Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[pennnurse525]

I'm at work.

I wish.

It would be several.....

Penn:tongue:

[JTF]

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979aug14-15_thornton.html

Classic.

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/

[rashomon]

hi all - there is a new blog posted yesterday on:
http://crimerant.com



The newest entry in that blog is a Laura James interview with Kathryn MacDonald. I could only scan over it (it's way past bedtime here in Gemany), but will comment on that biased blog entry tomorrow. Hope others will join in too!

I got a good laugh from From the Crime Rant site praising Laura James:
[CR Note: Laura James is the historic true crime blogger extraordinaire. She offers up old crimes on her site, Clews. Laura James Fortnightly appears in Crime Rant on or about the first and fifteenth of the month.]
Laura James, the alleged "historic true crime blogger extraordinaire" obviously never took the time to make herself familiar with the overwhelming evidence against JMD.

[JTF]

Rashomon: I've responded to Laura James' specious claims and to the scripted blatherings of the Strip Mall Queen. My response is the 5th post on that unimpressive blog.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[AshleyMari]

Rashomon: I've responded to Laura James' specious claims and to the scripted blatherings of the Strip Mall Queen. My response is the 5th post on that unimpressive blog.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Your quote is still there, JTF. And you are so right about it being an unimpressive blog. It's pure manipulation and half-truths as well. jmo I left a small comment. Nothing that wasn't said earlier.

I will be at LiveChat. Our telephone service has been out of order since Fri. evening. A huge lightning storm took it out as well as our microwave and a vcr. They repaired it today. I was really having withdrawals since our internet is dial up. Two weeks ago we had a horse killed by lightning also. Major storms have hit our airspace in the last month. Glad to be back online. Missed my friends. ashley

[pennnurse525]

Ashley,
I am so sorry to hear about your electrical troubles, but most especially your horse. How heart breaking......
So sorry,
Talk to you tonite,
Penn

[AshleyMari]

Ashley,
I am so sorry to hear about your electrical troubles, but most especially your horse. How heart breaking......
So sorry,
Talk to you tonite,
Penn

Thank you, Penn. The kids' took the horses death badly. Our 7yr old had ridden him in a parade just a few weeks before. He was so gentle even the fire engines going full blast did not bother him. Thanks for your kind words.

You bet I will be at LiveChat tonight. It's my fav time of the week. LOL See ya there. ashley

[byn63]

Thank you, Penn. The kids' took the horses death badly. Our 7yr old had ridden him in a parade just a few weeks before. He was so gentle even the fire engines going full blast did not bother him. Thanks for your kind words.

You bet I will be at LiveChat tonight. It's my fav time of the week. LOL See ya there. ashley

I will see yall at chat too!

I responded to the Laura James blog 2x; 1 in general (response 6) and then response 17 answering questions from Nik.

Between Plexus and rjtva they are trying to give me a headache! Plexus is an idiot. rjtva is really getting annoying - check out my response to his "I don't know how to start" nonsense.

Spammy - as to your timeline for the intruders????how did they get the oven mitts back into the kitchen and how did they get the blood (Type B) splattered there but not in the dining room or living room. I is confuzzzzzzzzzzzzzlled!?!?!?

[byn63]

Thanks for the info Toth. I'll have to read Fatal Justice. LE should look into further if the possibility exists that Jeffrey McDonald may be innocent after all. It has happened before. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf



Fatal Justice is a poorly written joke as far as true crime books go! It is full of half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies. For example, fairly early in the book, the authors talk about 5 bloody gloves, but in reality there is a pair of dish gloves and 3 oven mitts. Did B&P really expect logical people to beleive hippies donned oven mitts, stabbed the family while wearing them and then put them back in the kitchen before departing? If they did so, then how did they manage to leave no traces of themselves in the process?

Inmate was indicted in January 1975. After considerable legal manuevering in attempts to keep from being tried, inmate was remanded for trial in the summer of 1979. Trial lasted 7 weeks, and the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The blood evidence was entered in to trial without objection. It was estimated that the prosecution presented only about 60% of the available evidence against inmate. Dr. Thorton of the defense agreed with Paul Stombaugh of the prosecution on several key points. The DNA testing is not included in the 40% of the evidence remaining, it is separate. The jury deliberated just over 6 hours convicting inmate of 2 counts 2nd degree murder and 1 count first degree murder. Judge Dupree sentenced inmate to three consecutive life sentences. The jury convicted - which means inmate was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JTF]

Michael Malone has been bashed for years by the MacDonald camp, but their specious arguments are dwarfed by Malone's record as a hair and fiber examiner. The following is a perfect example of Malone's expertise.

The following are excerpts from the 2002 Florida Supreme Court ruling on the James Duckett case. Duckett was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of an 11 year old girl in 1989. Michael Malone matched a pubic hair found in the victim's underwear to a pubic hair exemplar from Duckett.


Jack Edmund, Duckett's trial attorney was Duckett's last witness.

He would have moved in limine during the trial to preclude Agent Malone's testimony had he known of the misleading/false testimony even though that testimony had nothing to do with hair examination. Edmund had a hair expert available, but did not call him.

Randall Murch is a Special Agent and Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C.

Murch testified that Malone received proficiency tests in the examination of hair and fibers and had never failed those tests. He was aware that the Office of the Inspector General filed a report that Agent Malone had testified falsely in the Alcee Hastings case. However, there was nothing in Agent Malone's career that challenged his ability to correctly make a hair analysis.

Agent Michael Malone is currently a Special Agent with the FBI assigned to the Richmond, Virginia office. He was previously assigned to the hair and fibers unit with the FBI from 1974 through 1994. He has testified as an expert in the field of hair and fiber and courts have never refused to recognize him as an expert.

In addition to Duckett, he took several hair samples from other individuals and he could not match the hair sample from the victim's underwear to anyone other than Duckett. In addition, he tested the hair for race, and he determined, "it was caucasian." The hairs from most of the other suspects were, "predominately mongoloid."

Duckett complains about the trial testimony concerning hair recovered from the victim's person that was matched to known hair samples collected from Duckett. This issue turns on a credibility determination of the witnesses, and is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. When the testimony is reviewed, there is no basis for relief.

The Circuit Court decided this issue in the following way: The attack upon Agent Malone of the FBI is unfounded and without merit. The court also notes that nothing in the FBI "Report" connects Agent Malone to any hair or fiber analysis conducted by him. Thus it is not relevant in this case.

To the extent that further discussion of the matter is necessary, the Circuit Court noted that trial counsel and post-conviction counsel both retained Dr. Peter DeForest as a hair expert for the defendent. Dr. DeForest was not called in either proceeding, and the only possible conclusion is that he would not have been helpful to Duckett.

Despite the hyperbole of Duckett's brief, he has presented no evidence at all that calls the trial testimony into question. Finally, this Court decided at least a component part of this claim on direct appeal, when it held: Duckett contends that the trial court erred in qualifying Malone as an expert in hair comparisons. We find no error. We note that, when asked if there were any objections to Malone as an expert, defense counsel replied, "Yes, Your Honor, but none that I will voice for the record." The expert's credibility was resolved by the jury.


Great stuff. Malone should be commended for his role in keeping 2 child murderers off the street. His body of work clearly outweighs attempts at character assassination by lazy reporters at the Wall Street Journal or by MacDonald camp members.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[JTF]

The following is my reponse to a MacDonald advocate on another case discussion board. Enjoy.

Rjtva: Thank you for taking the bait. I knew that the Malone post would garner a reaction and that your response would be another example of your limited knowledge of this case. I could use your absurd argument that your post consists entirely of the "interpretations" of the defense team, but I'm not going to let you off that easy. Appellate decisions in 1992 and 1998 clearly state that Michael Malone didn't do anything wrong in this case. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Malone's hair and fiber analysis was so impressive that Harvey Silverglate had to resort to challenging age old forensic concepts (e.g., Transfer Theory of Locard).

You also cryptically refer to a case where a man was released from jail based on Malone's hair analysis. Considering that you give no case specifics leads me to assume that you know nothing about that case and are simply repeating the "interpretations" levied by MacDonald's minions. In the Buckley case, the hair evidence in question was collected by the New York State Crime Lab and mounted on slides before being forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Police. Michael Malone matched head hairs from the victim to those found on a board and a rug (Q54), and in vacuum sweepings (Q60) from the accomplice's van, as well as hair (Q89) from a blanket purportedly used by Buckley. Malone also matched a head hair (Q5) found in the victim's van with the known head hair of Buckley. All of these hair identifications were confirmed by another senior FBI examiner. If a breakdown in the chain of identification occurred with respect to the FBI laboratory, this in no way effects the accuracy of Malone's conclusion that the hairs match.

If I may be so bold, comparing your last post to his post is like bringing a paper clip to a gun fight.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Spamela]

If I may be so bold, comparing your last post to his post is like bringing a paper clip to a gun fight.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

That is about all the Mac Camp has left for ammunition. Paper clips. HA HA HA HA!! And then, only if they can harass some clueless person into contributing to the "Defense Fund" to buy the paper clips. Of course, most of the defense fund is used for Inmate's magazine collection, or when he finds some new honey-pie, the fund will be used to fly her in, and house her in a hotel, while she pretends to be a lawyer or journalist, so they can get some private time for his fun and games.

[JTF]

Spamela: MacDonald's advocates have never had any salient evidentiary arguments, so they throw buzz words out like "unidentified black wool" and "unmatched wax drippings" in an attempt to sucker the general public into believing in the psychopath's innocence. It's important to note that the AFIP's test results demonstrated that Paul Stombaugh didn't make a single mistake in his 1974 microscopic analysis of the hairs found at the crime scene. Michael Malone made only 1 mistake in his 1990 microscopic analysis. Malone microscopically matched a naturally shed pubic hair to MacDonald, but DNA tests demonstrated that the pubic hair was unsourced. The fact that the hair was not forcibly removed indicates that the source was probably a prior tenant of 544 Castle Drive.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

One unsourced pubic hair,
A scanty bit of black (?) wool fibers,
All meant to scare,
All very TIRED.

Bynthebard should be proud.

Penn

[meudy62]

nice vital signs for a man who's family was killed by intruders, was going into shock, and lets not forget knocking on deaths door! www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/womack-med-rpt_1970-02_p1.html

[AshleyMari]

Loved LiveChat last night, JTF. It was great. Nice crowd. Missed those who were not there. Every chat I have attended I have learned something new and interesting from you or Bunny or both. You two go the extra mile to keep us informed. Thank you. ashley:rose:

[AshleyMari]

nice vital signs for a man who's family was killed by intruders, was going into shock, and lets not forget knocking on deaths door! www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/womack-med-rpt_1970-02_p1.html

Meudy: Isn't it interesting that his vital signs were normal even though he had supposedly been knocked unconscious and witnessed the slaughter of his family just minutes or an hour before? It is also interesting that his vital signs were normal even though he did the slaughtering himself. This is an individual who knows how to compartmentalize. Big Time. ashley

[audpaud]

Hi Everyone!

Having a bit of trouble navigating this site and hope someone can help.

Where is this Topic/Thread in relation to the Main crimelibrary page?

Tx!

[meudy62]

hi ashley, I thought it was creepy myself that his vital signs could be so normal after butchering his family, he told two doctors shortly after the crime that he was relieved they were gone. pretty strange statement from a man who claims to be innocent huh? but for being so enraged you would think his blood pressure would be raised, or his pulse from anxiety not knowing if they would believe him or not.

[audpaud]

By Jove, I think I've figured it out! Very difficult to find now - not sure if I like the changes to ctv boards since last I was here - STILL can't post anywhere 'cept crimelibrary and not getting a reply from the mods.:rolleyes:

Vacay almost over and determined to check out JTF's info site b4 returning to work Monday - saving it as kind of a treat! If it's anything like your Posts, JTF, know that it will be chock full of info!:) Forgot about the Chat - won't make it to any in the near future - still on nights after all these years.:tongue: NEXT vacay for sure tho'.:)

It seems each time I'm "away" and return something else strikes me about this case - and the now lonely stragglers of CampMac - this time it hit me how they want to have it both ways - on one hand they want a crazed group of drugged out hippies crowded into lil ole Castle Drive for total chaos and murderous mayhem - but at the same time we're supposed to believe this same crazed group took the time to put on handy dandy surgical gloves to write in blood on the headboard???:rolleyes: And CrazedHipsters would have to SEARCH for the gloves under the cabinet - doncha think they would have found the DRUG SUPPLY MacPhysicianHealThySelf had stored more interesting than GLOVES for Cryin' Out Loud???

[audpaud]

Also - I came across that Laura James piece by total accident. UNREAL!:flamemad:

I DID get a response on another blog - Eyes for Lies - who thought after the 48 Hours thang that MacTruthful - EFL has retracted - I posted the link @ ae . . . and is rethinking on how she applies her "method." She is now a contributor to steve huff's crime blog.

[rashomon]

Also - I came across that Laura James piece by total accident. UNREAL!:flamemad:

I DID get a response on another blog - Eyes for Lies - who thought after the 48 Hours thang that MacTruthful - EFL has retracted - I posted the link @ ae . . . and is rethinking on how she applies her "method." She is now a contributor to steve huff's crime blog.
Audpaud, could you repost the link to the 'Eyes for Lies' blog? (I've replied there a while back but forgot to save the link). TIA.

[rashomon]

I DID get a response on another blog - Eyes for Lies - who thought after the 48 Hours thang that MacTruthful - EFL has retracted - I posted the link @ ae . . . and is rethinking on how she applies her "method." She is now a contributor to steve huff's crime blog.
Audpaud, could you repost the link to the 'Eyes for Lies' blog? (I've replied there a while back but forgot to save the link). TIA.
Audie, I've just found the link again on A&E:

http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2005/11/dr-jeffrey-macdonald.html

Respect to 'Eyes' for thinking over her position. Do you know if MacDonald's s 'performance' on the Dick Cavett show was also shown in the 48 Hours program?

[pennnurse525]

Rash:
My recollection is that it was not shown. I will re-check my tape.
Penn

[audpaud]

Glad you found the link rash - went on an impromptu camping trip to round out the soon to be over vacay and just saw your post. Yes, I think Eyes For Lies may have learned something from this experience. Convict has had so many years to perfect his schtick - starting out as a pathological liar didn't hurt either!

I'm racking my bean and just can't remember if the Dick Cavett eppie was part of the 48 Hours eppie or not. ))shudder(( at the memory of how absolutely CHILLING this grinning sociopath presented on that show. GRINNING!:flamemad: Bob Hope-like, indeed.:mad: When I think of how Larry King "softballs" every interview with this murderer and his devoted wife - it almost makes me glad that Freddy Kassab is not here to see it.:(

[AshleyMari]

This is from another poster on another forum. Thought it might be of interest.

The 48 hrs show that was bumped in March will be reshown this coming Saturday, the 21st. 9 pm est (I believe) on CBS.

[Spamela]

Glad you found the link rash - went on an impromptu camping trip to round out the soon to be over vacay and just saw your post. Yes, I think Eyes For Lies may have learned something from this experience. Convict has had so many years to perfect his schtick - starting out as a pathological liar didn't hurt either!

I'm racking my bean and just can't remember if the Dick Cavett eppie was part of the 48 Hours eppie or not. ))shudder(( at the memory of how absolutely CHILLING this grinning sociopath presented on that show. GRINNING!:flamemad: Bob Hope-like, indeed.:mad: When I think of how Larry King "softballs" every interview with this murderer and his devoted wife - it almost makes me glad that Freddy Kassab is not here to see it.:(

But ...remember Inmate's behavior on the Cavett show was NOT HIS FAULT. Freddie FORCED him to do the show and poor innocent Inmate was out of his depth and didn't know how to act, and he was nervous....and ....and ...and all the rest of the bull that MacCamp spews out. But, he never addressed the public in finding the murderers of his family. He cracked jokes like the sociopath that he is. Poor Fredddy thought that Inmate would appeal to the public to solve the murders, but Inmate was having a good time sucking up the applaus of the audience.

[meudy62]

thank you ashley for the post I will be glued to my seat watching it! I noticed on the american justice episode he got very nervous when he talked about kristin, I can't wait to see if he does it again! I also noticed he distached himself from collette,and kimberly, and talked about them like they were two of his patients! thanks again ashley :beer:

[meudy62]

I just saw the preview for 48 hours, kathryn was quoted he's totally innocent, you don't know all the evidence! :rolleyes: how in the world can that woman state that when she ignores the evidence! :lol:

[AshleyMari]

I just saw the preview for 48 hours, kathryn was quoted he's totally innocent, you don't know all the evidence! :rolleyes: how in the world can that woman state that when she ignores the evidence! :lol:

The only answer I have for Missus Kat is: once a doofus always a doofus. She is always good for a laugh or two.

She certainly does ignore the evidence. I sent her an email after the LKL show where she flat out stated that the woman on the corner in the rain coat was definitely Helena Stoeckley. She never answered. Just as well. Anything she would have said I would have gone through my computer screen after her frazzled hair. LOL

[AshleyMari]

thank you ashley for the post I will be glued to my seat watching it! I noticed on the american justice episode he got very nervous when he talked about kristin, I can't wait to see if he does it again! I also noticed he distached himself from collette,and kimberly, and talked about them like they were two of his patients! thanks again ashley :beer:

You are welcome, Meudy. Not only is MacD detached, he is also cold and calloused. The few snippets I saw of the Dick Cavett show he had no thoughts of his dearly beloved family, he was too busy playing the victim. And getting laughs from the audience. I can only imagine the disdain Freddy and Mildred must have felt watching that jerk on national tv, grinning and acting all innocent. When in fact he is a murderer and does not deserve time on any tv show. He said that Lowenstein and Freddy shoved him into doing the Cavett show. The truth is that dynamite could not have blasted him off that set or out of that seat. ashley

[pennnurse525]

I noticed on the american justice episode he got very nervous when he talked about kristin, I can't wait to see if he does it again! I also noticed he distached himself from collette,and kimberly, and talked about them like they were two of his patients! thanks again ashley

Meudy:
I haven't seen the AJ show. What happened with Kristen, did he offer anything new or just the usual stumbling???

Penn

[pennnurse525]

I do believe, now that I re-think this, that the DC Show was shown in parts.
I believe they spoke with DC in the episode, and he states his feelings about Inmate's behavior. Something to the effect of, He knew how to work it.
DC asked him something to the effect of, wow, how horrible to have your family murdered, and inmate stated, yeah, well, you know... and launched into his diatribe about the Army.

Typical.
Kinda like KatMac stating on LKL regarding the believability of the DNA results, which had not come out yet at that time, something to the effect of;well, if the testing is done properly, but....HEY MORON--you chose the lab, remember?????

Sheesh.
Penn

[meudy62]

I don't even know why she is on the show anyway, she does'nt even have anything to do with the case! shoot she probably was'nt even born when it happened! what is with these women marrying inmates these days? is it the new fad or something? I can think of better ways of getting my 15 minutes of fame rather than marrying a baby butcher!

[meudy62]

no it was his usual stumbling, but when he talked about kristin, I notice his voice started cracking, and he started using his hands more as he spoke, it was brief, than he turned back to the only person that means anything too him, himself as usual.

[AshleyMari]

Kinda like KatMac stating on LKL regarding the believability of the DNA results, which had not come out yet at that time, something to the effect of;well, if the testing is done properly, but....HEY MORON--you chose the lab, remember?????

Sheesh.
Penn

Per-xactly, Penn.

[JTF]

Many have put forth the opinion that MacDonald felt some remorse for killing Kristen, but I don't buy it. It's important to remember that from the time he decided to pick up Kimmie in the blue bedsheet to his obtaining the Old Hickory knife from the kitchen, MacDonald could have stopped himself at any point in this process. Not only did he go through with murdering Kristen, but his attack on her was brutal and relentless. Don't forget about Live Chat in exactly one hour.

Justthefacts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[AshleyMari]

He is back on A&E spouting big words.

[JTF]

The responses and tactics levied by MacDonald's minions reminds me of a quote by a famous college football coach...........................................

"You don't know what you don't know, so therefore, you don't know."

Remember the MacDonald camp mantras.

1) Stick to message

2) Ignorance is bliss

3) Attack, attack, attack

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[pennnurse525]

JTF:

Don't forget, the other key point on the MacDefenders Strategy:

The rules that apply to you, do not apply to me.
I can do whatever I want, and say whatever I want, but you must do as I say, otherwise you are irrationally persecuting my hero.

Penn

[pennnurse525]

Many have put forth the opinion that MacDonald felt some remorse for killing Kristen, but I don't buy it. It's important to remember that from the time he decided to pick up Kimmie in the blue bedsheet to his obtaining the Old Hickory knife from the kitchen, MacDonald could have stopped himself at any point in this process. Not only did he go through with murdering Kristen, but his attack on her was brutal and relentless. Don't forget about Live Chat in exactly one hour.

Justthefacts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

JTF:
I agree, but I think that he identified most with Kristen, she was most like him, the best of him anyway. But, in the end, everyone was dispensable at the altar of the all knowing and important Jeff MacDonald. You don't stab a baby that many times in the back without being, A) brutal, B) relentless, C) sure in your conviction, D) a coward E) a heartless basta*d.

Fo shizzle.
Penn:tongue:

[meudy62]

alot of people think he killed kristin only because she was old enough to talk. what is all your thoughts on it? I personally think he would of killed her anyway because he was tired of playing the role of daddy, and she would of put a damper on his playboy lifestyle. god forbid he ever kept it in his pants! too bad collette did'nt do a lorena bobbitt on him before she was slaughtered! would of served him right!

[meudy62]

I agree with pennurse, macdonald has even admitted (at least to something) that kristin was more like him, but I think poor kristin fighting him back fueled his temper more, even so there is no excuse for his heartless, selfish act! :cuss:

[pennnurse525]

I think he would've killed Kristen regardless.
He had come up with a lie to cover up his tracks, and was going to stick to it
regardless.
There was no way he was going to be saddled with a two year old to raise.
If he had not killed her, and she'd lived, he would've looked bad and not like the good father if he had given her to Freddy and Mildred to raise.
This way, with everyone dead, he was able to play the role.

Penn

[AshleyMari]

alot of people think he killed kristin only because she was old enough to talk. what is all your thoughts on it? I personally think he would of killed her anyway because he was tired of playing the role of daddy, and she would of put a damper on his playboy lifestyle. god forbid he ever kept it in his pants! too bad collette did'nt do a lorena bobbitt on him before she was slaughtered! would of served him right!

Oh, ho, ho. Thanks for the belly laugh, Meudy. Byn has similar plans of castration with a rusty knife infected with bacteria. LOL. ashley

[meudy62]

I prefer, that collette sliced and diced it, she could of send mrs kane a piece in a valentines card, the nurse macdonald was fooling around with ( forgot her name) and all the other women he was fooling around with ,that way they could always have a piece of macdonald with them heh heh.. he likes to send gifts in envelopes that would be even a better one! but unfortunally that never happened... but there's always hope in katheryn :biggrin:

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by JTF
Many have put forth the opinion that MacDonald felt some remorse for killing Kristen, but I don't buy it. It's important to remember that from the time he decided to pick up Kimmie in the blue bedsheet to his obtaining the Old Hickory knife from the kitchen, MacDonald could have stopped himself at any point in this process. Not only did he go through with murdering Kristen, but his attack on her was brutal and relentless.

JTF:
I agree, but I think that he identified most with Kristen, she was most like him, the best of him anyway. But, in the end, everyone was dispensable at the altar of the all knowing and important Jeff MacDonald. You don't stab a baby that many times in the back without being, A) brutal, B) relentless, C) sure in your conviction, D) a coward E) a heartless basta*d.

JTF/Pennnurse,

I believe Kristen's fate was sealed from the point he realized things had gotten too far, i. e. when he thought he had killed Colette and Kim and decided to save his butt via a concocted story. And for that concocted stroy to sound believable, Kristen had to die too, for in a house that small, it is impossible that a bunch of murderous assailants would have 'overlooked' Kristen.
Imo the thought of concocting a story was in his mind very early, for by the time he carried Kim back into her rom, he was already using the blue bedhseet to conceal forensic evidence whch could point to him.

But I believe it took him some time to bring himself to actually kill her. I think he originally wanted to strike her with the club too, but could not do it at first, seeing his favorite child her lie there sleeping peacefully.
He puts the club on her bedspread, leaving type A and AB blood there.
He then gets the Old Hickory knife, hoping he will be able to kill her in her sleep. But Kristen wakes up and fights back.
Once MacDaonald had beguin stabbing her, he was every bit as relentless as with the other victims. In his mind, Kristen 'had to' die in an overkill scenario like the others.

[pennnurse525]

Hey Rash:
Great post. Nice point about the blue bedsheet. Your point about him already having a story and sticking to it and concealing the evidence via the blue bedsheet is taken, and appreciated as I had never really put it into those terms.

I honestly try not to think about Kristen. Thinking about the idea that he stood over her and conciously attacked her is just too much for me. Thinking about the fact that Kristen stared up at her father's face in horror as he came at her, and she held up her hands to protect herself, in vain; is just too much.

I wonder though, Rash, how do you think the fact that Colette staggered into Kristen's room played into the scenario????? Or your timeline?

I wish you were able to join us in live chat, but I understand the logistics.
We have often discussed the following and I would love to hear your thoughts:

How long do you think the murders took from start to finish???
What do you make of Mrs. Kalin's statements regarding Colette's words?
Why do you think he lied about which child wet the bed?
What are your thoughts about the suitcase?

Love to hear from you since our chats are difficult for you.

Penn:seeya:

[rashomon]

I wonder though, Rash, how do you think the fact that Colette staggered into Kristen's room played into the scenario????? Or your timeline?

I believe that Kristen was already dead when Colette staggered into her room.

My timeline:

Fight starts in the MB with MacDonald, angry over the wet bed, shaking Colette rudely awake, probably shoving her head aganst the headboard ("Jeff, why are you doing this to me?"), Colette fights back by hitting him with the hairbrush, he punches her in the face, a grapple ensues during which her blood gets on the garment. Colette's unusual resistance makes him grab the club which probably was lying around in the MB (it probably had been used to prop up the bed some time before), and while he swings it at her, Kim comes into the room (I believe he had angrily sent her back to her room when discovering she had wet the bed, but that she never went back to sleep but instead listened in fright to her parents arguing).
When Kim tries to get between them, he turns around and in his blind fury, smashes her skull in with the club. Colette realizes that it has become a life-and death-struggle and arms herself with the Geneva Forge knife (which was probably in the utility room). She slashes his abdomen but he soon wrestles the knife from her hands and strikes her with the club again.
Both Colette and Kim lie unconscious on the MB floor. This is the point of no return for him. Like J. Blackburn said. "It has gone too far".
He decides to concoct an intruder story. He gets the blue bedsheet because he wants to prevent Kim's blood from getting on his PJ top, carries her back into her bed and strikes her with the club again.
He enters Kristen's room, club in hand. But he can't bring himself to kill her at first. He puts the club on the bedspread, and type A and AB blood from the club are transferred to it.
He decides to get a knife. Maybe he hopes that he as a doctor will be able to kill her at once with the knife, and he needs several weapons for his overkill scenario anyway.
On his way to the kitchen, he picks up the blue bedsheet,
wanting to launder it. But even before he has reached the kitchen, he has already dropped the thought (literally dropping the sheet to the floor), realizing it is of no use laundering the sheet. He sits down on the living room couch, and the whole situation he has brought himself into begins to sink in. That's probably when Pam Kalin who slept above the MacDonalds' living room heard the "crying loudly or laughing hysterically" sounds.
But he pulls himself together, and takes the Esquire magazine (leaving A and AB blood on it) to look up the story which was about the blond acid queen and the candle-lit LSD-orgy, to get some ideas about the intruders, which he will later complete with descriptions of the New York Four. He doesn't need specific info about the Manson case itself, for he, like virtually everyone in 1970, knows about the Tate murders where PIG was written in blood.
He puts the magazine under the game box and tips the table over on its side. He gets the gloves and the OH knife, picks up the blue bedsheet on his way back and throws it on the MB flor.
He goes into Kristen's room and stabs her to death.
With the OH in hand, he proceeds into Kim's room and inflicts the stab wounds to her neck. While he is in Kim's room, he becomes aware that Colette is staggering into Kristen's room. He catches up with her there, picks up the club which is still on Kristen's bed and strikes at Colette again.
He carries Colette back with the bedspread and sheet he got from the MB, fetches the OH knife from Kim's room, wipes it on the bathmat, and after stabbing Colette, dips his gloved hand into her blood to write PIG on the headboard.
He cleans himself somewhat up in the bathroom, gets the ice pick from the kitchen, throws his PJ top on Colette to account for her blood being there in large quantities, and also cold-bloodedly uses her body as a 'padding' because he wants to get stabbing holes through his pj top for his story. He stabs through his pj top with the ice pick, wipes the ice pick on the bathmat and then goes to Kristen's room to inflict some ice pick wounds on her too for his overkill scenario.
He then wipes the weapons and throws them out the back door. But he has forgotten about the Geneva Forge knife in the MB.
He knows he has to inflict at least one serious wound on himself too to sound plausible. He wants to do it as precisely as possible, which is why he puts on his glasses. A speck of Kristen's blood is transferred from his hand to the glasses as he puts them on. After inflicting the wound in the bathroom, he flushes the surgeon's gloves down the toilet, tosses his glasses into a corner of the living room, makes his first call from the kitchen phone, goes back to the MB to make another call, and then lies down next to Colette. As he is lying down, he sees he has forgotten to throw out the Geneva Forge knife. But it is to late to throw it out now since he has already called the MPs who may be there any moment. So he is going to tell them once that he took out the knife from his wife's chest.

jmo

[meudy62]

was'nt there a scalpel found in the house, with mcdonald's blood on it? I think it was found in the bathroom?

[meudy62]

thank you ashley so much for the info about 48 hrs, I always wanted to see the clip of the dick cavett show when he was on it, I'm so glad they showed it!

[rashomon]

was'nt there a scalpel found in the house, with mcdonald's blood on it? I think it was found in the bathroom?
MacDonald kept disposable scaplel blades in his medicine cabinet, but no bloody scalpel was found. He probably inflicted the chest wound with the scalpel and flushed it down the toilet together with the surgeon's gloves.

[rashomon]

Hey Rash:
We have often discussed the following and I would love to hear your thoughts:

How long do you think the murders took from start to finish???
What do you make of Mrs. Kalin's statements regarding Colette's words?
Why do you think he lied about which child wet the bed?
What are your thoughts about the suitcase?

Love to hear from you since our chats are difficult for you.

Penn:seeya:
Pennnurse:
There is a very interesting passage in the Voice of JMD section in FV
(p. 651/652)(bolding mine):
[He speculates as to what would have happened if he had gone to Vietnam]:

"Of course, the corollary of that also is that maybe then Colette, Kim, Kris, and uh, our little baby boy, um - Colette was pregnant with a baby boy, as you know - well, maybe you didn't know - um, would be with me today. Maybe I would have served the twelve months in a combat zone and come out a lot better than a half hour or whatever it was in, uh, 544 Castle Drive with at least four intruders."
Whaht does he mean by "had he gone to Vietnam Ccolette and the children would be with him today"? That he wouldn't have been there on Feb 17/70 to kill them??

In terms of the "half hour" - did he, without realizing it, give himself away here? It took him half an hour to kill is family?
For per his testimony, he could not have known how long it had taken the assailants to kill his family, since he allegedly had fallen unconscious on the hallway floor and had no idea how long he had been lying there unconscious when he woke up again. He neither had looked at the clock when he was awakened by them nor when he 'regained consciousness'. The only time reference he gave was that he went to bed some time after 2 am and his first (documented) phone call at 3:40 am.
Imo half an hour would indeed be an approximate time for the actual killings of all three victims, with stretches of time in between when he thought about how to stage the scene. It may also have taken him quite some time before he could finally bring himself to kill Kristen too.

I think he indeed went to bed like he said - around 2 am, and that the argument started immediately afterward. I believe that by 2:20 am, Colette and and Kim were already lying unconscious on the floor, that Kristen was dead about 20 minutes later, by 2.40 am, and that Colette died around 3 am (this is also Colette's estimated TOD in the autopsy report). The rest of the time he spent cleaning up and arranging things. jmpo

Re Mrs. Kalin: deep at night, she claims to have heard Colette's loud and angry voice. But that's one of the few errors in Joe McGinniss' book: Mrs. Kalin's bedroom was in fact not above the MacDonalds' master bedroom, their MB had no upper floor. Also it was winter, so the windows were probably closed and the blinds drawn at night, so how could she have heard much? On the other hand, the acoustic conditions in buildings are sometimes strange, and quite a few people who lived in similar army housing have posted on the forums that the walls were so thin one could hear a lot of sounds from the neighbors, wherever they came from. So indeed Mrs Kalin may have heard Colette's loud and angry voice. After all, Colette had been angry enough at her husband to fight back.

Re Kim: Imo he lied about which child wet the bed because he did not want the investigators to know true reason why he snapped and lost it: it had been because of Kim's wetting the bed, and he had attacked her in the MB. So he wanted to conceal the fact that Kim had ever been in the MB on that night.
Which is why he, in the April 6th interview, was absolutely dumbstruck when they tell him they found out that Kim was attacked in the MB. He could hardly speak a coherent sentence afterward, he was downright upset.

Re the suitcase: Paul Stombaugh's theory was that MacDonald may briefly have have thought to flee. Possibly.
But I think JTF's theory is just as plausible - that MacD emptied the contents of Colette's already packed suitcase back into her drawers. For Colette had asked Mildred if she could visit her with the children. And who knows, during the initial argument when he punched her face, Colette may have told him she'd had enough of him, he was a cheater who had now also become an abuser, she would take the kids and go to Freddy and Mildred, her suitcase was packed anyway. And he later unpacked that suitcase. Strange that he forgot to put it back into the closet though. This was probably just another of the blunders he made when staging the scene.

[bandit's mom]

JTF/Pennnurse,

I believe Kristen's fate was sealed from the point he realized things had gotten too far, i. e. when he thought he had killed Colette and Kim and decided to save his butt via a concocted story. And for that concocted stroy to sound believable, Kristen had to die too, for in a house that small, it is impossible that a bunch of murderous assailants would have 'overlooked' Kristen.



But why did he think the story that he was barely touched would be
believable? I know he tried to play up his injuries, but even still, considering
the way the others were butchered, even if you bought his description of
his injuries, they were nothing in comparison.

Trust me, I haven't the slightest doubt he's a murderer, I'm just asking...

[meudy62]

rashmon what about mcginnis's theory, that collette, may have caught him cheating again,and was fed up? the only reason I tend to go with that theory was because of it being so close after valentine's day when the murders accured. I have heard that the walls of the housing at fort bragg, was very thin,so I believe the lady next door heard what she heard, but I wonder why she did'nt hear any screaming, you would think after what he did to kimmie,collette would scream her head off! kristin disturbs me the most god I have nightmares of what that poor child went through! macdonald made a statement to someone, that he could hear kristin gurgling,but changed it quick,after being told it was impossible,since she was long dead before he checked on her supposely .I think that noise still haunts him to this day along with jeff why you doing this to me,and daddy daddy daddy.

[pennnurse525]

Rash:

Thanks for your thoughts.
I wonder also if the suitcase hadn't been packed earlier, like when Colette called Mildred. Perhaps she was anticipating Mildred saying, "Sure, get on the next plane, I'll wire you the money." Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

I think the entire murder scene took longer than a half an hour. I think that the actual killings didn't take that long, but the return to the victims for overkill, the moving of Colette's body, the frantic movements around the house, searching in the kitchen cabinets, inflicting the wound, the staging of the living room, etc. took at least 30 minutes in and of itself. I also think that Inmate probably did sit on the couch and sob or laugh or something.

The knife in Colette's chest is very telling, IMO. I too believe that he forgot to throw it out the back door with the other weapons. However, that knife had only been used on him....so his excuse was to explain away any of his blood or fingerprints on it.

I read something interesting in Christina's book this am....something I hadn't seen, and it caught my interest. I don't recall who said it, I will check, but it was stated by someone who saw Inmate in the ER that night/morning that they were really taken aback by the amount of DIRT and DEBRIS under his fingernails and on his hands, as he was usually so compulsively clean cut. What do you all make of that? Where did that come from????? He obviously had surgical gloves on at some point, he was too compulsive to have had the dirt there all night after pony time, and my thoughts were he "should have" been bloody, not DIRTY. What is up with that???

Thanks again, Love your input Rash.

Penn

[pennnurse525]

Meudy:

I don't know if you've seen, but in Christina's book she states that Pep Stevenson has said that she had discussions with Colette wherein Colette told her that she knew that MacNasty was cheating on her (and again and again).....
The defense claims otherwise, Inmate claims otherwise, but their ability to relay accurate information is lacking, IMO.

I DO believe that the issue that night was around Mac's behavior sexually and otherwise. I continue to have difficulty believing that it was totally about the bedwetting.....like I've said on the boards, I think that Inmate leaves us little clues sometimes.......the bedwetting may have been the catalyst, but the fight was sooooo many things wrapped up into one argument that had been brewing for a while. By most accounts, Colette was a non-confrontational person (she would have to have been to be married to that jerk), and I'm sure it took a while before she hit the wall of fed-up.

JMO
Penn

[AshleyMari]

You are very welcome for the information. I wanted to tell you that another poster on another board said she watched Cavett's face while MacD was cracking jokes and there was a look of appall on his face. He never once smiled at MacD's jokes. I have not gone back and watched the tape but I tend to believe the poster.

Loved your idea about Kathryn doing the "dirty" work. hahaha

Hope you can join us at chat tonight. ashley

[AshleyMari]

Thank you Penn for asking Rashomon those questions. She gave back a gold mine of info. Now, if I can absorb it all. Thanks Rash for giving so freely. ashley

[rashomon]

But why did he think the story that he was barely touched would be
believable? I know he tried to play up his injuries, but even still, considering
the way the others were butchered, even if you bought his description of
his injuries, they were nothing in comparison.

Trust me, I haven't the slightest doubt he's a murderer, I'm just asking...
MacDonald told investigators the fairy tale that he warded off the intruder attacks by using his pajama top as a shield. :)

Sure, Mac: you did all that in virtual darkness, fighting against four people who were clubbing and stabbing at you.
Superman will pale in comparison to Supermac on that fatal night ....

[meudy62]

hi penn good to hear from you, I know collette was aware of mac's cheating, but you know how emotional pregnant women get, I think she was told, or found something,and had enough. she told pep,and her mother she needed time away from mac, so there had to be something more going on in the house,I believe kimberly's accident is only part of the fight that happened in that house that night, but her saying" jeff why you doing this to me" sounds more to me like she confronted him with the cheating.

[meudy62]

hi ashley, I watched cavetts face too, he did look appalled, I'm sorry,but if your suppose to be innocent, you don't go on a talk show a few months after your family's been slaughtered,cracking jokes! how did you like his phony crying? after all these years he still can't squeeze one tear out! I also liked how they kept showing the home made movies,and the pictures of collette,and the girls throughout the whole series to remind everyone who the true victims were. I was very impressed how 48 hours presented the story.

[meudy62]

penn how did you get a copy? I checked her site,and could'nt find it. I saw your clip about mac having dirt under his fingernails, very strange for a doctor would'nt you say? I wash my hands alone over 500 times a day, even when I'm not working lol

[pennnurse525]

(http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/scalesofjustice.html)
here is the link to purchase the book.

Penn

[pennnurse525]

Meudy:
How do you mean, Colette told her mother and Pep she needed time away?
I didn't realize she had said this...
Penn

[Spamela]

Rash:

Thanks for your thoughts.
I wonder also if the suitcase hadn't been packed earlier, like when Colette called Mildred. Perhaps she was anticipating Mildred saying, "Sure, get on the next plane, I'll wire you the money." Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

I think the entire murder scene took longer than a half an hour. I think that the actual killings didn't take that long, but the return to the victims for overkill, the moving of Colette's body, the frantic movements around the house, searching in the kitchen cabinets, inflicting the wound, the staging of the living room, etc. took at least 30 minutes in and of itself. I also think that Inmate probably did sit on the couch and sob or laugh or something.

The knife in Colette's chest is very telling, IMO. I too believe that he forgot to throw it out the back door with the other weapons. However, that knife had only been used on him....so his excuse was to explain away any of his blood or fingerprints on it.

I read something interesting in Christina's book this am....something I hadn't seen, and it caught my interest. I don't recall who said it, I will check, but it was stated by someone who saw Inmate in the ER that night/morning that they were really taken aback by the amount of DIRT and DEBRIS under his fingernails and on his hands, as he was usually so compulsively clean cut. What do you all make of that? Where did that come from????? He obviously had surgical gloves on at some point, he was too compulsive to have had the dirt there all night after pony time, and my thoughts were he "should have" been bloody, not DIRTY. What is up with that???

Thanks again, Love your input Rash.

Penn

I think the dirt was from planting an ice pick in the wood well. It was discovered there when the apartments were refurbished, many years later. Supposedly, Inmate told his supporters that he believed another ice pick would be found. Which it was. I can't believe that the ice pick could have been there without some connection with the case. Maybe someone put it there as a prank, but I don't this so, since it is not like the police got a call tellling them to check the wood well. Also, the ice pick was not found until, it appers, that every thing was pulled out from the wood well, something that probably had not happened in a long time.

Also, I believe that he took the scalpal blade and handle and burried it. I think he pushed the blade and handle into the ground and then got a stick and poked the whole thing down six or so inches below the grass line, and then covered up the hole. I wonder if they used metal detectors and if they did, how far out they looked. Since they found the weapons, I don't know if they did go looking with a metal detector.

[pennnurse525]

Awesome post.
Thank you....
I was wondering what he was digging in the dirt for....totally forgot about the icepick in the wood well.

Where is it cited that he said that another would be found?
I sooooo think that this jerk plays with people, giving clues and then taking them away---wanting to feel like he is Mr. SuperIntelligent. Yuck.

How, then, did he get the b*lls to go out back and slither around???
No thought that someone would see him? And imagine if they had....
how'd he explain that one, digging up the killers in the woodwell?

Maybe he did actually wear the white bathrobe then, to cover his bloody self.

Why two icepicks?
I have always wondered about the scalpel also, since they checked the toilet traps, and that is an oddly shaped thing to flush, I don't think it could be counted on to disappear totally.

Never heard anything about metal detectors, but my guess would be a no. I think they were of the mindset that they found the weapons in total. Who knows????

Thanks Spammy, have a good rest of the week.
Penn

[Spamela]

Awesome post.
Thank you....
I was wondering what he was digging in the dirt for....totally forgot about the icepick in the wood well.

Where is it cited that he said that another would be found?
I sooooo think that this jerk plays with people, giving clues and then taking them away---wanting to feel like he is Mr. SuperIntelligent. Yuck.

How, then, did he get the b*lls to go out back and slither around???
No thought that someone would see him? And imagine if they had....
how'd he explain that one, digging up the killers in the woodwell?

Maybe he did actually wear the white bathrobe then, to cover his bloody self.

Why two icepicks?
I have always wondered about the scalpel also, since they checked the toilet traps, and that is an oddly shaped thing to flush, I don't think it could be counted on to disappear totally.

Never heard anything about metal detectors, but my guess would be a no. I think they were of the mindset that they found the weapons in total. Who knows????

Thanks Spammy, have a good rest of the week.
Penn


I think it was Lucia who said that Inmate spoke of a second ice pick. Could be wrong. Might be myth.

Didn't he have disposable scalpel blades? But doesn't the blade go into a handle? I would think the blade would be hard to manage by itself when one is cutting one's one chest. The blade might have flushed down the toilet, but I doubt that the handle would.

The window well is right under the window for Kris's room, so I don't think anyone one in the apartments would see him walking under the windows. You see out when looking from upper windows, not down.

I think he did go out and bury the scalpel handle and blade. And maybe he hid the second ice pick so that the CID would think there were more murderers. But he hid it too well, I mean why look in the window well. I would think he would want all the ice picks out of the house, if there was a crime commited with one. Who knows what he was thinking?

There was the talk of the missing ice pick for a party, so maybe Colette bought another one? They are a cheap item.

[rashomon]

Meudy:
How do you mean, Colette told her mother and Pep she needed time away?
I didn't realize she had said this...
Penn
Meudy,
In the A&E 'Green Beret murder mystery' video, Pep says Colette had been on the phone crying, telling her that Jeff was was "scr*wing around again".
A few days before the murders, Colette called her mother Mildred and asked if she could bring Kim and Kristen for a visit. But she did not mention any specific reason for the visit.

I believe some diasagreement between Jeff and Colette already started at the time she arrived home night school. I don't think it was the relaxed evening as MacDonald describes it, with the two of them sitting peacefully on the couch having their nightcap and watching TV.
MacDonald himself said that they might have talked about about Colette's class. In that class, she had brought up the topic of Kristen coming into their bed at night,and he many have disapproved of her having brought it up in class.
The alleged trip to Russia (where he was not going to be around at Colette's due date) could have been another cause for discord between them.
And of course his many cheatings.
Whatever they were arguing about, I believe that at some point (around eleven pm), Colette went to bed angry at him and just left him sitting there.
And when he finally goes to bed too at 2 am, he sees that Kim has wet his side of the bed, and this acts as a trigger which finally makes him fly off the handle.
Imo things had been brewing in this marriage for quite some tie, and it all came to a head on that fatal night.

[rashomon]

I think it was Lucia who said that Inmate spoke of a second ice pick. Could be wrong. Might be myth..
Spamela, I've been forever trying to find the source for this because I wanted to compare it to the date when another ice pick was in fact found in the window well.
If memory serves, it was something Lucia Bartoli told Christina. I'm paraphrasing and may have gotten part of it wrong, but MacDonald allegedly told Lucia, that if the police wanted to find additional evidence, all they need was to dig in the window well.
In 1985 a second ice pick was in fact found there. So if MacDonald made this statement to LB before the second ice-pick was found, then he must have to do something with it being there. But why would he make such an extremely self-incriminating statement to Bartoli? It's all very confusing, so if anyone can shed some light on the matter, TIA for your help.

Didn't he have disposable scalpel blades? But doesn't the blade go into a handle? I would think the blade would be hard to manage by itself when one is cutting one's one chest. The blade might have flushed down the toilet, but I doubt that the handle would.
Yes he did have disposable scapel blades. Very interesting theory about the handle possibly having been buried there, Spamela!

[Spamela]

Spamela, I've been forever trying to find the source for this because I wanted to compare it to the date when another ice pick was in fact found in the window well.
If memory serves, it was something Lucia Bartoli told Christina. I'm paraphrasing and may have gotten part of it wrong, but MacDonald allegedly told Lucia, that if the police wanted to find additional evidence, all they need was to dig in the window well.
In 1985 a second ice pick was in fact found there. So if MacDonald made this statement to LB before the second ice-pick was found, then he must have to do something with it being there. But why would he make such an extremely self-incriminating statement to Bartoli? It's all very confusing, so if anyone can shed some light on the matter, TIA for your help.


Yes he did have disposable scapel blades. Very interesting theory about the handle possibly having been buried there, Spamela!

I don't know the time frame about when he said it. But, if he said it to Lucia, then he probably thought that she would never reveal anything negative about him, since she was one of his main supporters (Inmate should never underestimate his ability to pis$ people off!). Inmate was trying to show off and point out that the CID was incompetent and that he was so smart.

If I were burying that blade, I would have done it on the edge of the sidewalk, angling it so it was under the pavement. Or next to the foundaton of the house. Or under a tree or bush, in the roots. Someplace were digging was unlikely to happen.

[rashomon]

rashmon what about mcginnis's theory, that collette, may have caught him cheating again,and was fed up? the only reason I tend to go with that theory was because of it being so close after valentine's day when the murders accured.
Meudy - no doubt MacDonald's many cheatings were a strain on the marriage. Being treated like that must have hurt Colette deeply, and she must have been a very patient and non-confrontational person for having put up with it for so long.
But still I don't think it was an "I've got to talk to you. I've had enough now and am going to leave" situation which started the argument. But while they were arguing over something else at night (I believe the wet bed was the trigger), I can imagine that Colette who no doubt was now very angry at him too - I suppose he rudely shook her awake from deep sleep - threw in his face that she'd had enough of him.
have heard that the walls of the housing at fort bragg, was very thin,so I believe the lady next door heard what she heard, but I wonder why she did'nt hear any screaming, you would think after what he did to kimmie,collette would scream her head off!
I think Colette chose fight over flight because she was afraid to leave him back in the apartment in his murderous frenzy even for a split-second. She would have had to run out of the apartment to get help (screaming alone would not have been enough in that case), and little Kristen was still in there.
Another possible explanation: once MacDonald held the club in his hands, it was all over so fast that Colette did not even have the time to scream. He could have struck her immediately after Kim, and they both probably lay unconscious on the floor within seconds.

[pennnurse525]

Like it was said at trial: to paraphrase:

There comes a moment when he just couldn't turn back.
He couldn't erase it.
That was his problem, he wasn't man enough to walk away once the first blows came....call for help, leave the house.

He, as usual, only thought of himself.

Everything else, and everyone else is disposable to him.

He sold all of the belongings he had in yard sales, and tossed it to the curb;
once it was over it was over.

Penn

[meudy62]

thank you pennurse for the link, I will be purchasing the book right away. I read something on christina's website that mentioned that colette told pep that she needed some time away from jeff,and was going to bring the girls to visit mildred. I can't exactly tell you were I found it, because I read so many documents on the website that day, if I find the link though I'll let you know.

[meudy62]

I love your posts, :) a lot of your theory's that may have happened in the house does make sense. keep up the great posts! :seeya:

[JTF]

Back from vacation and ready to kick some Bost and Potter butt.

The following commentary focuses on 2 paragraphs from FJ. The original hardcover version of FJ is 429 pages long, so try to imagine the number of distortions and outright falsehoods that are present in this book.

FJ page 59 "It was a short brown hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. A hair in the hand of a murder victim may be significant." .........................................

"Given the defensive nature of Colette MacDonald's wounds, and the wooden club splinters found in her grasp, it was obvious that Colette had fought someone in hand-to-hand battle." .........................

"The army case handlers conceded that the longer hairs belonged to Colette herself, but they didn't know who was the source of the shorter brown hair, for MacDonald was blond, and the CID, not wishing to alert MacDonald that they were trying to build a case against him, apparently, made no immediate attempt to match MacDonald's hairs against this still secret mystery hair."

1) Notice how FJ uses the terms "clutched" and "in" to describe the location of the hair found in Colette's left hand? This would not be the last time that Bost and Potter would use this terminology in FJ.

2) Bost and Potter begin to cultivate their theory that the wielder of the club is the source of the hair in Colette's left hand.

3) In regards to the "longer hairs" found in Colette's right hand, the "army case handlers" were not in a position to concede anything because head hair samples were not collected from Colette at autopsy. Paul Stombaugh collected head hair samples from Colette in 1974. Stombaugh subsequently matched a head hair exemplar from Colette to a long, blond hair found in her right hand.

4) Photographs from that time period clearly demonstrate that MacDonald did not have blond hair. His hair was light brown.

5) The CID didn't make an "immediate attempt" to match the hair found in Colette's left hand to head and pubic hair exemplars from MacDonald because the hair was uncomparable. The hair was the distal portion or tip of a limb hair. Limb hairs, body hairs, and hair fragments cannot be compared under a microscope. The only hairs than are microscopically comparable are head and pubic hairs. Potter passed away before the AFIP's DNA test results were completed, but Bost should have made some sort of public admission that his analysis of this evidentiary item was wrong at every level.

6) The limb hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. The splinters found in Colette's left hand matched a club found at the crime scene. The club matched the grain pattern of a bed slat found under Kimmie's bed. Two pajama seam threads that microscopically matched the material used in the manufacturing of MacDonald's pajama top were found stuck to the club in Colette's Type A blood. Pajama seam threads were found on top of the blood soaked carpet in the master bedroom near a throw rug. The blood on that portion of the carpet was Type A.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[meudy62]

welcome back I was wondering were you been, please don't tell me you read that birdcage liner book fatal justice on your vacation! lol glad your back

[JTF]

Meudy: When I returned from my vacation, I was perusing the MacDonald case discussion boards and read a few posts that used information culled from FJ. The posts centered around this information to argue for MacDonald's innocence. I decided to remind everyone of the completely biased nature of this work of fiction.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[byn63]

Excellent post JTF - Fatal Justice is so full of lies, half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations I hated it! Still, I thank you for the loan, and btw you can make comments related to all the post-it notes I left you in the copy I returned! btw, I was NOT favorably impressed by the cheesy Maltese Falcon opening of Fatal Fantasy. When I read that I thought, "no wonder Bost has not spoken publicly about this case in years"!!!! If I was him, I'd be embarrassed to have my name attached to that piece of drek!

[JTF]

Byn: A good friend of mine recently purchased a book about the JFK assassination authored by Vincent Bugliosi. It took Bugliosi 10 years to complete the book, it's 1600 pages long with 400 additional pages of endnotes. Bost spends 15 years "researching" the MacDonald case and 10 years working with Jerry Allen Potter in order to complete FJ. If you compare Bugliosi's 10 years of work with Bost's/Potter's 10 years, the first question one must ask is, "What the hell were Bost and Potter doing for 10 years?" Heck, it's like pulling teeth getting Bost and Potter to admit in FJ that the government did anything right whereas Bugliosi won't even let JFK authors who agree with his conclusions off the hook for stating things that don't jibe with the documented record.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[jitterbug]

Guilty as sin

[natgeo]

<*R>

JTF, During your years that you believed that Jeff was innocent did you put as much effort, time and passion into the case as you do now thinking that he is guilty? :shrug:

[Riviera]

Don't Bring Other Conversations Over to Crime Library

Members should not drag other conversation over to our community that began somewhere else. Members should have the protection to generate and form their own reputation here at CL without other things they may have said elsewhere being inserted into their conversations here. Remember that different sites have different rules and standards about what is acceptable speech. However, it is acceptable to link to yourself if you are pointing to additional support for your argument and that support is posted elsewhere.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8907053#post8907053

Back on topic please -----> Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

Thank you

R

[JTF]

Natgeo: After a decade of believing that MacDonald was guilty as hell, I purchased Fatal Justice and was surprised to see that the book presented evidentiary items that were completely new to me. From 1995-2000, I attempted to verify the information contained in FJ by looking up newspaper and magazine articles in the library, and making an attempt to contact both Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter. I subsequently communicated with Bost via letters and phone contacts.

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

In the midst of speaking with Bost, red flags were raised in my head in regards to some of his responses to my inquiries. My instincts told me that his positions on several evidentiary arguments were set upon tenuous footing. Once Christina's website was up and running, I was able to compare the documented record to the claims in FJ and quickly discovered that the book is a mess. From 1985-2007, the one constant has been my passion for the case.

JTF.

[byn63]

In the midst of speaking with Bost, red flags were raised in my head in regards to some of his responses to my inquiries. My instincts told me that his positions on several evidentiary arguments were set upon tenuous footing. Once Christina's website was up and running, I was able to compare the documented record to the claims in FJ and quickly discovered that the book is a mess. From 1985-2007, the one constant has been my passion for the case.

JTF.


Thank you for sharing that passion with US, jtf! I read Fatal Justice after I had begun reading the facts at tjmis. Therefore that book seemed immensely flawed before I got past the first 10 pages, and WORSE it never got any better. The opening of the story with the Chinese Restaurant off a fog bound alley was the start of a journey to discover just how poorly written and researched that book really is and shows once again, imho, that inmate (who is said to have edited it) is not now and never has been "with it" in any real sense of the words. He truly does not have a clue! As I've stated before, Fred Bost tossed any journalistic credibility he may have had by attaching his name to Fatal Fantasy!

:beer:

[natgeo]

Natgeo: After a decade of believing that MacDonald was guilty as hell, I purchased Fatal Justice and was surprised to see that the book presented evidentiary items that were completely new to me. From 1995-2000, I attempted to verify the information contained in FJ by looking up newspaper and magazine articles in the library, and making an attempt to contact both Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter. I subsequently communicated with Bost via letters and phone contacts.

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

In the midst of speaking with Bost, red flags were raised in my head in regards to some of his responses to my inquiries. My instincts told me that his positions on several evidentiary arguments were set upon tenuous footing. Once Christina's website was up and running, I was able to compare the documented record to the claims in FJ and quickly discovered that the book is a mess. From 1985-2007, the one constant has been my passion for the case.

JTF.

Let me see if I understand you right..

From 1985 to 1995 you thought he was guilty.

From 1995 to 2000 you attepmted to verify Fatal Justice. Some doubt about his guilt.

From 2000 to Present You again believe again he is guilty.

So, actually you started really researching and getting into the case deeply in 1995 after you read FJ.

[JTF]

Natgeo: I received the initial paperback edition of Fatal Vision as a gift from my father. My father was interested in the case and he had the opportunity to see MacDonald's appearance on the Dick Cavett show. So, after reading the 1985 paperback edition of Fatal Vision and speaking with my father about the case, I was convinced that MacDonald was guilty. I subsequently purchased the following reading materials.

1985 Playboy magazine interview with Jeffrey MacDonald

1986 I Accuse by Melinda Stephens

1990 The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm

1990 People magazine article on the MacDonald case

I also viewed several television shows on the case which included the 1989 PBS documentary False Witness and a 1991 Fox television special. The Fox special included a dialogue via satellite between Freddy Kassab and Jeffrey MacDonald. Fascinating stuff. It wasn't until the release of FJ in 1995 that I began to question MacDonald's guilt. I purchased a computer for the first time in the Fall of 2001. This provided me with an added tool in researching this case and the material presented on Christina Masewicz's website answered all my remaining questions. In the past 22 years, I've been consistent in my research efforts and I'm glad that the general public now has access to the documented record in this case.

JTF.

[byn63]

In a letter dated February 24, 1999 Fred Bost wrote to JusttheFacts "explaining his theories". Here are some things that I noted:

....that Bernie Segal never called an expert witness to refute Stombaugh's hypothesis of tearing through the bloodstains. He wanted to take attention away from the devasting cross examination by Segal. ....Segal used Stombaugh to prove that Stombaugh was wrong.

What? Which transcripts did Mr. Bost read? Sure doesn't sound like the transcripts I've read. Bernie tried to twist and turn facts every which way but loose, and Paul Stombaugh was unshaken, and in Bernie's rambling cross examination Paul was able to repeat his theory over and over again which would end up sticking in the juries mind, I would imagine.

The defense on the other hand, contends the loose pocket, unstained with blood, fell to the floor when Mac, in order to give aid to his wife on the floor, ripped the pajama top from his arms.

How does this scenario explain the blood on the pocket front? The upturned rug was clear of blood AND Terry Laber testified at trial that Govt 102 (pj pocket) contained:
STAIN 1 = small smear on edge of pocket
STAIN 2 = contains both spatter and smear
STAIN 3 = soaking stain, continuous, more than a few drops needed to create.
STAIN 4 = soaking stain; heavy bleeding
STAIN 5 = relatively heavy soaking stain
STAIN 6 = small; near bottom of pocket

the portion of the pocket that attached to the pj top was double layer of fabric and the stains did not soak all the way through those areas. the stains were made while the pocket was still attached to the pj top. Also, soaking stains are CONTACT stains and spatter is not something that could be absorbed from blood pooled somewhere else.

In regards to comparison of injuries Bost says (among other things) It's a subject not worth getting too deeply involved with, ......

Yes, I can see that because you can't explain it away any more than mac can Mr. Bost. No matter how the evidence is distorted, twisted or turned there is NO DEFENSE that makes any sense at all, imo.

Last but not least for this post

....Then too, if you've ever taken a first aid class, you'll recall that puncture wounds are slow bleeders....

Well, what do you know, Mr. Bost got something right. Puncture wounds do indeed most often bleed slowly. HOWEVER, mac didn't have a PUNCTURE wound he had an INCISED wound.

From the 1979 Trial Testimony of Dr. Frank Gemma:

Q. Could that also be termed an incised wound?

A. Yes, it could be, but any fairly sharp instrument is going to make a wound.......the edges were smooth rather than contused. (INCISED rather than puncture or laceration) (laceration edges of wound are rough and often contused)

From the Manual: Standard First Aide and Personal Safety

page 20: Incisions

1. An incised wound, or cut, frequently occurs when body tissue is cut on knives, rough edges of metal, broken glass, or other sharp objects.

2. bleeding may be rapid and heavy.

3. Deep cuts may damage muscles, tendons and nerves.

I have quoted here from the letter Bost wrote to JTF and provided my comments to what I read. Any comments? Questions?

[JTF]

Byn: Nary a word about Terry Laber and/or his analysis of the pajama top pocket in FJ. Considering the powerful nature of that evidentiary item, I guess that Bost played it smart by leaving it out of his book.

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

In terms of MacDonald's wounds, Bost and Potter played up the severity of MacDonald's injuries by compiling a list of every single wound that was observed by Womack staff and MacDonald's friends/family. What Bost doesn't tell his readers is that certain wounds were only seen by one individual. Bost should have only reported the wounds that could be verified through a secondary source.

JTF.

[natgeo]

Then too, if you've ever taken a first aid class, you'll recall that puncture wounds are slow bleeders

Byn, you might want to think twice about that statement. If you were to get puncture wound on a major artery, I doubt it would be SLOW bleeder..

[JTF]

Natgeo: The following is a statement authored by Bost, not Byn.

Then too, if you've ever taken a first aid class, you'll recall that puncture wounds are slow bleeders

JTF.

[natgeo]

Natgeo: The following is a statement authored by Bost, not Byn.

Then too, if you've ever taken a first aid class, you'll recall that puncture wounds are slow bleeders

JTF.


I must apoligize I quoted the wrong phrase I meant to quote "Well, what do you know, Mr. Bost got something right. Puncture wounds do indeed most often bleed slowly"

Neither one of them is right.

[Bunny2]

I must apoligize I quoted the wrong phrase I meant to quote "Well, what do you know, Mr. Bost got something right. Puncture wounds do indeed most often bleed slowly"

Neither one of them is right.

So you think icepick wounds most often bleed rapidly or heavily? Where are the supporting references for that notion?

Your attempt to recover from trying to put down Byn, and being corrected by JTF, was pretty funny. Thanks for the chuckles.

[Bunny2]

Good post re: Bost and the wounds, Byn! This one's going into my permanent notes.

I had no opinion either way on Bost in the beginning. I began to lose respect for him after reading his "Short Study," my opinion of him got much worse after I read FJ, and the more I read about him and read things he wrote, the worse it got. Personally, I think Bost knows the truth (how could he not??) but like Mac, his pride won't let him admit it.

[JTF]

Byn: In regards to this little nugget from Bost.

....that Bernie Segal never called an expert witness to refute Stombaugh's hypothesis of tearing through the bloodstains. He wanted to take attention away from the devasting cross examination by Segal. ....Segal used Stombaugh to prove that Stombaugh was wrong.

Does the following "prove that Stombaugh was wrong?"

Blackburn: Now, if you would, sir, maybe place it back up on the stand a little bit higher so everyone can see. Now, what examination, if any, did you conduct with respect to the blood-stained areas of that pajama top?

Stombaugh: The next question the CID wanted answered was whether or not this pajama top was torn before or after bloodstains were placed on it. In examining the torn areas to determine this, you look for a stain that had been placed on an object and then torn through. The contours of the edges would be the same. We found stained areas where such had occurred. These areas were up here in the left shoulder and down the sleeve area down at the cuff, and the cuff area, and in the left seam. These stains had been placed on there and then later on more blood added, but the stains were heavier and were easily visible at the time of the examination.

Blackburn: I wonder, sir, if you could maybe move the little table over here in front of the jury and maybe take the pajama top off the mannequin, or leave it on, whichever is best, and point out the areas to which you are referring.

Stombaugh: I am going to have to locate them first, Mr. Blackburn.

Blackburn: Maybe the jury could stand up.

Stombaugh: One of the stains is located right here. It is in a continuation. There is a larger stain on this side. Here is a small stain that was on there before it was torn. Here is in the cuff area of the left sleeve slightly up from the cuff area, I would say 2 to 3 inches. Up about 5 inches above that is another one, and then up in the shoulder area in this area here you can see a continuation of the stain from this portion which would be the left portion of the sleeve to the back portion where it was torn through. I found another area. This stain continues---

Blackburn: Before you start, for the record tell us.

Stombaugh: This is on the left side seam between the front left panel and the left side of the back panel. The continuation of this stain here, the heavier stain, and it comes around to here. At the time I examined it, I put some white marks on it, and another stain is just below that near the base of the stain and is a continuation of this stain here.

Blackburn: So, it is your testimony that the blood got on the pajama top in those areas prior to its being torn; is that correct?

Stombaugh: That is correct.

The following is an exchange between Bernie Segal and Paul Stombaugh regarding the use of a light box.

Segal: Do you think it would aid us if we would go back to---the biggest and the best of these stains is the one right here in the middle; isn't that right, Mr. Stombaugh? The one in the middle of the torn garment?

Stombaugh: This is one stain. The ones on the left sleeve are good, and the ones in the left shoulder area are good.

Segal: Would you select one, since it is a little awkward for us all to work with the light box? Would you pick the one that you think is the clearest showing of how the garment was torn after it was bloodstained?

Stombaugh: We are getting too much light here, Mr. Segal. It obliterates just about everything.

Segal: I'm sorry, Mr. Stombaugh, I'm not sure we are clear on that. You say that the light box is giving off so much light that you cannot see the stains through it?

Stombaugh: It obliterates the stains, sir.

Segal: That is no help to us now?

Stombaugh: No help.

Segal: All right, thank you, Mr. Stombaugh. You may go back to the stand. But you say it was a help in 1971?

Stombaugh: The stains were much more vivid in 1971 and the light box had a Rheostat on it to control the amount of light coming through.

Segal: But you didn't actually need it, you say, in 1971 to find the 4 stains you are talking about today.

Stombaugh: No sir, I did not.

Segal: Those were obvious and transparent.

Stombaugh: Yes, sir.

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

The transcripts clearly demonstrate the following.

1) The blood stains were visible by sight and Stombaugh pointed them out several times.

2) Segal asked that a light box be brought into the courtroom, not Stombaugh.

3) Bost has never made reference to the importance of a Rheostat when using a light box.

4) During his testimony, Stombaugh mentioned several times that the stains were more visible in 1971, yet Bost claims in FJ that Stombaugh first mentioned it during his use of the light box.

5) Bost also claims in FJ that no pictures of the stains were taken in 1971, but a photograph marked as Exhibit G-617 was taken of the stain on the left cuff area of the pajama top.

JTF.

[byn63]

jtf and bunny - it seems to me that FJ used that same philosophy throughout the entire piece of fantasy. Don't mention items ie: pj pocket that the defense has no explaination for and exaggerate any explaining that they CAN do.

natgeo fyi if you look at the referenced First Aide Manual in my earlier post you will find that the American Red Cross is the source for the comment "most often slow bleeders" quote. Also, the KEY words in the sentence are MOST OFTEN, in no way, shape, manner, or form did I insinuate "always" and neither does the American Red Cross. However, the wound we are discussing was the neat, clean, surgically precise 1cm wound between the 6th and 7th intercostal space of inmate's ribcage. Unless inmate has nonhuman anatomy there is no artery located in that spot, so we can take the medical professional's word for it, the wound was incised not a puncture. Therefore IF inmate had been telling the truth there SHOULD have been Type B blood in places that it was not found.

[natgeo]

So you think icepick wounds most often bleed rapidly or heavily? Where are the supporting references for that notion?

Your attempt to recover from trying to put down Byn, and being corrected by JTF, was pretty funny. Thanks for the chuckles.

Take an icepick and poke yourself in an artery and see how slow it bleeds. If you have read my earlier post you would have seen that I stated " MAJOR ARTERY"

[Bunny2]

Take an icepick and poke yourself in an artery and see how slow it bleeds. If you have read my earlier post you would have seen that I stated " MAJOR ARTERY"

And if you'd read even the basic facts in this case, you'd know Mac didn't stab himself in a major artery, or any artery at all.

[natgeo]

And if you'd read even the basic facts in this case, you'd know Mac didn't stab himself in a major artery, or any artery at all.

I never stated he did. I just stated that not all puncture wounds were slow bleeders.

But, If you think I did, please show me the quote.....:shrug:

[JTF]

Bost has attempted to distance himself from the only real issue involving the wounds inflicted on each MacDonald family member.

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

The differences in wound severity between MacDonald and his family was so stark that it quickly became a main sticking point for case investigators.

JTF.

[natgeo]

Bost has attempted to distance himself from the only real issue involving the wounds inflicted on each MacDonald family member.

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

The differences in wound severity between MacDonald and his family was so stark that it quickly became a main sticking point for case investigators.

JTF.

I agree with you on that issue, the difference in the wounds should play a bug part in the investigation. However, one should not base the guilt or innocence just on that factor.

A good case in point is the doctors family in CT. His wounds were not all that severe compared to his family either, does that make him guilty of their murders, that is yet to be seen..

[JTF]

Natgeo: Sans the fact that the father lived, the two cases have very little in common.

1) Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen were not sexually assaulted.

2) Robbery was not a motivating factor in the MacDonald case.

3) There is no concrete evidence of home invaders murdering Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen.

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

4) No one from the Stoeckley Group or the New York Four were charged with murder and sexual assault.

5) The MacDonald case took place at Fort Bragg, not in the suburbs.

6) The MacDonald case took place in the early morning hours, not in the afternoon.

7) Military Police responded to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. Colette did not slip a note to a bank employee to express the fact that her family was being held hostage.

8) The jeep carrying Ken Mica and his partner was not rammed outside of 544 Castle Drive by a car carrying home invaders.

JTF.

[natgeo]

Natgeo: Sans the fact that the father lived, the two cases have very little in common.

1) Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen were not sexually assaulted.

2) Robbery was not a motivating factor in the MacDonald case.

3) There is no concrete evidence of home invaders murdering Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen.

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

4) No one from the Stoeckley Group or the New York Four were charged with murder and sexual assault.

5) The MacDonald case took place at Fort Bragg, not in the suburbs.

6) The MacDonald case took place in the early morning hours, not in the afternoon.

7) Military Police responded to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. Colette did not slip a note to a bank employee to express the fact that her family was being held hostage.

8) The jeep carrying Ken Mica and his partner was not rammed outside of 544 Castle Drive by a car carrying home invaders.

JTF.

All I was refering too was the wounds they had on them. It does not take a genius to see the two cases are totally different after that, except maybe a wife and two daughters were murdered.

[Bunny2]

I never stated he did. I just stated that not all puncture wounds were slow bleeders.

Actually, if I'm recalling correctly, I think you did more than that, when you began talking about major arteries, when you were trying to recover after it was pointed out that Bost talked about puncture wounds being slow bleeders.

Regardless, since Mac was barely scratched and certainly had no injuries to any major artery, I'm not sure why you would even bring up puncture wounds in major arteries at all, unless it was only to try to nitpick at Byn.

[Bunny2]

Natgeo: Sans the fact that the father lived, the two cases have very little in common.

Right, JTF. From a true-crime standpoint I wasn't much interested in that CT case after I read a few articles on it and saw how different it was from the murders of Colette, Kim and Kristen. I also had the impression that the father's wounds were severe, whereas Mac's, of course, were more or less only scratches except for the self-inflicted scalpel wound. Do you know anything else about the father's wounds, other than he was "severely injured," which is what the articles I read all were saying?

[Bunny2]

jtf and bunny - it seems to me that FJ used that same philosophy throughout the entire piece of fantasy. Don't mention items ie: pj pocket that the defense has no explaination for and exaggerate any explaining that they CAN do.

You said it, Byn.

Bost was already on shaky ground with me after I read his "Short Study," and reading FJ only ended up forcing me to believe that the book was not the well-researched, unbiased accounting of the case P&B wanted people to think it was, but was, instead, basically only propoganda for the murderer, with the Truth given very short shrift. Then again, as we know, the murderer himself seems to have had quite a bit to do with the editing and construction of it, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised at how the book turned out.

:read:

[JTF]

The following is more nonsense from the creators of the MacDonald groupie bible.

Fatal Justice page 122: But Kathy Smith and Diane Cazares, during their interviews, said that Harris had helped Smith paint the apartment that night. Smith contradicted Cazares by saying that Don Harris stopped painting and departed before Cazares returned to the apartment. Cazares said Harris was still there when she got back from being out with Bruce Fowler in Fowler's Blue Mustang.

Comments: Bost and Potter can't even keep the names or stories of the Stoeckley group straight. Don Harris actually helped Diane Cazares, not Kathy Smith, paint the apartment at 1108 Clark Street. Smith, not Cazares, was with Fowler at his trailer on Highway 59 until 7 in the morning on February 17, 1970 and the 2 were not riding around in Fowler's Blue Mustang for the entire morning. Fowler dropped Smith off at 1108 Clark Street shortly after 7:30 in the morning.

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

Fatal Justice page 249: In conjunction with these confessions, polygrapher Scott Mero administered three "lie detector" examinations, and felt that in two of them Stoeckley did not show deception when she claimed she had been in the home and knew the names of the killers. This supported Brisentine's earlier polygraph. In a third test, Mero's data was inconclusive...

Comments: The claim that the third test was inconclusive is a flat-out lie. Stoeckley actually flunked the third portion of the exam. In terms of supporting Brisentine's 1971 polygraph exam, well, it depends on what portion of Brisentine's exam you're talking about. For example, Mero makes no mention of Stoeckley's drug use effecting her polygraph results or even her memory for that matter, but Brisentine clearly took Stoeckley's heavy drug use into account when deciphering the charts.

Fatal Justice page 251: Bost expressed his surprise that she didn't fit Judge Dupree's description of her. Helena smiled grimly and told him that she had long been upset over what Dupree said. She insisted that she had not exhibited behavior that justified Dupree's judgement that she was a burnt-out case. Indeed, one of the reasons for submitting to an interview was to dispel that error.

Comments: Fatal Justice also includes excerpts from the interview between Bost and Stoeckley, but leaves out any dialogue that would bolster the perception that Stoeckley was a burnt-out case. For example, Fatal Justice does not include the following exchange regarding Stoeckley's perception of Greg Mitchell:

Bost: Was he a loud type?

Stoeckley: No, but he was full of b.s. and everyone knew it. He usually ended up making a fool of himself.

Bost: Did a lot of talking?

Stoeckley: A lot of lying. You know, like he'd say he'd done this and he'd done that, and eventually no one believed anything he said.

Comments: Stoeckley then told Bost that when she testified at the 1979 trial, she became afraid because she thought she saw Mitchell in the courtroom. Incredibly, later in the interview Stoeckley states, "I've never confessed to anything in my life. I just want people to get off this kick that I'm some kind of idiot running around trying to confess because I haven't confessed to anyone." Wow.

JTF.

[byn63]

Byn, you might want to think twice about that statement. If you were to get puncture wound on a major artery, I doubt it would be SLOW bleeder..

from the manual: Standard First Aid and Personal Safety
Chapter 2 (excerpts from page 18, 19, 20, and 21)
Wounds
Definition - a wound is a break in the continuity of the tissues of the body, either internal or external.

A. Classification of wounds:
1. Open:
an open wound is a break in the skin or the mucous membrane.
2. Closed:
a closed wound involves injury to the underlying tissues without a break in the skin or a mucous membrane.

B. Types of Wounds
1. Abrasions
2. Incisions
3. Lacerations
4. Punctures
5. Avulsions

Incisions
1. An incised wound, or cut frequently occurs when body tissue is cut on knives, rough edges of metal, broken glass, or other sharp objects.
2. Bleeding may be rapid and heavy.
3. Deep cuts may damage muscles, tendons, and nerves.

Punctures
1. A punctured wound is produced by an object piercing skin layers, creating a small hole in the tissues. Puncture-producing objects include bullets and pointed objects, such as pins, nails, and splinters.
2. External bleeding is usally quite limited.
3. Internal damage may have resulted to the organs, causing internal bleeding.
4. The hazard of infection is increased because the flushing action of external bleeding is limited.
5. Tetanus may develop.

the sections above are direct quotes from the referenced manual. Important to remember that the Drs Gemma etal stated at trial that inmate had an INCISED wound to his chest NOT a puncture wound.:read:

[AMS80]

Hi all! I've been reading this board forever, and I told JTF on another thread that I'd give my best input...but you guys got it goin on so I'm gonna just continue lurking LOL :read:

[pennnurse525]

Often, in medicine, we purposefully puncture MAJOR arteries.
Femoral sticks in emergency situations, EJ/IJ i.v. placements, etc....placements of Radial A-lines for very accurate blood pressure monitoring and accesible blood for lab work. Even a 16 or 14 gauge needle in the FEMORAL artery does not PUMP or SQUIRT blood. Yes, it bleeds, but it is not exactly the geyser one might think. Bleeding to death from the kind of puncture caused to an ARTERY by an ice pick would eventually happen, but it would not be fast, and the victim would be awake for a definite period of time. Bleeding to death either internally or externally is a terrible way to die...one is awake almost until the end; when your body's tissues and organs become so starved for hemoglobin bound oxygen that they cannot function any longer. It is not like the movies, honestly. It is terrifying to watch, and I'm sure to be the victim of.

Now, take a paring knife, a scalpel, or a screwdriver, and slice or puncture the same area, and stand back. That is, if you pulled the screwdriver out of course (LOL).

Just some info to share...FWIW

Penn

[byn63]

Penn - knowing that what you posted is 100% true, it always makes the agonizing thoughts in re: Kristen's death that much harder to think about. I can imagine the agony that baby went through - because even the stab wounds directly to the heart would not have killed her instantly. The sac around her heart would have filled with blood until there was no more room for her heart to continue to beat. I'm not sure of the spelling but I do believe they call it cardiac tampanade (best guess on spelling). Worst of it is the fact that she may not have been brain dead for some time longer and probably had symptoms of drowning in her own tissue/blood.:confused:

[natgeo]

from the manual: Standard First Aid and Personal Safety
Chapter 2 (excerpts from page 18, 19, 20, and 21)
Wounds
Definition - a wound is a break in the continuity of the tissues of the body, either internal or external.

Punctures
1. A punctured wound is produced by an object piercing skin layers, creating a small hole in the tissues. Puncture-producing objects include bullets and pointed objects, such as pins, nails, and splinters.
2. External bleeding is usally quite limited.
3. Internal damage may have resulted to the organs, causing internal bleeding.
4. The hazard of infection is increased because the flushing action of external bleeding is limited.
5. Tetanus may develop.

the sections above are direct quotes from the referenced manual. Important to remember that the Drs Gemma etal stated at trial that inmate had an INCISED wound to his chest NOT a puncture wound.:read:

I agree some pucture wounds hardly bleed, but that does necessarily mean the majority.

As far as Dr. Gemma's statement, that would all depend on which testimony and statement your read. In his earlier testimony he did refer to it as a puncture wound, not a incised wound.:read:

The above information is nice if you are dealing with simple wounds that generally children have. I have seen puncture wounds with sticks, glass, nails and even seen bullet wounds that were bleeding a lot more than just limited.

All you have to see is puncture wound to the head, the majority of head wounds bleed a lot, and the wound could be very superficial, cause of the number on blood vessels in head and the closeness to the to the surface to the skin.

Just look at the doctor in the CT case. They stated that he was "severely beaten", when the pictures that were shown was nothing more than a lot of blood on his face. For a man that supposedly was beaten severely, the only marks left were a black eye and the laceration on his forehead. How can a person that beaten hop up the steps from the basement to the outdoors and to the neighbor’s house. He should have been unconscious.

[byn63]

Seems that YOU feel you are more qualified to provide a medical opinion than the American Red Cross Manual that is used to instruct first responders. There are nurses and other medically trained personnel on these boards, and I bet they'd agree with what I posted. If you want to provide a curriculum vitae that shows you actually qualify as a medical expert then I will consider taking your medical opinion over confirmed reference material.

[pennnurse525]

I think I must be missing something here.
The ARC is the gold standard for First Aid and First Response, without them, none of us would have CPR, First Aid etc. Their ideas have been incorporated into medical protocalls, American Heart Guidelines, etc...all over the world.

Jeffrey MacDonald had an INCISED wound, clean and linear on his left side.
It was not jagged, dirty, or anything less than very clean and pretty. Kind of like one a surgeon would make when inserting a chest tube. The only lacerations or scratches he received were from his wife, who was fighting for her life. The lack of HIS blood at the scene demonstrates that he did not bleed all that much. He washed his hands, cleaned up his mess and ran around the house in a frenzy, panicked. No one who had lost that much blood could do that. Period.

Stop splitting hairs about nonsense, and lets talk about the evidence....please.

Penn

[Bunny2]

I agree some pucture wounds hardly bleed, but that does necessarily mean the majority.

As far as Dr. Gemma's statement, that would all depend on which testimony and statement your read. In his earlier testimony he did refer to it as a puncture wound, not a incised wound

No, he didn't.

Gemma was referring to a puncture in the lung, not the exterior wound. He specifically states in his grand jury testimony--the "earlier testimony" to which you refer--that the exterior wound to the chest was an incised wound and not a puncture wound:

GEMMA: It can be termed as an incised wound to differentiate it from a laceration. However, until you get very technical in trying to teach first aid or teach surgery, many people would call a wound such as this a laceration. However, the distinction is that a laceration has ragged and contused edges by strict defnition, whereas an incised wound has rather smooth and noncontused edges.

WOERHEIDE: So it had smooth and clean edges. There were no skin flaps, I take it?

GEMMA: Right.

WOERHEIDE: It was not a puncture wound?

GEMMA: No, sir.

WOERHEIDE: And, it was not a wound that appeared to have been made by an ice pick?

GEMMA: No, sir.

The word "puncture" arose when he was describing a "ball valve" effect: "That is, the hole in the surface of the lung has to allow air to escape out of the lung into this closed chest space, but not back through that hole into the lung and out the bronchial passages. So, anytime there is a stab wound, a hold from outside of the chest, there is relatively little possibility of a tension pneumothorax. You can't say unequivocally because there could be the possibility of such a ball valve mechanism acting and this puncture wound being filled enough that it would not allow air to escape. However, something as large as a small stab wound would almost always allow air to escape and not build up such a tension to push the heart to the other side."

Gemma went on to make it very clear he wasn't talking about the exterior wound: "I'm talking about in the lung, not from the outside. Nature's pretty effective in sealing a small wound. If you have a bullet wound or a large gaping wound in the chest, of course, air could get in and out very freely. But, something like a small knife or an ice pick or some small wound, the tissues fall together enough and it's very unlikely over twelve hours later that there would be any effective passageway for air to either get in or out through that wound. Plus, the fact that an occlusive dressing, usually Vaseline is the most common, plus a dry dressing on top of that is usually used to hinder any air from being drawn through that wound into the chest."

In reference to the interior wound to the lung, it was described as similar to a pin prick. Gemma said, "But what we are concerned with here helps give an estimation that this was a relatively small damaged area to the surface of the lung as opposed to a relatively large one." Woerheide said, "Relatively small. That would be comparable to a pin prick I take it?" Gemma replied, "Yes."

[natgeo]

Seems that YOU feel you are more qualified to provide a medical opinion than the American Red Cross Manual that is used to instruct first responders. There are nurses and other medically trained personnel on these boards, and I bet they'd agree with what I posted. If you want to provide a curriculum vitae that shows you actually qualify as a medical expert then I will consider taking your medical opinion over confirmed reference material.

Byn,

Since you feel the need to attack me personally, let inform you of my background. I have a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice, Masters Degrees in Public Adminstration and a PhD in Forensic Medicine, over 1200 classroom hours on Forensics Investigation, 18 years of criminal investigation, and currently work for the US Government as a Forenics Pathologist. Now if you think that you are more qualified to answer the question about puncture wounds, good right ahead. Far be it from me to say that you are not qualified..

Just remember you had to apologize to me once and I accepted it. I will not the second time around..

[JTF]

Natgeo: If that's true, why all the shoulder shrugging in regards to the wide gulf between the horrific injuries inflicted upon Colette/Kimberley/Kristen, and the relatively minor injuries inflicted upon the target of an alleged home invasion? The forensic pathologist in you isn't the least bit dismayed by the fact that a blue pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingerail or a limb hair sourced to MacDonald was found stuck to the left palm of Colette? The same palm that contained a wood splinter from the club used to murder her? In terms of the evidence collected by the CID, I won't even get into why red flags aren't raised in the mind of someone who has "over 1200 classroom hours on Forensics Investigation?"

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

JTF.

[byn63]

Byn,

Since you feel the need to attack me personally, let inform you of my background. I have a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice, Masters Degrees in Public Adminstration and a PhD in Forensic Medicine, over 1200 classroom hours on Forensics Investigation, 18 years of criminal investigation, and currently work for the US Government as a Forenics Pathologist. Now if you think that you are more qualified to answer the question about puncture wounds, good right ahead. Far be it from me to say that you are not qualified..

Just remember you had to apologize to me once and I accepted it. I will not the second time around..


I was not ATTACKING you, I attacked your claims of being qualified to argue the wording of the American Red Cross manual that is used to instruct First Responders around the world. The manual I quoted is THE SOURCE for instruction for EMTs, First Aiders and Paramedics. I took the class Advanced First Aide and Emergency Care myself and have been first aid qualified for over 30 years now. So, why do you argue something that is FACT? Especially since inmate had an incised wound NOT a puncture wound AND that wound was no where near an artery or major vein. Not to mention that even if it had hit a vein the likelihood is that the majority of the bleeding would be internal.

I will not apologize for stating FACT, the fact is you seem to feel that you are more qualified then a direct quote from the bible of emergency medical procedures.

[natgeo]

Natgeo: If that's true, why all the shoulder shrugging in regards to the wide gulf between the horrific injuries inflicted upon Colette/Kimberley/Kristen, and the relatively minor injuries inflicted upon the target of an alleged home invasion? The forensic pathologist in you isn't the least bit dismayed by the fact that a blue pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingerail or a limb hair sourced to MacDonald was found stuck to the left palm of Colette? The same palm that contained a wood splinter from the club used to murder her? In terms of the evidence collected by the CID, I won't even get into why red flags aren't raised in the mind of someone who has "over 1200 classroom hours on Forensics Investigation?"

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

JTF.

The injuries that Jeff received does not in anyway prove his gulit, make him a suspect, person of interest, OK, but does not prove his guilt. The Dr. in CT has minor injuries too. Does that make him guilty of the crime, does that mean he had a hand inthe killingof his family, No. In fact, they do not even think of him as a suspect or person if interest. You have stated that the case of nothing in common, I beg to differ. There is more in common than you think, more than you or the public now.

The fiber could have been embedded under her fingernail prior to the killing. In a statement to CID he admitted to playing with the girls prior to bedtime. As for the hair found in the palm of Coletts hand, we must remember that he stated that attempted to give her CPR and was leaning over here. Your body will will lose hair in the normal course of the day. If you want check this out yourself, pus a dark colored towel in you favorite chair, leave it there all day. Then take some tape at night and see how many hairs adhere to the tape. You shed hairs everywhere you go ,look aqt you bed in the morning, your clothes during the day, there are alot of places you leave your hair.

If you all had access to all the photos taken that day you would see a loto f inconsistences between the photos and the CID report. That is one problem with reading what is out for the public to read and what the real case contains. Neither one of the books FJ or FV tells the entire case. Both sides wrote a book that would sell and the public bought them. Neither one tells the complete story. One story that will never be fully told, for reason I will not and cannot go into here. If you want to be a serious researcher as you say and from my understanding and checking, you have the background and education in the fields you need, Do not stop here withhis guilt or innocence. There is a much bigger story here, and that story will give you the total understanding of the events that morning and why the case is still around. I do not care whether you believe me or not, but if you stop your research here, with his guilt, your background, education and past help will all be for nothing. In order to put the guilty away, one must also understand the innocent and why they were there. Just like what happened in San Diego with Stephanie Crowe. We were both there...innocent boys almost convicted for the murder of a young girl they did not commit. Our justice system is not perfect, mistakes are made more often that anyone wants to believe.

[rashomon]

Byn,

Since you feel the need to attack me personally, let inform you of my background. I have a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice, Masters Degrees in Public Adminstration and a PhD in Forensic Medicine, over 1200 classroom hours on Forensics Investigation, 18 years of criminal investigation, and currently work for the US Government as a Forenics Pathologist. Now if you think that you are more qualified to answer the question about puncture wounds, good right ahead. Far be it from me to say that you are not qualified..


Well, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. :)
So there is no way to find out if what you're saying is true or not.

BTW, didn't you claim (it was a while ago) that you would prove to us Brian Murtagh made mistakes in other cases? Still waiting for your proof as to that ...

jmo

[rashomon]

The injuries that Jeff received does not in anyway prove his gulit, make him a suspect, person of interest, OK, but does not prove his guilt.
The type of injuries MacDonald received (and the lack of injuries he should have received!) were just one pig pebble in a wall of evidentiary granite.
You mentioned the lack of severe wounds of the husband and father in the CT case - but wasn't he tied up so he was "out of the way"? This is a whole different scenario than in the MacDonald case.

As for the hair found in the palm of Coletts hand, we must remember that he stated that attempted to give her CPR and was leaning over here.
It was MacDonald himself who screamed from the rooftops for years that this hair came from Colette's attacker.
As someone who claims to have so much experinece in criminal investigation and forensics, surely you will know that if a murder victim has been in a fight, hairs found in this victim's hand are extremely significant. Your explanation along the lines "we all shed hairs continually" is not valid here because this hair was found in an incriminating location - in Colette's hand, and Colette had been in a fight.
The lame explanation the Mac camp gave in terms of the hair having come from his giving CPR is nothing but a desperate attempt at damage control to mitigate the devastating DNA results.

jmo

[JTF]

(it is often) conveniently leaving out the fact that from 1982-2005, MacDonald and his advocates argued to anyone who would listen that the souce of the limb hair found in Colette's hand was most likely Greg Mitchell. MacDonald and his advocates are also the one's who put forth the theory that the wielder of the club was the source of the limb hair. Bost and Potter placed great emphasis on the fact that a wood splinter from the club was found in Colette's left hand. In addition, they were the creators of the "mystery hair" label that was echoed again and again by the MacDonald camp. What happens when the DNA test results demonstrate that the source of the limb hair was Jeffrey MacDonald? The MacDonald camp goes into full damage control mode and they immediately begin to distort THEIR OWN evidentiary arguments. It's one thing to tear down someone else's case, but to tear down your own case, well.............................................. ............

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

That's what happens when you get your hand caught in the evidentiary cookie jar. The same goes for the pajama fiber embedded under Kristen's fingernail. The significance of this evidentiary item can be found in the fact that, for the most part, the MacDonald camp has ignored it. Bost and Potter made the erroneous claim that the fiber was found on Kristen's hand, ignoring testimony to the contrary from the pathologist who performed the autopsy and from Dillard Browning. Interesting how Kathryn MacDonald used the same tactic when describing the location of the limb hair found stuck to Colette's left palm. Famed attorney, Vincent Bugliosi, refused to represent MacDonald after finding out that a pajama fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Byn,

Since you feel the need to attack me personally, let inform you of my background. I have a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice, Masters Degrees in Public Adminstration and a PhD in Forensic Medicine, over 1200 classroom hours on Forensics Investigation, 18 years of criminal investigation, and currently work for the US Government as a Forenics Pathologist. Now if you think that you are more qualified to answer the question about puncture wounds, good right ahead. Far be it from me to say that you are not qualified..

Just remember you had to apologize to me once and I accepted it. I will not the second time around..

LOL!!

:lol:

[Bunny2]

If you all had access to all the photos taken that day you would see a loto f inconsistences between the photos and the CID report...One story that will never be fully told, for reason I will not and cannot go into here...There is a much bigger story here, and that story will give you the total understanding of the events that morning and why the case is still around.

Your posts under several different names on several different boards show that you seem to have only a rudimentary understanding of the case and its evidence, and that you've gotten evidence wrong more than once--such as just a few days ago when you claimed Gemma said the chest wound was a "puncture" wound (which he never said and which in fact he denied outright)--so yes, it's certainly likely, imo, that very few people will believe your implication that you know more about the case than others here do.

The fiber could have been embedded under her fingernail prior to the killing. In a statement to CID he admitted to playing with the girls prior to bedtime.

I guess you didn't know that Mac's pajama top couldn't have been shedding fibers earlier in the evening, since it wasn't torn until Colette tore it in the master bedroom. And to head off any claim that the fiber could have come from his pajam bottoms, such an allegedly shed fiber couldn't have come from the torn pajama bottoms since Newman testified that they weren't ripped in the fabric but only that the seam had come apart. (And regardless, I don't think even you would suggest that Kristen had been playing around Mac's crotch area.) You apparently also didn't know that after Mac learned about the fiber, he tried to claim it could have gotten there when he was supposedly trying to "resuscitate" Kristen.

In order to put the guilty away, one must also understand the innocent and why they were there.

Huh? The innocent victimes in this case were Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, and they were there because they lived there.

Just like what happened in San Diego with Stephanie Crowe. We were both there...innocent boys almost convicted for the murder of a young girl they did not commit.

"We were both there..."?? You were almost convicted for the murder of a young girl? Wow.

[Bunny2]

Excellent posts, JTF and Rash and Byn. The Mac camp just keeps on fudging evidence, misrepresenting it, falsely reporting it, changing their stories about it and outrighly lying about it. We've seen countless examples of it over time, but no matter how much they try to change history, they cannot change the evidence or what it says, and, imo, any thinking person with any analytical abilities at all should be able to see clearly that the evidence in this case overwhelmingly pointed to one person and one person only as the murderer: husband and father Jeffrey MacDonald.

Evidence doesn't lie, but people do...

[natgeo]

Well, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. :)
So there is no way to find out if what you're saying is true or not.

BTW, didn't you claim (it was a while ago) that you would prove to us Brian Murtagh made mistakes in other cases? Still waiting for your proof as to that ...

jmo

You are right Rash, so that goes for everyone out here. How do we know you are in Germany and a teacher, How do we know Byn really is first aid qualified since the age of about 14, how do we know JTF looks like his picture and knows what he knows, maybe he is getting the information from someone else. How about a criminal profiler, even a world renowned author and someone that has worked many cases. he might even be a retired psychologist and an internationally recognized expert on violent behavior and criminal investigation. Wrote 3 books and numerous articles and holds degrees in clinical psychology, and forensic psychology.


As far as Murtagh goes, I have it, if you really wnat it, send me a message with your email address. There is no way to upload the information to this site...

Now, the Dr. in CT. Why would they put him in a place where he could get away. This was not a spur of the moment crime, they had watched the house, they had to know about the exit from the basement, then the noise he had to make, opening the door, jumping up the stairs. Jeff was also out of the way he was unconscious. Why leave witness's to the crime, unless you are leaving a message, or making a point. As JTF should attest to most criminals that kill, generally do not want to leave a witness to the crime.

Stating with the Dr. in CT that its ok cause he was out of the way is just an excuse, bottom line, being left alive does not prove any guilt on the Dr. or Jeff.

I have never stated that Jeff was innocent, just that there are questions that are unanswered, even the government themselves left unanswered questions. One other item, if all the evidence could have convicted Jeff, the I understand not to present it just enough to get the conviction. But, they why not allow the defense or even the general public under FOIA to have information on the evidence you did not present. There is evidence to this day that the Government does not the defense to have and pictures that will not be released by order of BM. If the Governments case is so air tight and they have no doubt as to who did it, why continue to fight the release of the evidence, just give it the defense and let them test it.

It just like a chld who steals something, you confront them knowing they have it. They continue to deny it, so as a teacher or parent you get from their desk or room and prove they have it. They still argue they did not do anything wrong. Are they guilty or innocent?

[Bunny2]

I was not ATTACKING you...

Of course you weren't, Byn. The word "attacking" seems to be used frequently by people like this when they find themselves up against a rock and a hard place, and it seems to crop up especially frequently in the posts natgeo writes under several other assumed names on various boards. Typical Mac-tactic: stick to message, ignore the documented record, and when caught in a trap, try to put others on the defensive by claiming they're "attacking." LOL

[natgeo]

Excellent posts, JTF and Rash and Byn. The Mac camp just keeps on fudging evidence, misrepresenting it, falsely reporting it, changing their stories about it and outrighly lying about it. We've seen countless examples of it over time, but no matter how much they try to change history, they cannot change the evidence or what it says, and, imo, any thinking person with any analytical abilities at all should be able to see clearly that the evidence in this case overwhelmingly pointed to one person and one person only as the murderer: husband and father Jeffrey MacDonald.

Evidence doesn't lie, but people do...

Bunny, all of your post make me laugh so much, my sides hurt.

BTW, was it you CM was talking about on her last update and she wasn't talking about me or any of the my other name since you all say I think he is innocent...

[Bunny2]

...how do we know JTF(JP) looks like his picture and knows what he knows, maybe he is gettign the information from someone else.

Hi, Spook/FrmrCSI/Classified1! :seeya:

As far as Murtagh goes, I have it, if you really wnat it, send me a message with your email address. There is no way to upload the information to this site...

LOL! So you can't even give a synopsis or describe it, eh? I wonder why not.

One other item, if all the evidence could have convicted Jeff, the I understand not to present it just enough to get the conviction.

"If all the evidence could have convicted Jeffl..."? But it did convict him, in August 1979, and was more than enough to keep him in prison to this day despite all his many appeals. As for the rest of what you wrote here, sorry, but the majority of this sentence makes no sense at all to me.

But, they why not allow the defense or even the general public under FOIA to have information on the evidence you did not present.

Cases are based on what's introduced as evidence and that becomes part of the documented record. What's not introduced does not, therefore, become part of the documented records available under FOIA.

If the Governments case is so air tight and they have no doubt as to who did it, why continue to fight the release of the evidence, just give it the defense and let them test it.

What evidence is the government "fighting" not to release? I've seen no defense motions at all in the recent past that claim they're trying to get the government to stop "fighting the release of the evidence." FWIW, the defense chose the "most crucial" exhibits to be DNA tested and the results showed even more conclusively that there were never any "intruders" at all, and that Jeffrey MacDonald alone was responsible for the murders of his family.

It just like a chld who steals something, you confront them knowing they have it. They continue to deny it, so as a teacher or parent you get from their desk or room and prove they have it. They still argue they did not do anything wrong. Are they guilty or innocent?

Actually, it's not "just like" that at all. In the MacDonald case, the murderer's guilt was proven not only by over 1000 items of evidence presented at trial in 1979 but also by more recent DNA testing. Mac can say anything he wants until he draws his last breath, but no matter what comes out of his lying mouth, it can't change the overwhelming mountain of evidence that so very rightly convicted him.

[Bunny2]

I think I must be missing something here.
The ARC is the gold standard for First Aid and First Response, without them, none of us would have CPR, First Aid etc. Their ideas have been incorporated into medical protocalls, American Heart Guidelines, etc...all over the world.

Jeffrey MacDonald had an INCISED wound, clean and linear on his left side.
It was not jagged, dirty, or anything less than very clean and pretty. Kind of like one a surgeon would make when inserting a chest tube. The only lacerations or scratches he received were from his wife, who was fighting for her life. The lack of HIS blood at the scene demonstrates that he did not bleed all that much. He washed his hands, cleaned up his mess and ran around the house in a frenzy, panicked. No one who had lost that much blood could do that. Period.

Stop splitting hairs about nonsense, and lets talk about the evidence....please.

Penn

You're not missing a thing, Penn. In fact, imo you obviously know a lot more about the case evidence than that poster ever will, and that's one reason you're taken seriously while he doesn't seem to be.

BTW, I want to thank you for all the wonderful information you've provided to us in Chat and elsewhere about some of the medical questions we had. You outdid yourself in providing clear, concise explanations, backing it up with quotes from your own reference materials, and I know I wasn't the only one who has learned new things from you. Outstanding. Keep up the good work; you're proving yourself to be one heck of a good "fire brigade" member, and I hope you never quit posting.

[Bunny2]

The type of injuries MacDonald received (and the lack of injuries he should have received!) were just one pig pebble in a wall of evidentiary granite.

Well said, Rash!

:)

[Riviera]

Let's get back on topic please----> Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

Just a reminder---->

Don't Bring Other Conversations Over to Crime Library

Members should not drag other conversation over to our community that began somewhere else. Members should have the protection to generate and form their own reputation here at CL without other things they may have said elsewhere being inserted into their conversations here. Remember that different sites have different rules and standards about what is acceptable speech. However, it is acceptable to link to yourself if you are pointing to additional support for your argument and that support is posted elsewhere.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8907053#post8907053

[rashomon]

[QUOTE]How about a criminal profiler, even a world renowned author and someone that has worked many cases. he might even be a retired psychologist and an internationally recognized expert on violent behavior and criminal investigation. Wrote 3 books and numerous articles and holds degrees in clinical psychology, and forensic psychology.
Jmpo, but I don't think a 'world renowned author' would post on message boards without revealing their name and mentioning their books.
Also, jmpo, "3 books" is a very paltry amount of books for a 'world-renowned author' ....
As far as Murtagh goes, I have it, if you really want it, send me a message with your email address. There is no way to upload the information to this site...
I'll send you a PM.
Now, the Dr. in CT. Why would they put him in a place where he could get away.
How could they know he would get away?
It just like a chld who steals something, you confront them knowing they have it. They continue to deny it, so as a teacher or parent you get from their desk or room and prove they have it. They still argue they did not do anything wrong. Are they guilty or innocent?
Guilty of course. What is your point?

[JTF]

Janice Glisson told me that no CID staff member involved with this case thought that MacDonald was innocent. Not one. That's a pretty impressive statement when you consider that in other high profile murder cases, some investigators broke rank.

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

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of three counts of murder in less than 7 hours. He has received more chances to overturn his verdict than any murderer in the history of American law. The government presented over 1,000 evidentiary items at the 1979 trial. DNA test results have provided the government with further proof of MacDonald's guilt. There was not a single trace of a home invading alien being found at 544 Castle Drive. No fibers, hairs, and/or fingerprints were sourced to a known intruder suspect. Eight intruder suspects had airtight alibis. Two intruder suspects passed polygraph exams.

MacDonald, on the other hand, provided the CID/FBI with ample source material for a murder conviction. Fibers found in all 3 bedrooms matched the composition of MacDonald's pajamas. A bloody seam thread from his pajamas was found twisted around a bloody head hair from his wife. A bloody pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail. MacDonald's limb hair was found in the left palm of his wife's hand. One of three bloody bare footprints found exiting Kristen's room matched his left print exemplar. Bloody impressions matching Jeff's and Colette's pajama cuffs were found on the blue bedsheet. Kimberley's blood was found on his pajama top. Colette's blood was found in 10 locations on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn down the left front seam/sleeve.

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

OK,
Here's my question of the day, folks.

Why would a famous criminal profiler with books available to the general public take the time to make and support a website, live chat and posts about a murderer who was already convicted?

That would be silly, as he would have nothing to prove. Not only that, but JTF does not really discuss a behavioral analysis of Inmate, he discusses evidenciary findings, hair, fiber and blood evidence and information presented at trial regarding intruders, and debunks theories based on evidence.

Let's get REAL here.

Penn

[Deb B]

I think that as an example of a Brian Murtagh "mistake", natgeo brought up a case in which Brian Murtagh decided not to prosecute someone - I think it was involving terrorism. So, actually, I'm still waiting for some examples of Brian Murtagh mistakes.

Also, I'm quite curious as to what school offers PhDs in forensic medicine (which natgeo says he has) to individuals who do not have an MD? Not attacking, just honestly curious.

[sed]

Was surfing the net and came across a show that will be on August 31, 2007 at 8:00 PM Eastern on the Biography channel. It will be on the show Notorious. Appropriate that that is the title of the show. Just thought I would let everybody know.

[JTF]

Deb: If there is documentation pointing towards a Murtagh "mistake," I certainly haven't found it. In researching Murtagh's history in other cases, I did come across the following tidbit.

Title: Terrorism and Violent Crime Section

Award: International prosecutions related to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

Recipient: Brian Murtagh

Pretty cool. JTF.

[byn63]

Was surfing the net and came across a show that will be on August 31, 2007 at 8:00 PM Eastern on the Biography channel. It will be on the show Notorious. Appropriate that that is the title of the show. Just thought I would let everybody know.

thanks for the heads up! welcome to the discussions!

[sed]

Glad to be here. I have just finished reading FV and thought it was a great book. Guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. It just sickens me to think that a father could do that to his children. What baffles me is that he was and is such a narcissist, that he couldn't see that he had it all going for him. After all that work that he put in to get where he was, he had it all in front of him, and he had everything that a man could want: a BEAUTIFUL wife, and 2 lovely daughters. What a tragedy all around. Look foreward to more discussions.

[JTF]

Peter, you'll be missed.

From the Fayetteville Observer, published on Wednesday, August 29, 2007

'Fatal Vision' investigator Peter Kearns dies

By Laura Arenschield
Staff writer

Peter Kearns, who in 1979 helped lead the reinvestigation into the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case on Fort Bragg, died Tuesday at Cape Fear Valley Medical Center. He was 73.

Mr. Kearns helped lead a second group of investigators looking into the famous case of the Green Beret doctor who was convicted of killing his wife and daughters at their home.

The case became material for the "Fatal Vision" book and made-for-TV movie.

Dr. MacDonald, convicted in 1979, maintained his innocence and blamed a band of drug-crazed hippies for the killings.

But friends say Mr. Kearns, who joined the investigation 10months after the murders in 1970, always believed Dr. MacDonald was guilty.
Second career

After retiring from the Army, Mr. Kearns spent 25 years selling real estate in Cumberland County. Terry Spell, the former owner of Terry Spell Realty, where Kearns worked for eight years, said whenever someone asked Mr. Kearns about the MacDonald case, he would reply with some variation of "the man's guilty."

Mr. Kearns described his role in the MacDonald case to a Fayetteville Observer-Times reporter in 1995.

"We examined every shred of evidence," he said. "We questioned dozens of people, many for the second time ... we worked for a year, and the investigation kept turning back to MacDonald."

John Hodges, now the Hope Mills police chief, was one of the original Army investigators on the case. He remembered Mr. Kearns as meticulous.

"When he got onto something, he would stay with it until he finished it," Chief Hodges said."He was very dogged in the details."

Mr. Kearns was also a veteran of the Korean War.

A visitation is scheduled for 2:45 p.m. Thursday at Rogers and Breece Funeral Home chapel on Ramsey Street. It will be followed with services 4 p.m. Burial will be in Lafayette Memorial Park.

Mr. Kearns is survived by his wife, Gladys Kearns; sons, Marty Kearns and Charles Kearns; daughters, Kathleen DeLaurentis, Ann Fowler and Teresa Kearns; sisters, Mary Ellen Sumbrum and Kathleen Kearns; brother, Michael Kearns; and eight grandchildren.
Staff writer Laura Arenschield can be reached at arenschieldl@fayobserver.com or 486-3572.

JTF.

[pennnurse525]

How sad.
Thank you JTF for posting this....I just logged on today and saw it.

This is a loss for sure.

I hope he is with his loved ones and will finally meet Colette, Kim and Kristen.

Penn

[byn63]

the loss of Peter Kearns is truly a sad one.

Peter Kearns, Rest In Peace
You have my eternal respect.
Bless you as you enter into rest.
Now we can light a candle for YOU too.:rose:

[Bunny2]

Peter's passing is indeed sad and lamentable news. Christina told me some months ago that he was suffering from cancer, but still, his death comes as a shock.

What Cancer Cannot Do

Cancer is so limited.
It cannot cripple love,
It cannot shatter hope.
It cannot corrode faith,
It cannot destroy peace.
It cannot silence courage,
It cannot invade the soul.
It cannot steal eternal life,
It cannot conquer the spirit.

--Author Unknown

Peter's spirit will live eternally in the hearts and minds of those who knew him personally and he'll always be remembered with respect and admiration by vast numbers of us who "knew" him here.

[sed]

Eternal rest and peace be granted to you Peter. Your work was exemplar. May your star shine for eternity in heaven.

[JTF]

Peter Kearns was a thorough investigator with a presentation devoid of b.s. He was well respected by those who never even met him. I can only imagine the thoughts and feelings of those who had the pleasure of knowing him. In terms of the MacDonald case, his legacy will always revolve around the CID reinvestigation report. It's a report that will stand the test of time. I hope that its author rests in peace.

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

JTF.

[JTF]

I just finished watching Crime Stories: Controversial Trials on DVD. I've probably viewed this DVD at least 15 times, but I wanted to see Peter Kearns interact with the likes of William Ivory and Bob Stevenson. Kearns comes across as a genuine human being and a tremendous advocate for the victims of this horrific crime. The following are classic Kearn's quotes from this DVD:

"You talk to any con out there in Sheridan with him, they'll say he did it. Talk to anybody that's been in the joint for awhile, they know him. A con's a con, and he's a con artist."

"It was really germane to the issue that hippies were in the American mainstream, as far as on the media, in the newspapers. It was a good group to grab onto, no matter what your complaint was in life. If you threw it towards the hippies and said, well, the hippies did it, uh, it was a good place to put your hat and that's what he did. That's exactly what he did. He's no dummy."

JTF.

[rashomon]

Rest in peace, Peter Kearns. You tirelessly worked for the truth in this case to come out and to be told publicly in the years to come when asked. You set the record straight when it came to the killer's constant whining about being innocent, unmasking him by saying it like it is. You always called a spade a spade, and a killer a killer. "He knows he did it, and I know he did it." That's what you said. So true.
People like you are the salt of the earth. You will be missed very much. :rose:

[oftenwonder]

Rest in peace, Peter Kearns. You tirelessly worked for the truth in this case to come out and to be told publicly in the years to come when asked. You set the record straight when it came to the killer's constant whining about being innocent, unmasking him by saying it like it is. You always called a spade a spade, and a killer a killer. "He knows he did it, and I know he did it." That's what you said. So true.
People like you are the salt of the earth. You will be missed very much. :rose:

Well said, Rash, very well said. Peter Kearns was one of the good guys. He was supposed to live forever, or so I thought. :( I know in my heart he has now met Colette, Kimmy and Kristen and I know that Colette thanked him for a job well done. Of that I am sure. :rose:

[byn63]

Well said, Rash, very well said. Peter Kearns was one of the good guys. He was supposed to live forever, or so I thought. :( I know in my heart he has now met Colette, Kimmy and Kristen and I know that Colette thanked him for a job well done. Of that I am sure. :rose:

ITA Often! Now when I light a candle, say a prayer or shed I tear, I will do it for Peter Kearns along with Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. They all are abiding with the angels:rose:

[Bunny2]

Welcome to the board, sed and oftenwonder. Nice to see you both posting here!

:seeya:

[oftenwonder]

Welcome to the board, sed and oftenwonder. Nice to see you both posting here!

:seeya:

Thanks, Bunny :seeya:

[sed]

Welcome to the board, sed and oftenwonder. Nice to see you both posting here!

:seeya:

Thanks bunny, looking forward to more discussions here.:seeya:

[JTF]

Terrific follow-up article on the passing of Peter Kearns.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=271092

JTF.

[byn63]

Terrific follow-up article on the passing of Peter Kearns.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=271092

JTF.

excellent thanks for sharing!:beer: :patriot:

[sed]

Maybe this particular lie has been hashed and rehashed here before, but I am new so bear with me. When I was surfing the various Mac murder case sites, I noticed a HUGE discrepency in Inmates words. On the MacDonald handwriting analysis page, Inmate says that at around 2:00 A.M. he went to bed and that is when he found Kristen in bed(even though it was Kim). In 2004, on Larry King, according to the transcripts, Inmate said it was between 12:30 and 1:00 A.M. Which one is it Jeffy? Here is my conclusion: The argument started around 12:30 A.M., and after the calming down, the restarting of the argument, and the murders, it was 2:00 A.M. when inmate had to concoct his story and the scene, so both times remain in his subconcious. I can see now where Fred could originally stand by him, and then after studying the case, could come to no conclusion but the horrible one. In the words of President Ronald Reagan "Trust but verify"

[byn63]

sed -

I believe the fight started closer to 12 than to 2. One reason for this is the hair ribbon yarns that Colette wore that day. One of them was on the bedside table the other was found on the floor I beleive. That yarn was torn and had hair entangled in the knot. I wore those type ribbons when I was a child, and the did not, do not tear EASILY it would take a lot of force.

Also, the upstair neighbor daughter heard something she thought could have been weeping or laughter coming from the living room, but no other sound for 544 Castle Drive. I believe inmate may have sat down on the couch after his murderous rampage and his chicken sh!! murder of Kristen and did both weep and cry. During this "break" is when he started planning the odds and ends of his staging of the crime scene.

Just curious:
What did YOU think of McClish's statement analysis as a whole?:patriot:

[accordn2me]

sed -

I believe the fight started closer to 12 than to 2. One reason for this is the hair ribbon yarns that Colette wore that day. One of them was on the bedside table the other was found on the floor I beleive. That yarn was torn and had hair entangled in the knot. I wore those type ribbons when I was a child, and the did not, do not tear EASILY it would take a lot of force.

Also, the upstair neighbor daughter heard something she thought could have been weeping or laughter coming from the living room, but no other sound for 544 Castle Drive. I believe inmate may have sat down on the couch after his murderous rampage and his chicken sh!! murder of Kristen and did both weep and cry. During this "break" is when he started planning the odds and ends of his staging of the crime scene.

Just curious:
What did YOU think of McClish's statement analysis as a whole?:patriot:
(my bold) Just a note: I read on one of the sites (sorry I don't remember which) that JM told someone who was interviewing him...maybe one of his doctors or a psychologist....that he was laughing after the attack :confused: :confused: I'm not sure now. I was really tired and it was late when I read it. However, I want to say he said he "felt badly" that he found something "funny" about the attack/attackers. :shrug:

[byn63]

welcome accordn2me -

yes, you are correct inmate stated to HIS psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff that he was laughing when he fell off the couch in the living room. I don't remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "everything just got all funny"............

I find inmate to be one of the most worthless pieces of "being" that I've ever heard about. The man has a yellow streak 5 miles wide and imho he is just a
:chicken:

[oftenwonder]

[QUOTE=byn63;8974596]welcome accordn2me -

yes, you are correct inmate stated to HIS psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff that he was laughing when he fell off the couch in the living room. I don't remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "everything just got all funny"............

Welcome, accordn2me, good to see you here. :seeya: Something came to mind when reading that inmate said he was laughing when he fell of the couch. If he fell off the couch, how did he end up getting back to sitting and then standing up (he claims he was standing when he was supposedly fighting off the intruders)? He wasn't fighting them when he was laying on the floor; at least I don't remember him ever saying he fought them while he was laying on the floor. If inmate had fallen off the couch, any intruders would have pounced on him when he was on the floor. They most certainly would not wait for him to get up! I cannot imagine what inmate (or anyone for that matter) could have found funny about what happened that night/morning. There was absolutely nothing funny about what happened, IMO.

[sed]

Byn, thanks for the info. Did not know that one about the hair. As to your question, I thought that Macmurderer's handwriting was horrible, the analysis was spot on. I totally agree with the part that he doesn't introduce Colette by name. Hmmm? Too bad we can't find a way into his head to know exactly what is going on in there. Then again, maybe not.:patriot:

[Bunny2]

...I thought that Macmurderer's handwriting was horrible, the analysis was spot on.
Hi, sed--

You and byn are referring to two different websites. There's a handwriting analysis page (http://www.handwriting.org/archives/97may_01.html) and then there's Mark McClish's statement analysis (http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/).

If you haven't seen it already, there's also a page called MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour, which you might find interesting: http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[sed]

Yes, I was talking about two different things. The handwriting was terrible. One of the first things I was taught in Oral Communications class is never to use the words honestly, truthfully and really in speech. They convey a sense of deception. I am not surprised that MacLiar used them. Thanks Bunny for the links. Very informative.

[oftenwonder]

Hi, Sed, and welcome to our obession. :seeya: Another thing I felt about inmate's words is that he said things in such a way (like saying "kind of") so he would not have to commit/lock himself in to what he was currently saying, just in case he had to change his story later on. I believe inmate wanted to be as vague as possible so that he could make his next story more credible/believable. Didn't work though; it just made him look like the liar that he is, IMO.

[sed]

I totally agree with you oftenwonder. I have dealt with enough people in my work, that you can pick out inmates kind from a mile away. Well, he cannot escape the ultimate judgement, that is a relief:seeya:

[accordn2me]

welcome accordn2me -

yes, you are correct inmate stated to HIS psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff that he was laughing when he fell off the couch in the living room. I don't remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "everything just got all funny"............

I find inmate to be one of the most worthless pieces of "being" that I've ever heard about. The man has a yellow streak 5 miles wide and imho he is just a
:chicken:How did this come out? Who revealed it, the shrink, or MacDonald? I can't imagine what would have made either one of them tell this so the world would find out about this ultra strange statement. :confused: Did either of them ever elaborate on what was funny? Did it mean anything to the doctor (either one of them)? :confused:

[JTF]

The passing of Peter Kearns has provided further proof that MacDonald's advocates have no shame. They have the unmitigated gall to take unsubstantiated pot shots at a man who worked tirelessly to bring forth justice for a pregnant woman and two little girls.

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

Interesting how they equate Kearns' fight for justice as a negative, calling him obsessive and an alcoholic. Their statements are acts of cowardice, nothing more, nothing less. Speaking of the acts of a coward, some fascinating tidbits regarding MacDonald's attempt to change his story to fit the facts can be found...........

Source: December 29, 1979: Government brief

Appellant contends that the seriousness of his injuries was dramatically minimized by the lapse of time. There was evidence from which the jury could find that appellant sustained no ice pick wounds. Therefore what never existed cannot be effected by the passage of time. In the same fashion, when appellant was asked to point out his "wounds" for the photographer in 1974, he also pointed out areas where he claimed to have no stab wounds (his back and right arm).

At trial appellant testified to covering Colette with his pajama top after he had returned from Kimberly's bedroom. This would allow him to account for Kimberly's blood on his pajama top by the possibility of contamination. Contrary to his representation the appellant had previously been specific as to when he covered his wife---"And sometime while I was in there the first time, I...you know, I put it over my wife." (April 6, Vol. 1).

He was also specific in stating his reasons as to why he placed the pajama top on his wife---"...to treat [for] shock." (April 6, Vol. 1). Appellant's direct testimony at the Article 32 Investigation, which was read into evidence, was to the same sequence: that he covered Colette with his pajama top prior to going to Kimberly's room.

At the Grand Jury, four years later, appellant testified to the exact same sequence---that he had covered Colette with his pajama top the first time he was in the master bedroom. We submit that the changed sequence of covering Colette after he returned to the master bedroom from Kimberly's room, on direct examination, was not the result of a memory lapse stemming from the passage of time before the indictment, but rather was a transparent attempt by counsel to make the story fit the evidence at trial.

Rather than demonstrating prejudice to the defendant, we submit that it clearly shows that in a physical evidence case, the prior recorded statements of the defendant enable counsel by direct examination to attempt to chart a course through the rocks and shoals of the evidence. When this course results in the defendent running aground, during proper cross-examination, he has been prejudiced not by the passage of time, but by the failure of his fabrication.

We submit that a plain reading of appellant's prior statements shows that while appellant may have equivocated on the manner in which his pajama top became torn, he was always consistent in the location of the tearing, which occurred during the struggle in the living room.

Later in the interview on the morning of April 6, 1970, appellant was alerted to the significance of the presence of threads and yarns in the master bedroom. He was told that the number of threads precluded their presence being the result of routine use, to which he replied:

"Oh, well, then I have to say it was from after it was ripped when I was struggling. It was either them or me that left them---left the trail. Is that why you are so interested about which rooms I went into..."

Thereafter, appellant sought to confuse the bogus issue of how the pajama top was torn with the real issue of where his pajama top was torn.

...eliciting from appellant that his account of catching and killing one of the intruders was, in his words:

"...a lie of incredible proportions, that I should have never told them, and I was doing it to try to give myself some space to rebuild my own life and to keep Freddie and Mildred (Kassab) off my back." (Trial 6710-6711). We could not agree more.

JTF.

[accordn2me]

The passing of Peter Kearns has provided further proof that MacDonald's advocates have no shame. They have the unmitigated gall to take unsubstantiated pot shots at a man who worked tirelessly to bring forth justice for a pregnant woman and two little girls.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/reinvestigation.html<snipped>

JTF.I didn't get anything negative from the link you posted. :shrug:

[byn63]

How did this come out? Who revealed it, the shrink, or MacDonald? I can't imagine what would have made either one of them tell this so the world would find out about this ultra strange statement. :confused: Did either of them ever elaborate on what was funny? Did it mean anything to the doctor (either one of them)? :confused:

accordn2me:

From the January 24, 1975 Grand Jury Hearing

Quote: Victor Woerheide "And he describes his pajama top as having been ripped over his head and then he -- things got funny and he began to laugh and fell off the couch. Is this something you had to bring out of him, Dr. Sadoff? The fact that he laughed and fell off the couch, or is it something he volunteered to you?"

Robert Sadoff "Well, its hard to remember, but I asked him to describe, as I usually ask people I'm interviewing, to tell me about it in as much detail as they can. But if I have a specific question -- I would not have thought to ask if he laughed. So, I assume this came spontaneously. EndQuote

[JTF]

Accord: The link http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/reinvestigation.html

was in reference to the following statement, "at a man who worked tirelessly to bring forth justice for a pregnant woman and two little girls." A few MacDonald advocates have been taking the time to dance on Peter Kearns' grave on other discussion boards. I wanted to briefly comment on that nonsense and then get back to some interesting excerpts from the documented record. The same documented record that frightens the MacDonald camp to the point where they run away from it.

JTF

[byn63]

My most biggest pet peeve about any and all of Inmate's statements/comments is his use of "Like, You know....." or simply "You know". It always makes me want to yell at him NO! We DON'T KNOW otherwise what possible point could there be in you telling us? Of course, there is still little point in him telling anyone what happened on 2/17/70 because all he does is lie. That is my second biggest peeve and I always have the urge to yell Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!!




Remembering the victims of 9/11:rose:

[sed]

I agree with you byn. I also don't like the fact that he says he was the only one that was there, so we should believe him. HA! Always comes back to the fact that evidence doesn't lie but people do.:)

[accordn2me]

accordn2me:

From the January 24, 1975 Grand Jury Hearing

Quote: Victor Woerheide "And he describes his pajama top as having been ripped over his head and then he -- things got funny and he began to laugh and fell off the couch. Is this something you had to bring out of him, Dr. Sadoff? The fact that he laughed and fell off the couch, or is it something he volunteered to you?"

Robert Sadoff "Well, its hard to remember, but I asked him to describe, as I usually ask people I'm interviewing, to tell me about it in as much detail as they can. But if I have a specific question -- I would not have thought to ask if he laughed. So, I assume this came spontaneously. EndQuoteAnd that was the end of it!? The questioner didn't ask Dr. Sadoff to elaborate more?

[byn63]

No there were other questions, but that is the one I had noted where he discussed laughing as he fell off the couch. check out tjmis and read Dr. Sadoff at the Grand Jury for full details. In my reading of the interview with Dr. Sadoff, I see that Dr. S relied on inmate and Bernie Segal to provide all the background data he used to prepare his report. Dr. S DID NOT use any independent sources nor verify idenpendently anything told him by mac or bernie. Dr. S did state that had he had the information provided by the prosecution at the time he would certainly have questioned inmate more deeply about certain aspects, why he chose to lie about certain things etc.

Dr S said at least one more interview should have been done by him with the new information and depending on inmate's responses and reactions he very well MIGHT have changed his opinion as to whether or not inmate was the murderer.

:read:

[accordn2me]

No there were other questions, but that is the one I had noted where he discussed laughing as he fell off the couch. check out tjmis and read Dr. Sadoff at the Grand Jury for full details. In my reading of the interview with Dr. Sadoff, I see that Dr. S relied on inmate and Bernie Segal to provide all the background data he used to prepare his report. Dr. S DID NOT use any independent sources nor verify idenpendently anything told him by mac or bernie. Dr. S did state that had he had the information provided by the prosecution at the time he would certainly have questioned inmate more deeply about certain aspects, why he chose to lie about certain things etc.

Dr S said at least one more interview should have been done by him with the new information and depending on inmate's responses and reactions he very well MIGHT have changed his opinion as to whether or not inmate was the murderer.

:read:I will try to read it...soon. I have to look up that link every dern time....maybe I'll save it if I ever find it again! Are you saying Dr. S believed "inmate" was innocent? :eek:

[JTF]

In the early stages of the CID investigation, Sadoff felt that MacDonald was innocent, but post-Article 32 inquiries by the CID/Victor Woerheide seemed to bring him pause. Joe McGinniss points out in Fatal Vision that during his Grand Jury testimony, Sadoff admitted that under the right circumstances, MacDonald was capable of losing control.

JTF

[accordn2me]

In the early stages of the CID investigation, Sadoff felt that MacDonald was innocent, but post-Article 32 inquiries by the CID/Victor Woerheide seemed to bring him pause. Joe McGinniss points out in Fatal Vision that during his Grand Jury testimony, Sadoff admitted that under the right circumstances, MacDonald was capable of losing control.

JTFI was just looking on...Cristina's (sp?) site. I didn't see Sadoff's testimony in the transcripts. Where should I look? I'll try to get a copy of the book in the next week or so. Thanks for the clarification.

[Deb B]

If you go to the Transcripts section of her website and select the "1974-1975: Grand Jury Investigation Transcripts", Sadoff's testimony is the last in that group.

[JTF]

The MacDonald camp has always failed to acknowledge that any investigator worth a salt would have been suspicious after taking an initial tour inside 544 Castle Drive.

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

JTF

[drake622121]

I think any investigator worth his salt would keep an open mind on their initial examination of a crime scene and then after speaking to victims and analyzing evidence then and only then develope a theory of the crime. I believe the investigators became suspicious after viewing the over killed bodies and then seeing MacDonald in the hospital with no truly visible injuries. If MacDonald would have let the bodies lay where they died and not over killed them and moved them he may have gotten away with the murders. I think he thought no one would question his story because he was a doctor, a green beret, and he loved his family. I am a lurker and have read Christina's site and JTF's site both are very informative and well done.

[JTF]

Drake: Thanks for visiting my website. I hope it was helpful. In terms of MacDonald letting the "bodies lay where they died," it's important to remember that MacDonald thought he had killed Colette after striking her with the club in the master bedroom. Colette threw a giant monkey wrench into MacDonald's plan when she regained consciousness in the master bedroom and staggered into Kristen's room. This resulted in MacDonald brutally assaulting her with the club for a second time. In order to create a scenario where each family member was killed in their respective rooms, MacDonald had to use the bedding to transport Colette back to the master bedroom. Colette's brave fight resulted in key pieces of evidence being left behind for investigators to collect and analyze.

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

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

JTF

[drake622121]

I know he moved her body but I really don't get why he moved her and Kim because if drugged up hippies were the ones he wanted to blame they would never have tucked the children in or moved Collette. I meant if he just left her (Collette) in Kristen's room the investigators may have believed she was attacked in the bedroom trying to protect Kristen from the hippies. I think MacDonald made his own story so detailed and all his lies caused the investigators to become suspicious. I really did find your site helpful I have always thought him guilty after reading Fatal Vision when it first came out. When I read or hear that he may get a new trial it is so upsetting because I cannot see how anyone with common sense can believe his initial story. Do you think if he just kept his story brief and didn't move the bodies or injure himself they may have believed him? I don't think he expected the investigators would ever suspect him or investigate the crime scene so throughly.

[JTF]

Drake: From a forensics standpoint, MacDonald was in trouble the moment he put his hands on Colette. The following is the evidence left behind BEFORE he carried Colette and Kimmie back to their respective rooms.

1) Broken hair ribbon was found in the master bedroom.

2) Four bisected Type A blood stains were found on MacDonald's pajama top. This indicated that the stains were on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn down the left front seam and left sleeve.

3) Dozens of pajama seam threads and yarns were found on the master bedroom floor.

4) A six-inch circle of Kimmie's blood was found on the carpet near the entrance to the master bedroom.

5) Kimmie's brain serum was found on the master bedroom door frame.

6) Fifteen entangled fibers were found under the throw rug in the master bedroom. The fibers consisted of eight throw rug fibers and seven pajama fibers.

7) Microscopic analysis indicated that the club matched a wooden slat found under Kimmie's bed.

8) Type A and Type AB blood was found on the club.

9) The pocket from MacDonald's pajama top was found on top of the flipped-up portion of the throw rug in the master bedroom.

10) The face of the pocket bore six direct contact Type A blood stains. This indicated that the stains were on the pocket before it was torn from the jacket.

If you combine these ten evidentiary items with the gut instincts of a competent investigator(s), it would be hard to fathom a scenario where the CID accepted MacDonald's version of events.

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

JTF

[drake622121]

I agree with you. Isn't is amazing that some people still believe his version of the murders.
Drake

[wind149]

You know he can go on TV every couple of years trying to run his spin and nothing will have changed since we last saw his face. And what surprised me this time around was he has re-married and eerily enough the woman looks like Collete. Of course he has not aged well, prison has a way of doing that to a person. I stand today with the conviction he did it and there were no hippies on the night only in his twisted plot. And here is the part that always got me and my LT convinced he did it. If the hippies were there that night, hell bent on robbery or trying to do a "Manson" they would have left no living witnesses. And here Collete and the girls are over-killed and he has a superficial wound and he is a doctor . He would know where to inflict a wound on himself, that while seems to be a serious one as his lung was "nicked" it was nothing compared to the wounds left on his family. And his arrogance always gets to me. Even now 30 years later he still is trying to manipulate everyone that he is innocent. The hippies that were questioned, aren't most of them dead too? When he came up with this plot the horror of what the Manson family did was fresh on everyone's minds and hippies were blamed for everything during that era. I remember boys growing their hair long, everyone assumed they would be Manson followers and killers and some of these people were actually murdered themselves. At that time, I remember this case being on TV and my father was so sure the hippies did it as he could not fathom a doctor would kill his own family. And Freddie was convinced he was innocent till one night he saw him on a talk show was it Dick Cavatt? and JM tells him about that night and how seriously injured he was and how he fought the hippies and tried to save his family. That is when he realized something was not right with his story and went to the authorities. So no, the right person is behind bars and I think he will die in prison before he ever sees parole.

[accordn2me]

Drake: Thanks for visiting my website. I hope it was helpful. In terms of MacDonald letting the "bodies lay where they died," it's important to remember that MacDonald thought he had killed Colette after striking her with the club in the master bedroom. Colette threw a giant monkey wrench into MacDonald's plan when she regained consciousness in the master bedroom and staggered into Kristen's room. This resulted in MacDonald brutally assaulting her with the club for a second time. In order to create a scenario where each family member was killed in their respective rooms, MacDonald had to use the bedding to transport Colette back to the master bedroom. Colette's brave fight resulted in key pieces of evidence being left behind for investigators to collect and analyze.

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

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

JTFHey JTF :seeya: Just recently, I visited your website and another and read a bit about this case. Before that, I had heard of it from a few supporters....and many who believe MacDonald is guilty....but I had no opinion of my own as I was not familiar with any case facts. Admittedly, I've still only read a fraction of the documents available. However, I feel what I did read are some of the most pertinent to the case. To say I'm shocked that some still believe in MacDonald's innocence shows how naive I still am....but I am. :o


If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a question or two, not because I have a shred of doubt that the right person is in jail, but because I'm too lazy to look it up for myself....and since you already know the case inside and out.... :beer:

I read your timeline: http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/html/timeline.html

And I read some of Mr. Kassab's theories about what happened. I'm sure I don't recall either accurately so pardon if I ask something that is already easy to find on the internet.....or if I confuse his with yours......

MacDonald claims it was the baby (Kristen) who wet the bed....IIRC. It seems like I read a theory that Colette was shielding her body at some point. Why do you believe Colette and Jeff first came to blows in the master bedroom....not Kristen's room?

Where do you think Colette "obtains" a knife from? If she did go get a knife...why do you think it was Jeff who left the smudge in the dining room?

After such severe beatings of Colette and Kimberly, and severe stabbings of all 3, what do you think was the purpose of the ice pick :confused: ....to introduce multiple "intruders?"

[JTF]

Accord: Hope this helps.

1) In my opinion, the verbal confrontation began as a result of Kimmie wetting the bed in the master bedroom. MacDonald was exhausted due to his work schedule, he was taking amphetamines to lose weight, and Colette had discovered the fact that he was cheating on her. At this point in time, MacDonald was a ticking time bomb. I think that Colette sent him over the edge by telling him that she was leaving him and taking the kids with her. Colette had called her mother shortly before the murders and asked her if she could bring the kids for a visit. The verbal confrontation subsequently became physical and there was no turning back.

2) Colette probably obtained the bent Geneva Forge knife from the utility room or it is possible that she had it on top of her dresser or inside the closet.

3) As I stated in my timeline, MacDonald was bringing the blood-stained blue bedsheet into the kitchen in order to launder it. He was just about to enter the kitchen area when he heard Colette stagger into Kristen's room. He dropped the blue bedsheet on to the dining room floor which left bloody Type A and AB smudges on the wooden floor.

4) All of the ice pick wounds were inflicted after Colette and Kristen were already dead. MacDonald inflicted these overkill wounds in order to copy the Manson murders. Multiple weapons + Multiple overkill wounds = Multiple intruders.

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

JTF

[accordn2me]

Accord: Hope this helps.

1) In my opinion, the verbal confrontation began as a result of Kimmie wetting the bed in the master bedroom. MacDonald was exhausted due to his work schedule, he was taking amphetamines to lose weight, and Colette had discovered the fact that he was cheating on her. At this point in time, MacDonald was a ticking time bomb. I think that Colette sent him over the edge by telling him that she was leaving him and taking the kids with her. Colette had called her mother shortly before the murders and asked her if she could bring the kids for a visit. The verbal confrontation subsequently became physical and there was no turning back.

2) Colette probably obtained the bent Geneva Forge knife from the utility room or it is possible that she had it on top of her dresser or inside the closet.

3) As I stated in my timeline, MacDonald was bringing the blood-stained blue bedsheet into the kitchen in order to launder it. He was just about to enter the kitchen area when he heard Colette stagger into Kristen's room. He dropped the blue bedsheet on to the dining room floor which left bloody Type A and AB smudges on the wooden floor.

4) All of the ice pick wounds were inflicted after Colette and Kristen were already dead. MacDonald inflicted these overkill wounds in order to copy the Manson murders. Multiple weapons + Multiple overkill wounds = Multiple intruders.

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

JTFThank you for such a fast reply!

MacDonald claimed it was the youngest girl that wet the bed, did he not? Your theory (or Mr. Kassab's...or both) is that the older girl wet the bed? I wonder why he said it was the baby if it was the older one? Why lie about that one? Was it tested?

Was Kimberly's most severe wounds inflicted in her parents' bedroom? Or was Colette's most severe wounds inflicted in the master or children's bedrooms?

I don't understand why MacDonald would try to launder the sheet in the kitchen. :confused:

[byn63]

Thank you for such a fast reply!

MacDonald claimed it was the youngest girl that wet the bed, did he not? Your theory (or Mr. Kassab's...or both) is that the older girl wet the bed? I wonder why he said it was the baby if it was the older one? Why lie about that one? Was it tested?

The urine stain on the master bed was tested and found to be made by someone with either Type A or Type AB blood. Kristen had Type O blood, Colette - Type A and Kimmie - Type AB. There was no indication that Colette had wet herself but there was indication that Kimmie had......

Why did Inmate lie? Noone knows for sure why he has continued to lie to this day, but it is a fact that it could NOT have been Kristen that wet the master bed.

Was Kimberly's most severe wounds inflicted in her parents' bedroom? Or was Colette's most severe wounds inflicted in the master or children's bedrooms?

Kimmie's most serious wound was indeed inflicted in the master bedroom. The coroner's report describes the likelihood that first blow is the one that dislocated the midline of her face, caused the broken cheekbone, and most likely sent her into an unrecoverable coma. There was a 6" full depth soaking stain of Kimmie's Type AB blood and brain serum on the floor near the door of the master bedroom. Kimmie's brain serum was also found splattered on the door frame of the master bedroom (inside). It would take a forceful blow to cause the injuries inflicted on that poor child.

Kimmie's blood was on inmate's pj top, and there was a trail of Type AB blood drops leading from the master bedroom to Kimmie's room.

I don't understand why MacDonald would try to launder the sheet in the kitchen. :confused:

I think inmate originally intended to launder the bedsheet, thinking that he could/would cover up his involvement. However, Colette regaining consciousness and stumbling into Kristen's room altered the plan. I doubt that it ever entered into inmate's thought that the blood stains themselves would shout that he was lying. That family was a statistical anomaly being that each family member was a different blood type.

Not JTF, but I hope I provided you with some helpful answers.

[accordn2me]

Thanks byn63! :seeya:

[drake622121]

Hi byn
At the time of the murders did MacDonald know that his and Colette's blood types were different. Do you think if all members of the family had the same blood type he would have gotten away with the crime? I can not believe the pain and suffering poor beautiful Kimberly endured that night at the hands of her father. I do pray for her and Colette and Kristen. The terror they had suffered is to much to bare.

drake

[byn63]

hi drake -
I don't know if inmate knew that he and Colette had different blood types on February 17, 1970. However, it is a fair bet to believe he did not realize that Kimmie and Kristy had different blood types too. Colette - Type A; J - Type B; Kimmie - Type AB and Kristen - Type O. The odds of 4 member family each having a different blood type are very high and that it was the case here did help investigators "read" the crime scene.

No, I don't think inmate would have gotten away with it if the family had matching types of blood, because it was his mouth and his inability to keep it shut that did the most damage. Every time the investigators came up with evidence, inmate opened his mouth and altered his story to try and explain it away.

We all KNOW that inmate will stick his foot in his mouth at every opportunity, but for us, the real fun is waiting to see how he is going to cram the other one in there with it!:D

[drake622121]

Byn,
Lol. I think your right and I think its his arrogance that allows him to continue to believe that no one should question his story of the murders. For an intelligent man he is really stupid.
drake

[byn63]

Drake - ITA! Inmate may be "book smart" but he is not intellectual and has absolutely no common sense imho. LOL! He is a classic narcissist and sociopath and can only see the world in relation to himself and has no real "emotional" ties to humanity. He does mimick the emotions but they are hollow and without depth. I've said it many times, when you look into his eyes there is no one there, it is like the lights are on but noone is home. :seeya:

[drake622121]

Byn,
I was reading transcripts on CM website and the evidence has overwhelming facts of MacDonalds guilt. Yet on his parole request it is stated by his side that he is factually innocent. How can someone convicted of three murder counts by the facts and evidence of this case still claim to be factually innocent. Your right about the lights and I have met people who are very intelligent but also clueless when it comes to simple common sense. I wonder after seeing all the evidence if any of his attorneys or close friends changed their minds and believed in his guilt. After reading transcripts and documents its hard to believe any of his lies and how his appeals are always about exaggerated new evidence or withheld evidence that his defense team knew of at all times. I watch FBI Files and Forensic Evidence they are excellent shows and I would like to see one done on the evidence in this case.
drake

[JTF]

Drake: Court TV put out a DVD on the MacDonald case entitled: Controversial Trials. They do a pretty good job of presenting the evidence in this case and the commentary from Peter Kearns, William Ivory, and Bob Stevenson is first rate. The MacDonald camp has always presented their master as being "factually innocent" based on "new evidence." The problem is that sans the DNA test results, none of the evidence is "new" in any way, shape, or form. They can't even keep track of when certain evidentiary items were analyzed. For example, Fatal Justice states that there were 36 unidentified prints found at the crime scene, but that figure was presented at the Article 32 hearings. In 1975, the FBI put forth their analysis of the fingerprint evidence in this case and their final figure is 30 unidentified prints. That figure has not deviated since 1975, yet the authors of Fatal Justice use the 1970 fingerprint data in their book. The MacDonald camp can't even get the little things right.

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

JTF

[oftenwonder]

hi drake -
We all KNOW that inmate will stick his foot in his mouth at every opportunity, but for us, the real fun is waiting to see how he is going to cram the other one in there with it!:D

hahaha lol hahaha Well stated, Byn. I just loved this! :)

Welcome aboard, Drake. :seeya: I have been reading your posts and they have pretty much hit the mark. You have the killer pegged! I feel inmate's need for total control, domination and attention is what helped put him behind bars (these traits also helped bring him to the point of rage that caused him to slaughter his entire family). I feel inmate was losing control of Colette and he couldn't handle it.

[drake622121]

Thanks for the welcome Often Wonder,

I agree. I think the diet pills he was taking were also part of the cause of his rage. It was a killer combination. I also agree that with Colette taking classes he felt he was losing control of her (he probably felt he could tell her everything she needed to know why take classes he knows all). I do think he did love his family and felt that cheating on her meant nothing. Cheaters always say the affair meant nothing to them. You notice its always about them. An affair always means something to the one being cheated on. Even know everything is always about him. It amazes me that his supporters never notice the fact that its all about him (his trial, his conviction, his suffering, etc.). They seem to forget the beautiful wife and daughters who paid dearly for his rage.

Drake

[Spamela]

I think that Inmate loved his family when it was convenient. I imagine that he had a limited amount of patience with his children. The beauty of his life was that for most of his marriage he was so busy studying and working, that he did not have much time to spend with the children.

I believe that in the early years of the marriage he tried harder with his family, than when he was at Fort Bragg. Inmate takes on roles like "Jeff the medical student", "Jeff the intern", "Jeff the good daddy", but eventally he good tired of "Jeff the husband", and "Jeff the father". When he was in medical school he was always getting strokes-he was the best and the brightest and a rising star.

When he went to NC he went as the commanding officer's Group Surgeon, but soon after he got to NC, that Green Beret group was disbanded and he was stuck with the job that had no prestige, and he nobody's golden boy. I think that was one of his problems, for the first time in his life he was not the star. And he had lots of time to be home with the family. And it was probably harder to screw around (although he seemed to be doing pretty well). When he was at the hospital all those long hours, when he was an intern, there were nurses and women around him all day, and, let's face it, a hospital has lots of beds.... Colette was stuck at home with the kids, and he could do what he wanted and Colette would never know. Of course, she suspected, but she did not confront him.

I think Inmate was bored silly at Fort Bragg, that is why he wanted to go to Vietnam. As long as Colette did what he wanted, everything was fine, but she was starting to challenge him and he did not like that one bit. Suddenly, the life he had been living was too tight, too constricting. He made up the story about the Russia trip. What he was planning and how he would carry it off, who knows, but he told his mother and Colette about it.

I read somewhere that some mental illnesses and severe personality issues starts to show up in the mid 20's. My sister knew a woman in college who completely changed her personality when she was out of college and dating a controlling older man. My sister could not believe it was the same girl she had known. I think there was some of that in Inmate. I think he could be a really nice guy when he wanted.

I wonder if Colette had left that weekend with the kids to visit her mother, if she would have left for good or have gone back. And if she went back, if the same tragedy would have taken place. Maybe it was a one time situation, or maybe it could not have ended any other way. I once had a dream where I could see Colette but I could not speak. She went to Kris's room, but I wanted to tell her to run out the back door and save herself. But she had to see if Kris was alive and it cost Colette her life. If she had survived and her chidren had not, I think she would have had a difficult time moving forward. There was not the medication in those days for depression , that there are now. I don't think she would have recoved from the loss of her children.

[sed]

Spamela, I think your analysis is pretty close to reality. The only thing that would have been different had Colette run outside is that Inmate would have chased after her once he realized that she had run. Outside, if Colette would have started to scream someone would have surely heard her, even at that hour. If this would have happened, than maybe Kristen would have survived. Unfortunately we will never know. Here's a prayer for the peace of their souls.:rose:

[drake622121]

Spamela,
I think you are right. He wanted the image of being a wonderful husband, fantastic father, and excellent doctor without the work involved in the husband and father part. It was and still is all about image and appearance for him even now. I was reading on CM website some of the appeal documents and the government responses. I can't believe some of the claims the defense state in their appeals. I wonder if Bernie Segal still or ever believed MacDonald was innocent. He never really addressed the evidence it was all about character witnesses, Judicial misconduct, right to a speedy trial, or double jepordy. Never MacDonald is innocent or explanations about the evidence. I wish that Collette would have ran out the back door or just screamed for help so that she and Kristen would have had a chance.

Drake

[byn63]

Drake - I've found myself wondering many many times "Does Bernie Segal REALLY believe inmate is innocent?" I've also wondered about Harvey Silverglate and others of the attorneys du jour that have represented inmate over the years. ITA it seems that none of them have spent time/energy directed at showing who else could be guilty using the evidence.

Maybe they have been unable to find a way to make the evidence point at anyone other than inmate? Many of us who research this case have been waiting for YEARS for a defense time line and it is a good thing we have not been holding our breath, because there is still no sign of a cogent timeline being produced by inmate or his attorneys or followers.

[rashomon]

Spamela, I think your analysis is pretty close to reality. The only thing that would have been different had Colette run outside is that Inmate would have chased after her once he realized that she had run. Outside, if Colette would have started to scream someone would have surely heard her, even at that hour. If this would have happened, than maybe Kristen would have survived. Unfortunately we will never know. Here's a prayer for the peace of their souls.:rose:
The merciless killer JMD probably had already stabbed Kristen to death by the time Colette (already severely injured by the club) staggered into her room.

[sed]

Rash: I either heard in the movie or read in the book Fatal Vision that Colette went into Kristen's room before Inmate killed Kristen. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that was the case, so I concluded that if Colette ran outside, maybe Kristen would have lived. Just a thought:shrug:

[drake622121]

I cannot imagine the pain, horror, and fear that Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen endured that terrible night. Reading the transcripts and documents on CM website makes me realize their pain and takes away any thoughts of doubt about MacDonalds guilt. Since none of Kristen's blood was found on Colette he most likely injured Kristen after Colette was already dead or dying. Her bravery and fierce battle was very courageous but she did not have a chance against an enraged green beret, boxer, and athlete. I am going to reread Fatal Vision I just checked it out at the library. I would love to have seen MacDonald's face after he started reading the book and realized it wasn't about his innocence but his guilt.

[JTF]

Drake: I agree with Rashomon on the issue of when Kristen was killed.

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

JTF

[byn63]

I cannot imagine the pain, horror, and fear that Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen endured that terrible night. Reading the transcripts and documents on CM website makes me realize their pain and takes away any thoughts of doubt about MacDonalds guilt. Since none of Kristen's blood was found on Colette he most likely injured Kristen after Colette was already dead or dying. Her bravery and fierce battle was very courageous but she did not have a chance against an enraged green beret, boxer, and athlete. I am going to reread Fatal Vision I just checked it out at the library. I would love to have seen MacDonald's face after he started reading the book and realized it wasn't about his innocence but his guilt.

Actually, there was Type O blood (Kristen's) on Colette's hand. There is no sign that Kristen ever left her bed, and Kristen was not bludgeoned. Therefore, the logical inference is that Kristen was dead when Colette reached her. This is further evidenced by the copious amounts of Colette's blood on the top cover of Kristen's bed and splattered on the walls above Kristen's bed.

It is incredibly sad, but nonetheless most likely that Kristen was dead when Colette got to her.

btw, if ANYONE in that household truly deserved the title of Green Beret it was Colette not that mealy mouthed, pathetic, narcissistic, sociopathic family slaughter who is nothing but a :chicken:

[drake622121]

byn63,
You are right about the Green Beret title he actually only deserves the title of murderer or baby killer. I don't think Kristen would have just laid there while her father assulted her mother with a club and not screamed or ran from the bed. So you must be right she mostly likely was dead when her mother was attacked.
Drake

[Spamela]

Drake: I agree with Rashomon on the issue of when Kristen was killed.

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

JTF

Bunny and I were recently talking about this and the answer if not clear cut. According to Bunny, the records show a "crust" of blood on Colette, which could not be typed to one blood type, but was either Kris's or Colette's. Apparently a crust is dried blood. And there was so little of it that typing was not possible. To me, this indicates that there is the high possibility that Kris was not killed until after Colette was killed.

If Kris had been killed first, then I would think that there would have been enough of Kris's blood on Colette to type. And in multiple places on Colette. Since Colette was thrown onto the part of the bed where Kris's body would have been, then it seems that certainly Colette would have had Kris's blood on her when she was clubbed onto the top of the bed.

The other thing that makes me think that Kris tried to escape from Inmate, was the amount of bruising on her body. She had multiple bruises which had to occur when she was alive (dead skin does not bruise). There was also the abrasion on her neck from her pj top being twisted and pulled.

I always wondered about the amount of bruising, since the time from when Inmate first attacking Kris with the knife to when she died would have been a very short time, a matter of minutes. Even with Inmate stabbing her from the front and then turning her over and holding her face to the bed, and stabbing her in the back, there should have been little bruising because she was on a soft surface.

I think that she was not killed until after Colette, and that the bruising came from Kris running and hiding from Inmate, probably in Kim’s closet or under Kim’s bed, and then Inmate had to drag her out and take her to her room to kill her. If she were under Kim’s bed, which is a double bed, it would have been hard for Inmate to get under and drag her out. Hence the abrasions on her neck, if Inmate got a hold of pj top, which was full, with that wide clown collar, he would have pulled her out by the pj top, causing the abrasions.

This also explains why the light switches in the girl’s rooms were wiped clean by Inmate. He was not wiping off his own prints, but Colette’s bloody prints. She wakes up on the floor of the master bedroom and she would have gone to the girls rooms, immediately. If she went into Kim’s room and found her dead, then her next move was to Kris’s room and if she found Kris alive she might have told her run and hide, since Inmate was, by them, probably coming down the hall.

This would also provide an easy way for Kris to get a blue pj thread under her finger nail, when she was dragged by her father to her room. I think he held her face down on the mattress, not only because she was fighting back, as evident by the cuts on her hand, but to muffle her screaming and crying, because she knew what was happening.

This scenario makes more sense to me than the alternative. I always wondered why Inmate would have cleaned off the light switches and had to tell everyone that he looked at his children in the dark. He had to wipe off the girl’s light switches to maintain his fiction that Colette was killed in her room.

[drake622121]

Spamela,
I always wondered why clean the light swithches (Drug crazed hippies would not)your explanation is eye opening to me. I never thought of Kristen hiding from her dad or running from him. I always wondered why no screaming or crying. It should have been more noisy but then I realized he was a Green Beret trained by the army to kill quietly and quickly. I never could understand why Colette did not scream for help unless it was him. If Hippies I think she would have screamed because she fought so fiercely that she would have screamed for her children and help. I know he wanted the CID to think the children were killed while sleeping but I don't understand why. If hippies did the killings the children would have ran from them and screamed for their parents. Is he that stupid. Must be or he thought everyone would believe him because he is so arrogant and self serving. Your description of the events are more chilling and terrifying than I originally thought them to be.
Drake

[rashomon]

Rash: I either heard in the movie or read in the book Fatal Vision that Colette went into Kristen's room before Inmate killed Kristen. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that was the case, so I concluded that if Colette ran outside, maybe Kristen would have lived. Just a thought:shrug:
Sed: I know what you are referring to. For at the grand jury hearing, Paul Stombaugh's time line indeed suggested that Kristen was (or might have been) still alive when Colette staggered into her room:

FV, p. 443:
"While this was going on [JMD clubbbing his older daughter Kim to deatH in her room] - or possibly before that, I think Colette came to, came into Kristen's room, to protect the only child that is not dead, and he caught up with her there and erealy et her have it with the club again."
No doubt Colette did enter Kristen's room because she wanted to protect her, believing she might still be alive, and it may have come as a horrific shock to see her already dead, awash in her own blood.

Paul Stombaugh later changed his time line, stating that a scenario was more likely in which MacDonald had already stabbed Kristen to death by the time Colette came into her room.

But the time line here remains a controversial issue. If memory serves, investigator W. Ivory has always been of the opinion that Kristen was killed first.
There exist convincing arguments for both scenarios - only if the small amount of dried blood on Colette was in fact Kristen's type 0 (it couldn't be typed conclusively, it was either A or 0), then Kristen must already have shed blood by the time Colette entered her room.

jmo

[Spamela]

[
But the time line here remains a controversial issue. If memory serves, investigator W. Ivory has always been of the opinion that Kristen was killed first.
There exist convincing arguments for both scenarios - only if the small amount of dried blood on Colette was in fact Kristen's type 0 (it couldn't be typed conclusively, it was either A or 0), then Kristen must already have shed blood by the time Colette entered her room.

jmo[/QUOTE]

The small amount of dried blood COULD have been Kris's, but it also COULD have been Colette's. I think if Kris was dead, then Colette would have had enough direct transfer blood to have been typed as Kris's. Colette was thrown on the bed where Kris's body would have been, and there was lots of Kris's blood on the sheets.

Since this was dried blood on Colette's arm/hand it could have come from her brushing her own blood off her face.

As far as the experts go, their statements are only opinions, just like ours.

I think that Kris's body had too many bruises to have come from Inmate stabbing her on her bed. Inmate started stabbing her from the front (when she got the defensive wound to her hands) and then flipped her over and held her face to the mattress and stabbed her on the back, with her body probably half hanging off the bed (there are blood stains on the floor and side of the mattress).

The time frame from first stab to death was minutes, but she has numerous bruises, and she was on a soft bed.

Also, Inmate went after Colette in Kris's room with a fury, much more than in the master bedroom. That is where she most likely got her broken arms, and the spattered blood on the walls and ceiling indicate he was beating her all out. What if fury was because she tried to protect Kris, and allowed Kris to run out of her room, with Colette telling her to hide or run to the neighbor's?

If the 911 system had been in place, then there would have been a different outcome with this murder, I think. When Colette woke up, I think she would have dialed 911. These days we have had 911 drummed into our heads for emergency situations, and that was not the case in 1970, when you would have had to dial 0 and ask for the help you needed. And today, even if you dial 911 and you don't speak, they will still send out someone to investigate.

[Spamela]

Spamela,
I always wondered why clean the light swithches (Drug crazed hippies would not)your explanation is eye opening to me. I never thought of Kristen hiding from her dad or running from him. I always wondered why no screaming or crying. It should have been more noisy but then I realized he was a Green Beret trained by the army to kill quietly and quickly. I never could understand why Colette did not scream for help unless it was him. If Hippies I think she would have screamed because she fought so fiercely that she would have screamed for her children and help. I know he wanted the CID to think the children were killed while sleeping but I don't understand why. If hippies did the killings the children would have ran from them and screamed for their parents. Is he that stupid. Must be or he thought everyone would believe him because he is so arrogant and self serving. Your description of the events are more chilling and terrifying than I originally thought them to be.
Drake

Inmate wanted them to think that the everyone else was killed quickly in their beds, so that he did not have time to join in the fight and save them. By his story, someone was already attacking Colette and Kim when they were attacking him and then they knocked him out. In his own words Inmate says that the fight with his attackers took 8 to 9 seconds. This was in his April tape recorded interview. This would explain how they were able to kill everyone and then get to him last ,since he was in the living room.

[Bunny2]

According to Bunny, the records show a "crust" of blood on Colette, which could not be typed to one blood type, but was either Kris's or Colette's.

Actually it was JTF who told me that. For years I'd been trying to keep an eye out for any information about the alleged "Type O on Colette's hand" that people kept talking about, but never found anything specific about it. (I did read about the crusts when CM put up the testimony about them, but never connected those with this alleged Type O on Colette's hand.) At any rate, the subject came up when I was talking to JTF not too long ago, and according to him, this alleged Type O on Colette's hand is actually the crusts, which were O or A.

[Kristen] had multiple bruises which had to occur when she was alive (dead skin does not bruise).

FWIW, a couple of years ago I got curious about the various bruises on the bodies and asked a pediatrician friend of mine about bruising after death. She said yes, in certain instances bodies can bruise after death, and I've since heard the same thing from another doctor.

[Spamela]

FWIW, a couple of years ago I got curious about the various bruises on the bodies and asked a pediatrician friend of mine about bruising after death. She said yes, in certain instances bodies can bruise after death, and I've since heard the same thing from another doctor.[/QUOTE]

Do you know under what conditions? I thought there had to be blood pressure for bruising, since a bruise is the blood under the skin from broken blood vessles.

We need Penn nurse for this question!

[Bunny2]

I thought there had to be blood pressure for bruising, since a bruise is the blood under the skin from broken blood vessles.

We need Penn nurse for this question!

Until Penn steps in, here's an excerpt from the Marks of Violence site:

Marks of Violence
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_ta_marks_of_violence.htm

"Bruising is not an accurate way of deciding how the victim met their fate, as interpreting bruising is different in every person, due to the fact that people bruise at different rates and bruising continues for a short while after death."

I don't have time at the moment to do much searching on the web, but in addition to the above here's a discussion about bruising after death (which I haven't finished reading yet...):

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1726455

[accordn2me]

IIRC, blood "pools" at the lowest point after death. The appearance is a bruise. Medical examiners are trained to determine the difference. Sorry I can't provide a link or more detail. I read this somewhere a long time ago.

[rashomon]

Actually it was JTF who told me that. For years I'd been trying to keep an eye out for any information about the alleged "Type O on Colette's hand" that people kept talking about, but never found anything specific about it. (I did read about the crusts when CM put up the testimony about them, but never connected those with this alleged Type O on Colette's hand.) At any rate, the subject came up when I was talking to JTF not too long ago, and according to him, this alleged Type O on Colette's hand is actually the crusts, which were O or A.

FWIW, a couple of years ago I got curious about the various bruises on the bodies and asked a pediatrician friend of mine about bruising after death. She said yes, in certain instances bodies can bruise after death, and I've since heard the same thing from another doctor.
Source: CID Record 3: blood, hair, fiber and wood evidence substantiations, p. 7 (10):
"Blood stains type A (Colette MacDonald) or type 0 (Kristen MacDonald) were located on the following exhibits: [snipped].... in red crusts found in Colette MacDonald's hands."
[Spamela]:
The small amount of dried blood COULD have been Kris's, but it also COULD have been Colette's. I think if Kris was dead, then Colette would have had enough direct transfer blood to have been typed as Kris's. Colette was thrown on the bed where Kris's body would have been, and there was lots of Kris's blood on the sheets.The two large stains of blood on the bottom sheet are Kristen's, whereas a huge amount of Colette's blood was found on the top sheet. Maybe MacDonald had already covered part of Kristen's dead body with the top sheet, and when Colettte, already severely injured, finally staggered into her room, he caught up with her so quickly that she didn't have much chance of touching Kristen. The blows form the club knocked her up against the wall next to Kristen's bed, and when she collapsed on the bed, she bled profusely on the top sheet which had already been put on Kristen. The top sheet probably prevented Colette's and Kristen's blood from intermingling.

Interesting also in the autopsy report: The abrasions on the right lateral neck and superior shoulder are apparently made by a blunt object and those of the shoulder show a heaping of skin at posterior border suggesting blows sustained from anterior to posterior in directions.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_death_autopsy_kris_p07.html

It has been theorized that, when MacDonald was swinging the club at Colette, the weapon also came in contact with Kristen's right shoulder (she lay on her left side), causing the skin to heap.

jmo

[oftenwonder]

Thanks for the welcome Often Wonder,

I agree. I think the diet pills he was taking were also part of the cause of his rage. It was a killer combination. I also agree that with Colette taking classes he felt he was losing control of her (he probably felt he could tell her everything she needed to know why take classes he knows all). I do think he did love his family and felt that cheating on her meant nothing. Cheaters always say the affair meant nothing to them. You notice its always about them. An affair always means something to the one being cheated on. Even know everything is always about him. It amazes me that his supporters never notice the fact that its all about him (his trial, his conviction, his suffering, etc.). They seem to forget the beautiful wife and daughters who paid dearly for his rage.

Drake

Exactly, Drake! When inmate says the affairs meant nothing to him, he never seems to realize (doesn't even care actually, IMO) how it most likely would have meant something to Colette (which in turn how the affairs affected Colette would flow down to Kimmy and Kristen). Infidelity in a marriage is never a good thing and someone will be negatively impacted by the behaviour of the cheater. Colette, Kimmy and Kristen paid dearly for inmate's seflish attitude and controlling and abusive behavior while they were alive. The abuse at the hands of inmate didn't start when inmate killed them; it only ended then. :mad:

[drake622121]

Often Wonder,
I am rereading Fatal Vision and it is just unbeliveable. He lies about when he and Colette started dating in college, their romantic encounters, their vacations, told her he was drafted, and who knows what other lies. I think he is a compulsive liar trying to impress whoever he is speaking to. He states that his father was the ruler of his household and I believe he also ruled his house. If that night they talked about him going to Russia with the boxing team (which was another big lie) and if Colette said you can't go I believe he would have freaked. Who is she to tell him what he can and cannot do, etc. He kept her under his thumb no doubt about it. The horrible things he says about Colette's family are not only igonrant but more lies. One neighbor said Kim was bossy and I don't think she got that trait from her mom. Maybe she tried to boss her dad that night and he freaked. Only he knows and will never tell. But atleast he is convicted and in jail. Abuse comes in many forms not only physical. I think emotional and mental abuse are even more tramatic. Bruises heal but cruel words stay with us forever.

Drake

[rashomon]

Often Wonder,
I am rereading Fatal Vision and it is just unbeliveable. He lies about when he and Colette started dating in college, their romantic encounters, their vacations, told her he was drafted, and who knows what other lies. I think he is a compulsive liar trying to impress whoever he is speaking to. He states that his father was the ruler of his household and I believe he also ruled his house. If that night they talked about him going to Russia with the boxing team (which was another big lie) and if Colette said you can't go I believe he would have freaked. Who is she to tell him what he can and cannot do, etc. He kept her under his thumb no doubt about it. The horrible things he says about Colette's family are not only igonrant but more lies. One neighbor said Kim was bossy and I don't think she got that trait from her mom. Maybe she tried to boss her dad that night and he freaked. Only he knows and will never tell. But atleast he is convicted and in jail. Abuse comes in many forms not only physical. I think emotional and mental abuse are even more tramatic. Bruises heal but cruel words stay with us forever.
Drake
I think physical abuse is every bit as traumatic as emotional abuse, since the abusers are usually in a rage and almost always accompany their abuse towards the victim by the vilest terms imaginable. So the victims who have to endure physical abuse are the same time being emotionally abused.

I believe JMD was a very controlling person, who, like you said, kept Colette under his thumb. The classic king of the castle, and as long as no one challenged him, things were fine for him. Colette was a very gentle person, not the type who would pick a fight - on the contrary, she was someone who probably always tried to smooth the waters, backed down before a discussion would to end up in an argument.
"Mom, don't say anything to Jeff because he stand stand criticism", she once 'warned' her mother Mildred (who was more outspoken and assertive than her daughter). This speaks volumes re JMD's personality make-up.
But on that fatal night, something dramatic must have happened which broke the usual pattern of communication between MacDonald and his wife. For Colette did not back down this time, she fought back. MacDonald could take that - the rest is tragic history.

I have a question, Drake: you wrote that one neighbor said Kim was bossy. This is surprising, for Kim has mostly been described as a more introverted and shy child, as opposed and her younger sister Kristen, who was an extroverted 'take charge' type.

jmo

[rashomon]

I think physical abuse is every bit as traumatic as emotional abuse, since the abusers are usually in a rage and almost always accompany their abuse towards the victim by the vilest terms imaginable. So the victims who have to endure physical abuse are the same time being emotionally abused.

I believe JMD was a very controlling person, who, like you said, kept Colette under his thumb. The classic king of the castle, and as long as no one challenged him, things were fine for him. Colette was a very gentle person, not the type who would pick a fight - on the contrary, she was someone who probably always tried to smooth the waters, backed down before a discussion would to end up in an argument.
"Mom, don't say anything to Jeff because he stand stand criticism", she once 'warned' her mother Mildred (who was more outspoken and assertive than her daughter). This speaks volumes re JMD's personality make-up.
But on that fatal night, something dramatic must have happened which broke the usual pattern of communication between MacDonald and his wife. For Colette did not back down this time, she fought back. MacDonald could take that - the rest is tragic history.

I have a question, Drake: you wrote that one neighbor said Kim was bossy. This is surprising, for Kim has mostly been described as a more introverted and shy child, as opposed and her younger sister Kristen, who was an extroverted 'take charge' type.

jmo

[Edited to add: I just saw I forgot to write the word 'not' in a sentence. I meant to write "MacDonald could not take that".]

[drake622121]

On CM website I was reading neighbor statements and Mr. Kalin (thats who said Kim was bossy)stated that he and his son were outside working on something and making alot of noise and Kim came outside and said be quiet. Her father heard her and made her go outside and apologize. I also read that Kristen was outgoing and Kim more reserved and I was really suprised when I read that. I also read that Kim told her bus driver her dad was mean. In all that I have read about Colette she does seem like a gentle soul and peace maker. I just read about the incident you are talking about were Mildred wanted to say something to Jeff and Colette told her not to because he doesn't like to be criticized (It was at Christmas and he invited the neighbors over when Mildred and Colette were busy cooking and then he was mad when she didn't sit with the company). I think physical abuse is very horrible also I only meant that that pain heals but mental abuse lasts a lifetime. A person can get away from the physical abuser but mental abuse effects our personality, ego, and self worth. I think mental abuse takes longer to heal and find the inner strength to move forward away from the abuser.

[Spamela]

Quote:
The abrasions on the right lateral neck and superior shoulder are apparently made by a blunt object and those of the shoulder show a heaping of skin at posterior border suggesting blows sustained from anterior to posterior in directions.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c..._kris_p07.html

It has been theorized that, when MacDonald was swinging the club at Colette, the weapon also came in contact with Kristen's right shoulder (she lay on her left side), causing the skin to heap.

jmo


Rash,
This is very convincing evidence that Kris was dead when Inmate was swinging the club at Colette. Since Kris was not attacked with the club, it seems likely that she got the wound as a secondary effect of his attack on Colette. I still think that Inmate was cleaning Colette's prints off the light switches. He might have been paranoid enough that he turned off the lights when he exited the girls rooms, so that someone did not see them turned on. Colette probably went into a fury when she saw that Kris was dead and turned on Inmate. She fought him with every thing she had, which is why he brutalized her with the club. I bet this was where he used the club like a harpoon to push her away. Once Colette saw that both he children were dead, by the hands of her husband, what did she have to live for?

[Spamela]

I think physical abuse is very horrible also I only meant that that pain heals but mental abuse lasts a lifetime. A person can get away from the physical abuser but mental abuse effects our personality, ego, and self worth. I think mental abuse takes longer to heal and find the inner strength to move forward away from the abuser.

No abuse is easier than the other. The physical part of physical abuse is only one part of the abuse. Yes, physical wounds heal, but the other part is the mental trauma that comes with it. Rape victims recover from injuries, but they may be afraid to walk alone in the night, to be alone in a house, to have sex with a partner. Think about flash backs that men in war experience, they recover from their wounds, are no longer in the same country that the injuries occured, but the mental part of the physical abuse continues, sometimes for life.

[drake622121]

Spamela,
I never thought of physical abuse effects on the persons mental health and you are absolutely right. One of the reasons I participate in discussions is to learn and get others opinions. Thank you for your insight and for opening my eyes to the fact that any type of abuse or violence effects people whether physical or emotional both are equally horrible and hard to recover from. I think if Kristen were alive when her mother came in bleeding she would not have just laid on the bed and watched her father beat her mom with the club, go get the sheet, lay the body on the floor, and carry her out. It makes no sense. My guess is she was either dead or not in the bed at that time. By all acconts she was a very outgoing child but when faced by paralyzing fear she may have just froze. Only her baby killing father knows for sure. I wonder why he always claimed it was Kristen who wet the bed and not Kimberly. Maybe he was trying to have the investigators believe Kim never left her bed that night since from the evidence Kim was first attacked in the master bedroom and carried from there to her bed.
Drake

[oftenwonder]

Spamela,
I never thought of physical abuse effects on the persons mental health and you are absolutely right. One of the reasons I participate in discussions is to learn and get others opinions. Thank you for your insight and for opening my eyes to the fact that any type of abuse or violence effects people whether physical or emotional both are equally horrible and hard to recover from. I think if Kristen were alive when her mother came in bleeding she would not have just laid on the bed and watched her father beat her mom with the club, go get the sheet, lay the body on the floor, and carry her out. It makes no sense. My guess is she was either dead or not in the bed at that time. By all acconts she was a very outgoing child but when faced by paralyzing fear she may have just froze. Only her baby killing father knows for sure. I wonder why he always claimed it was Kristen who wet the bed and not Kimberly. Maybe he was trying to have the investigators believe Kim never left her bed that night since from the evidence Kim was first attacked in the master bedroom and carried from there to her bed.
Drake

I too forget how long-lasting emotional abuse can be. Sometimes people look at someone (not seeing the emotional abuse) and think the person is okay when it can be far from the truth. I also continue to wonder why inmate has always been so insistent that it was Kristen who wet the bed even when faced with the evidence that it was Kimmy who wet the bed. I think it makes him look even more guilty (if that is possible) when he keeps insisting on it being Kimmy who wet the bed. Maybe inmate sticks to his story because he wanted the killings to appear "neat"; that eveyone was killed in their respective beds/bedrooms. Only inmate knows for sure though and we know he will never tell us the truth.

[Spamela]

In ref to Inmate insisting Kris was in the bed, perhaps she was in bed, but Kim had wet the bed earlier. Maybe Kim wet the bed, and Colette got up and changed Kim and put her back in her own bed. Later Kris came into bed with Colette, sleeping close to Colette to avoid the wet sheet.

If one of the girls wet the bed, their night clothes should have been very wet with urine. The wet spot was described as 16 inches in diameter, which is alot of wet, and their underwear would have been saturated. I remember wetting the bed and waking up because the wet areas get very cold and uncomfortable. Especially with Kris wearing pj bottoms, those would have been completely wet. Kim was wearing a nightgown, and if it was pushed up above her waist, then only her underwear would have been wet. The CID reports showed a small amount of urine in the girl's underwear, typical with the release of the bladder after death. It also indicates that they probably voided their bladders once after going to bed. So, maybe Kris woke up and went to the bathroom and then got in bed with Colette.

Inmate does argue about Kris being the one in the bed, in a manner that is different than the way he lies about other evidence in the case. But, who knows, he is a chronic liar.

[rashomon]

Rash,
This is very convincing evidence that Kris was dead when Inmate was swinging the club at Colette. Since Kris was not attacked with the club, it seems likely that she got the wound as a secondary effect of his attack on Colette. I still think that Inmate was cleaning Colette's prints off the light switches. He might have been paranoid enough that he turned off the lights when he exited the girls rooms, so that someone did not see them turned on. Colette probably went into a fury when she saw that Kris was dead and turned on Inmate. She fought him with every thing she had, which is why he brutalized her with the club. I bet this was where he used the club like a harpoon to push her away. Once Colette saw that both he children were dead, by the hands of her husband, what did she have to live for?
Spamela: I think your conclusion is very astute regarding MacDonald's motive behind wiping the light switches: it was to delete Colette's prints, not his own.
For per his story, it would have made sense for his bloody prints to have been there - after all, he said he went into each room to check on his family members. But he could later have wiped off Colette's bloody fingerprints on the switches, since he had placed hers and the children's dead bodies in their bedrooms in a way to make it appear as if none of them had left these rooms.

jmo

[HiLife]

Here it is (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/macdonald_1970apr6.html)

First thing that struck me. He says "some people have been stabbed"...... SOME PEOPLE, that's his wife and two daughters and he calls them some people.

The board I normally post on has closed for a few days and I found myself with the opportunity to read about the MacDonald case in depth. At first I began by going backwards on the thread, but realized I needed to start from the begining. Thanks so much, Cami, for starting the thread. Your posts have been quite an education about the case and your hard work here is much appreciated.

I don't want to leave anyone out, but I wanted to tell JTF, Rashomon, Spamela, Drake and the many others that I have thoroughly enjoyed their huge contributions as well! I've received quite an education about the blood and all of you are right - it clearly shows the exact trail of MacDonald's activities that night.

I read the book "Fatal Vision" many, many years ago and it was a page turner. I've seen his interviews. I have always believed MacDonald to be guilty. I chose Cami's post with the link to his first transcript describing the night of the murders because it is absolutely riveting to read! It has to be a psychiatrist's dream.

While reading the transcript, I just kept shaking my head. I have to VENT! It is the most ridiculous, outrageous lying I have ever read. You've all probably discussed this to death already, but here are just a few observations from this loaded transcript:

1) Note how he stutters, starts, repeats and is basically completely disjointed while describing the events. Yet when he talks about other neutral things, such as the neighbors, his wounds, his friends, his daughters - his sentence structures are smooth and coherent.

2) Yes, the "some people" is a complete detachment when describing his family. In the transcript, there is no sign of affection when speaking about them - just a clinical, mater-of-fact type of attitude.

3) Note how he repeats the question to him when it is something he isn't expecting - like about the fibers, his "route" throughout the house that night.

4) The entire transcript is a lesson in evading questions. He does NOT answer ANY question definiteively that is put to him. He is constantly covering his bases (Was the door open? Yes, it was. The door was open. Well, I don't remember if it was open)

5) The way he asks questions, you can almost hear his wheels turning, storing the information for later use, giving alternate explanations, or trying to come up with a way to "help" the investigators. He also does what typical liars do, repeat the question back that has been asked in order to give himself time to come up with an explanation.

The part when he is confronted by pictures of women, he even says he's "surprised they are so thorough." Arrrogance. Also shows he thought he could outsmart the investigators and that this would be a cake walk.

6) MacDonald pointing out his own "Freudian Slip" when saying "mother" instead of "Colette." Ugh. And then trying to cover more bases by saying the kids used the robe outside - yeah, right.

7) The lack of blood on the phone, or better, a drop the size of a grain of salt (and his ridiculous explanations as to why!) - he also first said, "Oh, hey, there was blood everywhere." When told there wasn't, he said it could have dried and then was told the blood was still wet when investigators arrived.

8) The bath mat, the fibers and the coffee table being top-heavy and would only have landed legs up seems to have caught him off-guard. Wonder why they gave hims so much information?

9) The non-descriptions he gave of the "intruders" - ludicrous.

10) Now this (among many other passages) was very telling:

Q Kimmie was in your bedroom and she got hurt in there
A She got hurt?
Q Uh-huh (yes)
A You mean that night?
Q That's what I'm saying

What does MacDonald mean by asking "that night?" What OTHER night is he being interrogated about?? Sounds to me like he knew she got hurt on "other nights" as well. Bedwetting can also be a sign of abuse.

11) The trouble he had remembering their "nightly routine" and what show they had watched that night.

12) What bothered me the most about this transcript was this - MacDonald would have been better served if he had said he had drank a lot that night or that he had taken some heavy duty sleep medication (at first he says no to both, then does an obvious CYA and says he might have taken an antihistamine or that he had a liqueur).

How can someone, awakened by 4 people and engaged in a "struggle" be so HAZY wih his memory? The way he describes it seems like he was half-asleep, sleepwalking, throughout the whole ordeal! It is completely devoid of details. Especially as a Green Beret, aren't they "aware" and wouldn't he snap to immediate, alert, wide-awake attention when confronted by all these "intruders??" Wouldn't his hands be bruised, braised or cut in this terrible "struggle" against so many men?


I am floored by this transcript and thanks again, Cami, for posting it!

JMO

[Spamela]

I read the book "Fatal Vision" many, many years ago and it was a page turner. I've seen his interviews. I have always believed MacDonald to be guilty. I chose Cami's post with the link to his first transcript describing the night of the murders because it is absolutely riveting to read! It has to be a psychiatrist's dream.

While reading the transcript, I just kept shaking my head. I have to VENT! It is the most ridiculous, outrageous lying I have ever read. You've all probably discussed this to death already, but here are just a few observations from this loaded transcript:

How can someone, awakened by 4 people and engaged in a "struggle" be so HAZY wih his memory? The way he describes it seems like he was half-asleep, sleepwalking, throughout the whole ordeal! It is completely devoid of details. Especially as a Green Beret, aren't they "aware" and wouldn't he snap to immediate, alert, wide-awake attention when confronted by all these "intruders??" Wouldn't his hands be bruised, braised or cut in this terrible "struggle" against so many men?


I am floored by this transcript and thanks again, Cami, for posting it!

JMO

Yes, we all agree that anyone who reads the transcript of the April CID interview and concludes that Inmate is telling the truth, has got to be just plain stupid. There is just no other word for it. Inmate stumbles his way through that interview, saying and reacting in ways that cement his guilt. Thank god that they got that interview on tape before Inmate decided he needed a lawyer. He was so sure of himself, that he figured he would outsmart them all, and his arrogence was his downfall. I wish I could hear the tape, and listen to the sound of his words as he lies. It was that tape that made the jurors realize that Inmate was not what he appeared, and that the case was not a simple situation of blaming the person left alive. As Joe M. wrote (paraphrase)-- Inmate's words from that interview would stick to him like tar.

[oftenwonder]

Very good observations, HiLife. Inmate's April CID interview was so very telling. I too was struck by what he could and could not remember (at times he gave details of what the intruders were wearing, what they looked like, etc., but he could not remember the "nightly routine" with his wife or could not even remember what class she went to that night). I believe inmate (mistakenly) thought he would be able to give his "story" once, everyone would believe him and he could go home and live out the rest of his life as a single playboy (only in his dreams did this happen, HA!). Of course, he did have 9 1/2 years of freedom which he should not have had, but he is now where he belongs, and that is where he will stay.

[HiLife]

Yes, we all agree that anyone who reads the transcript of the April CID interview and concludes that Inmate is telling the truth, has got to be just plain stupid. There is just no other word for it. Inmate stumbles his way through that interview, saying and reacting in ways that cement his guilt. Thank god that they got that interview on tape before Inmate decided he needed a lawyer. He was so sure of himself, that he figured he would outsmart them all, and his arrogence was his downfall. I wish I could hear the tape, and listen to the sound of his words as he lies. It was that tape that made the jurors realize that Inmate was not what he appeared, and that the case was not a simple situation of blaming the person left alive. As Joe M. wrote (paraphrase)-- Inmate's words from that interview would stick to him like tar.

Thanks for the additional follow-up, Spamela. So the jury heard this transcript? Good. I don't think he is stupid by any means, he just underestimated everyone around him and he overestimated his intelligence.

Perhaps someone from this era, due to all the crime shows, would be a bit more forensic savvy, but back in the 70s, MacDonald obviously had no clue regarding the clues that would lead straight back to him. Also, it was fortunate about the 4 different blood types, given how at the "primitive" time, it was the only thing they had to be able to tie anyone DNA wise.

In the beginning I always wanted to find him innocent because what was done was so heinously cruel. It is especially difficult to understand doing those things to your own children. I cannot begin to imagine what a human being would have to be like inside to be able to have ice-picked his little girls - or anyone for that matter. It is a hands-on, personal, cold-blooded way to murder and the over-kill is too callous to even process.

So relieved that justice was served.

jmo

[HiLife]

Very good observations, HiLife. Inmate's April CID interview was so very telling. I too was struck by what he could and could not remember (at times he gave details of what the intruders were wearing, what they looked like, etc., but he could not remember the "nightly routine" with his wife or could not even remember what class she went to that night). I believe inmate (mistakenly) thought he would be able to give his "story" once, everyone would believe him and he could go home and live out the rest of his life as a single playboy (only in his dreams did this happen, HA!). Of course, he did have 9 1/2 years of freedom which he should not have had, but he is now where he belongs, and that is where he will stay.

Absolutely, OW. I believe he actually thought everyone would simply take him at his word - after all, he was a doctor! I'm so glad I got the chance to read this transcript. It is too obvious. As Spamela said, you cannot come away from reading it with any doubt as to his guilt. You're also right in that he did not deserve the 9.5 years of freedom. But I believe he is enduring the worst possible punishment, locked up, never to be able to ply his trade (medicine, serial womanizing, etc.) again.

Even reading it, you can "see" and "hear" the wheels inside his sick brain turning, whirring, trying to stay a step ahead of the Investigators. I don't know how they were able to listen for so long. MacDonald does not give one definitive answer. Also in the transcript, you can see how he is constantly interrupting, finishing sentences, etc. Very brash.

It is amazing to see the progression of the investigators in the interview from at first patience, then confusion that needed 'clearing up', then bold statements of evidence, then outright accusations. Beautiful.

jmo

[drake622121]

I just finished rereading Fatal Vision and Macdonald's cocky attitude is visible throughout the book. The lies atop of lies he tells are unbelieveable. I assume he thought Joe M. would just listen to him, believe him, and write a book according to him. Definetly a God complex. He even sent Joe M. Kim and Kristen's baby books in Colette's hand writing first steps, first tooth, etc. If my family were brutally murdered I would never part with the few pieces of momentos I had left from their lives. It was and still is all about him. Its as if no one else exists in his world who is smarter, better, or more important. The April interview with the CID shows how arrogant he truly is. When a person lies as much as he does nothing he states is trustworthy. I don't believe any of his story from February 17, 1970. Some say that it is probably filled with part truths. After reading Fatal Vision I don't think he is capable of telling the real or even part truths about anything. He lies constantly even about little things. He is a pathalogical liar and they are uncapable of stating the real truth or facts without putting their spin on the version. Do pathalogical liars know or recognize the truth even when it is proven to them? They just keep dodging the truth and repeating their own version of the truth. My sister is a pathalogical liar. Everyone in my family says she doesn't lie she just exaggerates. She lies about the weather, her childrens grades, her family, everything. If my parents are sick we don't allow my sister to call anyone because the way she tells it death is knocking at the door. I have dealt with a liar since birth and believe me she has no idea how to tell the truth or what it really is. Just sitting around on Sunday at my parents she has to lie about little silly things and when caught in her lies she just keeps on talking as if they are true. Don't get me wrong I love her. But her insecurity makes her lie and now it is part of her and she can't stop. It is "cry wolf" now I never believe her actually I have not belived her for years and I have to ask her husband to get the real truth. I think MacDonald is that kind of liar. They can't tell part truths they just don't see the truth to even tell a small part of it.
Drake

[oftenwonder]

Drake, you have a sister just like my own! My sister's lies can be very cruel and they definitely hurt people. My sister is currently homeless (51 years old). It is so very sad really, but unless people like her admit they need help no one can help them. The truth is something that evades them. They avoid it all costs and have no idea what the truth is once they start lying. People like my sister and inmate live in a world that is all their own (not reality). One thing about inmate that always bothered me is that he didn't cradle his dying family. I would have been found crying/sobbing, whatever, and trying to hang on to my dying family. Not him; he was in a posed position when he was found.

[Spamela]

Thanks for the additional follow-up, Spamela. So the jury heard this transcript? Good. I don't think he is stupid by any means, he just underestimated everyone around him and he overestimated his intelligence.
jmo

I didn't mean that Inmate was stupid, but that those who read his pack of lies in the April interview and believe he is telling the truth, are stupid. His defenders would like us to believe that he was still in shock and that is why he said things that he later changed, once he found that the physical evidence contradicted his "story". Hah! He was obviously quite comfortable telling his little fairy tale.

On a side note, on his web site the smiling picture of Inmate in army uniform are listed as being taken in the fall (before the murders), when they were actully taken the summer after the murders. This was determined by those who know the uniform and insignia, and Inmate did not finish his all his training until after the murders, which meant that he could not have been wearing what he wore in the pics, until that summer. For a man who just lost his family, those are two pics of a very happy man. I know that after my mother died of cancer, that I found it hard to laugh and smile. If it had been my spouse and children, I would have been a basket case.

[tsky]

I have been interested in this case ever since I read Fatal Vision many years ago. My brother and I have been at odds about this for years b/c he believes Inmate is innocent b/c of Helen Stoeckley’s testimony. A poster here highlighted that she testified to several things so it’s difficult for him to justify which part of her story he believes. The reason why outside intruders cannot be give much credence is that although there are other finger prints there is nothing in the house to tie any of the people investigated in the deaths besides the Inmate. It does not make sense that these crazed maniacs would leave him alive and for what reason, to frame him? Well it couldn’t be that because they wouldn’t have written ‘Pig’ on the wall which points to an outside source. Here are some of my thoughts and questions on the case:

1. Did the investigators prove that blood was wiped off the light switches or did they assume it must have been wiped off since it didn’t exist?

2. Is it possible that the Inmate used a candle to get around the house after turning off the lights and that is why he is so adamant about their being a candle?

3. Inmate never described in his first interview how he came to be unconscious in the hallway. He only tried to provide an explanation of how he came to be unconscious after prodding by the interrogators.

4. After reading more about the case I see why he was so insistent that it as Kirsten who wet the bed. He didn’t want Kimmie tied to the master bedroom and that is because he killed her in the master bedroom and her bed wetting initiated the fury.

5. Inmate was too aware of every single injury on his body. An innocent man would have paid little attention to such superficial wounds and would have been more obsessed about what happened to his family than to him.

6. Inmate was very cold in his interviews. He also seemed to come alive when it was time to relay how much medical knowledge he had, almost like he was teaching the investigators an anatomy class. He was less enthused when he talked about his kids and completely bland when he talked about his wife.

7. The fact that the wooden stick used in the murders was known to come from inside the house is HUGE! This means the assailants came into the home unarmed and yet they were on an Army base looking to kill folks.

8. Inmate only claimed Collette and Kimmie screamed because he thought maybe the neighbors heard them. Isn’t it funny that Collette would be asking him a question while being murdered by someone else? Her asking why are they, (or really ‘you’) doing this to me only makes since if she is talking to the assailant.

9. Kimmie screaming daddy, daddy, daddy is also important because we know the little girl knew her daddy was killing her and her mom. He had to throw this in the story because he figured the neighbors might have heard that also.

[HiLife]

Hi tsky!

Good points, all!

I especially like your observation of Colette asking "Why" (while being assaulted and killed by some stranger) instead of screaming a statement more along the lines of "They're killing me.....or HELP ME, Jeffrey!"

One can argue that perhaps in those days, forensics was too primitive to be able to make accurate distinctions, but how can you explain 4-5 stangers in your home who leave no trace of any evidence? Impossible, IMO.

I'm fascinated by JM's first statement. There's material there for a field day -a psychiatrist's (or Criminal Profiler's) dream!

jmo

[Spamela]

tsky, if your brother wants to believe Helena then he has to believe that Inmate and Helena had a sexual affair (as if he would go for a grungy hippie, not his taste, at all), and that her group had a conversation with Inmate about laying off their friends who came into the hospital on over doses. In other words, Helena'a story does not match Inmate's story.

Also, if he believes that the girl on the corner was Helena, then why has Helena never admitted to being the girl on the corner? Helena talked about a horse with a broken wheel that she sat on , but the horse was on springs and not large enough for an adult to sit on (and the springs would have sprung, probably). And, there were no finger prints of Helena on the horse. If she carried a candle, she let no new wax.

The wax that was found under the slats of the coffee table was old and embedded with dirt. Apparently the wax was cleaned off the top of the coffee table but not underneath the slats that had spaces in between the wood. The wax in Kim's room was from a birthday candle and was also old. If you have ever carried a candle, then you know that the wax runs off the candle, and if you don't have a paper ring on it, like they use for church services, then the wax runs over your hands and onto the floor.

For all the confessions when she admitted she was there, she also denied it. so, why should anyone believe that she only told the truth when she said she was present at the murders. She did not provide on bit of information that did not come from seeing pictures of the crime scene or being told about the crime scene.

Her husband blames Inmate's crowd for messing with Helena's head. Anything they wanted she would tell them. Although her husband was a messed up dude, you would think that he might have a clue about his wife's personality.

In ref to the candle, in his testimony he claims he never said it was a candle, that it was just some kind of light.

The light swithches and phone had no prints, so they had to have been wiped clean, otherwise, at the very least, the prints of the MacDonald family would have been on them from nomral usage. I guess Inmate wanted the CID to believe that the killers wiped off the light switches, but why they would wipe off the phone is not so easy to believe. I wonder if Colette touched the bedroom phone and that is why he wiped it off, and they wiped off the kitchen phone just to be consistent.

Your brother is deluded. Many men support Inmate, I think they somehow identify with him.

[JTF]

Tsky: If your brother's belief in MacDonald's innocence hinges on the bizarre ramblings of Helena Stoeckley, the following link should clear things up.

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

I apologize to everyone for being unable to moderate Live Chat this past Tuesday. My computer system and phone went down Tuesday afternoon and repairs couldn't be made until yesterday afternoon.

JTF

[drake622121]

I could never believe HS story because of all the variations she has told except her first statement that she could not remember where she was at the time of the murders. I think she became paranoid that she may be accused since the media was talking about hippies being the suspects. As Judge Dupree said she was a tragic figure who got so caught up in this case that she may have convinced herself that she was there. She even told Bernie Segal that someone on acid could not have committed the murders but asked him if MacDonald was tested for speed. Segal lied and said Macdonald was tested. Even HS new that someone on speed commited the murders. MacDonald lost 12-15 pounds in the three weeks before the murders taking diet pills and in notes he sat down and wrote for his attorney in the Article 32 hearing the first thing he put down was about taking a diet pill at dinner and didn't know if it would still be in his blood the next morning. Makes you wonder just how many pills he was taking a day its estimated 3 to 5 to achieve that much weight loss in such a short time. Plus who works 24 hours, plays basketball, takes the kids to feed their pony, babysits, stays up till 2:00 am watching TV and reading, and then instead of getting some sleep does the dishes. He must have been on the pills not only for weight loss but to stay awake for hospital shifts. And to be awake for that period of time he had to be buzzin. Pills on the market for weight loss were not tested for side effects at that time and since they weren't I think people thought them as safe. HS and GM do not match any DNA at the crime scene. Six intruders high on acid would have made noise, left DNA, destroyed the whole house, and left loudly. Acid is not groovy it is a terrible drug (taken it years ago as a teen) it gives you feelings of paranoia and fear. Not anger and lack of remorse it is the total opposite as HS told Bernie Segal because she knew.
Drake

[Spamela]

Poor Helena just wanted attention. And she got it. How many of her friends had interviews on 60 minutes? What a tragic figure she was, a lonely little girl who made up stories to get attention, that was how a teacher described her. She was smart enough skip two grades, so she graduated at 16, which is why she had time to hang with the hippie crowd. For someone as emotionally immature as she was, for her to be on her own at 16, instead of in a structured school environment was just asking for trouble. And trouble she found. It sounds like there was not a drug she didn't take. And once she took drugs she finally found the acceptance of a group. Although she turned in some of them to get the acceptance of Beasley (is that the right name?).

[HiLife]

Thanks so much for these explanations, Spamela and Drake! Very informative and I appreciate your observations.

I've received quite an education on this case by reading this thread. Your thoughts on the speed/weight loss meds, JM's behavior and HS sound exactly right.

[tsky]

What part of the physical evidence found at the scene matches MacDonald's story?

[drake622121]

Spamela,
You mentioned Prince Beasley and I was reading on CM website and under scanned documents (Dec. 20, 2005 - Mac Donald's new motion) She states that even Prince Beasley came to believe that Helena was not involved in the murders and did not commit the crime. When I read that I was shocked. I wonder why MacDonald fired Bernie Segal maybe he came to the same conclusion. Or maybe he told MacDonald they should change the strategy and admit his guilt and beg for mercy. If so I would love to have heard that conversation. Segal had to know MacDonald was guilty after viewing all of the evidence, polygraph exam, and private conversations with MacDonald himself. He never tried to prove MacDonald innocent he just looked for loopholes to get his trial halted and after the trial then his conviction overturned. I wonder if his awful closing argument was intentional so that he also could see justice served.
Drake

[kafman]

Hey all, Im new to this message board and wanted to share some thoughts. Part of my job requires analyzing the statements of people. Content analysis consists of looking at a persons statement and discover what they are really saying. I was looking at the Article 32 transcripts and read JM's testimony from start to finish and its amazing how his language, demeanor and grammar all change when discussing the murders. He uses terms over and over, such as "you know", that indicate deception. The following website is a statement analysis of JM's statement by Mark McClish which breaks down JM's statement by paragraph. Hope you all find it interesting. http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

Tim

[tsky]

The dead have spoken on this case. It was the little things that convicted this murderer. The fact that they all had different blood types sealed the fate of MacDonald. Because of their different blood types it made it impossible for things to have happened the way he said they happened. The Inmates own story convicted him because based on the evidence the police knew there had to be more than 4 assailants in the house and MacDonald would have been aware of this as soon as he awakened. MacDonald however was never able to fully weasle out of the fact that he said he saw only 4 assailants. Because we know how they died it was not possible for MacDonald to have awaken to their screams and at the same time see 4 people in front of him. Even if we say for the heck of it that it was possible that he heard them screaming in his sleep and did not awaken immediately that still does not explain why they stayed in the house long enough to kill Collette and the kids (move their bodies around) and then wait for Inmate to wake up before attacking him. But since the story was completely fabricated he had to make sure the scream part stayed in the story just in case anyone heard the scuffles in the house (between him and Colette). He also had to say the attackers were immediately in front of him to explain why he couldn't get to his family until after they were killed.

The blood convicted the Inmate because it is improbable that the killers moved the bodies of his family members from one room to the next. It is not possible that they were stepping over his body in the hallway to move bodies because if there were only 4 assailants, all the rearranging had to start after the Inmate had come to rest in the hallway. It is also not probable that someone else murdered the Inmates family but he ONLY moved their bodies and re-positioned them. There would be no need for him to do such a thing unless he was trying to cover up the fact that Collette had been in Kristen's room and Kimmie had been in his room. Why would he want the police to believe that? Because his story of being asleep on the sofa does not make sense if his wife was fighting for her life and the life of their kids while he slept quietly. He figured it is more believable that they were killed by intruders (who would leave them where they were) so he had to re-position the bodies. Also, leaving them in their rooms as if they were killed quickly made it seem more believable that he could not have saved them even if he wanted to. Sadly for him, his entire family had different blood types so it was quite easy to figure where each person bled, including him.

His pajama top convicted him because the droppings made it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the story to happen as he said it did. The pajama top debunked the attackers in the living room story, the resting in the hallway story and the "I didn't move my wife and kids story." He almost committed the perfect murder but the things he could never have fathomed convicted him of these murders.

[audpaud]

Caught up with some very interesting Posts . . . especially intrigued by Spammy's Theory on Poor Lil Kris running & hiding from The Slaughterer.:( Would explain the bruises and makes me more enraged & sickened than I thought possible.:cuss::flamemad:

Was he convicted of 1st degree murder for Kris? IIRC he was . . . but it just hit me that he should have been for Colette as well - since she actually died later (after the passionate rage in the MB) in Kris' room. Was is 1st for Colette too? I don't think so and am wondering why.

I still would love if the older brother Jay would Post his thoughts & insights of "Growing Up MacDonald", ya know? I realize that all would have to be taken with a grain of salt but think would be fascinating nonetheless . . . as would their Lil Sis' memories. That cross country road trip MacTeen took with the older gentlemen and subsequent living with that family during a peak year of his successful high school life continues to mystify me! C'mon MacSibs - SPILL what you remember!!!!:punch:

Ron Harrison - Come OUT Come OUT wherever you are!:punch: :chicken:

[jamdog]

Hello everyone. Haven't seen these posted so I thought I'd put them up - Youtube clips of the CBS special. It's incomplete and bitty but there's some worthwhile stuff in there, footage from the Dick Cavett show for example.

pt1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF77VHJ_b2c

pt2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1fgqjEbxn8