appears that her friends were her only family, as her parents were through with her due to her drug use.

[byn63]

Helena, in my opinion, would have been disturbed and psychiatric with or without drugs. She has a mother who is obviously not appropriate, as evidenced by both her previous behavior and her current affadavit......and a brother who has issues as well. Me thinks the Stoeckley home was not so nuturing and stable.


So far, I have not found any definitive data to state that Helena was bi-polar (officially). However, it is distinctly possible that HS was bi-polar along with her psychiatric diagnosis as having Borderline Personality Disorder. I posted some basic info earlier here on this disorder. Seems to me there should be a picture of Helena next to the description - she jumps off the page. What do YOU think?
:confused:

[JTF]

Byn: In my opinion, Helena was a classic example of a dual diagnosis. Today, she would probably have an Axis I diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and a secondary diagnosis of Polysubstance Dependence. To my knowledge, Helena didn't exhibit manic symptoms such as pressured speech or non-drug induced psychotic symptoms. I don't think that she would have met criteria for Bi-Polar Affective Disorder.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

I agree. I do not think that she would have met the criteria for Bipolar D/O. I think she was most definately Borderline and Anti-Social as well. That would give her two Axis II diagnoses.....they often overlap in many diagnosed as same. Helena probably, as many psychiatric patients do, began to self medicate with drugs and alcohol to deal with her mental health concerns.

I would lend credence to the thought that perhaps she was the difficult or less favored twin. That would play into the lack of attachment and or reactive attachment issues.

Penn

[Spamela]

With the twin issue, Helena's father was in the military, so he probably wanted a son. Also, during the time when Helena was born, I think there was more importance placed on having a son, than there is today. She was the extra girl. Was Helena's twin named after his father? I thought I read somewhere that he was a junior?

There was a lot of family dysfunction going on when Helena was a child, and therapy was not something people even considered. The ability to diagnose and treat psychological illnesses was not very advanced (can we say electro shock therapy and frontal lobotamy?) In the military, during that time, there was a huge burden on the wife to have the perfect home and perfect children, so that the woman's husband would be considered for promotion. Women wearing white gloves and hats and meeting for bridge and coffee. Entertaining the commanding officer and his wife. Starched white table clothes and weird jello recipies.

[byn63]

Yes, I do believe Helena's twin was Clarence Jr.

I agree that times were very different in the late 1950's early 1960's, especially for military dependents. Although, I don't think the attachment problems of Helena were necessarily due to paternal fondness for the other twin. It is possible of course. Just the fact that military families, especially Field Grade Officer's, were a nomadic bunch. The pick up and move lifestyle could have contributed greatly to Helena's "real or imagined abandonment issues" without adding "extra girl" feelings by her parents. Four children in the family on the only one who had major issues was Helena - that just may have been a major part of her birth predispositions - natural rather than environmental.

Some of the reading I've done on the different personality disorders shows that there can definitely be overlap of some symptoms of different disorders. For BPD they say 5 of 9 criterion requires that diagnosis, but also expect disorders that coexist and meet specific criterion levels ALSO be diagnosed. Therefore, while Helena did not fit all of the manic-depressive symptoms and would not likely have received that diagnosis, she did exhibit some of the depressive symptoms. Actually, BPD seems to manifest some of the depressive symptoms of Bi-Polar Disorder - at least in my reading.

[ibceagle93]

:patriot: I have studied this case for some time now, I have read all the books, and I have come to this conclusion: The man is innocent based on the fact that he did not receive a FAIR trial. Let's start from the beginning. In this country, ANYONE is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Cami, you saying that Fatal Justice is trash is a biased opinion. It has been shown in court that Fatal Vision is a false representation of this case. The jury in this case did not hear all of the evidence, which it is entitled to hear according to the laws of this GREAT nation, so the conviction was slanted. One of the jurors came out afterwards and said that he thought that MacDonald was innocent all along, so was he forced to vote guilty? The defense did not have access to all of the evidence in this case which, to me, seems UNFAIR!
Am I saying he is 100% innocent? No. He may be guiilty. Based on the 1979 trial, though, he is innocent still until a FAIR trial can be obtained. One last question: Why did the ARMY throw out the case if they saw all of the same evidence?

[byn63]

:patriot: I have studied this case for some time now, I have read all the books, and I have come to this conclusion: The man is innocent based on the fact that he did not receive a FAIR trial.

Actually, inmate has been heard before the courts more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence history. Including several hearings before the US Supreme Court. No court has found any evidence that inmate did not receive a fair trial. Even the defense is not claiming he did not receive a fair trial.

Let's start from the beginning. In this country, ANYONE is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Cami, you saying that Fatal Justice is trash is a biased opinion.

Yes, every one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Inmate has been proven guilty in a fair trial. Inmate was tried in 1979 in Federal Court Judge Franklin T. Dupree Jr. presiding. The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence using 28 witnesses both lay and expert. This evidence represented only about 60% of the evidence available to the prosecution.

As for Fatal Justice, it is not a biased opinion of cami's that book should be called Fatal Fiction or Fatal Fantasy. There are several discussion forums with lengthy threads specifically on Fact Checking the book FJ and at last count the error rate is about 1 error every 1.5 pages. Of course, what would one expect from a book that the murderer himself edited!

It has been shown in court that Fatal Vision is a false representation of this case.

No it has not. The book Fatal Vision is a very good representation of the case. The court case between inmate and Joe M ended on a hung jury. Joe M and his publisher decided to settle in order to end the nonsense. However, in the end inmate ended up with less money than he'd have gotten if he left things alone.

The jury in this case did not hear all of the evidence, which it is entitled to hear according to the laws of this GREAT nation, so the conviction was slanted. One of the jurors came out afterwards and said that he thought that MacDonald was innocent all along, so was he forced to vote guilty? The defense did not have access to all of the evidence in this case which, to me, seems UNFAIR!

There is no rule that says ALL evidence has to presented at a trial. Which evidence should the jury have heard that it did not? I think you are incorrect about a juror claiming he/she felt inmate was innocent - and certainly none of the jurors have claimed to have been forced into voting guilty. If that were the case, old inmate and his followers would have been shouting about that from the mountain tops.

The defense was given access to the evidence. The fact that they chose to try and get evidence shipped from N. Carolina to California for review was a stupidity beyond any. NO COURT is going to allow evidence being shipped all around the country. The defense was given opportunity to review the evidence including lab space for their out of town "experts" to use. The DEFENSE did not take the time and effort to review everything that was available. That is a DEFENSE problem the prosecution has no responsibility to HELP the defense plan their case. Bernie Segal did not understand the amount of evidence that the prosecution had amassed, and did not understand the devastating effect his own experts were going to have. For example, Dr. Thorton agreed with Paul Stombaugh on SEVERAL key prosecution points.

Am I saying he is 100% innocent? No. He may be guiilty.

No, he is not innocent. He is definitely guilty. The recently released DNA report on items tested by AFIP put the final nail into inmate's coffin. For years, the defense has argued that E-5 the distal portion of a limb hair that was found clutched in Colette's left hand (along with a splinter from murder club) would come from the killer. The defense dubbed this hair the "mystery hair" but it is no mystery - it is 100% no doubt about it Jeffrey Robert MacDonald's limb hair.

Based on the 1979 trial, though, he is innocent still until a FAIR trial can be obtained.

Once again inmate received a fair trial and then some. He has been heard by the courts more than any murderer in history. Trial lasted 7 weeks with the prosecution using 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) to introduce over 1,100 pieces of evidence. The jury convicted in just under 7 hours.


One last question: Why did the ARMY throw out the case if they saw all of the same evidence?

The Army held an Article 32 hearing. MOST of the evidence had not yet been reviewed, examined, tested at the time of the Article 32. Col Rock was assigned as the Investigating Officer to preside, but it is important to note that he was not an attorney or judge - he was an Infantry Officer. He had no background in the law. The ARMY dismissed the charges for insufficient evidence.

[ibceagle93]

The judge in this case was in bed with the prosecution. It has also been shown in the DNA evidence that that hair was not clutched in Colette's hand, but in her open palm. There was an unknown hair in Kristen's hand that was in a clutched hand position, so that argument is out the window. How can you say it was a fair trial, when the prosecution was trying to prove a negative?

[ibceagle93]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. Yes, the prosecution presented 1100 pieces of evidence, but they also supressed every piece of evidence that was exculpatory. That's FAIR? I don't think so. As far as saying it is a biased opinion, it is because you can't use the 1979 trial to say he is guilty when the prosecution was basing a case on falsehoods, and false testimony, so the man was convicted taintedly.

[rashomon]

I agree. I do not think that she would have met the criteria for Bipolar D/O. I think she was most definately Borderline and Anti-Social as well. That would give her two Axis II diagnoses.....they often overlap in many diagnosed as same. Helena probably, as many psychiatric patients do, began to self medicate with drugs and alcohol to deal with her mental health concerns.

I would lend credence to the thought that perhaps she was the difficult or less favored twin. That would play into the lack of attachment and or reactive attachment issues.

Penn
When discharged from the Univ. of North Carolina Medical Center in Chapel Hill in May 1970, Helena's diagnosis was "narcotics addiction in a schizoid personality". Is the term 'schizoid' still used in diagnosis today?

(More on Helena's personality in FV, p. 233-236)

[rashomon]

It has also been shown in the DNA evidence that that hair was not clutched in Colette's hand, but in her open palm.
You believe everything in Fatal Justice, don't you? Just a little reminder: it says verbatim in FJ that the hair was 'clutched' in Colette's hand. So the info came from no one else than the Mac camp.

[JTF]

Eagle: The inmate's own website continues to use the word "clutched" to describe the limb hair found in Colette's left hand. It's important to remember that from 1975-2006, the MacDonald defense team argued that since a wood splinter from the club was also found in Colette's left hand, the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the club. In addition, the defense team banked on the hope that the source of the limb hair would be Greg Mitchell. The limb hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald, not Greg Mitchell, so the defense team was correct in asserting that the source of the limb hair was the individual who murdered Colette.

In terms of the hair fragment allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail, you're assertion that it was found in a "clutched hand position" is inaccurate. The documented record demonstrates that we'll never know the exact location of that hair fragment. Janice Glisson was the only lab technician to see that hair fragment and she looked at the fingernail scrapings from Kristen a full 6 months after several other lab technicians looked at those same scrapings. Glisson's own supervisor, Dillard Browning, did not find a hair fragment under Kristen's fingernail, but he did discover a fiber from inmate's pajama top lodged under her fingernail. It's important to note that the unidentified hair fragment did not match the DNA profiles of Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell. Bost and Potter claimed in FJ that the hair fragment had female characteristics, yet Stoeckley was eliminated via DNA, and Cathy Perry has been dismissed as a suspect by the MacDonald defense team for the past 3 years. Stoeckley and Perry are the only 2 female intruder suspects in this case.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

The judge in this case was in bed with the prosecution. It has also been shown in the DNA evidence that that hair was not clutched in Colette's hand, but in her open palm.

No, it hasn't been shown that the hair was in Colette's open hand, but still that is irrelevant. The term "clutched" was initiated on inmate's website and in the book Fatal Fantasy oops Justice. It was the defense who spent over 30 years stating that the hair which was found with a splinter from the murder club would come from the murderer.

The prosecution was not in bed with the Judge. I am assuming you are basing this statement on the non-issue of Jimmy Proctor a for ADA having at one time been married to Judge Dupree's daughter. However, that issue has been raised in the courts and was determined that there was no evidence of bias on the part of Judge Dupree. As a matter of fact, in several upper court decisions, praise for the meticulous and fair work of Dupree is mentioned.

There was an unknown hair in Kristen's hand that was in a clutched hand position, so that argument is out the window.

I think you are combining partial facts here to try and prove something. However, it doesn't help inmate at all. There are claims that an unsourced hair was found under Kristen's nail - but that is only from one source and not mentioned by any of the other scientists who reviewed the evidence FIRST.

Unsourced hairs are forensically insignificant. Especially if they are found on a young child who had spent the day in active play, visiting the family pony, playing with friends and visiting other's homes AND DID NOT HAVE A BATH THAT NIGHT. You probably have an unsourced hair or fiber on you right this minute. None of this diminishes the devastating impact of the E-5 Mystery Hair in fact proving to belong to inmate. Nor does it diminish the impact of the fact that none of the items tested matched the DNA of the defense's favorite two patsies Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell.

How can you say it was a fair trial, when the prosecution was trying to prove a negative?

I can say it was a fair trial because it was a fair trial. Inmate has had all his chances to appeal and there has been no evidence to show that he did not receive a fair trial.

[ibceagle93]

That information I obtained from the wikipedia entry on the DNA results. Also, this case was a circumstantial evidence case, so where was the motive for what he did? The prosecution never gave even attempted to say why he did it. McGinniss fill in this part for them with the drug theory. Therefore, given what we now know, the prosecutions case is flimsy at best. Let's look at what you need to convict a person of murder:

1.) You need a murder weapon. In this case you have that. You also need to show that the defendant owned the weapon. Questionable, at best in this case.

2.) You need the defendant's prints on the weapon, or some other proof that he, and only he had used it. You don't have this here.

3.) You need to place the defendant at the crime scene. Not too difficult in this case.

4.) You need physical evidence to reconstruct the crime, and physical evidence is almost always circumstantial, not to mention fragile, so you need the crime scene to be well catalgoued, well controlled and well preserved. In this case it was not.

5.) Most importantly you need a motive. Killers need a reason to kill, or a mental or psychological condition to predispose them to murderous tendencies. You DO NOT have this here.

[byn63]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. Yes, the prosecution presented 1100 pieces of evidence, but they also supressed every piece of evidence that was exculpatory. That's FAIR? I don't think so. As far as saying it is a biased opinion, it is because you can't use the 1979 trial to say he is guilty when the prosecution was basing a case on falsehoods, and false testimony, so the man was convicted taintedly.

Inmate filed an appeal claiming the suppression of evidence. It was denied. In one appeal USA vs JRM (decided MAr 1, 1985) quote:

'to obtain collateral relief based on trial errors [not objected to at trial nor argued on appeal], a convicted defendant must show both (1)'cause' excusing his double procedural default, and (2) 'actual prejudice' resulting from the errors of he complains end quote

In the same appeal part II Motion to Set Aside Judgement of Conviction (28 USC ss2255) the defense claimed the government suppressed exculpatory evidence which, had it been introduced at trial, would have caused the jury to acquit. The allegedly suppressed evidence:
(1) half-filled bloody syringe
(2) bloody clothes and boots belonging to either HS or Kathy Perry
(3) skin found under Colette's nail
(4) photos of letter "G" from HS Nashville apartment

Item 1: The court held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the syringe ever existed and to support the conclusion that if it HAD existed it would have provided exculpatory evidence to the benefit of inmate.

*on final day of evidentiary hearing parties stipulated that if called to testify Dr. Craig Chamberlain, CID Agent Shaw and Hagan Rossi would all testify that no such syringe (bloody or otherwise) was found during the processing of the crime scene.

Item 2: Govt concedes they received boots in 1971, they were tested and no evidence of blood found. NO CLOTHES were ever turned in to CID. Two of inmate's attorney's KNEW the boots had been turned in to CID, that they had been returned (properly) because they (1) did not meet inmate's description and (2) lab analysis yielded no evidence to connect them to the crime scene.

Item 3: - during laboratory analysis no piece of skin was found. in fact, no one ever said absolutely that the item seen by Ivory was actually a piece of skin. In fact, Janice Glisson has stated that it could have been a piece of latex.

Court Concluded: quote "the chances are extremely low that [the piece of skin] would have been exculpatory" end quote Id 104 S. Ct. 2534]/b]

inmate's contention that this item would completely clear him of the murders ignores the substantial DIRECT evidence introduced at trial and the skin might very well of been inmate's!

[b]Item 4: Analysts stated that neither the G from Helena's Nashville apartment nor the G on the headboard of the bed at 544 Castle Drive contained enough characterisitics to due a meaningful comparison.

final quote for this post:
The court has not found however, that the government suppressed any evidence of acted in bad faith in responding to the defense's requests for exculpatory material. Because there has been no suppression of evidence and the item's which 'inmate' claims were suppressed would, in all probability, have been of no exculpatory value to him, the motion to vacate sentence must be denied.end quote

[byn63]

That information I obtained from the wikipedia entry on the DNA results. Also, this case was a circumstantial evidence case, so where was the motive for what he did? The prosecution never gave even attempted to say why he did it. McGinniss fill in this part for them with the drug theory.

Fatal Vision had absolutely nothing with the fact that inmate was convicted. Therefore, Joe M's quite clearly stated "theories" while interesting to discuss are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the fact that mac got a fair trial.

The prosecution has no legal requirment to show evidence of motive. Yes, if they have evidence of motive they usually present it however it is not REQUIRED that they do so.

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 canno be reconciled with any other rational conclusions.

Therefore, given what we now know, the prosecutions case is flimsy at best.

Actually the prosecutors have an extremely strong case, even stronger now than in 1979.

Let's look at what you need to convict a person of murder:

1.) You need a murder weapon. In this case you have that. You also need to show that the defendant owned the weapon. Questionable, at best in this case.

The murder club was definitively matched to being previously a part of the same piece of wood making up a bed slat in Kimmie's room. The odds that the club came from some other household are incalcuable. The wood grains, and paint stains on both pieces showed they originally were one item. This is not questionable it is a certainty. Both Kimmie and Colette were definitely injured by the club and Kimmie's initial injury was so severe that she was in an unrecoverable coma by the time inmate picked her up and tucked her back into her own bed.

2.) You need the defendant's prints on the weapon, or some other proof that he, and only he had used it. You don't have this here.

3.) You need to place the defendant at the crime scene. Not too difficult in this case.

Usable latent prints are found at very few crime scenes. I read a report from the FBI once that put the percentage at somewhere around 5% or less.

4.) You need physical evidence to reconstruct the crime, and physical evidence is almost always circumstantial, not to mention fragile, so you need the crime scene to be well catalgoued, well controlled and well preserved. In this case it was not.

Was this crime scene perfectly preserved? No it was not. However, the evidence that was used to convict inmate was not compromised by this lack. No MP, investigator or ambulance driver put the blue pj fibers into Kimmie's bed, under Kristen's nail, or under Colette's bloody battered body. The fact that each member of the family had a different blood type allowed the investigators to read the story fairly easily.

The fact that none of inmate's blood, no pj fibers, and no splinters from the murder club were found in the living room is pretty strong evidence. Not to mention that inmate has consistently shown a consciousness of guilt as evidenced by the changes in his story that he's told to try and explain away the evidence that points at him and him alone.

5.) Most importantly you need a motive. Killers need a reason to kill, or a mental or psychological condition to predispose them to murderous tendencies. You DO NOT have this here.

There is no rule of law that requires the prosecution to prove or provide a motive. If they have it they introduce it, but not because they HAVE TO HAVE IT. Still, it doesn't really matter, inmate exploded in a rage over whatever, and he brutally and savagely butchered his pregnant wife and 5 year old daughter. THEN to attempt to save his sorry backside he cold bloodedly stabbed his two year old daughter through the heart. Nothing about that is worth lauding him.

[ibceagle93]

I am not lauding him, I am trying to look at this case with an unbiased eye. The Freedom of Information Act materials on this case bring out all of the lies that the prosecution used regarding the pajama fibers on the club, th hair and fiber entwined, the blood on the hallway floor, etc. In fact, there is not one prosecution claim that has not been called into question, or flatly refuted. Yet, you say the case is stronger now. I don't believe the prosecution proved him guilty, because the evidence they used in 1979 has been called into question, which lends itself to the reasonable doubt portion of criminal law. As far as the motive. In a murder case you need 4 things to convict: Motive, opportunity, physical evidence, and eyewitnesses. In this case, you have only opportunity. I don't see how you can prove him guilty of such horrendous crimes without a motive, which he didn't have. Saying he flew into a rage is speculation, because no prior history was there.

[ibceagle93]

Here is something else to consider. the prosecutions central argument was tha there was NO ONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE EXCEPT THE MACDONALDS. So why was there evidence of intruders with the candle wax that did not belong to any candles in the house, the hair under Kristen's nail that was in a defensive position, etc. This to me says there was someone else there. Also, in response to the claim that the hair in Kristen's clutched hand could have been from something else she was doing that day, you could use the same argument for Colette's hand, do you not see the ridiculousness of this. The child was in bed before this crime took place, she undoubtedly washed her hands sometime before either eating or going to bed, so your argument is specious. The evidence of this hair goes to my argument before that not all of the evidence was presented at trial. This certainly is something the jury should have known. You can't have it both ways, if you present the Colettee hair, you need to present the Kristen hair as well

[JTF]

Eagle: The appellate courts have deemed the evidence of MacDonald's innocence as specious. Your statement that "there is not one prosecution claim that has not been called into question," is false. In point of fact, there were/are many evidentiary items that the MacDonald camp flat-out ignores. The MacDonald camp has no explanations for the following items.

1) Twenty eight pajama fibers found on the top sheet of the master bed.

2) Fourteen pajama fibers found under Kimmie's bedcovers.

3) Two pajama fibers found under Kristen's bedcovers.

4) Pajama fiber found under Kristen's fingernail.

5) Colette's blood was found in 6 locations on MacDonald's pajama top pocket. Five of the six stains were soaking stains indicating that Colette's blood got on the pajama top pocket before it was torn from the jacket.

6) Colette's blood was found in 4 locations on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn. The blood stains were found on the left front seam, left shoulder, left sleeve, and torn left cuff.

7) Defense expert John Thornton agreed with Paul Stombaugh's conclusion that 3 bloody pajama cuff impressions were found on the rumpled blue bedsheet. Two cuff impressions were from MacDonald's right pajama cuff and the third impression was from Colette's left pajama cuff.

8) No pajama fibers were found in the living room area at 544 Castle Drive.

9) Kimmie's blood was found on MacDonald's pajama top.

10) Kimmie's blood was found on the blue bedsheet.

11) Colette's blood was found in massive quantities on the blue bedsheet.

12) Colette's blood was found in massive quantities on the multi-colored bedspread.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. In terms of the defense team's evidentiary arguments, I present a point by point rebuttal of their arguments on my website. Check out the Defense Claims topic on my website.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

I am not lauding him, I am trying to look at this case with an unbiased eye. The Freedom of Information Act materials on this case bring out all of the lies that the prosecution used regarding the pajama fibers on the club, th hair and fiber entwined, the blood on the hallway floor, etc. In fact, there is not one prosecution claim that has not been called into question, or flatly refuted.

No, the FOIA documentation has actually pointed out the cut and paste, misrepresentational, outright lies strategy of the DEFENSE. The pj fibers found on the club, were placed in a vial, photos of which can be seen attached to court submissions. The hair and fiber entwined were not disproven in any shape, manner or form, the blood on the hallway floor was reported. One problem with the DEFENSE argument related to that blood spot was the fact that INMATE claimed to have passed out and laid on the floor, but there was clothing where he claimed to lay, and his blood was not found on that clothing. Also, the blood spot was an either/or not a for sure one type or another.

There have been NONE of the prosecutions claims successfully refuted. Of course, if you insist on usisng Fatal Justice as your source or inmate's website, you are going to continue to discuss inaccuracies, misrepresentations and outright lies, because both of those sources are replete with them. Oh, and Karisable and Crime Library are basically regurgitations of those two sources, so they are virtually useless as well. If you want to read ACCURATE data, then I suggest you go to http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com or http://macdonaldcasefacts.net
where you will find the TRUTH behind the half-truths and misrepresentations.

Yet, you say the case is stronger now. I don't believe the prosecution proved him guilty, because the evidence they used in 1979 has been called into question, which lends itself to the reasonable doubt portion of criminal law.

I don't see how you can "NOT" believe the prosecution proved him guilty. The jury deliberated for just under 7 hours and convicted him on 2 counts second and 1 count first degree murder. he was sentenced to 3 CONSECUTIVE life sentences. he resides at FCI Cumberland and is inmate 00131-177. That is all FACT. The JURY did not find reasonable doubt. NO appeals court has found reasonable doubt. Every one of his appeals have been dismissed/denied - without merit. He IS convicted. I gave you earlier the legal definition of circumstantial evidence - the prosecution did their job. Yes, the case is stronger now, because the DNA evidence did not exist in 1979, now that it does, it proves that none of the "alleged" intruders were inside 544 Castle Drive. Judge Fox was pretty clear when he authorized the DNA testing and told inmate that only finding the DNA of a known suspect would be of any value to him. that did not happen. the case is STRONGER now.

As far as the motive. In a murder case you need 4 things to convict: Motive, opportunity, physical evidence, and eyewitnesses. In this case, you have only opportunity. I don't see how you can prove him guilty of such horrendous crimes without a motive, which he didn't have. Saying he flew into a rage is speculation, because no prior history was there.

Once again, I will repeat this fact: THE PROSECUTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE OR PROVE MOTIVE. He had a motive, he went into a blind rage and smashed his 5 year old daughter's head in so badly that her BRAIN SERUM was splattered on the door jam, and her facial midline was dislocated. Kimmie's cheekbone was shoved out the skin of her little face. Inmate DID and DOES have a history of anger/rage issues. First and foremost the time he hit Colette in the face when they were dating. Secondly, his own admission that he'd never be able to recall "every little fistfight" (Grand Jury testimony) and there are others including reports of his teammates having to physically pull him off another player during a football game in CA where inmate continued to pummel the other man even after he was down.

Eyewitness testimony is a lot less valuable than the physical evidence ie: the pj top, the blood trail, the weapons, the negative evidence etc. Not to mention his consciousness of guilt. It has been 37 years since Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, and the unborn son were butchered at the hands of Inmate. You need to look at the information available from sources other than those of inmate. Go to the two links I provided, spend time reading everything there - you will see that inmate etal have been playing with smoke and mirrors........

[byn63]

Here is something else to consider. the prosecutions central argument was tha there was NO ONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE EXCEPT THE MACDONALDS. So why was there evidence of intruders with the candle wax that did not belong to any candles in the house, the hair under Kristen's nail that was in a defensive position, etc.

The 3 candle drippings that were found inside 544 Castle Drive did not match in chemical composition. The dripping found on the underside of the coffee table was dry, brittle and filled with household debris. The drippings in Kimmie's room were found to be similar to birthday cake candles. The fact that none of the drippings matched candles in the house is irrelevant. I don't know of anyone who keeps candle stubs once they can no longer be burned. Oh, and the 3rd dripping matched some wax found on a chianti bottle in the house.

Janice Glisson is the only investigator to have claimed the hair frag was found under Kristen's nail and she didn't look at that until 6 months after the murders. However, this still doesn't prove anything - Kristen was an active two yearold who had been outside and at neighbors home etc that day and who WAS NOT GIVEN A BATH that night so that hair is forensically insiginificant. If it had matched Helena or any of her "alleged" cohorts it would be different but it is UNSOURCED and therefore useless.

This to me says there was someone else there. Also, in response to the claim that the hair in Kristen's clutched hand could have been from something else she was doing that day, you could use the same argument for Colette's hand, do you not see the ridiculousness of this.

No, you cannot use the same argument. First, the claim is that the hair from "Kristen's" hand was from the fingernail scrappings. Second, the hair found in Colette's hand was bloody, as was the bloody splinter from the murder club, as was the hand itself. Two very different scenarios. Add to that, Colette went to class that day, and she was not the type to have gone out with things stuck to her palms.

Do you have any idea how many unsourced hairs and fibers are on your body or in your home at any given time? Transfer Theory of Locard sound at all familiar? We shed and transport hairs and fibers as we move through out our day - doesn't mean we've had drug crazed hippies in our home though.....

The child was in bed before this crime took place, she undoubtedly washed her hands sometime before either eating or going to bed, so your argument is specious.

You obviously don't have a lot of experince with an active 2 year old. Unless you give them a bath and use a nail brush, you are NOT going to get everything out from under their fingernails with a simple hand washing before dinner. What time she went to bed is irrelevant btw.

The evidence of this hair goes to my argument before that not all of the evidence was presented at trial. This certainly is something the jury should have known. You can't have it both ways, if you present the Colettee hair, you need to present the Kristen hair as well

The hair found in Colette's hand was the distal portion or tip of a limb hair. Only pubic and head hair have enough characterisitics to be microscopically comparable. The defense is the one who made the big deal out of E-5 and it came back to bite them in the end. What was important about the items from under Kristen's fingernail was the piece of blue yarn from her father's pj top that was found EMBEDDED under her nail and so fully saturated with blood that Dillard Browning at first thought it was a blood clot. Inmate said he didn't have the pj top on when he went to check his children - so how did 14 threads/yarns get in Kimmie's bedding? How did 2 get in Kristen's room (including the one embedded under her fingernail).

[Spamela]

ibceagle93, So how do you explain that Inmate's bloody pj cuff impression was on the sheet from the master bedroom, along with impressions of Colette's pj cuffs?

Rage is always a motive. Inmate had a physical temper, he was pulled off his brother when they were teenagers, to keep Inmate from injuring his brother, and Inmate admitted that he got into "pushing matches" in bars.

The formula for Motive is:
Rage + no sleep + stress = domestic murder

That is the basic formula for domestic murder. You can modify the formula with, drugs, alcohol, jealousy, unwanted pregnancy, lack of money, inheritance, etc, but the end result is the same.

Inmate is just your common domestic murderer. There is nothing special about him. He is a control freak, with a nasty temper who butchered his sleeping youngest daughter to free himself completely from the binds of a family.

Find yourself a cause worth fighting for, Inmate is a tripple murderer who will die in prision, which is where he belongs. Too bad the death penalty did not apply to this case.

[AshleyMari]

I am not lauding him, I am trying to look at this case with an unbiased eye. The Freedom of Information Act materials on this case bring out all of the lies that the prosecution used regarding the pajama fibers on the club, th hair and fiber entwined, the blood on the hallway floor, etc. In fact, there is not one prosecution claim that has not been called into question, or flatly refuted. Yet, you say the case is stronger now. I don't believe the prosecution proved him guilty, because the evidence they used in 1979 has been called into question, which lends itself to the reasonable doubt portion of criminal law. As far as the motive. In a murder case you need 4 things to convict: Motive, opportunity, physical evidence, and eyewitnesses. In this case, you have only opportunity. I don't see how you can prove him guilty of such horrendous crimes without a motive, which he didn't have. Saying he flew into a rage is speculation, because no prior history was there.

Little Kimmie's face and brain was so bashed in that no amount of doctoring would ever make her the same again. With one swing of the club. I would call that rage. I would also call it out of control. Knowing Colette would tell officials that MacD hit Kimmie he had to do away with Colette too for his own self preservation. Yes, he flew into a rage. No question in my mind about that. This murder was also personal, up close, and eventually calculating. He is a deepsixerx3. He is a bludgeoner. He is explosive. What difference does motive make when a a maniac is out of control, bashing his family with a full body swing?

[byn63]

Little Kimmie's face and brain was so bashed in that no amount of doctoring would ever make her the same again. With one swing of the club. I would call that rage. I would also call it out of control. Knowing Colette would tell officials that MacD hit Kimmie he had to do away with Colette too for his own self preservation. Yes, he flew into a rage. No question in my mind about that. This murder was also personal, up close, and eventually calculating. He is a deepsixerx3. He is a bludgeoner. He is explosive. What difference does motive make when a a maniac is out of control, bashing his family with a full body swing?

AshleyM - you are right the attacks were personal. I watched a show on CourtTV - Profiler Dayle Hinman Body of Evidence recently that brings that fact home in a poignant manner. She stated that when a victims face is brutalized the perp is going to be someone who knew them, and knew them fairly well. Both Colette and Kimmie were savaged around the head and face. Rage and Personal = Jeff did it.

Besides the fact that no hippies would have moved the bodies around. Plus the evidence does not support inmate's story.

[JTF]

In addition, any profiler worth a salt will tell you that when 2 small children are brutally murdered and then tucked into their beds with their favorite blankets, the perp will almost always be a parent.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

AshleyM - you are right the attacks were personal. I watched a show on CourtTV - Profiler Dayle Hinman Body of Evidence recently that brings that fact home in a poignant manner. She stated that when a victims face is brutalized the perp is going to be someone who knew them, and knew them fairly well. Both Colette and Kimmie were savaged around the head and face. Rage and Personal = Jeff did it.

Besides the fact that no hippies would have moved the bodies around. Plus the evidence does not support inmate's story.
We can watch Body of Evidence here in Germany too. Dayle Hinman is great. One can learn immensely from the cases presented. I hardly ever miss a show. Even my DH gets riveted occasionally, which is saying something, for he often shakes his head at me being such a true crime buff. :)
In addition, any profiler worth a salt will tell you that when 2 small children are brutally murdered and then tucked into their beds with their favorite blankets, the perp will almost always be a parent.

JTF.
Everything, simply everything in this murder case points in one direction only: the husband and father was the killer. This was clear right from the start, and it will never cease to amaze me how he could get away with it for so long, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

[rashomon]

Hi Ashley Mari,

I received your PM, but for some reason I can't PM you back (I always get an 'error' message). That would be great if you could copy the tapes for me. I hope PMing you again will work out in the next few days so I can give you my address.

[Sprocket]

Hi Ashley Mari,

I received your PM, but for some reason I can't PM you back (I always get an 'error' message). That would be great if you could copy the tapes for me. I hope PMing you again will work out in the next few days so I can give you my address.

Hi Rash, Your pm box, or her's could be full. Then again, there could be a problem with the software. ???

:offtopic: I'm covering Spector! I got in yesterday.

[AshleyMari]

The judge in this case was in bed with the prosecution. It has also been shown in the DNA evidence that that hair was not clutched in Colette's hand, but in her open palm. There was an unknown hair in Kristen's hand that was in a clutched hand position, so that argument is out the window. How can you say it was a fair trial, when the prosecution was trying to prove a negative?

eagle, I commend you on reading "all the books". So please go a bit further and delve in to the trial transcript. Get your hands dirty. There you will find that Judge Dupree was very fair with Segal et al. Some have said Dupree was rude to the defense attorneys during the trial. I don't know because it doesn't pop out with the written word. The way I read the transcript, and there is quite a lot of reading, Dupree is quite tolerant toward Segal and the others. The only aggravation I detected from Dupree was toward Murtagh for not hurrying fast enough and even that was minor. I honestly think if you read the trial transcript, all of it, you will see a different judge than the one you are describing.

Even to your comment that the judge was in bed with the prosecution is false. If you think otherwise, please give us more evidence of such. ashley

[Spamela]

In addition, any profiler worth a salt will tell you that when 2 small children are brutally murdered and then tucked into their beds with their favorite blankets, the perp will almost always be a parent.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Tucking murdered children into bed is not indicative of out of control drugged hippies. Over on C&J (on which I no longer post due to the kindergarden level mentality of most of the moderators, and due to the annoying people who post who will not address logical issues, or who will always have to have the last word), I addressed this issue.

I asked a poster who claimed to be a CSI (what a joke he is), to provide us with a list of cases in which murdered children were tucked into their beds (and/or who were murdered elsewhere and then returned to their beds), and the perp WAS NOT the parent, or known to the child. The fake CSI person never responded.

How often has such a think occured? Probably not very often, or, more likely, never.

[rashomon]

[QUOTE=ibceagle93;8846989]:patriot: I have studied this case for some time now, I have read all the books, and I have come to this conclusion: The man is innocent based on the fact that he did not receive a FAIR trial. QUOTE]

Looks like eagle flew the coop when confronted with too much fact. He got his information from Inmate's site, in which case the "ibc" part of his name, must mean "I've been conned".
ROFL, Spammy! ibc = I've been conned - hilarious!! :D

[ibceagle93]

This is my last post because spammy has chosen to violate the rules of the forum and personally attack me with the name calling. The bottom line is this: There will always be two camps on this, and neither one will convince the other one that they are correct. I was trying to look at this case with an open eye, but I can see others do not. I wish you all the best in your lives. By the way the ibc stands for Illinois Benedictine College whe I went to school.

[Spamela]

This is my last post because spammy has chosen to violate the rules of the forum and personally attack me with the name calling. The bottom line is this: There will always be two camps on this, and neither one will convince the other one that they are correct. I was trying to look at this case with an open eye, but I can see others do not. I wish you all the best in your lives. By the way the ibc stands for Illinois Benedictine College whe I went to school.

No, you are leaving the forum because your opinions were countered by facts from people who know this case better than you do, and better than the defense lawyers. You repeated the standard lines of Inmate's whine. You can read the court documents and reference them to support your opinion, but you would not even know where to start, because you are not interested in the truth.

You did not address one post that countered your opinions. You are NOT looking at this case with open eyes, if you were, then you would have found the information in the posts that countered your views to be interesting and worthy of research and discussion. But, no, you are flouncing off in a huff, and taking your dollies else where, alledgedly, because of my joke on your name. The term "I've been conned" is not name calling, it is descriptive and humorous. But, if you want to use my words as a way to avoid having to defend your opinions, well, be my guest.

What was your point in posting on this site? Don't you think that we have not heard the same old lines from the MacSpin doctors? You have not stated one original thought.

The two camps on this case are Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy. You have chosen your camp and I hope you have a nice time. If you ever want to come out of the woods and learn some facts, the source documents are on the Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site.

[Wudge]

Byn: In my opinion, Helena was a classic example of a dual diagnosis. Today, she would probably have an Axis I diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and a secondary diagnosis of Polysubstance Dependence. To my knowledge, Helena didn't exhibit manic symptoms such as pressured speech or non-drug induced psychotic symptoms. I don't think that she would have met criteria for Bi-Polar Affective Disorder.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/


(oh man ... snicker fit here)

[Spamela]

(oh man ... snicker fit here)

Another defining post by The Wudgie. Thank you so much for sharing your "snicker fit" on these pages. It is so meaningful for all involved.

[pennnurse525]

Hello Kitty....
Went to the following link on CM's site. http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/pruett_kearns_interview.html I remember that during chat a few weeks ago, there was a question about the MacD's cat. It is asked of Inmate about the cat's whereabouts,eating patterns, and general m.o. . He answers those questions in the Article 32 hearing. Answer: Basically tossed the cat to the pound. Claims he doesn't remember much about poor Kitty.

Valentine's Card...
So, if I read this correctly, Inmate got a Valentine's Card covered in kiss marks from Jo Kingston, Col. Kingston's wife and an enclosed article entitled, "A Problem Making Connections". Interesting. Inmate claims he never read the article, although admits he received it. Personally, I hadn't seen this info before. Any thoughts? I am searching for a copy of the article as we speak.

Chocolate Milk......

So, I had some time tonite to surf around. Went to inmate's site, to see what misinformation I could get a laugh out of. Question....on the page where his attorney's site "supressed" evidence, there is the mention of an unsourced print on a glass of chocolate milk found in LR. They say it was never ID'd. Anyone know any info about this or if info exists, maybe on CM's site?


Finally, just wanted to point something out that others may not have found or looked at. I know that I haven't seen 1/4 of all the documentation on CM's site, although I have spent countless hours there reading. There is a section at the head of the main web page that says, The Jeffrey MacDonald Case. If you click on that and then go to Resources, there is an area where a (?) psychologist or linguist dissects the verbage used by Inmate in his statements. Truly fascinating reading if you haven't seen it.

Just some late night thoughts on this Tuesday, well now Wednesday.
Thanks!! Penn

[byn63]

(oh man ... snicker fit here)

What's the matter pudgiewudgie? Do you have a problem discussing FACTS? The fact is that Helena's diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder is supported by her hospitalization record. The fact is that Helena had a substance abuse problem. The fact is that Justthefacts is probably dead-on with what the diagnosis would be using todays texts.

What is the point of posting nonsense like snickers? It does not further the discussion in the least. You are acting like a hit and run poster and not as someone who cares about justice for Colette, Kimmie and Kristen. Remember those names???? The VICTIMS in this case? The latest affidavit by Helena's mother is contradicted by (1) evidence and (2) previous statements and in all likelihood this affidavit will not be admissible due to Federal Rules of Evidence 804 ( b ) (3) which discusses hearsay and the trustworthiness of statements. The fact that Mrs. S's recent statement can be impeached by other statments as well as evidence on the record makes it pretty useless to the defense.

[byn63]

Hello Kitty....
Chocolate Milk......

So, I had some time tonite to surf around. Went to inmate's site, to see what misinformation I could get a laugh out of. Question....on the page where his attorney's site "supressed" evidence, there is the mention of an unsourced print on a glass of chocolate milk found in LR. They say it was never ID'd. Anyone know any info about this or if info exists, maybe on CM's site?



Penn - the odds are that the fingerprint on the chocolate milk glass was Kimmie's. Noone took print exemplars from Kimmie and Kristen, and once it was thought of they'd already been embalmed. The print person tried to get prints from Colette first, the quality was very poor. Also mentioned is how upsetting it was for the print guy to see the dead little girls, so no additional effort was made to gain prints from the bodies.

I don't remember which document, but it is on CMs site.:seeya:

[rashomon]

The two camps on this case are Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy.

The two camps on this case are Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy. You have chosen your camp and I hope you have a nice time. If you ever want to come out of the woods and learn some facts, the source documents are on the Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site.

LOL, Spamela - 'Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy' - that's great! You do have a way with words. If you aren't a journalist or writer already, you have missed your calling. :seeya:

[rashomon]

[editing post # 3602 (I forgot to put all of Spamela's post in quotes):

The two camps on this case are Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy. You have chosen your camp and I hope you have a nice time. If you ever want to come out of the woods and learn some facts, the source documents are on the Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site.

LOL, Spamela - 'Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy' - that's great! You do have a way with words. If you aren't a journalist or writer already, you have missed your calling. :seeya:

[rashomon]

Valentine's Card...
So, if I read this correctly, Inmate got a Valentine's Card covered in kiss marks from Jo Kingston, Col. Kingston's wife and an enclosed article entitled, "A Problem Making Connections". Interesting. Inmate claims he never read the article, although admits he received it. Personally, I hadn't seen this info before. Any thoughts? I am searching for a copy of the article as we speak.
Excerpts of the article can be read in FV (1989 paperback, p. 257).
In sending MacDonald (with whom Jo Kingston quite obviously had an affair) this article, imo she wanted to to convey how she herself felt in her own marriage.

Finally, just wanted to point something out that others may not have found or looked at. I know that I haven't seen 1/4 of all the documentation on CM's site, although I have spent countless hours there reading. There is a section at the head of the main web page that says, The Jeffrey MacDonald Case. If you click on that and then go to Resources, there is an area where a (?) psychologist or linguist dissects the verbage used by Inmate in his statements. Truly fascinating reading if you haven't seen it.


Here is the link to Mark McClish's Statement Analysis site, a must-read for every true crime researcher, for it covers many infamous cases:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/

Pennnurse: do you know that it was actually a poster on the Crime & Justice forum ("Tippergirl") who contacted Mark McClish, who then at her request agreed to do an analysis of MacDonald's April 6th interview? This just shows once more that true crime forum posters have quite a bit of influence in public case discussion.

[Wudge]

Excerpts of the article can be read in FV (1989 paperback, p. 257).
In sending MacDonald (with whom Jo Kingston quite obviously had an affair) this article, imo she wanted to to convey how she herself felt in her own marriage.


Here is the link to Mark McClish's Statement Analysis site, a must-read for every true crime researcher, for it covers many infamous cases:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/

Pennnurse: do you know that it was actually a poster on the Crime & Justice forum ("Tippergirl") who contacted Mark McClish, who then at her request agreed to do an analysis of MacDonald's April 6th interview? This just shows once more that true crime forum posters have quite a bit of influence in public case discussion.


It's not even junk science (and I use "science" extremely loosely).

[pennnurse525]

Wudge:
I am wondering what you are referring to here.
Linguistics and forensic linguistics is a recognized discipline that has offered expert witness testimony at numerous trials. Most recently, the trial of Melanie McGuire in New Jersey.
Just looking for clarification.
Thanks,
Penn

[JTF]

Wudge: Junk science? You mean, like the Gurney Theory?

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Wait, in a more grandiose psychotic sense....
Hippies killed my family!
How about that Junk Science....
But Factually Innocent nonetheless.

I get it now.
Penn

[Spamela]

Wudge:
I am wondering what you are referring to here.
Linguistics and forensic linguistics is a recognized discipline that has offered expert witness testimony at numerous trials. Most recently, the trial of Melanie McGuire in New Jersey.
Just looking for clarification.
Thanks,
Penn

The Wudgie usually does not deign to respond to direct questions, because he perceives himself as superior to the rest of the world. Now, as it would happen, the rest of the world does not care what the The Wudgie thinks about the rest of the world, or anything else, for that matter. However, The Wudgie continues to share his disdain on this forum. Why? Because he has no one else with whom to play.

Just call us the lucky ones.

[Wudge]

Wudge:
I am wondering what you are referring to here.
Linguistics and forensic linguistics is a recognized discipline that has offered expert witness testimony at numerous trials. Most recently, the trial of Melanie McGuire in New Jersey.
Just looking for clarification.
Thanks,
Penn

Statement Analysis

(salute)

[pennnurse525]

Hello all. Happy Friday! Just had some time for more reading. Now, I was always fully aware that there were needles found in the hallway linen closet across from the bathroom on the morning of the murders in the apartment. However, when reading the Article 32 testimony of Wm Ivory, it struck me as odd.

I certainly do understand that we medical types have supplies at home that others may not have. Bandages, clamps, betadine, and so forth....but hypodermic needles...WTF? Is this related to the methamphetamine use or ?

Also, some other late nite/early am thoughts.....grass on and behind the headboard near the word PIG. This does lend credence to the idea that Inmate wore the robe at some point that night....Also reviewed the testimony of Mr. Ivory alongside photos he was describing (two separate windows on the desktop---hey, I'm high tech) and it truly does appear as if Inmate was in a frantic mode in the kitchen that night/morning. Blood smears everywhere; cabinets, cabinet doors, etc. Just had this image of frantic searching, looking for gloves most likely....

Blood smears...Noted that there was described in the testimony smears of Colette's blood on Kristen's bed, up near her head on Kristen's Right side. They are described as looking like someone had rubbed their hand in it and gone back and forth. Smear made when Inmate moving Colette from bed after she was incapacitated to bedsheet on floor?

Just some topics for discussion I guess.

TIA
Penn

[Spamela]

I certainly do understand that we medical types have supplies at home that others may not have. Bandages, clamps, betadine, and so forth....but hypodermic needles...WTF? Is this related to the methamphetamine use or ?

Penn

Inmate took army medical supplies that were supposed to have been destoryed (so he is a thief as well as a liar). That stash is were he got his diet pills and other pills he gave to his inlaws and family. That is one of the comments on those durg crazed hippies, they didn't even take the drugs and stuff easily found in the hallway closet. They looked in the kitchen cabinets, but didn't check the closet for his drug supply.

Another stupid mistake by Inmate's imaginary killers.

[Wudge]

O/T but very relevant. A murderer frames two men to avoid the death penalty.

"There was only the word of Troy Busta, a proven liar who pleaded guilty to Nardi's slaying to save himself from a death sentence. He testified in Resh's trial earlier this month."


No way out -- the insider's guide to prosecutorial misconduct.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/Gondor-Resh.htm

4/18/07 ... Re-trial finds Randy Resh not guilty.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17...printstory.jsp

4/28/07 ... Bob Condor now free too.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...450.xml&coll=2

[AshleyMari]

O/T but very relevant. A murderer frames two men to avoid the death penalty.

"There was only the word of Troy Busta, a proven liar who pleaded guilty to Nardi's slaying to save himself from a death sentence. He testified in Resh's trial earlier this month."


No way out -- the insider's guide to prosecutorial misconduct.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/Gondor-Resh.htm

4/18/07 ... Re-trial finds Randy Resh not guilty.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17...printstory.jsp

4/28/07 ... Bob Condor now free too.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...450.xml&coll=2

Are you saying there might be prosecutorial misconduct in the MacD case? Or that MacD was wrongly convicted? That's a streeeetch. Of course MacD wants us all to believe it. I think when Judge Fox speaks MacD will have gained exactly nothing from the big wind he has created. jmo

[Wudge]

Are you saying there might be prosecutorial misconduct in the MacD case? Or that MacD was wrongly convicted? That's a streeeetch. Of course MacD wants us all to believe it. I think when Judge Fox speaks MacD will have gained exactly nothing from the big wind he has created. jmo

"Britt" is all about prosecutorial misconduct. But we have to wait and see what develops as "Britt" unfolds. Still, if a Court should ever accept a habeas writ, at that point there would be no settled issues. And given that not all facts have been decided on merit, this case would become ultra suspenseful, yet again.

[pennnurse525]

Wudge:
Case has not been decided based on the facts? Is that what you are saying?

Spammy:
I'm with you. However, I always knew that Inmate was a thief....he stole the lives of Colette and Three Children. That, IMO, is the ultimate theft. I was just wondering what the need was, in a home with two children, to have hypodermic needles. Maybe to cure the STD's he was inclined to catch with all of his philandering. Good ole fashion Penicillin injections to cure the clap. :-)

There was some testimony about Colette's diaries, does anyone know if they were introduced at trial?
TIA
Penn

[Wudge]

Wudge:
Case has not been decided based on the facts?

SNIP




The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication.

[Spamela]

O/T but very relevant. A murderer frames two men to avoid the death penalty.

"There was only the word of Troy Busta, a proven liar who pleaded guilty to Nardi's slaying to save himself from a death sentence. He testified in Resh's trial earlier this month."


No way out -- the insider's guide to prosecutorial misconduct.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/Gondor-Resh.htm

4/18/07 ... Re-trial finds Randy Resh not guilty.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17...printstory.jsp

4/28/07 ... Bob Condor now free too.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...450.xml&coll=2


Wudgie, this is soooo relevant. Inmate tried to frame Helena once he realized she might be his ticket out. First he could not identify her, and now, years later, he tells the world that she is the one who was in his apartment all those years ago.

[Spamela]

The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication.


Yeah, we know how relevant finding mixed synthetic hairs in a hair brush is. Since the three hairs were from two different sources, only one of the sources could have been from Helena's supposed wig, and the other source would have come from the dolls in the house. Wow! SO many murderers brush their hair during a murder. And, of course, little girl never brush their doll's hair.

Get real, Wudgie, compared to the pj cuff imprints on the MB sheet, the synthetic hair and mixed wool fibers mean nothing. Colette was wrapped in a bed spread and was on three carpets, two with long fibers. The rugs were filled with mixed fibers. Also, all the clothing was given away, there was no way to source the wool fibers to the house.

Inmate addressed these issues in his appeals. The court determined that the jurors who convicted him, the jurors who realized the importance of the bedding evidence, the fiber evidence, and the holes in Inmate's PJ top, could not have been swayed by this superfluous evidence.

The key word is SUPERFLUOUS.

[Wudge]

Wudgie, this is soooo relevant.

SNIP



...We agree.

[Wudge]

Yeah, we know how relevant finding mixed synthetic hairs in a hair brush is. Since the three hairs were from two different sources, only one of the sources could have been from Helena's supposed wig, and the other source would have come from the dolls in the house. Wow! SO many murderers brush their hair during a murder. And, of course, little girl never brush their doll's hair.

Get real, Wudgie, compared to the pj cuff imprints on the MB sheet, the synthetic hair and mixed wool fibers mean nothing. Colette was wrapped in a bed spread and was on three carpets, two with long fibers. The rugs were filled with mixed fibers. Also, all the clothing was given away, there was no way to source the wool fibers to the house.

Inmate addressed these issues in his appeals. The court determined that the jurors who convicted him, the jurors who realized the importance of the bedding evidence, the fiber evidence, and the holes in Inmate's PJ top, could not have been swayed by this superfluous evidence.

The key word is SUPERFLUOUS.


The point was and remains that real, competent, and materially significant and relevant evidence was never weighed and adjudicated on merit.

Notwithstanding that fact, Helena's Mother avering to Helena's dying declaration that she was in the MacDonald house that night seems more deserving of immediate focus.

[JTF]

Wudge: The "immediate focus" of the Stoeckley affidavit is to find out if the information is consistent with Mrs. Stoeckley's prior statements regarding her daughter. It takes about 3 seconds to realize that the affidavit doesn't jibe with the documented record. The statements made by Mrs. Stoeckley to Bernie Segal in 1979, directly contradict many of her claims in the 2007 affidavit. In terms of the evidence presented by the defense at trial, your statement that the inclusion of the saran and dark woolen fibers would have been "materially significant," is open for interpretation. Multiple appellate court decisions in this case are at odds with your opinion.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

SNIP

Multiple appellate court decisions in this case are at odds with your opinion.



There is no merit-based adjudication.

Helena's Mother motive for falsely avering is or would be?

[pennnurse525]

Ok, so my understanding, and please note that I am in no way as learned as some with regard to this case, is that the saran fibers were similar to many wigs made, that INCLUDING the falls that Colette had, and is pictured many times in, the dolls that Kim and Kris had, etc. Black wool fibers could have come from NUMBERS of sources, most of those that originated INSIDE the MacDonald home....but were not tested, as they were destroyed, right??????

I find it hard to imagine that a couple saran and wool fibers outweigh, as Spammy said, The Pajama top, the Bedsheets, the impressions left on same, the LACK of evidence of a life and death struggle in the Living Room, the Defendant's blood in the bathroom (where he inflicted his OWN WOUNDS, other than those Colette inflicted when trying to save the lives of herself and her children), etc.

These crazed killers sure did clean up. They must've known about forensics and the future of DNA testing, hmm? Amazing for drug crazed souls who were lost members of society suffering from addiction and mental illness. Wow. What a tribe!!!!!!! LOL.
Penn...

[Spamela]

...We agree.

Only in a universe that is the antithesis of the one we inhabit.

You live in MacWorld, where improbable and impossible events happen all the time to Inmate.

[Spamela]

Ok, so my understanding, and please note that I am in no way as learned as some with regard to this case, is that the saran fibers were similar to many wigs made, that INCLUDING the falls that Colette had, and is pictured many times in, the dolls that Kim and Kris had, etc. Black wool fibers could have come from NUMBERS of sources, most of those that originated INSIDE the MacDonald home....but were not tested, as they were destroyed, right??????

I find it hard to imagine that a couple saran and wool fibers outweigh, as Spammy said, The Pajama top, the Bedsheets, the impressions left on same, the LACK of evidence of a life and death struggle in the Living Room, the Defendant's blood in the bathroom (where he inflicted his OWN WOUNDS, other than those Colette inflicted when trying to save the lives of herself and her children), etc.

These crazed killers sure did clean up. They must've known about forensics and the future of DNA testing, hmm? Amazing for drug crazed souls who were lost members of society suffering from addiction and mental illness. Wow. What a tribe!!!!!!! LOL.
Penn...

Yep, them hippies were sumptin' wasn't they? Didn't need to break in, found the door unlocked, didn't bring their weapons, sneaked in the back door and by the whole family to go into the kitchen and get the knives, icepicks, surgical gloves, and dish washing gloves (remember the bumpy glove Inmate felt?) lit their candle, split up and then they attacked Inmate, and at the same time attacked Colette and Kim.

The group overkilling the women had time to kill three of them, and move bodies, while the ones killing Inmate took him out in a few minutes, then gave him a little bop on the head, but then they got scared and ran off (leaving the other ones to overkill the women and brush their wigs). The killer wearing the dishwashing gloves, took them off and put them back in the kitchen, but left no finger prints on the gloves.

Oh, and somewhere in there Helena sat on the horse in Kristen's room, but she was in the living room with her candle.....and there are no candle wax trials from the living room to Kristen's room, but how did she have time for the horse if she got scared and ran out, which is why Inmate was left alive?

They ran out in a panic, but two of them stopped by the same bush to place their weapons right next to each other, right there in the open for the po-lice-man to find the next day.

And they found a club that just happened to have Inmate's commanding officer's phone number written on it, which Inmate denied as coming from his house, but it matched the wood that was used for his daughter's bed.

Yep, them hippies sure were sumptin else.

Or.....could it be, that Inmate did the killing?!?! Is it possible that it would make more sense for Inmate to have killed his family in a state of rage?

Nah, that is not logical. I will go with them hippies. NOT.

Inmate's story is not just illogical, it is stupid.

[Spamela]

There is no merit-based adjudication.

Helena's Mother motive for falsely avering is or would be?

So, Wudgie, you are saying the judge did the appeal wrong? He did not know how to evaluate an appeal and you do?

And what difference does it make what Helena told mommy? She told lots of stories about Inmate (like she had sex with him) to lots of people over the years. She told it on tape to the world on the TV show 60 Minutes. What does the statment of her mother have to do with anything?

[Wudge]

So, Wudgie, you are saying the judge did the appeal wrong? He did not know how to evaluate an appeal and you do?

And what difference does it make what Helena told mommy? She told lots of stories about Inmate (like she had sex with him) to lots of people over the years. She told it on tape to the world on the TV show 60 Minutes. What does the statment of her mother have to do with anything?


Cite the merit ruling.

[JTF]

Wudge: The reasons for Helena's mother "falsely avering" the details in her 2007 affidavit? Let me count the ways. You obviously have ignored the role of Eugene Stoeckley in this process and the fact that Mrs. Stoeckley is in poor health, blind, and living in a nursing home. In addition, you're ignoring the documented record in this case. The same record which demonstrates that Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit does not mirror her prior statements regarding the sad life of her daughter. In my opinion, it speaks volumes that none of this seems to bring you the slightest pause.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by pennnurse525
I agree. I do not think that she would have met the criteria for Bipolar D/O. I think she was most definately Borderline and Anti-Social as well. That would give her two Axis II diagnoses.....they often overlap in many diagnosed as same. Helena probably, as many psychiatric patients do, began to self medicate with drugs and alcohol to deal with her mental health concerns.

Penn
Penn,
When discharged from the Univ. of North Carolina Medical Center in Chapel Hill in May 1970, Helena's diagnosis was "narcotics addiction in a schizoid personality". Is the term 'schizoid' still used in diagnosis today?

(More on Helena's personality in FV, p. 233-236)


Blood smears...Noted that there was described in the testimony smears of Colette's blood on Kristen's bed, up near her head on Kristen's Right side. They are described as looking like someone had rubbed their hand in it and gone back and forth. Smear made when Inmate moving Colette from bed after she was incapacitated to bedsheet on floor?

Interesting info. Was it Paul Stombaugh who testified about this at the GJ hearing or at the trial?
Are those the blood smears on Kristen's bottom sheet which are listed in the CID record 3, page 4 (48)?

[pennnurse525]

Rash:
I believe it was William Ivory who testified that there were the smears on the sheets in Kristen's room. That was the testimony I was reading last week. My impression was that they occurred when Inmate slid her off the bed, or picked her up while moving her to the floor and onto the sheet/bedcover to transport her back to the Master Bedroom.

The term schizoid is still in use today. However, one must note that the schizoid personality d/o would be impacted by the drug use and damage caused by same. Because of Helena's extensive use of mind altering substances, i.e., mescaline, acid, etc.... one will never know if this d/o was organic or brought on by the drugs; but it was present nonetheless.

It seems to me that the affadavit presented by the MacCamp regarding Helena is poor, at best. How sad to depend on the statements of an easily influenced, frail, blind, incapacitated woman. Why is it that this entire case hinges upon these statements? Or at least that is what they would have one believe...its a duck and cover move again. The OVERWHELMING evidence is the key here. That evidence is undeniable. The only one responsible for the death of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen is Jeffrey MacDonald. Period. Factually, truly, and in all manners of speaking. Put a fork in it, its done!

[Wudge]

Wudge: The reasons for Helena's mother "falsely avering" the details in her 2007 affidavit? Let me count the ways. You obviously have ignored the role of Eugene Stoeckley in this process and the fact that Mrs. Stoeckley is in poor health, blind, and living in a nursing home. In addition, you're ignoring the documented record in this case. The same record which demonstrates that Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit does not mirror her prior statements regarding the sad life of her daughter. In my opinion, it speaks volumes that none of this seems to bring you the slightest pause.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

I know Eugene facilitated his Mother in producing the affidavit. And do count the ways.

Moreover, her affidavit supports Britt aver that Blackburn intimidated Helena. Be smart, look to motive, not 804 issues.

[pennnurse525]

Wudge:
And getting drugs, which Helena had no problem obtaining without the assistance of Inmate, and or punishing inmate for being "hard on users" was the precipitant for slaughtering his two children and wife and leaving him unscathed?

Get real. Helena could barely remember her name for most of her adult life, let alone organize and be a part of, what could be considered a "perfect murder" all these years later, as none of her group has ever been indicted. That is, IF you believe the incredulous, ridiculous, superfluous, obnoxious tales of one Jeffrey MacDonald.....

[Wudge]

Wudge:
And getting drugs, which Helena had no problem obtaining without the assistance of Inmate, and or punishing inmate for being "hard on users" was the precipitant for slaughtering his two children and wife and leaving him unscathed?

Get real. Helena could barely remember her name for most of her adult life, let alone organize and be a part of, what could be considered a "perfect murder" all these years later, as none of her group has ever been indicted. That is, IF you believe the incredulous, ridiculous, superfluous, obnoxious tales of one Jeffrey MacDonald.....

You and others need to get focused. "Britt's" issue is with Blackburn, not Helena. Helena's Mother supports "Britt".

[JTF]

Wudge: There has been no court decision regarding either the Britt motion or the Stoeckley affidavit, so your claim that the Stoeckley affidavit supports "Britt" is false. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this issue, but nothing has been decided or resolved in the only venue that matters. I would argue that the language in the Stoeckley affidavit does not fully support "Britt." Vague references to Helena being afraid of the prosecutors does not mirror the claim by Britt that he witnessed Blackburn threatening Stoeckley. As I mentioned in my prior post, it's amazing that none of these issues brings you the slightest pause. Is the release of a mass murderer based on specious claims/evidence that important to you? Your refusal to look at the overwhelming evidence of his guilt seems to answer that question.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

SNIP

so your claim that the Stoeckley affidavit supports "Britt" is false.

SNIP



Fallacious logic

[pennnurse525]

So, as I mentioned, I have the wrong letters to be a lawyer...however, is it not heresay that Helena Sr. now claims to have been told by her daughter all those years ago that she was "afraid" of the prosecutors? Or that she was present at 544 Castle Dr.? How is this evidence impeachable? We cannot question Helena the younger now, so......we have to go forth on her testimony from the trial no?

[Wudge]

So, as I mentioned, I have the wrong letters to be a lawyer...however, is it not heresay that Helena Sr. now claims to have been told by her daughter all those years ago that she was "afraid" of the prosecutors? Or that she was present at 544 Castle Dr.? How is this evidence impeachable? We cannot question Helena the younger now, so......we have to go forth on her testimony from the trial no?

Many exceptions (24 +/-) exist to the hearsay rule. It will be interesting to hear if the Mother's aver is separately ruled upon.

As it attaches to "Britt", her affidavit can be said to represent a dual contemplation of death aver. Judicial prudence suggests Judge Fox should hear from the Mother, directly, post haste. The implied theatre here is Darrow material.

No one would argue Helena's story never varied. However, "Britt's" issue is whether Blackburn intimidated Helena and subourned perjury. Thereby, denying the jury the opportunity to weigh her unvarnished testimony for themselves, which would represent a 14th Amendment (due process) violation.

[pennnurse525]

As much as a new trial would be interesting and allow for the parade of overwhelming evidence against Inmate, it would indeed be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Additonally disheartening would be the amount of time that Inmate would be allowed freedom to attend trial. Any moment out of his confines is a tragedy in my mind.

Whilst Helena Sr. discusses threats and influence, wouldn't it have been interesting to be a fly on the wall when Eugene and Kathryn went to speak to Mrs Stoeckley? How difficult does one think it would have been to influence her, in her condition? Not only that, but perhaps a question worth pondering is.....if this information were true, and a free man sat in prison, and you had knowledge that you believed exonerated him, why would you wait to shout that to anyone who would listen? Do you mean to say that the Stoeckley clan had forgotten that their sister/daughter had made such statements and that they believed them to be true? And why, if Helena the younger had been threatened, did she tell her mother, or anyone this story, after that threat? Was she afraid or not???

Either way, legal ease or no legal ease....the evidence persists. There has been NO true claim against any of the overwhelming body of items presented that has been given merit. That is why there is a killer locked away. That is justice for Colette, Kimberly and Kristen; and that is what matters most.
Penn

[bailezra]

Looking at the calendar last week, it occurred to me that tomorrow, Tuesday, May 8, 2007, is what should have been Kristen MacDonald's 40th birthday. (I only know this because my own birthday is on May 9th, and Colette's was on May 10th, and I remember once thinking how strange it was that mine fell exactly between the two of theirs.)

How sad it is to think about that little baby, and how she is forever frozen in time at 2 1/2 years old. It just makes you think of all the years she was robbed of, along with her sister, mother, and unborn brother.

Had things gone another way, she would be celebrating her 40th birthday tomorrow, surrounded by her husband, children, family, and friends. Maybe they would have thrown her a surprise party, who knows? And maybe she would have been all at once happy about the celebration, yet checking in the mirror for signs of any new gray hairs, fine lines, or wrinkles. But sadly, she never lived to make it to nursery school, let alone to fret about whether or not she looked good for her age. What would she have given to be able to grow old?

So say an extra prayer or keep an extra good thought in your heart for Kristen tomorrow, and treasure every one of the days you have had since hers were tragically ended.

RIP, little one. :rose:

[Spamela]

Cite the merit ruling.

Wudgie--
Go to the Jeffy-Boy site, (TJMIS), go to scanned documents, and read the appeals. The info is listed by date. Start from the most recent appeal and go back.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

The Helena issue has been addressed several times. The issue didn't go anywhere then, and it won't go anywhere now. MacCamp keeps window dressing the same old stuff styles, but it has not fooled anyone except the fools who donate their hard earned money to a convict.

Instead of a whack-head Helena telling tales, now we have wack-head Britt, who waits a few decades before getting down to business. And Mrs Mom who is helping her son to feel like he has changed the outcome of the universe.

Mrs. Mom's affidavit does nothing for Britt. Britt is about a specific time frame on a specific day in a specific location. Mrs. Mom’s big declaration is “She told me she was afraid to tell the truth because she was afraid of the prosecutor.” Helena has been saying that she was afraid of the prosecution for decades because she was told that she could be prosecuted if she was guilty of the murders. She had to be told that due to self incrimination. She, like many people, have weird psychological needs to feel important and to tell meaningful information to the police (like JonBenet’s latest media murderer confessor).

Since the statement about the prosecutor was Mrs Mom’s last statement before some self explanatory information, it sounds like that sentence was tacked on. There is no elaboration like with the murder sequence. If Helena was really focused on the incident with Blackburn, she would have repeated it to the same extent that she repeated her “I was there” story.

One of Helena’s lucid moments came when she was eating her lunch and looking through the crime scene photos and she said that violence was not caused by pot or LSD, but by speed. She nailed that one on the head. Mr Inmate was speeding the night of the murders and he wrote about it in his own hand in his “diary”.

[Spamela]

The two camps on this case are Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy. You have chosen your camp and I hope you have a nice time. If you ever want to come out of the woods and learn some facts, the source documents are on the Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site.

LOL, Spamela - 'Camp Fact and Camp Fantasy' - that's great! You do have a way with words. If you aren't a journalist or writer already, you have missed your calling. :seeya:

I am a technical writer, which does not give me much room for self expression!!! I save my entertaining writing for after hours. Although, with my job, there is no after hours, I work nights and weekends, and 24 hours straight, if I have to.

[Wudge]

Wudgie--
Go to the Jeffy-Boy site, (TJMIS), go to scanned documents, and read the appeals. The info is listed by date. Start from the most recent appeal and go back.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

The Helena issue has been addressed several times. The issue didn't go anywhere then, and it won't go anywhere now. MacCamp keeps window dressing the same old stuff styles, but it has not fooled anyone except the fools who donate their hard earned money to a convict.

Instead of a whack-head Helena telling tales, now we have wack-head Britt, who waits a few decades before getting down to business. And Mrs Mom who is helping her son to feel like he has changed the outcome of the universe.

Mrs. Mom's affidavit does nothing for Britt. Britt is about a specific time frame on a specific day in a specific location. Mrs. Mom’s big declaration is “She told me she was afraid to tell the truth because she was afraid of the prosecutor.” Helena has been saying that she was afraid of the prosecution for decades because she was told that she could be prosecuted if she was guilty of the murders. She had to be told that due to self incrimination. She, like many people, have weird psychological needs to feel important and to tell meaningful information to the police (like JonBenet’s latest media murderer confessor).

Since the statement about the prosecutor was Mrs Mom’s last statement before some self explanatory information, it sounds like that sentence was tacked on. There is no elaboration like with the murder sequence. If Helena was really focused on the incident with Blackburn, she would have repeated it to the same extent that she repeated her “I was there” story.

One of Helena’s lucid moments came when she was eating her lunch and looking through the crime scene photos and she said that violence was not caused by pot or LSD, but by speed. She nailed that one on the head. Mr Inmate was speeding the night of the murders and he wrote about it in his own hand in his “diary”.


You can't cite a merit ruling, because there is no merit ruling.

[pennnurse525]

Spammy:

Where are the diaries?
Also, Rest in Peace and Happy Birthday to Kristen MacDonald....
TIA
Penn

[rashomon]

Looking at the calendar last week, it occurred to me that tomorrow, Tuesday, May 8, 2007, is what should have been Kristen MacDonald's 40th birthday. (I only know this because my own birthday is on May 9th, and Colette's was on May 10th, and I remember once thinking how strange it was that mine fell exactly between the two of theirs.)

How sad it is to think about that little baby, and how she is forever frozen in time at 2 1/2 years old. It just makes you think of all the years she was robbed of, along with her sister, mother, and unborn brother.

Had things gone another way, she would be celebrating her 40th birthday tomorrow, surrounded by her husband, children, family, and friends. Maybe they would have thrown her a surprise party, who knows? And maybe she would have been all at once happy about the celebration, yet checking in the mirror for signs of any new gray hairs, fine lines, or wrinkles. But sadly, she never lived to make it to nursery school, let alone to fret about whether or not she looked good for her age. What would she have given to be able to grow old?

So say an extra prayer or keep an extra good thought in your heart for Kristen tomorrow, and treasure every one of the days you have had since hers were tragically ended.

RIP, little one. :rose:
Beautifully said, Bailezra.
Rest in peace, little Kristen. You will forever be in our heart, together with your mom, sister and little unborn brother.

[JTF]

I've added a new topic to my website. It's entitled: Murder Timeline. Check it out.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

PudgieWudgie--
Go to the Jeffy-Boy site, (TJMIS), go to scanned documents, and read the appeals. The info is listed by date. Start from the most recent appeal and go back.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

USA vs JRM
75-26-CR-3
640 F. Supp. 286; 1985 US Dist. LEXIS 22143 decided 3/1/85

USA vs JRM
No. 85-6208
argued 10/7/85 decided 12/17/85
688 F. 2d 224 (4th Circuit 1982)

And, just as Helena has, to date, been found to be less than trustworthy and the circumstances surrounding her statements have been found to be untrustworthy, the same will be the fate of Mrs. Helena Sr.'s most current affidavit. The current affidavit will be impeached by her previous statements and they do not meet the trustworthy requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 804 (B)(3) and will therefore not be admissible in court.

[Spamela]

You can't cite a merit ruling, because there is no merit ruling.

Byn has been kind enough to provide the previous appeals that dealt with the Helena issue. You can find the original documents on TJMIS.

[Wudge]

Byn has been kind enough to provide the previous appeals that dealt with the Helena issue. You can find the original documents on TJMIS.


Absent a merit ruling.

[Spamela]

Absent a merit ruling.

If they filed an appeal then it is processed as an appeal. What is a merit ruling and why would it have a different outcome?

There is nothing that will set Inmate free. He is guilty. There isn't a single piece of evidence that points to the contrary, and 1000s of pieces of evidence that indicate his guilt.

Not one person who saw the crime scene and heard Inmate's story believed that he was innocent. People who knew Inmate personally and never heard the details were sure he was innocent. People who read the parody of truth, Fatal Justice, were sure that Inmate was innocent. The authors lied and created myths, like the multiple pair of gloves, which turned out to be the oven mitt gloves in the kitchen that had very trace amounts of blood on them.

Why do you support a lost and unworthy cause? There are real legal injustices in the US, but Inmate situation is not one of them.

[Spamela]

Spammy:

Where are the diaries?
Also, Rest in Peace and Happy Birthday to Kristen MacDonald....
TIA
Penn

Sorry it took me so long, but I have been looking and could not find it. Christina might have taken it down since it was Inmate's. It was handwritten by Inmate and I believe that it is quoted in Fatal Vision, with Inmate noting how many diet pills he took that night/week.

I know I saw it, someone might have a copy of the pdf.

[Spamela]

Here is a great summary written by Freddy about Inmate lying in regard to his identification of Helena.

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

Freddy was responding to a statment by Inmate that he now recogized Helena, specifically her face and voice. Freddy points out that Helena is now 27, not 17, she is heavier and her hair is black.

Freddy then quotes from the April CID interview "because I remember struggling specifically with three people in front of me and seeing a fourth, seeing the girl and really all I saw of her was some long stringy blond hair and a big hat"

Also, Inmate claimed that the whole fight took 8 or 10 seconds. (This is one of my favorite quote to provide to groupies, to me it summarizes the absurdity of Inmate's entire farily tale) Eight to ten seconds did not give him much time for seeing details, now did it?

Inmate's testimony from the Article 32 hearing: "Yes, because I saw her probably the least. It was the briefest glimse and this is why I only have, really, an impression."

A nice summary of Inmate's ever changing stories. One thing about Inmate, he never dissapoints when it comes to his ability to change the details to fit the opportunity. That is why I wonder how Inmate supportes can believe such a liar.

[dallasvic]

[quote=pennnurse525;8851089]Hello all. Happy Friday! Just had some time for more reading. Now, I was always fully aware that there were needles found in the hallway linen closet across from the bathroom on the morning of the murders in the apartment. However, when reading the Article 32 testimony of Wm Ivory, it struck me as odd.

I certainly do understand that we medical types have supplies at home that others may not have. Bandages, clamps, betadine, and so forth....but hypodermic needles...WTF? Is this related to the methamphetamine use or ?

Also, some other late nite/early am thoughts.....grass on and behind the headboard near the word PIG. This does lend credence to the idea that Inmate wore the robe at some point that night....Also reviewed the testimony of Mr. Ivory alongside photos he was describing (two separate windows on the desktop---hey, I'm high tech) and it truly does appear as if Inmate was in a frantic mode in the kitchen that night/morning. Blood smears everywhere; cabinets, cabinet doors, etc. Just had this image of frantic searching, looking for gloves most likely....

Blood smears...Noted that there was described in the testimony smears of Colette's blood on Kristen's bed, up near her head on Kristen's Right side. They are described as looking like someone had rubbed their hand in it and gone back and forth. Smear made when Inmate moving Colette from bed after she was incapacitated to bedsheet on floor?

Does anyone remember the beginning of the story were the MP;s say on there way to the scene the seen a woman wearing a big floppy hat and a black raincoat.They told it to the investigators, but the say it was insignificant and brushed it off.This was 3:55am a few houses down from the crime scene. What about that ? Did anyone ever hear anymore about that?. Why did they not follower up on this lead? They were stuck on the husband.

[pennnurse525]

Thanks Spammy.

The link you provided was just a general one to the scanned documents on TJMIS. Do you have a specific document to look at.

As far as the above post which quotes mine directly, I will let a much more learned and seasoned researcher than myself tackle that nonsense.

JMO, of course,

TIA
Penn

PS: If anyone hasn't read JTF's timeline...give it a looksieeeee.........

[AshleyMari]

[quote=pennnurse525;8851089]Hello all. Happy Friday! Just had some time for more reading. Now, I was always fully aware that there were needles found in the hallway linen closet across from the bathroom on the morning of the murders in the apartment. However, when reading the Article 32 testimony of Wm Ivory, it struck me as odd.

I certainly do understand that we medical types have supplies at home that others may not have. Bandages, clamps, betadine, and so forth....but hypodermic needles...WTF? Is this related to the methamphetamine use or ?

Also, some other late nite/early am thoughts.....grass on and behind the headboard near the word PIG. This does lend credence to the idea that Inmate wore the robe at some point that night....Also reviewed the testimony of Mr. Ivory alongside photos he was describing (two separate windows on the desktop---hey, I'm high tech) and it truly does appear as if Inmate was in a frantic mode in the kitchen that night/morning. Blood smears everywhere; cabinets, cabinet doors, etc. Just had this image of frantic searching, looking for gloves most likely....

Blood smears...Noted that there was described in the testimony smears of Colette's blood on Kristen's bed, up near her head on Kristen's Right side. They are described as looking like someone had rubbed their hand in it and gone back and forth. Smear made when Inmate moving Colette from bed after she was incapacitated to bedsheet on floor?

Does anyone remember the beginning of the story were the MP;s say on there way to the scene the seen a woman wearing a big floppy hat and a black raincoat.They told it to the investigators, but the say it was insignificant and brushed it off.This was 3:55am a few houses down from the crime scene. What about that ? Did anyone ever hear anymore about that?. Why did they not follower up on this lead? They were stuck on the husband.


You can read Military Policeman's Ken Mica's testimony here:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979jul19-20_mica.html

[Spamela]

Thanks Spammy.

The link you provided was just a general one to the scanned documents on TJMIS. Do you have a specific document to look at.

As far as the above post which quotes mine directly, I will let a much more learned and seasoned researcher than myself tackle that nonsense.

JMO, of course,

TIA
Penn

PS: If anyone hasn't read JTF's timeline...give it a looksieeeee.........


Here is the link for Freddy's note:

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


Little did he know that the words Freddy wrote in 1979 would be just a usefull now, as then, since the story of Helena just won't go away. It is like gum on the bottom of your shoe. Or dog droggings stuck in the treads of athletic shoes. It just won't go away.

MacCamp: Gee, we need an appeal, let's bring up Helena. Yeah, that's a good idea is have been at least a few years since the last bogus appeal. Maybe they will forget about the last several times we brought it up! Mrs. Inmate "What a great idea idea, that way an Egregious Miscarriage of Justice will be corrected and my hubby can come home to my open arms!" Not. So very Not. So extremely very Not.

[Spamela]

[quote=pennnurse525;8851089]Hello all. Happy Friday! Just had some time for more reading. Now, I was always fully aware that there were needles found in the hallway linen closet across from the bathroom on the morning of the murders in the apartment. However, when reading the Article 32 testimony of Wm Ivory, it struck me as odd.

I certainly do understand that we medical types have supplies at home that others may not have. Bandages, clamps, betadine, and so forth....but hypodermic needles...WTF? Is this related to the methamphetamine use or ?

Also, some other late nite/early am thoughts.....grass on and behind the headboard near the word PIG. This does lend credence to the idea that Inmate wore the robe at some point that night....Also reviewed the testimony of Mr. Ivory alongside photos he was describing (two separate windows on the desktop---hey, I'm high tech) and it truly does appear as if Inmate was in a frantic mode in the kitchen that night/morning. Blood smears everywhere; cabinets, cabinet doors, etc. Just had this image of frantic searching, looking for gloves most likely....

Blood smears...Noted that there was described in the testimony smears of Colette's blood on Kristen's bed, up near her head on Kristen's Right side. They are described as looking like someone had rubbed their hand in it and gone back and forth. Smear made when Inmate moving Colette from bed after she was incapacitated to bedsheet on floor?

Does anyone remember the beginning of the story were the MP;s say on there way to the scene the seen a woman wearing a big floppy hat and a black raincoat.They told it to the investigators, but the say it was insignificant and brushed it off.This was 3:55am a few houses down from the crime scene. What about that ? Did anyone ever hear anymore about that?. Why did they not follower up on this lead? They were stuck on the husband.

The medical supplies were picked by sitcky fingered Inmate when the army disbanded a unit. The supplies were supposed to be destroyed by Mac couldn't bring himself to do that. This is where he got his supply of diet pills.

Woman in floppy hat. She could have been anyone. She was described as having good legs, which would not apply to Helena. Since MacCamp has made the woman inturder in into Helena, there are no stories of Helena standing around on any corners. And if this person was involved with the murder, where were the other 6 or 7 people? In those days it was a standard outfit to wear boots, skirt, and a floppy hat.

In the DC area sniper shootings everyone was looking for a white work van. The reason is that there are white work vans everywhere in areas with a lot of traffic. So, if an event happens, the chances that there would be a white van is very high. The car was on old four door car (which was impounded down the street from where I worked, we had new helicoptors hovering for hours).

The same thing with the description of the girl, she was just a stand-in for the average young woman. Inmate described average people he had seen elsewhere. Specifically, he described four friends of his brother's whom Inmate had met the previous summer in Long Island. The descriptions were exact, but the four were all cleared and had nothing to do with the murders in North Carolina. If you have to describe an imaginary person, you usually visualize someone you have seen.

[Wudge]

SNIP

What is a merit ruling and why would it have a different outcome?





You should have asked this question earlier.

Evidence considered and adjudicated on its merit is a merit ruling.

The rest of your post is an exercise in tea-leaf reading and begging the question.

[Spamela]

You should have asked this question earlier.

Evidence considered and adjudicated on its merit is a merit ruling.

The rest of your post is an exercise in tea-leaf reading and begging the question.

And I repeat the question, how would it make a difference? Doesn't the judge assess the evidence when making a ruling on an appeal? Why would Inmate have a merit ruling if he filed an appeal?

Tea leaf reading? But, I am so good at tea leaf reading. Do you have something against it? My, how narrow minded you are. The next time I do my tea leaf readings I will see what cosmic forces are needed to set you mind straight.

[pennnurse525]

I was quoted in a message without the use of the quote feature. Therefore, it looks like the question about Helena and the MP's seeing the floppy hatted woman on their way to the apartment that night came from me . It did not. I have no concerns about Helena Stoeckley butchering Colette, Kristen and Kimberley. I know who did that. He wasn't wearing a floppy hat.

Thanks,
Penn

[Spamela]

I was quoted in a message without the use of the quote feature. Therefore, it looks like the question about Helena and the MP's seeing the floppy hatted woman on their way to the apartment that night came from me . It did not. I have no concerns about Helena Stoeckley butchering Colette, Kristen and Kimberley. I know who did that. He wasn't wearing a floppy hat.

Thanks,
Penn

My response should have noted for dallasvic, the quote things got messed up.

[dallasvic]

[quote=dallasvic;8854277]


You can read Military Policeman's Ken Mica's testimony here:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979jul19-20_mica.html

Thanks so much for the link I am still reading ,but wanted to stop and thank you. Very interesting stuff.;)

[AshleyMari]

I was quoted in a message without the use of the quote feature. Therefore, it looks like the question about Helena and the MP's seeing the floppy hatted woman on their way to the apartment that night came from me . It did not. I have no concerns about Helena Stoeckley butchering Colette, Kristen and Kimberley. I know who did that. He wasn't wearing a floppy hat.

Thanks,
Penn

I thought I was answering dallasvic's post. I think the quote was somehow confused. I knew it was not you, Penn, who questioned the woman on the corner. Yup, I knew it was not you. LOL Sorry for the confusion. ashley

[pennnurse525]

No problemo ash. Just wanted to set that straight.
Just to remind everyone, Today is Colette's birthday. I know we will undoubtedly see no mention of this, as we did not of Kristen's on Inmate's site.
Take Care

[Sirens]

Remembering Colette, devoted wife and mother, on her birthday.

Rest in peace with your daughters and baby boy to be, for Justice was served many years ago.

Sirens

[Spamela]

I hope that Colette found peace with those she loved. She had so much taken from her, to know that her children would not survive her.

[byn63]

I hope that Colette found peace with those she loved. She had so much taken from her, to know that her children would not survive her.

spammy - pudgiewudgie is misleading you. Each of the appeals I noted have been decided on merit. the issue of Helena's statements are res judicata. res judicata - latin meaning the thing has been judged. Basically, in court hearings between these same parties this issue (Helena, her testimony, alleged corroborating statements) have already been heard by the judge, and the issue has been decided.

For example the appeal decided 12/17/85 included a motion for a new trial based primarily on post-trial statements by Helena etal. The defense attempted to introduce two earlier hearsay statements that the courts had already excluded as being unreliable. The appeals court affirmed the exclusion by Judge Dupree. US vs JRM 688 F.2d @ 230-34.

Helena had died by the time this appeal was filed: court noted that what Helena remembered when questioned depended on WHO was doing the questioning.

from decision transcript:
quote:
to obtain a new trial based on "newly discovered" evidence it must be admissable in court. It is doubtful these hearsay statements would be admissable since corroborating circumstances do not clearly indicate trustworthiness. Federal Rules of Evidence 804 (b) (3) * endquote

*US vs Carvalho 742 F.2d 146 (4th Circ 1984)
*US vs Lott 751 F.2d 717 (4th Circ 1985)

quote:
The circumstantial evidence made a strong case against MacDonald and demonstrated that his story was a fabrication entirely or in substantial part. endquote

Still, the most important quote follows - and although it does not use the word MERIT, it is implicit in the conclusion and the fact that the conviction of mac was affirmed.

quote:
In much greater detail than we, the district judge considered every contention that MacDonald advanced. The care with which it was done is evident, and we may conclude this much briefer opinion with the statement that there is no basis upon which any ruling in this case by a meticulous district judge can be overturned.
endquote

[i]Circuit Judges - Murnaghan and Russell
Sr. Circuit Judge - Haynsworth

[Wudge]

And I repeat the question, how would it make a difference? Doesn't the judge assess the evidence when making a ruling on an appeal? Why would Inmate have a merit ruling if he filed an appeal?

Tea leaf reading? But, I am so good at tea leaf reading. Do you have something against it? My, how narrow minded you are. The next time I do my tea leaf readings I will see what cosmic forces are needed to set you mind straight.

Proof we need professional jurors.

[Spamela]

Proof we need professional jurors.

What is proof that we need "professional jurors"? And what are "professional jurors"? What does this have to do with an appeal?

Look, if you are so superior and arrogant that you can't be bothered to explain your meaningless obscure quips, then why do bother to post?

What is the point? Do you provide information? No? Do you explain anything? No.

Your comments are gratuitous acts to stroke yourself. Why don’t you do that in the privacy of your room, instead of on this board?

[pennnurse525]

Thanks for the laugh Spammy!
You're too funny and right on target.
Professional Jurors? Isn't that just another word for the media???? Or maybe just Larry King. No, the other word for him is moron.

LOL
Penn

[dallasvic]

spammy - pudgiewudgie is misleading you. Each of the appeals I noted have been decided on merit. the issue of Helena's statements are res judicata. res judicata - latin meaning the thing has been judged. Basically, in court hearings between these same parties this issue (Helena, her testimony, alleged corroborating statements) have already been heard by the judge, and the issue has been decided.

For example the appeal decided 12/17/85 included a motion for a new trial based primarily on post-trial statements by Helena etal. The defense attempted to introduce two earlier hearsay statements that the courts had already excluded as being unreliable. The appeals court affirmed the exclusion by Judge Dupree. US vs JRM 688 F.2d @ 230-34.

Helena had died by the time this appeal was filed: court noted that what Helena remembered when questioned depended on WHO was doing the questioning.

from decision transcript:
quote:
to obtain a new trial based on "newly discovered" evidence it must be admissable in court. It is doubtful these hearsay statements would be admissable since corroborating circumstances do not clearly indicate trustworthiness. Federal Rules of Evidence 804 (b) (3) * endquote

*US vs Carvalho 742 F.2d 146 (4th Circ 1984)
*US vs Lott 751 F.2d 717 (4th Circ 1985)

quote:
The circumstantial evidence made a strong case against MacDonald and demonstrated that his story was a fabrication entirely or in substantial part. endquote

Still, the most important quote follows - and although it does not use the word MERIT, it is implicit in the conclusion and the fact that the conviction of mac was affirmed.

quote:
In much greater detail than we, the district judge considered every contention that MacDonald advanced. The care with which it was done is evident, and we may conclude this much briefer opinion with the statement that there is no basis upon which any ruling in this case by a meticulous district judge can be overturned.
endquote

[i]Circuit Judges - Murnaghan and Russell
Sr. Circuit Judge - Haynsworth

So from what you have stated here that he has been refused a new trial.
At least that is how I read what you posted. Is their correct? I also read the court reporter transcripts the MP that saw the woman and also at the scene after Jeffery was wheeled out that there was a guy with long hair out of uniform that stood up a potted plant that was on its side in the living room where Jeffery had been assaulted. I am also still reading it there is so much more.Who was this woman in the rain at 3 am? Who was this guy at the crime scene that moved evidence and was not in dress?
If these things were not totally addressed with follower ups and no telling how many more then how can he not be given a new trial.

[Spamela]

So from what you have stated here that he has been refused a new trial.
At least that is how I read what you posted. Is their correct? I also read the court reporter transcripts the MP that saw the woman and also at the scene after Jeffery was wheeled out that there was a guy with long hair out of uniform that stood up a potted plant that was on its side in the living room where Jeffery had been assaulted. I am also still reading it there is so much more.Who was this woman in the rain at 3 am? Who was this guy at the crime scene that moved evidence and was not in dress?
If these things were not totally addressed with follower ups and no telling how many more then how can he not be given a new trial.

The FBI reinvestigation for the trial dealt with all this and more.

The reason he was convicted was because of the evidence that was not in question. BOTH his and Collete's bloody PJ cuff impressions were on the blue sheet. That meant that he carried her body in that sheet. This evidence could not be tampered with. The mystery man who touched the flower pot did not create the impressions on the sheet. The MacDonald expert agreed in court with the finding of the govenment about those imprints. There are no other way that those imprints could be there.

The location of the fibers and threads from his PJ top, which were found under the Kris's pillow, in her room and more importantly, under her finger nail in a blood clot. The fibers were found by the head board under the word "PIG". There were found in Kim's bed under the covers. They were found in quantity in the MB. BUT they were not found in the LR, where he claimed the fight took place.

The fact that he claimed that the 48 holes is his pj top happened when he was fighting off the person who was attacking him with an ice pick. When all the holes were neatly round, which could only happen when the material was still.

He claimed that the whole fight took 8 to 10 seconds and then he was out. Yet he later claimed he could identify the people in great detail, although no light were on the LR, only in the kitchen.

The jury went into the trial thinking he was innocent. The evidence convinced them. Unless you take the time to read the evidence that was presented at trial, you don't understant why the jury made its decision. MacCamp has made outright lies to support their stance. For instance, in Fatal Justice, there are claims that there several pairs of bloodstained gloves. The gloves in question were oven mitts with trace amount of blood, which were found in the Kitchen.

Was there a woman on the corner that night? Probably there was. But if there were 10 women on every street corner, nothing could change the evidence inside that apartment.

Was the flower pot touched? Yes it was. Does it matter to the evidence that convicted Inmate? No.

[dallasvic]

The FBI reinvestigation for the trial dealt with all this and more.

The reason he was convicted was because of the evidence that was not in question. BOTH his and Collete's bloody PJ cuff impressions were on the blue sheet. That meant that he carried her body in that sheet. This evidence could not be tampered with. The mystery man who touched the flower pot did not create the impressions on the sheet. The MacDonald expert agreed in court with the finding of the govenment about those imprints. There are no other way that those imprints could be there.

The location of the fibers and threads from his PJ top, which were found under the Kris's pillow, in her room and more importantly, under her finger nail in a blood clot. The fibers were found by the head board under the word "PIG". There were found in Kim's bed under the covers. They were found in quantity in the MB. BUT they were not found in the LR, where he claimed the fight took place.

The fact that he claimed that the 48 holes is his pj top happened when he was fighting off the person who was attacking him with an ice pick. When all the holes were neatly round, which could only happen when the material was still.

He claimed that the whole fight took 8 to 10 seconds and then he was out. Yet he later claimed he could identify the people in great detail, although no light were on the LR, only in the kitchen.

The jury went into the trial thinking he was innocent. The evidence convinced them. Unless you take the time to read the evidence that was presented at trial, you don't understant why the jury made its decision. MacCamp has made outright lies to support their stance. For instance, in Fatal Justice, there are claims that there several pairs of bloodstained gloves. The gloves in question were oven mitts with trace amount of blood, which were found in the Kitchen.

Was there a woman on the corner that night? Probably there was. But if there were 10 women on every street corner, nothing could change the evidence inside that apartment.

Was the flower pot touched? Yes it was. Does it matter to the evidence that convicted Inmate? No.

Spamela,
Great cheers to you:beer:
Thanks so much I am headed back to reread the story again.You clear up alot for me. I really enjoy reading you post. Detail it great!
:seeya: Later

[Wudge]

What is proof that we need "professional jurors"?

SNIP

Your post.

[Spamela]

SNIP

Your post.

Oh, I get it! Professional jurors are people like you who can't prioritize factual information, or who can't understand the logical sequence of information!

You are looking for those who can't understand that bloody pj cuff impressions on the MB sheet from Inmate's and Colette's clothing means that Inmate carried Collete in the sheet, which means that Inmate lied about where the bodies were, which means that Inmate is the murderer.

I get, you want simple minded people who can be manipulated by cries of conspiracy theory!!

Well, too bad Wudgie, the jurors who convicted Inmate where able to understand the evidence and they understood that Inmate was a murderer.

You obviously have a deep seated need to connect with Inmate, why don't you write him letters? It is pointless to post on this board because people here know the source documents and the details of the evidence.

Or you could show support for your man Britt? Now, that's a man to admire, just like Inmate!

[Wudge]

Oh, I get it! Professional jurors are people like you who can't prioritize factual information, or who can't understand the logical sequence of information!

You are looking for those who can't understand that bloody pj cuff impressions on the MB sheet from Inmate's and Colette's clothing means that Inmate carried Collete in the sheet, which means that Inmate lied about where the bodies were, which means that Inmate is the murderer.

I get, you want simple minded people who can be manipulated by cries of conspiracy theory!!

Well, too bad Wudgie, the jurors who convicted Inmate where able to understand the evidence and they understood that Inmate was a murderer.

You obviously have a deep seated need to connect with Inmate, why don't you write him letters? It is pointless to post on this board because people here know the source documents and the details of the evidence.

Or you could show support for your man Britt? Now, that's a man to admire, just like Inmate!


Britt's sinister motive is or would be?

[pennnurse525]

The FBI reinvestigation for the trial dealt with all this and more.

The reason he was convicted was because of the evidence that was not in question. BOTH his and Collete's bloody PJ cuff impressions were on the blue sheet. That meant that he carried her body in that sheet. This evidence could not be tampered with. The mystery man who touched the flower pot did not create the impressions on the sheet. The MacDonald expert agreed in court with the finding of the govenment about those imprints. There are no other way that those imprints could be there.

The location of the fibers and threads from his PJ top, which were found under the Kris's pillow, in her room and more importantly, under her finger nail in a blood clot. The fibers were found by the head board under the word "PIG". There were found in Kim's bed under the covers. They were found in quantity in the MB. BUT they were not found in the LR, where he claimed the fight took place.

The fact that he claimed that the 48 holes is his pj top happened when he was fighting off the person who was attacking him with an ice pick. When all the holes were neatly round, which could only happen when the material was still.

He claimed that the whole fight took 8 to 10 seconds and then he was out. Yet he later claimed he could identify the people in great detail, although no light were on the LR, only in the kitchen.

The jury went into the trial thinking he was innocent. The evidence convinced them. Unless you take the time to read the evidence that was presented at trial, you don't understant why the jury made its decision. MacCamp has made outright lies to support their stance. For instance, in Fatal Justice, there are claims that there several pairs of bloodstained gloves. The gloves in question were oven mitts with trace amount of blood, which were found in the Kitchen.

Was there a woman on the corner that night? Probably there was. But if there were 10 women on every street corner, nothing could change the evidence inside that apartment.

Was the flower pot touched? Yes it was. Does it matter to the evidence that convicted Inmate? No.



Couldn't have said it better myself Spammy. I would also add that :
Did Helena the younger confess in an off and on fashion? Yes she did. Was Helena a disturbed, addicted, lost individual who was probably encephalopathic and sick with liver disease as well as addiciton issues for years? Yes she was.
Did Inmate luck out in that department and the fact that there was most likely a woman on the corner around the time of the murders? Yes he did. Does this mean Helena killed Colette, Kim and Kristen? NO. Absolutely not.

Were there a few unsourced fibers of black wool and even saran in the house? Of course there were. If anyone of us were brutally butchered and an investigation ensued, there would be unidentified fibers in our homes. To think otherwise is rididculous. Does this mean a group of hippies murdered Colette, Kimberley and Kristen? Absolutely NOT.

The evidence in this case is remarkable. The evidence in this case is OVERWHELMING. Facts don't lie. I would urge anyone new to this case who is still forming their opinion to take time and research before forming an opinion either way. Going thru the evidence available on CM's site is alot of work, but worth every minute. There remains no doubt afterward about the identity of the butcher who lurked in the darkness of Castle Dr. on Feb. 17,1970. He's in prison and hopefully haunted by his atrocities forever.

JMO
Penn

[JTF]

Thanks to input from Rashomon, there has been a few changes to the Timeline topic on my website. Check it out.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

Britt's sinister motive is or would be?

Already addressed. Can't read? (snicker)

[dallasvic]

I reread this story and have come up with more than I expected.
Chapter 16 - Helena took a lie detector test and also was put under and told the same story each time. She was there and she knew things about the case & the house that were never revealed to the public or media. She stated that her boyfriend at the time was the one who killed Colette.
Chapter 20 - It was determined that the person that killed Colette was left handed. Mitchell her X was left handed Jeff is right handed. The blood type on Collette night shirt was type O Mitchell type, Jeff's is type B.
Chapter 23 - Hair found in Colette's hand was hair from a wig not doll hair. The hair was not from the McD family.
Chapter 27 - DNA evidence, hair found clutched in youngest girl Kristen's fingernails was confirmed as an unidentified person. (They stated that this is powerful evidence that a intruder was in the house the night of the murder.)
Barry Scheck who is with the Innocences Project says Quote There is new DNA evidence that is going to help Jeff and it is a long pubic hair found between Colette's legs an 17 unmatched finger & palm prints also were found at the crime scene.
Chapter 28 - Buffkin filed a affidavit which climes on several occasions between 1980 - 82 that he drank at the bar with a man the claimed he was involved in the murder.He is no other than yes,Mitchell the X boyfriend of Helena. He also talked about the murder 2 weeks before he died. he had also confessed to 2 other men.
A law clerk states she had talked to a cashier of the 7-11 store near the McD"s house and she remembered she seen some hippies come into the store the morning of the murder. She did not say anything . She was afraid to report it.
I also found out that a lot of evidence was lost that pointed to intruders. Here a a lot of this that a over whelming to say the least . It is alot to take in and I would like to have someone help me sort this out.

[Spamela]

I reread this story and have come up with more than I expected.
Chapter 16 - Helena took a lie detector test and also was put under and told the same story each time. She was there and she knew things about the case & the house that were never revealed to the public or media. She stated that her boyfriend at the time was the one who killed Colette.
Chapter 20 - It was determined that the person that killed Colette was left handed. Mitchell her X was left handed Jeff is right handed. The blood type on Collette night shirt was type O Mitchell type, Jeff's is type B.
Chapter 23 - Hair found in Colette's hand was hair from a wig not doll hair. The hair was not from the McD family.
Chapter 27 - DNA evidence, hair found clutched in youngest girl Kristen's fingernails was confirmed as an unidentified person. (They stated that this is powerful evidence that a intruder was in the house the night of the murder.)
Barry Scheck who is with the Innocences Project says Quote There is new DNA evidence that is going to help Jeff and it is a long pubic hair found between Colette's legs an 17 unmatched finger & palm prints also were found at the crime scene.
Chapter 28 - Buffkin filed a affidavit which climes on several occasions between 1980 - 82 that he drank at the bar with a man the claimed he was involved in the murder.He is no other than yes,Mitchell the X boyfriend of Helena. He also talked about the murder 2 weeks before he died. he had also confessed to 2 other men.
A law clerk states she had talked to a cashier of the 7-11 store near the McD"s house and she remembered she seen some hippies come into the store the morning of the murder. She did not say anything . She was afraid to report it.
I also found out that a lot of evidence was lost that pointed to intruders. Here a a lot of this that a over whelming to say the least . It is alot to take in and I would like to have someone help me sort this out.

Byn, JTF, Rash, and folks, would help to address some of these issues?

Have you read Fatal Vision? If not read it first, the evidencce the convicted Inmate has not changed. As to Fatal Justice, you will notice that they don't address the evidence that convicted Inmate. Forget about the sheet deal, that it was put on Colette on the gurney and the blood flowed up to make the impressoins. It is BS, ALSO Inmate's cuff imprints were also on the sheet. Their own expert witness agreed with the gov about the stains.

NONE of the DNA evidence matched Helena and crowd. That was the whole point of MacCamp's appeal for DNA testing. How Helena and crowd could have fought with everyone and not dropped one hair is not believable.

DNA evidence. FJ goes on about the hair "clutched" in Colette's hand. She also had a sliver of the wood club in her hand. FJ claims that the hair was from the killer. Well, it was, it was from Inmate. And it was a forcibly removed hair. Now, MacCamp wants to backup and say the hair was "on" her hand, not "clutched". Well, the truth was it was from Inmate and it was removed during a struggle, which is why it has the root on it.

Kris had a .25 inch hair fragment under her fingernail. It was broken piece, not forcibly removed. Neither of the girls had a bath that night, so it does not mean much. Kris also had dirt under her fingernails, from playing that day. Most importantly Kris had a blue PJ fiber from Inmate's top that was in a blood clot under her nail. This fiber was lost, but it was clearly indentified and documented. Originally it was thought to be just a blood clot, as the fiber was balled up and coated with blood. This is damning evidence, because Inmate claimed he took off his top when he first went into the MB. And how did it get balled up into a clot of blood and under Kris's fingernail? That surely did not happen earlier in the evening and stayed there because she did not have a bath. NOW That is Powerful Evidence. Not unsourced hair, that does not match any of the people who were supposed to be there that night.

The fingerprints were unidentified, BUT they were not matched to Helena and crowd. That is what is important, is that MacCamp has identified Helena and crowd as being in that house, and not one print. Any house will have unmatched prints.

There was no way to tell if the writing of PIG was left handed. The person was in an unnatural position writing on a horizontal surface. Get real. What was found is that there were no ridge lines, meaning the person had on gloves. The only gloves found to have been used in the crime were the surgical gloves, which were in pieces in the MB and in the MB bedding. And those gloves matched the gloves under the sink in the kitchen. There was a big drop of Inmate's blood right in front of that cabinet, and the package of gloves were behind the cleaning supplies. Try and convince a jury that the killers carefully rummaged in the sink cabinet, put everything back, and shut the door, and made Inmate put on 1 inch drop of blood on the floor. Sure. Every day.

Helena also failed a polygraph. And she did not know anything about the scene. She talked about a broken hobby horse, which was not broken. There was a picture of the horse in the papers after the murder. Helena also claimed that she had sex with Inmate and that he was the one who killed his family. The quotes from Helena's statements in FJ were taken out of context, it was a cut and paste of serveral interviews and she was lead in the questioning.

The unidentified pubic hair was from god knows where. Colette was not a great houskeeper and she let neighbors use her washer (in the kitchen) and her dryer (off the MB). That mean that people were bringing in baskets with dirty clothes. And the pubic hair did not match Helena and crowd. Since this was not a sex crime, is one to believe that a drugged up hippy took off their shoes, pants and underwear, and shook their private parts until a pube dropped off, and then got redressed, although they were all so high that they ran off and left Inmate before they could kill him? Uhh.....not likely.

FJ is a fantasy work. Every thing about it is a fantasy. How can you believe the authors after they made the oven mitts into "gloves" that indicated that multiple people used them to commit the crime? The authors were liars, they wrote that book for the money. They never knew that there would be a site like TJMIS, where all the source documents could be reviewed, and that their lies would be found out.

[Spamela]

Before Mrs Inmate came along, Inmate did not even bother to mention his butchered family. It is me, me, me, all day long, 365 days a year.
This is his site as it was in 1988--
http://members.tripod.com/~MacDonaldDefense/index2.html

Glad he was optimistic that the DNA would set him free. Funny, how that worked out.

A message from Jeff
updated March 2, 1998
Hello, and a belated Happy New Year to all of you. As many of you know, the chances for my full vindication finally happening this year took a sudden turn for the better in October, 1997. On October 17th, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia ruled that I may DNA test exhibits from the crime scene. This is a major legal victory, as it finally allows me access to evidence long withheld from the defense.

We believe the DNA tests on hair and blood will clearly indicate the presence of outside assailants in 544 Castle Drive. Those assailants - described by myself in some detail to the first arriving MPs - were seen by many people that morning; they were witnessed going to the house; they were found (once located) to match the description I gave; they were seen in bloody clothing and boots shortly after the murders;; and, they admitted their guilt to others! Within hours of the murders, the female that I saw in my living room in a floppy hat, boots, (and wearing a long blond wig), admitted to a Fayetteville policeman her involvement in the crimes. Yet the government chose to prosecute me, instead of pursuing the multiple leads then available about these persons. (And, to make matters even more horrible, I lost my appeals on the above issues when Judge Dupree declared the defense (my team) had not found any scientific evidence to tie these "alleged" assailants to the crime scene). We believe the DNA tests will unearth evidence that irrefutably ties in outside assailants to the commis- sion of these crimes.

Many of you have written or e-mailed the defense asking, "What is next?" The answer is, the Defense has recently completed an exhaustive study of the crime scene exhibits. Now we are working with criminologists to ascertain which exhibits are most appropriate for testing. There are several problems with some exhibits, as you might guess, after 28 years of government hiding, "losing", substituting, and changing samples on us, as judged from their own lab notes uncovered via Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.) releases.

Once the criminologist completes his tasks, then
we will obtain, as per the October 17th court order, those exhibits. Then, the final step will begin, once we locate a lab capable of, and willing to, do the DNA tests.

Please understand this a very difficult task. Not only is DNA testing "new", but we will need to test some exhibits via the regular, or old, DNA technique, namely nuclear DNA. But on other exhibits, we will need to utilize mitochondrial DNA testing, an even newer, and far more costly, procedure. Only a few labs in the country can even do mitochondrial DNA testing, and it is exorbitantly expen- sive. (For instance, some estimates for mitochondrial DNA testing in this case are $100,000.) If justice truly were "blind", as it is supposed to be, in a perfect world the FBI Lab itself would honestly and fairly test the DNA. However, our bitter experiences with changed lab results, false "scientific" experiments and exhibits, and clear perjury by FBI Special Agent Michael Malone, in my case, frightens us enough to prevent us from trusting the FBI Lab (which doesn't do tests for defendants, anyway - only "for" the Department of Justice prosecutors). Most of you are aware of the Inspector General's report in April 1997 which catalogued very serious deficiencies in the FBI Lab, including many naming Michael Malone as having "mistestified". The results of this IG report, plus much more, was documented in widely read expose articles, written by Laurie Cohen of the Wall Street Journal.

So, in summary, the "next step" will be DNA testing, once the preliminary studies and criminologistic review are completed, and once we locate a lab willing and capable of testing nuclear and mitochon- drial DNA materials. The necessary last step before actual testing, will be trying to raise the money for that testing. The Defense Team currently has no money, and the lawyers, investigators, friends, experts, and others, all have been working essentially pro bono since 1990.

Meanwhile, here in Oregon the winter rains continue. I have received several delightful visits over the winter months, which, of course, brightens my outlook. I am working hard on the case, some- times on a daily basis with Harvey Silverglate's office in Boston, or with various investigators on the case, and with our Defense Liaison person, Lucia Bartoli, in southern California. Of course, I am also trying to maintain contact with friends and family, but, as some of you know, and hopefully understand, I simply can't possibly write everyone who has reached to help us, although I do try. I thank you most sincerely for all your cards and letters, your support, the stamps and conations you have sent, and the very uplifting encouragement I've received from many of you. As I run the track here, or do a workout on the weight pile, or late in the evening in my cell, I often think of how blessed I am that so many good people reach out to help us in this long difficult struggle for vindication. The struggle is now 28 years old, and I've been incarcerated almost 17 full years (March 31 makes 17 years "down") yet, suddenly, due to the recent legal victory in the 4th Circuit, we believe I am now on the brink of finally overturning the false conviction. A journalist who recently inter- viewed me here at FCI Sheridan asked me, "But isn't too late?" I answered, "It is never too late for the truth to come out, and for a wrongly convicted person to be acquitted and freed from an unjust incarceration."

Thanks again for your attention, concern, and support.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. MacDonald, M.D.

[JTF]

Dallas: The following are my responses to your post.

1) Helena Stoeckley actually took several lie detector tests. The results of her 1971 exam were deemed as inconclusive due to Stoeckley's excessive drug use. Polygraph examiner Robert Brisentine felt that Stoeckley was clearly high during one of the tests. In 1980, Stoeckley took 3 defense funded polygraph tests and she flunked one of the tests. Stoeckley had no "inside" knowledge of the crime scene.

2) It was never determined that Colette's killer was left handed. The only mention of a left handed individual in this case was the opinion of a pathologist that some of the blows delivered to Colette's head were by a left handed individual. The problem with this opinion is that other blows to Colette's head seemed to be delivered by a right handed individual. Common sense dictates that MacDonald was swinging the club with a two handed grip. Type O blood was not found on Colette's pajama top, but on her hands. Kristen MacDonald had Type O blood. The blood on Colette's hands was Kristen's, not Greg Mitchell's.

3) There is no definitive proof that the source of the 3 saran fibers is a wig. Paul Stombaugh and Michael Malone concurred that the source of the fibers was a doll or dolls owned by the MacDonald children. One of the 3 saran fibers differed in chemical composition indicating two sources. The notion that 2 drug-crazed intruders wore wigs during a home invasion is absurd. In addition, the 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection.

4) Barry Scheck doesn't have a clue. There is no definitive evidence that demonstrates that the hair fragment was located under Kristen's fingernail. Check out the Defense Claims topic on my website. I respond to every single claim of innocence put forth by MacDonald's advocates. You'll find that their claims are wanting.

5) The affidavits you refer to are a joke. I don't know how else to put it.

There is no evidence of intruders. None. Nada. Zip. You asked people on this board to help you sort it out, so here goes.

- None of the 30 unidentified fingerprints found at the crime scene match a known intruder suspect.

- No head hairs found at the crime scene match the head hair exemplars from known intruder suspects.

- No bloody shoeprints were found at the crime scene

- None of the 28 hair exhibits DNA tested by the AFIP matched the DNA profiles of Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell.

- Greg Mitchell and Bruce Fowler passed polygraph exams.

- All of the individuals implicated by Stoeckley denied involvement in the murders. All of these individuals were interviewed by either the CID and/or the FBI and were cleared as suspects.

Jeffrey MacDonald brutally murdered his family. He's a psychopath who concocted a story about mythical intruders to save his sorry a#@. If there is any true justice, he will die in prison.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

spammy - pudgiewudgie is misleading you. Each of the appeals I noted have been decided on merit. the issue of Helena's statements are res judicata. res judicata - latin meaning the thing has been judged. Basically, in court hearings between these same parties this issue (Helena, her testimony, alleged corroborating statements) have already been heard by the judge, and the issue has been decided.

For example the appeal decided 12/17/85 included a motion for a new trial based primarily on post-trial statements by Helena etal. The defense attempted to introduce two earlier hearsay statements that the courts had already excluded as being unreliable. The appeals court affirmed the exclusion by Judge Dupree. US vs JRM 688 F.2d @ 230-34.

Helena had died by the time this appeal was filed: court noted that what Helena remembered when questioned depended on WHO was doing the questioning.

from decision transcript:
quote:
to obtain a new trial based on "newly discovered" evidence it must be admissable in court. It is doubtful these hearsay statements would be admissable since corroborating circumstances do not clearly indicate trustworthiness. Federal Rules of Evidence 804 (b) (3) * endquote

*US vs Carvalho 742 F.2d 146 (4th Circ 1984)
*US vs Lott 751 F.2d 717 (4th Circ 1985)

quote:
The circumstantial evidence made a strong case against MacDonald and demonstrated that his story was a fabrication entirely or in substantial part. endquote

Still, the most important quote follows - and although it does not use the word MERIT, it is implicit in the conclusion and the fact that the conviction of mac was affirmed.

quote:
In much greater detail than we, the district judge considered every contention that MacDonald advanced. The care with which it was done is evident, and we may conclude this much briefer opinion with the statement that there is no basis upon which any ruling in this case by a meticulous district judge can be overturned.
endquote

[i]Circuit Judges - Murnaghan and Russell
Sr. Circuit Judge - Haynsworth


I've said elsewhere that under a habeas writ, res judicata loses standing. In other words, it does not constrain the reviewers.

[Spamela]

dallasvic--

There are some threads on other boards that deal with the lies in Fatal Justice. I will have to do some looking to find them. Byn should also be able to talk about FJ, she read it and noted the errors.

Bunny said that she tried reading FJ and checking the footnotes (but she got so sick of it she could not finish). She found that only about every third of fourth foot note was correct because she was able to go to Christina's site and check the source documents. One of the footnotes she remembered, from the beginning of the book, dealt with a wax like substance with a hair in it. When she checked the exhibit number in the original docs, there was no wax substance, it was a chalk substance with no hair at all. That is the kind of tricks that are in the book.

Just the Facts has his own site, with lots of information (the link is in his posts). He read Fatal Vision and believed that Inmate was guilty and then he read Fatal Justice and changed his mind, thinking that Inmate had been done wrong. He started researching the case, and investigated the information presented in FJ, and came to realize that the book was filled with lies, errors, and slanted information. FJ has managed to change a person's opinion, but the information in the book should be believed only if you can document everything with the original source.

Some things described in the book are just plain silly. Inmate tries to explain his bloody footprints in Kris's room, by the famous back-flip off the gurney story. However, this story was not told by Inmate until years later, and no accounts of this were reported in the original accounts by him, the ambulance attendants, or the CID.

The explanation for the PJ cuff imprints on the sheet in FJ is that the MB bed sheet was was put on Colette when she was on the gurney. This story was recalled by the witness years after the murder.

First, the sheet and bed spread were in a ball on the floor. When the sheet and the bed spread were examined, which was after the bodies were removed, broken sections of the latex glove dropped out. If the sheet had been shaken out and separated from the bedspread to put on Colette, then the glove parts would already have dropped out. Also, the items were found balled up, why would the sheet be used on Colette and then balled up again with the bedspread?

The gurney had a sheet, which was on Colette when she was carried out of the house, so why would they use the bloody Queen size sheet on the gurney when a clean sheet was there, and was in place when they removed her?

Supposedly the blood stain impressions on the sheet happened when the sheet was on Colette. The impressions on the sheet came from substantial pressure being applied to the sheet, the beading on Colette's pj cuff could be seen on the sheet. This would not happen with something being laid on top of her. By the time Colette's body was on the gurney, the blood on her clothes would have been drying for 5 hours, in a warm house. This was not a sopping wet item at this point, to soak through to a sheet on top of her.

Most importantly, Inmate's cuff impressions were also on the sheet, and there is not an explanation for that.

So, some of the things in the book make sense, until you look at them logically, and until you know the source documents. In addition, the information has to be assesed as to when the person came forward with the information, and if the information was contradicted, or confirmed, by others.

If you have not read Inmates inteview with the CID, then you should. I think that his statement, alone, shows him to be the murderer.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/macdonald_1970apr6.html

He does not sound like a person telling the truth or who has any real grief. And the story is just plain stupid. And no young person in the drug crowd would say "groov y"!!! Except someone who did not know that saying "groovy" was very un-groovy. Or someone who had read the word in the Esquire magazine that dealt with the Manson murders.

[Spamela]

I've said elsewhere that under a habeas writ, res judicata loses standing. In other words, it does not constrain the reviewers.

The prosecution has nothing to fear from unconstrained reviewers.

Hint--don't bet your 401K on Inmate going home to the missus.

[dallasvic]

I am reading just the facts now. The story I had read was here CL and written by John Boston. I guess he did not have his facts right!

[Spamela]

I am reading just the facts now. The story I had read was here CL and written by John Boston. I guess he did not have his facts right!

Crime Library was most likely written by the authors of Fatal Justice. Same BS as the book. Many people have complained about the write up, but they keep that cr@p up. Guess someone got paid off.

The DNA results devestated MacCamp. They tried to spin it to indicate that one pubic hair dropping person was prancing around naked in the master bedroom, and that hair fragments indicated intruders, but they lost supporters over the results. Some people posted on the boards that it was the last straw. Mac had been promising all those years that DNA would vindicate him. He knew it wouldn't but he had nothing to lose. Of couse, the best one was his statement that the hair clutched in Colette's hand was from the murderer, which it was, since it was Inmate's.

The fact that not one DNA sample matched any of the people in Helena's crowd, pretty much wiped out that whole ruse. Now they are trying to say that the unmatched hair came from OTHER hippies. Yeh, sure. And I just fell off the bloody turnip truck. Which OTHER hippies? They have named their hippies, and there are no finger prints or hair from their hippies in the apartment.

You notice that the two hippies that MacCamp has gone after (Helena and Greg M.) are both dead. How convenient, they can't talk.

Inmate will never go quietly into the night. His ego will not allow it. He gets excited each February on the anniversay of the deaths because reporters come to interview him. Sick. His family meant nothing to him.

[Spamela]

What are the little green, black, and red sqaures that are under the date and number of posts, in the upper right corner of the posts?

[pennnurse525]

I am reading just the facts now. The story I had read was here CL and written by John Boston. I guess he did not have his facts right!

Dallas:
The John Boston article contained here in CL is actually quite slanted and for those of us interested in documentation that is supported by fact.....a closer examination of this "article" reveals that it is not. It is at best slanted, at worst, tragically innaccurate. I agree with Spammy, check the primary source documentation on CM's site. A great thing to do is to look at the top of her home page. There is a listing that says "The Jeffrey MacDonald Case" click there and a page comes up with a few links. The most helpful for checking source documentation is the one that says "MacDonald Case Names". If you click on it you can access a Table of Contents type page that will allow you to access all documents containing the names of important individuals to the case. That way, if you are looking for testimony regarding, say, Colette's actions and timing the night of the murders, it is easier to find.
Just a tip that has been helpful to me when reading the volumes of direct primary documentation avaiable there. Hope this helps, and I hope you will join us at live chat on Tuesday night!!
Penn:seeya:

[byn63]

I am reading just the facts now. The story I had read was here CL and written by John Boston. I guess he did not have his facts right!

hi dallas and welcome to the discussions.

You are quite correct John Boston's version of events might as well have just been noted as excerpts from Fatal Fiction er Fatal Justice. The crimelibrary and FJ are replete with half truths, misrepresentations, cut and paste and outright lies. FJ mentions early on the alleged "bloody gloves" but when you read the actual documentation you find that 3 of the "cloth gloves" are oven mitts and the amount of bloody is so small as to preclude determination of source (human/animal) let alone type. Ridiculous.

I highly recommend spending time reading the facts at http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

[Deb B]

You can't cite a merit ruling, because there is no merit ruling.

This is a little late, but how's this from the March 1985 ruling?

"In any event, if the motions are decided against MacDonald on the merits, it will make little difference whether he should have raised the issues at trial or when his convictions were on appeal. Thus, although the cause and actual prejudice test would indeed present a formidable barrier to MacDonald's motions, the court prefers in this instance to address the motions on their merits."

Lots about the merits of Helena and her confessions in that decision/ruling.

[Wudge]

This is a little late, but how's this from the March 1985 ruling?

"In any event, if the motions are decided against MacDonald on the merits, it will make little difference whether he should have raised the issues at trial or when his convictions were on appeal. Thus, although the cause and actual prejudice test would indeed present a formidable barrier to MacDonald's motions, the court prefers in this instance to address the motions on their merits."

Lots about the merits of Helena and her confessions in that decision/ruling.


Refer to post #3605.

The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication.

(A reason for resistance to expansion)

[JTF]

Wudge: You have a predilection for correcting people on this board for their interpretations of the legal issues raised in this case. You certainly have the right to do so, but what's good for the goose...............................

The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication.

Comments: The 3 saran fibers were never proven to have come from a wig. The government effectively argued at the 1990 and 1992 appellate hearings that the source of the fibers was probably a doll or dolls owned by the MacDonald children. The 5 dark woolen fibers were not all black in color. Some of the them were purple and 3 of the 5 fibers differed in chemical composition. The saran and dark woolen fibers may not have been considered in a merit-based adjudication, but they obviously have been adjudicated in the appellate courts.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: You have a predilection for correcting people on this board for their interpretations of the legal issues raised in this case. You certainly have the right to do so, but what's good for the goose...............................

The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication.

Comments: The 3 saran fibers were never proven to have come from a wig. The government effectively argued at the 1990 and 1992 appellate hearings that the source of the fibers was probably a doll or dolls owned by the MacDonald children. The 5 dark woolen fibers were not all black in color. Some of the them were purple and 3 of the 5 fibers differed in chemical composition. The saran and dark woolen fibers may not have been considered in a merit-based adjudication, but they obviously have been adjudicated in the appellate courts.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/



Cite the merit-based ruling.

[JTF]

Wudge: Classic. You ignore the fact that you were wrong in claiming that the saran fibers were wig hairs and that the dark woolen fibers were black. To top if off, you obviously didn't read my post regarding the adjudication history of the fibers. I acknowledged the fact that the fibers have not been presented for a merit-based ruling, but that they have been presented in two separate appellate hearings. What I didn't included in my prior post was the fact that the appellate courts agreed with the government's evidentiary arguments, deeming the saran/dark woolen fiber evidence as "specious."

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Either way,
3 saran fibers and a couple unsourced dark fibers do not a hippie mass murder make.....

JMO,
Penn

[Wudge]

Wudge: Classic. You ignore the fact that you were wrong in claiming that the saran fibers were wig hairs and that the dark woolen fibers were black. To top if off, you obviously didn't read my post regarding the adjudication history of the fibers. I acknowledged the fact that the fibers have not been presented for a merit-based ruling, but that they have been presented in two separate appellate hearings. What I didn't included in my prior post was the fact that the appellate courts agreed with the government's evidentiary arguments, deeming the saran/dark woolen fiber evidence as "specious."

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

What toy manufacturer provided an affidavit saying they used saran for "doll" hair?


P.S. as to the merit-based ruling you said "may".

[JTF]

Wudge: Saran was commonly used in the manufacturing of doll hair. Mattel used saran to create doll hair up to 18 inches in length. MacDonald's defense team did not dispute the fact that saran was used to make doll hair. Their arguments in 1990, 1992, and 1998 were two-fold.

1) Helena Stoeckley told a number of people that she wore a wig the night of the murders and that saran was used to make cosmetic wigs for human wear.

2) Two of the 3 saran fibers were too long (e.g., 22 and 24 inches long) to have come from a doll.

As evidenced by the appellate court's decisions, the government's response was impressive.

1) Stoeckley testified at trial that she did not wear her wig the night of the murders because Greg Mitchell did not like how it looked on her.

2) The 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition from the 24 and 9 inch fibers. This indicated that the 3 fibers came from 2 different sources.

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

4) Doll hair is double-looped in the rooting process meaning that when an intact hair is pulled from a doll's head, it doubles in size. In other words, when a 12 inch doll hair is pulled from a doll's head, the fiber will measure 24 inches.

5) The only wig used for human wear that the defense team could lay their hands on was located in a museum in Mexico City.

Check out the government's response to Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit at

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

I in no way am as learned or up to date as JTF on this subject, but it is also worth noting when one is trying to demonstrate that the saran fibers were originated by Helena.....Colette MacDonald had, owned and wore "falls" as many did in those days. They were also blonde as was her hair. I believe, and others correct me if I am wrong, but the "falls" that Colette had were destroyed or given away and were therefore unable to be tested against the fibers found. Correct?

Did Helena frequent Mexico too....or is that the newest defense strategy that we should wait for? Maybe she was an international spy......

Sorry. Had to go there. LMAO.
JMO...
Penn

[JTF]

Penn: Nice one. Stoeckley perusing Mexico City, chanting "Acid is groovy" in Spanish. In terms of the falls owned by Colette, there were a number of synthetic fibers found in other hairbrushes at the MacDonald residence. Dark synthetic or PVC fibers were matched to a wig owned by Mildred Kassab and platinum colored fibers were sourced to a fall owned by Colette. The Kassabs were in possession of that fall and they provided it to the FBI for comparison purposes in 1990. Not surprisingly, the MacDonald defense team has ignored these fibers.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

So, looking at docs again.....
It is noted in Kristen's autopsy report that a blade of grass was found during the autopsy on her pelvic region......I personally believe this has no bearing on the case, as an active little precocious girl would be playing outside and having fun I'm sure. Picking up a blade of grass would not be of consequence. However, I have to say, with all the desperation moves made by Inmate and his camp, I am however shocked that this has never come up....at least to my knowledge. Just wondering, anyone know anything about this? Again, I find it inconsequential, but cannot believe it has not been used.

Also of note, there is still NO MENTION of Colette and Kristen on Inmate's site, nor Kimberley as their birthdays come and go.....typical. Gross. Expected.

Penn

[Wudge]

Wudge: Saran was commonly used in the manufacturing of doll hair. Mattel used saran to create doll hair up to 18 inches in length.

Cite any affidavit from any toy or doll manufacturer that said saran was used for doll's hair.

[byn63]

Cite any affidavit from any toy or doll manufacturer that said saran was used for doll's hair.

http://www.dollreference.com/barbie1.html

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/sarannet/en/u3.html

here are two quick references discussing saran as doll wigs and yes they are called wigs whether the hair is attached to the head or removable, glued on or stitched into the head. Saran was introduced into the doll industry sometime in the 1950s.

btw - the wig found by Lucia Bartoli in Mexico City was NOT a cosmetic wig, it is a mannequin wig. there is a difference in the manufacture of wigs that are meant for stationary non-living breathing figures and a cosmetic wig meant to be worn by a person who breathes, moves, sweats etc.

[Deb B]

Refer to post #3605.

The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication.

(A reason for resistance to expansion)

Post #3605 is re: junk science.

How about this?

From the July 1991 decision re: Macdonald's October 1990 writ, which included his claims re: the fibers.

"Although relief could be denied solely on the basis of a procedural barrier due to MacDonald's failure to raise the instant claims as part of his initial habeas proceedings, the court has reviewed in detail the newly discovered evidence and has considered the merits of Macdonald's claims. Having done so the court finds the fiber evidence presented here for the first time would have been insufficient to alter the result at trial."

[JTF]

Wudge: The government didn't need to obtain an affidavit from a toy manufacturer stating that saran was used in doll hair because, shock, it was a common practice. If this was an issue at all in this case, your boy's defense team would have raised a stink about it. As a matter of fact, your hero's defense team didn't challenge the government's contention that the 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection. Why do you think that is? In addition, affidavits from Judith Schizas and Melanie Phillips were first obtained by the government and later by the defense. Schizas was a doll specialist and Phillips was the manager of Mattel's doll hair department. Schizas and Phillips were asked their opinion about whether a doll could be the source of the 22 and 24 inch saran fibers. This echoes a point I made several posts ago regarding the defense team's focus on length issues. In other words, the question wasn't whether doll hair was made out of saran, but could a doll be the source of saran fibers that were 22 and 24 inches in length? Why do you think that neither the government nor the defense asked Schizas and Phillips whether a doll could have been the source of the 9 inch saran fiber? Please stop creating issues out of whole cloth and take the time to read the documented record.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

SNIP

In addition, affidavits from Judith Schizas and Melanie Phillips were first obtained by the government and later by the defense. Schizas was a doll specialist and Phillips was the manager of Mattel's doll hair department. Schizas and Phillips were asked their opinion about whether a doll could be the source of the 22 and 24 inch saran fibers.

SNIP

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Laurie Cohen, Wall Street Journal, April, 1997


"Mr. Malone had sought, but failed to get, a statement from a Mattel Inc. doll specialist, Judith Schizas, that a 24-inch saran fiber might have come from a Mattel doll. Though Ms. Schizas says she told Mr. Malone and two of his colleagues that neither Mattel nor other manufacturers she knew had used such long fibers, the government agents continued to press her, she says. "You aren't trying to railroad this guy, are you?" Ms. Schizas says she asked. She says Mr. Malone laughed and then responded, "No, we know he's guilty, and there's a ton of other evidence to prove it."

A couple of weeks after the visit, Ms. Schizas says, she received a draft affidavit from federal prosecutors. It stated that saran was "the major fiber used for doll hair by Mattel" and others until the 1980s. The affidavit also said that doll hairs could be doubled during the weaving process to reduce a 24-inch fiber into a foot-long hair. Disagreeing with both assertions, Ms. Schizas refused to sign."

[byn63]

http://www.dollreference.com/barbie1.html

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/sarannet/en/u3.html

here are two quick references discussing saran as doll wigs and yes they are called wigs whether the hair is attached to the head or removable, glued on or stitched into the head. Saran was introduced into the doll industry sometime in the 1950s.

btw - the wig found by Lucia Bartoli in Mexico City was NOT a cosmetic wig, it is a mannequin wig. there is a difference in the manufacture of wigs that are meant for stationary non-living breathing figures and a cosmetic wig meant to be worn by a person who breathes, moves, sweats etc.

I know pudgiewudgie doesn't like to read my posts, but the rest of you - apparently missed this one so I'm quoting myself.

[byn63]

Post #3605 is re: junk science.

How about this?

From the July 1991 decision re: Macdonald's October 1990 writ, which included his claims re: the fibers.

"Although relief could be denied solely on the basis of a procedural barrier due to MacDonald's failure to raise the instant claims as part of his initial habeas proceedings, the court has reviewed in detail the newly discovered evidence and has considered the merits of Macdonald's claims. Having done so the court finds the fiber evidence presented here for the first time would have been insufficient to alter the result at trial."

yes indeed Deb this was a merit decision that you have cited here.

fyi - there is a thread at A&E discussing the subject of merit decisions. It was written by one of the legal eagles that posts there...........it is interesting!

[Deb B]

yes indeed Deb this was a merit decision that you have cited here.

fyi - there is a thread at A&E discussing the subject of merit decisions. It was written by one of the legal eagles that posts there...........it is interesting!

Thanks, I did see that at A&E, which is what brought me here!

Re: saran - when I plug "saran wig" into my search engine, all I get are hits re: dolls, old and new. Nothing about human cosmetic wigs. Although the length of the hair found at the MacDonald scene is a bit of a question for me, I lean toward it being doll hair, rather than from a human cosmetic wig worn by Helena - other factors: the fibers differ from each other, and Lucia researched this for years and came up with ---- a mannequin wig from an anthropology museum in Mexico.

Also, as I think that legally, MacDonald is in a position where he needs to prove what he's saying, what proof is there that saran was used for human cosmetic wigs?

[byn63]

Re: saran - when I plug "saran wig" into my search engine, all I get are hits re: dolls, old and new. Nothing about human cosmetic wigs. Although the length of the hair found at the MacDonald scene is a bit of a question for me, I lean toward it being doll hair, rather than from a human cosmetic wig worn by Helena - other factors: the fibers differ from each other, and Lucia researched this for years and came up with ---- a mannequin wig from an anthropology museum in Mexico.

A point that several of us have brought up! IF saran was used for cosmetic wigs than what happened to all of them? Why did the defense have to go all the way to Mexico City just to find ANY wig made of saran? Plus, as I've pointed out time and time again there is a difference in the way cosmetic wigs are manufactured from mannequin wigs or even costume wigs or hair pieces.

Also, as I think that legally, MacDonald is in a position where he needs to prove what he's saying, what proof is there that saran was used for human cosmetic wigs?

This is a tough one, because our legal system does not require the defendant to prove anything. However, at this point inmate's options are limited. As much as some posters may wish to claim otherwise, the appellate decisions have been based on merit!

[JTF]

Wudge: Beautiful. You request affidavits regarding a non-issue in this case, refuse to address unassailable fact after unassailable fact, and put the cherry on the top of your circular argument by taking quotes from a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE! It might interest you to know that Cohen's article has not stood the test of time. It is riddled with errors and breaks the cardinal rule of investigative journalism by compiling all of its data from a singular source (e.g., MacDonald's advocates). If you want to skip over the vast amount of data (e.g., FBI/CID lab notes, Grand Jury/Trial transcripts, multiple appellate decisions) that contradicts your positions in this case, be my guest, but don't quote something as fact without going over the documented record with a fine tooth comb.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: Beautiful. You request affidavits regarding a non-issue in this case, refuse to address unassailable fact after unassailable fact, and put the cherry on the top of your circular argument by taking quotes from a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE! It might interest you to know that Cohen's article has not stood the test of time. It is riddled with errors and breaks the cardinal rule of investigative journalism by compiling all of its data from a singular source (e.g., MacDonald's advocates). If you want to skip over the vast amount of data (e.g., FBI/CID lab notes, Grand Jury/Trial transcripts, multiple appellate decisions) that contradicts your positions in this case, be my guest, but don't quote something as fact without going over the documented record with a fine tooth comb.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

I referenced a wig hair and black fibers, nothing more.

Post Ms. Schizas's affidavit that you cited.

[Wudge]

Post #3605 is re: junk science.

How about this?

SNIP

[/B]

........No.

[Deb B]

........No.

I first responded to your post saying "You can't site a merit ruling because there is no merit ruling." - I cited a merit ruling on MacDonald's Helena Stoeckley claims. You said look at post # 3605, which is your response to an analysis of MacDonald statements. I saw post #3617 where you said, "The wig hair and black wool fibers were not evaluated and considered in a merit-based adjudication" and thought maybe you meant that post. I cited a merit-based ruling on that claim.

Deb

[JTF]

Wudge: Amazing. Again, there is no definitive proof that the source of the saran fibers was a wig or wigs and not all of the dark woolen fibers were black. Your only "reference" was a discredited newspaper article written a decade ago.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: Amazing. Again, there is no definitive proof that the source of the saran fibers was a wig or wigs and not all of the dark woolen fibers were black. Your only "reference" was a discredited newspaper article written a decade ago.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/


Ms. Schizas's affidavit?

[Wudge]

SNIP

I cited a merit-based ruling on that claim.



No, you only think you did. The procedural based ruling was never set aside.

[Deb B]

No, you only think you did. The procedural based ruling was never set aside.

Nope, nothing about merit in the 1991 decision re: MacDonald's fiber claims!

"Although relief could be denied solely on the basis of a procedural barrier due to MacDonald's failure to raise the instant claims as part of his initial habeas proceedings, the court has reviewed in detail the newly discovered evidence and has considered the merits of Macdonald's claims. Having done so the court finds the fiber evidence presented here for the first time would have been insufficient to alter the result at trial."

"Close analysis of the actual fiber evidence at issue reveals that the fibers provide little, if any, support for MacDonald's account of the crimes."

Nothing at all! No, siree. Nuh-uh.

[Wudge]

SNIP

Nope, nothing about merit in the 1991 decision re: MacDonald's fiber claims!




(snicker)

The first habeas ruling was procedural based. The Court ruled the defense had not exercised due diligence as regards "discovering" the "new" evidence. Thus, ruling the clock had run out.

It's that simple.

[Bunny2]

I referenced a wig hair and black fibers, nothing more.

Post Ms. Schizas's affidavit that you cited.

Among other things, I think you've already been told there was no conclusive evidentiary finding by any court that the saran fibers were "wig hair," and the fibers are generally referred to as "dark-colored," not black. Following your lead: Show us any part of Glisson's notes that refers to any "wig" hair.

Instead of arrogantly ordering people around with your "post it" and "cite it" commands, why don't you do your own homework? Here's the Names page. Look up Schizas for yourself and you'll have access to the same information the rest of us do:

http://themacdonaldcase.com/html/names_mac.html

[Wudge]

you've already been told

http://themacdonaldcase.com/html/names_mac.html

"Told" (triple snicker)

This is going to shock you, but I'm not a JTF sheep. I grant nothing. He claimed she filed an affidavit. Asking him to produce it is proper.

(oh ... and good luck ... chuckle)

[Deb B]

(snicker)

The first habeas ruling was procedural based. The Court ruled the defense had not exercised due diligence as regards "discovering" the "new" evidence. Thus, ruling the clock had run out.

It's that simple.

Snicker all you want - the court addressed the merits of MacDonald's ridiculous fiber claims. It's clearly indicated in the language I've been posting from the '91 decision, and elsewhere in that decision.

:seeya:

[JTF]

Wudge: Do your own work, pal. People on this board have been nice enough to provide you with case material, yet you refuse to address the case documentation that doesn't fit your slanted arguments. In the past few days, you've graduated to creating issues out of whole cloth (e.g., saran is used to make doll hair, so no affidavit exists that addresses this non-issue) and equating quotes from a newspaper article as documented fact. Be grateful that Bunny provided you with a link to Schizas.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

(snicker)

The first habeas ruling was procedural based. The Court ruled the defense had not exercised due diligence as regards "discovering" the "new" evidence. Thus, ruling the clock had run out.

It's that simple.

(snicker)

You, nor MacCamp, can refute the evidence that convicted him.

Please refute the bloody PJ cuff imprints, of both Colette and Inmate, on the MB sheet.
Please refute the location of Inmate's PJ yarns and fibers. Please refute that the bodies were moved.

You can't, Wudget, can you? No one can.

THAT IS WHY INMATE IS IN PRISON!

It's that simple.

[Wudge]

Wudge: Do your own work, pal.


SNIP

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

I'm not part of your flock. I made an appropriate request, shepherd. You have no standing with me. Tend to your wounded sheep.

And for all flock memebers, as for doll hair: What doll manufacturer said their doll hair machinery handled cuts beyond 14"?

[Wudge]

Snicker all you want - the court addressed the merits of MacDonald's ridiculous fiber claims. It's clearly indicated in the language I've been posting from the '91 decision, and elsewhere in that decision.

:seeya:

Judge Dupree's procedural putdown in July, 1991, was based on the Supreme Court's decision in McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (April 16, 1991),

[Deb B]

I'm curious as to evidence that saran was used for human cosmetic wigs. I've looked and looked - can't find anything - anyone?

[Deb B]

Judge Dupree's procedural putdown in July, 1991, was based on the Supreme Court's decision in McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (April 16, 1991),

"Although relief could be denied solely on the basis of a procedural barrier due to MacDonald's failure to raise the instant claims as part of his initial habeas proceedings, the court has reviewed in detail the newly discovered evidence and has considered the merits of Macdonald's claims. Having done so the court finds the fiber evidence presented here for the first time would have been insufficient to alter the result at trial."

[Spamela]

I'm curious as to evidence that saran was used for human cosmetic wigs. I've looked and looked - can't find anything - anyone?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/mac_def_itemized_evidence_appndx3_pt3_2006-03-23.pdf

This has the info. What is interesting is that there are statements from those who worked on the development of the fibers for human wigs, but there are no statements of companies who DID produce the wigs. The statements reference some companies that are all out of business. And one person states that the fibers were used to produce santa beards. It makes me think that the wigs were of a costume nature. And if there were all those wigs produced, why could not they find ONE single one? Very strage if you ask me.

[Spamela]

I'm not part of your flock. I made an appropriate request, shepherd. You have no standing with me. Tend to your wounded sheep.

And for all flock memebers, as for doll hair: What doll manufacturer said their doll hair machinery handled cuts beyond 14"?

And where is the statement that Helena said that she wore a long wig that night and brushed it? And with which brush did she brush her wig?

And who in their right mind would believe that she was brushing her hair, in the middle of a murder? According to one of her statements, after they wacked Inmate, they all ran off. So when did she have time to brush her hair? Since they did not turn on the lights, how did she find the brush by Colette's purse in the Dining room? And why didn't she at least take the money from Colette's wallet?

GIVE ME A BREAK.

WHO would believe such a stupid story?

Not the judge, and not the jury. They focused on the real evidence. The evidence that Inmate's own expert witness agreed with the findings of the government. You, know, real evidence that could not be explained away by dumb stories, like those pesky bloody pj cuff stains of Colette's and Inmate's on the MB bed sheet. REAL evidence.

You seem like a smart man, how can you believe such rubbish?

[byn63]

(snicker)

The first habeas ruling was procedural based. The Court ruled the defense had not exercised due diligence as regards "discovering" the "new" evidence. Thus, ruling the clock had run out.

It's that simple.

you are ridiculous as are your claims wudgie! The ruling Deb cited specifically states that IT COULD have been ruled against mac strictly on a procedural basis BUT the court DID REVIEW the merits and found the "newly discovered evidence" lacking. That is a merit based decision.

There are several of this type of decision in inmate's case btw.

There are attorneys that post at other forums and they agree that the citation made by Deb is merit based, as is the decision I quoted. I think I'll stick with legal experts rather than someone who's only source of data appears to be inmate and his cronies.

[byn63]

http://www.dollreference.com/barbie1.html

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/sarannet/en/u3.html

here are two quick references discussing saran as doll wigs and yes they are called wigs whether the hair is attached to the head or removable, glued on or stitched into the head. Saran was introduced into the doll industry sometime in the 1950s.

btw - the wig found by Lucia Bartoli in Mexico City was NOT a cosmetic wig, it is a mannequin wig. there is a difference in the manufacture of wigs that are meant for stationary non-living breathing figures and a cosmetic wig meant to be worn by a person who breathes, moves, sweats etc.


here once again are two cites that talk about SARAN and MATTEL and the whole wig hair issue. please read!

[Wudge]

you are ridiculous as are your claims wudgie! The ruling Deb cited specifically states that IT COULD have been ruled against mac strictly on a procedural basis BUT the court DID REVIEW the merits and found the "newly discovered evidence" lacking. That is a merit based decision.

There are several of this type of decision in inmate's case btw.

There are attorneys that post at other forums and they agree that the citation made by Deb is merit based, as is the decision I quoted. I think I'll stick with legal experts rather than someone who's only source of data appears to be inmate and his cronies.

"Could" is not "was". Because O' Neil had the lab notes from circa 1983, Judge Dupree found due diligence was lacking. His ruling relied on McCleskey v. Zant, supra; it was not merit-based. Ignorance will not make it so.

[Deb B]

"Could" is not "was". Because O' Neil had the lab notes from circa 1983, Judge Dupree found due diligence was lacking. His ruling relied on McCleskey v. Zant, supra; it was not merit-based. Ignorance will not make it so.

Your bull-headed insistence that Dupree's 1991 ruling didn't address the merits of MacDonald's claims is akin to insisting that 1+1=3.

[byn63]

Your bull-headed insistence that Dupree's 1991 ruling didn't address the merits of MacDonald's claims is akin to insisting that 1+1=3.

ITA Deb.

Wudgie pay attention to this: Your own comments agree with Deb's citation. The wording specifically says that the court could have denied the appeal on procedural basis it does not say it WAS denied on a procedural basis. The court chose to review the motion on MERIT and denied the motion because it lacked merit. Maybe it is time for some remedial reading comprehension classes for you wudgie.

From the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on the 3rd Abuse of Writ
quote:

We find that Jeffrey Robert MacDonald does not meet the stringent requirements of McCleskey vs Zant 499 US 467, 113 L Ed. 2d 517, 111 S. Ct. 1454 (1991) necessary to overcome dismissal of a second or subsequent collateral claim for abuse of the writ..........

Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the District Court's opinion dismissing Jeffrey Robert MacDonald's petition as an abuse of the writ and decline to reach the merits of his petition.

endquote

This motion was indeed denied on procedural grounds but it is NOT the appeal decision that DebB was quoting. In fact, this decision is about 6 years AFTER the appeal that Deb was quoting.

[JTF]

Byn and Deb: Nice work. A college football coach once told a reporter that "You don't know what you don't know, so therefore, you don't know." This applies to Mr. Wudge's approach to the legal history and/or analysis of the physical evidence in this case. His approach is typical MacDonald camp nonsense which involves the following approaches.

1) Sticking to message: Present the same arguments over and over again. Most, if not all, of these arguments are at odds with the documented record.

2) Ignore the documented record: When documented fact demonstrates that your arguments are wanting, simply don't respond.

3) Attack, Attack, Attack: See Wudge's posts, Kathryn MacDonald's 2005 statements to Bob Stevenson on LKL, and Jeffrey MacDonald's statements to the media/Grand Jury testimony/Trial testimony.

Ohhh, the irony of a MacDonald groupie calling people on this board "sheep."

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[AshleyMari]

I'm not part of your flock. I made an appropriate request, shepherd. You have no standing with me. Tend to your wounded sheep.

And for all flock memebers, as for doll hair: What doll manufacturer said their doll hair machinery handled cuts beyond 14"?

Wudge: I take offense at being called a "wounded sheep". Why the name calling? I've done nothing to you so why be so disrespectful?

We are not sheep. We are individuals on a quest for hard-core truth in the JRM case. We want truthful answers whatever they may be that will withstand time and strong questioning from ourselves and others. We don't all agree on every piece of evidence that has been presented and that has not been presented. We make up our own minds based upon our experiences in life, our thought processes and our intelligence. To suggest we all follow equally with one individual's philosophy of this case is an affront to all of us, especially jtf. His vast knowledge of the facts in this case is a gift I wish I had. Therefore I try to be closely listening when he speaks and consider myself fortunate that he is so giving. I have noted in the past when jtf learns of some new piece of information or processes it differently, he states outright that he has changed his mind and says why. We can agree, disagree or simply do more research on the matter. We are not sheep unless we choose to be.

When the scales fall from your eyes, and they will, you should be so lucky to be considered part of the group that know he is guilty because we have done our homework, not because we don't like his looks or his wife's "profoundly" whiny voice. jmo

[Wudge]

ITA Deb.

Wudgie pay attention to this: Your own comments agree with Deb's citation. The wording specifically says that the court could have denied the appeal on procedural basis it does not say it WAS denied on a procedural basis. The court chose to review the motion on MERIT and denied the motion because it lacked merit. Maybe it is time for some remedial reading comprehension classes for you wudgie.

From the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on the 3rd Abuse of Writ
quote:

We find that Jeffrey Robert MacDonald does not meet the stringent requirements of McCleskey vs Zant 499 US 467, 113 L Ed. 2d 517, 111 S. Ct. 1454 (1991) necessary to overcome dismissal of a second or subsequent collateral claim for abuse of the writ..........

Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the District Court's opinion dismissing Jeffrey Robert MacDonald's petition as an abuse of the writ and decline to reach the merits of his petition.

endquote

This motion was indeed denied on procedural grounds but it is NOT the appeal decision that DebB was quoting. In fact, this decision is about 6 years AFTER the appeal that Deb was quoting.

Correct on procedure. Wrong on timeframe.

Even if abuse of writ exists in a second habas petition, Courts must address a potential finding of factual innocence, which is what Judge Dupree did (as required), not as the basis for his ruling.

Moreover, he only addressed the fiber evidence, not -- as I have often stated "a wig hair and black fibers".

[Wudge]

Byn and Deb: Nice work. A college football coach once told a reporter that "You don't know what you don't know, so therefore, you don't know." This applies to Mr. Wudge's approach to the legal history and/or analysis of the physical evidence in this case. His approach is typical MacDonald camp nonsense which involves the following approaches.

1) Sticking to message: Present the same arguments over and over again. Most, if not all, of these arguments are at odds with the documented record.

2) Ignore the documented record: When documented fact demonstrates that your arguments are wanting, simply don't respond.

3) Attack, Attack, Attack: See Wudge's posts, Kathryn MacDonald's 2005 statements to Bob Stevenson on LKL, and Jeffrey MacDonald's statements to the media/Grand Jury testimony/Trial testimony.

Ohhh, the irony of a MacDonald groupie calling people on this board "sheep."

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

You previously stated: "I acknowledged the fact that the fibers have not been presented for a merit-based ruling, but that they have been presented in two separate appellate hearings."

I now apply, "You don't know what you don't know, so therefore, you don't know."

(as good as self impeachment on the witness stand ... snicker)

[Wudge]

Wudge: I take offense at being called a "wounded sheep". Why the name calling? I've done nothing to you so why be so disrespectful?

We are not sheep. We are individuals on a quest for hard-core truth in the JRM case. We want truthful answers whatever they may be that will withstand time and strong questioning from ourselves and others. We don't all agree on every piece of evidence that has been presented and that has not been presented. We make up our own minds based upon our experiences in life, our thought processes and our intelligence. To suggest we all follow equally with one individual's philosophy of this case is an affront to all of us, especially jtf. His vast knowledge of the facts in this case is a gift I wish I had. Therefore I try to be closely listening when he speaks and consider myself fortunate that he is so giving. I have noted in the past when jtf learns of some new piece of information or processes it differently, he states outright that he has changed his mind and says why. We can agree, disagree or simply do more research on the matter. We are not sheep unless we choose to be.

When the scales fall from your eyes, and they will, you should be so lucky to be considered part of the group that know he is guilty because we have done our homework, not because we don't like his looks or his wife's "profoundly" whiny voice. jmo


With nine quotes, I had not marked you as "wounded".

Still, if you are looking for profound, "Britt" offers such an opportunity. Sans a ruling to expand the record, the entire case boils down to "Britt".

Will the unholy alliance of Blackburn, Malone and Murtaugh stand or will it fall? I said before, I am fine with waiting. I truly like "Britt" as a foil for yet another review.

[AshleyMari]

With nine quotes, I had not marked you as "wounded".

Still, if you are looking for profound, "Britt" offers such an opportunity. Sans a ruling to expand the record, the entire case boils down to "Britt".

Will the unholy alliance of Blackburn, Malone and Murtaugh stand or will it fall? I said before, I am fine with waiting. I truly like "Britt" as a foil for yet another review.


I think Britt will boil over and no water will be left in his pot. I fail to see how his affidavit can stand. IMO it has no legs. Even if I am wrong and a hearing is granted I cannot seem to take him serious. Not until a judge says Britt is believable and a possible source for MacD getting a new trial, or worse, vindication. Then I would have to take Britt serious. Until then, I am very skeptical.

I used the word "profoundly" because Murtagh used it in quotes in the Gov's answer to the Helena Stoeckley, Sr. affidavit. I found it telling. I would not use it in association with Britt though. jmo

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/christinas-corner.html

[Wudge]

I think Britt will boil over and no water will be left in his pot. I fail to see how his affidavit can stand. IMO it has no legs. Even if I am wrong and a hearing is granted I cannot seem to take him serious. Not until a judge says Britt is believable and a possible source for MacD getting a new trial, or worse, vindication. Then I would have to take Britt serious. Until then, I am very skeptical.

I used the word "profoundly" because Murtagh used it in quotes in the Gov's answer to the Helena Stoeckley, Sr. affidavit. I found it telling. I would not use it in association with Britt though. jmo

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/christinas-corner.html

I find profound that without a sinister motive, a former Federal Marshall would accuse a prosecutor of witness intimidation and subourning perjury.

(color me big on motive)

[rashomon]

What are the little green, black, and red sqaures that are under the date and number of posts, in the upper right corner of the posts?
They are so-called 'reputation meters'. CL has recently allowed members to (anonymously) rate each other's posts, and each poster's 'reputation' will be publicly displayed on the board, showing either in green (positive) or red (negative). The more points you get in either direction, the more little (green or red) squares will show up. Posters with black squares have disabled the function. [For those who want to disable it: go to user cp - control panel - edit options - disable the "show my reputation level" function].
If people approve of a post, they simply click on the poster's "scales of justice" icon shown in the upper right corner. If they disapprove, they do the same, but are required to give an (anonymous) comment as to why they disapprove of the post. The posters who have been negatively judged can read the comments too (unless they have disabled the function).
Jmpo, but negatively judging people anonymously has something sneaky about it, like snitching on each other. I myself don't rate any posts here anonymously, neither positively nor negatively. I prefer to comment publicly on the posts, and prefer to get feedback from others in public too, no matter if it is positive or negative.

I have the impression that this new 'reputation meter' stuff is an attempt on the moderators' part to pull the emergency brake because things have gotten out of hand on some CL forums.
Copied from the "Crime Library House Rules" thread:
[Moderator Freshwater]
Many of you will notice "scales of justice" in the upper right hand corner of each post. When you click this icon you are asked whether you approve or disapprove of the post.

This feature allowes members to get feedback from others in the community about how they are perceived. Use this system to ding someone you think is out of line but also to praise someone you think has hit the nail on the head.

As members respond to your posts you will have a good idea were you stand within the community. The following are the reputation levels that you can obtain. A complex formula determines reputation numbers including things like # of dings in X # of days is worth more negative points than a greater number over more time etc...

Let's see how this works and if it can help all understand that as members of a community we are accountable to one another.

User is infamous around these parts
User can only hope to improve
User has a little shameless behavior in the past
User is an unknown quantity at this point
User is on a distinguished road
User will become famous soon enough
User has a spectacular aura about
User is a jewel in the rough
User is just really nice
User is a glorious beacon of light
User is a name known to all
User is a splendid one to behold
User has much to be proud of
User has a brilliant future
User has a reputation beyond repute


Everyone is starting on toward a distinguished road and we will take it from there.

As always your thoughts are encouraged. This is an experiment. If it doesn't work well we'll try something else.

Thanks
FH20

PS you will notice that you can comment on me as well. I look foward to hearing the feedback.

My reply:
[rashomon]
I ask myself who is responsible for the phrasing of these sentences.

"User is on a distinguished road". Cool, but road to where if I may ask? I usually prefer to know where I'm going when on a road ...

"User will become famous soon enough" Folks who receive that message, better get yourself a PR agent quickly - Hollywood producers may be knocking at your door soon! :D

"User has a little shameless behavior in the past." Shameless? Now what on earth does THAT mean? (suspicious minds would think their bedrooms are being bugged, like in Grisham's novel The Firm, lol).

"User is just really nice" - "User is a splendid one to behold" - "User has a brilliant future"

Sounds like being voted "most popular" - "most beautiful" - "most likely to succeed" in high school. Priceless.

Imo introducing that kind of ridiculous and childish popularity contest stuff into a true crime message board is doing any serious forum a disservice.

Link to the poll where you can vote on the new feature:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8857570#post8857570

[rashomon]

In case the link does not work, go to the home page Crimelibrary com message boards - Welcome to Crime Library - Crime Library house rules - Poll: user reputation.

[byn63]

Correct on procedure. Wrong on timeframe.

Even if abuse of writ exists in a second habas petition, Courts must address a potential finding of factual innocence, which is what Judge Dupree did (as required), not as the basis for his ruling.

Moreover, he only addressed the fiber evidence, not -- as I have often stated "a wig hair and black fibers".

wudgie take off the blinders the "fiber evidence" is the alleged wig hairs and black fibers you keep bringing up. AND, as you have been told countless times not all of the dark woolen fibers were black. Some were green, others were actually a dark blue, etc. indicative of multiple sources. Don't forget that unsourced fibers are forensically insignificant. If your home became a crime scene tonight there would be many hairs and fibers found for which no source would ever be identified. My timeframe is correct too, Deb quoted the 1990/1991 appeal and I quoted the 1997/1998 appeal.

[Wudge]

wudgie take off the blinders the "fiber evidence" is the alleged wig hairs and black fibers you keep bringing up. AND, as you have been told

SNIP



"Told" (snicker)

(a wig hair is now fiber evidence ... snicker again)

[JTF]

Wudge: According to other posters on this board, we're both wrong about the merits issue. The difference between you and I is that I've always acknowledged when I've made a mistake. As a matter of fact, I just did that very same thing on my website. I altered my timeline after some suggestions provided to me by Rashomon. I doubt that you or any other member of the MacDonald groupie sect would ever acknowledge a mistake or any portion of the documented record that contradicts the psychopath's claims of innocence.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

Wudge: (a wig hair is now fiber evidence ... snicker again)

A thing of beauty. I set the trap and you fall into it every single time. Remember what I said about MacDonald camp tactics?

Stick to message: Despite documentation to the contrary, you continue to label the 3 saran fibers as wig hairs.

Ignore the documented record: See Stick to message.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: According to other posters on this board, we're both wrong about the merits issue. The difference between you and I is that I've always acknowledged when I've made a mistake. As a matter of fact, I just did that very same thing on my website. I altered my timeline after some suggestions provided to me by Rashomon. I doubt that you or any other member of the MacDonald groupie sect would ever acknowledge a mistake or any portion of the documented record that contradicts the psychopath's claims of innocence.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

(chuckle). I hold.

However, I told you you were wrong. But given you took both sides .............

[Wudge]

Wudge: (a wig hair is now fiber evidence ... snicker again)

A thing of beauty. I set the trap and you fall into it every single time. Remember what I said about MacDonald camp tactics?

Stick to message: Despite documentation to the contrary, you continue to label the 3 saran fibers as wig hairs.

Ignore the documented record: See Stick to message.

JTF.


http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

I hold.

As for traps, take time to remove your Schizas affidavit bear trap from your own leg.

(bad form to trap yourself...chuckle)

[rashomon]

Wudge: I take offense at being called a "wounded sheep". Why the name calling? I've done nothing to you so why be so disrespectful?
Ashleymari - don't let Wudge's phrases impress you. For he simply wants to elicit an emotional response from posters.

[Wudge]

Ashleymari - don't let Wudge's phrases impress you. For this is exactly what he wants - elicit an emotional response from posters.

What I "want" is for the Court to find for MacDonald based on "Britt". Though with Judge Fox on the bench, my hope is not high.

However, if Judge Fox were to meet my first stage of hope, I would then hope the Court would recognize that given Helena wore wigs and given that a 24 inch blonde saran wig hair did not come from any of the dolls in the house nor did it come from any of the falls in the house, then it can logically be considered to have come from a wig Helena wore (and eventually destroyed) that night.

[byn63]

"Told" (snicker)

(a wig hair is now fiber evidence ... snicker again)

grow up pudgiewudgie - it takes less than half a second to realize that hairs and fibers are analyzed by the same section of the CIL and FBI laboratories. Also, the saran that you keep insisting is "wig hair" is indeed a FIBER created by DuPont or Dow Chemical (don't have my notes on saran handy to verify which). So once again you are showing your ignorance when someone who has bothered to actually READ the documentation provides you with facts.

Oh, I know as a macgroupie you really don't like it when we cloud the issue with FACTS, but that is just tough! Another FACT is that Brian M.'s response to the Stoeckley affidavit is fabulous. Among my favorite sections is the detailed description of how once again inmate and his attorneys du jour have failed to file for the required PFA for the 4th or possibly 5th time. AND, I certainly enjoyed the analysis of the affidavit and the notation of the fact that the signatures etc. are on pages that make it appear as if Mrs. S signed a blank piece of paper!

[Wudge]

grow up pudgiewudgie - it takes less than half a second to realize that hairs and fibers are analyzed by the same section of the CIL and FBI laboratories. Also, the saran that you keep insisting is "wig hair" is indeed a FIBER created by DuPont or Dow Chemical (don't have my notes on saran handy to verify which). So once again you are showing your ignorance when someone who has bothered to actually READ the documentation provides you with facts.

Oh, I know as a macgroupie you really don't like it when we cloud the issue with FACTS, but that is just tough! Another FACT is that Brian M.'s response to the Stoeckley affidavit is fabulous. Among my favorite sections is the detailed description of how once again inmate and his attorneys du jour have failed to file for the required PFA for the 4th or possibly 5th time. AND, I certainly enjoyed the analysis of the affidavit and the notation of the fact that the signatures etc. are on pages that make it appear as if Mrs. S signed a blank piece of paper!

The 24" wig hair that does not come from a "fall" or a 'doll" within the house, you hold to come from where?

As for the laboratory: Wasn't that the FBI lab that Dr. Whitehurst made infamous?

I don't know if Mrs Stoeckley is blind or on her deathbed, but I would consider her shaky, circling signature to evidence "something". I said elsewhere that I hope Judge Fox would directly assess her capacity and story as soon as possible.

[JTF]

Wudge: However, if Judge Fox were to meet my first stage of hope, I would then hope the Court would recognize that given Helena wore wigs and given that a 24 inch blonde saran wig hair did not come from any of the dolls in the house nor did it come from any of the falls in the house, then it can logically be considered to have come from a wig Helena wore (and eventually destroyed) that night.
Yesterday 11:58 PM

Taking shots at the highly respected Judge Fox, eh? I guess that you have every right to take pot shots at Judge Fox, especially considering the fact that you're also a highly respected Jud......................oops.

Since you refuse to do your own work and get all tingley inside when demanding that I supply you with affidavits, why don't I respond in kind. Please refer me to the appellate court decision that states that the saran fibers did not come from any of the dolls in the MacDonald home. Please refer me to the FBI laboratory notes and/or affidavits that state that dolls could not have been the source of the saran fibers. I'll be waiting.

It's amazing that you used the 24 inch saran fiber in your list of hopes and dreams. In 1990, the 24 inch saran fiber was matched to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection. The psychopath's defense team has never challenged this analysis.

Helena testified at trial that she didn't wear her wig on February 17, 1970. In a letter to roommate Kathy Smith, Stoeckley states that she sometimes wore a fall owned by Maggie Mauney. Kathy Smith told the CID that the only wig that she ever saw Helena wear was an ear-length wig owned by, surprise, Kathy Smith.

Ah, documented fact, ya can't beat it.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: However, if Judge Fox were to meet my first stage of hope, I would then hope the Court would recognize that given Helena wore wigs and given that a 24 inch blonde saran wig hair did not come from any of the dolls in the house nor did it come from any of the falls in the house, then it can logically be considered to have come from a wig Helena wore (and eventually destroyed) that night.
Yesterday 11:58 PM

Taking shots at the highly respected Judge Fox, eh? I guess that you have every right to take pot shots at Judge Fox, especially considering the fact that you're also a highly respected Jud......................oops.

Since you refuse to do your own work and get all tingley inside when demanding that I supply you with affidavits, why don't I respond in kind. Please refer me to the appellate court decision that states that the saran fibers did not come from any of the dolls in the MacDonald home. Please refer me to the FBI laboratory notes and/or affidavits that state that dolls could not have been the source of the saran fibers. I'll be waiting.

It's amazing that you used the 24 inch saran fiber in your list of hopes and dreams. In 1990, the 24 inch saran fiber was matched to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection. The psychopath's defense team has never challenged this analysis.

Helena testified at trial that she didn't wear her wig on February 17, 1970. In a letter to roommate Kathy Smith, Stoeckley states that she sometimes wore a fall owned by Maggie Mauney. Kathy Smith told the CID that the only wig that she ever saw Helena wear was an ear-length wig owned by, surprise, Kathy Smith.

Ah, documented fact, ya can't beat it.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/


You cited the alleged affidavit by Mrs. Schizas, not me.

I never cited an Appellate Court decision on the 24" wig hair. But If I had, I would be happy to supply it to you.

There was no match of the 24" wig hair to any "doll" or "fall" inside the house. So where did it come from?