Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich


Her family doesn't have much doubts. There was a federal investigation before he was tried.


"My only joy," said Stevenson, "was to stare into his eyes and call him the murderer that he is. If I had to do that every day for the rest of my life, it would be worth it."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-macdonald12may12,1,7108106.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

if she is wrong, lets hope god forgives her for abusing this man so, if she is right, no harm done

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich


Some say Scott peterson is innocent. I believe they are both as innocent as each other...:shrug:

they could be, only god, the victims and the real killers know, which could be them

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich


Nah...

god knows everything

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Judge05
Um.....the drugs you are referring to that people go to jail for ARE ILLEGAL!!! That doesn't stop people from getting them or making them.

So, what you are saying is, a major drug lord gets busted for drugs and he should only get a year in prison? This drug lord is 'non-violent' but distributing his illegal drugs everywhere, even to school children. And you think he should only serve a year? :punch:

drugs being sold illegally can be legal too, pot, volume, zanax, ect... a drug lord is not what I was referring to, and you know it, if you didn't, I am telling you now, that is not what I meant unless this "drug lord" is a non violent victimless criminal (but then he would not be called a DRUG LORD) - having someone else do your dirty work doesn't make you non-violent, you still cause the violent acts

alcohol is a legal drug, some would say worse then pot, so who is the drug lord there, how much time should they get?

if you sell to a child - you have a victim, enough said - you are no longer a victimless criminal

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Judge05
If you have a prescription for vAlume, zanex, marijuana ect. then you WILL NOT go to jail for having it.

So a drug lord who has never physically harmed anyone, who is classified as 'non-violent' should have to serve more time than a small time druggie who also sells to children and is 'non-violent'? You can't set a standard for one if not for all.

alcohol is a legal drug, some would say worse then pot, so who is the drug lord there, how much time should they get?

if you sell to a child - you have a victim, enough said - you are no longer a victimless criminal

remember prohibition, it created more crime, not cleaned it up - it made criminals very powerfull like the drug lords of today

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Judge05
My husband is out there every night dealing with druggies and drunks, so until you have been in his shoes or any LE officials shoes, don't say they should just get a 'slap on the wrist' with a little year jail time.

not saying your husband is not seeing the violence cause by the war on drugs, he probably is... you do a year and tell me if that is a slap on the wrist :rolleyes: bet it would almost kill you


I think the war on drugs has been and always will be a failure, people can get drugs easier today then before the war started...how many have died because of this war, how many have yet to die? prohibition did not cure people from drinking, it only cause criminals to sell in a black market and kill who ever got in there way, sounds a lot like what we have going on today

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Judge05
Okay, let me make one thing clear, druggies and drunks usually only get a 'slap on the wrist' for their first and second offense. The judicial system does have '3 strikes your out', meaning that after you are arrested the 3rd time for the same offense, no more 'free rides'. And that is the ones who are in jail for 5 or more years. They usually don't learn from their mistakes the first couple of times.

not always and you know it, if they have great, but you are talking the exception, not the norm in some places

I will say it again, when I was younger and doing stupid things, had I been caught with the laws the way they are today, my life would of been ruined, which means my kids would of too, meaning they might have grown up to be little hoodlems.....see how it works

[LisaM22]

would you say the war on drugs has been a success? I can wait if you need to ask your husband first

[lucielle]

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~


One piece of evidence kept out of MacDonald's trial that showed up in the foia documents was a confession of murder--actually multiple, polygraph-verified confessions--by Helena Stoeckley, a Fayetteville hippie, drug addict and self- styled "witch" who admitted to owning a blond wig, floppy hat and ice pick; who was spotted by five eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the MacDonald home, in several instances in the company of two white males and a black male in an Army field jacket, on the night the murders occurred; and who never came up with an alibi for where she was during the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/new_republic.html

C'mon, Ms Turlte WHY was her 'confession" kept out? Maybe becuase she had at elast 6 different stories as to what happened? And did you know that everyone of her stories contradicted MacDonalds versions of events? Hell, she even wrote the judge a note saying she was scared for her life by Segal--MacDonalds defesne atty! Said he was pressuring her to confess.


Helena Stoekley WAS not there the night of the murders.

[LisaM22]

ok, I am done with the talk about non violent victimless offenders needing to be handled in city jails vs prision so we can keep child molestors locked up, we will have to agree to disagree

[lucielle]

Originally posted by MaryDee
Yes, I know, but there's just seems to be something that gives me reason to wonder if they have the right person.


Here is a wonderful site with nothing but information. If you really wan tot know the facts of this case, not just a movie version, you will peruse this site. Take the "magical mystery tour" and see how many times MacDonald contradicted himself, or even outright lied! Look at the autposy photos of his fmaily, then compare those wounds with MacDonald's own wounds. Look at the 3D version of the apartment---see for yourself.

Christina also has TONS of court documents, trial transcripts, letters, psychological evalutaions, etc.

You could spend hours on this site. Try it out and then tell me whether or not you have doubts.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com

[lucielle]

Originally posted by MrsMcGoogle
Okay, I posted this once before, back when I first joined the boards, on another JM thread, but I'll say it again here.

I lived right around the corner from the MacDonald's house on Ft. Bragg. No, not at the time of the killings, a few years later...but our quarters were identical to those the MacDonald's lived in.

After living there for awhile, I became totally convinced that there was NO WAY any "band of hippies" or ANY group of people for that matter, could have come into that house, (they're more like apartments, one long single building with several units)...anyway, there's no way 4 people came into that house, slaughtered that family as viciously as they did (except, conveniently, the BIG STRONG SOLDIER :rolleyes: ).....and NOBODY (neighbors, right through the wall) HEARD the resulting noise. Now, by the same token, if neighbors heard a heated "argument" between the couple next door...they may not have thought anything of it, presumed it was none of their business, and gone back to sleep.

Helena S. was totally discredited...she was sooooo strung out. No-one will ever convince me that this is an innocent man. I've read all the transcripts, both books, virtually everything that's ever been written about this case...the man's your classic narcissist (sp). May he rot where he sits.


Exactly!

[~-Ms Turtle-~]

Originally posted by lucielle


C'mon, Ms Turlte WHY was her 'confession" kept out? Maybe becuase she had at elast 6 different stories as to what happened? And did you know that everyone of her stories contradicted MacDonalds versions of events? Hell, she even wrote the judge a note saying she was scared for her life by Segal--MacDonalds defesne atty! Said he was pressuring her to confess.


Helena Stoekley WAS not there the night of the murders.

Oh the real point I was making was the jury may not have heard all of the evidence. You may be right, there may be good reason for keeping it out, it may not be true, I really don't have an opinion about the man's guilt or innocense. I did not keep up with it then, and have not read all of the books nor seen the movies. Apparently he's not going anywhere anyway so there's no big crisis about him being let out.

:seeya:

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Judge05
Your logic there makes no sense. Why is it that selling to a child, the child is a victim but, selling to an adult there is no victims?

because it is a child, same reason we don't allow adults to have sex with children, it is just wrong :shrug:

[cami]

Originally posted by LisaM22


juries are sometimes wrong, I know nothing about this case, one way or the other, but I do know juries are sometimes wrong

and I agree with the above poster, if he is innocent and will not admit to a crime he did not do, he will not get out, then again if he admits it, I really doubt he would get out either, catch 22

also as a above poster said, the same court that found him guilty, gave him life with the option for parol

the jury did not sentence him, the judge did. To three consecutive life terms--served consecutively not concurrently.

Macdonald was tried on the evidence and found guilty by a jury of his peers. He's had seven appeals hearings, he's lost them all.

[cami]

Originally posted by Spuds


:seeya: Wasn't that hair from a blond wig? The DA made it sound like it came from a doll. However no doll manufacturer at that time ever made one with hair that long.

McDonald comes from the area where I live. There has always been doubts among some of the population here as to his guilt.

Obviously only he and God know the truth.

No, that blonde hair was not from a wig. It is a synthethic fibre made from saran. Saran was not used in the manufacture of wigs in 1970 but it was used for doll hair and what we called "falls" back then. Those "blonde wig hairs" are not wig hairs at all and they differ in composition so they are three different hairs from three different sources--one is very similar to a doll owned by one of the children and the other two from falls owned by Colette and her mother, Mildred.

[cami]

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~


One piece of evidence kept out of MacDonald's trial that showed up in the foia documents was a confession of murder--actually multiple, polygraph-verified confessions--by Helena Stoeckley, a Fayetteville hippie, drug addict and self- styled "witch" who admitted to owning a blond wig, floppy hat and ice pick; who was spotted by five eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the MacDonald home, in several instances in the company of two white males and a black male in an Army field jacket, on the night the murders occurred; and who never came up with an alibi for where she was during the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/new_republic.html

LOL that MacDonald website is a crock. No Helena did not pass a polygraph. She was not in that home that night, nor did she kill anyone. She's been a red herring all these years and continues to be. All the physical evidence points to only one killer--Jeff MacDonald. She confessed, recanted, confessed, recanted and confessed again. Her ridiculous confessions are not consistent with the physical evidence, the fibre and blood evidence. Most of her confessions were coerced by either Beasley or Gunderson.

Here's the link to her confessions and to her polygraph results.

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

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stoeckley_confession_01.html

One of the confessions, if you look around that site you'll find much much more on Stockley even a letter from her own mother attesting to her willingness to do anything to please Beasley--even confess to murders she did not commit.

Her autopsy report is also there for those who thing she died a "mysterious death"

[cami]

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~


you're welcome. Sadly it appears to me that it's more likely that an innocent man will be kept behind bars than it is a guilty man will get parole.

I'm outta here now... bye bye

:seeya:

Wrong. If you only read his side yeah you aren't going learn any of the evidence that convicted him. All the evidence points to him.

[cami]

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~


Oh the real point I was making was the jury may not have heard all of the evidence. You may be right, there may be good reason for keeping it out, it may not be true, I really don't have an opinion about the man's guilt or innocense. I did not keep up with it then, and have not read all of the books nor seen the movies. Apparently he's not going anywhere anyway so there's no big crisis about him being let out.

:seeya:

Helena took the stand during the trial. The jury got to see and hear her and judge her credibility for themselves.

[cami]

Here's the Stevenson interview on Hardball for those who missed it: Here's the link to the full transcript as it's too long to post (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7819270/) Scroll down to the middle of the page.

And this morning, yet another chapter. Today, in Cumberland, Maryland, Jeffrey MacDonald had his first parole hearing. Parole was denied. And his former brother-in-law, Robert Stevenson, was there to fight against his release.

Mr. Stevenson, thank you for joining us.

What happened at the hearing today, the parole hearing?

ROBERT STEVENSON, SISTER KILLED BY JEFFREY MACDONALD: Basically, Mr.

MacDonald hid behind the skirts of his new wife.

From what we could see, though we were closed out of the meeting room during the time that he spoke, which gave us both the inability to know what the basis was of his request for leaving. It seemed that she did all of the talking as we watched. I was only called in afterwards to give my portion of the speech, so I did not have benefit of hearing what they would claim, though I believe the probability was that it was merely that he hadn‘t been a bad guy in prison, since he had about 100 guards to watch him and keep him out of trouble, that he may have...

MATTHEWS: Has he—excuse me, sir. Has he denied in this hearing today his guilt?

STEVENSON: He continues to remain an unremorseful, unrepentant murderer. And he will not ever, ever accept his guilt or speak to it, no. That‘s because he is a sociopath by definition and by diagnosis.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the law. He was given three consecutive life sentences.

STEVENSON: That‘s correct.

MATTHEWS: You know, one of the things juries want to know when they give a person a life sentence, rather than execution, is the person is going to stay in prison. Why is there a parole hearing for a guy who is getting three consecutive life sentences?

STEVENSON: That‘s a very good question, because the fact is that I have never heard anyone suggest there was a possibility of a parole unless there was some form of redemption, by saying, I did it and I won‘t do it again. And people have repeatedly...

MATTHEWS: Well, he can‘t do it again. They‘re already dead.

STEVENSON: Yes. But, I mean, he can‘t—he can‘t show any remorse.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

STEVENSON: And he can‘t do any of this. So, the fact is, by applying for parole, what was he really trying to do? Get a pardon? He‘s not—you can‘t get a pardon from a parole board.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this. Jeffrey MacDonald, Princeton graduate, Green Beret, medical doctor, all the attributes of a successful American.

STEVENSON: Yes.

MATTHEWS: It sounds great on paper. Why would a man like that butcher his family?

STEVENSON: Jeffrey was...


MATTHEWS: I mean cut them to pieces, puncture them, mutilate them in a way that suggested horror. In fact, it was horror. Why would a man do that, as you understand it?

STEVENSON: First of all, if you read even the book “Fatal Vision,” you‘ll see...

MATTHEWS: Joe McGinniss‘ book.

STEVENSON: Yes.

You‘ll see that Jeffrey MacDonald was a womanizer. He was a womanizer, starting to sleep with—the first woman was his mother‘s best friend. He continued it throughout his life and throughout his marriage. The fact was that our family -- Fred Kassab came up with a theory as to how this happened and why. It was easy for him to solve the case in the sense that...

MATTHEWS: Frank is the father of the wife.

STEVENSON: Fred Kassab was the stepfather of the...

MATTHEWS: The murdered woman.

STEVENSON: Yes, and my stepfather.

He saw that, basically, when he compared the testimony from the Article 32 and the various different things that were had, they had total and major inconsistencies. When he then looked at the blood evidence, which was very unique, since each person in the house had a different type of blood, it started to come all to fruition. And it could be seen that there were only two possibilities. MacDonald was either the murderer or knew who the murderer was and was covering. That wasn‘t much of an option.

MATTHEWS: Because his evidence, as given under testimony under oath, did not square with the blood evidence.

STEVENSON: Exactly. Now...

MATTHEWS: And the way it didn‘t square was the sequence of events or how...

STEVENSON: Yes. It was the sequence of events. It was where the blood spots were found. It was where the blood was on the clothing, how the blood was mixed and things.

And you could, from that, basically assemble a probable cause of actions, movements of all of the people. And that is what got him convicted, along with the fact that he could not shut his mouth, because he is an arrogant, self-centered man.

MATTHEWS: Right.

His defense was—his theory, I guess, was that a bunch of "hippies” had come into his house and killed his family.

STEVENSON: Yes. And then he—copying the Manson crime, he put on a pair of rubber gloves and wrote “Pig” on the headboard to make it look very similar to the Sharon Tate thing.

As to the actuality, Freddy always believed that the reason it happened and the way it happened was that my sister, who had been out at a class, came back to find the father molesting the oldest child and then, at that point, in a maniacal rage, seeing everything that he stood for and everything that he was going down the drain, that he killed the two of them. OK.


MATTHEWS: How did your father-in-law, just to keep this sequential and chronological...

STEVENSON: Yes.

MATTHEWS: How did your stepfather, the stepfather of the murdered woman, the wife of Jeffrey MacDonald, how did he figure out that there was a molestation here?

STEVENSON: The fact is that the—with each of them having a different blood type, that means that by analyzing the urine, you can determine whose urine it was.

MacDonald had lied about whose urine was in the bed and said it was the urine of Kristen, the youngest child. It turned out to be the urine of the oldest child.

MATTHEWS: He had claimed in his testimony that she had come to bed to sleep with the parents, had wet the bed and therefore he had to leave the bed and go sleep elsewhere on the couch.

STEVENSON: That‘s correct.

MATTHEWS: And, in fact, you said it was the urine of the oldest girl.

STEVENSON: That‘s correct. Then, in addition...

MATTHEWS: In the parents‘ bed or in some other bed?

STEVENSON: In the parents‘ bed in the master bedroom.


MATTHEWS: OK.

STEVENSON: And the initial blows that were struck were struck to two people, Colette and the oldest child.

MATTHEWS: And it could not have been a bed-wetting on the part of the oldest child, you believe, your father-in-law believes, your father?

STEVENSON: No.

It would have been more like a bed-wetting that happens because you‘re frightened because of what has happened already to your mother. I don‘t know. Maybe it is possible that a child, an immature child that is stimulated sexually, urinates. I don‘t know personally.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

STEVENSON: We only know that it was the oldest child‘s urine. There was no reason to lie about that. And we can find that, in a pathological rage, if you were to look at—there was a certain Dr. Hirsch Lazaar Silverman, who wrote a scathing analysis of him psychosexually. And you can see that it was within his makeup to behave that way.

MATTHEWS: You said in the parole hearing today, although you weren‘t allowed to attend, that the main testimony was from this man‘s new wife. He married—Jeffrey MacDonald in prison married somebody three years ago.

What is her role in it? Does she believe he‘s innocent?

STEVENSON: I‘m certain she believes he‘s innocent, because just as there are—there are groupies who fall in love with men. They have a nurturing nature. They achieve a moment of fame. I‘m sure that she probably believes it. There are only a couple of possibilities. She‘s really stupid, she believes in his innocence and has never tried to do it, or she‘s as big a liar as he is.


MATTHEWS: Last question. Is Jeffrey MacDonald in prison for the rest of his life?


MATTHEWS: Is there any chance he‘ll get out now, as far as you understand the law?

STEVENSON: No.

He‘s been told that he cannot apply for parole again for 25 years. My only fear is that if, someday, his sociopathic nature or his intelligence allows him to say, I committed the crime and I‘m sorry for it, he might have something to go in front of a parole board that might frighten me.


MATTHEWS: As long as he denies his guilt, he is not going to get parole, is your understanding.

STEVENSON: That is my belief, that he will be there the rest of his life.

And, as I told him to his face when I was in that hearing room, I delight in your sociopathic nature, because it is going to keep you here for the rest of your life.

MATTHEWS: You told him that today?

STEVENSON: Yes. I got to look—the way it was seated, I got to look at him, to point at him, to look into his eyes and to vilify him to the full extent that I‘m able to do verbally.

MATTHEWS: Did he respond?

STEVENSON: No. He sat there mutely weak.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, Robert Stevenson. Thank you for coming on HARDBALL.

STEVENSON: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: One final note. Requests for interviews with Jeffrey MacDonald, which are permissible, his wife, Kathryn, and his attorneys were turned down.

[lucielle]

Hey cami, did you see the clip of his new wife talking to the media? It was on a NC local channel, I can't remember the channel right now. She seems to be a huuge cheesehead----

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by cami


the jury did not sentence him, the judge did. To three consecutive life terms--served consecutively not concurrently.

Macdonald was tried on the evidence and found guilty by a jury of his peers. He's had seven appeals hearings, he's lost them all.

did i say the jury did? no, I said the same court that found him guilty did

[lucielle]

Originally posted by Toth
>Jeffy only suffered superficial wounds as opossed to the overkill
>of his family
It is true that through the years the wounds have come to be described as superficial but at the time of the incident neither the descriptions of the wounds nor their characterisation was anything other than serious.

>The PJ top over his wife's body, had punchure marks that
>matched when folded a certain way,
isn't this discredited testimony??

That is just not true, Toth. The only person who said the wounds were serious were MacDonald himself.

[cami]

Originally posted by LisaM22


did i say the jury did? no, I said the same court that found him guilty did

Okay sorry, I must have "mis read."

But the jury found him guilty and the judge sentenced him.

[cami]

Originally posted by lucielle
Hey cami, did you see the clip of his new wife talking to the media? It was on a NC local channel, I can't remember the channel right now. She seems to be a huuge cheesehead----

No, we don't get that up here. I tried to download it from KRAL, on the net but it wouldn't load for me so I missed it. I heard about it though, I heard she was weeping.

[Icculus]

I heard she was weeping.

I'll bet her 1st husband and children were weeping too, when she abandoned them to marry a convicted quadruple murderer. Not that it affected her selfish, delusional decision. I feel no sympathy for such a person.

JMO

[cami]

Originally posted by Toth
>Jeffy only suffered superficial wounds as opossed to the overkill
>of his family
It is true that through the years the wounds have come to be described as superficial but at the time of the incident neither the descriptions of the wounds nor their characterisation was anything other than serious.

>The PJ top over his wife's body, had punchure marks that
>matched when folded a certain way,
isn't this discredited testimony??


The testimony of the doctors who treated him immediately at Womack is now online for you to read at http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/grand_jury.html

MacDonald had one serious but non-life threatening wound--a 20% partially collapsed lung, or a pneumothorax it's called. He had a small tearing slash wound of the abdomen, a bruise over the left eye and some self-inflicted shallow puncture marks from the ice pick on the left bicep I believe. It's believed he self-inflicted the chest injury at the bathroom sink--his type B blood is all over that sink. None of his blood was found in the living room where he says he fought off three armed intruders with that pajama top and sustained his injuries.

No, the pajama top folds have not been discredited. Here judge for yourself. Here's the top with the injuries side by side. What can't be discredited is the neat, round ice pick holes indicating the top was stationary when the ice pick holes were inflicted and not being used to deflect an ice pick from a drug crazed intruder.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/crime068.html

[2L8 4A D8]

Thanks Cami for all of your GR8 posts and links. It's a hard job keeping up with case after case and I really appreciate what you do for this Thread!

:beer: Kudos to you, Cami!

[cami]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Thanks Cami for all of your GR8 posts and links. It's a hard job keeping up with case after case and I really appreciate what you do for this Thread!

:beer: Kudos to you, Cami!


I am only really involved in this case and the Darlie Routier case. Keeps it simple, LOL.


I am determined though to continue to show anyone who is interested what a lying, murdering dog Jeffrey MacDonald is and how he has conned all his supporters all these years.

Thank goodness for CM's site and the posting of all the documents. There's so much to read though, I get discombobulated. Right now the closing arguments are keeping my attention.

:beer: Kudos to you and all.

[lucielle]

Originally posted by Toth
Since there was considerable delay before the depositions were taken I would like to know if there were any previous statements or actions by the doctors that is inconsistent with their testimony.


Not sure about that one, but I know there were many confllicting reports by MacDonald about his own injuries, Toth.

Why stick to one little unimportant detial, anyway? WHy not just follow the evidence at the criem scene, that tells you everything you need to know.

[cami]

Originally posted by Toth
Tnx, but I found mainly shrinks and photographers. Do you know who the treating doctors at Womack were?

Here you go:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article32_08.html

ARTICLE 32
VOLUME 8


(Major Severt H. Jacobson was called as a witness by the government, was sworn, and testified as followed.)

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q State your full name, please?
A Severt Harold Jacobson.
Q Your grade?
A Major.
Q Your organization?
A Womack Army Hospital.
Q Your station?
A Fort Bragg.
Q Your armed force?
A United States Army.
Q Would you tell us, please, what your education background is?
A I completed high school; BS degree at the University of North Dakota in 1959, I believe it was, ’60; an MD degree at the University of Minnesota in 1965; internship at St Luke’s Hospi-tal in Duluth, Minnesota.
Q And what experience have you had since that time?
A I was drafted immediately after my internship into the Army and I’ve been stationed at Fort Bragg the entire time since then except for some time in Fort Sam Houston and Fort Benning, Fort Rucker, primarily working the first three years here in Dispensary duty, either as a battalion surgeon or a flight surgeon.
Q During the past year what--
A During the past year I’ve been in the residency training program at Womack Army Hospital, a specialty year in neurosurgery.

CPT SOMERS: Does the defense care to examine the witness on his qualifications?

MR. EISMAN: I have no questions about the major’s qualifications.

CPT SOMERS: At this time the government tenders the witness to the investigating officer as an expert in the field of medicine.

COL ROCK: So noted.

Q On or about the 17th of February did you have an occasion to see Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Have you subsequently given a statement with reference to the subject?
A Yes, I have.

The Article 32 contains the testimony of the doctors who performed the autopsies and who treated MacDonald at Womack.

You can read the rest of his testimony at the below listed link.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article32.html

the Grand Jury is not just physchiatrists testimonies. Dr. Merrill Bronstein was Mac's primary physician and friend. He treated Mac early the morning of the 17th.

[cami]

Originally posted by Toth
Since there was considerable delay before the depositions were taken I would like to know if there were any previous statements or actions by the doctors that is inconsistent with their testimony.

NO, their isn't. Why should their be. MacDonald is the one who has embellished the number and seriousness of his injuries. Too bad he couldn't keep his lies straight. First it was 19, then it was 23, then it was 12-15. How do you receive that many ice pick wounds to your abdomen when you are sitting down with your assailant standing in front of you swinging. And why didn't he bleed in the living room where he alleges these injuries occurred. Why did he bleed all over the bathroom sink and on the kitchen floor in front of the kitchen cabinet that contained surgical gloves.

The doctors keep charts and files on the medical condition of their patients at the hospital do they not? Easy to verify against their sworn testimonies don't you think. The doctors were Army, friends of MacDonald, on his side, however, I don't think their friendship stretched to perjuring themselves on the stand for him.

The very first testimonies of the doctors was given at the Article 32, the Army hearing, in July 1970. You'll find their testimonies in Volume 7 and Volume 8 of the Article 32. I found it interesting to read how excited, agitated and angry MacDonald was in the first hours at the hospital.

Macdonald was not badly hurt on the night in question, most of his injuries were inflicted by his wife as she fought for her life. The others were self-inflicted.

[lucielle]

Originally posted by Toth
I am not going to say that the nature and extent of one person's injuries is entirely dispositive of the issue, but in a situation where a group of people are attacked and one, the primary target of any such attackers, appears to be barely injured while all others in the group have fatal injuries, that is extremely significant evidence and sure trumps blood at a poorly managed crime scene.


Poorly managed yes, but does that throw out the fact that in this case, the blood tells the story as to what happened. They made mistakes, but the blood evodence was not one of those mistakes.


And I agree that his injuries were NO WHERE NEAR what COlette, Kim & Kristy got-----no where near. They were butchered---butchered. (Have you seen the autposy photos?) He is either the biggest Green Beret p***y in the world or he did this himself. Period. End of story. You could even say, "Colette's arms were broken trying to protect her girls and fend off a club---why weren't MacDonald's arms broken? Or even fractured? How did his forearms not recieve any stab wounds? Or even scratches? The girls' stab wounds were so deep, the knife and ice pick had been driven all the way in---why did he not have any of those types of wounds at all? You would think with 3 crazed, drugged hippies at least ONE of them would have been able to stab him deeper---hell, they should have been able to overpower him. I mean he was supposedly just coming out of sleep.

[cami]

Originally posted by Toth
I am not going to say that the nature and extent of one person's injuries is entirely dispositive of the issue, but in a situation where a group of people are attacked and one, the primary target of any such attackers, appears to be barely injured while all others in the group have fatal injuries, that is extremely significant evidence and sure trumps blood at a poorly managed crime scene.

Nothing trumps the blood whether the crime scene was poorly managed or not. The blood tells the story of what happened in that home that night. Open yourself up to it. The government conspiracy you are searching for does not exist. MacDonald has been exposed as not only a killer of the worst kind but a pathological liar.

[Icculus]

Toth, what are you? Some kind of murderer groupie? Wake up.
JMO

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Icculus
Toth, what are you? Some kind of murderer groupie? Wake up.
JMO

Hi Icculus! It seems that we just can't get away from them huh? LOL!

:seeya:

[Icculus]

Hi Icculus! It seems that we just can't get away from them huh? LOL!

Indeed, 2L8! :beer: It's rather disturbing.

[cami]

Originally posted by Icculus


Indeed, 2L8! :beer: It's rather disturbing.

I'd say. Always looking for a technicality to get the killers off.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cami


I'd say. Always looking for a technicality to get the killers off.

Yes, it seems like we are becoming a society of enablers. When the killers have more rights than the victims, something is definitely, definitely wrong!

[cami]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Yes, it seems like we are becoming a society of enablers. When the killers have more rights than the victims, something is definitely, definitely wrong!

I'm amazed at the number of people who believe the confessions of the drug addict Helena over the physical evidence or some story about a phone call from a drunk years later. That blows my mind.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cami


I'm amazed at the number of people who believe the confessions of the drug addict Helena over the physical evidence or some story about a phone call from a drunk years later. That blows my mind.

IMO, people who refuse to use their common sense will grasp at absolutely anything (Helena) to justify their belief that JM is not guilty!

[Icculus]

If the crime scene was poorly managed so too was the blood "evidence" and one must remember such things as 'blood in the sink' is often a false-positive reaction of luminol. Most of the posters here could pour luminol into their sink and get a reaction. It would perhaps be from brocoli or cabbage but some over anxious cop would see the luminol glowing and say 'blood'.

Luminol or blood in the sink has nothing to do with the telltale blood evidence in this case. IMO it's impossible, even with contamination, to explain away the blood trail from room to room, victim to victim, and on the bedsheet. Not to mention the mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence that points the finger DIRECTLY at Jeffrey MacDonald as the killer. You're really reaching, Toth. Wake up and face the FACTS.

JMO of course.

[cami]

QUOTE]If the crime scene was poorly managed so too was the blood "evidence" and one must remember such things as 'blood in the sink' is often a false-positive reaction of luminol. Most of the posters here could pour luminol into their sink and get a reaction. It would perhaps be from brocoli or cabbage but some over anxious cop would see the luminol glowing and say 'blood'.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, it would really be helpful if you knew something about the evidence in this case. Just by this post, it's obvious you don't.

There was no luminol, there was Type B blood all over the sink, Jeffrey MacDonald's Type B blood. Here look at these photos and then tell me that's luminol on that bathroom sink (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photomacdonald-09.html) or that those huge blood stains are poorly managed.

Colette's blood stained the pajama top in four places prior to the top being ripped. That could not have happened with the story Macdonald told unless her blood flew from the bedroom and landed on his pajama top in the living room.

His bloody handprints and sleeves of his pajama top transferred stains to the blue bedsheet when he picked up his dead wife and carried her in it. During the 1979 trial, the defense blood expert Morton agreed with the prosecution on this evidence. MacDonald alleges he never touched that bedsheet on the night in question.

MacDonald's B type blood dropped to the kitchen floor right in front of the cupboard that contained surgeon's rubber gloves--direct bleeding not transfer. A finger of which was found in the bloody bedsheet. How did that happen?

[2L8 4A D8]

Bump. Is this going to make it to the first page? I hope so!

[marabeth]

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

BUMP

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami


<snip>

What do you think about Macdonald's defense attorney, Dennis Eisman, who committed suicide rather than face his own trial for misconduct? You don't find that on MacDonald's website though do you.

<snip>

Where is this information?

TIA

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210


Where is this information?

TIA

Google "dennis eisman" and lots of info will come regarding his suicide.

[rph3664]

Originally posted by cami


Google "dennis eisman" and lots of info will come regarding his suicide.

I did and mostly got links to "Bill Clinton offs his detractors" tinfoil-hat websites.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami


Google "dennis eisman" and lots of info will come regarding his suicide.
I tell ya what. Why don't you quit playing cat and mouse and provide links to your allegations regarding the deceased Dennis Eisman. I Googled "Dennis Eisman" and I found a site saying he died from a shot in his mouth, one site claiming his death was from a shot in the chest and yet another site claims it was a shot to the back of his head.

I'm asking YOU for information on the seemingly factual posts you made regarding pending trials for drugs and misconduct. Which is it and where are you getting your information?

What does it have to do with MacDonald's case?

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by rph3664


I did and mostly got links to "Bill Clinton offs his detractors" tinfoil-hat websites.
Yeah - I got those, too. Not a darned thing about trials for drugs and misconduct (except Dennis Eisman was, at the time of his death, representing someone claiming to have been set up and imprisoned on false drug charges). Not a darned thing having to do with the MacDonald case.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus


Luminol or blood in the sink has nothing to do with the telltale blood evidence in this case. IMO it's impossible, even with contamination, to explain away the blood trail from room to room, victim to victim, and on the bedsheet. Not to mention the mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence that points the finger DIRECTLY at Jeffrey MacDonald as the killer. You're really reaching, Toth. Wake up and face the FACTS.

JMO of course.
Mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence? Hah! If the evidence was so strong, why was it not used at trial? Why was the backbone of the government's case ... absence of evidence of intruders, therefore MacDonald had to have done it?

Furthermore, why did Blackburn, the night after the verdict, awaken in the middle of the night wondering if he had convicted an innocent man? WCHL 1360 "The Special Hour" 06/24/04 Jim Heavner interviews Jim Blackburn and Wade Smith (http://www.wchl1360.com/view.jsp?id=SmithBlackburn&guest=Jim+Blackburn+and+Wade+Smith+(Part+I)+&host=Jim+Heavner)

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence? Hah! If the evidence was so strong, why was it not used at trial? Why was the backbone of the government's case ... absence of evidence of intruders, therefore MacDonald had to have done it?

Furthermore, why did Blackburn, the night after the verdict, awaken in the middle of the night wondering if he had convicted an innocent man? WCHL 1360 "The Special Hour" 06/24/04 Jim Heavner interviews Jim Blackburn and Wade Smith (http://www.wchl1360.com/view.jsp?id=SmithBlackburn&guest=Jim+Blackburn+and+Wade+Smith+(Part+I)+&host=Jim+Heavner)

I'm afraid you've failed to sufficiently research this case, or perhaps you've mistaken "Fatal Justice" for non-fiction. In either case, the evidence against MacDonald goes far beyond simply lack of evidence of intruders. The evidence directly links MacDonald himself to the crime from circumstantial, to blood evidence, to his obvious lies and inconsistencies in his stories (i.e. claiming Kristen, not Kimmy as was proven, wet the bed), to the lack of injuries to himself in comparison to his slain family.

You're sadly mistaken in your faulty assumptions. If you've any concern for the truth behind the brutal murders of Kimmy, Kristen, Colette and the unborn baby boy, I suggest you read up :read: and quit blindly supporting their murderer. :no:


JMO of course

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus
I'm afraid you've failed to sufficiently research this case, or perhaps you've mistaken "Fatal Justice" for non-fiction. In either case, the evidence against MacDonald goes far beyond simply lack of evidence of intruders. The evidence directly links MacDonald himself to the crime from circumstantial, to blood evidence, to his obvious lies and inconsistencies in his stories (i.e. claiming Kristen, not Kimmy as was proven, wet the bed), to the lack of injuries to himself in comparison to his slain family.

You're sadly mistaken in your faulty assumptions. If you've any concern for the truth behind the brutal murders of Kimmy, Kristen, Colette and the unborn baby boy, I suggest you read up :read: and quit blindly supporting their murderer. :no:


JMO of course
It appears to me that you let your emotions guide you in your responses to others. Insulting me will get you nowhere in redirecting my beliefs, as I don't know, just as you don't know (unless you were there that night?), whether MacDonald actually did the murders.

"Fatal Justice (http://www.truthinjustice.org/fataljustice.htm)" has nothing to do with what was presented to the jury that convicted him, which my post addressed, although, since you brought it up, the anti-MacDonald site, poorly organized though it is, IMO, provides documentation supporting everything in "Fatal Justice," thank you very much.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial. Got that? So, my research is just fine, thank you, and it supports the common sense and logical (not to mention legal) burden that I am correct in my belief.

I posted about what the jury saw and heard. Unfortunately, you failed to comprehend that and chose to insinute that I don't have any concern about who killed them. Of course I do. And if he did it, it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which, IMO, has never been done IN THE PRESENCE OF A JURY, and until it is this case will never be closed for me. What do you have against fair trials? What locks those blinders so tightly that prevents you from comprehending the case as it was presented to the jury? Your mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence has NEVER BEEN PRESENTED TO A JURY.

I'd appreciate it if you take your emotionally charged personal insults elsewhere, please.

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

It appears to me that you let your emotions guide you in your responses to others. Insulting me will get you nowhere in redirecting my beliefs, as I don't know, just as you don't know (unless you were there that night?), whether MacDonald actually did the murders.

"Fatal Justice (http://www.truthinjustice.org/fataljustice.htm)" has nothing to do with what was presented to the jury that convicted him, which my post addressed, although, since you brought it up, the anti-MacDonald site, poorly organized though it is, IMO, provides documentation supporting everything in "Fatal Justice," thank you very much.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial. Got that? So, my research is just fine, thank you, and it supports the common sense and logical (not to mention legal) burden that I am correct in my belief.

I posted about what the jury saw and heard. Unfortunately, you failed to comprehend that and chose to insinute that I don't have any concern about who killed them. Of course I do. And if he did it, it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which, IMO, has never been done IN THE PRESENCE OF A JURY, and until it is this case will never be closed for me. What do you have against fair trials? What locks those blinders so tightly that prevents you from comprehending the case as it was presented to the jury? Your mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence has NEVER BEEN PRESENTED TO A JURY.

I'd appreciate it if you take your emotionally charged personal insults elsewhere, please.

Sorry, PrimeSuspect, but it appears you're the one adversely affected emotionally by this discussion. I fail to see where I insulted you, no need to over-dramatize.

How do you figure the evidence wasn't presented at trial? If you DID your research, you'd see it was, and it was what convicted him. The jurors cried as they left the courtroom because they didn't want to believe MacDonald guilty, but were left no choice in the presence of the facts.

You seem like you're responding to someone elses post, you've misunderstood and mistaken my last post so badly :shrug:

Wake up and face facts. MacDonald is guilty.

And relax, I've no interest in personally insulting you. How silly of you to think so. I simply want the truth exposed. Period.

JMO but of course :beer:

[PrimeSuspect210]

:rolleyes:

[cantstandnuts]

I don't read true crime books to find out the facts, because those books are so obviously tainted by the opinion of the writer.

I have looked on line though for stuff on this case and I am surprised at what I read here.

I fully expected to have the majority of folks believing in his innocence. I think there's an awful lot of evidence pointing in that direction, more than there is pointing to his guilt.

This, to me, was a case of horrid injustice and a few folks deciding early on to focus on him and ignore anything pointing away from him. The girl in the floppy hat is just one reason I think this. And all the supposed evidence that the state had was so mishandled early on that it couldn't possibly be trusted. There were more people in and out of that crime scene than can fill a greyhound bus before anything was secured and before anything was collected. I think they screwed up so bad that to save face they HAD to find someone to go after and who's the most obvious? Well, the husband of course. I have to admit, I am not totally convinced of his innocence (I do lean in that direction, though) but I'm CERTAINLY not convinced of his guilt either and I'm not sure how anyone can be after reading a couple of those "I'm gonna make you lean toward my theory" books. jmo

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
:rolleyes:

How very articulate a response :beer: You must feel very strongly in your convictions :chicken:

Have you any actual concrete REASONS for believing in MacDonald's innocence? Or are you just a not-guilty type in general?

[Icculus]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
I don't read true crime books to find out the facts, because those books are so obviously tainted by the opinion of the writer.

I have looked on line though for stuff on this case and I am surprised at what I read here.

I fully expected to have the majority of folks believing in his innocence. I think there's an awful lot of evidence pointing in that direction, more than there is pointing to his guilt.

This, to me, was a case of horrid injustice and a few folks deciding early on to focus on him and ignore anything pointing away from him. The girl in the floppy hat is just one reason I think this. And all the supposed evidence that the state had was so mishandled early on that it couldn't possibly be trusted. There were more people in and out of that crime scene than can fill a greyhound bus before anything was secured and before anything was collected. I think they screwed up so bad that to save face they HAD to find someone to go after and who's the most obvious? Well, the husband of course. I have to admit, I am not totally convinced of his innocence (I do lean in that direction, though) but I'm CERTAINLY not convinced of his guilt either and I'm not sure how anyone can be after reading a couple of those "I'm gonna make you lean toward my theory" books. jmo

Actually, Fatal Vision, although the motive was somewhat speculative, was largely made up of actual court and interview transcripts and other factual documents and information. However, even omitting faith in such books, when researching case documents online or elsewhere, I can't understand how one could come away leaning towards innocence, unless misguided by pro-defense sources of selective, misinterpreted information.

The amount of people who comprimised the crime scene doesn't take away certain blood evidence, inconsistencies in MacDonald's various stories, and the difference in his wounds compared to his families (from a Green Beret who supposedly was "fighting for his life"), as well as many other damning pieces of inescapable evidence.

How does the woman in the floppy hat sway you? Not only was it a popular style at the time apparent on many young women, but MacDonald had most likely seen Stoeckley and her peers before. His story absolutely reeked of the themes of the articles in that Esquire magazine with the blood stain. Not to mention the fact that the "pig" written in blood on the headboard was written with a finger sheathed in a latex glove. Would a drugged out hippie think to do this? Would they know where to find said supply of gloves under the kitchen sink, where they were proven to have come from, along with the telltale trail of blood which followed?

There is SO very much more pointing to MacDonald's guilt. How do you figure more points to his innocence? Just trying to comprehend this position you take. :shrug:

JMO of course :beer:

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus


How very articulate a response :beer: You must feel very strongly in your convictions :chicken:

Have you any actual concrete REASONS for believing in MacDonald's innocence? Or are you just a not-guilty type in general?

Speaking of articulate ... if you're going to insist on using big words, perhaps you should consider practicing better sentence structure.

Now. That being said, I'll respond in an adult manner since one of us really should and it appears you're leaving it up to me.

You obviously didn't read my posts. Or you comprehend all posts questioning the outcome of this case as support of "innocence."

I said I don't believe he got a fair trial. Is that really so difficult to understand? Given that alone, in my eyes it's all the reason I need to consider that he is innocent until the state/government proves their case.

IUPG. It's not always easy, but it's the only way I can sleep at night.

:seeya:

[cantstandnuts]

There is SO very much more pointing to MacDonald's guilt. How do you figure more points to his innocence? Just trying to comprehend this position you take.

I think it was one of the tv shows I saw on the matter that really put the doubts in there. I believe it was cold case files or something. I know it was on A&E.

The show really seemed to put a lot of perspective on things. There was a lot of talk about Helena Stoekely (spelled wrong, I know) and her behavior after the murders. It was odd to me how Jeff McDonald would describe her to a tee and then she starts doing all these bizarre things, like hanging a black wreath on her door after the murders, having memories of being in the house, being seen by the first officers to respond right near the house just after the murders, the fact that her presence there was basically witheld and never investigated. In fact, I think, although not sure, the officer was told not to divulge her presence to anyone, the wig hairs on the brush...Helena's foggy drugged memory was a wee bit too consistend with what McDonald himself said about the events.

There was a lot of stuff that didn't add up that was ignored by the investigating people. The show suggested that the investigators pinned it on McDonald early and did whatever they could, including messing with evidence to make sure their version of what happened, ie McDonald did it, fit with the evidence. It seemed like a real witch hunt, at least as the show explained it.

I suppose the show could be as slanted as I believe most true crime books to be, but after watching that show, I was much more thinking he's innocent and has been railroaded than he's guilty.

I have a problem with the motive, also. I don't know what it could possibly be. Why would he do it? And, more to the point, how? These were his babies and his pregnant wife who he seemed to adore. WHY? I'm not sure if there was a motive suggested or not, because I know the prosecution doesn't have to establish it, but what could it be? I've not seen it spoken about anywhere.

Anyway, those are my reasons...they may not be good enough, but the way the evidence and trial was done, he didn't get a fair trial and for that reason alone, should not have been convicted.

jmo, thanks for asking!

:seeya:

[rph3664]

Cantstandnuts, just to let you know: Icculus has a strong opinion on this case.

But it's nothing compared to Cami, whose devotion approaches religious fervor.

Whatever your opinion may be on this case, he's not going to be sprung based on some Court TV message board posts. Okay, Cami?

:shrug:

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210


Speaking of articulate ... if you're going to insist on using big words, perhaps you should consider practicing better sentence structure.

Now. That being said, I'll respond in an adult manner since one of us really should and it appears you're leaving it up to me.

You obviously didn't read my posts. Or you comprehend all posts questioning the outcome of this case as support of "innocence."

I said I don't believe he got a fair trial. Is that really so difficult to understand? Given that alone, in my eyes it's all the reason I need to consider that he is innocent until the state/government proves their case.

IUPG. It's not always easy, but it's the only way I can sleep at night.

:seeya:

Oh, I'm deeply wounded. :rolleyes: Didn't know this was a grammar rodeo.

I read your posts. I don't see how he DIDN'T get a fair trial. Perhaps you could try explaining the reasoning behind your opinion or refuting any one of my points instead of whining about my approach. That would be the "adult" thing to do, correct? I'm all ears.

JMO of course :beer:

[Icculus]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
There is SO very much more pointing to MacDonald's guilt. How do you figure more points to his innocence? Just trying to comprehend this position you take.

I think it was one of the tv shows I saw on the matter that really put the doubts in there. I believe it was cold case files or something. I know it was on A&E.

The show really seemed to put a lot of perspective on things. There was a lot of talk about Helena Stoekely (spelled wrong, I know) and her behavior after the murders. It was odd to me how Jeff McDonald would describe her to a tee and then she starts doing all these bizarre things, like hanging a black wreath on her door after the murders, having memories of being in the house, being seen by the first officers to respond right near the house just after the murders, the fact that her presence there was basically witheld and never investigated. In fact, I think, although not sure, the officer was told not to divulge her presence to anyone, the wig hairs on the brush...Helena's foggy drugged memory was a wee bit too consistend with what McDonald himself said about the events.

There was a lot of stuff that didn't add up that was ignored by the investigating people. The show suggested that the investigators pinned it on McDonald early and did whatever they could, including messing with evidence to make sure their version of what happened, ie McDonald did it, fit with the evidence. It seemed like a real witch hunt, at least as the show explained it.

I suppose the show could be as slanted as I believe most true crime books to be, but after watching that show, I was much more thinking he's innocent and has been railroaded than he's guilty.

I have a problem with the motive, also. I don't know what it could possibly be. Why would he do it? And, more to the point, how? These were his babies and his pregnant wife who he seemed to adore. WHY? I'm not sure if there was a motive suggested or not, because I know the prosecution doesn't have to establish it, but what could it be? I've not seen it spoken about anywhere.

Anyway, those are my reasons...they may not be good enough, but the way the evidence and trial was done, he didn't get a fair trial and for that reason alone, should not have been convicted.

jmo, thanks for asking!


I understand how, upon first hearing about Stoeckley, one might find reasonable doubt. But on further inspection, her stories just don't add up. She was a serious drug addict who was easily led by people, especially those trying to connect her to the crime. She was also lonely, and probably at times felt important in feeling perhaps she was somehow involved. But later in life, as the defense continued to prod and hound her into various inconsistent statements, she knew she wasn't there that night. Sure, her behavior was odd. But there is really nothing concrete to tie her to the murders. Like I said before, lots of women wore floppy hats at the time, and MacDonald had most likely seen her and her peers around before, and they fit the confines of his Manson-like story.

The blonde hairs have since been proven to have come from a fall (hairpiece) owned by Colette.

In Fatal Vison, McGinniss speculates about the motive based on his extensive research, being privy to an enormous amount of information, much provided by MacDonald himself. His theory (which I find quite credible) was that a combination of factors; MacDonald's energy level from serious lack of sleep, paired with his unhappieness in his relationship with Colette (he serially cheated on her, now she was expecting his third child), a threat to his Narcisistic personality (Colette challenging him on their children's upbringing, and protesting his absentee-father lifestyle), and lastly his possible overdose on Eskatrol (a diet drug he was on at the time, since proven to cause psychotic behavior).

Alfred Kassab (Colette's step-father) theorized that MacDonald was molesting one of his daughters, and that Colette caught him in the act that night. The shame and panic at losing everything, especially his image, could have sent him into a homicidal rage, according to Kassab.

In my opinion, regardless of how it started, I believe MacDonald attacked Colette and Kimmy in a rage. I think the overkill, staging, and murder of Kristen resulted as a clumsy, selfish, panicked attempt to salvage his life and image. I do believe it began unintentionally, but by the time he realized what he had done, it was too late, and he chose to finish it instead of turning himself in.

Hope that clears at least something up for you. It's a complex case.

JMO as always :beer:

[Icculus]

Originally posted by rph3664
Cantstandnuts, just to let you know: Icculus has a strong opinion on this case.

But it's nothing compared to Cami, whose devotion approaches religious fervor.

Whatever your opinion may be on this case, he's not going to be sprung based on some Court TV message board posts. Okay, Cami?

:shrug:

Do I even know you?

Cami has a wealth of knowledge on this case. Do you have some sort of problem with that? Or do you enjoy posting uselessly with nothing to add to the discussion just to see yourself in print?

Just wondering. :beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Icculus


I understand how, upon first hearing about Stoeckley, one might find reasonable doubt. But on further inspection, her stories just don't add up. She was a serious drug addict who was easily led by people, especially those trying to connect her to the crime. She was also lonely, and probably at times felt important in feeling perhaps she was somehow involved. But later in life, as the defense continued to prod and hound her into various inconsistent statements, she knew she wasn't there that night. Sure, her behavior was odd. But there is really nothing concrete to tie her to the murders. Like I said before, lots of women wore floppy hats at the time, and MacDonald had most likely seen her and her peers around before, and they fit the confines of his Manson-like story.

The blonde hairs have since been proven to have come from a fall (hairpiece) owned by Colette.

In Fatal Vison, McGinniss speculates about the motive based on his extensive research, being privy to an enormous amount of information, much provided by MacDonald himself. His theory (which I find quite credible) was that a combination of factors; MacDonald's energy level from serious lack of sleep, paired with his unhappieness in his relationship with Colette (he serially cheated on her, now she was expecting his third child), a threat to his Narcisistic personality (Colette challenging him on their children's upbringing, and protesting his absentee-father lifestyle), and lastly his possible overdose on Eskatrol (a diet drug he was on at the time, since proven to cause psychotic behavior).

Alfred Kassab (Colette's step-father) theorized that MacDonald was molesting one of his daughters, and that Colette caught him in the act that night. The shame and panic at losing everything, especially his image, could have sent him into a homicidal rage, according to Kassab.

In my opinion, regardless of how it started, I believe MacDonald attacked Colette and Kimmy in a rage. I think the overkill, staging, and murder of Kristen resulted as a clumsy, selfish, panicked attempt to salvage his life and image. I do believe it began unintentionally, but by the time he realized what he had done, it was too late, and he chose to finish it instead of turning himself in.

Hope that clears at least something up for you. It's a complex case.

JMO as always :beer:

Again Icculus ~ stunning! Absolutely GR8 post!

I salute you ~ :patriot:

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus


Like I said before, lots of women wore floppy hats at the time,

Who are the lots of women? Did they burn their hats after the MacDonald murders too?

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus

The blonde hairs have since been proven to have come from a fall (hairpiece) owned by Colette.


Direct link to this proof please?

[cantstandnuts]

Apparently, my very limited knowledge of the case was not enough to stand up to the experts on this message board.

I'm still not sure of his guilt, I think a lot of stuff that shouldn't have gone on in that investigation did go on and that made for an unfair trial. MOO...

In any event, someone suggested I may just be the not guilty type in general. I can assure you this isn't true...There are a couple other boards I visit and one in particular I've done a fair amount of research on...and she's guilty as H*** (Karla Homolka) and the other one certainly seems to have done something heinous for no other reason than her own selfishness. (Darlie Routier). And don't get me started on Mr. Scott Peterson...

I'm a wee bit out of the loop over here, though!

Thanks for the enlightenment! :seeya:

[chatwuann]

I didn't read the book but I saw the movie based on it. I would like to read the book. I bet it has more facts about the actual evidence.I think the right man is in prison for the murder of Collet and her daughters. If I remember right from the movie LE could tell that McDonald had overturned furniture making it look like there had been a struggle with a killer or killers. And if someone else had done it they would have found out by now. AAJMO






armchair detective/trucrmbuf

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210


Direct link to this proof please?

Will this help you? I located it on The Jeffrey MacDonald Case.

Jeffrey MacDonald has long proclaimed that saran fibers found at the crime scene came from Helena Stoeckley’s blonde wig. During the Oct. 24, 2003, Larry King Live interview, MacDonald said, “And the government record shows the evidence. It shows wig fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig.

Three blonde synthetic hairs were found in a clear-handled hairbrush. The hairs differed in chemical composition and the longest of the three hairs was matched with doll hair found in the FBI exemplar collection. Black synthetic fibers were also found in a blue-handled hairbrush, which were matched to a hairpiece owned by Mildred Kassab.

Platinum-colored synthetic hair was found in a clear-handled hairbrush and a blue-handled hair-brush. The two hairs were identical in chemical composition and were matched to a fall owned by Colette.

Helena Stoeckley testified at the 1979 trial that she did not wear her blond wig on February 17, 1970 because Greg Mitchell did not like how it looked on her.

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Who are the lots of women? Did they burn their hats after the MacDonald murders too?

It was the seventies. Floppy hats were fashionable. Helena Stoeckley was an unstable drug addict. Is this really all you base your opinion on? Because factually, it falls rather flat IMO

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Direct link to this proof please?

Here is an amazing site, full of factual information. It is arguably the most complete source of MacDonald case information available.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

Check it out, PrimeSuspect. Perhaps you'll be surprised at how much supports MacDonalds guilt, if you can read through with an open mind

:beer:

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Will this help you? I located it on The Jeffrey MacDonald Case.

Jeffrey MacDonald has long proclaimed that saran fibers found at the crime scene came from Helena Stoeckley’s blonde wig. During the Oct. 24, 2003, Larry King Live interview, MacDonald said, “And the government record shows the evidence. It shows wig fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig.

Three blonde synthetic hairs were found in a clear-handled hairbrush. The hairs differed in chemical composition and the longest of the three hairs was matched with doll hair found in the FBI exemplar collection. Black synthetic fibers were also found in a blue-handled hairbrush, which were matched to a hairpiece owned by Mildred Kassab.

Platinum-colored synthetic hair was found in a clear-handled hairbrush and a blue-handled hair-brush. The two hairs were identical in chemical composition and were matched to a fall owned by Colette.

Helena Stoeckley testified at the 1979 trial that she did not wear her blond wig on February 17, 1970 because Greg Mitchell did not like how it looked on her

Thank you, 2L8! This WAS indeed helpful, in fact directly addressed PrimeSuspect's concern.

[Icculus]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Again Icculus ~ stunning! Absolutely GR8 post!

I salute you ~ :patriot:

Thank you 2L8, my love. As always, you are too sweet :beer:

[Icculus]

Originally posted by koldkase


It's been years since I kept up with this case, so there's that right off. I also haven't read this entire thread, so if I'm being redundant and that antagonizes anyone, just ignore me, please, not trying to get on anyone's nerve. Just popped in to check on the perp's parole results, which I believe I heard recently he was denied parole. Like the JonBenet case, this one has its believers on both sides. So having set up my question, here it is:

Wasn't the pajama top found on Colette powerful evidence that Jeffrey was the one who stabbed her? I know my impressions are largely from the books and TV show, but I also thought from other sources I'd seen or read in the past that this was evidence: Jeffrey's pajama top was found to have cuts in patterns lining up with the wounds on Colette's body? And her blood was all over it, which he said he put it on her body? But he also said it got cut up when he defended himself with it while being attacked? Or something?

OK, now I am confused. It has been too long. Well, if anyone feels like explaining that to me again, thanks in advance. I just remember that this piece of evidence was very devastating to the defense.

As to "why" he would have done this? Ask Scott Peterson. Or any number of domestic murderers. It's a fact that the number one cause of death among pregnant women is murder, usually by their mates.

Whatever. Fair trials are not perfect, ever, like everything else in life. Obviously, the court reached a verdict of "beyond a reasonable doubt," whether we agree or not in hindsight. I think they got the right man. It's logical on its face: lack of forensics of crazied hippies attacking an entire family, with the father claiming he was fighting for the lives of his wife and children...and he's the only one who ends up alive with a surgical, non-life-threatening wound? And he's a doctor, to boot? He's on drugs, he's unfaithful, and he's dancing around his in-laws' questions for years after the murder. But it was the clean and tidy gang of hippies with candles attacking 4 humans in a small apartment in a frenzied killing spree...who then vanish into thin air like ghosts, leaving no evidence behind that they even existed...except the word of the one survivor...and prime suspect? It's not rocket science, and he almost got lucky and beat it because he was on a base and the initial investigation was sloppy. Thank god for prosecutors with balls.

My, how familiar this all sounds.... I'm reading Crier's book on the Peterson murders now, "A Deadly Game." Scott and Jeffrey could be good buddies.

Yes, koldkase, the pajama top found on Colette was INCREDIBLY damning for MacDonald. In fact, the holes in her chest directly lined up in both position and number with the holes in the pajama top that was found lain over her wounds. MacDonald laughably tried to explain these holes by saying his top became entangled in his hands as he fought off "intruders", claiming they stabbed holes through it then with the ice pick. However, the actual holes in the top were proven to have been caused while the top was stationary, not wildly flailing in a defensive gesture. Also, her blood was proven to have spilled onto MacDonald's pajama top BEFORE it was torn, not after. This in no way supports his theory that his top was torn by the "intruders" in the hallway PRIOR to him coming into contact with his wife. Ooops. The link I provided two posts up covers this information in great detail, along with photographs.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Icculus


Thank you 2L8, my love. As always, you are too sweet :beer:

You know that I am your #1 Fan Icculus. I have been since Day 1 and always will be!

:beer: In this hot weather, here's some Rootbeer Floats for you!

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by koldkase


Well, I (sigh) am from the hippie generation, long, long ago. I have never murdered anyone nor worn a floppy hat myself, but I do have "floppy hat experience."

I can also say that "falls" were popular in those days for some women who wanted "high" and long hair they didn't have the ability to grow on their own. They were peculiar things, falls, and I never owned one, but basically it was a partial wig that sat on the crown/top portion of the scalp and provided volume up top and hung down long on the back and sides. Then the wearer brushed the front of their own hair over it to make it look "natural." They used hair pins to hold it in place. I had an English teacher in high school once who wore one. I thought they were very funny, as she always held her head rather stiffly while turning or moving in case she might lose it, I guess. I knew other women who had them, too.

And as for the floppy hat, I never took a poll, but I had picture for many years I took of a friend of mine wearing a floppy leather hat with her bellbottom hip huggers and halter top without a bra. Oh, we were brazen hussies in those days in South Carolina. A floppy hat was nothing unusual, believe me. They were also commonly worn by men. That hat might even have belonged to a guy, now that I think of it. He was in the picture, anyhow. :hat:

Off topic: I gotta' tell you, after living through the awful clothes and hair of the '60's and the almost-as-bad styles of the '70's, I cannot believe it when I go to the mall and see those very same clothes on every dummy in sight in stores that target the young. Dear god, didn't they learn anything from our fashion horrors? :shrug:
I lived 21 miles from Ft. Bragg for the first 26 years of my life. I was coming into that hippie generation during the time of the murders. I don't know a single person that lived in my area that wore hats. Perhaps the hippies in my town weren't as advanced in hippie apparel as they were in Fayetteville/Ft. Bragg.

I'm female, so I know what a fall is. Never had one, but I do know people that did. I always thought they looked ridiculous and fake, but I have a very full head of long hair and have no idea how I would feel about falls if I weren't able to grow my own.

as to your O/T: I think it's kinda cool that the clothes from the 60's and 70's are coming back. Hiphuggers always fit me better because I'm rather short-waisted.

Question: Was the fall owned by Collete entered into evidence?

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Will this help you? I located it on The Jeffrey MacDonald Case.

Jeffrey MacDonald has long proclaimed that saran fibers found at the crime scene came from Helena Stoeckley’s blonde wig. During the Oct. 24, 2003, Larry King Live interview, MacDonald said, “And the government record shows the evidence. It shows wig fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig.

Three blonde synthetic hairs were found in a clear-handled hairbrush. The hairs differed in chemical composition and the longest of the three hairs was matched with doll hair found in the FBI exemplar collection. Black synthetic fibers were also found in a blue-handled hairbrush, which were matched to a hairpiece owned by Mildred Kassab.

Platinum-colored synthetic hair was found in a clear-handled hairbrush and a blue-handled hair-brush. The two hairs were identical in chemical composition and were matched to a fall owned by Colette.

Helena Stoeckley testified at the 1979 trial that she did not wear her blond wig on February 17, 1970 because Greg Mitchell did not like how it looked on her.
Wow! You found that on the site maintained by MacDonald's wife? Which page? I don't find it there and it actually sounds awfully cryptic to be on a site supporting his innocence. Is there a copy of the document showing the test results after the camparisons of the hair in the bruth and Collete's fall were made?

As to what Helena testified to, is there an official guage by which we can determine what to believe that Helena said and what we shouldn't believe?

I tend to lean towards the statements she made right after the murders, but that's just me.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus


It was the seventies. Floppy hats were fashionable. Helena Stoeckley was an unstable drug addict. Is this really all you base your opinion on? Because factually, it falls rather flat IMO



Here is an amazing site, full of factual information. It is arguably the most complete source of MacDonald case information available.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

Check it out, PrimeSuspect. Perhaps you'll be surprised at how much supports MacDonalds guilt, if you can read through with an open mind

<snip>
No. I don't base my opinion on the floppy hats that were not all that much in fashion at the time. I lived in the area. I know what kids in their upper teens/early 20's wore.

I actually have found Christina's site to be very helpful in cross referencing and corroborating the information in "Fatal Justice."

And I do read it all with an open mind. I have no more desire for a murder to walk among us, than you do. I also get sick on my stomach if there is the slightest chance someone is in prison for a crime they didn't commit.

"Fatal Vision" is full of contradictions. It's what piqued my interest in the case, because of all the contradictions, so I have to admit that the glorification of the book and it's author on that site makes me view it with a cautious eye.

But, I have found the site to be very helpful, and it hasn't, to date, convinced me that MacDonald received a fair trial.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by Icculus


Do I even know you?

Cami has a wealth of knowledge on this case. Do you have some sort of problem with that? Or do you enjoy posting uselessly with nothing to add to the discussion just to see yourself in print?

Just wondering. :beer:

Why are you being condescending and rude to a poster that said you have a strong opinion on this case? Is that not true? If it's not, then pray tell what words would you use to describe your interest/opinions on this case?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Wow! You found that on the site maintained by MacDonald's wife? Which page? I don't find it there and it actually sounds awfully cryptic to be on a site supporting his innocence. Is there a copy of the document showing the test results after the camparisons of the hair in the bruth and Collete's fall were made?

As to what Helena testified to, is there an official guage by which we can determine what to believe that Helena said and what we shouldn't believe?

I tend to lean towards the statements she made right after the murders, but that's just me.

No, I don't think this site is pro-JM. I also don't think that it is run by JM's wife. Here is the link. It is rather long, but it was very informative for me. But then, I am a G!

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/

[cami]

Originally posted by Mimi428


If there was ever a perfect patsy or a made-to-order strawman, Helena would fit the bill. Her long history of severe drug abuse combined with mental illness really provided plenty of fodder for Jeff to latch on to & work around to create a wonderful theory. He had plenty of time over the years to pull together a grand fantasy about her involvement. Her death was perfect for fitting into his pack of lies. But it certainly wasn't a mysterious death, since she had been very ill from years of drug abuse.

Justus - how old were you when the murders happened? Did you see Jeff on the Dick Cavett Show - or did you see him years later on 60 Minutes? I don't mean this to sound demeaning to those who are not old enough to have been around when it was all happening, I just find it curious that so many who believe Jeff to be innocent seem to have not followed the story at the time, or simply weren't old enough to have known about it.

Helena has got to be the largest red herring in any murder case I have ever seen. Not one shred of evidence puts her in that apt. She was however a sad, pathetic young girl who would do anything for attention. Her many confessions to this crime are pitiful really. They are not at all consistant with the facts of the crime or the evidence found therein.

[cami]

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~


you're welcome. Sadly it appears to me that it's more likely that an innocent man will be kept behind bars than it is a guilty man will get parole.

I'm outta here now... bye bye

:seeya:

With all due respect if you mean Mac don't worry. He's guilty as sin. His parole bid was more his trying to get a pardon than parole since he refuses to admit guilt or show any remorse--in the face of overwhelming blood and fibre evidence that prove he's the killer.

[cami]

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~


One piece of evidence kept out of MacDonald's trial that showed up in the foia documents was a confession of murder--actually multiple, polygraph-verified confessions--by Helena Stoeckley, a Fayetteville hippie, drug addict and self- styled "witch" who admitted to owning a blond wig, floppy hat and ice pick; who was spotted by five eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the MacDonald home, in several instances in the company of two white males and a black male in an Army field jacket, on the night the murders occurred; and who never came up with an alibi for where she was during the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/new_republic.html


keep going! You've left out the part where the saran fibres found in the home were not wig hairs. That her boyfriend at the time did not like her to wear the wig so she wasn't wearing it on Feb. 17/70, that she and her boyfriend were driving around and most likely parked somewhere to have sex the night of February 17/70 hence her lack of alibi. Last but not least, her fingerprints, footprints, hair, blood and fibres from her clothes were not found in the MacDonald apt. Her confessions are ridiculous and in contrast with the physical evidence. Her confessions were coerced by whichever man treated her the best--Beasley, Gunderson, etc.

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

[PrimeSuspect210]

Still waiting on that link on Dennis Eisman killing himself to avoid being tried for misconduct and drugs, cami.

This would be the 3rd request I've made now. :seeya:

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami



keep going! You've left out the part where the saran fibres found in the home were not wig hairs. That her boyfriend at the time did not like her to wear the wig so she wasn't wearing it on Feb. 17/70, that she and her boyfriend were driving around and most likely parked somewhere to have sex the night of February 17/70 hence her lack of alibi. Last but not least, her fingerprints, footprints, hair, blood and fibres from her clothes were not found in the MacDonald apt. Her confessions are ridiculous and in contrast with the physical evidence. Her confessions were coerced by whichever man treated her the best--Beasley, Gunderson, etc.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/scans.html
Soooo ... we shouldn't believe it when she said she was there, but we should believe her when she says she remembers what she wore and why, that very night?

:lol:

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

I tell ya what. Why don't you quit playing cat and mouse and provide links to your allegations regarding the deceased Dennis Eisman. I Googled "Dennis Eisman" and I found a site saying he died from a shot in his mouth, one site claiming his death was from a shot in the chest and yet another site claims it was a shot to the back of his head.

I'm asking YOU for information on the seemingly factual posts you made regarding pending trials for drugs and misconduct. Which is it and where are you getting your information?

What does it have to do with MacDonald's case?

Nothing except that Dennis Eisman was one of MacDonald's attorneys during the Article 32.

From MacDonald's website.

I am not playing cat and mouse. I encourage others to research for themselves rather than just take Mac's word for it.

"CASE FACT
Prosecutor James L. Blackburn was tried
and convicted for multiple felonies, including
changing court documents, forging judges'
signatures and stealing money from clients."

etc.......



Interesting to note that there is not a word about defense attorney's Eisman's fall from grace on this website.

Blackburn's crimes too happened long after the Macdonald trial and have no bearing on it despite the allegations from the MacDonald camp and what's posted on his website. Just trying to balance the scales.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Soooo ... we shouldn't believe it when she said she was there, but we should believe her when she says she remembers what she wore and why, that very night?

:lol:

You can believe whatever you want, up to you. If you want to believe she was there because she said she was go for it. There's not one shred of physical evidence that places her in that apt on February 17th or any other time despite her many confessions and recantations. Her confessions are at variance with the physical evidence.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Still waiting on that link on Dennis Eisman killing himself to avoid being tried for misconduct and drugs, cami.

This would be the 3rd request I've made now. :seeya:

Keep your shirt on. There is no link that I can give you. You have to research it like I did from various links and articles. My point being that supporters are very willing to believe the prosecution did something illegal during the MacDonald trial based on the crimes of Blackburn ten years after the crime because Macdonald has it on his website. Like I said just trying to balance the scales a little. Blackburn's latter crimes had absolutely nothing to do with MacDonald's trial just as Eisman's had nothing to do with MacDonald's defense at the Article 32.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Soooo ... we shouldn't believe it when she said she was there, but we should believe her when she says she remembers what she wore and why, that very night?

:lol:



Okay so why are you not addressing the evidence? Are you just here to take the mickey out of me? The saran fibres found in the Macdonald home were not wig hairs. Start with that.

:lol:

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

No. I don't base my opinion on the floppy hats that were not all that much in fashion at the time. I lived in the area. I know what kids in their upper teens/early 20's wore.

I actually have found Christina's site to be very helpful in cross referencing and corroborating the information in "Fatal Justice."

And I do read it all with an open mind. I have no more desire for a murder to walk among us, than you do. I also get sick on my stomach if there is the slightest chance someone is in prison for a crime they didn't commit.

"Fatal Vision" is full of contradictions. It's what piqued my interest in the case, because of all the contradictions, so I have to admit that the glorification of the book and it's author on that site makes me view it with a cautious eye.

But, I have found the site to be very helpful, and it hasn't, to date, convinced me that MacDonald received a fair trial.

Please explain in what way you believe MacDonald to have been unfairly tried. I still don't understand why you feel that way.

What inconsistencies in Fatal Vision do you find?

Fatal Justice is so full of selective, misrepresented and blatantly false information, hasn't your cross-referencing showed that?

I understand and respect not wanting an innocent man in jail, but fortunately, this is not one of those cases IMO

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210


Why are you being condescending and rude to a poster that said you have a strong opinion on this case? Is that not true? If it's not, then pray tell what words would you use to describe your interest/opinions on this case?

Condescending and rude? I don't think so. I may have strong opinions on this case, but they're well-researched. And Cami is even more knowledgable on the subject, why accuse her of religious-like ferverence as if it's an insult? What's wrong with feeling passionately about such a passion-worthy cause? Regardless, anyone who jumps into a discussion like that with nothing to actually add to the debate, seems to me to be attempting to bait an argument or create a sense of self-importance when it's not warranted. What was the point of that post otherwise? I found it to be obnoxious.

JMO of course

[Icculus]

Originally posted by koldkase


Thanks for clarifying this evidence. I don't see how anyone can doubt that MacDonald did these murders with this single piece of evidence, alone, and his lies about it. It's irrefutable simply because his lies were undeniably created to cover up the truth about how Colette died. If he had only had time to figure out another story about that pajama top, he might have gotten away with it. But with his story being completely disproven BY THE EVIDENCE itself, there's no doubt he murdered his family.

The jury saw it that way. Why anyone feels any sympathy for this man is beyond me. He murdered his family, including a pregnant wife and two little girls. Brutally. Horribly. He should have gotten the death penaly, IMO.

Parole my ***. They should never let this man out even if he confesses on his knees.

Indeed, koldkase. Well put :beer:

[cami]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
There is SO very much more pointing to MacDonald's guilt. How do you figure more points to his innocence? Just trying to comprehend this position you take.

I think it was one of the tv shows I saw on the matter that really put the doubts in there. I believe it was cold case files or something. I know it was on A&E.

The show really seemed to put a lot of perspective on things. There was a lot of talk about Helena Stoekely (spelled wrong, I know) and her behavior after the murders. It was odd to me how Jeff McDonald would describe her to a tee and then she starts doing all these bizarre things, like hanging a black wreath on her door after the murders, having memories of being in the house, being seen by the first officers to respond right near the house just after the murders, the fact that her presence there was basically witheld and never investigated. In fact, I think, although not sure, the officer was told not to divulge her presence to anyone, the wig hairs on the brush...Helena's foggy drugged memory was a wee bit too consistend with what McDonald himself said about the events.

There was a lot of stuff that didn't add up that was ignored by the investigating people. The show suggested that the investigators pinned it on McDonald early and did whatever they could, including messing with evidence to make sure their version of what happened, ie McDonald did it, fit with the evidence. It seemed like a real witch hunt, at least as the show explained it.

I suppose the show could be as slanted as I believe most true crime books to be, but after watching that show, I was much more thinking he's innocent and has been railroaded than he's guilty.

I have a problem with the motive, also. I don't know what it could possibly be. Why would he do it? And, more to the point, how? These were his babies and his pregnant wife who he seemed to adore. WHY? I'm not sure if there was a motive suggested or not, because I know the prosecution doesn't have to establish it, but what could it be? I've not seen it spoken about anywhere.

Anyway, those are my reasons...they may not be good enough, but the way the evidence and trial was done, he didn't get a fair trial and for that reason alone, should not have been convicted.

jmo, thanks for asking!

:seeya:

The program on aande is just that--entertainment. It's not a forensics program. The show is slanted but the government agents were interviewed along with Mr. Kassab. Why are they ignored in favour of the defense?

MacDonald did not describe Helena to a tee. That's a falacy. He described a woman with dirty, stringy blonde hair, wearing a floppy hat and boots. Helena was known to own a blonde wig and a floppy hat and boots. I owned a floppy hat and go go boots in 1970 but I can assure that I was not in the Macdonald apt in February 1970.

Nor was she seen by the first MPs who responded. MP Ken Mica saw a woman wearing a floppy hat and a rain coat near the crime scene. He even remarked on her nice legs. The only similarity is the floppy hat. When you read the testimonies of the MPs who responded, you learn they saw no sign of a break in, no blood trail outside, no bloody fingerprints on the doors, knobs or frames exiting the apt., no wet grass, no mud, no dirt, no bare footprints, no pools of water from wet feet/boots, no fresh candle wax in the area the female was supposed to be holding a candle, etc. No evidence of intruders whatsoever.

Helena was investigated as were many many other hippies living in the area at the time.

The wig hairs on the brush were synthetic saran fibres not cosmetic wig hairs. All three found were different in chemical composition and colour. So, unless we have three of the killers wearing wigs who were brushing those wigs with different hairbrushes then the saran fibres belong to the Macdonald home prior to the murders. ONe of those fibres matches doll hair from a doll collection owned by one of the girls. One of them is grey and one is brunette--matching a fall owned by Colette's mother. Once you dig into the lab documents and the legal documents you find the things that aande didn't bring out in their program.




"There was a lot of stuff that didn't add up that was ignored by the investigating people. The show suggested that the investigators pinned it on McDonald early and did whatever they could, including messing with evidence to make sure their version of what happened, ie McDonald did it, fit with the evidence. It seemed like a real witch hunt, at least as the show explained it."

Not so, that's just the defense attorney's hype. You would really really need to read the transcripts of the trial to understand that they didn't mess with the evidence. What they have done is taken a few unsourced black fibres and synthetic fibres found and used that as proof of intruders. When the reality is that all of us have unsourced fibres and hair in our homes.

[cami]

Originally posted by rph3664
Cantstandnuts, just to let you know: Icculus has a strong opinion on this case.

But it's nothing compared to Cami, whose devotion approaches religious fervor.

Whatever your opinion may be on this case, he's not going to be sprung based on some Court TV message board posts. Okay, Cami?

:shrug:

Yeah whatever. Religious fervence eh? No, sympathy for a pregnant woman and her two little girls that were horrible brutally murdered by their own father and husband. No doubt in my mind.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami


Nothing except that Dennis Eisman was one of MacDonald's attorneys during the Article 32.

From MacDonald's website.

I am not playing cat and mouse. I encourage others to research for themselves rather than just take Mac's word for it.

"CASE FACT
Prosecutor James L. Blackburn was tried
and convicted for multiple felonies, including
changing court documents, forging judges'
signatures and stealing money from clients."

etc.......



Interesting to note that there is not a word about defense attorney's Eisman's fall from grace on this website.

Blackburn's crimes too happened long after the Macdonald trial and have no bearing on it despite the allegations from the MacDonald camp and what's posted on his website. Just trying to balance the scales.
What does "Mac" have to do with the posts you made about Eisman? I've researched and I find nothing on Eisman having a criminal history nor do I find a fall from grace. I don't even find definitive proof that he committed suicide. Since you evidently refuse to provide proof of your allegations, and blame MacDonald for something you've done, we'll just call them false until you do, ok?

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami


Keep your shirt on. There is no link that I can give you. You have to research it like I did from various links and articles. My point being that supporters are very willing to believe the prosecution did something illegal during the MacDonald trial based on the crimes of Blackburn ten years after the crime because Macdonald has it on his website. Like I said just trying to balance the scales a little. Blackburn's latter crimes had absolutely nothing to do with MacDonald's trial just as Eisman's had nothing to do with MacDonald's defense at the Article 32.
So .... let me see if I understand this ... you think "supporters" accuse Blackburn of doing something and that's justification for you to trash a man and make up stuff about him after he's dead and cannot refute you?

That is sick and disgusting and just plain twisted, IMO.

[seawolf4]

I guess you could argue that the holes in the pajama top, made while stationary since there was no tearing, coincidentally fit the stab wounds on Collette but tell me how someone fights off intruders with a pajama top around his wrists so that multiple stab wounds end up in the pajama top and he does not have a single defensive wound on his arms? To say nothing of all the other evidence that clearly says that JM murdered his pregnant wife and his daughters.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by seawolf4
I guess you could argue that the holes in the pajama top, made while stationary since there was no tearing, coincidentally fit the stab wounds on Collette but tell me how someone fights off intruders with a pajama top around his wrists so that multiple stab wounds end up in the pajama top and he does not have a single defensive wound on his arms? To say nothing of all the other evidence that clearly says that JM murdered his pregnant wife and his daughters.

Welcome SW!

As I have stated a thousand times or more, as with any fence sitter, doubter or NG ~ unless they see it with their own eyes ~ it just didn't happen, period! You can argue and argue with them until you're blue in the face and it just doesn't matter. Common sense? What's that? Need I say more?

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami

Okay so why are you not addressing the evidence? Are you just here to take the mickey out of me? The saran fibres found in the Macdonald home were not wig hairs. Start with that.

:lol: Take the mickey out of you? What on God's green earth does that mean?

I'm here because I can be and this case interests me. Not to the point of obsession like some are, but I'm interested, nonetheless (yes, I know it's not a real word, but it's functional, nonetheless).

Now, now, now ... it's all over this thread that the fibres WERE from Collete's fall. Is it or not? If are or not, how do we know this? Were the fall and fibres and test results entered into evidence at trial? (I know the answer to that question, I'm just trying to get fixed on the blurring of the line, here.)

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Welcome SW!

As I have stated a thousand times or more, as with any fence sitter, doubter or NG ~ unless they see it with their own eyes ~ it just didn't happen, period! You can argue and argue with them until you're blue in the face and it just doesn't matter. Common sense? What's that? Need I say more?
That's not true. On a case that has gone to trial, a person that is IUPG (what you are calling a fence-sitter, I suppose) prefers that the prosecutor would have showed them it happened.

You certainly can't do it ... nor can any other poster on this board or any other board. That's the prosecutor's job.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

That's not true. On a case that has gone to trial, a person that is IUPG (what you are calling a fence-sitter, I suppose) prefers that the prosecutor would have showed them it happened.

You certainly can't do it ... nor can any other poster on this board or any other board. That's the prosecutor's job.

I must not understand your post. I don't want to get into pettiness. So you're saying that even though the NG's and IUPG's see the crime "with their own eyes" that it didn't really happen because the prosecution didn't prove their case by showing them what really happened? Is that correct?

JMO and MOO!!

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
I must not understand your post. I don't want to get into pettiness. So you're saying that even though the NG's and IUPG's see the crime "with their own eyes" that it didn't really happen because the prosecution didn't prove their case by showing them what really happened? Is that correct?

JMO and MOO!!
You are absolutely correct in that you don't understand my post.

If you don't want to get into pettiness, IMO, you failed.

I hope you have a lovely day. :seeya:

[seawolf4]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

That's not true. On a case that has gone to trial, a person that is IUPG (what you are calling a fence-sitter, I suppose) prefers that the prosecutor would have showed them it happened.

You certainly can't do it ... nor can any other poster on this board or any other board. That's the prosecutor's job.

I came upon this forum by accident. I didn't realize people still argue for JMs innocence. I am from Long Island where Collette and JM were from originally. When these murders took place I was a young woman with 2 small children and pregnanet with my third so I took an interest in this case. I did not think JM did this right away. It was horrible to think about. But it became clear eventually that noone but JM did this. There was no blood in the living room although the bedrooms and hallway were awash in blood. JM was barely injured, Collette and the 2 little girls were beaten and stabbed horribly, overkill. JM's blood was only in the bathroom sink. His footprint was in the blood. Okay he was walking around the house afterwards but why no footprint or anything from the 3 people supposedly in that house, writting over the bed with a latex glove, cleaning the murder weapons and then tossing them outside the door, Supposedly these 3 people came to this house with murder on their minds but relied on weapons they could pick up quickly in the kitchen.
What you have is a man who murdered his wife and little girls and then tried to stage the scene to get away with it.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence? Hah! If the evidence was so strong, why was it not used at trial? Why was the backbone of the government's case ... absence of evidence of intruders, therefore MacDonald had to have done it?

Furthermore, why did Blackburn, the night after the verdict, awaken in the middle of the night wondering if he had convicted an innocent man? WCHL 1360 "The Special Hour" 06/24/04 Jim Heavner interviews Jim Blackburn and Wade Smith (http://www.wchl1360.com/view.jsp?id=SmithBlackburn&guest=Jim+Blackburn+and+Wade+Smith+(Part+I)+&host=Jim+Heavner)

The backbone of the government's case was the physical, forensics evidence. Blood and fibres mostly. MacDonald's blue pajama top and the blue bedsheet from the master bedroom contain direct evidence of Macdonald's involvement in the murders. It was used at trial. Have you read the trial transcripts? Here you go:

1979 trial transcripts (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1979_trial_transcripts.html)

With all due respect, I can't access the audio but I am quite sure you have taken that statement from Blackburn out of context. As a matter of fact, I did listen to it about a year ago but I have lost my notes on this. I bet he's not only the prosecutor who had that fleeting thought in the middle of the night. And I am quite sure he rolled over and put it out of his mind secure in the knowledge that he helped convict a mass murderer and ice pick baby killer. Perhaps you could post the rest of it so we can verify it for ourselves.

[cami]

Fatal Justice" has nothing to do with what was presented to the jury that convicted him, which my post addressed, although, since you brought it up, the anti-MacDonald site, poorly organized though it is, IMO, provides documentation supporting everything in "Fatal Justice," thank you very much.

That's a very interesting claim. Can you provide details from the 'anti' site that supports everything in Fatal Justice?

So, what did you think of this claim that Fatal Justice makes and confirmed by the documentation on the 'anti' site.

Claiming there were 5 bloody gloves found in the kitchen, yet from the documentation on the 'anti' site, you learn those five bloody gloves were oven mitts and a pair of heavy plastic dish gloves.

link to the zip files (http://www.azwest.com/c&j/html/cid_reports.html)

Claiming that blood found on the 5 gloves in the kitchen translated into multiple intruders wearing gloves in the process of killing the MacDonald family. There is no mention of the fact that the blood traces were so minute that they could not be typed which indicates blood transfer rather than actual use in the commission of three brutal murders.

Stating that Stoeckley passed 2 polygraph exams administered in 1980 by Scott Mero, and that a 3rd exam was deemed inconclusive. Mero, however, stated clearly in his report that Stoeckley flunked that 3rd exam.




Link to Mero's report (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stoeckley_poly_1980oct25-26.html)

[cami]

Originally posted by rph3664
Cantstandnuts, just to let you know: Icculus has a strong opinion on this case.

But it's nothing compared to Cami, whose devotion approaches religious fervor.

Whatever your opinion may be on this case, he's not going to be sprung based on some Court TV message board posts. Okay, Cami?

:shrug:

LOL, get a grip will you. What do you think I am some dummy who thinks he will be. God if any of you posters put half the time in on research that I have on this case then feel free to insult me. Get it, Macdonald is an ice pick baby killer, narcissistic murdering dog, pathological liar who brutally murdered his pregnant wife and his two baby girls. He'll die in prison still crying about how he's been framed. Why the US networks even give the killer air time is beyond me.

Okay rph3664:shrug:

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Soooo ... we shouldn't believe it when she said she was there, but we should believe her when she says she remembers what she wore and why, that very night?

:lol:

Sooooooooooo....... Why do you do this. You misinterpret what is said and then try to make me look stupid by picking out one tiny piece. I have spent years researching this case and reading all the pertinent information regarding it, that includes the Article 32 transcripts, the grand jury and the trial transcripts, the CID and the FBI's findings and all the failed appeals . Why don't you put in the effort and then come back and ask this question.

Should we believe that she was there just because she says so with no evidence that places here there? Should we believe she was there because in her haste for attention and to please her father figure Beasley, she confesses? Is a confession more important to you than physical evidence? Is a confession/s that are ridiculous on their face and are not consistant with the physical evidence found more important to you? More important than the blood of the victims found on the only person left alive in the house--MacDonald.

I try to stick to evidence and evidence alone when I research a case. (Oh except for Eisman, satisfied?)

As always, MOO



:seeya: :seeya:

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
[B
I actually have found Christina's site to be very helpful in cross referencing and corroborating the information in "Fatal Justice."

"Fatal Vision" is full of contradictions. It's what piqued my interest in the case, because of all the contradictions, so I have to admit that the glorification of the book and it's author on that site makes me view it with a cautious eye. [/B]


Without fail, every MacDonald supporter I have met over the years has said exactly the same thing you have in these two paragraphs.

I am starting to believe it's a direct quote from MacDonald. He must have them pre-printed to mail out to his fans.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami


Sooooooooooo....... Why do you do this. You misinterpret what is said and then try to make me look stupid by picking out one tiny piece. I have spent years researching this case and reading all the pertinent information regarding it, that includes the Article 32 transcripts, the grand jury and the trial transcripts, the CID and the FBI's findings and all the failed appeals . Why don't you put in the effort and then come back and ask this question.

Should we believe that she was there just because she says so with no evidence that places here there? Should we believe she was there because in her haste for attention and to please her father figure Beasley, she confesses? Is a confession more important to you than physical evidence? Is a confession/s that are ridiculous on their face and are not consistant with the physical evidence found more important to you? More important than the blood of the victims found on the only person left alive in the house--MacDonald.

I try to stick to evidence and evidence alone when I research a case. (Oh except for Eisman, satisfied?)

As always, MOO

:seeya: :seeya:

Oh don't get yer drawers in a knot cuz I outted you on your outright lies about a dead man. Haha! I bet you were counting on people not researching past the anti-MacDonald site, nor did you count on people actually reading it. "Oh there's so much, let me trust the summaries posted all over the internet on message boards." ?? I think not.

Your best bet, if you want my advice, is to quit using anything having to do with Helena to bolster your argument. One is either credible, or they're not. Don't ask people to believe just one thing while at the same time telling them to disregard ALL other statements/actions by Helena. You're digging the hole deeper.

If you look stupid, it's not my doing.

Thanks for the info.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami

Without fail, every MacDonald supporter I have met over the years has said exactly the same thing you have in these two paragraphs.

I am starting to believe it's a direct quote from MacDonald. He must have them pre-printed to mail out to his fans.
Supporter? Fan?

Ouch, oooh. That hurt.

You feel better now?

If they've said the same thing, they must be some pretty damned smart supporters and fans.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Dear cami,

I've determined that for me to respond further to you today, I might be making you look stupid. Don't want to do that.

Catchya later. :seeya:

[JuneinJuly]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Supporter? Fan?

Ouch, oooh. That hurt.

You feel better now?

If they've said the same thing, they must be some pretty damned smart supporters and fans.

Just curious, How do you explain that JM had no defensive wounds? I mean the pajama top over his head wrapped around his wrists and arms full of holes (not tears) and not a scratch on his arms, wrist or hands?

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by JuneinJuly


Just curious, How do you explain that JM had no defensive wounds? I mean the pajama top over his head wrapped around his wrists and arms full of holes (not tears) and not a scratch on his arms, wrist or hands?
Not to be a smartass, but I don't have to explain it. I'm not here to defend or support MacDonald, per se.

I don't think the prosecution proved their case and I believe they withheld evidence. Whether "open file" would have helped MacDonald or hurt him, I don't know, but he had a right, as the accused, to be made aware of any and all evidence the government had.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

You are absolutely correct in that you don't understand my post.

If you don't want to get into pettiness, IMO, you failed.

I hope you have a lovely day. :seeya:

I was being serious, not sarcastic and didn't deserve the response that you gave me. Yes, I did fail. I failed in remotely thinking that I could even post with you.

You're right again. Buh bye!

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Not to be a smartass, but I don't have to explain it. I'm not here to defend or support MacDonald, per se.


What a cop-out. :rolleyes: You evade explaining the logic behind your opinions every chance you get. You haven't even tried to refute any of the information provided for you. Why ARE you here? You just keep replying with blanket statements practically lifted from the pages of Fatal Justice.

Please, if you wish to be taken seriously, try and explain WHY you feel JM didn;t receive a fair trial and what vital evidence you feel was left out of his trial. Sure, you don't HAVE to, but then why are you here? You already know what you think. I don't get your point. And with silly posts like this...

I've determined that for me to respond further to you today, I might be making you look stupid. Don't want to do that.


You just come across as childish and self-righteous...with nothing to back it up. Cami has provided plenty of valuable information for you from her years of commendable research, and you just ignore it in favor of petty insults which I'm afraid don't come across as clever as you may think. Try backing up your statements with ANYTHING credible or factual. Ignoring or disregarding evidence and documented facts isn't doing anything for your position.

JMO of course :beer:

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Dear cami,

I've determined that for me to respond further to you today, I might be making you look stupid. Don't want to do that.

Catchya later. :seeya:

Actually, you've only made yourself look stupid by repeating MacDonald's mantra. I can't tell you the number of posters on boards that I have seen say the same thing as you did in that one paragraph. That's what gave you away. You don't know this case but you are trying to bluff your way through. You haven't read anything on Chris M's website but you proclaim you have. You promote Fatal Justice as an accurate source of information on this case when it's not. Fatal Justice is MacDonald's wish as he would have liked this case to be, he had a hand in editing it.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210


Oh don't get yer drawers in a knot cuz I outted you on your outright lies about a dead man. Haha! I bet you were counting on people not researching past the anti-MacDonald site, nor did you count on people actually reading it. "Oh there's so much, let me trust the summaries posted all over the internet on message boards." ?? I think not.

Your best bet, if you want my advice, is to quit using anything having to do with Helena to bolster your argument. One is either credible, or they're not. Don't ask people to believe just one thing while at the same time telling them to disregard ALL other statements/actions by Helena. You're digging the hole deeper.

If you look stupid, it's not my doing.

Thanks for the info.

LOl, not much of a response from me there old girl, except to say, I did not lie about Eisman so you are laughing on the other side of your face. Eisman was one of Macdonald's attorneys during the Article 32. You know that, you are involved somehow with MacDonald, you've given yourself away. It's goes beyond your exclaiming he didn't have a fair trial.

Eisman was involved with drugs and he committed suicide before he could be brought to justice. Or do you think the Clintons murdered him? If so, then you are into government consipiracies. If I lied prove it.

You have not read Chris M's website at all, now who's telling lies. You certainly have not corrobated anything from FJ on Chris's site, that's another big fat lie. I don't understand why would say those things. If I didn't want anyone to read Chris's website why would I provide you with with links, that makes no sense whatsoever.

You can choose to believe what you like about Helena. You isolated one particular sentence instead of looking at the whole. To me she is a non issue so I will refuse your advice. Here's a little piece of advice for you. Stop using Fatal Justice to bolster your argument that MacDonald did not receive a fair trial or that evidence was kept from him, you're only digging the hole deeper.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Not to be a smartass, but I don't have to explain it. I'm not here to defend or support MacDonald, per se.

I don't think the prosecution proved their case and I believe they withheld evidence. Whether "open file" would have helped MacDonald or hurt him, I don't know, but he had a right, as the accused, to be made aware of any and all evidence the government had.


Boy what a cop out. You demand links from other posters but you won't even explain yourself.

We are all asking you over and over again to explain why you think he didn't receive a fair trial. What evidence did the prosecution withold?

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Dear cami,

I've determined that for me to respond further to you today, I might be making you look stupid. Don't want to do that.

Catchya later. :seeya:

Why won't you reply to my post about the claims in Fatal Justice that you corroborated on Chris's website? Skirted that post did you?


:seeya:

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by cami

Boy what a cop out. You demand links from other posters but you won't even explain yourself.

We are all asking you over and over again to explain why you think he didn't receive a fair trial. What evidence did the prosecution withold?


Understand something. I've posted MY OPINION. That's much different than posting FACTS, which is what both you and Icculus have done. I don't have to explain or defend my opinion to EITHER of you.

And if you expect me to post everything that is corroborated in Fatal Justice, then you've lost your mind. First and foremost, it's my OPINION that the court documents, records, file notes, interviews and personal correspondence on your site DO corroborate Fatal Justice. Second, I don't get paid to do this.

Why does my opinion bother you both so?

Accuse me of being associated with this case or MacDonald if you want, cami, but you are wrong. It's not the first time I've been accused of being associated with the accused/convicted in a case, and I'm sure it won't be the last time, but it doesn't bother me. Which brings me around to ...

Does it really matter who I am? I have a pretty good idea of who both you and Icculus are, and I'd lay a couple of paychecks on it, but do you see me insulting you both? No. I've not called either of you stupid or insulted you. (You, cami said I was trying to make you look stupid and I merely stated that if you look stupid, that I don't get the credit for it.) I haven't told you how to act or post on this message board. I've not degraded either of you. Can't say the same for you guys, but hey ... whatever floats your boat and gets your message across ... I say "go for it."

And Eisman, cami. You clearly posted that what you posted about Eisman wasn't factual.

Now, I've got work to do and defending my position on the conviction of a man in prison for the murders of his pregnant wife and their 2 children might put food on the tables of some folks, but it's certainly not mine.

:seeya:

[Icculus]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210



Understand something. I've posted MY OPINION. That's much different than posting FACTS, which is what both you and Icculus have done. I don't have to explain or defend my opinion to EITHER of you.

And if you expect me to post everything that is corroborated in Fatal Justice, then you've lost your mind. First and foremost, it's my OPINION that the court documents, records, file notes, interviews and personal correspondence on your site DO corroborate Fatal Justice. Second, I don't get paid to do this.

Why does my opinion bother you both so?

Accuse me of being associated with this case or MacDonald if you want, cami, but you are wrong. It's not the first time I've been accused of being associated with the accused/convicted in a case, and I'm sure it won't be the last time, but it doesn't bother me. Which brings me around to ...

Does it really matter who I am? I have a pretty good idea of who both you and Icculus are, and I'd lay a couple of paychecks on it, but do you see me insulting you both? No. I've not called either of you stupid or insulted you. (You, cami said I was trying to make you look stupid and I merely stated that if you look stupid, that I don't get the credit for it.) I haven't told you how to act or post on this message board. I've not degraded either of you. Can't say the same for you guys, but hey ... whatever floats your boat and gets your message across ... I say "go for it."

And Eisman, cami. You clearly posted that what you posted about Eisman wasn't factual.

Now, I've got work to do and defending my position on the conviction of a man in prison for the murders of his pregnant wife and their 2 children might put food on the tables of some folks, but it's certainly not mine.



Jeez, what an EXTENSIVE cop-out. :rolleyes:

Relax, PrimeSuspect. No need to get bitter or hyper-defensive. No one's asking you to be a legal expert, nor post extensively as if it were a job. All we've been asking you for is SOME logic behind any one of your obviously strongly held beliefs in this case. You've made some strong statements, and shouldn't get all huffy when asked to elaborate as to WHY you feel as you do.

You're the one who put yourself in this position you suddenly seem to resent. You came to this thread and posted and insulted, asking for backup supporting our opinions, yet offering little but innuendo and blanket statements to explain your own position, not to mention ignoring what we provided in response to your requests. I don't know why you feel different expectations should apply to you than to Cami or myself, but it's not providing much by way of debate. You seem to have backed yourself into a corner you can't explain your way out of, and instead of taking in this new information and perhaps adjusting your views accordingly, you've chosen to get defensive and point angry fingers at those of us that corroborate our opinions with facts and documentation. Or at LEAST some kind of logic if you've little time for research.

JMO of course. :beer:

Oh, and I'd just LOVE to hear what it is you believe I am so strongly you'd "lay your paycheck down" on it. ;)

[cami]

I'm back. Been on a vacation. It was very restful.

New uploads to thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com if anyone is interested.

[JuneinJuly]

Originally posted by cami
I'm back. Been on a vacation. It was very restful.

New uploads to thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com if anyone is interested.

Thank You. Hope you had a good vacation.
June

[cami]

Originally posted by JuneinJuly


Thank You. Hope you had a good vacation.
June

I did thank you. Short but sweet.

[cami]

Originally posted by cami


I did thank you. Short but sweet.

I wish I could cut and paste these but it's not possible so that's why I provide the links.


Someone had asked if Colette's fall was in evidence and the answer is no. The prosecution didn't need anything to do with Colette's fall to convict MacDonald.

this link takes you to the affidavit of Rober F. Webb, FBI, regarding the "wig"hairs found on hairbrushes in the MacDonald home. The wig hairs are synthetic fibres made from saran.

Janice Glisson affidavit is also provided under the word link re: Q-46 and Q-49 which Webb analyzed.


Affidavit of Webb (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_webb_1991feb13-p2.html) link (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_glisson_1991feb5-3.html)

[basketball]

Did his parole hearing ever happen or has to be scheduled? On
A&E, they had a special on the tragedy and came to the conclusion they have the right man.

[JuneinJuly]

Originally posted by basketball
Did his parole hearing ever happen or has to be scheduled? On
A&E, they had a special on the tragedy and came to the conclusion they have the right man.

Parole was denied. I believe on June 16th.

[cami]

Originally posted by basketball
Did his parole hearing ever happen or has to be scheduled? On
A&E, they had a special on the tragedy and came to the conclusion they have the right man.

Parole was denied on June 16, 2005. He is eligible for a two-year interim hearing but he cannot apply for parole again for another 15 years. He'll be an old, old man by that time.

His parole application contained nothing in way of evidence or statements to the admission of his guilt, nor did it contain any indication of remorse for the crimes.

link (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/parole_longwaitover_2005-06-16.html)

[cami]

MacDonald has always maintained that he used his pajama top, wrapped around his hands, to fend off two drug crazed men, one armed with an ice pick and one with a knife. At the same time, the third drug crazed man was beating him over the head with a baseball bat. At some point during this fight, his pajama top was ripped down the front left side.

From the 1979 trial testimony of Paul Stombaugh.

Government Exhibit 101

17 holes in back
9 holes right front
8 holes right shoulder
13 holes right sleeve
1 hole left shoulder

48 puncture holes, neat, clean edges, no tearing, symmetrical.


MacDonald received no defense wounds, no puncture holes to his hands, wrists, forearms and arms. No ice pick wounds to his body according to the doctors who treated him in the aftermath of the murders.

link to the testimony (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979aug07-stombaugh.html)

Link to testimony (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979jul30-bronstein.html)

MacDonald's story defies logic and is impossible to believe.

MOO as always

[marabeth]

Originally posted by JuneinJuly


Parole was denied. I believe on June 16th.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/parole_prelim_2005-05-10.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/parole_longwaitover_2005-06-16.html

[cami]

Macdonald has always maintained that his pajama top was torn in the living room during his struggle with three drug-crazed, armed intruders. The government contends Colette MacDonald tore the pajama top as she attempted to defend herself during an altercation with mac in the master bedroom the night of the murders. The nature of the tears or rips indicate the top was grabbed by the left front and pulled down in a way that tore the left front panel, left sleeve and shoulder down and tore the pocket completely off.

From the 1979 trial testimony. Mac's pj top was composed of purple sewing threads and blue warp yarns and blue/black sewing threads on the piping on cuffs and neck.

Government exhibits - Master bedroom

Underside of throw rug - 3 purple sewing threads
4 fibres (yarns)

Debris from vicinity of Colette's left hand/arm
12 purple sewing threads
1 blue/ black sewing thread

Debris from under Colette's head
3 purple sewing threads

Debris from trunk and legs area of carpet under Colette
15 purple sewing threads
3 yarns

North corner of footboard - 2 purple sewing threads

East wall headboard of MB - 1 purple sewing thread

Bottom sheet on m bed - 15 purple cotton sewing threads
7 blue yarns

Debris from pillowcase, MB - 4 purple cotton sewing threads
2 yarns

Debris from multi-coloured bedspread - 2 purple sewing threads
1 yarn fragment

Total threads and yarns collected in master bedroom: 60 purple cotton sewing threads, 18 warp yarns and 1 blue/black cotton sewing thread.

Total threads and yarns collected in living room: 0 and 0

link to exhibits testimony (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979aug08-stombaugh.html)

The testimony speaks for itself in my opinion. MacDonald's top was torn in the master bedroom and not in the living room fending off drug crazed hippies.

I certainly don't want to offend anyone on this thread. Dr. McDonald is a cold blooded killer who loves the attention he gets. He's a sociopath and his narcissim is "all about Jeffrey".

:flamemad:

[alien]

I spent this entire weekend reading all 40 pages of posts. I came upon this thread by accident and boy am I glad I started reading it.

I am one of the believers that Jeff MacDonald killed his family and tried to cover it up. Pathetic attempt on his part. I also believe he is where he belongs and pray that he will never ever get out.

I was kind of a sideline observer and never pursued to much information. However, Cami has me fascinated and I can't wait to go to all the sites provided to read more. The one thing I noticed that that the people who believe strongly in his guilt do so from all the research, not just their opinion. Those that don't believe, just give an opinion, with nothing to back it up.

Hope everyone has a good week.

[cami]

Originally posted by Huntress1
I certainly don't want to offend anyone on this thread. Dr. McDonald is a cold blooded killer who loves the attention he gets. He's a sociopath and his narcissim is "all about Jeffrey".

:flamemad:

You won't offend me. I agree. He's an ice pick baby killer.

[cami]

Originally posted by alien
I spent this entire weekend reading all 40 pages of posts. I came upon this thread by accident and boy am I glad I started reading it.

I am one of the believers that Jeff MacDonald killed his family and tried to cover it up. Pathetic attempt on his part. I also believe he is where he belongs and pray that he will never ever get out.

I was kind of a sideline observer and never pursued to much information. However, Cami has me fascinated and I can't wait to go to all the sites provided to read more. The one thing I noticed that that the people who believe strongly in his guilt do so from all the research, not just their opinion. Those that don't believe, just give an opinion, with nothing to back it up.

Hope everyone has a good week.

He won't ever get out except feet first. NO case has been litigated more than his. There's no where left for him to go.

Now that the Jeffrey Macdonald Information Site is operational, Mac the Knife can no longer hide behind his own website and all it's mistaken information of government conspiracies, drug crazed hippies, etc., and his faint hope that somehow dna tests might free him.

He's been exposed as the liar and baby killer he is.

[cami]

FYI-48 Hours is doing a program on MacDonald in September.

[JuneinJuly]

Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye out for it.

Cami, thanks for posting about the show!! I try to catch any show that has this case on it, but for quite a while now all I seem to catch are repeats I have seen over n over again!! I appreciate you posting about it with a good amount of time notice!! I hate reading a post talking about a show that is on NOW and I've done already missed most of it LoL

[alien]

If I missed this somewhere, please let me know where the info is.

Does anyone know why Jeff MacDonald's Father-in-law thought he was molesting the oldest daughter? Had Colette said something to him?

[alien]

Another question? If Jeff MacDonald was so innocent, why was he so unemotional? Is it the same reason that Scott Peterson's family gave, that he shows him emotions privately?

I don't show my emotions in an "in your face" manner. I have suffered through the death of a Brother, Father and Son who died way before what we thought was their time. Brother was 17 and shot to death, Father was 52 and died from a massive heart attack and my Son died at 23 from a truck accident. That combined with 3 ex-husbands who lied, cheated etc taught me to be pretty darn tough. However, if I had been wrongly convicted or tried for the murder of someone close to me, you can bet I would be screaming from the rooftops that I was not guilty and would be showing a lot of emotion during the trial when they were showing the horrible evidence of how that person was killed. Even Sarah Johson in Idaho showed emotion when they were describing how her parents were killed. Of course, that could have been acting.

[cami]

Originally posted by alien
Another question? If Jeff MacDonald was so innocent, why was he so unemotional? Is it the same reason that Scott Peterson's family gave, that he shows him emotions privately?

I don't show my emotions in an "in your face" manner. I have suffered through the death of a Brother, Father and Son who died way before what we thought was their time. Brother was 17 and shot to death, Father was 52 and died from a massive heart attack and my Son died at 23 from a truck accident. That combined with 3 ex-husbands who lied, cheated etc taught me to be pretty darn tough. However, if I had been wrongly convicted or tried for the murder of someone close to me, you can bet I would be screaming from the rooftops that I was not guilty and would be showing a lot of emotion during the trial when they were showing the horrible evidence of how that person was killed. Even Sarah Johson in Idaho showed emotion when they were describing how her parents were killed. Of course, that could have been acting.

Alien so sorry to hear of your losses.

I don't think mac knows how to show emotion for anyone but himself. Take a gander around his website and see all the photos of himself he has posted there. Not many photos of the family he professed to love.

MacDonald knows he's guilty. He can shout innocence from the rooftops until he's blue in the face. He can cry injustice, allege he's been framed, etc., no case has been litigated more. He's gone to the SC seven times and all seven times the justices have found no trial error, no suppression of evidence, no exculpatory factors whatsoever to appeal the convictions.

[cami]

Originally posted by Tweeter
Cami, thanks for posting about the show!! I try to catch any show that has this case on it, but for quite a while now all I seem to catch are repeats I have seen over n over again!! I appreciate you posting about it with a good amount of time notice!! I hate reading a post talking about a show that is on NOW and I've done already missed most of it LoL

I signed up for an email alert at their website yesterday. No date has been given yet for the program and I don't want to miss it either!!!! Even though I hate it that they give this killer airtime, I still watch him, the creep.

[cami]

Originally posted by alien
If I missed this somewhere, please let me know where the info is.

Does anyone know why Jeff MacDonald's Father-in-law thought he was molesting the oldest daughter? Had Colette said something to him?

Here's a link to Freddies notes on that. There's some handwritten notes from Bob Stevenson prefacing same.

link to notes (Highway/)

[alien]

Originally posted by cami


Alien so sorry to hear of your losses.

I don't think mac knows how to show emotion for anyone but himself. Take a gander around his website and see all the photos of himself he has posted there. Not many photos of the family he professed to love.

MacDonald knows he's guilty. He can shout innocence from the rooftops until he's blue in the face. He can cry injustice, allege he's been framed, etc., no case has been litigated more. He's gone to the SC seven times and all seven times the justices have found no trial error, no suppression of evidence, no exculpatory factors whatsoever to appeal the convictions.

Thanks, Cami...

I suppose a person like him will never admit not even on his death bed. Also, I tried the link to the notes about why Freddie thought there was child molestation, but was not able to access it.

And may I just say you totally rock providing so much information on this case. This thread has been so informative because of you.

Little bit of trivia. Did you ever watch the movie about the case "Fatal Vision" and if so, do you remember the actor who played Jeff MacDonald. I can't remember his name, but thought he had an eerie similarity to the real Jeff MacDonald after he started practicing medicine in California.

Thanks again for all your information.

[cami]

Originally posted by alien


Thanks, Cami...

I suppose a person like him will never admit not even on his death bed. Also, I tried the link to the notes about why Freddie thought there was child molestation, but was not able to access it.

And may I just say you totally rock providing so much information on this case. This thread has been so informative because of you.

Little bit of trivia. Did you ever watch the movie about the case "Fatal Vision" and if so, do you remember the actor who played Jeff MacDonald. I can't remember his name, but thought he had an eerie similarity to the real Jeff MacDonald after he started practicing medicine in California.

Thanks again for all your information.

His name is Gary Cole and I cannot ever watch him in anything without thinking he looks like MacDonald. He said that the making of the mini series was the most difficult acting he has ever done. He and the woman who played Colette broke down many times filming those terrible scenes. He's a wonderful actor.

You can find Kassab's notes at this website www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com. This website has everything pertaining to macdonald. It has the article 32 transcripts, the grand jury transcripts, the trial transcripts, all the appeals documents, medical documents, lab documents, crime scene photos and autopsy photos and reports, etc. Macdonald has been exposed as the quadruple murderer he is now for all to see. Enter the menu "the jeffrey Macdonald case" on this website and take the magical mystery tour or take a "fly around view" or a walk through view of the macdonald apt. it's there recreated in 3d. It's awesome. It's thanks to Christina M who provided all the documents for this site. She, along with a group of us, are committed to bringing the truth about the macdonald case out.

[JuJu]

So I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of those who believe that Jeff MacDonald is guilty of the murder of his wife and three children (I'm counting the baby that Colette was carrying at the time of the murders) -- but I have to say that there was one factoid in particular that convinced me, instantly, that the night of the murders did not go off like MacDonald claimed.

Here's the deal: back in the day, I was a hippie. I knew a lot of hippies. I followed the Grateful Dead, as a matter of fact. There's way more hippie in my background than anyone really strictly needs, were I to be honest about it, and it was that experience which led my ears to prick right up when I read what MacDonald said the intruders in his house were chanting during the murders:

"Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."

:lol:

Yeah. Um, sorry Doctor M, but in all my days in the purple haze I have NEVER heard a hippie talk like that. Ever. Charles Freaking MANSON didn't talk like that, okay? You know who talks like that? Arrogant, overeducated squares who are trying to sound like hippies. THAT'S who talks like that.

"Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs." Can't you just see that son of a ***** MacDonald, poring over his "Time" magazine, making note of the word "pig" scrawled in blood on the door of Sharon Tate's house? And thinking "Hm...Manson is a crazed, despicable whackaloon who does drugs and lives on the fringes of society...perhaps I could take a page from HIS book?"

Trust me on this. The only hippies you would ever hear saying something like "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs." would be hippies being played by John Belushi and Steve Martin on the original Saturday Night Live.

I swear to God, the minute I saw that sentence I thought "He did it. He killed them all, that rat-*******. HE KILLED THEM." :flamemad:

"Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."

Please. :rolleyes:

[JuJu]

Just wanted to add...I've read some more of this thread since I made that post.

In 1970 I had long stringy blond hair, and owned (and wore) several floppy hats and two or three pairs of boots.

Reading the opinions of several people on this thread, I think it's probably a very good thing that I can prove I lived in California at the time and was not anywhere near Ft. Bragg. :eek:

[cami]

Originally posted by JuJu
Just wanted to add...I've read some more of this thread since I made that post.

In 1970 I had long stringy blond hair, and owned (and wore) several floppy hats and two or three pairs of boots.

Reading the opinions of several people on this thread, I think it's probably a very good thing that I can prove I lived in California at the time and was not anywhere near Ft. Bragg. :eek:


LOL, me too! Good thing I'm up north here.

Regardless of some people's posts, it was "de rigeur" back in 1967-1970, floppy hats, go go boots, bell bottoms, sandals, love beads, hot pants, mini skirts etc. You were not "hip" unless you dressed like that eh. Mac only had to look out the window of his office or a hospital to see people dressed this way. Once you read the transcripts you realize anyway that MacDonald described four friends of his brother Jay that he had met on Fire Island as the four intruders. The Fire Island Four or the New York Four as the FBI called them.

[cami]

Originally posted by JuJu
So I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of those who believe that Jeff MacDonald is guilty of the murder of his wife and three children (I'm counting the baby that Colette was carrying at the time of the murders) -- but I have to say that there was one factoid in particular that convinced me, instantly, that the night of the murders did not go off like MacDonald claimed.

Here's the deal: back in the day, I was a hippie. I knew a lot of hippies. I followed the Grateful Dead, as a matter of fact. There's way more hippie in my background than anyone really strictly needs, were I to be honest about it, and it was that experience which led my ears to prick right up when I read what MacDonald said the intruders in his house were chanting during the murders:

"Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."

:lol:

Yeah. Um, sorry Doctor M, but in all my days in the purple haze I have NEVER heard a hippie talk like that. Ever. Charles Freaking MANSON didn't talk like that, okay? You know who talks like that? Arrogant, overeducated squares who are trying to sound like hippies. THAT'S who talks like that.

"Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs." Can't you just see that son of a ***** MacDonald, poring over his "Time" magazine, making note of the word "pig" scrawled in blood on the door of Sharon Tate's house? And thinking "Hm...Manson is a crazed, despicable whackaloon who does drugs and lives on the fringes of society...perhaps I could take a page from HIS book?"

Trust me on this. The only hippies you would ever hear saying something like "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs." would be hippies being played by John Belushi and Steve Martin on the original Saturday Night Live.

I swear to God, the minute I saw that sentence I thought "He did it. He killed them all, that rat-*******. HE KILLED THEM." :flamemad:

"Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."

Please. :rolleyes:

I was too. And I want to ask you this, mentioned several times by me but I always get the "manson was a hippie" thrown in my face.

Real hippies of the '60s and '70's believed in peace and love and making the world a better place through world peace and trying to stop the war in Viet Nam by peaceful protest. They were not into slaughtering babies and pregnant women on army bases. Manson and his gang were not hippies. Wouldn't you agree?

Real, real hippies lived in communes and communed with nature, and each other. Yes, we dropped a little acid and we smoked a little pot, it was enlightening, it didn't cause us to go out and run amok murdering babies.

[JuJu]

Originally posted by cami
Real hippies of the '60s and '70's believed in peace and love and making the world a better place through world peace and trying to stop the war in Viet Nam by peaceful protest. They were not into slaughtering babies and pregnant women on army bases. Manson and his gang were not hippies. Wouldn't you agree?

Real, real hippies lived in communes and communed with nature, and each other. Yes, we dropped a little acid and we smoked a little pot, it was enlightening, it didn't cause us to go out and run amok murdering babies.

Manson was a manipulative, sociopathic con artist who blamed society for his problems. Unfortunately he was an intelligent manipulative sociopathic con artist (at least until the drugs nibbled away at his cerebral cortex until I am sure it looks like swiss cheese) and knew enough to turn the accusations around on the people who were making them. But at the time, anyone who had long hair and preached any form of free love was immediately labeled a hippie, so to the minds of the establishment at the time, Manson became a hippie and hippies became evil.

Not all the hippies I knew were gentle people who wanted to go to San Francisco and wear flowers in their hair. Some of them (mostly guys) were arrogant creeps who attached themselves to hippie culture because it was a place where they could be a big fish in a psychedelic pond, and because hippie girls had a reputation for being easy and not wearing bras.

I lived in a commune for quite a while, and we really did grow our own vegetables and bake our own bread and attempt to eschew the trappings of "society". It didn't always work, and none of us are living in communes now, but I like to think that the movement wasn't about the arrogant creeps or the Mansons of the world, but about the people who really wanted to make a difference. Some of it was misguided, and yeah, I probably have much less of a short-term memory than I would have had if I'd joined a sorority and not run off to Berkeley to study Kant. But I'm not ashamed of it.

And I still say that no hippie with any integrity would have said "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" any more than anyone I knew would have broken into a house and slaughtered a pregnant woman and two small children. If they'd beaten anyone up, it would have been MacDonald himself.

[cami]

And I still say that no hippie with any integrity would have said "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" any more than anyone I knew would have broken into a house and slaughtered a pregnant woman and two small children. If they'd beaten anyone up, it would have been MacDonald himself.

I agree, the language as many have said sounds like a very straight person trying to imitate a "head." Groovy was certainly a very old word by 1970.

I'm anxious to see why old Mac is on 48 hours. Must have something to do with those dna tests that have taken years and years.

[cami]

Originally posted by Vitamin A

That is a fantastic web site!

Thank You!!!!

There was an article on that site that has since been removed. Vanity Fair I think it is, in which Macdonald critiques Cole. Mac the knife believes he would have made a better actor than Cole and that Cole was "wooden" I believe he said during the murder scenes. LOL Mac will never change, histrionic and narcissistic.

[2L8 4A D8]

Just wanted to give everybody a "heads up" if you are interested. Next Saturday night, 11-5, on 48 Hours Mystery, they are doing a piece on Jeffrey MacDonald. It starts at 10:00 p.m. on the West Coast. Check your local listings for time and channel. I also don't know if this is a repeat or new material as they didn't say.

[Icculus]

Originally posted by nomi21
:( This is another case in which I think there was a miscarriage of justice. I have never believed this man guilty. Seems this country has reversed in a number of cases. An accused person is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". Too often anymore it is a rush to judgment and a quick conviction. This may clue you in...I have little trust in prosecutor's overall.

What do you base this "belief" in Jeffrey MacDonald's innocence on? All the facts and evidence in this case points directly at MacDonald as the ONLY killer. There is absolutely NO evidence even remotely suggesting an intruder, let alone 4 of them. All attempts to point evidence in another direction have been debunked. There may be miscarriages of justice in this country, such as the OJ or Michael Jackson verdicts, but this is NOT one of them.

Jeffrey MacDonald is a brutal, remorseless triple-murderer (quadruple if you count his unborn son). He is where he belongs. All other theories, when looked at closely, become clearly fictional.

It is an ugly thing sometimes, to see the truth. So many people refuse to face facts, choosing instead to believe in some drooling, snarling psychopath being a murderer instead of a supposedly loving family member. It's horrifying to imagine the person most trusted betraying their family in such a violent manner, and although it may be easier and feel safer to believe in some maniac as the killer, both facts and statistics show that it is often the one least expected. The truth is ugly, but to turn away from it to feel safer is to choose delusion over reality. It's your choice.

JMO as always

[Icculus]

Originally posted by nomi21
:( With all due respect I see the evidence differently than you. I have read extensively about the case, and I see it as an intruder. I guess you read it one way...I read it another.

I have read everything available to the public on this case. It's not a question of "reading it one way or another". It's reading and understanding the facts. Perhaps you could elaborate on your opinion and explain why you believe in an intruder, and what evidence you feel supports it? I'm confident I can successfully refute any intruder theory in this case to illuminate you. I hate the thought of someone supporting a brutal murderer simply due to misinformation. The victims in this case deserve the truth to be known.

JMO as always

:rose: For Colette, Kimmy, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21
:( This is another case in which I think there was a miscarriage of justice. I have never believed this man guilty. Seems this country has reversed in a number of cases. An accused person is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". Too often anymore it is a rush to judgment and a quick conviction. This may clue you in...I have little trust in prosecutor's overall.


Innocent until proven guilty attaches only at trial. Macdonald had a trial in which he was considered innocent. He was found guilty. That means the prosecution proved his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. And his conviction has been affirmed seven times by the SC.

The evidence is overwhelming and points directly at him as the killer. Obviously, you don't bother to consider the forensics or the physical evidence. Or you just shrug it off as doctored by the prosecution. Fortunately, in this case and Darlie's case, there is blood evidence that cannot be doctored or contaminated or rushed to judgement or lied to. Blood doesn't lie, it is what it is.

"Rush to judgement" what does that mean anyway. The MacDonald murders occurred in 1970. MacDonald was brought to trial in 1979. That's some rush.

[lucielle]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Just wanted to give everybody a "heads up" if you are interested. Next Saturday night, 11-5, on 48 Hours Mystery, they are doing a piece on Jeffrey MacDonald. It starts at 10:00 p.m. on the West Coast. Check your local listings for time and channel. I also don't know if this is a repeat or new material as they didn't say.

This one already seems to be setting him up as innocent. I won't be able to watch it because it will make me sick to listen to the man talk. How COULD there be anything new since his parole hearing was only 6 or 7 months ago? Has something mind boggling come up in those few months? :rolleyes:
I don' think so.

I guess another things that bothers me is how MacDOnald acts as if the justice system has done some giant disservice to him. He is HARDLY in indigent defendant, he has had EVERY resource available to him that CAN BE availbale to a person in his position. HE has had chances that TRULY indigent defendants don't ever get!

His "victim" mantality just makes me sick! YUCKY! What an a**!

[cami]

Originally posted by lucielle


This one already seems to be setting him up as innocent. I won't be able to watch it because it will make me sick to listen to the man talk. How COULD there be anything new since his parole hearing was only 6 or 7 months ago? Has something mind boggling come up in those few months? :rolleyes:
I don' think so.

I guess another things that bothers me is how MacDOnald acts as if the justice system has done some giant disservice to him. He is HARDLY in indigent defendant, he has had EVERY resource available to him that CAN BE availbale to a person in his position. HE has had chances that TRULY indigent defendants don't ever get!

His "victim" mantality just makes me sick! YUCKY! What an a**!

It probably will have something to do with the Parole hearing. Then they'll rehash the case in the middle of the show.

The dna tests are scheduled to be complete in December so it can't be that.

[lucielle]

Originally posted by cami


It probably will have something to do with the Parole hearing. Then they'll rehash the case in the middle of the show.

The dna tests are scheduled to be complete in December so it can't be that.


Even if there is foreign DNA, does that prove anything? Didn't they have poeple over for dinner or after dinner drinks?

I just can't stand the arrogance of this dude.

[cami]

Originally posted by lucielle



Even if there is foreign DNA, does that prove anything? Didn't they have poeple over for dinner or after dinner drinks?

I just can't stand the arrogance of this dude.

No foreign dna proves nothing.

The dna has to come from Helena Stoeckley and her gang of murderous hippies for it to effect the outcome of MacDonald.

Hopefully this will shut him up for good but don't bet the farm on it, LOL. He will find something else to rattle the cell doors with. The prosecutor was correct when he said he'll never sit quietly in prison accepting his guilt.

[margiej]

Originally posted by lucielle



Even if there is foreign DNA, does that prove anything? Didn't they have poeple over for dinner or after dinner drinks?

I just can't stand the arrogance of this dude.

Thanks for a good solid belly laugh. I agree. If this guy is ever released it will be a sad day for jurisprudence. I'm sick of his whine. He is incarcerated because of his own words. He convicted himself in the presence of a jury. He probably would have gotten away with it IF he had kept his mouth shut. BUT no narcississtic person can keep their mouth shut. That would take the fun out of it. Live with it, MacDonald. You goofed up.

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21
:confusedHopefully this will shut him up for good but don't bet the farm on it, LOL. He will find something else to rattle the cell doors with. The prosecutor was correct when he said he'll never sit quietly in prison accepting his guilt.

If you were innocent would you? He alone knows if he is or isn't.

The physical evidence of his guilt is overwhelming. He can cry innocence all he wants, there's no doubt he's the killer. He's a complete narcissist, a diagnosed sociopath. He will never accept nor admit guilt.

He alone knows!!! Well, God knows for one thing. As do the authorities who investigated his case and the jury who convicted him, the appeals courts know he's guilty, the Supreme Court knows he's guilty as does the Parole Board and anyone else who cares to scratch below the surface. I know he's guilty.

[2L8 4A D8]

Jeffrey MacDonald is right up there with Scott Peterson and OJ Simpson. All 3 of these men know what they did and are going to take the truth to their graves. They're all murderers and they are not about to come clean because they know what it will do to their supporters, their families and their friends.

Just because they don't "confess" doesn't mean that they are innocent. Of course, they would like all of us to believe that, but the people in He!! will get a drink of ice water first before I will ever change my opinion of their guilt!

JMO and MOO!!

[cami]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Jeffrey MacDonald is right up there with Scott Peterson and OJ Simpson. All 3 of these men know what they did and are going to take the truth to their graves. They're all murderers and they are not about to come clean because they know what it will do to their supporters, their families and their friends.

Just because they don't "confess" doesn't mean that they are innocent. Of course, they would like all of us to believe that, but the people in He!! will get a drink of ice water first before I will ever change my opinion of their guilt!

JMO and MOO!!

Good one 2L8.

Here's a link to the show content. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml)

It's nothing new, there's no new evidence that is at last going to spring him.

[klehnerz]

Originally posted by cami


Good one 2L8.

Here's a link to the show content. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml)

It's nothing new, there's no new evidence that is at last going to spring him.

You got that right! He's been saying this for all these years, like an old broken record repeating where the needle got stuck. He'd make me laugh, except the brutal way he executed his family is no laughing matter.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cami


Good one 2L8.

Here's a link to the show content. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml)

It's nothing new, there's no new evidence that is at last going to spring him.

Thanks Cami! I think that I am going to watch it because I didn't even see it the first time. I probably won't last the whole hour though because JM is so psychotic and delusional. It's hard to even look at him with those evil, evil eyes!

[Pip1]

Don't know if I spelled it correctly.

Was waiting to hear his latest jail-house speach but was distracted for a moment by the Sci-Fi chanel. :eek:

[smartypants]

:confused:

[Monkeyloving*]

That man is soooo guilty.



IMO

[Pip1]

Originally posted by Monkeyloving*
That man is soooo guilty.



IMO

Did you get to see his interview?

[Pip1]

Originally posted by smartypants
:confused:

:confused:

Love your Nic, by the way........

[PsychNurse;~)]

Originally posted by Pip1


:confused:

Love your Nic, by the way........

hi, pip.

that was from an interview that will be on tomorrow (saturday) night's 48 hours mystery.

i'm going to watch it for sure.

cyn

[Pip1]

Originally posted by PsychNurse;~)


hi, pip.

that was from an interview that will be on tomorrow (saturday) night's 48 hours mystery.

i'm going to watch it for sure.

cyn

Thanks for the "heads up" PsychNurse!

Will get to see it after all....

[TexasBL218]

I will be watching too. Great intro report.

[Star Diva]

Originally posted by Monkeyloving*
That man is soooo guilty.



IMO

I sooo agree.

[NancynNC]

Originally posted by Monkeyloving*
That man is soooo guilty.



IMO


Absolutely!!
Not just your opinion.:seeya:

[Former Juror]

Fatal Vision was a fantastic book, but that whole case and his demeanor give me the creeps.

[Pip1]

Originally posted by LifesWay2Short


Who is Jeffrey McDonald? :shrug:

You must be "way" young or I'm "way" old..........:D

[drip~drop1]

Originally posted by LifesWay2Short


Who is Jeffrey McDonald? :shrug:

He's a doctor that killed his wife.
I don't know all the details tho.

[drip~drop1]

Hi Pippy.:seeya:
:flounce:

Maybe I'll watch the show tomorrow. More then likely it'll just be him saying how innocent he is.

..................aren't they all...........

[day2day]

Originally posted by drip~drop1
Hi Pippy.:seeya:
:flounce:

Maybe I'll watch the show tomorrow. More then likely it'll just be him saying how innocent he is.

..................aren't they all...........


Of course they are drip~drop ;).....:eek:

[rondata II]

That case is jacked big time...

[jenniann]

Originally posted by Monkeyloving*
That man is soooo guilty.



IMO

OK, I have the bullet-proof armor on. I've never been convinced he's guilty. :chicken:

My husband was from N.C., had relatives who lived in Fayetteville and had an uncle who worked at Fort Bragg. He and I didn't move back to N.C. until 1979 so we weren't in the state when the murders occurred.

We had moved back when the trial where McDonald was convicted was going on and there was so much in the newspapers.

I can say with certainty, information from some of my husband's relatives, that there was a thriving drug culture in Fayetteville in the late 60's-- early 70's. BTW, that still exists, just a different drug and different dealers.

After all the trials and all the books written about this I'm still on the fence. :shrug:

[NY-EVE]

Originally posted by jenniann


OK, I have the bullet-proof armor on. I've never been convinced he's guilty. :chicken:

My husband was from N.C., had relatives who lived in Fayetteville and had an uncle who worked at Fort Bragg. He and I didn't move back to N.C. until 1979 so we weren't in the state when the murders occurred.

We had moved back when the trial where McDonald was convicted was going on and there was so much in the newspapers.

I can say with certainty, information from some of my husband's relatives, that there was a thriving drug culture in Fayetteville in the late 60's-- early 70's. BTW, that still exists, just a different drug and different dealers.

After all the trials and all the books written about this I'm still on the fence. :shrug:


no doubt we'll be bashed .........but i too have read all books and saw all movies on this case .....i just dont think he did it..........i big part of me wants to know why the investigators and solicitors were fired or disbarred for major misconduct..........and why if the motive was freedom has he NOT asked for porole all these years ????? those are only a few of many questions that keep hounding me about this one
for those of you who bash me ......please look at my ''nic'' i am very nieve.........and try to be fair minded.............i'll surely watch the program

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by NY-EVE


no doubt we'll be bashed .........but i too have read all books and saw all movies on this case .....i just dont think he did it..........i big part of me wants to know why the investigators and solicitors were fired or disbarred for major misconduct..........and why if the motive was freedom has he NOT asked for porole all these years ????? those are only a few of many questions that keep hounding me about this one
for those of you who bash me ......please look at my ''nic'' i am very nieve.........and try to be fair minded.............i'll surely watch the program

Yes, JM has come up for parole a few times in the past. However, you have to admit your guilt and express remorse for what you did in order to qualify for parole and JM is not about to do that after all these years!

Jeffrey MacDonald is right up there with Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson and Darlie Routier, et al. All 4 of them know what they did and are going to take the truth to their graves. They're all murderers and they are not about to come clean because they know what it will do to their supporters, their families and their friends.

Just because they don't "confess" doesn't mean that they are innocent. Of course, they would like all of us to believe that, but the people in He!! will get a drink of ice water first before I will ever change my opinion of their guilt!

JMO and MOO!!

[Aletta]

Before his second arrest - Jeff McDonald worked in a hospital in Long Beach along side with my co-workers husband. He was not well liked then...

[TexasBL218]

I think he is guilty beyond a doubt. I also think he demonstrated some of the same affect showing a disconnect from his family that other killers have.

It will be interesting to see this interview though, because of the discussion here about women being attracted to killers/inmates. I have heard his wife before. She doesn't even sound crazy. I watch in disbelief when she is intereviewed.

Those of you who don't believe he is guilty won't get bashed by me. I like conversations of differing view points.

[TexasBL218]

Bump for interest.

This new interview is tonight.

[kitty1182]

I have always belived he was guilty.......I always will believe it....

[oz_the_catt]

IMO the guys is way too guilty, but I woulnd't bash anyone for having other opinions..like they were never convinced that he was guilty, not enough evidence, etc...but if anyone's opinion is he's not guilty cuz he was too cute, look out!!! :tongue:

[NY-EVE]

Originally posted by TexasBL218
I think he is guilty beyond a doubt. I also think he demonstrated some of the same affect showing a disconnect from his family that other killers have.

It will be interesting to see this interview though, because of the discussion here about women being attracted to killers/inmates. I have heard his wife before. She doesn't even sound crazy. I watch in disbelief when she is intereviewed.

Those of you who don't believe he is guilty won't get bashed by me. I like conversations of differing view points.



thanks for being nice ..............i had some posters really attacking me for not sharing their oppinions............

my theory for him being left alive is...........what better way for a person to get even with someone than to kill a mans whole family ..........a druggie may have asked him for drugs he declined so they sought revenge ............there is verified evidence that an mp saw a lady on the street corner with long blond hair and a floppy hat and boots .... he saw this on the way to the mcdonald house that night........that is too much of a coincidence to me ..........i just cant convict a person with any kind of doubt at all...............i hope this dna evidence will clear my mind one way or the other...........thanks for the kindness

[Talking Tina]

Jeffrey MacDonald.....Guilty guilty guilty. :read:

[alpha_fruit]

IMO, Jeffery McDonald was an earlier version of Scott Peterson, neither got away with their dirty deeds. MOO

[Talking Tina]

Originally posted by alpha_fruit
IMO, Jeffery McDonald was an earlier version of Scott Peterson, neither got away with their dirty deeds. MOO


Xxxxxxactly!

both were incredibly good looking guys (well JM was when he was young...at the time of his trial etc). both defenses attempted to use a HIPPIES did it excuse........both wives were pregnant...........both men not only killed their wives but also, their unborn children.......(and in Jeffrey's case....far worse than SP.....he killed two living children too.......they witnessed him kill his wife.....so he finished em both off.....little kids..........

breaks my heart.....into pieces.

[Talking Tina]

Originally posted by Talking Tina



Xxxxxxactly!

both were incredibly good looking guys (well JM was when he was young...at the time of his trial etc). both defenses attempted to use a HIPPIES did it excuse........both wives were pregnant...........both men not only killed their wives but also, their unborn children.......(and in Jeffrey's case....far worse than SP.....he killed two living children too.......they witnessed him kill his wife.....so he finished em both off.....little kids..........

breaks my heart.....into pieces.

pics of pregnant Colette and the little kids - his very own blood - he killed: along with the little boy Colette was pregnant with.

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

note: i think these are posted on a PRO Jeffrey MacDonald website........where they think he's innocent...all lies.....he DID it.

[NY-EVE]

does anyone know what time and what channel the interview is coming on tonight ?? thanks in advance

[TexasBL218]

Originally posted by NY-EVE
does anyone know what time and what channel the interview is coming on tonight ?? thanks in advance

CBS , 9 PM CST

48 hours

[AlohaRainbow]

Originally posted by Talking Tina

pics of pregnant Colette and the little kids - his very own blood - he killed: along with the little boy Colette was pregnant with.

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

note: i think these are posted on a PRO Jeffrey MacDonald website........where they think he's innocent...all lies.....he DID it.
the dna timeline page is interesting
"32. October, 2005: The AFIP reports that it has concluded DNA testing of the exhibits allowed by the court. They begin comparison of the crime scene exhibits to the exemplars or "knowns". "

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/DNA_2.html

[forensicpsy]

Originally posted by alpha_fruit
IMO, Jeffery McDonald was an earlier version of Scott Peterson, neither got away with their dirty deeds. MOO

JM has been whining to the media for 25 years that he is innocent. He has pathetically tried to portray himself as the victim - rather than Colette and the two children. JM's former father-in-law, Freddy Kasob, was his strongest advocate after the murders. During the course of the investigation, Freddy began to realize that all was not what JM said - He not only realized that JM was guilty but he felt duped. He then began to work with investigators to help get JM convicted. I believe that JM put Freddy into an early grave.

JM has remarried. His wife is stunning but imo must have a few loose screws. With DNA now available JM has a new outlet for his innocent protestations. I am wondering if he is working with Barry Schect.

JMO

[NY-EVE]

Originally posted by TexasBL218


CBS , 9 PM CST

48 hours



thanks so much i knew i didnt see it on court tv i was wandering

[morningglory47]

Originally posted by Monkeyloving*
That man is soooo guilty.



IMO

Talk about one cold blooded, murdering sociopath....

JMHO

I hope he gets what he deserves....
:no:

JMHO

[PsychNurse;~)]

Originally posted by NY-EVE




thanks for being nice ..............i had some posters really attacking me for not sharing their oppinions............

my theory for him being left alive is...........what better way for a person to get even with someone than to kill a mans whole family ..........a druggie may have asked him for drugs he declined so they sought revenge ............there is verified evidence that an mp saw a lady on the street corner with long blond hair and a floppy hat and boots .... he saw this on the way to the mcdonald house that night........that is too much of a coincidence to me ..........i just cant convict a person with any kind of doubt at all...............i hope this dna evidence will clear my mind one way or the other...........thanks for the kindness

i'll be kind! and i love your nic, lol!

imo the most convincing fact regarding his guilt was the way the stab marks lined up with the pj's. gave me the SHIVERS! he is, imo, sooooooooooooo sooooooooooooooo guilty!

cyn

[TexasBL218]

Originally posted by PsychNurse;~)


i'll be kind! and i love your nic, lol!

imo the most convincing fact regarding his guilt was the way the stab marks lined up with the pj's. gave me the SHIVERS! he is, imo, sooooooooooooo sooooooooooooooo guilty!

cyn

I forgot this, PN. Tell me again please the what and why of this, please.

[rondata II]

Originally posted by Former Juror
Fatal Vision was a fantastic book, but that whole case and his demeanor give me the creeps.

have you read fatal justice?

[rondata II]

Fatal vision was a good book and a good movie. However it was all lies.

Do you know that Mcguinnes was sued in court by Jefferey Macdonald and it was proved that it was proved to be a fraud and fictional account of the case?

Did you know that it never came to evidence that there was fresh wax drippings found on the floor that did not match any candles in the home

Three bloodstained gloves
one person would not need 3 gloves but maybe 4 would..

blonde wig hairs found on a hairbrush in th house?

Lots of unidentified fibers and hairs near the bodies that didn't match JM's or anything in the home?

There were over 20 pieces of evidence that were not presented at trial that point to somone else?

I could go on, but I won't. I am way up in the air. After the movie I thought he was guilty. I don't think so after reading fatal justice.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rondata II
Fatal vision was a good book and a good movie. However it was all lies.

Do you know that Mcguinnes was sued in court by Jefferey Macdonald and it was proved that it was proved to be a fraud and fictional account of the case?

Did you know that it never came to evidence that there was fresh wax drippings found on the floor that did not match any candles in the home

Three bloodstained gloves
one person would not need 3 gloves but maybe 4 would..

blonde wig hairs found on a hairbrush in th house?

Lots of unidentified fibers and hairs near the bodies that didn't match JM's or anything in the home?

There were over 20 pieces of evidence that were not presented at trial that point to somone else?

I could go on, but I won't. I am way up in the air. After the movie I thought he was guilty. I don't think so after reading fatal justice.

I think that you need to provide a link or links for all of the above statements that you have made. Sounds like they all come straight from a pro-Jeffrey MacDonald website to me.

There is an ongoing Thread of Jeffrey MacDonald on the Crime Library Message Boards under "Nortorious Murders." There are some very knowledgeable and informative Posters over there. If you've got questions, etc., this is definitely the place to go. Most everything has already been discussed and answered.

As to your statement re: the blonde wig fibers in the hairbrush, you are wrong. It has been proven that they belonged to a blonde "Fall" of Colette's and she would wear it sometimes to give herself a change in hairdo.

JMO and MOO!!

[confusedeasily]

Originally posted by jenniann


OK, I have the bullet-proof armor on. I've never been convinced he's guilty. :chicken:

My husband was from N.C., had relatives who lived in Fayetteville and had an uncle who worked at Fort Bragg. He and I didn't move back to N.C. until 1979 so we weren't in the state when the murders occurred.

We had moved back when the trial where McDonald was convicted was going on and there was so much in the newspapers.

I can say with certainty, information from some of my husband's relatives, that there was a thriving drug culture in Fayetteville in the late 60's-- early 70's. BTW, that still exists, just a different drug and different dealers.

After all the trials and all the books written about this I'm still on the fence. :shrug:

me too, you're not alone. The woman in the blonde wig...was never explained away. They discounted her confession and her knowledge only someone in the house would have known.....even in a drug induced state.

[rph3664]

Originally posted by rondata II


have you read fatal justice?

I got it from the library and it just didn't hold my interest.

I was once a "no brainer, he's guilty" person but have changed my mind over the years. I'm one of those people who believes he didn't do it. A good husband and father? By all accounts, no, but IMHO not a quadruple murderer either.

And before you flame me, keep in mind that he's not going to be sprung because I posted on a Court TV message board.:rolleyes:

As for my opinion on other controversial murder trials?

OJ? Guilty.

Susan Smith? Guilty.

Darlie Routier? Guilty.

Scott Peterson? Guilty.

[Ang Disaster]

Originally posted by cami


Good one 2L8.

Here's a link to the show content. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml)

It's nothing new, there's no new evidence that is at last going to spring him.

Nope, nothing new indeed. I suppose the show title, "Blind Justice" should have been a clue to me as to how JM would be portrayed. Sadly the show was just the same old tripe he and his supporters have been droning on about for years. The only thing new to me was to see his wife. Other than that, just the same old broken records chiming in about his innocence. I guess I'll have to wait until the DNA results, but until then...I am less than convinced that he is innocent.

JMO.

[hohum]

Originally posted by NY-EVE




thanks for being nice ..............i had some posters really attacking me for not sharing their oppinions............



You too? :seeya:

[califgirl]

Originally posted by TexasBL218


I forgot this, PN. Tell me again please the what and why of this, please.

The icepick holes in the pj's weren't jagged, as you would expect if they were wrapped around his hands defending himself from being stabbed. IIRC the number of piercings in the pj's when folded, matched the number of wounds on Collette. They theorize that he placed the pj's over her & stabbed her through them.

[crazyhorse]

JM just has that "look" in his eyes that makes me think hes guilty. Also, the all about "poor innocent me factor" and not much emotion for his slaughtered family. As for the evidence, what a mess. I think the crime scene was severely compromised and evidence not properly handled. Anyways, I do not buy the whole hippie thing, thats been an excuse for more than one family murderer!

[TOOLS]

Originally posted by rondata II
Fatal vision was a good book and a good movie. However it was all lies.

Do you know that Mcguinnes was sued in court by Jefferey Macdonald and it was proved that it was proved to be a fraud and fictional account of the case?

Did you know that it never came to evidence that there was fresh wax drippings found on the floor that did not match any candles in the home

Three bloodstained gloves
one person would not need 3 gloves but maybe 4 would..

blonde wig hairs found on a hairbrush in th house?

Lots of unidentified fibers and hairs near the bodies that didn't match JM's or anything in the home?

There were over 20 pieces of evidence that were not presented at trial that point to somone else?

I could go on, but I won't. I am way up in the air. After the movie I thought he was guilty. I don't think so after reading fatal justice.

R II D II, er, RondataII,
There is also the very real and true fact that the prosecution(one of which went to jail) did everything possible and unethical to prevent, delay, destroy any possibility of the DNA evidence to be presented as, they KNEW it was exculpatory.

There are so many who say guilty because that is the way they WANT it to be rather than questioning why, time after time, the prosecution does this in so many cases.

The unethical ways of prosecution causes much hesitation on my part to blindly follow.
I have questioned his being guilty for many years as, I followed this case from the start.
At every turn, the prosecution has attempted to prevent anything that would prove him innocent from being admitted.
What is wrong with THAT picture??!!

[califgirl]

Originally posted by crazyhorse
JM just has that "look" in his eyes that makes me think hes guilty. Also, the all about "poor innocent me factor" and not much emotion for his slaughtered family. As for the evidence, what a mess. I think the crime scene was severely compromised and evidence not properly handled. Anyways, I do not buy the whole hippie thing, thats been an excuse for more than one family murderer!

He does look creepy. And the interview with Dick Cavett, his demeanor just wasn't right. Even DC said so. As for the hippie thing, it does seem fake. Especially considering he had the Esquire magazine right there outlining the Manson murders with "pig" written on the wall. imo

[califgirl]

Originally posted by TOOLS
[B]

The unethical ways of prosecution causes much hesitation on my part to blindly follow.
B]

I don't follow anything "blindly". I followed the case at the time & have read books about it. IIRC, Joe Maguiness was originally commissioned by Macdonald. Yet Maguiness ended up believing Macdonald did the murders. The father in law was originally on Macdonald's side & came to the same conclusion. Neither of these men had a vested interest in getting the wrong guy for the crime. imo

[TOOLS]

Originally posted by califgirl


I don't follow anything "blindly". I followed the case at the time & have read books about it. IIRC, Joe Maguiness was originally commissioned by Macdonald. Yet Maguiness ended up believing Macdonald did the murders. The father in law was originally on Macdonald's side & came to the same conclusion. Neither of these men had a vested interest in getting the wrong guy for the crime. imo

Explain to us who are so "blind", why the prosecution has conducted themselves so unethically as to interfere/hide/destroy any & all exculpatory DNA evidence at all times in this case.

[klehnerz]

Originally posted by Ang Disaster


Nope, nothing new indeed. I suppose the show title, "Blind Justice" should have been a clue to me as to how JM would be portrayed. Sadly the show was just the same old tripe he and his supporters have been droning on about for years. The only thing new to me was to see his wife. Other than that, just the same old broken records chiming in about his innocence. I guess I'll have to wait until the DNA results, but until then...I am less than convinced that he is innocent.

JMO.

I thought they were fairly balanced (more than I expected). I liked the scale reproduction of their apartment. It was so small. Seems alot more damage should have been done in the epic life&death struggle he claims to have had with 3 other men.

Also, that interview w/Helena-everything she said was in the paper, anyone could have made such claims at that point. I don't believe he is innocent.

[AlohaRainbow]

Originally posted by califgirl

The icepick holes in the pj's weren't jagged, as you would expect if they were wrapped around his hands defending himself from being stabbed. IIRC the number of piercings in the pj's when folded, matched the number of wounds on Collette. They theorize that he placed the pj's over her & stabbed her through them.
hi califgirl - the number was close, but not an exact match

"Blackburn says MacDonald would be dead, if he were telling the truth. “If you fold that pajama top, you will see that there are 48 non-tearing holes in that pajama top. There are 21 ice-pick holes in Colette's chest that form a pattern.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954_page3.shtml

[hohum]

Originally posted by crazyhorse
JM just has that "look" in his eyes that makes me think hes guilty. Also, the all about "poor innocent me factor" and not much emotion for his slaughtered family. As for the evidence, what a mess. I think the crime scene was severely compromised and evidence not properly handled. Anyways, I do not buy the whole hippie thing, thats been an excuse for more than one family murderer!

There is nothing the matter with a gut feeling. I lived about an hour away from Fort Bragg when this murder happened and it was covered heavily on the news. Also I lived in the town where the trial took place. I had a friend who said she saw MacDonald get mad one day in the courthouse, in a private room, and knock everything off of a table in a fit of rage.

Someone mentioned the McGuinniss book, Fatal Vision. I would not discount everything in that book. McGuinniss talks about MacDonald's uncontrollable temper while he was living in California. Don't forget that MacDonald was taking diet pills full of amphetamines, which were later taken off the market, when the murders occurred. He also had not slept in about 3 days doing duty at the hospital. So a bed wetting by the daughter or other small incident might have triggered his famous temper.

[NY-EVE]

Originally posted by TOOLS


Explain to us who are so "blind", why the prosecution has conducted themselves so unethically as to interfere/hide/destroy any & all exculpatory DNA evidence at all times in this case.

THANK YOU .................i too want to hear what anybody thinks about this ..........why hide any thing???
after watching the interview..........i have even more doubts about his guilt......

[AlohaRainbow]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I think that you need to provide a link or links for all of the above statements that you have made. Sounds like they all come straight from a pro-Jeffrey MacDonald website to me.

There is an ongoing Thread of Jeffrey MacDonald on the Crime Library Message Boards under "Nortorious Murders." There are some very knowledgeable and informative Posters over there. If you've got questions, etc., this is definitely the place to go. Most everything has already been discussed and answered.

As to your statement re: the blonde wig fibers in the hairbrush, you are wrong. It has been proven that they belonged to a blonde "Fall" of Colette's and she would wear it sometimes to give herself a change in hairdo.

JMO and MOO!!
do you have a link that colette owned a "fall"? (tia)

i've googled, and all i can find is this:
"Unknown to MacDonald's defense team until a decade after the trial, investigators had found an unidentified hairbrush at the murder scene containing blond synthetic wig hairs. Colette MacDonald did not own such a wig."

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

[basketball]

Thank Heaven, he's somewhere that he can't hurt any more
people. In an earlier interview on A&E, he was so arrogant
with not a bit of remorse. It makes sense that he killed them--
he was the only survivor.

[Talking Tina]

oh god......i watched that 48 hours thing....but i knew very well what my thoughts would be afterward.

still GUILTY as SIN. :mad: those two little girls.........their little sweet faces......breaks my heart. :cuss: :rose:

GARY COLE plays Jeffrey MacDonald in the movie...came out in the mid 90's or late late 80's i think. EXCELLENT movie. but terribly sad. Karl Malden, Gary Cole and the rest of the cast: STELLAR.

[Talking Tina]

Originally posted by basketball
Thank Heaven, he's somewhere that he can't hurt any more
people. In an earlier interview on A&E, he was so arrogant
with not a bit of remorse. It makes sense that he killed them--
he was the only survivor.

there was a mother who killed her sons in the similar manner Jeffrey killed his kids (and wife)..then this mother stabs her self..........to look not guilty.......benign non serious wounds....but she requred miner surgery.........her kids were ripped to shreds......yet she had one single benign stab wound....at their funeral....she was throwing confetti around like a wingnut.........saying she was celebrating their spirits going to heaven or something......

alot like Jeffrey...kills his own family.......stabs himself minerly (while THEY were ripped apart).....and is the sole survivor.

totally insane. this guy was devastatingly good looking......whew! with a wife and kids who ADORED him.........whatta damn shame. I look at those little girls precious faces and i just feel crushed.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Talking Tina


there was a mother who killed her sons in the similar manner Jeffrey killed his kids (and wife)..then this mother stabs her self..........to look not guilty.......benign non serious wounds....but she requred miner surgery.........her kids were ripped to shreds......yet she had one single benign stab wound....at their funeral....she was throwing confetti around like a wingnut.........saying she was celebrating their spirits going to heaven or something......

alot like Jeffrey...kills his own family.......stabs himself minerly (while THEY were ripped apart).....and is the sole survivor.

totally insane. this guy was devastatingly good looking......whew! with a wife and kids who ADORED him.........whatta damn shame. I look at those little girls precious faces and i just feel crushed.

And certainly being a doctor, MacDonald knew where not to stab himself.

[hohum]

I would love to understand why seemingly intelligent people marry men in prison. Guess it's a plus they don't need to worry that the toilet seat will be left up. :o

[califgirl]

Originally posted by hohum
I would love to understand why seemingly intelligent people marry men in prison. Guess it's a plus they don't need to worry that the toilet seat will be left up. :o

:D Maybe that & the fact that they are the center of their husband's attention. Sick, any way you look at it. imo

[Talking Tina]

Originally posted by hohum


And certainly being a doctor, MacDonald knew where not to stab himself.

precisely! :read:

[hohum]

Originally posted by califgirl


:D Maybe that & the fact that they are the center of their husband's attention. Sick, any way you look at it. imo

Did you know that Lyle Menendez has now been married twice in prison? Guess the first marrige broke up because he didn't spend enough time with her. :rolleyes:

Eric has been married once in prison.

[califgirl]

Originally posted by hohum


Did you know that Lyle Menendez has now been married twice in prison? Guess the first marrige broke up because he didn't spend enough time with her. :rolleyes:

Eric has been married once in prison.

He didn't spend enough time with her. What a hoot! I had no idea, I thought only one of them married once. Geesh. There seems to be no shortage of these women. You don't see men doing this. imo

[hokisteph5]

Originally posted by hohum


Did you know that Lyle Menendez has now been married twice in prison? Guess the first marrige broke up because he didn't spend enough time with her. :rolleyes:

Eric has been married once in prison.

I believe it was Eric's marriage that was just covered recently in "People" magazine.

[hohum]

Originally posted by hokisteph5


I believe it was Eric's marriage that was just covered recently in "People" magazine.

Yes, that is where I read it. :seeya:

[hohum]

Originally posted by califgirl


He didn't spend enough time with her. What a hoot! I had no idea, I thought only one of them married once. Geesh. There seems to be no shortage of these women. You don't see men doing this. imo

You know you're right. I guess women have more forgiving hearts.

Look at Blanche Taylor Moore, she had no trouble catching a man in her web but now that she's in prison I haven't heard of any more weddings for Blanche. Did anyone see the movie where Elizabeth Montgomery played Blanche?

[rondata II]

Originally posted by rph3664


I got it from the library and it just didn't hold my interest.

I was once a "no brainer, he's guilty" person but have changed my mind over the years. I'm one of those people who believes he didn't do it. A good husband and father? By all accounts, no, but IMHO not a quadruple murderer either.

And before you flame me, keep in mind that he's not going to be sprung because I posted on a Court TV message board.:rolleyes:

As for my opinion on other controversial murder trials?

OJ? Guilty.

Susan Smith? Guilty.

Darlie Routier? Guilty.

Scott Peterson? Guilty.

Most of this is from memory. .but I bet google could give you all this info.

The bottom line is, IT WAS PROVED IN COURT that Fatal Vision was BS!

So if you are basing your beliefs on that account, you shouldn't.

[rondata II]

Originally posted by hohum


And certainly being a doctor, MacDonald knew where not to stab himself.

He also probably knew where to PREVENT being stabbed as he struggled.

:chicken:

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by hohum


And certainly being a doctor, MacDonald knew where not to stab himself.

Yes, he sure did. Kind of amazing that his stab wound didn't hit his ribs, but managed to slip right inbetween two ribs.

Yet Jeff would like the world to believe he was in a fight for his life.

This kind of thing could be easily demonstrated at home. Draw a picture of the human torso. Close your eyes for a second, open them & run toward the target & see if YOU can place an icepick right between two of the ribs without hitting the ribs. I doubt it could be easily done on a stationary target, much less against a person who was fighting back or even MOVING.

[hohum]

Originally posted by rondata II


Most of this is from memory. .but I bet google could give you all this info.

The bottom line is, IT WAS PROVED IN COURT that Fatal Vision was BS!

So if you are basing your beliefs on that account, you shouldn't.

Have you read this book "Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders
by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost? "

[hohum]

Originally posted by rondata II


He also probably knew where to PREVENT being stabbed as he struggled.

:chicken:

If one were overpowered by several hippie type people would one really have time to "prevent" being stabbed?

[Icculus]

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I still believe he is innocent. I believe the woman Helena told the truth. She stated the child's rocking horse had a broken spring...no way she could have known unless she had been there. I heard her say, it was her boyfiend and a couple friends with her, who did this horrible crime. I think it is a travesty to keep him in prison. I do not believe he is guilty in no way, shape, or form.

Please, nomi21, wake up. Like the defense team couldn't have told her about the spring. How can you ignore all of the actual evidence pointing at MacDonald in favor of one planted statement from an admitted drug addict? Nothing else in her "confessions" matched the crime, and there is absolutely no evidence of her prescence (or anyone else's for that matter) in that house. Not to mention the facts that she eventually admitted she WAS NOT THERE.

Jeffrey MacDonald is a guilty man, and your blind support of him in the face of the evidence disgusts me. He murdered his entire family. Stop feeling sorry for him and look at the FACTS. He doesn't deserve yours or anyone elses support.

JMO of course

[rondata II]

Originally posted by hohum


Have you read this book "Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders
by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost? "

Why yes, yes I have.

That's where some of the memory came from.

I reccommended this book several posts ago,only to hear "it didn't keep my interest"

[rondata II]

Originally posted by hohum


If one were overpowered by several hippie type people would one really have time to "prevent" being stabbed?

If you were fighting for your life?

Yes, If I had that knowledge.. yes, why yes I would.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by AlohaRainbow

do you have a link that colette owned a "fall"? (tia)

i've googled, and all i can find is this:
"Unknown to MacDonald's defense team until a decade after the trial, investigators had found an unidentified hairbrush at the murder scene containing blond synthetic wig hairs. Colette MacDonald did not own such a wig."

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

Correct, Colette didn't own a wig.

2L8 4A D8
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 5151

Will this help you? I located it on The Jeffrey MacDonald Case.

Jeffrey MacDonald has long proclaimed that saran fibers found at the crime scene came from Helena Stoeckley’s blonde wig. During the Oct. 24, 2003, Larry King Live interview, MacDonald said, “And the government record shows the evidence. It shows wig fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig.

Three blonde synthetic hairs were found in a clear-handled hairbrush. The hairs differed in chemical composition and the longest of the three hairs was matched with doll hair found in the FBI exemplar collection. Black synthetic fibers were also found in a blue-handled hairbrush, which were matched to a hairpiece owned by Mildred Kassab.

Platinum-colored synthetic hair was found in a clear-handled hairbrush and a blue-handled hair-brush. The two hairs were identical in chemical composition and were matched to a fall owned by Colette.

Helena Stoeckley testified at the 1979 trial that she did not wear her blond wig on February 17, 1970 because Greg Mitchell did not like how it looked on her.

Old Post 07-25-2005 07:07 PM

The above information that I posted can be found at the MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour. It's a rather long piece and is way down the page. There's no numbers or page numbers, so it is impossible to pinpoint it's exact location, but it is there.

Hope this helps!

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/

[crazyhorse]

"Yes, he sure did. Kind of amazing that his stab wound didn't hit his ribs, but managed to slip right inbetween two ribs.

Yet Jeff would like the world to believe he was in a fight for his life"

Mimi428-I agree w/ you 100% anyone familiar with the design of the human anatomy would be able to inflict non-fatal stab wounds to a person or thier own self. Exspecially a medical doctor or med student or even a morgue assistant!

If JM was fighting off even one hippie and defending his life while his family was being slaughtered, his wounds would have been a lot more traumatic than what they were, can you imagine what a struggle like that could be like? I do think this whole case was handled porrly but in my opinion JM is guilty.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by crazyhorse


Mimi428-I agree w/ you 100% anyone familiar with the design of the human anatomy would be able to inflict non-fatal stab wounds to a person or thier own self. Exspecially a medical doctor or med student or even a morgue assistant!

If JM was fighting off even one hippie and defending his life while his family was being slaughtered, his wounds would have been a lot more traumatic than what they were, can you imagine what a struggle like that could be like? I do think this whole case was handled porrly but in my opinion JM is guilty.

IIRC, Jeff's story was that he was fighting desparately (& got stabbed) & during this time, his PJ top was being pulled off of him. I believe that was his excuse/explanation for how the "stab" did not go through his PJ's, but entered through his bare skin. So his scenario is that his arms are twisted & wound up in his PJ shirt, he is fighting for his life, flailing about, etc.

And by some miraculous intervention, that ice pick just slipped quite neatly & cleanly between his ribs. Did nick a rib, didn't slash him in any way. Just a precise poke in a non-fatal area.

Mighty convenient for HIM, wasn't it? His poor wife & daughters were literally slaughtered to the point of overkill. You would think the "drug crazed" hippies must have been afraid that they were getting more of a fight from a pregnant woman & two little girls than they were of an adult, athletic man. They sure attacked them with considerably more intensity than they did Jeff.

I'm sorry I missed the program, but I can't imagine Jeff or any of his champions EVER explaining how a bloodthirsty, overkilling rampage against his wife & children changed into a meek little poke against HIM, the one & only person in the house who had the strength & ability to actually put up a real fight.

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I still believe he is innocent. I believe the woman Helena told the truth. She stated the child's rocking horse had a broken spring...no way she could have known unless she had been there. I heard her say, it was her boyfiend and a couple friends with her, who did this horrible crime. I think it is a travesty to keep him in prison. I do not believe he is guilty in no way, shape, or form.

That's proof of innocence to you?

No hair, no fingerprints, no blood, no fibres of anyone other than MacDonald found in the apt that night.

The rocking horse was featured in the newspaper the morning after the murders. Helena was shown the CS photos by Mac's lawyer Segal prior to her testimony.

Greg Mitchell passed a polygraph. None of his hair, blood, fingerprints or fibres from his clothing were ever found in the MacDonald apt.

All blood and fibre evidence point directly to MacDonald as the killer. His guilt is overwhelming. The only travesty is the untimely deaths of his wife and two baby daughters.

Ice pick baby killer.

[Icculus]

Originally posted by nomi21
:o
I am going by the evidence..I see it pointing to outsiders. Sorry if it disgusts you...but I find it disgusting that this man has spent 25 years in prison and still can't get out. I just happen to believe he is innocent. I have seen no reason whatsoever he would have had to slaughter his entire family. I just don't buy into that.

What evidence? Please give some examples, you have not provided anything to justify or clarify your beliefs. Seeing no reason for him to commit the murders is not convincing. Just because you don't see it, doesnt mean he didn't do it. It's not about "buying into it", it's about understanding the facts and evidence. James Blackburn said at the trial "If I can prove he did it, I don't need to prove why, or if he was capable of doing it". Don't you understand that?

Please indicate specifically what you feel "points to outsiders". I will be glad to explain it so that you can finally see the truth and stop supporting this horrible excuse for a human being. He is a monster. Once you can see it, you will understand my disgust in people who support him.

JMO as always

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21
:o Jeffrey MacDonald is a guilty man, and your blind support of him in the face of the evidence disgusts me. He murdered his entire family. Stop feeling sorry for him and look at the FACTS. He doesn't deserve yours or anyone elses support.


I am going by the evidence..I see it pointing to outsiders. Sorry if it disgusts you...but I find it disgusting that this man has spent 25 years in prison and still can't get out. I just happen to believe he is innocent. I have seen no reason whatsoever he would have had to slaughter his entire family. I just don't buy into that.

There is no evidence of outsiders so how can you be going by it?

He can't get out because he is guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty of four counts of murder.

Yes, there is no motive for domestic homicide. the prosecution does not ever bear the burden of proving a motive.

[crazyhorse]

:eek: I just cant imagine that someone would marry this guy after what he has been convicted of doing! Of course if he stays locked up, they are safe.

His whole story about the drug crazed hippies is BS. It is proven JM has a nasty temper, he was taking strong amphetimines(now are off the market because of thier dangers) anyone who has ever taken speed knows what it can do to even a rational person's emotions, he is an MD, and the hippie excuse is just far too gone.......not enough evidence to support that.

I wonder if he and Scott Peterson are penpals?

[cami]

Originally posted by klehnerz


I thought they were fairly balanced (more than I expected). I liked the scale reproduction of their apartment. It was so small. Seems alot more damage should have been done in the epic life&death struggle he claims to have had with 3 other men.

Also, that interview w/Helena-everything she said was in the paper, anyone could have made such claims at that point. I don't believe he is innocent.

Highlights:

Dick Cavett commenting on MacDonald's innappropriate affect during the 1970 television programme.

"His total affect was all wrong" "Mine was "gee, to find your wife and daughters murdered." And his answer to that was "Hey yeah isn't that something" "He almost sounded like Bob Hope"

Peter Kearns narrating the film the CID made on the case. Still so passionate for the victims in this case.

William Ivory giving his initial observations upon entering the crime scene that morning.

Defense blunders:

Tim Junkin's alluding that the saran fibres, the candle wax and the piece of skin from under Colette's fingernail as "new evidence."

Stating these "evidentiary items" never saw the light of day until after the 1979 trial. The candle wax drippings were discussed in the Article 32, the Grand Jury and the 1979 trial. The saran fibres were analyzed in 1974 by Paul Stombaugh. His notes were given to the defense prior to the 1979 trial.

Mr. Junkin should have done his homework prior to this program. He looked totally foolish bringing out these old tired items and claiming them "new evidence."

Too much focus on the new wife in my opinion.

MOO and JMO as always.

[cami]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thanks Cami! I think that I am going to watch it because I didn't even see it the first time. I probably won't last the whole hour though because JM is so psychotic and delusional. It's hard to even look at him with those evil, evil eyes!

I know! And doesn't he look every inch the psychotic mass killer he is. I couldn't get over how sinister he looks now. He used to be just a fat, soft, old con.

Still pausing to cry when he mentions his family. That's the phoniest aspect to his game now, his voice breaking when he mentions his children. Ice pick baby killer.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by crazyhorse


I wonder if he and Scott Peterson are penpals?

(snipped for bandwidth)

If they are, it would be for the sake of trading tips on how to best deceive the most gullible.

But I doubt either one would be interested for the simple fact that each of them has got the "I'm the center of the universe" mentality working overtime.

And you can only have ONE center of the universe, after all...

JMO