Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[AshleyMari]

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.

So what if Helena wore a wig on the night of the 17th? There is no sourced or documented proof that Helena was ever in MacD's apartment. To conclude that she wore a wig is like comparing apples to oranges.

I think you may be out of luck with your hoping because the dna results shut the door on Helena ever being present there. You can always hope that a big old fingerprint belonging to Helena was found in MacD's apartment at the ninth hour and handed over to the defense. But hoping is just spinning wheels going nowhere.

[pennnurse525]

So, let me as an amateur throw my hat in the ring.
Wudge:
I believe it was discussed that doll hair (saran) fibers are double wrapped at the root, therefore, when pulled out, and played with, as little girls do, the hair stretches to about 24" in length. Obviously you have no understanding that little girls brush and play with their dolls, do their hair constantly. This is probably a logical accountance of where the hairs in the brush came from rather than a babbling Helena drooling on Acid (it is "groovy" you know) and holding a candle in one hand and a hairbrush in another. It never fails to amaze me how the MacCamp expects others to completely disregard logic to buy into their tales. Poor Jeff.

As for sourcing the saran doll hairs and matching them to dolls owned by Kimberley and Kristen, can you be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that EVERY SINGLE DOLL that existed in the MacDonald home, and among the friends of the girls DID NOT MATCH that fiber. Isn't that a much more logical explanation for this nonsense. Oh wait, that is what you all do.....create drama and divert.

As usual, interesting tactic.

JMO
Penn.

[Wudge]

So, let me as an amateur throw my hat in the ring.
Wudge:
I believe it was discussed that doll hair (saran) fibers are double wrapped at the root, therefore, when pulled out, and played with, as little girls do, the hair stretches to about 24" in length. Obviously you have no understanding that little girls brush and play with their dolls, do their hair constantly. This is probably a logical accountance of where the hairs in the brush came from rather than a babbling Helena drooling on Acid (it is "groovy" you know) and holding a candle in one hand and a hairbrush in another. It never fails to amaze me how the MacCamp expects others to completely disregard logic to buy into their tales. Poor Jeff.

As for sourcing the saran doll hairs and matching them to dolls owned by Kimberley and Kristen, can you be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that EVERY SINGLE DOLL that existed in the MacDonald home, and among the friends of the girls DID NOT MATCH that fiber. Isn't that a much more logical explanation for this nonsense. Oh wait, that is what you all do.....create drama and divert.

As usual, interesting tactic.

JMO
Penn.


Who matched the 24" wig hair to any of the "dolls" inside the house in either its full length (24") or its half length (12")?

[Wudge]

So what if Helena wore a wig on the night of the 17th? There is no sourced or documented proof that Helena was ever in MacD's apartment. To conclude that she wore a wig is like comparing apples to oranges.

I think you may be out of luck with your hoping because the dna results shut the door on Helena ever being present there. You can always hope that a big old fingerprint belonging to Helena was found in MacD's apartment at the ninth hour and handed over to the defense. But hoping is just spinning wheels going nowhere.


"Britt" goes to Helena perjuring herself based on Blackburn alegedly threatening to charge her with murder if she testified as Britt had heard. If "Britt" were to be decided for MacDonald, the unmatched 24" wig hair could be corroborating evidence that Helena was in the house that night.

[AshleyMari]

There was no match of the 24" wig hair to any "doll" or "fall" inside the house. So where did it come from?

From Mrs. Kassab's fall. From Perry MacDonald's fall. From Judy MacDonald's fall. From any one of the Thanksgiving guests' falls. Clinging on a winter jacket owned by Thanksgiving guests. Clinging to the jacket of Ron Harrison. From the neighbor girl who brought her doll to visit. From Mrs. Kingston's fall. From a fall owned by one of Colette's classmates. From the dryer where a neighbor or friend dried their families' clothes in Colette's dryer. From Mildred's suitcase. From the bx sacks and boxes brought home by Colette. Clinging to someone's shoe. The Easter bunny. Anywhere but Helena.

[Wudge]

From Mrs. Kassab's fall. From Perry MacDonald's fall. From Judy MacDonald's fall. From any one of the Thanksgiving guests' falls. Clinging on a winter jacket owned by Thanksgiving guests. Clinging to the jacket of Ron Harrison. From the neighbor girl who brought her doll to visit. From Mrs. Kingston's fall. From a fall owned by one of Colette's classmates. From the dryer where a neighbor or friend dried their families' clothes in Colette's dryer. From Mildred's suitcase. From the bx sacks and boxes brought home by Colette. Clinging to someone's shoe. The Easter bunny. Anywhere but Helena.

On the the Easter Bunny note, I consider my point to have been made.

[pennnurse525]

Wudge:
Wasn't this brush actually Mildred's who left it behind after the holidays in 1969? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was. Therefore, how can anyone be sure that EVERY SINGLE DOLL that EVER existed or was in or around the MacDonald home was checked and tested. This is not physically possible. How does one know that the saran fiber did not get into the brush while Mildred had the brush in her posession?

While it would be true that the saran fiber could have come from Helena, she would have to have been IN THE HOUSE....there is NO EVIDENCE to prove that she ever was. Lets talk about evidence, please. The truth (a novel term here) is that the fiber logically came from INSIDE THE HOUSE, either a doll that had been present, Kim's, Kris' or one of their friends, etc; just like the other MULTITUDE of evidenciary items that came from inside the home....remember the bloody footprint, the bloody shoulder print on the bed sheets, the cuff impressions, the pj fibers, the splatter on the ceiling, the lack of blood in the Living Room; I could go on and on...

Again, interesting tactic Wudge....isn't it getting rather pedestrian after 37 years though?

Oh right....Poor Jeff.

JMO
Penn

[Wudge]

Wudge:
Wasn't this brush actually Mildred's who left it behind after the holidays in 1969? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was. Therefore, how can anyone be sure that EVERY SINGLE DOLL that EVER existed or was in or around the MacDonald home was checked and tested. This is not physically possible. How does one know that the saran fiber did not get into the brush while Mildred had the brush in her posession?

While it would be true that the saran fiber could have come from Helena, she would have to have been IN THE HOUSE....there is NO EVIDENCE to prove that she ever was. Lets talk about evidence, please. The truth (a novel term here) is that the fiber logically came from INSIDE THE HOUSE, either a doll that had been present, Kim's, Kris' or one of their friends, etc; just like the other MULTITUDE of evidenciary items that came from inside the home....remember the bloody footprint, the bloody shoulder print on the bed sheets, the cuff impressions, the pj fibers, the splatter on the ceiling, the lack of blood in the Living Room; I could go on and on...

Again, interesting tactic Wudge....isn't it getting rather pedestrian after 37 years though?

Oh right....Poor Jeff.

JMO
Penn

The wig hair was not matched and then mislabed because of Mildred?

(give me the Easter Bunny...chuckle)

[pennnurse525]

Wudge:
No, what I am saying is that the wig hair was not matched because every single fiber in and around the MacDonald, Kassab, Castle Drive, Ft. Bragg, Fayetteville area could not possibly be secured and tested. That is physically impossible.

Could someone come into your home and find the origination point for every fiber or hair that was unmatched? Impossible. Does that mean that Helena was at your house too?

She must've been a fun guest.

Again, what about the other evidence I pointed out...let's hear about the rationale for those things....little green men? The Underground Railroad? Or your friend the Easter Bunny. Maybe he was responsible for the shoulder print, the footprint, the splatter marks, the BRAIN SERUM of a little girl in the doorway of the Master Bedroom. But then again, the MacCamp doesn't remember the two little girls or the pregnant young woman who were butchered, do they? Just the coward who was convicted of their murder. Sorry, I forgot.

Penn

[Wudge]

Wudge:
No, what I am saying is that the wig hair was not matched because every single fiber in and around the MacDonald, Kassab, Castle Drive, Ft. Bragg, Fayetteville area could not possibly be secured and tested. That is physically impossible.

Could someone come into your home and find the origination point for every fiber or hair that was unmatched? Impossible. Does that mean that Helena was at your house too?

She must've been a fun guest.

Again, what about the other evidence I pointed out...let's hear about the rationale for those things....little green men? The Underground Railroad? Or your friend the Easter Bunny. Maybe he was responsible for the shoulder print, the footprint, the splatter marks, the BRAIN SERUM of a little girl in the doorway of the Master Bedroom. But then again, the MacCamp doesn't remember the two little girls or the pregnant young woman who were butchered, do they? Just the coward who was convicted of their murder. Sorry, I forgot.

Penn


Obviously, given Helena wore wigs and MacDonald's story, an unmatched wig hair would be significant. Particularly one of 24 inches.

[pennnurse525]

Circular Argument.

Thanks for the clarification, absolutely predictable.
SNICKER.

PS: Do you even read the posts before responding?

[Wudge]

Circular Argument.

Thanks for the clarification, absolutely predictable.
SNICKER.

PS: Do you even read the posts before responding?

.........Yes

[AshleyMari]

Obviously, given Helena wore wigs and MacDonald's story, an unmatched wig hair would be significant. Particularly one of 24 inches.

Unless the wig hair is sourced to Helena's wig, how would an unmatched wig hair be significant? Color me blind, but I don't see it.:shrug:

[caphill]

Unless the wig hair is sourced to Helena's wig, how would an unmatched wig hair be significant? Color me blind, but I don't see it.:shrug:


22 and 24 inch synthetic hairs are found at the scene of the crime and can not be matched to any known dolls owned by the little MacDonald girls or to any known hair pieces of Colette or her mother. Helena stated many times that she was in the house at the time of the murders with a lit candle. Helena admits to discarding the wig she was known to have wore.

Yes, I agree, color you blind, that you see no significance to this piece of evidence that was hidden from the defense and the jury.

Who left the bloody palm print on the foot of the bed? Was that insignificant also? Never mind the numerous other unmatched finger prints that could not be sourced to family, neighbors, friends, babysitters and any of the investigative team that was in the house. What of the candle wax found that could not be sourced to any candles in the house. Insignificant?

[pennnurse525]

Caphill:

Which fingerprints do you speak of and where can one be directed to view the primary sources which show that these were full unsourced prints? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the palm print was never taken off of Colette MacDonalds corpse. Since she most likely either grabbed the footboard of the bed with her own bloody hand to come to a standing position while trying to save her children from their murderous father, or grabbed it in an effort to steady herself while being attacked, the palm print cannot be ruled out as hers. Also, if one of the "hippie attackers" had enough blood on his/her palm to leave the bloody palmprint, why were there no bloody fingerprints elsewhere in the bedroom, or more importantly, in the Living Room where Inmate was attacked? Or even on Inmate himself, as he grappled with intruders? While every movement of Inmate can be supported with evidence, the evidence is still lacking that there were 4 intruders at 544 Castle Dr. that night. How is this explained?

Penn

[pennnurse525]

Oops, I'm sorry, there is no evidence of the 4 intruders; unless you count what Poor Jeff says.......but then he's a proven liar, too, isn't he? Just like his scapegoat Helena Stoeckley.

Penn

[JTF]

Wudge and Caphill: I'm feeling hurt, guys. The issues brought forth by the two of you in recent posts are covered in my website. Why won't you two read my website. Why, why, why?

Saran Fibers: The 3 saran fibers measured 24, 22, and 9 inches in length. The 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition which indicated 2 separate sources for the 3 fibers. Kristen and Kimmie both had doll collections with Kristen owning about 20 dolls. Unfortunately, your hero discarded all of the dolls shortly after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearing, so the FBI didn't have any exemplars for comparison purposes. The 24 inch fiber did match doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection and in 1974, Paul Stombaugh analyzed those fibers and stated in his notes that they resembled doll hair. Interesting that the defense argued in 1989 that they were unaware of the existence of the saran fibers, yet they had Stombaugh's notes in their possession during the 1979 trial.

Fingerprints: There were 30 unidentified prints found at the crime scene, but none of them matched print exemplars from a known suspect. This included Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell. The prints of Kimberly and Kristen were not obtained at autopsy and the partial prints/palmprints obtained from Colette were of poor quality. Common sense dictates that most, if not all, of the 30 unidentified prints belonged to Kristen, Kimberley, and Colette MacDonald. Hilyard Medlin testified at the Grand Jury hearings that a number of the unidentified prints were found on the household blinds and it was his opinion that the source of those prints was Colette. The print on the footboard was not "bloody." There is not a CID or FBI document in existence which states that the unidentified palmprint was "bloody." This is a claim created out of whole cloth by the MacDonald camp.

Candle Wax: There were 3 unidentified candle wax drippings found at the crime scene. All 3 differed in chemical composition indicating 3 separate sources. The candle wax found on the left slat of the coffee table was old, brittle, and contained household debris. The other 2 drippings were found in Kimmie's room and they resembled birthday candle wax. There is no trail of candle wax at the crime scene and Colette was known to have frequently used candles. The CID found 14 candles at the crime scene as well as wax drippings on a number of bottles.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

What of the candle wax found that could not be sourced to any candles in the house. Insignificant?[/QUOTE]

Do you keep a sample of every candle you ever burned in your home? Birthday candles included. The EVIDENCE showed that the wax on the Living Room table was old and had household debris in it. The wax in the girls rooms was from birthday candles. Was Greg Mitchell carrying a birthday cake?

These are ludicrous claims. Let's hear the MacCamp actually refute the damning evidence AGAINST him.....rather than attack ridiculous superficial arguments that would never have a resolution in anyone's home, especially one with two small children, neighbors over doing wash, babysitting, trips to the pony, a father with contact with many people of all types daily, and a small apartment that was not exactly the picture of a good housekeeping magazine (no offense to Colette--no one's is perfect) etc. Let's get to the point. If you have realistic claims that can be supported with fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we would all really love to hear them.

[AshleyMari]

22 and 24 inch synthetic hairs are found at the scene of the crime and can not be matched to any known dolls owned by the little MacDonald girls or to any known hair pieces of Colette or her mother. Helena stated many times that she was in the house at the time of the murders with a lit candle. Helena admits to discarding the wig she was known to have wore.

Yes, I agree, color you blind, that you see no significance to this piece of evidence that was hidden from the defense and the jury.

Who left the bloody palm print on the foot of the bed? Was that insignificant also? Never mind the numerous other unmatched finger prints that could not be sourced to family, neighbors, friends, babysitters and any of the investigative team that was in the house. What of the candle wax found that could not be sourced to any candles in the house. Insignificant?

I think you may be stretching the truth a bit. An attempt was not made to match the hair with all of the known dolls because Inmate discarded several of Kristen's dolls.

Helena also said her candle was dripping blood, not wax. Maybe that is how her palmprint came to be on the foot board? Not. The palm print has not been sourced either, but most I think believe it is Colettes. She was the one bleeding the most and we know she was in the bedroom being knocked down and beaten.

[byn63]

The 24" wig hair that does not come from a "fall" or a 'doll" within the house, you hold to come from where?

We don't have any way to know whether or not the 24" saran fiber came from a doll owned by Kimberly or Kristen because inmate got rid of all the personal possessions as soon as he could after the completion of the Article 32. Also, if you had bothered to read the cites I provided, it gave details about the making of doll wigs (rooted and unrooted in style) and it is indeed possible that a rooted hair of 12" would be a fiber of 24".

As for the laboratory: Wasn't that the FBI lab that Dr. Whitehurst made infamous?

I have no idea and I don't care. What does that have to do with what we were discussing? You acted as if calling the saran a "fiber" was wrong. I pointed out to you that saran is a man-made fiber.

*Saran is the trade name for polymers made from vinylidene chloride and other monomers. It is used for high-quality doll hair that is valued by collectors for its shine, softness, and its ability to retain its style and curl. In some jurisdictions, Saran is still a registered trademark of the Dow Chemical Company, while in others, it has lost trademark status and become a generic term for these polymers.

*excerpted from wikipedia

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.

Yes, her shaky circular signature looks like it very well could have been placed on a blank piece of paper. Read the government response to the affidavit. Just as I suspected they have based Part of their argument on FRE 804 (b) (3) which states in part that the circumstances surrounding the statements must clearly be trustworthy. This affidavit is NOT going to fly!

[Wudge]

Wudge and Caphill: I'm feeling hurt, guys. The issues brought forth by the two of you in recent posts are covered in my website. Why won't you two read my website. Why, why, why?

Saran Fibers: The 3 saran fibers measured 24, 22, and 9 inches in length. The 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition which indicated 2 separate sources for the 3 fibers. Kristen and Kimmie both had doll collections with Kristen owning about 20 dolls. Unfortunately, your hero discarded all of the dolls shortly after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearing, so the FBI didn't have any exemplars for comparison purposes. The 24 inch fiber did match doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection and in 1974, Paul Stombaugh analyzed those fibers and stated in his notes that they resembled doll hair. Interesting that the defense argued in 1989 that they were unaware of the existence of the saran fibers, yet they had Stombaugh's notes in their possession during the 1979 trial.

Fingerprints: There were 30 unidentified prints found at the crime scene, but none of them matched print exemplars from a known suspect. This included Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell. The prints of Kimberly and Kristen were not obtained at autopsy and the partial prints/palmprints obtained from Colette were of poor quality. Common sense dictates that most, if not all, of the 30 unidentified prints belonged to Kristen, Kimberley, and Colette MacDonald. Hilyard Medlin testified at the Grand Jury hearings that a number of the unidentified prints were found on the household blinds and it was his opinion that the source of those prints was Colette. The print on the footboard was not "bloody." There is not a CID or FBI document in existence which states that the unidentified palmprint was "bloody." This is a claim created out of whole cloth by the MacDonald camp.

Candle Wax: There were 3 unidentified candle wax drippings found at the crime scene. All 3 differed in chemical composition indicating 3 separate sources. The candle wax found on the left slat of the coffee table was old, brittle, and contained household debris. The other 2 drippings were found in Kimmie's room and they resembled birthday candle wax. There is no trail of candle wax at the crime scene and Colette was known to have frequently used candles. The CID found 14 candles at the crime scene as well as wax drippings on a number of bottles.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/


The 24 inch wig hair did not match the hair on any doll or fall within the house.

Update your website.

(chuckle)

[byn63]

The 24 inch wig hair did not match the hair on any doll or fall within the house.

Update your website.

(chuckle)

pudgiewudgie you REALLY need to READ the posts that we've put up in the last day or two. There is no way that ANYONE can claim that the 24" fiber DID NOT match any doll belonging to Kimmie or Kristy because INMATE got rid of all the dolls they owned immediately after the Article 32 hearings. Therefore, once the FBI was asked to review the evidence there was no longer any personal possessions of the family to compare the saran or the various colors of dark woolen fibers.

Also, why are you stuck on the 24" fiber which is the one that DOES match a doll wig exemplar in the FBI collection?

If you cannot debate the issue then why waste our time with your inane snickers, chuckles, and circular arguments based on innacuracies? Inmate is where he belongs AND he isn't getting out until they carry him out in a pine box. IMO even a plain pine box is too good for him!

[Wudge]

pudgiewudgie you REALLY need to READ the posts that we've put up in the last day or two. There is no way that ANYONE can claim that the 24" fiber DID NOT match any doll belonging to Kimmie or Kristy because INMATE got rid of all the dolls they owned immediately after the Article 32 hearings. Therefore, once the FBI was asked to review the evidence there was no longer any personal possessions of the family to compare the saran or the various colors of dark woolen fibers.

Also, why are you stuck on the 24" fiber which is the one that DOES match a doll wig exemplar in the FBI collection?

If you cannot debate the issue then why waste our time with your inane snickers, chuckles, and circular arguments based on innacuracies? Inmate is where he belongs AND he isn't getting out until they carry him out in a pine box. IMO even a plain pine box is too good for him!


The 24 inch wig hair did not match any doll hair or fall hair in the house in the house. Nor did anyone testify that any of the MacDonald children had a doll with hair that long and that color.

[byn63]

The 24 inch wig hair did not match any doll hair or fall hair in the house in the house. Nor did anyone testify that any of the MacDonald children had a doll with hair that long and that color.

Once again wudgie - PAY ATTENTION - the 24" saran fiber MATCHED a doll wig exemplar in the FBI Collection. What part of that simple statement of fact are you having trouble understanding?

NEXT - there is no way to verify whether or not Kimmie or Kristy had a doll that matched the 24" saran fiber BECAUSE INMATE got rid of ALL the personal possessions of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen asap after the Article 32 hearing. NOONE was ever able to examine them, so noone could say yes or no. As to the color, there are photos with blonde dolls in the household, and 2 of the 3 saran fibers matched in chemical composition thus creating two sources.

REPEAT for Wudgie who apparently is having trouble with reading comprehension: *Saran is the trade name for polymers made from vinylidene chloride and other monomers. It is used for high-quality doll hair that is valued by collectors for its shine, softness, and its ability to retain its style and curl. In some jurisdictions, Saran is still a registered trademark of the Dow Chemical Company, while in others, it has lost trademark status and become a generic term for these polymers.

*excerpted from wikipedia

In the process of creating rooted doll wigs (meaning they are attached to the doll) the fibers are often doubled over then inserted. This process means that a doll with 12" hair will have a wig made up of fibers of 24".

[Bunny2]

"Told" (snicker)

(a wig hair is now fiber evidence ... snicker again)

What "wig hair"? As far as I know, no "wig hair" was ever found in the MacDonald apartment.

[Bunny2]

The 24 inch wig hair did not match the hair on any doll or fall within the house.

Update your website.

(chuckle)

What "wig hair"? There was never any wig hair found in the MacDonald apartment, and of course I noticed that you failed to show anywhere in Glisson's notes where she ever referred to such a hair.

Update your knowledge of the case.

[Bunny2]

The 24 inch wig hair did not match any doll hair or fall hair in the house in the house. Nor did anyone testify that any of the MacDonald children had a doll with hair that long and that color.

No "wig hair" was ever found in the MacDonald apartment.

Cite your source and show us a lab report or the place in Glisson's notes where this saran fiber was proven to be a "wig" hair.

[Bunny2]

Once again wudgie - PAY ATTENTION - the 24" saran fiber MATCHED a doll wig exemplar in the FBI Collection. What part of that simple statement of fact are you having trouble understanding?

NEXT - there is no way to verify whether or not Kimmie or Kristy had a doll that matched the 24" saran fiber BECAUSE INMATE got rid of ALL the personal possessions of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen asap after the Article 32 hearing. NOONE was ever able to examine them, so noone could say yes or no. As to the color, there are photos with blonde dolls in the household, and 2 of the 3 saran fibers matched in chemical composition thus creating two sources.

REPEAT for Wudgie who apparently is having trouble with reading comprehension: *Saran is the trade name for polymers made from vinylidene chloride and other monomers. It is used for high-quality doll hair that is valued by collectors for its shine, softness, and its ability to retain its style and curl. In some jurisdictions, Saran is still a registered trademark of the Dow Chemical Company, while in others, it has lost trademark status and become a generic term for these polymers.

*excerpted from wikipedia

In the process of creating rooted doll wigs (meaning they are attached to the doll) the fibers are often doubled over then inserted. This process means that a doll with 12" hair will have a wig made up of fibers of 24".

Good posts from Byn and all to Wudge. As long as he keeps repeating false information, I guess repetition on our part showing the facts is called for!

[Bunny2]

Obviously, given Helena wore wigs and MacDonald's story, an unmatched wig hair would be significant. Particularly one of 24 inches.

Since you believe there were "intruders" despite there never having been a shred of any kind of forensic evidence to prove that, please provide us with a timeline showing the movements of these so-called "intruders" and matching the timeline to the facts.

Oh, and if you don't mind, I'd also like to see how you account for MacDonald demonstrating the consciousness of his guilt so many times.

Thanks in advance.

[Bunny2]

Obviously, given Helena wore wigs and MacDonald's story, an unmatched wig hair would be significant. Particularly one of 24 inches.

The problem is that no 24-inch "wig hair" was ever found, and no fiber was ever found to match any wig of Helena's.

[Deb B]

The 24 inch wig hair did not match any doll hair or fall hair in the house in the house. Nor did anyone testify that any of the MacDonald children had a doll with hair that long and that color.

And no one testified that they didn't have a doll with hair that long.

Why so focused on the one hair? Could it be because the hairs MacDonald claimed were from Helena's wig all differed from each other in chemical composition, which belies his claim they all came from her wig?

No evidence that saran was used to make human cosmetic wigs - all Lucia could find was one manequin wig from a museum in Mexico. Plug "saran wig" into the web and all that comes up is stuff about dolls, old and new.

The hair in question was found in a hairbrush found next to Colette's purse, so according to MacDonald, Helena picked up the hairbrush and brushed her wig. I wonder if this was before or after she gave MacDonald CPR? 'Cause she cared so much about him - them having had "intercoarse" prior to the murders.

[Wudge]

No "wig hair" was ever found in the MacDonald apartment.

Cite your source and show us a lab report or the place in Glisson's notes where this saran fiber was proven to be a "wig" hair.

Because the 24 inch hair did not come from either a fall or a doll in the house and because no one testified that either of the children owned a doll that could have sourced the wig hair, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude the source was almost assuredly Helena's wig, which would be corroborative evidence in support of Britt as would the unsourced candle droppings.

[Wudge]

Once again wudgie - PAY ATTENTION - the 24" saran fiber MATCHED a doll wig exemplar in the FBI Collection. [/b]

SNIP

*excerpted from wikipedia

In the process of creating rooted doll wigs (meaning they are attached to the doll) the fibers are often doubled over then inserted. This process means that a doll with 12" hair will have a wig made up of fibers of 24".


If source material is inculpatory in degree, unsourced material has to be exculpatory in degree.

As I said before, no one testified that the children had a doll with hair of length and color that could have matched the wig hair. Nor did anyone testify that the wig hair was creased due to insertion.

Moreover, no one testified that it was even probable the wig hair came from a doll.

As regards the alleged wig hair exemplar: How long was the hair? Who was the manufacturer? Who from that manufacturer testified that it matched the wig hair?

[Wudge]

SNIP

The hair in question was found in a hairbrush found next to Colette's purse, so according to MacDonald, Helena picked up the hairbrush and brushed her wig. I wonder if this was before or after she gave MacDonald CPR? 'Cause she cared so much about him - them having had "intercoarse" prior to the murders.



Hair in a hairbrush is going to be inferred to be hair.

[Bunny2]

22 and 24 inch synthetic hairs are found at the scene of the crime and can not be matched to any known dolls owned by the little MacDonald girls or to any known hair pieces of Colette or her mother. Helena stated many times that she was in the house at the time of the murders with a lit candle. Helena admits to discarding the wig she was known to have wore.

Yes, I agree, color you blind, that you see no significance to this piece of evidence that was hidden from the defense and the jury.

Who left the bloody palm print on the foot of the bed? Was that insignificant also? Never mind the numerous other unmatched finger prints that could not be sourced to family, neighbors, friends, babysitters and any of the investigative team that was in the house. What of the candle wax found that could not be sourced to any candles in the house. Insignificant?Who removed MacDonald's bloody and torn pajama top from his body and wore it around the apartment during the murders, later putting it on Colette and stabbing her through it? Who left the imprints of MacDonald's bloody pajama cuffs (and handprints and shoulder and chin prints) on the blue sheet along with the imprints of Colette's bloody cuffs? Who left bloody footprints shown to be MacDonald's--footprints made in Colette's blood type--in the hallway?

Which of the intruders took the time to remove all fibers and spots of blood from the sofa area where Mac claims to have been attacked? Which of them floated back down the hallway after the murders in order to put the "bloody gloves" (i.e. oven mitts) back into the kitchen?

Why did Mac refer to the intruders as "alleged" intruders?

Which intruder cast a spell on the weapons so that they'd be in two rooms at the same time? Which intruder cast a spell on Mitchell so he'd be in two rooms at the same time?

Who removed the spots of blood and fibers from the clothing in the hallway which was in the exact spot at which MacDonald claimed to have fallen? Who removed Helena's fingerprints from the hobby horse? Who convinced Helena to make up stories that didn't match the evidence or MacDonald's own stories? Who convinced her to retract the coerced "confession" she made?

Since Mac referred to the intruders as hippies, and since he agreed that hippies wouldn't have moved the bodies, who carried Kim back to her bed and who carried Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom? And which intruder or intruders moved the children so they'd be laying on their sides, (and who closed the mouths of Kristen, Kim and Colette) after MacDonald gave "resuscitation"? Who convinced Mac to pull a knife from Colette's chest that was never in her chest? And who forced him to walk around the apartment for some time, a time during which he admits that he knew no help at all was on the way?

Which intruder entwined a bloody hair of Colette's around a fiber from MacDonald's pajamas? Which one of them put a fiber from Mac's pajamas under Kristen's fingernail? Which of them put one of Mac's hairs in Colette's hand?

Who made MacDonald lie to Bob Stern about killing an "intruder" and tell the same lie to Kassab three months later? In fact, who convinced Mac to lie so much about the murders in general? Who forced him to repeatedly demonstrate the consciousness of his own guilt so many times over the years?

[Deb B]

Hair in a hairbrush is going to be inferred to be hair.

There was no testimony that hair in a hairbrush may be hair.

[byn63]

WUDGE - please try and grasp this FACT. There were 3 saran fibers found in the clear handled hair brush. Two of the three matched in chemical composition. Meaning there was at least TWO different sources for the three saran fibers.

The 24" saran fiber you keep bringing up WAS MATCHED TO AN EXEMPLAR of DOLL WIGS in the FBI COLLECTION. exemplar - noun from latin exemplum = example: 1. one worthy of imitation: model 2. a typical example 3. an ideal serving as a pattern: archetype 4. a copy, as of a book. Used in this context it is a SAMPLE provided by a doll manufacturer to the FBI for comparison purposes (there are hundreds of such exemplars) the sample would have the same chemical properties, color, etc. So, although noone testified that Kimmie or Kristen had such a doll in their collections, NEITHER did anyone testify that they DID NOT. THANKS to INMATE showing his consciousness of guilt by ridding himself of all the personal possesions of Colette, Kimmie and Kristen, no one will ever be able to testify EITHER WAY on that particular issue.

Even if it was a human wig, how exactly do you propose it got into Colette's hairbrush?

Saran was not used to make cosmetic wigs wudgie. Even after all the research Lucia B. did, all she was able to come up with was a mannequin wig from an anthropology museum in Mexico. Wigs meant for daily human wear are COSMETIC wigs and are manufactured differently than mannequin wigs or doll wigs.

[Bunny2]

Because the 24 inch hair did not come from either a fall or a doll in the house and because no one testified that either of the children owned a doll that could have sourced the wig hair, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude the source was almost assuredly Helena's wig, which would be corroborative evidence in support of Britt as would the unsourced candle droppings.

So obviously you cannot provide any source showing that any 24-inch "wig hair" was ever found, and are only speculating. I thought as much.

By the way, birthday candle wax and old candle drippings filled with household debris in no way provide any "support" for a conclusive evidentiary finding of "intruders" being in the house. In fact, findings from all the evidence taken "as a whole" (as Kathryn loves to say) proved to a jury and appeals courts that no intruders ever existed at all. I'd suggest that you read the Mystery Tour or do your own research into the records, since apparently you haven't done that yet.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com

[Bunny2]

If source material is inculpatory in degree, unsourced material has to be exculpatory in degree.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. I think it's already been pointed out to you that unsourced items exist in every household, and of course that in no way means that intruders have been in that household. Unsourced items are, in fact, forensically insignificant. It is only the sourced items which are forensically significant, and in this case there are more than enough sourced items to prove that MacDonald murdered his family and that no "intruders" ever existed at all.

[Wudge]

Sorry, but you're mistaken. I think it's already been pointed out to you that unsourced items exist in every household, and of course that in no way means that intruders have been in that household. Unsourced items are, in fact, forensically insignificant. It is only the sourced items which are forensically significant, and in this case there are more than enough sourced items to prove that MacDonald murdered his family and that no "intruders" ever existed at all.

In degree, if sourced materials can be inculpatory, then, in that same degree, unsourced materials can be exculpatory.

[Wudge]

So obviously you cannot provide any source showing that any 24-inch "wig hair" was ever found, and are only speculating. I thought as much.

By the way, birthday candle wax and old candle drippings filled with household debris in no way provide any "support" for a conclusive evidentiary finding of "intruders" being in the house. In fact, findings from all the evidence taken "as a whole" (as Kathryn loves to say) proved to a jury and appeals courts that no intruders ever existed at all. I'd suggest that you read the Mystery Tour or do your own research into the records, since apparently you haven't done that yet.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com



A hair in a hairbrush is very indicative of being ... a hair.

Moreover, since there was no match to a doll or fall within the house, then the wig hair would almost assuredly go to being from Helena's wig. Hence, corroborative evidence in support of "Britt".

[Wudge]

SNIP

Unsourced items are, in fact, forensically insignificant. It is only the sourced items which are forensically significant,

SNIP

(snicker)

You mean like unmatched fingerprints?

(oh man ...this is why we need professional jurors)

[Deb B]

A hair in a hairbrush is very indicative of being ... a hair.

Moreover, since there was no match to a doll or fall within the house, then the wig hair would almost assuredly go to being from Helena's wig. Hence, corroborative evidence in support of "Britt".


I was going to tell you that in 1992 the court of appeals disagreed with your analysis of the value of the saran hair ("The origin of the hair and fiber evidence has several likely explanations other than intruders"), but since you won't allow that the court addressed the merits of that claim...

[Wudge]

I was going to tell you that in 1992 the court of appeals disagreed with your analysis of the value of the saran hair ("The origin of the hair and fiber evidence has several likely explanations other than intruders"), but since you won't allow that the court addressed the merits of that claim...

Evidentiary value depends on probative value, I hold the wig hair to be corroborative at this point, but had it been fully developed during the trial, then that would have been the best way to measure exonerating/exculpatory/corroborative value. Notwithstanding that impossibility, the 24" inch wig hair obviously goes to support Helena being in the house.

Given that: Do I think the attendant mislabeling of the box and/or the withholding of lab notes was accidental? Not in my book.

[Deb B]

Evidentiary value depends on probative value, I hold the wig hair to be corroborative at this point, but had it been fully developed during the trial, then that would have been the best way to measure exonerating/exculpatory/corroborative value. Notwithstanding that impossibility, the 24" inch wig hair obviously goes to support Helena being in the house.

Given that: Do I think the attendant mislabeling of the box and/or the withholding of lab notes was accidental? Not in my book.

The topic of the saran fibers was also addressed in a 1997 decision: "Moreover, the [saran fiber] evidence is not truly exculpatory. It does not directly bear on the question of innocence but rather provides some evidence to support the theory that the hairs found in the hairbrush came from a wig. The evidence, however, is not particularly compelling on this point as much of it is equivocal and contradictory regarding the uses of saran, and the overall weight of the evidence still suggests that the fibers most likely did not come from a human wig."

[Wudge]

The topic of the saran fibers was also addressed in a 1997 decision: "Moreover, the [saran fiber] evidence is not truly exculpatory. It does not directly bear on the question of innocence but rather provides some evidence to support the theory that the hairs found in the hairbrush came from a wig. The evidence, however, is not particularly compelling on this point as much of it is equivocal and contradictory regarding the uses of saran, and the overall weight of the evidence still suggests that the fibers most likely did not come from a human wig."

True in form, not in logic.

[Deb B]

True in form, not in logic.

One very logical court decision after another - picking apart all of Inmate's claims of "NEW EVIDENCE!" - affirming that Inmate MacDonald is indeed a horrible murderer.

[caphill]

If source material is inculpatory in degree, unsourced material has to be exculpatory in degree.

As I said before, no one testified that the children had a doll with hair of length and color that could have matched the wig hair. Nor did anyone testify that the wig hair was creased due to insertion.

Moreover, no one testified that it was even probable the wig hair came from a doll.

As regards the alleged wig hair exemplar: How long was the hair? Who was the manufacturer? Who from that manufacturer testified that it matched the wig hair?


Bingo!. That is what the fuss is all about. The saran "fiber", "wig strand" or 22 and 24 inch synthetic things"(or whatever you want to call them) found in a hair brush were not discovered by MacDonald's team for almost 2 decades.The CID et al and prosecution managed to tuck these 22/24 inch thingies that looked just like wig strands away from the defense and the jury.

Double dare anyone to cite anything that shows the 21/2 and 5 yr old little MacDonald girls had a doll that was large enough to be sporting hair that was 2 ft long or even 1 foot long. ALso double dare anyone to name the doll that the infamous FBI Malone indicted had saran 22 and 24 inch hair.

[Wudge]

One very logical court decision after another - picking apart all of Inmate's claims of "NEW EVIDENCE!" - affirming that Inmate MacDonald is indeed a horrible murderer.

The Appelate Court did not find that MacDonald is a horrible murderer.

The logical failing is that the Court relied on the FBI lab and agent Malone. The FBI laboratory was highly discredited in the scandal made public by Frederick Whitehurst. In turn, the scandal poisoned the alleged reliability of the FBI lab and established that the laboratory operated in a manner that could not be anywhere near considered to be beyond reproach.

Moreover, agent Malone was at the center of the scandal, and he was found to have given false testimony, He was removed from the laboratory and given a field assignment.

Since the source of the alleged evidence is poisoned/unreliable, any conclusion that relies on these sources can be no better.

[caphill]

Wudge and Caphill: I'm feeling hurt, guys. The issues brought forth by the two of you in recent posts are covered in my website. Why won't you two read my website. Why, why, why?


snipped




Don't be hurt. I have read your site, as well as many other sites and sources of info regarding this Macdonald case.

Here is a site that might be interesting reading for those might want to read more that the parrot and mirror views of the clique.

http://educate-yourself.org/tg/princebeasleystatementsigned05may86.shtml

[caphill]

The Appelate Court did not find that MacDonald is a horrible murderer.

The logical failing is that the Court relied on the FBI lab and agent Malone. The FBI laboratory was highly discredited in the scandal made public by Frederick Whitehurst. In turn, the scandal poisoned the alleged reliability of the FBI lab and established that the laboratory operated in a manner that could not be anywhere near considered to be beyond reproach.

Moreover, agent Malone was at the center of the scandal, and he was found to have given false testimony, He was removed from the laboratory and given a field assignment.

Since the source of the alleged evidence is poisoned/unreliable, any conclusion that relies on these sources can be no better.


These links will give some info on the poisoned work and testimony of
Mike Malone. He has been put out to pasture with his pension intact. IMO, he should have had to face criminal consequences for his actions. Any case where he made false testimony that resulted in an conviction should be retried.


http://truthinjustice.org/good-cop.htm

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

[Wudge]

These links will give some info on the poisoned work and testimony of
Mike Malone. He has been put out to pasture with his pension intact. IMO, he should have had to face criminal consequences for his actions. Any case where he made false testimony that resulted in an conviction should be retried.


http://truthinjustice.org/good-cop.htm

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


Nothing bothers me more than crooked prosecutors and/or crooked LE. So, I'm familiar with Malone, and I'm familiar with Blackburn. Still, thank you.

[byn63]

I was going to tell you that in 1992 the court of appeals disagreed with your analysis of the value of the saran hair ("The origin of the hair and fiber evidence has several likely explanations other than intruders"), but since you won't allow that the court addressed the merits of that claim...

Deb I just was rereading that decision myself. Of course, you are correct that it was a merit based decision. Maybe wudgie gets confused because he doesn't actually READ the decisions?????

[JTF]

Bost and Potter relied on evidentiary arguments presented at the Article 32 hearings. They failed to tell their readers that the CID had not completed all of their forensic work, so Clifford Somers was hamstrung from the start. Bost and Potter's focus on the Army's presentation at the Article 32 hearings led to numerous mistakes in their work of fiction. A few examples:

1) Thirty unidentified prints were found at the crime scene, not 36.

2) The pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail. It was not on top of her fingernail.

3) The hair found clutched in Colette's left hand was a limb hair and limb hairs cannot be compared under a microscope. Head and pubic hairs are the only hairs that can be compared under a microscope. Bost and Potter stated that microscopic comparisons of the limb hair indicated that it did not match MacDonald's hair. You can't compare the uncomparable.

This list doesn't even include the FBI's analysis of the physical evidence in 1971, 1974, 1979, and 1990. Bost and Potter were aware of this timeline for their book was published in 1995. Wudge and Caphill follow their lead by living in the early 1990's. All of the claims levied by MacDonald's advocates have been addressed by the government within the court system and by dedicated MacDonald case researchers in the public forum. The last time that anything "new" was presented to the Courts was in 1997. This "new" evidence was basically old evidence involving the hair fragments allegedly found under the fingernails of Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald. DNA tests demonstrated that in the case of Kimberley, the fragment was most likely animal hair. In terms of Kristen, the hair fragment did not match the DNA profiles of Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell and there is no definitive proof that the fragment was located under her fingernail.

In essence, you have MacDonald groupies such as Wudge and Caphill making 10 year old evidentiary arguments that have already been addressed and discredited on many levels. I've dealt with the psychopath's minions for the past 6 years and their tactics have never changed. As a matter of fact, their tactics mirror the mindset of their hero. If MacDonald had built a Jonestown, I'm sure that his converts would drink the punch laced with Eskatrol.

P.S. Caphill: I'm feeling hurt, guys. The issues brought forth by the two of you in recent posts are covered in my website. Why won't you two read my website. Why, why, why?

Couldn't sniff out the sarcastic prose, eh? By the way, my website focuses on undiluted fact, not on the slanted interpretations of MacDonald's advocates. I embrace the documented record on my website, while you and your fellow groupies run away from it.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

P.S. Caphill: I'm feeling hurt, guys. The issues brought forth by the two of you in recent posts are covered in my website. Why won't you two read my website. Why, why, why?

Couldn't sniff out the sarcastic prose, eh? JTF.




I said nothing before. However, it does not come across as sarcasm. It comes across as juvenile.

[Wudge]

Deb I just was rereading that decision myself. Of course, you are correct that it was a merit based decision. Maybe wudgie gets confused because he doesn't actually READ the decisions?????

Did I miss an evidentiary hearing?

[Spamela]

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).
Link to the poll where you can vote on the new feature:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8857570#post8857570

Thanks, rash, I was clueless. Yeah, who cares what anonymous people think? If you want to write it, write it and own up to your words. Obviously, I am no shrinking violet!

[byn63]

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

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



ok, once again here are two sites discussing SARAN. Wudgie and caphill should really READ this data since they are clinging so tenaciously to the inane argument that Helena was wearing a wig and used Colette's brush to brush said wig during the blood bath inside 544 Castle Drive.

SARAN was not used to make cosmetic wigs at the time of this crime. IF saran HAD been used at that time, WHY THEN has NOONE found a cosmetic wig made of saran? Lucia Bartoli found an expensive saran MANNEQUIN wig in an Anthropology musuem in Mexico City. Once again, it is important to point out that there is a DIFFERENCE between wigs made for human wear and wigs made for DOLLS or MANNEQUINs and even costume wigs for that matter.

btw just because Bernie ignored massive amounts of evidence against inmate, and just because several groups of attorneys dujour have chosen to be selective on which evidence THEY will review does not mean that there is any fault on the government. Nowhere in the rules does it say the prosecution has to tell the defense what evidence to pay attention to, or how to go about presenting the defense case in chief.

[Deb B]

Did I miss an evidentiary hearing?

No, you didn't. I wouldn't hold my breath for one.

[Bunny2]

In degree, if sourced materials can be inculpatory, then, in that same degree, unsourced materials can be exculpatory.

Nope. Unsourced/unmatched items are forensically insignificant, period. If you cannot match them to a source, you have nothing, as Mac's arguments to the jury and appeals courts proved.

[Bunny2]

A hair in a hairbrush is very indicative of being ... a hair.

Moreover, since there was no match to a doll or fall within the house, then the wig hair would almost assuredly go to being from Helena's wig. Hence, corroborative evidence in support of "Britt".

What "wig hair," Wudge? No "wig hair" was ever found in the apartment.

You've been asked repeatedly to provide a source proving that any synthetic fiber from the apartment was found to be matched to a wig, and you've been asked to show us where in Glisson's notes she ever referred to any "wig" hair, and of course you've been unable to do that because no such references exist. Unless and until you can provide such proof, IMO you're only making yourself look ridiculous by continuing to refer to "wig" hair that didn't even exist.

[Bunny2]

(snicker)

You mean like unmatched fingerprints?

(oh man ...this is why we need professional jurors)

You mean you actually believe that your own home is entirely, 100% free of any fingerprints that are not yours and cannot be matched to anyone else?

(Oh, man...this is why it's seldom worth even reading posts from people who don't know what they're talking about.)

[Bunny2]

Evidentiary value depends on probative value, I hold the wig hair to be corroborative at this point...the 24" inch wig hair obviously goes to support Helena being in the house.

What "wig hair"? No 24" "wig hair" was ever found in the apartment.

Perhaps you should write that down, since you can't seem to remember it from day to day.

[Bunny2]

Evidentiary value depends on probative value, I hold the wig hair to be corroborative at this point, but had it been fully developed during the trial, then that would have been the best way to measure exonerating/exculpatory/corroborative value.

How so, when all of Mac's arguments about unsourced items failed with the jury?

[Bunny2]

The topic of the saran fibers was also addressed in a 1997 decision: "Moreover, the [saran fiber] evidence is not truly exculpatory. It does not directly bear on the question of innocence but rather provides some evidence to support the theory that the hairs found in the hairbrush came from a wig. The evidence, however, is not particularly compelling on this point as much of it is equivocal and contradictory regarding the uses of saran, and the overall weight of the evidence still suggests that the fibers most likely did not come from a human wig."

Excellent work on the quoting you've been doing lately, Deb. Keep 'em coming!

[Wudge]

No, you didn't. I wouldn't hold my breath for one.

Evidentiary hearings produce merit rulings.

[Bunny2]

Bingo!. That is what the fuss is all about. The saran "fiber", "wig strand" or 22 and 24 inch synthetic things"(or whatever you want to call them) found in a hair brush were not discovered by MacDonald's team for almost 2 decades.The CID et al and prosecution managed to tuck these 22/24 inch thingies that looked just like wig strands away from the defense and the jury.

Double dare anyone to cite anything that shows the 21/2 and 5 yr old little MacDonald girls had a doll that was large enough to be sporting hair that was 2 ft long or even 1 foot long. ALso double dare anyone to name the doll that the infamous FBI Malone indicted had saran 22 and 24 inch hair.

I double-dare you to show anywhere where Mac claimed Helena wore a curly wig.

From Janice Glisson's notes:

K *numerous blond varies in length up to 15" - curly Synthetic (?) up to 22"

Even disregarding that, no synthetic fiber was ever matched to any wig of Helena's or any wig that any other intruder wore, and as has been said many times before, until you can do that, and until you can *also* show other corroborating and conclusive forensic evidence matched to any "intruder" and proving that that intruder or intruders committed murder, your arguments are worthless as evidence of Mac's "innocence."

[Bunny2]

[Malone] has been put out to pasture with his pension intact. IMO, he should have had to face criminal consequences for his actions. Any case where he made false testimony that resulted in an conviction should be retried.

Show us any court decision affirming that Malone gave false testimony in the MacDonald case.

[Wudge]

You mean you actually believe that your own home is entirely, 100% free of any fingerprints that are not yours and cannot be matched to anyone else?

(Oh, man...this is why it's seldom worth even reading posts from people who don't know what they're talking about.)

When forensics finds a set of fingerprints at a crime scene that a prosecutor says are inculpatory, and it is determined they do not match the defendant, is that evidence?

[Bunny2]

When forensics finds a set of fingerprints at a crime scene that a prosecutor says are inculpatory, and it is determined they do not match the defendant, is that evidence?

It makes no difference whether such fingerprints are presented by the prosecution or the defense. Until the prosecution or defense can match such fingerprints to a person, they are forensically worthless.

By the way, Wudge, where's that timeline? How come it's taking you so long to put that together?

[Wudge]

It makes no difference whether such fingerprints are presented by the prosecution or the defense. Until the prosecution or defense can match such fingerprints to a person, they are forensically worthless.

SNIP



You have a severe reasoning deficiency. You should never be seated on a jury.

[caphill]

You have a severe reasoning deficiency. You should never be seated on a jury.


LOL. That kind of reasoning surely supports your for argument for professional jurors. I surmise from the previous responses that your argument is falling on on reasoning deficiency ears and is your point is totally misunderstood.

[JTF]

Wudge and Caphill: Oh, Bunny, Byn, Deb and other posters on this board understand your "arguments" quite well. Duck and dodge. Cut and paste. Offer up b.s. and repeat b.s. Ignore the documented record. Posting falsehoods in order to cope with the fact that your hero has spent 26 years of his miserable life in a concrete bunker.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge and Caphill: Oh, Bunny, Byn, Deb and other posters on this board understand your "arguments" quite well. Duck and dodge. Cut and paste. Offer up b.s. and repeat b.s. Ignore the documented record. Posting falsehoods in order to cope with the fact that your hero has spent 26 years of his miserable life in a concrete bunker.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

As I said: juvenile.

[JTF]

Wudge and Caphill: As opposed to your mythical scenario involving "professional" jurors, didn't a real life jury convict MacDonald of 3 counts of murder in less than 7 hours? That's what happens when a group of intelligent people are presented over 1,000 evidentiary items that point to one individual as being a cold-blooded killer. This reminds me of other mythical scenarios brought forth in recent posts.

1) Three saran fibers found at the crime scene were matched to a wig owned by Helena Stoeckley.

2) The existence of the saran fibers was kept hidden from the defense team.

3) A bloody palmprint was found on the footboard in the master bedroom.

4) Unidentified fingerprints found at the crime scene are evidence of intruders.

5) Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent.

Stories told at the MacDonald groupie campfire.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

The 24 inch wig hair did not match any doll hair or fall hair in the house in the house. Nor did anyone testify that any of the MacDonald children had a doll with hair that long and that color.

Oh screw the fibers that don't match.

Let's look at what does match.

That would be the bloody imprints of Colette's and Inmate's pj cuffs on the bed sheet that Inmate used to carry Colette's body from Kris's room to the MB.

That would be the fibers and threads that match Inmate's pj top that were all over the place BUT in the Living Room. The fibers under the word "PIG". The fibers under Kim's bed sheets. The fiber in a blood clot under Kris's fingernail. The fibers that MATCH the pj top which he said that he took off as soon as he woke up from his boo-boo on his head.

So. Let us talk about matching things.

[pennnurse525]

One very important thing, however, NEVER matches.....

That is:
The story, or rather stories, on Mac's Magical Mystery Tour and that lil ole thing called EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have all the hearings you want. Inculpatory, Exculpatory, blind witnesses, SMQ second wives as secretaries, whatever.

He'll stay a loser, a murderer, a liar, a thief and a prisoner until he draws his last breath. I've said it before...that is justice.

[pennnurse525]

One other thing that I would like to add to Spammy's question to the Campfire kids.....

Inmate repeatdly says that he went through the apartment, "checking" on his family....this story is repeated over and over again (because it explains the evidence he left behind), but leaving that aside....my question is....

IF one is checking on children who have been "attacked," how does one do that when they are tucked under blankets, without disturbing the bottle in Kristen's hand? And disrupting Kimberley's blankie? Wouldn't ya think that if you were worried about them, you would turn on the light, throw down the blanket, and F-ing LOOK at them. We medical folks like physical assessment, and in fact, spend alot of time learning how to do that. It is one of the most important parts of caring for people. Wouldn't DOCTOR MacDonald have done so, even in a panic? I would think that anyone would, when checking on possibly mortally wounded people, especially their OWN CHILDREN.

For god's sake, run and throw on the light, tear down the covers and see what you were working with! Then move into damage control mode, grab a phone, run out the back door, scream for help, something; hoping that the intruders that had left your house weren't far away and could be nabbed by the po-lice. Unless of course, you already knew what you were working with. Just some thoughts.

Penn

[Wudge]

One very important thing, however, NEVER matches.....

That is:
The story, or rather stories, on Mac's Magical Mystery Tour and that lil ole thing called EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SNIP



Is it "evidence" that fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found on the club?

[pennnurse525]

Yes Wudge I would say that that actually counts as evidence.
And since Inmate was engaged in a life and death struggle with his pregnant wife, who ripped the left hand pocket off of his pajama top, after he punched her and thus shed the beginnings of the fiber trail in the apartment, and it was inmate who had the pajama top on as he picked up the piece of wood (club) and thrust it into his wife's chest, which left a sternal bruise, and swung it (whilst wearing said pajama top) at his beautiful five year old daughter, and then his pregnant wife, leaving Kimberley's brain matter and blood in the master bedroom, and then wore the pajama top as he carried Kimberley back to her bed and tucked her in, and then wore the pajama top as he found Colette laying over top of her two year old daughter Kristen in the hopes of protecting her from his murderous rage and savagery, and swung that club and pummelled Colette's skull in Kristen's bed while wearing the pajama top, and then carried Colette's dying body (while wearing the pajama top) back to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet ......

I could go on all day. OF COURSE his pajama threads were on the club. He was wearing it while he savagely, brutally butchered Colette, Kimberley and Kristen with that club.
Get a grip. Is MacInmate now gonna claim that this is potentially vindicating evidence?

OY VEY.
I think its time for a glass of wine.
Penn

[JTF]

The 2 pajama seam threads found on the club were ominous pieces of evidence on many levels. The 2 threads were found stuck to the club in Colette's blood and they were microscopically similar to the pajama fibers found under and near the upturned rug in the master bedroom. This indicated that the club was set down in that area of the bedroom. The following is from the government's response to various defense motions on 4/17/06.

The significance of the presence on the club found outside the quarters of both threads from MacDonald's pajama top, and rayon fibers from the throw rug found inside the master bedroom, where the other threads and the pocket torn from the pajama top were also recovered, relates to the fact that it is further proof of the falsity of MacDonald's account that his pajama top was torn in the living room, and not in the master bedroom during the attack on Colette and Kimberly with the club. MacDonald has also denied ever going outside his quarters. If MacDonald is to be believed, then his torn pajamas, the club, and the throw rug were never in the master bedroom at the same time. If that were true, then, as Blackburn asked rhetorically how did these two different types of fiber get on the club? The jury was fully entitled to infer from these proven facts that the pajama threads and the throw rug fibers got on the club, not as MacDonald claimed, but as the result of the pajama top having been torn in the master bedroom, and the club coated with Colette and Kimberly's blood having come in contact with the throw rug. Needless to say, Jimmy Britt cannot shed any light on this issue that was resolved by the jury's verdict.

Nuff said.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Yes Wudge I would say that that actually counts as evidence.
And since Inmate was engaged in a life and death struggle with his pregnant wife, who ripped the left hand pocket off of his pajama top, after he punched her and thus shed the beginnings of the fiber trail in the apartment, and it was inmate who had the pajama top on as he picked up the piece of wood (club) and thrust it into his wife's chest, which left a sternal bruise, and swung it (whilst wearing said pajama top) at his beautiful five year old daughter, and then his pregnant wife, leaving Kimberley's brain matter and blood in the master bedroom, and then wore the pajama top as he carried Kimberley back to her bed and tucked her in, and then wore the pajama top as he found Colette laying over top of her two year old daughter Kristen in the hopes of protecting her from his murderous rage and savagery, and swung that club and pummelled Colette's skull in Kristen's bed while wearing the pajama top, and then carried Colette's dying body (while wearing the pajama top) back to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet ......

I could go on all day. OF COURSE his pajama threads were on the club. He was wearing it while he savagely, brutally butchered Colette, Kimberley and Kristen with that club.
Get a grip. Is MacInmate now gonna claim that this is potentially vindicating evidence?

OY VEY.
I think its time for a glass of wine.
Penn



If pajama fibers should be deemed to be inculpatory, then unsourced black fibers should be deemed to be exculpatory.

Note: I said "should be".

[Bunny2]

You have a severe reasoning deficiency. You should never be seated on a jury.Gee, I wonder how it is, then, that I've filed as a plaintiff in court somewhere over 100 times and my "severe reasoning deficiency" has caused me to win every single case, and I wonder how it is that in the Mac case my reasoning matches that of the jury and appeals courts, and yours doesn't.

Since you believe that unsourced fingerprints in a household belong only to assailants, please tell us about all the assailants that have been in your house. Or perhaps you're trying to make people believe that only crime scenes may have unsourced fingerprints?

And where's that timeline, Wudge? You could provide no conclusive evidentiary finding at all about any "wig" hairs, you couldn't show us where Mac referred to a curly wig, you weren't able to show any false testimony of Malone in the Mac case, you obviously don't understand the Theory of Locard, and I seriously doubt that you're going to be able to tell us about all the assailants in your home, but I thought certainly since you believe in "intruders" you'd at least be able to give us a timeline. Amazing how long it's taking you to come up with that.

[Bunny2]

If pajama fibers should be deemed to be inculpatory, then unsourced black fibers should be deemed to be exculpatory.

Note: I said "should be".
Wrong.

The pajama fibers were forensically significant because they were matched to the murderer's pajamas (and their locations showed the jury that the murderer had lied about what happened).

Unsouced fibers, on the other hand, are forensically insignificant, and no unsourced fiber would ever be enough to overcome the mountain of evidence that put the murderer in prison and which keeps him there to this day.

[byn63]

If pajama fibers should be deemed to be inculpatory, then unsourced black fibers should be deemed to be exculpatory.

Note: I said "should be".

talk about a reasoning defiiciency - wudgie get a grip

The PAJAMA FIBERS ARE SOURCED (identified, everyone know where they originated) and EXCULPATORY. The black fibers you keep bringing up are:

1. not all black
2. UNSOURCED
3. different in chemical composition
4. forensically insignificant.

Get it through your head, UNSOURCED items are forensically insignificant BUT SOURCED items are not. What part of this very simple logic are you unable to understand?

UNSOURCED = Worthless forensically
SOURCED = forensically useful

what an easy concept that everyone, but YOU and maybe cappy, fully understand

[Wudge]

talk about a reasoning defiiciency - wudgie get a grip

The PAJAMA FIBERS ARE SOURCED (identified, everyone know where they originated) and EXCULPATORY. The black fibers you keep bringing up are:

1. not all black
2. UNSOURCED
3. different in chemical composition
4. forensically insignificant.

Get it through your head, UNSOURCED items are forensically insignificant BUT SOURCED items are not. What part of this very simple logic are you unable to understand?

UNSOURCED = Worthless forensically
SOURCED = forensically useful

what an easy concept that everyone, but YOU and maybe cappy, fully understand


The point was and remains: In degree, if sourced fibers can be inculpatory evidence, then in degree, unsourced fibers can be exculpatory evidence.

And as regards exculpatory evidence: Who makes that decision as to what exculpatory evidence can be or is?

[JTF]

Wudge: Your pot shots at Bunny demonstrate the lengths you will go to avoid the documented record in this case. The case record is clear on the 5 dark woolen fibers.

1) Two dark woolen fibers were found on the club and they differed in chemical composition meaning separate source materials.

2) Three dark woolen fibers were found on Colette's body with two of the three fibers differing in chemical composition.

3) The totality of the chemical composition analysis indicates that 4 separate dark woolen clothing items were the source of the 5 fibers.

4) Despite the chemical composition analysis, the defense team has attempted to link the dark woolen fibers to a single source (e.g., Helena Stoeckley). This is similar to the odd strategy used to combat the chemical composition analysis of the 3 saran fibers. The only difference is that from 1971-1983, Stoeckley never "confessed" to wearing dark woolen clothing items on February 17, 1970.

5) MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items post-Article 32, so there was an extremely limited number of clothing exemplars available for comparison purposes.

6) Home movies and photographs of the MacDonald family demonstrate that the family owned dark woolen caps and sweaters. In addition, the family owned sleeping bags with dark woolen lining.

7) The only pieces of trace evidence that are forensically significant are sourced items. MacDonald claims he was attacked by a band of home invaders, yet not a single fiber, hair, or DNA profile has been sourced to a known intruder suspect. Ballgame over.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Wudge]

Wudge: Your pot shots at Bunny demonstrate the lengths you will go to avoid the documented record in this case. The case record is clear on the 5 dark woolen fibers.

1) Two dark woolen fibers were found on the club and they differed in chemical composition meaning separate source materials.

2) Three dark woolen fibers were found on Colette's body with two of the three fibers differing in chemical composition.

3) The totality of the chemical composition analysis indicates that 4 separate dark woolen clothing items were the source of the 5 fibers.

4) Despite the chemical composition analysis, the defense team has attempted to link the dark woolen fibers to a single source (e.g., Helena Stoeckley). This is similar to the odd strategy used to combat the chemical composition analysis of the 3 saran fibers. The only difference is that from 1971-1983, Stoeckley never "confessed" to wearing dark woolen clothing items on February 17, 1970.

5) MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items post-Article 32, so there was an extremely limited number of clothing exemplars available for comparison purposes.

6) Home movies and photographs of the MacDonald family demonstrate that the family owned dark woolen caps and sweaters. In addition, the family owned sleeping bags with dark woolen lining.

7) The only pieces of trace evidence that are forensically significant are sourced items. MacDonald claims he was attacked by a band of home invaders, yet not a single fiber, hair, or DNA profile has been sourced to a known intruder suspect. Ballgame over.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/



Are you saying too that unsourced fibers can not be exculpatory evidence?

[pennnurse525]

Forgive me, JTF, for jumping in here, but
Wudge:
NO one is saying that CANNOT be exculpatory evidence in another situation. What I believe everyone is saying that in this case, they are due to the facts that JTF and others have been detailing for you.

I have a question for you:
MacInmate claims to have performed "resucitation" on both Kristen and Kimberley when checking on them in their beds. How is this possible as they were both found laying on their sides, tucked under the covers, with Kristen having a bottle close to her mouth......

Just looking for some defense of the stories MacInmate continues to perpetuate.

Penn

[Wudge]

Forgive me, JTF, for jumping in here, but
Wudge:
NO one is saying that CANNOT be exculpatory evidence in another situation. What I believe everyone is saying that in this case, they are due to the facts that JTF and others have been detailing for you.


SNIP



Not true. For clarity, I asked the following question.

"When forensics finds a set of fingerprints at a crime scene that a prosecutor says are inculpatory, and it is determined they do not match the defendant, is that evidence?"

Bunny2 replied

"It makes no difference whether such fingerprints are presented by the prosecution or the defense. Until the prosecution or defense can match such fingerprints to a person, they are forensically worthless."

[pennnurse525]

Scroll up.
What I said before....yes its evidence, however it does nothing to prove inmate's innocence. Factual or otherwise. What is shown by unsourced fibers (ref: JTF's post) and unidentifiable prints is absolutely nothing except that an unknown person (that is unidentified) left fibers and fingerprints in the apartment. That DOES NOT mean on the night of the murder, during the murder etc. It means that someone who was NOT sourced left the prints, and some thing that WAS NOT sourced left the fibers at an unknown time and date. Helena WAS SOURCED for finger prints. The victims clothing and personal items were largely destroyed, and WERE NOT ALL SOURCED.

The circular logic game is getting old.
37 years old as a matter of fact.
Penn

[pennnurse525]

Wudge:
You have failed to respond to my question regarding the resucitative efforts of Dr. MacHero on the night of his crimes?

Duck and cover?

Penn

[Spamela]

e?

OY VEY.
I think its time for a glass of wine
Penn

Penn,
Don't encourage The Wudgit to drink, in addition to his (snicker) we might get other noises (belch), (barf), (slurp), etc.

And, Penn, make that a double. On me!

Spam

[pennnurse525]

Unfortunately Spammy
Tonite I am at work......otherwise I would be the one slurping.

Now last nite was a different story. I got my copy of the 48 hours episode regarding MacInmate. It had been pre-empted by the Final Four here, so I ordered a copy.

Thus the debauchery on my part.
Penn

[dallasvic]

Why would The Incidences project get involved in this case ? I thought the only get in them when they have enough evidence showing they did not do it.They say there are some many cases that is why they look through them before they will ever touch them. So what is up with that ?

[pennnurse525]

Dallas,
Do you mean Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project?
Penn

[Spamela]

Why would The Incidences project get involved in this case ? I thought the only get in them when they have enough evidence showing they did not do it.They say there are some many cases that is why they look through them before they will ever touch them. So what is up with that ?

Barry Scheck did not take on Inmate's case. BS (now what else could that mean, other than Barry Scheck?) is just the paid spokesperson for Inmate. BS does not know the evidence based on his last statement in which he confused the names of the girls and the evidence. Forget about BS, just another idiot on a soap box.

[dallasvic]

Why is the Innocence Project getting involved? I thought they got involved when there is plenty of evidence that it warrants a new trail. So they say! They have said that there are to many cases out there where the person states they are innocent and they do not have anything to back it with,so they search the case and also when the person has never admitted ever doing the crime. So whats up with this?

[byn63]

wudgie - please try and grasp this information:

The PAJAMA FIBERS ARE SOURCED (identified, everyone know where they originated) and EXCULPATORY. The black fibers you keep bringing up are:

1. not all black
2. UNSOURCED
3. different in chemical composition
4. forensically insignificant.

Get it through your head, UNSOURCED items are forensically insignificant BUT SOURCED items are not.

UNSOURCED = Worthless forensically
SOURCED = forensically useful

Dallas - the Innocence Project IS NOT involved in this case. Barry Scheck is involved as the DNA consultant, but inmate is not nor has he ever been a client of the innocence project. PERIOD.

[Wudge]

Scroll up.
What I said before....yes its evidence, however it does nothing to prove inmate's innocence. Factual or otherwise. What is shown by unsourced fibers (ref: JTF's post) and unidentifiable prints is absolutely nothing except that an unknown person (that is unidentified) left fibers and fingerprints in the apartment. That DOES NOT mean on the night of the murder, during the murder etc. It means that someone who was NOT sourced left the prints, and some thing that WAS NOT sourced left the fibers at an unknown time and date. Helena WAS SOURCED for finger prints. The victims clothing and personal items were largely destroyed, and WERE NOT ALL SOURCED.

The circular logic game is getting old.
37 years old as a matter of fact.
Penn

... I differ.

[dallasvic]

wudgie - please try and grasp this information:

The PAJAMA FIBERS ARE SOURCED (identified, everyone know where they originated) and EXCULPATORY. The black fibers you keep bringing up are:

1. not all black
2. UNSOURCED
3. different in chemical composition
4. forensically insignificant.

Get it through your head, UNSOURCED items are forensically insignificant BUT SOURCED items are not.

UNSOURCED = Worthless forensically
SOURCED = forensically useful

Dallas - the Innocence Project IS NOT involved in this case. Barry Scheck is involved as the DNA consultant, but inmate is not nor has he ever been a client of the innocence project. PERIOD.

I see he can't keep his facts straight!!

[Wudge]

wudgie - please try and grasp this information:

The PAJAMA FIBERS ARE SOURCED (identified, everyone know where they originated) and EXCULPATORY.

SNIP



.......... (Gawd)

[byn63]

wudge - let us try again

unsourced items are of NO FORENSIC value at this crime scene or any other crime scene.

Every single home in this country and around the world will have fibers, threads or hairs of some nature which cannot be matched to a source. This DOES NOT mean that murderers (or other criminals for that matter) have been in every home.

It is called the Transfer Theory of Locard - we all transport fibers, dust, hair, and misc debris on our persons as we go about our day. We also leave fibers, dust, hair, and misc. debris in the different places where we go during our daily life.

So, the dark woolen fibers are not exculpatory nor are they inculpatory. They are useless to both sides to an equal degree. Period. This is not a difficult concept. We could send a forensic team through your home right now and we would find this type of matter (fibers, hairs etc) and not find matches or sources for them.

Once again:

SOURCED = forensic value
UNSOURCED = no forensic valule

No matter how many times you roll your eyes, snicker, gasp, burp, fart or whatever you will not change this FACT. FACT something the macalites really don't like because they cannot counter them!

[Wudge]

wudge - let us try again

unsourced items are of NO FORENSIC value at this crime scene or any other crime scene.

Every single home in this country and around the world will have fibers, threads or hairs of some nature which cannot be matched to a source. This DOES NOT mean that murderers (or other criminals for that matter) have been in every home.

It is called the Transfer Theory of Locard - we all transport fibers, dust, hair, and misc debris on our persons as we go about our day. We also leave fibers, dust, hair, and misc. debris in the different places where we go during our daily life.

So, the dark woolen fibers are not exculpatory nor are they inculpatory. They are useless to both sides to an equal degree. Period. This is not a difficult concept. We could send a forensic team through your home right now and we would find this type of matter (fibers, hairs etc) and not find matches or sources for them.

Once again:

SOURCED = forensic value
UNSOURCED = no forensic valule

No matter how many times you roll your eyes, snicker, gasp, burp, fart or whatever you will not change this FACT. FACT something the macalites really don't like because they cannot counter them!


It's beyond mind-numbing to watch people claim that sourced (matched) material can be inculpatory evidence, but then claim material not sourced (matched) cannot be exculpatory evidence.

(this is like a trip to the Twi-Light Zone)

[Bunny2]

Just incredible (shaking head here in pure disbelief that you will not go curl up and go away)

If unmatched (unsourced) forensic evidence was not forensically significant, unmatched DNA would not be proving wrongfully convicted prisoners to be factually innocent. This is how bad your reasoning aptitude truly is. You really need help. And please never take a seat inside a jury box.

Your posts containing personal attacks have been reported to the moderators.

If unmatched evidence was forensically significant in the Mac case, the murderer's appeals would still have failed because no unmatched evidence in this case is strong enough to overcome the mountain of evidence which proved he was the murderer.

[Bunny2]

The point was and remains: In degree, if sourced fibers can be inculpatory evidence, then in degree, unsourced fibers can be exculpatory evidence.

Show us where any court determined that any unsourced item of evidence in this case was exculpatory and weighty enough to overturn or vacate the murderer's sentences.

[Bunny2]

It's beyond mind-numbing to watch people claim that sourced (matched) material can be inculpatory evidence, but then claim material not sourced (matched) cannot be exculpatory evidence.

(this is like a trip to the Twi-Light Zone)

Actually, imo it's mind-numbing to think that anyone would actually believe that an unsourced fiber is enough to overcome the murderer's bloody footprints, the imprints of his pajamas on the sheet he used to carry Colette, his bloody pajama fiber under his daughter's fingernail, his hair "clutched" in his wife's hand, Colette's hair entwined around one of the murderer's pajama fibers, the other negative and positive blood and fiber evidence at the crime scene, the jury's and appeals courts and DNA findings of "no intruders," the countless lies the murderer told and the demonstrations of the consciousness of his own guilt.

[Bunny2]

(this is like a trip to the Twi-Light Zone)

Speaking of the Twilight Zone, Wudgie, where's that timeline? Why can't you provide that?

[Bunny2]

Forgive me, JTF, for jumping in here, but
Wudge:
...I have a question for you:
MacInmate claims to have performed "resucitation" on both Kristen and Kimberley when checking on them in their beds. How is this possible as they were both found laying on their sides, tucked under the covers, with Kristen having a bottle close to her mouth......

Just looking for some defense of the stories MacInmate continues to perpetuate.

Penn

FWIW, I also believe the victims were all found with their mouths closed. And of course the murderer also claims to have heard air coming from Kim's chest when she had no wounds in her chest; he supposedly performed these "resuscitation attempts" in total darkness; he thought Colette was dead but supposedly tried to keep her "warm" by ignoring the heavy bedding nearby and instead using an old, thin, torn pajama top which coincidentally had 48 neat, round holes in it which coincidentally matched the holes in Colette's chest; he supposedly pulled a knife from Colette's chest which was never in her chest; and of course he admitted spending time walking around the apartment and checking himself for wounds, washing his hands, looking out the back door, etc., while making the deliberate decision not to scream or yell or even phone any neighbor for help and admitting later that he knew that while he did all this, no help at all was on the way. So much for his "thinking more like a doctor" at that time, eh?

[Bunny2]

It's beyond mind-numbing to watch people claim that sourced (matched) material can be inculpatory evidence, but then claim material not sourced (matched) cannot be exculpatory evidence.

(this is like a trip to the Twi-Light Zone)

Plain and simple, Wudgie: If you believe so strongly that an unsourced fiber is so important forensically, then of course it's practically a given that you *must* believe that the sourced hairs and fibers in this case are far more forensically significant and important.

Again, I ask you: Are you saying that no household at all has any unsourced items in it except for households in which crimes have been committed?

The fact that you ignore the many sourced items in this case in favor of a 24" unsourced synthetic fiber and a few unsourced woolen fibers which didn't even match each other, and that you have no answers for the many questions asked of you, speaks volumes.

[Bunny2]

Wudge: Your pot shots at Bunny demonstrate the lengths you will go to avoid the documented record in this case. The case record is clear on the 5 dark woolen fibers.

1) Two dark woolen fibers were found on the club and they differed in chemical composition meaning separate source materials.

2) Three dark woolen fibers were found on Colette's body with two of the three fibers differing in chemical composition.

3) The totality of the chemical composition analysis indicates that 4 separate dark woolen clothing items were the source of the 5 fibers.

4) Despite the chemical composition analysis, the defense team has attempted to link the dark woolen fibers to a single source (e.g., Helena Stoeckley). This is similar to the odd strategy used to combat the chemical composition analysis of the 3 saran fibers. The only difference is that from 1971-1983, Stoeckley never "confessed" to wearing dark woolen clothing items on February 17, 1970.

5) MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items post-Article 32, so there was an extremely limited number of clothing exemplars available for comparison purposes.

6) Home movies and photographs of the MacDonald family demonstrate that the family owned dark woolen caps and sweaters. In addition, the family owned sleeping bags with dark woolen lining.

7) The only pieces of trace evidence that are forensically significant are sourced items. MacDonald claims he was attacked by a band of home invaders, yet not a single fiber, hair, or DNA profile has been sourced to a known intruder suspect. Ballgame over.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Good rundown on the fibers, JTF!

Every time I read about things like this, I'm always reminded of how interesting it is that the defense focused and continues to focus so very strongly on Helena, when even they admit that even if she was there (which obviously she was not), she didn't commit any murders. Why don't they tell us that Mitchell or Perry or any other "intruder" was the source of these fibers?

Why didn't they drag Mitchell or Perry or Dwight Smith or any other "intruder" onto the witness stand the way they did Helena? Except for Helena and Mitchell, all the others are still alive, and Mitchell didn't die until 1982, so where was he during the trial and why didn't the defense call him? Why did the defense drag in Gaddis, Brisentine, Zillioux, Posey, Beasley and Underhill, yet to the best of my memory produced no similar witnesses at all when it came to the other so-called "intruders"?

Why don't they describe the wigs and dark woolen clothing the other intruders were wearing or tell us why Stoeckley was wearing at least two wigs at once? Why did Gunderson and Beasley harrass and coerce Helena into making "confessions" but didn't bother brow-beating Mitchell or Perry or any other "intruder" in the same way, and didn't even bother to follow up on any of the names Stoeckley gave them? Could it be because Stoeckley was so malleable and drug-addled that they knew she'd make a convenient scapegoat even if she hadn't committed any murders at all?

And why did the defense suddenly stop naming Perry, Smith, et al as "intruders" and why do they now focus only on the two "intruders" who are deceased?

(Yes, these are rhetorical questions, just in case you didn't realize that already...LOL)

[Wudge]

Your posts containing personal attacks have been reported to the moderators.

If unmatched evidence was forensically significant in the Mac case, the murderer's appeals would still have failed because no unmatched evidence in this case is strong enough to overcome the mountain of evidence which proved he was the murderer.

Good. There are certainty people who should be precluded from posting, like people who think unsourced (unmatched) material from a crime scene cannot be exculpatory evidence

[pennnurse525]

Forgive me here,
But I was under the impression that these posts were to be used as a forum to debate, discuss and investigate this crime. Not to wax prophetic, stand on a pedestal and preach falsities and pat one's self on the back.

People on this board are for the most part helpful to others in their search for answers. Wudge, you have not answered many questions that have been posed to you and yet continue to post the same circular comments while attacking others who have spent a great deal of time and effort doing actual RESEARCH of the primary source documentation that Christina has so graciously made available to the general public via her website. Others who post work hard to base their posts on the infomational facts they have read first hand.

No one should be chastized for, in your eyes, not being of the same mindset. Many have tried to illustrate their points to you, but you just zip back a one liner about how ridiculous they are. You don't illuminate your own points with FACT. That is what is at issue here. IF you truly believe in MacInmate's innocence; factual or otherwise; then please show us all the light, love.
Give us a timeline based on Poor Jeff's statements of the night of February 16and into the early morning hours of 2/17/70 and back it up with the physical evidence that supports it, but please before you do, take a look at the descriptions of MacInmate's wounds on the PRIMARY source documentation, his medical record of that morning, NOT what he and SMQ wife claim; and then LOOK at the pictures of the butchered bodies of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald..........compare and contrast. Poor Jeff just became one lucky son of a gun now didn't he?

Read the testimony of Mrs. Kalin and her daughter, Pamela.....find out what they didn't hear that night. Their normally vociferous dog was silent, and they heard no intruders, no chanting, no doors slamming, no struggle. What they heard was an argument between Colette and her killer/your hero. Read what Mrs. Kalin says about Colette's demeanor prior to the murders and how she had changed since moving to Ft. Bragg.

Look at the CID files regarding the evidence removed. How do you explain the blood on the Shampoo box? The top edge of Esquire Magazine? The stacked magazines under the edge of the coffee table?

Read what the autopsy reports show. LOOK at the pictures of the crime scene. MacInmate's story DOESN'T fit the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

I could go on and on.....
FWIW
Penn

[byn63]

Good. There are certainty people who should be precluded from posting, like people who think unsourced (unmatched) material from a crime scene cannot be exculpatory evidence

you know wudgie - criminal investigation is not rocket science. Clearly, you have trouble understanding simple basic logic or else you would not keep insisting that unsourced items have any value in inmate's case or any other criminal case.

I mentioned before the Transfer Theory of Locard, but perhaps you'd accept Sherlock Holmes better. Even that "great detective" of Victorian London knew that a person will leave bits of themselves as they traverse the hours, minutes, seconds of living in this world. We could go into any home in the world and gather "evidence" and there would be some debris, hair, fibers whatever that we could not match back to a source. That debris would be absolutely useless to the investigation of a crime.

Wudgie we don't make these things up in order to type them on a forum. I know I am not the only one who takes my research into this case seriously. I spend hours reading, taking notes, looking up items. This is in order to discuss this case intelligently and factually. Your smart aleck, snide, rude, immature and mostly irrelevant comments are what is mind numbing. You have yet to present any factual data, and no matter how many times FACTS are pointed out to you, you just go off on a rambling tantrum that makes less and less sense with each instance.

try READING the case facts not Fatal Justice, Bost's Short Study, Crime Library or Inmate's own site, but the ACTUAL court records etc.

[Wudge]

you know wudgie - criminal investigation is not rocket science. Clearly, you have trouble understanding simple basic logic or else you would not keep insisting that unsourced items have any value in inmate's case or any other criminal case.

I mentioned before the Transfer Theory of Locard, but perhaps you'd accept Sherlock Holmes better. Even that "great detective" of Victorian London knew that a person will leave bits of themselves as they traverse the hours, minutes, seconds of living in this world. We could go into any home in the world and gather "evidence" and there would be some debris, hair, fibers whatever that we could not match back to a source. That debris would be absolutely useless to the investigation of a crime.

Wudgie we don't make these things up in order to type them on a forum. I know I am not the only one who takes my research into this case seriously. I spend hours reading, taking notes, looking up items. This is in order to discuss this case intelligently and factually. Your smart aleck, snide, rude, immature and mostly irrelevant comments are what is mind numbing. You have yet to present any factual data, and no matter how many times FACTS are pointed out to you, you just go off on a rambling tantrum that makes less and less sense with each instance.

try READING the case facts not Fatal Justice, Bost's Short Study, Crime Library or Inmate's own site, but the ACTUAL court records etc.



Two identical pubic hairs are found on nude parts of a rape and murder victim. The hairs are unsourced and do not match the person being tried for murder who claims not to have known the victim and total innocence. Do the hairs represent exculpatory evidence?

[pennnurse525]

Bring it back to the topic at hand Wudge.

Colette was NOT raped.
READ the EVIDENCE......the vaginal swabs taken from her body, as listed in the CID files, shows no live semen. There are no vaginal tears, no evidence of rape.....

Let's stay on the topic at hand.

Your questions regarding exculpatory and inculpatory evidence have been asked and repeatedly answered by myself and others, ad nauseum.

[Wudge]

Bring it back to the topic at hand Wudge.

Colette was NOT raped.
READ the EVIDENCE......the vaginal swabs taken from her body, as listed in the CID files, shows no live semen. There are no vaginal tears, no evidence of rape.....

Let's stay on the topic at hand.

Your questions regarding exculpatory and inculpatory evidence have been asked and repeatedly answered by myself and others, ad nauseum.

The discussion was and remains centered on unsourced material representing exculpatory evidence. When I wish to move onto a new point, I will.

[byn63]

wudge - UNSORUCED items are neither exculpatory or inculpatory. they have no forensic significance.

As to your odd rape/murder scenario: what is more important is does the DNA from the vaginal swabs of the victim match the accussed? However, this is off topic and it is time to get back on topic.


The topic here is the murders of Colette, Kimberly, Kristen and unborn son.

[Deb B]

It's beyond mind-numbing to watch people claim that sourced (matched) material can be inculpatory evidence, but then claim material not sourced (matched) cannot be exculpatory evidence.

(this is like a trip to the Twi-Light Zone)

Or how about when someone claims for years and years that certain unsourced evidence is inculpatory (of intruders), but then when it's identified and matches himself, suddenly it's not inculpatory at all...

[byn63]

Or how about when someone claims for years and years that certain unsourced evidence is inculpatory (of intruders), but then when it's identified and matches himself, suddenly it's not inculpatory at all...

Deb B - inmate and his followers did indeed spend years claiming that the Mystery Hair (E-5) was inculpatory because it showed the presence of intruders. I agree that it is mind numbing that these days that same hair, that for years was described as being found "clutched" in Colette's hand and NOW macalites call it "on" her hand! I find it ironic that they put all their evidentiary eggs in one basket, and ended up with scrambled eggs while they were trying to create a souffle' and they are still dancing around that subject.

I think the DNA results are why the whole Helena confessions scenario is once again being persued.

[Wudge]

Or how about when someone claims for years and years that certain unsourced evidence is inculpatory (of intruders), but then when it's identified and matches himself, suddenly it's not inculpatory at all...

The point was and remains that forensic material collected from a crime scene can be inculpatory evidence or exculpatory evidence. I've exampled/referenced fingerprints, DNA and pubic hairs.

To me, it is stunning, and I do mean stunning, that this is an issue instead of being intuitively obvious -- much less that this fait accompli is continually denied by more than one person in this forum.

I will not cite this obvious truth again. To me, it is simply absurd that this needed any discussion whatsoever.

(yes Lord, professional jurors, please)

[byn63]

The point was and remains that forensic material collected from a crime scene can be inculpatory evidence or exculpatory evidence. I've exampled/referenced fingerprints, DNA and pubic hairs.[quote]

you keep missing the obvious and unfettered truth - only SOURCED items have any forensic value. If you don't know where something originated it cannot be used to argue a point either way. Why are you so insistent on not accepting FACTS? The dark wool at 544 Castle Drive was unsourced and therefore useless forensically. Until the DNA results, the "mystery hair E-5" was useless forensically. NOW, since it is sourced to JRM it has exculpatory value. Bad news for inmate but true nonetheless.

[quote]To me, it is stunning, and I do mean stunning, that this is an issue instead of being intuitively obvious -- much less that this fait accompli is continually denied by more than one person in this forum.

you are being purposely obtuse and refusing to accept a simple fact of criminal investigation. you can not use something like a hair or fiber AGAINST a defendent unless you can positively source it to said defendant. conversely, you cannot use the same hair or fiber FOR a defendant unless you can source the said fiber or hair to a specific person. that is a simple fact that you are stubbornly refusing to accept. but it is still a fact and no matter how many times you do your "gasp, roll eyes, snort, snide comments and asides" you will not and cannot change THAT FACT.

I will not cite this obvious truth again. To me, it is simply absurd that this needed any discussion whatsoever.

good, then we are finally getting somewhere you admit you are being absurd by continuing to bring up incorrect information and arguing with those of us who have tried repeatedly to explain to you in simple english how evidence works.

(yes Lord, professional jurors, please)
this is too ridiculous to be taken seriously -- go back to being obtuse about what you don't know and refuse to learn!

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8859936]

SNIP

conversely, you cannot use the same hair or fiber FOR a defendant unless you can source the said fiber or hair to a specific person.

SNIP

you will not and cannot change THAT FACT.



Incredible!

Many wrongfully convicted prisoners have been freed because of unmatched (unsourced) DNA found at the crime scene. The owner of the DNA did not have to be identified (matched or sourced) in order for the DNA to be EXONERATING evidence. And all I have referred to is exculpatory evidence.

(just incredible)

[JTF]

Wudge: Aaaaah, in rape cases, but not in murder cases that don't involve a sexual assault. Colette MacDonald was not sexually assaulted, but she was viciously murdered by her husband. He was convicted due to several pieces of inculpatory evidence which included SOURCED fibers, SOURCED hairs, and SOURCED fabric impressions. As I mentioned in a prior post, not a single fiber, hair, or DNA profile matching a KNOWN intruder suspect was found at the crime scene. In 1999, Judge Fox told lawyers for the defense and the prosecution that the only exculpatory DNA test results would be ones that matched the DNA profile of a member of the Stoeckley group. Considering the FACT that none of the 28 hair exhibits matched the DNA profile of Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell, I think we all know how Judge Fox will rule on the DNA issue.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

Good. There are certainty people who should be precluded from posting, like people who think unsourced (unmatched) material from a crime scene cannot be exculpatory evidence
We should leave it to the mods to decide who is to be precluded from posting. It might interest you that unlike before, the CL mods have now become fairly strict when it comes to personal insults.

It is true that unsourced material found at a crime scene CAN be exculpatory evidence, but if SOURCED material has linked the suspect to the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, THEN unsourced material will become INSIGNIFICANT. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[byn63]

[QUOTE=byn63;8860026]

Incredible!

Many wrongfully convicted prisoners have been freed because of unmatched (unsourced) DNA found at the crime scene. The owner of the DNA did not have to be identified (matched or sourced) in order for the DNA to be EXONERATING evidence. And all I have referred to is exculpatory evidence.

(just incredible)

DUH Wudge -the DNA if it was unmatched (unsourced) WAS NOT USED to CONVICT them. The DNA probably wasn't even tested beyond possibly blood type and secretor/non-secretor. The DNA was of no value until it was sourced and once sourced the wrongfully convicted have been/are being released.

[Deb B]

We should leave it to the mods to decide who is to be precluded from posting. It might interest you that unlike before, the CL mods have now become fairly strict when it comes to personal insults.

It is true that unsourced material found at a crime scene CAN be exculpatory evidence, but if SOURCED material has linked the suspect to the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, THEN unsourced material will become INSIGNIFICANT. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Makes perfect sense to me!

[Deb B]

The point was and remains that forensic material collected from a crime scene can be inculpatory evidence or exculpatory evidence. I've exampled/referenced fingerprints, DNA and pubic hairs.

To me, it is stunning, and I do mean stunning, that this is an issue instead of being intuitively obvious -- much less that this fait accompli is continually denied by more than one person in this forum.

I will not cite this obvious truth again. To me, it is simply absurd that this needed any discussion whatsoever.

(yes Lord, professional jurors, please)

Yes, forensic material from a crime scene can be inculpatory evidence or exculpatory evidence. However, it can also be forensically insignificant, and there are unsourced materials in this case (e.g., dark fibers) that just don't prove anything, or inculpate or exculpate anyone.

MacDonald has made claims re: unsourced materials and attributes great meaning to those materials, but whenever the material is subsequently sourced/identified, it provides nada for inmate (one of the blond hairs, pubic hairs, hair on Colette's hand, hairs from children's bedding...).

[caphill]

We should leave it to the mods to decide who is to be precluded from posting. It might interest you that unlike before, the CL mods have now become fairly strict when it comes to personal insults.

It is true that unsourced material found at a crime scene CAN be exculpatory evidence, but if SOURCED material has linked the suspect to the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, THEN unsourced material will become INSIGNIFICANT. What's so difficult to understand about that?


What a forensic significant payload to find Dr. MacDonald's PJ fibers all around the victims bodies. LOL. After all he was wearing PJ bottoms that were split/ripped from ankles to crotch. His PJ top had 48 holes and a torn pocket. It would be suspicious if there were not fibers everywhere around these bodies. BTW, Dr. MacDonald lived in the apartment and was admittingly running around the crime scenes with his ripped PJ bottoms flapping around his legs.

The unsourced black fibers found on the club and on Colette's mouth are much more difficult to explain.

[Wudge]

Wudge: Aaaaah, in rape cases, but not in murder cases that don't involve a sexual assault.

SNIP




The Twi-Light Zone remains open!

Obviously, rape cases and DNA from semen are associated, but there are many murder cases, assault cases, robberies, muggings, etc., wherein the perpetrators DNA is found on the victim or at the crime scene from many sources -- DNA found in a hat, DNA found in a glove, fingernail scrapings, blood left from a fight, saliva from around a bite mark, hair with the root attached, etc., etc..

[JTF]

Wudge:wherein the perpetrators DNA is found on the victim or at the crime scene from many sources -- DNA found in a hat, DNA found in a glove, fingernail scrapings, blood left from a fight, saliva from around a bite mark, hair with the root attached, etc., etc..

Hey, Rod Serling, none of that was present in the MacDonald case. No DNA from the crime scene matched a known intruder suspect. Keep digging a hole for yourself.

Caphill: What a forensic significant payload to find Dr. MacDonald's PJ fibers all around the victims bodies. LOL. After all he was wearing PJ bottoms that were split/ripped from ankles to crotch. His PJ top had 48 holes and a torn pocket. It would be suspicious if there were not fibers everywhere around these bodies. BTW, Dr. MacDonald lived in the apartment and was admittingly running around the crime scenes with his ripped PJ bottoms flapping around his legs.

The unsourced black fibers found on the club and on Colette's mouth are much more difficult to explain

Incredible. Like a good MacDonald groupie, you continue to ignore the documented record and repeat the same propaganda over and over again.

1) Twenty four pajama fibers were found under Colette's body.

2) For the past 37 years, your hero has denied getting on the bed with Kimmie and Kristen, yet pajama fibers were found under their bedcovers.

3) For the past 37 years, your hero has denied having his pajama top on when he "checked" on Kimmie and Kristen.

4) MacDonald's pajama bottoms had a small tear in the crotch area. Your statement that the bottoms were ripped from crotch to ankle is false. I'm assuming that statement was your own concoction. It seems that you enjoy making things up.

In terms of the 5 dark woolen fibers.

1) Two dark woolen fibers were found on the club and they differed in chemical composition meaning separate source materials.

2) Three dark woolen fibers were found on Colette's body with two of the three fibers differing in chemical composition.

3) The totality of the chemical composition analysis indicates that 4 separate dark woolen clothing items were the source of the 5 fibers.

4) Despite the chemical composition analysis, the defense team has attempted to link the dark woolen fibers to a single source (e.g., Helena Stoeckley). This is similar to the odd strategy used to combat the chemical composition analysis of the 3 saran fibers. The only difference is that from 1971-1983, Stoeckley never "confessed" to wearing dark woolen clothing items on February 17, 1970.

5) MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items post-Article 32, so there was an extremely limited number of clothing exemplars available for comparison purposes.

6) Home movies and photographs of the MacDonald family demonstrate that the family owned dark woolen caps and sweaters. In addition, the family owned sleeping bags with dark woolen lining.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[TuscanDreams]

Does anyone know if evidence was saved that could be tested with DNA standards? Hair, fibers, etc?

For example, if the victims fingernails were saved and she had unidentified DNA under them, I'd think he could be innocent.

However, I think he's guilty as sin.

[Wudge]

SNIP

Hey, Rod Serling, none of that was present in the MacDonald case. No DNA from the crime scene matched a known intruder suspect. Keep digging a hole for yourself.


SNIP





The point contended has been and remains whether unsourced (unmatched) material from a crime scene can be exculpatory evidence.

Don't be the last one on your block to answer correctly.

[JTF]

TD: The following is a rundown of the DNA testing in this case.

1) Twenty eight hair exhibits were tested in this case by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

2) A limb hair found stuck to Colette MacDonald's left palm matched the DNA profile of convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald.

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

4) A forcibly removed body hair found on the blue bedsheet matched the DNA profile of Colette.

5) Three of the 28 hair exhibits contained unsourced DNA profiles. There have been over two dozen "intruder suspects" investigated in this case and none of the unsourced hairs matches their DNA profile.

6) Most of the blood evidence was used up at the 1970 autopsies, so none of the original blood evidence was available for DNA testing.

Hope this helps.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

There are several important things in this case to reiterate and remember regarding fiber evidence that remains unsourced:

1. Inmate destroyed the family's clothing and personal items post Article 32, so they could not be sourced in totality.

2. Colette MacDonald allowed many neighbors to come into her home to use her washing machine. This brought in to the home clothing of various types and of various fibers that could not be traced and therefore sourced.

3. Inmate made a fatal mistake when concocting his story....he would've been much better served to state that the intruders wore black woolen ski masks....he offers no description to that end.

4. The fiber evidence in this case is bolstered by the fact that all members of the MacDonald family had different blood types and thus could be typed on the fibers and traced throughout the apartment.....creating a picture of the events if you will.

The events stated by Inmate do not jive with the evidence.

Penn

[pennnurse525]

Also, for those interested...

Inmate's statement to the CID directly after the murders state some interesting things. I would encourage anyone interested to read the section with the statement analysis on Christina's site....however, to bring up a few...

Inmate called dispatch and stated that "some people had been stabbed."
The "people" were HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS. This is at best odd.
Who would say such a thing? MY FAMILY has been stabbed, my kids are bleeding....etc.

Also, inmate claims, in this statement, that he checked Kimberly for a femoral pulse. HOW???? She was tucked in snugly.

He further claims that he saw no injuries when he went into the bathroom to check on himself. Given the mortal wounds that he claims, how is this possible? Perhaps because he had not inflicted them yet???

Inmate claims that he struggled with assailants on the couch in the living room. LOOK at the crime scene photos. There is an afghan and clothes that remained undisturbed despite this life and death struggle with four people????

Inmate NEVER states, I DID NOT KILL MY WIFE OR MY DAUGHTERS, despite being questioned as a suspect. Wouldn't anyone in their right mind shout that from the rooftops if they even had an inkling that they might be under suspicion? Still to this day he says, and I've seen this as recently as the March 2007 48 hours interview...that he hopes to be released from prison based on his "factual innocence." Not because he did not murder Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, but because he is "factually" innocent?

Inmate very rarely refers to his family by name. He never speaks of Kristen at all, which is a theme that has remained constant since the murders. Many have surmised that this is because of the brutality he enacted upon her helpless and defenseless little body.

He feigns crying. No tears are ever shed.

Just some interesting things I have learned and wanted to share.

Penn

[JTF]

In a scenario where 6 drug-crazed home invaders slaughter 3 people and attack another individual in the residence, there is going to be trace evidence of their presence. The big problem that the MacDonald defense team has had in presenting their evidentiary arguments is that all of their arguments revolve around a singular source. Despite chemical composition issues, traces of candle wax, saran fibers, and dark woolen fibers are all linked by the defense team to Helena Stoeckley. The defense team has had 37 years to present tangible evidence of the other 5 intruders that allegedly were present at 544 Castle Drive. No matching fingerprints, hairs, fibers, fabric impressions, and/or bloody shoeprints were found at the crime scene. In addition, every single suspect from the Stoeckley group denied having any involvement in these murders. Greg Mitchell and Bruce Fowler passed polygraph exams, Fowler and Don Harris had airtight alibis, Allen Mazzerolle was in jail on February 17, 1970, and Dwight Smith was dropped as a suspect by the MacDonald camp in 1997.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

(snicker)

You mean like unmatched fingerprints?

(oh man ...this is why we need professional jurors)

I get it (snicker), professional jurors are incompetents who have no concept of logic. THAT'S why we don't have them.

Give it up Wudgit, one fiber does not an innocent man make. You forgot about all the rest of the evidence that put Inmate's saggy arse in jail.

[Spamela]

As I said: juvenile.

Juvenie?!?! You, with your little (snicker) comments are the definition of juvenile.

[meudy62]

according to jeffrey macdonald , helena stockley was the charles manson of the group, so how was collette able to grab some of her wig hair? three men are stabbing her,with helena standing there with a candle,and she gets helenas hair in her hand?and none of the men?plus his orginal statement to the mp's was the woman had stringy hair no wig was mention, jeffrey mcdonald stated there was wig hair in collettes hairbrush from helena stockley, but did'nt kristin have a doll at the time? when I was a little girl and my daughters we used to brush our dolls hair all the time,would'nt kristin do that also? collette gets up sometime during the attack and goes in kristins room to try to protect her, where was the intruders? they could'nt be with jeff, because he claims he was getting attacked the same time as collette,and kimberly,which is a miracle they can be in two different places at the same time! jeffrey macdonald claims the intruders left after one anserwed the phone, how would he know if they anserwed it? he claims they knocked him out? helena stockley stated she borrowed a friends car to get there and back, then why would she be out in the pouring rain standing on a street corner? the person who owned the car never stated there was any blood in the car, with all that blood splattered all over the house they did'nt get blood all over there clothes? they drive to dunkin donuts to clean up, the clerk says they left blood all over the sink yet again there's none in the car? this story is so full of holes. the only intruders in jeff macdonalds mind was collette, kimberly, kristin, and the unborn baby there's our intruders!

[JTF]

Meudy: Actually, the MacDonald camp originally claimed that an individual by the name of Allen Mazzerolle was the Charles Manson of the group, but a subsequent check of Mazzerolle's whereabouts the night of the murders demonstrated that he was in jail. The MacDonald camp then gravitated towards Greg Mitchell as the Manson-type leader, but DNA tests revealed that Mitchell's DNA profile was not present in any of the 28 hair exhibits. In terms of dolls owned by the MacDonald children, Kristen had 20 dolls in her collection.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[meudy62]

thank you very much jtf for your reply, I basically wrote down things I found odd with macdonald's statements, I just thought it was weird that collette can get helena's hair in her hand, when there's three men attacking her and helena was just standing there chanting.I been to your web site, a few times keep up the great work!:beer:

[JTF]

Meudy: You're welcome. I'm glad that you have visited my website and I hope it's been informative. In terms of the trace evidence found in Colette's hands, DNA tests demonstrated that a head hair found in Colette's right hand was her own and a limb hair found in her left hand was her husbands. There were 3 saran fibers found in a clear-handled hairbrush in the dining room. The MacDonald defense team has attempted to link the 3 saran fibers to a wig owned by Helena Stoeckley, but there were a number of problems with this argument.

1) Stoeckley stated at trial that she wasn't wearing her wig the night of the murders.

2) Stoeckley claimed that she destroyed her wig, so there was no source material for comparison purposes.

3) Stoeckley also claimed that she wore a fall owned by Maggie Mauney and an ear-length wig owned by Kathy Smith.

4) One of the saran fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection.

5) Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection.

6) Paul Stombaugh stated in his lab notes that the saran fibers resembled material used to make doll hair.

7) One of the three saran fibers differed in chemical composition indicating 2 separate source materials.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[meudy62]

watch it eve he might start writing you love letters...:eek:

[AshleyMari]

watch it eve he might start writing you love letters...:eek:

Or worse. He could just send her an envelope.:eek: Forgive me, I'm bad. Couldn't resist.

[meudy62]

I heard about him doing that to some woman, how gross!:eek:

[rashomon]

I heard about him doing that to some woman, how gross!:eek:
Here is he link to the woman's letter to Christina. The sections on the page are separated by asterisks, it is in the seventh section, together with an excerpt of inmate's handwritten letter. MacD had also enclosed an obscene drawing.

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

I wonder whether his current wife has ever asked herself if he has stopped his pornographic letters to other women since his marriage. I doubt he has stopped doing this.

[meudy62]

[hi, I'm a nurse also doctors,have fits all the time over little things, but most doctors don't butcher their famlies like mcdonald did :D

[meudy62]

hi, that's actually the letter that I seen, and he had the gall to write pig on collette's headboard, when he was the only pig in that family. I doubt he stopped writting those love letters to other women, he always thought he god's gift.and like the saying goes once a cheater....:seeya:

[meudy62]

I read an email bob stevenson wrote to christina masewicz he states that kathryn macdonald got ahold of his email address,and has been harrassing him since, the macdonalds should be truelly ashamed of themselves, the kassabs,and the stevenson's have suffered a great lost, the only lost jeffrey has suffered from is his freedom, which is his own fault! I also found a post on find a grave .com in collette's memorial which I believe came from them it said something about only god knows with a link to their web site.kathryn and jeff deserve each other both of them are sick and twisted!:mad: :mad::mad:

[AshleyMari]

I read an email bob stevenson wrote to christina masewicz he states that kathryn macdonald got ahold of his email address,and has been harrassing him since, the macdonalds should be truelly ashamed of themselves, the kassabs,and the stevenson's have suffered a great lost, the only lost jeffrey has suffered from is his freedom, which is his own fault! I also found a post on find a grave .com in collette's memorial which I believe came from them it said something about only god knows with a link to their web site.kathryn and jeff deserve each other both of them are sick and twisted!:mad: :mad::mad:

I sure hope you stick around. I am enjoying your posts. ashley

[pennnurse525]

Meudy:
Would love to see a link to that site "grave.com" ?
Also, be advised that the Mac Camp has nothing better to go on but to continue to harass the Stevenson's.
Their hero claims that intruders butchered his entire family, yet after 37 years, not one shred of evidence has ever sufaced to bolster their claims. Pretty sad that some still believe.....
Without anything else to do, harassing Bob keeps their sad pathetic lives fullfilled. Incredible. Perhaps a hobby would better suit poor Kathryn.......gardening? knitting? makeup artist?

It is a shame that so many continue forward with blinders on....you know the old addadge...how many ______ does it take to change a light bulb? How many intruders does it take to butcher a family without leaving behind any evidence? Poor Jeff claims that there were four standing over him, but yet was hearing Colette and Kim screaming that they were being butchered? What does that make? At least 6 then?
Those were some kind of hippies...strung out....wanderers...CSI junkies too? They sure knew how to pull of the perfect murders of three people and an unborn child....WOW. They probably could've solved the global warming issue and invented alternative fuels not to mention solved the crisis in the Middle East if only given a chance...
But I digress....
Penn

[Spamela]

Meudy: You're welcome. I'm glad that you have visited my website and I hope it's been informative. In terms of the trace evidence found in Colette's hands, DNA tests demonstrated that a head hair found in Colette's right hand was her own and a limb hair found in her left hand was her husbands. There were 3 saran fibers found in a clear-handled hairbrush in the dining room. The MacDonald defense team has attempted to link the 3 saran fibers to a wig owned by Helena Stoeckley, but there were a number of problems with this argument.

1) Stoeckley stated at trial that she wasn't wearing her wig the night of the murders.

2) Stoeckley claimed that she destroyed her wig, so there was no source material for comparison purposes.

3) Stoeckley also claimed that she wore a fall owned by Maggie Mauney and an ear-length wig owned by Kathy Smith.

4) One of the saran fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection.

5) Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection.

6) Paul Stombaugh stated in his lab notes that the saran fibers resembled material used to make doll hair.

7) One of the three saran fibers differed in chemical composition indicating 2 separate source materials.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF-
A few questions,

Did the brush in the Master bedroom have saran fibers that were sourced, or did that brush have no saran fibers?

Were there some wig fibers that were sourced to all fall of Colette's and to a wig of Mildred's? And if so, which brush were they in?

Was the longest saran fiber in the brush in the DR was sourced to a doll in the FBI collection? And this fiber was curly?

How long were the two unsourced saran in the DR brush?


Were any finger prints found on either brush?

Were any finger prints found on Colette's purse?

[Deb B]

Meudy: Actually, the MacDonald camp originally claimed that an individual by the name of Allen Mazzerolle was the Charles Manson of the group, but a subsequent check of Mazzerolle's whereabouts the night of the murders demonstrated that he was in jail. The MacDonald camp then gravitated towards Greg Mitchell as the Manson-type leader, but DNA tests revealed that Mitchell's DNA profile was not present in any of the 28 hair exhibits. In terms of dolls owned by the MacDonald children, Kristen had 20 dolls in her collection.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

I think another reason they gravitated toward Greg Mitchell is because they can say basically anything they want about him and because he's dead, he can't sue. There is stuff on Macdonald's web site that I think would be libelous if Mitchell were alive.

[Spamela]

I think another reason they gravitated toward Greg Mitchell is because they can say basically anything they want about him and because he's dead, he can't sue. There is stuff on Macdonald's web site that I think would be libelous if Mitchell were alive.

It is a great strategy, dead people can't speak up for themselves. It is a strategy that I wish Inmate would try (being dead, and not speaking!). Once Inmate drops dead, then the game is over. No more appeals. No more NEW informaiton. No more nothing. Just the sound of silence. For which Bob Stevenson will be grateful. Come on, Inmate, do the taxpayers a favor and cease to breath.

[meudy62]

pennnurse go to www.findagrave.com look up collette, at the bottom right there is a section where you can send flowers,and read the messages left by others. the message I believe that's from kathryn is on the page 201- 250 and the sender put down anonymous as a name,but as soon as you read it you'll know who left it. kristin and kimberly don't have one with there's, unless it was taken out. I'm also a nurse penn, and we both know he was the lone butcher in that house I knew right away, when I found out he only had a puncture lung, from his, so call attack.I think some people want to believe him, because it's too unthinkable for a father to kill his children. plus there will always be question's out there about how the army screwed up the crime scene. take care:seeya:

[meudy62]

spamela write to phil callahan, at www.justthefacts.com he will anserw all your question's via email, and he gives only the facts from the investagation, not his own views. he's been a great help with my questions have a great weekend :seeya:

[meudy62]

yeah another thing I would never forget the face of the people who butchered my family, mcdonald would had to see their faces, even via candlelight. greg and helena are nothing but scapegoats for that baby butcher! :seeya:

[JTF]

Spamela: Did the brush in the Master bedroom have saran fibers that were sourced, or did that brush have no saran fibers?

Were there some wig fibers that were sourced to all fall of Colette's and to a wig of Mildred's? And if so, which brush were they in?

Was the longest saran fiber in the brush in the DR was sourced to a doll in the FBI collection? And this fiber was curly?

How long were the two unsourced saran in the DR brush?


Were any finger prints found on either brush?

Were any finger prints found on Colette's purse?

1) The only hairbrush containing saran fibers was the clear-handled hairbrush found in the dining room.

2) If memory serves, there were 2 hairbrushes found in the master bedroom that contained synthetic fibers. The synthetic fibers consisted of black PVC fibers which matched a wig owned by Mildred Kassab and platinum-colored fibers which matched a fall owned by Colette.

3) The 3 saran fibers found in the clear-handled hairbrush were 24, 22, and 9 inches in length. The 24 inch fiber matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and the 22 inch fiber was labeled as "curly" by Janice Glisson. The 22 inch fiber also differed in chemical composition to the 24 and 9 inch fibers indicating 2 separate source materials.

4) I don't know if the hairbrushes or Colette's purse were dusted for prints.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

[Spamela] Did the brush in the Master bedroom have saran fibers that were sourced, or did that brush have no saran fibers?

Were there some wig fibers that were sourced to all fall of Colette's and to a wig of Mildred's? And if so, which brush were they in?

Was the longest saran fiber in the brush in the DR was sourced to a doll in the FBI collection? And this fiber was curly?

How long were the two unsourced saran in the DR brush?


Were any finger prints found on either brush?

Were any finger prints found on Colette's purse?

1) The only hairbrush containing saran fibers was the clear-handled hairbrush found in the dining room.

2) If memory serves, there were 2 hairbrushes found in the master bedroom that contained synthetic fibers. The synthetic fibers consisted of black PVC fibers which matched a wig owned by Mildred Kassab and platinum-colored fibers which matched a fall owned by Colette.

3) The 3 saran fibers found in the clear-handled hairbrush were 24, 22, and 9 inches in length. The 24 inch fiber matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and the 22 inch fiber was labeled as "curly" by Janice Glisson. The 22 inch fiber also differed in chemical composition to the 24 and 9 inch fibers indicating 2 separate source materials.

4) I don't know if the hairbrushes or Colette's purse were dusted for prints.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/
Re 1): From Michael Malone's 1991 affidavit:

"All of these saran fibers (Q-46, Q-49, Q-131A) are consisitent with the type of fibers normally used in the production of doll hair and are similar to a known sample of saran doll hair from the FBI Laboratory Reference collection (see Photo Exhibit 12).
These fibers (Q-46, Q-49, Q-131A) are not consistent with the type of fibers normally used in the manufacture of wigs, and based on my comparisons, are not like any of the known wig fibers currently in the FBI Laboratory reference collection."

Q-46 "two blond saran fibers" = the 9 inch fiber and the 24 inch fiber

Q-49 "one light blond saran fiber" = the 22 inch fiber

Q-131A "two light blond saran fiber fragments", which could be matched to Q-49

[Note: "Q-131A" was also used for the clear-handled hairbrush itself]


Re 2): One fiber from Colette's fall (K 47) was found in the clear-handled hairbrush, another fiber from the same fall was found in the blue-handled hairbrush.

Two black PVC fibers were found in the blue-handled hairbrush.

M. Malone "These fibers were consistent with the type of fibers which were once used in the production of wigs. The source of these PVC fibers (Q-43, Q-44) is unkown at this time."

Was it these fibers which could later be matched to a wig owned by Mildred? Where is the source which says they could be matched?

[byn63]

Re 1): From Michael Malone's 1991 affidavit:

Re 2): One fiber from Colette's fall (K 47) was found in the clear-handled hairbrush, another fiber from the same fall was found in the blue-handled hairbrush.

Two black PVC fibers were found in the blue-handled hairbrush.

M. Malone "These fibers were consistent with the type of fibers which were once used in the production of wigs. The source of these PVC fibers (Q-43, Q-44) is unkown at this time."

Was it these fibers which could later be matched to a wig owned by Mildred? Where is the source which says they could be matched?

Yes Rashomon the "two black PVC fibers were found in the blue-handled hairbrush" were the ones later matched to Mildred's wig/fall. I don't remember the exact reference, but it mentioned that the blud-handled brush actually WAS Mildred's that she'd forgotten at Christmas when she and Freddy were there for a visit. I will see if I can find the reference itself and post it.................................:seeya:

[bandit's mom]

Also, for those interested...



Inmate claims that he struggled with assailants on the couch in the living room. LOOK at the crime scene photos. There is an afghan and clothes that remained undisturbed despite this life and death struggle with four people????



Penn

Not to mention the Valentine's cards that were sitting on top of the China
Closet and were not disturbed. Still standing after the life or death struggle.
Not to mention none of his blood was found in the Living Room, where
he was "attacked", but WAS found in the bathroom sink where he
stood while inflicting the "mortal wound".

What's amazing about this case, aside from the obvious "common sense"
factor of why brutally murder a woman and two babies, while barely
wounding the Green Beret, who just MIGHT pose a little more of a threat,
is the mountain of physical evidence, helped by the odd fact of the family
having different blood types. How anyone can still, to this day, believe
one word that comes out of MacMurderers mouth is beyond my comprehension. I dated a Long Beach Police Officer in the late 70's
when they were among MacDonalds biggest supporters. He was a subject
we could not discuss without breaking into a full scale fight. His biggest
defense of Jeff was he was a "good doctor and a nice guy". To which
I always replied the same thing I believe to this day. He may have been,
at least superficially nice. Most sociopaths are. But the man is a monster.
Pure and simple. I have no doubt he will eventually die in jail, exactly where
he belongs.

[meudy62]

WUDGIE YOU DID'NT EVEN BOTHER READING JTF POST DID YOU? I SEE OTHER POSTS AFTER THIS ONE AND YOUR STILL ARGUING ABOUT THAT DOLL HAIR. READ JTF'S POSTS HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT! :patriot:

[byn63]

hi all - there is a new blog posted yesterday on:
http://crimerant.com
you can comment after; penn; ashleym; bandit's mom; rashomon I'd sure like to see some of you commenting - I already have a couple of times


:rose:

[Hey Paula]

hi all - there is a new blog posted yesterday on:
http://crimerant.com
you can comment after; penn; ashleym; bandit's mom; rashomon I'd sure like to see some of you commenting - I already have a couple of times


:rose:

Hi Byn!

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I read from the link you posted. I believe it's nothing more than a sensational form of writing to pique the reader's interest into buying her book. If what she says is true, i.e., that the DNA doesn't match MacDonald's blood, then a new appellate issue wouldn't be required, as the DNA evidence itself would likely exonerate him. The Innocence Project is known to obtain reversals in such cases.

IMO

[meudy62]

I know this does'nt apply to me either, but how in the world can they say the dna evidence they found in 2006 is from intruders? these guys did'nt do their homework very well! jtf you got to check that website out!:shrug:

[JTF]

I just responded to that less than thorough blog on the MacDonald case. Check it out.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

Laura: I apologize for sounding confrontational, but most, if not all, of your claims are false. The documented record demonstrates the following.

1) Three saran fibers were found in a clear-handled hairbrush in the dining room.

2) The fibers measured 24, 22, and 9 inches.

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

4) The 22 inch fiber differed in chemical composition indicating 2 separate source materials.

5) The MacDonald children owned a number of dolls. Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection.

6) Helena Stoeckley testified at trial that she was not wearing her wig the night of the murders.

7) FBI forensics expert Paul Stombaugh stated in his lab notes that the 3 saran fibers resembled material used in dolls and Halloween costumes.

8) The AFIP’s DNA test results matched a limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald’s left hand and 2 body hairs found on pieces of bedding at the crime scene to the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

9) There were 28 hair exhibits that were DNA tested and only 3 of the hairs were unsourced. All 3 hairs were naturally shed and none of them matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

10) None of the 28 hair exhibits matched the DNA profiles of Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell.

The government presented over 1,000 evidentiary items at trial, the jury convicted him in less than 7 hours, and he has had more chances at gaining freedom (e.g., eight to be exact) than any convicted murderer in the history of American law. MacDonald will not receive a new trial nor should he. He’s a psychopath and guilty as hell.

http://macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

I just posted as well.
Where do these nuts come from?
Thanks Byn for the shout out. LOL
Penn

[AshleyMari]

I just responded to that less than thorough blog on the MacDonald case. Check it out.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Your post is gone, jtf. Or I could not find it. I found several others of yours but not the one posted here.

I posted 3. Within 30 mins. all 3 were deleted. I said no bad words except I called Inmate "butcherer" and Spammy's favorite "worm food". What's the deal? I did take Laura to task for not being open and honest about the dna results or the saran fibers. Anyway, my posts are gone. I tried byn.

Here is one of my posts:
# Ashley Marie Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:17 am

It appears to me that for some strange reason Laura James has decided to simply fabricate and create stories out of thin air in order to try to make people believe things she’d like for them to believe. Yet she has produced nothing at all to back up her claims, and as others have already pointed out to her, she sounds like a MacDonald parrot or at best one of MacDonald’s puppets.

Read the DNA results for yourself to see how honest and forthright Ms. James is being with you. http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gov_dna_2006-03-15.html

Christina Masewicz has researched this case for over a quarter of a century. She has an excellent website: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

For the numerous outright lies that MacDonald has told over the past 37 yrs. there is a website that details that: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html.mmt.html

The 24” saran fiber and the 9” saran fiber came from the same source, probably dolls hair. The 22” fiber was also saran and said to be curly also most likely to be dolls hair. Both of the MacDonald girls had dolls, Kristen had over 20 dolls, which were given away or sold at a garage sale by inmate. Over the counter wigs, and those ordered from Eva Gabor’s House of Wigs, in those days were not made with Saran. No wigs for human wear in 1970 were manufactured with saran. A very small number with saran were manufactured for mannequins. But not for humans.

The butcherer, MacDonald, is right where he belongs awaiting his destiny to become worm food. Ashley

# Ashley Marie Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 am

Much has been made by MacDonald and his followers about the lawsuit where MacD sued Joe McGinniss for fraud, and the suit was settled out of court. However, MacD never mentions the lawsuit filed against him for Wrongful Death by Colette’s mother, Mildred Kassab. He wants to sweep that under the rug. Ashley
# Ashley Marie Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:40 am

I’m not sure the links in my post above are correct. Here’s another attempt:
The MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

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

Ashley

[pennnurse525]

Ashley and all:
All of my posts, except the two, I think, original ones, have been blocked or deleted. I said nothing profane at all. No bad words out loud (although as always I am thinking them......bad girl I am). Just the usual Inmate remark, but not even sarcasm for once....

Something stinks there....
Penn

[AshleyMari]

hi all - there is a new blog posted yesterday on:
http://crimerant.com
you can comment after; penn; ashleym; bandit's mom; rashomon I'd sure like to see some of you commenting - I already have a couple of times


:rose:

Here is my 3rd post. It was not even accepted. Like I had been blocked. Any suggestions anyone for ways of correcting these posts so they will be accepted. Thanks. ashley

Inmate said while the hippies were attacking him in the living room he could hear Colette screaming in the master bedroom and Kimmie screaming in her room. Yet Colette's blood is on Inmate's pajama top pocket BEFORE the pocket is torn off the pj top. This tells us that he came in close proximity to her in the early stages of the struggle. He said he only came in contact with her when she was dying and he was attempting to give her cpr. Sure, Liar, Sure. Tell us another lie, Pinocchio!

When Colette regained consciousness from being clubbed with a 31" stick of wood in the master bedroom she went to check on Kris in her room. We know Kris was dead by this time because Kris's blood was found on Colette's hand. Inmate caught up with Colette there and viciously beat her to a slumped mass. She suffered two broken arms; one was broken twice. She was 5 mos pregnant and clumsily with her gait. Still, the big bad green beret beat her unmercifully. Then he carried her back to her own bedroom and dumped her on the floor. Then he crushed her skull in and threw his pj top on top of her. I ask you, do hippie murderers carry someone back to their own room after killing them, or do they leave the bodies where they fall?

How did his pj top get so much blood on it? Womack Hospital personnel said he had no life threatening injuries. It wasn't his blood on the pj top; it was Colette's and Kimmie's, in massive amounts. We know this because Colette and Kimmie had Type A and Type AB blood. His is Type B.

Inmate socked little Kim with the club so hard that her little cheek bone came through her face. Her brain serum leaked through to the floor in a puddle where she was laying on the master bedroom floor. Inmate returned her to her own bed and tucked her in. Do hippie murderers tuck children back in to their beds after killing them? Remember the hippies would have been strangers. Inmate was the parent. Who is more likely to have tucked that child back in her bed? A parent, of course.

When Inmate called for an ambulance that morning he told the operator that "some PEOPLE have been stabbed". Yeah, Jerk, your wife and children had been stabbed and butchered. By YOU.

Joe McGinniss got one piece of documentation 100% correct. He said that the April 6, 1970 interview of MacD by CID would forever stick to MacD like tar. You can read that interview here:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/macdonald_1970apr6.html

[pennnurse525]

Yep, JTF your original detailed rebuttal post is gone.......
Stunning. These tactics are so mundane. Laura, whoever she is, the author, posts a ridiculous entry regarding the wig hairs, stating that no wigs were owned by Colette or found in the house. Unreal! Then deletes the posts that point to factual evidence. So typical its sad. Can't they come up with something new?


Ash, great post. Sorry you got tossed. You're in good company.

Yours in continued disbelief,
Penn

[TuscanDreams]

One of the best things we can be thankful for is that we are allowed to have a difference of opinion and our Government won't shoot us for it. Imagine having this debate in China- where dissenters "disappear" into "re-education" camps.

That said, I'm throwing this out here. I agree with meudy62's posts. The only victims in this case are deceased. McDonald is a convicted murderer and rightfully so.

[AshleyMari]

Ashley and all:
All of my posts, except the two, I think, original ones, have been blocked or deleted. I said nothing profane at all. No bad words out loud (although as always I am thinking them......bad girl I am). Just the usual Inmate remark, but not even sarcasm for once....

Something stinks there....
Penn

I agree, Penn. However, I did use sarcasm. I can't write about him without getting sarcastic. I detest Inmate and that comes through in my posts. I feel I have let byn down.

[pennnurse525]

Ash: Me too, but what can you do? byn will probably get tossed too......i consider that a compliment coming from that group. No offense byn..... :-)

Tuscan: glad we can have this debate. I have posted several times about my concern that Colette, Kimberley and Kristen are not forgotten as people; rather than just gruesome crime scene photos, and splotches of evidence and blood trails. I hope we are all of one mind there. Keeping the one who lurked in the darkness that night and slaughtered them in prison should bring them justice at least.

Penn

[AshleyMari]

Ash: Me too, but what can you do? byn will probably get tossed too......i consider that a compliment coming from that group. No offense byn..... :-)

Penn

Penn: Thanks for the encouragement. As you can see below a poster named chicken complained of posts being deleted. In a post of mine I agreed with him or her. Just one line was all I wrote. As you can see my post is gone, but the poster Rae did not believe that posts were deleted. Unbelievable.

# chicken Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Why do you put incorrect information on a blog and ASK for comments, and then delete all the posts that provide accurate information? What is your problem? Pathetic.


# Rae Says:
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 am

Well, then, neither one of you knows what you are talking about, because no posts have been deleted.


I think I have been banned from that site. They won't accept any of my posts not even nice ones. :patriot:

Ashley

[AshleyMari]

Penn: Thanks for the encouragement. As you can see below a poster named chicken complained of posts being deleted. In a post of mine I agreed with him or her. Just one line was all I wrote. As you can see my post is gone, but the poster Rae did not believe that posts were deleted. Unbelievable.
Ashley

I am so excited. They put one of my deleted posts back up.

Ashley Marie Says:
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am

Ashley Marie Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 am

Much has been made by MacDonald and his followers about the lawsuit where MacD sued Joe McGinniss for fraud, and the suit was settled out of court. However, MacD never mentions the lawsuit filed against him for Wrongful Death by Colette’s mother, Mildred Kassab. He wants to sweep that under the rug. Ashley

Ashley

[pennnurse525]

Ash, et al.
Back on the crimerant board.
Too funny.
Penn

[meudy62]

hi, I read on a web page that mac the knife was granted a appeal, what ever happened with that? was it dropped because of the dna results? :confused: jtf I would look it up on your website, but I'm being lazy tonight :no:

[rashomon]

Laura James is totally misinformed about the MacDonald case. Who is this person? An author?

[JTF]

Meudy: The MacDonald camp would like to believe that, but the only thing that has been decided is that MacDonald's lawyers have been allowed to file new motions. Judge Fox has still not decided on the DNA test results and the Jimmy Britt motion.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[meudy62]

I knew I could count on you. I doubt anything will come out of it.I think his fate was sealed when the dna was revealed. all they have left is he said she said anyway. :seeya:

[AshleyMari]

Loved the Live Chat last night, JTF. It was great, as always.

http://macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

Meudy: The MacDonald defense team is basically attempting to overwhelm Judge Fox by arguing that the entire case should be re-litigated. Most of the defense motions have focused on evidentiary items that have already been addressed at various appellate hearings in 1985, 1989, 1992, and 1998. The defense team then wants to throw in the Britt/Stoeckley affidavits and place their own spin on the DNA test results.

Ashley: That's good to hear. I've been very pleased with the Live Chat format, especially when it garners guests like Christina Masewicz and the son of the late Frank Toledo.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

Judge Fox is probably getting pretty annoyed by now with all the bs stuff they are submitting. Like it has not been addressed before. The bottom line, does their bs mitigate, in any way, all the evidence that convicted Inmate (fibers, blood, bedding)? Not at all. As Fox stated about the DNA, if any of the DNA matched Stockley et al, then it would mean that Inmate got help from them. The Macolites live in another world to think that they can wipe away the evidence that shows that Inmate butchered his family by a saran fiber, or unsourced hair and fingerpirnts. There is just not any evidence to flesh out Inmate's imaginary intruders. And if there was evidence of intruders, it would mean that they helped Inmate commit the murders. Not much of leap forward, IMO. Inmate should stop abusing the judicial system and just shut up and clean his toilets.

[byn63]

Judge Fox is probably getting pretty annoyed by now with all the bs stuff they are submitting. Like it has not been addressed before. The bottom line, does their bs mitigate, in any way, all the evidence that convicted Inmate (fibers, blood, bedding)? Not at all. As Fox stated about the DNA, if any of the DNA matched Stockley et al, then it would mean that Inmate got help from them. The Macolites live in another world to think that they can wipe away the evidence that shows that Inmate butchered his family by a saran fiber, or unsourced hair and fingerpirnts. There is just not any evidence to flesh out Inmate's imaginary intruders. And if there was evidence of intruders, it would mean that they helped Inmate commit the murders. Not much of leap forward, IMO. Inmate should stop abusing the judicial system and just shut up and clean his toilets.

ITA spammy!:beer:

[meudy62]

I don't know how they can influence the judge now, that stoeckly, and mitchell are ruled out as suspects, they're beating a dead horse on that issue. thanks JTF for the info

[JTF]

Meudy: It's no big surprise that the MacDonald camp has focused on the two deceased members of the Stoeckley Seven. Notice how there is no mention of Cathy Perry, Dwight Smith, Don Harris, Allen Mazzerolle, and Bruce Fowler in the defense motions. Despite the fact that the DNA profiles of Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley were not present at the crime scene, the MacDonald camp has no choice but to continue to present these two innocent people as family murderers. MacDonald and his minions have no shame. Check out the Suspects topic on my website if you want to read about each group member in more detail.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[AshleyMari]

hi all - there is a new blog posted yesterday on:
http://crimerant.com
you can comment after; penn; ashleym; bandit's mom; rashomon I'd sure like to see some of you commenting - I already have a couple of times


:rose:

That blog is heating up and turning personal. Time for Laura James to end it. Unless she is the one directing the snide comments. Something is fishy there.

[meudy62]

I agree I was on there earlier, and it is getting pretty nasty, but she put false info in there people who are not familiar with the case are going to believe what she wrote. that rae person said that they were'nt blocking anyone, but were not accepting links, but if you look there's links all over the page. your right something is fishy! also did you see the poll on there last week asking people if they think he's guilty or not hummm

[AshleyMari]

I agree I was on there earlier, and it is getting pretty nasty, but she put false info in there people who are not familiar with the case are going to believe what she wrote. that rae person said that they were'nt blocking anyone, but were not accepting links, but if you look there's links all over the page. your right something is fishy! also did you see the poll on there last week asking people if they think he's guilty or not hummm

LOL, Meudy. I don't think that poll is going the way Laura James wanted it to. You are very right. She did put false info in that blog. If one read only the blog they would surely think MacD deserves to be set free and not even have another trial. Good Grief!!!:cuss:

That poster, Michelle Gray, (Imahogalon) I suspect she logged back on two more times as "Jules" and "Passing Through" just to toot her own horn and to insult Rash because Rash made her accountable for her own words.

That Rae person - I can't figure him out. Can he not see that there are many, many links in others' posts? I think he saw us (from the MacD forums) coming and did not want us there. jmo

[rashomon]

LOL, Meudy. I don't think that poll is going the way Laura James wanted it to. You are very right. She did put false info in that blog. If one read only the blog they would surely think MacD deserves to be set free and not even have another trial. Good Grief!!!:cuss:

No indeed, that poll is not going the way Laura James wanted it.:)
I almost fell out of my chair when reading the first blog entry which stated that "a wig hair" and the DNA test results exonerate MacDonald. Lol, not even MacDonald himself dares to say anymore that DNA exonerates him, for the contrary was the case.
Does anyone know who this Laura James is? Is she an author?
That poster, Michelle Gray, (Imahogalon) I suspect she logged back on two more times as "Jules" and "Passing Through" just to toot her own horn and to insult Rash because Rash made her accountable for her own words.
Ashley, I get the feeling of having opened a beehive and accidentally stepped on the resident 'queen bee' there, lol. And now she is sending out her 'worker bees' to sting me out of this blog. One of them even sifted through old forum posts of mine to collect 'circumstantial evidence' against my credibilty. What a childish bunch!

It all started with a poster commenting on the picture where Kristen can be found in her bed, and theorizing that the pool of blood on the floor had probably gotten there because her head was hanging off the side of the bed i. e. Kristen had not been moved from the bed. This earned her a snippy comment from Michelle who said that no one can say that without having read crime scene analysis reports etc., and she implied that this poster was just another of those 'John Douglas wannabees'. Michelle herself claims to be a crime scene analyst.
I pointed out to her that in the MacDonald case many crucial documents are online, (lab reports, trial transcripts etc) and that several people have researched this case for many years.
And that people who have not done extensive research on a case can offer their theories on forums and blogs too. Anyone can offer their theories (the poster btw was correct in her interpretation of the photo).
"I'm not interested in the MacDonald case!" Michelle snapped at me (I could virtually "hear" her screaming ), "I haven't even read what you have posted about the evidence!" Hmm, I thought, why then does she post on a MacD blog a all?
After spitting off some final insults she told me she would not waste her time speaking to me again. Instead two of her buddies showed up (or it is herself again), pointing their finger at me: "Do you know what the blog owners [Phelps and Olsen] do for a living and that Michelle is their friend?"
Nice, but what has this to do with the MacDonald case?
That Rae person - I can't figure him out. Can he not see that there are many, many links in others' posts? I think he saw us (from the MacD forums) coming and did not want us there. jmo
I too think they don't want us there, which is why they treat us like gate crashers who have intruded into a 'members only' club. :)

Thanks so much Ashley for backing me up there! :rose:

[AshleyMari]

LOL,Rash. That poster, Imahalogram, has a low startle point, doesn't she? I wonder if she is that tempermental and easy to anger at her analyst job? You had her spitting words. And you were so calm. You are a cool lady. :beer:

[Bunny2]

Just a reminder...

Live Chat about the murders of Colette, Kim and Kristen MacDonald takes place tonight and every Tuesday night, from 8-11 p.m. EST:

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

Hope to see all of you there!

[pennnurse525]

Christina has removed the link to the A&E boards from her website. Can someone give me the link to the page where all the threads re: inmate come up. That was my quick acess to the pages and now I can't seem to get but just the postings listed, not very easy to use. Would love some help as to how to get back to that page with the threads. TIA
Penn

[AshleyMari]

Christina has removed the link to the A&E boards from her website. Can someone give me the link to the page where all the threads re: inmate come up. That was my quick acess to the pages and now I can't seem to get but just the postings listed, not very easy to use. Would love some help as to how to get back to that page with the threads. TIA
Penn

Hi Penn. Is this the link you wanted? Hope so.

http://boards.aetv.com/forum.jspa?forumID=222

[JTF]

Here you go.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Thanks guys!
Wonder why it disappeared? Making room??:shrug:
Penn

[meudy62]

what gives with the person called bigtimecrimebuff? is that macdonalds wife?

[sed]

Hi, I am new to this board, but I have studied this case for quite a while, and I can't see how the inmates camp can still see that he is innocent. Are they blind? One question I have for everybody is how credible is the theory that he was molesting the kids?

[pennnurse525]

Sed:
I don't think we will ever know if Inmate truly molested the children. There was no "rape kit" done on either child post mortem, and the molestation idea was a theory proposed by Freddie Kasaab. Certainly, there are questions about this that remain a mystery; like many things about this case. For example, why did Inmate lie about which daughter had wet the bed that night? To make things look good, that a younger daughter would wet the bed, but not an older one? The narcisism and lying of the Defendant in this case certainly does not engender belief in any of his stories, nor does it warrant his support. I, for one, pray and hope that this poor little girl did not have to endure molestation as well as the murderous rage that occurred that night. Having her head smashed by her father multiple times was enough torture, too much torture, for anyone. For Colette, having seen that her two babies had been butchered was plenty. Finding out about molestation as well is just an unbearable thought. Let's hope it wasn't true. However, Freddie spent a great deal of time contemplating his son in law. He knew him, and obviously had insight in to his capabilities. SO.....it remains up in the air. If you haven't already, check out the A&E boards, there are some interesting thoughts proposed there related to this case. Great posts that span alot of time and minds.
An easy link for you if you haven't been there is :
themacdonaldcase.com (www.themacdonaldcase.com)
top right hand corner.
Penn

[pennnurse525]

Meudy:
Could be, or could be just a supporter who likes to "stir the pot". Did this person post again recently or are you referring to old posts?
Penn

[meudy62]

they're old posts, but a&e has a poll up asking people if they think this person might be macdonald or his wife. I read this persons past posts, and the person looks like they have personal insight on macdonald. that's why I was wondering. thanks pennurse. :seeya:

[JTF]

Meudy: BTCB's writing style is dissimilar to Kathryn's, so I doubt that he/she was the Strip Mall Queen. MacDonald groupies come and go, but the physical evidence will always remain at the forefront of this case.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[meudy62]

I thought it might be someone he knows, the person was saying the kassabs where abusing the children, which I don't believe at all! I don't know if he has made those accusations,on his website or not, I don't go to it because I can't stand the sight of him! thanks JTF

[JTF]

Meudy: MacDonald groupies don't have any facts to back up their ridiculous claims, so their entire bag of tricks consists of personal pot shots, lies, distortions of the documented record, cut and paste evidentiary arguments, and poor hygene. Alright, maybe not the hygene part, but I stick by the rest of it, LOL!

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

Now JTF;
How can poor Kath have poor hygeine?
Doesn't all that mirror time with a hairspray bottle count?

LOL
Penn

[JTF]

Penn: Typical dialogue involving the Strip Mall Queen.

SMQ: My husband, sniff, sniff, is factually innocent.

Question: How does he explain the bloody cuff impressions on the bedsheet?

SMQ: You simply want to start an argument. I'm not going to debate this with you.

Question: How can we have a debate when you won't even attempt to answer the question?

SMQ: All I know is that the truth will win in the end.

Question: Truth as in manipulating a blind, elderly woman into signing a blank piece of paper?

SMQ: I stand by my, I mean, Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit.

Question: What is the color of the sky in your world? What was the original color of your hair? How can you possibly be married to a man who has a yellow streak that runs down his entire back?

SMQ: F&%* you. I feel like I have a deep connection with Colette, Christopher Reeve's wife, and Paula Jones. I'm ending this discussion right now. Excuse me while I slither out of here and find a few mice to feed on.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

Penn: Typical dialogue involving the Strip Mall Queen.

SMQ: My husband, sniff, sniff, is factually innocent.

Question: How does he explain the bloody cuff impressions on the bedsheet?

SMQ: You simply want to start an argument. I'm not going to debate this with you.

Question: How can we have a debate when you won't even attempt to answer the question?

SMQ: All I know is that the truth will win in the end.

Question: Truth as in manipulating a blind, elderly woman into signing a blank piece of paper?

SMQ: I stand by my, I mean, Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit.

Question: What is the color of the sky in your world? What was the original color of your hair? How can you possibly be married to a man who has a yellow streak that runs down his entire back?

SMQ: F&%* you. I feel like I have a deep connection with Colette, Christopher Reeve's wife, and Paula Jones. I'm ending this discussion right now. Excuse me while I slither out of here and find a few mice to feed on.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF - what is really sad about this scenario as posted by you is that it hits very close to the truth. That is heartbreaking!

See ya'll at chat tonight?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!:D

[Bunny2]

Penn: Typical dialogue involving the Strip Mall Queen.

SMQ: My husband, sniff, sniff, is factually innocent.

Question: How does he explain the bloody cuff impressions on the bedsheet?

SMQ: You simply want to start an argument. I'm not going to debate this with you.

Question: How can we have a debate when you won't even attempt to answer the question?

SMQ: All I know is that the truth will win in the end.

Question: Truth as in manipulating a blind, elderly woman into signing a blank piece of paper?

SMQ: I stand by my, I mean, Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit.

Question: What is the color of the sky in your world? What was the original color of your hair? How can you possibly be married to a man who has a yellow streak that runs down his entire back?

SMQ: F&%* you. I feel like I have a deep connection with Colette, Christopher Reeve's wife, and Paula Jones. I'm ending this discussion right now. Excuse me while I slither out of here and find a few mice to feed on.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

LOL!!!! VERY funny, JTF, but also sad in a way, as Byn said, because it really is a good representation of how she thinks and what she says.

IMO, Mac had enough problems already, opening his mouth and inserting both feet so often over the years, and now in a way the problem has only been exacerbated because his mouthpiece, Kathryn, doesn't seem to have any more understanding of the evidence and what it means than he does. Either that, or she's simply as much of a liar as he is. Neither of them is willing or able to give reasonable and logical answers to what the evidence shows, and neither of them is willing to correct the false statements on his website. They both simply keep on parroting Mac's lies, the lies/misrepresentations in FJ and the silly arguments the defense teams have presented over the years, and that, to me, speaks volumes.

[sed]

pennurse, thanks for the link. Sorry, I have been on vacation and haven't had access to a computer. Thanks again:seeya:

[pennnurse525]

JTF:

You made my night. Just read your post today.....ungodly how close you are to the actual transcripts, like, you know?

Would love to ask poor Kath if her other half is as "factually innocent" as OJ, Ted Bundy, or even BTK?

Oh wait. OJ got off, and there was even less evidence against Ted and BTK as against Inmate....hmm.

Very interesting....
Penn

[pennnurse525]

My apologies to all, I feel as if I rudely left our meeting last nite.
Bad storms here, just back up online.....
Sorry I missed the ending.
Penn

[byn63]

My apologies to all, I feel as if I rudely left our meeting last nite.
Bad storms here, just back up online.....
Sorry I missed the ending.
Penn

hey penn glad you made it to the discussions! thanks for the support btw, obviously we agree that calling inmate by that sobriquet is good enough for what he is........like you said nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade! Still, I appreciated the support...................

btw, you did get the word that we have officially inducted you and ashley into the firebrigade, right? of course I still sit in the front seat because I like to make lots of noise so I get to work the siren and lights and whistles! JTF is the Chief, bunny and cami are bulls. OW rides right behind me so you and ash can sit next to her ok?:beer:

[AshleyMari]

My apologies to all, I feel as if I rudely left our meeting last nite.
Bad storms here, just back up online.....
Sorry I missed the ending.
Penn

Just wanted to pipe in to say LiveChat was lively last night. A great bunch of posters were there. Had lots of fun. Missed all who wasn't there. Hope to see you next week.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

Penn, we have had some almighty storms and lightning as well, so I know what you are going through.

Yippee, Byn said we can sit next to OW on the fire truck. LOL

I agree, Byn. Calling MacD "Inmate" was actually very nice of you considering how many other names fit him to a T. ashley

[byn63]

Just wanted to pipe in to say LiveChat was lively last night. A great bunch of posters were there. Had lots of fun. Missed all who wasn't there. Hope to see you next week.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

ITA Ashley we were certainly having a good time!

Penn, we have had some almighty storms and lightning as well, so I know what you are going through.

Hey Penn, we had some too! I did lose power for about a minute at some point!

Yippee, Byn said we can sit next to OW on the fire truck. LOL

I'm glad you are happy Ashley - I am a bit selfish and won't give up my place within reach of the noise makers in the truck! Me is STUBBORN!:cool:

I agree, Byn. Calling MacD "Inmate" was actually very nice of you considering how many other names fit him to a T. ashley

Thanks for acknowledging my admirable restraint! I even stopped discussing our castration of inmate when Restival seemed to be bothered by it........even though I STILL think it is a good idea!:seeya:

:patriot:

[pennnurse525]

So glad to be on the truck...red IS my color. LOL

Check out the latest yahoo on the A&E boards, y'all...on the new website tag.
Did ya know JTF is a zealot? Like its a bad thing or something.....

Penn:seeya:

[byn63]

So glad to be on the truck...red IS my color. LOL

Check out the latest yahoo on the A&E boards, y'all...on the new website tag.
Did ya know JTF is a zealot? Like its a bad thing or something.....

Penn:seeya:

OmegaMan aint new and he aint nothin but a pain! Check out my response to him! Ya like?

[AshleyMari]

I like very much, Byn. Serves him right. Hit and run poster.:beer:

[JTF]

I responded as well on the A&E New Website thread to the latest inane ramblings of a MacDonald groupie. This particular groupie skipped right to MacDonald Camp Tactic #3 and simply went on the attack. He didn't even attempt to Stick To Message or partake in Ignorance Is Bliss. I guess you can't present what you don't have and MacDonald's minions have no unassailable evidentiary arguments at their disposal. They simply drink from the punch bowl at the MacDonald propaganda party and procede to bow to their master. If I could give any advice to MacDonald's flock, it would be to never drink and post.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

man, my post went poof! I am really really bummed! I worked d@5* hard on that post and it DID NOT violate TOS in any shape manner or form. No way I can recreate it especially since OM's inane ramblings have disappeared too!

I even included the definitions of ZEALOT. I assume that OM meant it as definition 2b Fanatically committed person. Yup, that is JTF, and me, OW, bunny, cami, ashley, penn, spammy etc

[cami]

Just wanted to pipe in to say LiveChat was lively last night. A great bunch of posters were there. Had lots of fun. Missed all who wasn't there. Hope to see you next week.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net

Penn, we have had some almighty storms and lightning as well, so I know what you are going through.

Yippee, Byn said we can sit next to OW on the fire truck. LOL

I agree, Byn. Calling MacD "Inmate" was actually very nice of you considering how many other names fit him to a T. ashley

I find the chat goes too fast or maybe it's just this old girl. by the time I finish typing a reply about a 1000 entries have scrolled by (well that's an exaggeration but you know what I mean). But I agree it is fun....

[rashomon]

I find the chat goes too fast or maybe it's just this old girl. by the time I finish typing a reply about a 1000 entries have scrolled by (well that's an exaggeration but you know what I mean). But I agree it is fun....
Chat room dialogues are nearly always very fast, and sometimes it is hard to keep on track because of the continuous flow of entries. As a non-native speaker and fairly slow typer, I'd probably not stand a chance in actively taking part. I did try to download Javascript though, but couldn't - I always got an 'error' message. But taking part would be diffficult for me anyway, for when chat starts, it is 3 a.m. here in Germany - that' s too late even for a chronic 'night-owl' like me. :)

Just curious: are there Mac supporters taking part in the chat too?

[JTF]

Rashomon: The Live Chat has mainly consisted of individuals who are convinced that MacDonald is guilty. Christina Masewicz has joined in on three of the Live Chat sessions and Frank Toledo's son took part in one of the Live Chats. We get a MacDonald supporter here and there, but I believe there was only one session where there were two MacDonald supporters on at the same time. There were no MacDonald supporters to be found on three of the last four Live Chats. It's too bad that you haven't been able to engage in the Live Chat process. Your input would be a welcome and valuable addition.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[AshleyMari]

I find the chat goes too fast or maybe it's just this old girl. by the time I finish typing a reply about a 1000 entries have scrolled by (well that's an exaggeration but you know what I mean). But I agree it is fun....

Rumor has it that next Tues night JTF, ever the perfect host, is donning apron and oven mitts to serve hot soup. Yummy.

Rash, it would be so special if you could join us. ashley

[byn63]

Rumor has it that next Tues night JTF, ever the perfect host, is donning apron and oven mitts to serve hot soup. Yummy.

Rash, it would be so special if you could join us. ashley

I agree - as for Javascript problems I'd say contact bunny she is the resident macguilty with computer genius! Maybe once you've got that solved you could make special arrangements to join in on the occasional live chat -- it would be great fun and wonderful information sharing!

and you and cami just need to say whoa slow down and we will all try and behave and type slower

[Spamela]

Penn: Typical dialogue involving the Strip Mall Queen.

SMQ: My husband, sniff, sniff, is factually innocent.

Question: How does he explain the bloody cuff impressions on the bedsheet?

SMQ: You simply want to start an argument. I'm not going to debate this with you.

Question: How can we have a debate when you won't even attempt to answer the question?

SMQ: All I know is that the truth will win in the end.

Question: Truth as in manipulating a blind, elderly woman into signing a blank piece of paper?

SMQ: I stand by my, I mean, Mrs. Stoeckley's affidavit.

Question: What is the color of the sky in your world? What was the original color of your hair? How can you possibly be married to a man who has a yellow streak that runs down his entire back?

SMQ: F&%* you. I feel like I have a deep connection with Colette, Christopher Reeve's wife, and Paula Jones. I'm ending this discussion right now. Excuse me while I slither out of here and find a few mice to feed on.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF---brilliant! LMAO!!

[rashomon]

JTF---brilliant! LMAO!!
That was a brilliant parody indeed - ROFL!
And it was eerily close to the truth - for this is EXACTLY how the strip mall queen speaks and argues.

[rashomon]

Rumor has it that next Tues night JTF, ever the perfect host, is donning apron and oven mitts to serve hot soup. Yummy.

Rash, it would be so special if you could join us. ashley

LOL! Frankly, when looking up the CID records and reading that the infamous 'multiple bloody gloves' found in the MacDondal kitchen were nothing but dish gloves and oven mitts with only minute traces of blood on them, I thought the autors of Fatal Justice must have a screw loose.
But like Byn said on A&E, they had of course no idea that one day all this info would be online and their lies exposed.

Here is a picture of two oven mitts which, per Potter and Bost, the murderous assailants were wearing while wielding the knife and ice pick.
And after everything was done, they hung them back neatly on the wall. :D

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo100.html

It is great to hear that the chat is such a success.
I'd really like to join you all there. I hope to get the javascript thing fixed and to stop by occasionally although it will be 3 am here in Germany when it starts, and I have to get up at 5:45 on weekdays, which is always a challenge :( . But I work later shifts occasionally, and maybe I can join then.

MacDonald's current wife (who no doubt reads all the JMD boards) will fume at the thought of a MacD chat now existing too.
I ask myself how long Kathryn will remain in her rose-colored bubble. Will she ever wake up to the truth and realize she married a monster?

[Spamela]

LOL! Frankly, when looking up the CID records and reading that the infamous 'multiple bloody gloves' found in the MacDondal kitchen were nothing but dish gloves and oven mitts with only minute traces of blood on them, I thought the autors of Fatal Justice must have a screw loose.
But like Byn said on A&E, they had of course no idea that one day all this info would be online and their lies exposed.

Here is a picture of two oven mitts which, per Potter and Bost, the murderous assailants were wearing while wielding the knife and ice pick.
And after everything was done, they hung them back neatly on the wall. :D

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo100.html

It is great to hear that the chat is such a success.
I'd really like to join you all there. I hope to get the javascript thing fixed and to stop by occasionally although it will be 3 am here in Germany when it starts, and I have to get up at 5:45 on weekdays, which is always a challenge :( . But I work later shifts occasionally, and maybe I can join then.

MacDonald's current wife (who no doubt reads all the JMD boards) will fume at the thought of a MacD chat now existing too.
I ask myself how long Kathryn will remain in her rose-colored bubble. Will she ever wake up to the truth and realize she married a monster?

And the Macolites want people to believe FJ....when they lie and present inane theories? Once the truth of the info related to FJ is known, only the stupidest of the stupid could find any merit in that piece of trash, which some call a "book".

Mrs Inmate is one dumb ....., so perhaps she will never figure out the Inmate is a killer. Once the limelight no longer fits her needs, she will go looking for another daddy figure (hopefully, not a horney, ugly convict). At her age, she is probably wondering what will become of her when she is old and grey (well, not that she will ever be grey, as long has she has peroxide), and she might want someone who can provide some financial security.

It would be fun, sometime, rash, of you could make it to chat! I realize it would be a hardship with the time zones.

[JTF]

In response to most of the specious claims levied by the MacDonald camp:

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

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

Hey everyone!
Just re-reading some info on JTF's site.
Checked out the info re:his conversation with Fred Bost. I find it most interesting that Mr. Bost stated that he felt the issue with negating Helena Stoeckley's confessions was because the Army did not want to have a group connected with the Army be charged/and or found guilty of murdering a family of an Army soldier on post...

HELLO!!!!

I guess it was better for the Army to accuse a Green Beret and father/husband of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters.
Where is the love Fred? Where is the logic?

Penn

[meudy62]

I thought it was a strange comment also penn, but I guess it's the only logical answer old fred can find to defend that baby butcher! why would the army want to defend a group of drugged hippies, compare to a green beret doctor? oh please! old fred needs to come up with somerhing better!

[meudy62]

I'm wondering why macdonald had so many drugs in his house? some were pretty heavy duty, plus syringes? I know some doctor's that keep some meds at home, but nothing like that. could it be that he might of been selling for extra money? I'm sure Mr. bigshot had to need money back than for all his other women. :hat:

[meudy62]

I wonder how many hours she spends getting ready to see him. lol :tongue: I finally saw a picture of her is she a lot younger than mac? I know he has aged gracefully in prison lol :punch:

[pennnurse525]

Meudy:
I have always found the amount of drugs in his house strange also. I have never seen a full accounting of all that was there, but from what I've read--I believe the 4/6/70 interview discusses this, it was QUITE the extensive collection. I think that Inmate was just compulsive in alot of ways.... I think he liked to be the hero for whomever came calling....Mr. BigShot and all that stuff...

From what I'm gathering in my re-read of FV, our boy Jeff states over and over again how dependent Colette was upon him. He reiterates this several times, and I'm only a hundred or so pages in (I don't have alot of book reading time). This is probably the case with Kath-Mac. She seems to have an identity only thru him and his exploits.....this may be unfair as the only coverage of her is related to her dead beat husband; but nonetheless....Jeffy Mac is a full time job I would say.

Also, the ideas about Colette being dependent upon him and his enjoyment at that is telling, IMO. I think that perhaps on that night Colette suddenly appeared as this person that was not dependent on him to tell her the time of day; she had some ideas of her own and likes and dislikes. Her back talk was not something he wanted to hear or was used to...evidence the statements of Mrs. Kalin, "If you touch a hair..." "What do you think..." I think that is exactly what Mrs. Kalin heard, she just couched her story to avoid being blamed or overtly accused of implicating Inmate.

Penn:seeya:

[JTF]

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/doj_10-27-82_p1.html

John Thornton was even sloppier than I originally thought. He makes several erroneous statements in the 1982 document.

1) Thornton claims that the defense team did not receive Paul Stombaugh's lab notes until after he testified, when in fact, the defense received Stombaugh's lab notes just prior to Stombaugh's final day on the stand.

3) Thornton states that in Stombaugh's lab notes, he was able to determine the directionality of 13 of the 48 puncture holes in the pajama top. Actually, Stombaugh provided his opinion on the possible directionality of 11 of the 48 puncture holes.

3) Thornton claims that Stombaugh first examined MacDonald's pajama top in 1970. Thornton obviously makes this statement to counter Stombaugh's trial testimony indicating that the yarns in the puncture holes went back to their original positions prior to his examination. Stombaugh felt that this was the result of the top being excessively handled by the CID. Stombaugh first received the pajama top in 1971, not 1970. CID documentation demonstrates that William Ivory delivered the pajama top and other evidentiary items to Stombaugh in 1971.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

Meudy:
I have always found the amount of drugs in his house strange also. I have never seen a full accounting of all that was there, but from what I've read--I believe the 4/6/70 interview discusses this, it was QUITE the extensive collection. I think that Inmate was just compulsive in alot of ways.... I think he liked to be the hero for whomever came calling....Mr. BigShot and all that stuff...

From what I'm gathering in my re-read of FV, our boy Jeff states over and over again how dependent Colette was upon him. He reiterates this several times, and I'm only a hundred or so pages in (I don't have alot of book reading time). This is probably the case with Kath-Mac. She seems to have an identity only thru him and his exploits.....this may be unfair as the only coverage of her is related to her dead beat husband; but nonetheless....Jeffy Mac is a full time job I would say.

Also, the ideas about Colette being dependent upon him and his enjoyment at that is telling, IMO. I think that perhaps on that night Colette suddenly appeared as this person that was not dependent on him to tell her the time of day; she had some ideas of her own and likes and dislikes. Her back talk was not something he wanted to hear or was used to...evidence the statements of Mrs. Kalin, "If you touch a hair..." "What do you think..." I think that is exactly what Mrs. Kalin heard, she just couched her story to avoid being blamed or overtly accused of implicating Inmate.

Penn:seeya:

As far as the drugs go, Inmate and his sticky fingers picked up quite a lot of things from the US Army, that were supposed to be destroyed. Heck, they could have found him guilty of theft and given him a dishonorable discharge.

The new little missus has a daddy complex, as told by someone who knows Katy Mac. She evidents co-dependent behaviour, so she is happy devoting her pathetic life to Jeffy Mac, he big daddy. Katy-Mac has a beautiful sister, who was daddy's favorite, so Mrs Inmate grew up in the shadow of her sister who got all of daddy's attention. Mrs Inmate was born in 1960 or 1961, so she could be Inmate's daughter, which is in keeping with her daddy complex. But what a daddy she picked!! :eek: Of all the daddy she could marry, she picks a tripple murdering sociopath convict. Way to go, Kathryn! You do your family proud! They must be embarresed to to mention her "husband".

I agress, I think Mrs Kalin heard exactly what Colette was saying. I wonder if Inmate pushed Kim before he hit her with the club. That would have caused Colette to say "if you touch.." , and then to prove he could do anything he hit Kim with the club, as Colette watched, horrified. After Inmate hit Kim, then Colette new it was a life or death struggle, but Inmate was stronger.

[pennnurse525]

Yeah Spammy,
Our boy Jeff sure did have some meds....
Re-reading FV. He had 18 50 mg. vials of Thorazine in his collection of stolen meds....

That is enough for a Psych ward to turn many patients into gorked, shuffling zombies for a couple of days!

What do you suppose he was trying to be ready for there? Another of Jay's psychotic breaks?

There is NO NEED for that medication in a home with a sane, functional woman and two small girls. No need for the general public to have that medication at all, its not a freaking antibiotic, for christ's sake. He claims in FV that he was keeping this stuff to make up "first aid kits for camping"....
sure jerk......you betcha!!!

Sorry I missed chat Tuesday, sounds like Plexus was in attendance, giving it a go. Be there next week.......

Penn

[JTF]

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-27-82_p1.html

John Thornton was even sloppier than I originally thought. He makes several erroneous statements in the 1982 document.

1) Thornton claims that the defense team did not receive Paul Stombaugh's lab notes until after he testified, when in fact, the defense received Stombaugh's lab notes just prior to Stombaugh's final day on the stand.

3) Thornton states that in Stombaugh's lab notes, he was able to determine the directionality of 13 of the 48 puncture holes in the pajama top. Actually, Stombaugh provided his opinion on the possible directionality of 11 of the 48 puncture holes.

3) Thornton claims that Stombaugh first examined MacDonald's pajama top in 1970. Thornton obviously makes this statement to counter Stombaugh's trial testimony indicating that the yarns in the puncture holes went back to their original positions prior to his examination. Stombaugh felt that this was the result of the top being excessively handled by the CID. Stombaugh first received the pajama top in 1971, not 1970. CID documentation demonstrates that William Ivory delivered the pajama top and other evidentiary items to Stombaugh in 1971.

In re-reading the document, I caught a few more of Thornton's distortions.

1) Thornton states that the staging theory in the living room was created by Hilyard Medlin and that the coffee table portion of the theory was proven to be false at the Article 32 hearings. Medlin was a fingerprint technician, not one of the lead CID investigators. William Ivory, Robert Shaw, and Franz Grebner were the authors of the staged living room theory. Using the crime scene photographs as their guide, these same 3 investigators tipped over the top heavy coffee table several times and each time it landed on its face. Colonel Rock did not refer to crime scene photographs when he tipped over the coffee table during the Article 32 hearings. The table landed against a chair and remained on its side. This one-time experiment was the extent of Rock's "analysis."

2) Thornton claims that the "only really new thing" that was presented at the Grand Jury hearings was the Pajama Top Theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government introduced the bloody fabric/non-fabric impression evidence found on the blue bedsheet, analysis of the bloody impressions/stains on the Hilton Hotel bathmat, grain pattern analysis matching a slat from Kimmie's bed to the club, blood stain analysis of MacDonald's pajama top which demonstrated that Colette's blood was on MacDonald's pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn, and the fact that a bloody head hair from Colette was found twisted with a bloody seam thread from MacDonald's pajama top.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[AshleyMari]

Yeah Spammy,
Our boy Jeff sure did have some meds....
Re-reading FV. He had 18 50 mg. vials of Thorazine in his collection of stolen meds....

That is enough for a Psych ward to turn many patients into gorked, shuffling zombies for a couple of days!

What do you suppose he was trying to be ready for there? Another of Jay's psychotic breaks?

There is NO NEED for that medication in a home with a sane, functional woman and two small girls. No need for the general public to have that medication at all, its not a freaking antibiotic, for christ's sake. He claims in FV that he was keeping this stuff to make up "first aid kits for camping"....
sure jerk......you betcha!!!

Sorry I missed chat Tuesday, sounds like Plexus was in attendance, giving it a go. Be there next week.......

Penn


You were missed, Penn. Yeah, Plexus tried to tell us the "intruders" came in through the kitchen door. Wasn't paying attention to detail in other words. But his presence added interest. Look forward to seeing you next week. :patriot: ashley

[pennnurse525]

Hey ash...
Kitchen door?
What am I missing? First, let's remember, no intruders.
Second, wasn't the utility room door open?
Oy vey.

I am confused about this Plexus. Claims to be a physician, claims to merely want to play devil's advocate in the reasonable doubt area.....but is making claims about intruders in the MacHome?

:confused:

Penn

[byn63]

Hey ash...
Kitchen door?
What am I missing? First, let's remember, no intruders.
Second, wasn't the utility room door open?
Oy vey.

I am confused about this Plexus. Claims to be a physician, claims to merely want to play devil's advocate in the reasonable doubt area.....but is making claims about intruders in the MacHome?

:confused:

Penn

Penn - Plexus is one weird dude; if he is a Doctor, I am certainly glad that he ain't MY Dr.! If you look back through A&E (can't remember which thread) Plexus made some comments that are sexist to say the least, about jurors, why he won't "allow" his wife to be a juror and how only unintelligent persons end up in a jury pool. Bet it would surprise you (not) to see my responses to THAT!

As to the reason inmate had those drugs in his home - plain and simple becuase he is a lying sack of s4!t and a thief.

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Spamela]

Hey ash...
Kitchen door?
What am I missing? First, let's remember, no intruders.
Second, wasn't the utility room door open?
Oy vey.

I am confused about this Plexus. Claims to be a physician, claims to merely want to play devil's advocate in the reasonable doubt area.....but is making claims about intruders in the MacHome?

:confused:

Penn

Plexus is a piece of work. I don't know if I believe that he is a doctor, or not. I don't know if he ever said what kind of doctor he was. As far as the information on the case, he is a legend in his own mind. He brings up specious arguments, that have been addressed before, and acts like they are significant. One of his first posts on C&J was about candle wax, and that PROVED that there were intruders. Ah, yeah, right, for sure. NOT. He claims that all jurist are too stupid to understand anything complicated, but he seems to be the one who can't deal with complicated information. I was not at chat, where the heck did he get an idea about the kitchen door? What, the intruders came in the Kitchen door, locked it, and then left by the MB utility room, and left that door open? Not likely, even if there were intruders, which, clearly, there were not.

[rashomon]

Hey ash...
Kitchen door?
What am I missing? First, let's remember, no intruders.
Second, wasn't the utility room door open?
Oy vey.

I am confused about this Plexus. Claims to be a physician, claims to merely want to play devil's advocate in the reasonable doubt area.....but is making claims about intruders in the MacHome?

:confused:

Penn
Yes, the back door which led to the utility room was open. I have never read anything about the kitchen door being open. Plexus probably wanted to 'put' his intruders in the MacDonald kitchen right away so that they would not have had to sneak by a sleeping MacDonald before rummaging through the kitchen drawers in search of gloves and weapons. :)

Plexus used to post on the Crime & Justice MacDonald board a good while back, and has now shown up again on the A&E board.
He claims to be a physician: maybe we should ask him why his infamous colleague MacDonald made the medical mistake of pulling out a knife of his wife's chest. Or why he, allegedly suffering from a collapsed lung, obviously had no breathing problems when giving mouth-to mouth to his family. Or why he didn't administer CPR instead of only mouth-to-mouth, since the victims neither were breathing nor did they have a pulse. Or how he would explain that MacD was far too alert after "regaining consciousness" on the master bedroom floor (he instantly blurted out his instructions to the MPs) ...

[Spamela]

Ah----see, I knew that the intruders came in the kitchen and locked the door once they were in (to keep people from disturbing their killing spree?). Let us see, they came in wearing winter gloves, opened up cabinets until they (magically!!) found the surgeons gloves under the sink, behind the potatos and the cleaning supplies, took off their winter gloves and put on oven mitts, rubber dish washing gloves and surgeon's gloves, and THEN they were ready to kill. Oh, and they found the ice picks and a knife in the kitchen. Then half of the 6 intruders went to Colette's room and half went and lined up in front of the couch, after they turned the coffee table on its side. They fought with Inmate for 8 seconds, got scared and ran out of the house, through the MB utility door. The other intruders killed Collete, and the girls, and when Inmate passed out on the hallway/stairs they took off his pj top, moved the bodies and then put the pj top back on him, and then they left through the back door which was left open. Sure, I believe it. No problem.

Good luck to Plexus and his magical time line.

[AshleyMari]

Hey ash...
Kitchen door?
What am I missing? First, let's remember, no intruders.
Second, wasn't the utility room door open?
Oy vey.

I am confused about this Plexus. Claims to be a physician, claims to merely want to play devil's advocate in the reasonable doubt area.....but is making claims about intruders in the MacHome?

:confused:

Penn

Sorry about the confusion Penn. Sometimes my thoughts don't make it all the way from my head to the written page. Plexus was attempting to present a timeline for us on LiveChat. He must have been following Helena's version of the "intruders" entering through the kitchen door. Ivory stated the kitchen door was locked. I pointed this out. Plexus got his feelings hurt. yada yada... Anyway, he needs to grow a tougher skin if he plans to hang around LiveChat. But he says he won't be back. I say good riddance. But I also say I am sorry I ran someone away from LiveChat. Not my intention at all.

I don't know about Plexus. Claims to be a doctor yet is trying to solicit his lawyering skills to the MacD group. He's on his soapbox peddling his skills as a lawyer. Yet he knows so little about the crucial details. Go figure. ashley

[pennnurse525]

Ash:
you've got private mail on A&E.

Round the fire sirens ladies and gents.

Check out the A&E new posts.

Penn:flamemad:

[AshleyMari]

Ash:
you've got private mail on A&E.

Round the fire sirens ladies and gents.

Check out the A&E new posts.

Penn:flamemad:

My opinion: You, Spamela and JTF have those "hot spots" under control. Good work. Sit for a moment and have a cool one. :beer: ashley