Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty? [Archive] - Page 3 - Crime Library Message Boards

Mimi428

11-07-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by cami

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.

I guess over the course of 35 years he finally got a clue that he should at least TRY to appear as if he is emotionally distraught over the slaughter of his family.

I remember seeing his lowlife carcass in the early years - & on the Dick Cavett show - he sure didn't have a freakin' clue back then. He didn't have it on the 60 Minutes interview that aired so long ago when Fatal Vision was released. He could do the voice cracking routine, but he couldn't even squeeze out the first tear.

What chilled me to the bones was the way the 60 Minutes interview was interspersed - first with McGuinnes, then with MacDonald, then back to McGuinnes, etc.

McGuinnes' predictions of what Jeff would say & how he would portray himself were so accurate it was horrifying. He predicted the exact way Jeff would playact out the "pause, let your voice crack, act like you are going to cry" scenario. He said to watch him & notice how well he could do all that, but nary a tear, not any showing of grief or loss, no matter how much he tried to fake it. And he NAILED it - because that is exactly what MacDonald did.

COLD BLOODED.

Talking Tina

11-07-2005, 03:58 PM

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.

I think some people accused and tried for murder are blatantly guilty..........but there are some that are honestly innocent and being truly and tragically wrongly accused.

here's a few GUILTIES in my opinion:

Jeffrey MacDonald
Scott Peterson
Robert Blake
OJ Simpson

and yes, Susan Smith.

Those are just a few. I watched a show on CourtTV Forensic Files the other night where a husband was accused of his wife's murder....they lived in Tustin........and he served many many years in prison for the murder and as it turned out...>HE WAS INNOCENT. he's released now.....the real killer was figured out.......but whatta shame for this poor guy.....not only grieving over his wife...but unlike the people i listed as guilty......HE didn't kill her. yet he served time. lost his wife and a portion of his life.

just thinking outloud. anyway, back to Jeff MacD........go to www.tv-now.com and type in GARY COLE.......it'll give his tv listings for the entire month.........(and any other actor you like).....anyway.......look to see his movie Fatal Vision..........thats the movie where he plays Jeffrey MacDonald....EXCELLENT job..the entire cast. Karl Malden especially.

FATAL VISION. Book and movie. :read: :seeya:

crazyhorse

11-07-2005, 06:10 PM

Indeed-there are wrongly convicted people in our prisons. All I can say is: DNA in this day and age should prevent it from happening anymore. Our Government just needs to get speedier at processing it (DNA). Everyone is entitled to thier opinion, they shouldnt be bashed for it. But there are the obvious guilty ones! Scott Peterson, OJ, ect.... My sister who I love dearly but do not agree on certain things like the death penalty (I am for it! swift/severe punishment immediately too) She actually was on the fence during the whole Laci/Scott Peterson case! During that time I was pregnant and when I was 9 months along, I asked her "what do you think my husband do if I just disappeared?" Certainly NOT avoiding the media, or smiling and posing for the media, he wouldnt be calm, and chit-chatting on his cell phone-HE WOULD BE FRANTIC!!! From the beginning of Laci Peterson's disappearence it was CLEAR who was responsible. If THAT didnt convince the doubters, I hope they watched Diane Sawyers interview with Scott Peterson-even my 2 yo can FAKE cry better than Peterson.

As for JM his eyes say it all......................

hohum

11-07-2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by crazyhorse
Indeed-there are wrongly convicted people in our prisons. All I can say is: DNA in this day and age should prevent it from happening anymore. Our Government just needs to get speedier at processing it (DNA). Everyone is entitled to thier opinion, they shouldnt be bashed for it. But there are the obvious guilty ones! Scott Peterson, OJ, ect.... My sister who I love dearly but do not agree on certain things like the death penalty (I am for it! swift/severe punishment immediately too) She actually was on the fence during the whole Laci/Scott Peterson case! During that time I was pregnant and when I was 9 months along, I asked her "what do you think my husband do if I just disappeared?" Certainly NOT avoiding the media, or smiling and posing for the media, he wouldnt be calm, and chit-chatting on his cell phone-HE WOULD BE FRANTIC!!! From the beginning of Laci Peterson's disappearence it was CLEAR who was responsible. If THAT didnt convince the doubters, I hope they watched Diane Sawyers interview with Scott Peterson-even my 2 yo can FAKE cry better than Peterson.

As for JM his eyes say it all......................

Isn't MacDonald claiming that he has waited about 5 years to get a DNA test competed? I never did understand that.

hohum

11-07-2005, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

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.

Great description of the attack. :patriot:

INCNTUTLPRVNGTY

11-08-2005, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by kalekona

Well at least as long as he's in prison his wife doesn't have to worry about being slaughtered.

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

And she is so pretty too -- and looks so "normal". You know the folks out there that are the standard criminal stalkers (like Marlene who was/is infatuated with Scott Peterson and owner of the scott is innocent website). I wish I could find a picture of that one -- but she looks twisted (sorry if that's mean).

Melanie

2L8 4A D8

11-08-2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
There is no evidence of outsiders so how can you be going by it?

I have read all the info about evidence and I still see it pointing to an outsider...I even have the book about the case. I see no reason for Helena to have admitted to something as serious as this horrible tragedy if she had not been there and a part of it. There was(among other items)a long blonde wig hair found. She admitted she was wearing one under the floppy hat she had on. I believe Dr McDonald is innocent. I believe he has served long enough. The man looks far older than his years. My husband is 70 yrs old, and doesn't look as old as he does at 61 years old. He has served a lot longer than some do for crimes as bad. Nothing will ever bring his family back, and that cetainly was a horrible tragedy...but I do not believe he is guilty, and my opinion is not subject to change.

A little ditty on the long blonde wig hair and Helena's blonde wig:

2L8 4A D8
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 5151

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.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/
Now, where did you say that you were getting your information from? Some book?

JMO and MOO!!

rph3664

11-08-2005, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Talking Tina
I watched a show on CourtTV Forensic Files the other night where a husband was accused of his wife's murder....they lived in Tustin........and he served many many years in prison for the murder and as it turned out...>HE WAS INNOCENT. he's released now.....the real killer was figured out.......but whatta shame for this poor guy.....not only grieving over his wife...but unlike the people i listed as guilty......HE didn't kill her. yet he served time. lost his wife and a portion of his life.

I've seen that too. Didn't he serve about 20 years?

Vicki Wegerle's husband was never exonerated for 18 long years after her death, until Dennis Rader sent an "I did it" package to the police.

In my area a few years ago, a woman disappeared and her body was found in some woods a few weeks later. Everyone who knew them said, "It's open and shut - her estranged husband did it" but his alibi totally checked out and to my knowledge, nobody else has even been suspected.

lucielle

11-08-2005, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
I see no reason for Helena to have admitted to something as serious as this horrible tragedy if she had not been there and a part of it.

There are plenty of people who confess to crimes they don't commit.

And Helena's confessions run basically from one end of the spectrum to the other. She contradicts herself every single time she opened her mouth, did you not notice that? WHat you are not focusing on is the evidence in the house, the blood trail. This case is as simple as following the blood trail. There is NO way that things could have happened the way MacDonald says they did, no way. All you need to do is follow the blood trail.

cami

11-08-2005, 10:46 AM

klehnerz

11-08-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by cami

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."
<snip>
Too much focus on the new wife in my opinion.

MOO and JMO as always.

I had very low expectations, I expected a total "poor Jeff" piece and it wasn't quite that. As for focus on the wife, I think that was about general curiosity over women who love men like MacDonald, Bundy, Ramirez, etc.

From my reading, it seems that Kearns is amongst several who worked the case and are still passionate about it, and dedicated to JMD's continued incarceration.

Dick Cavett's observations were the only thing I hadn't heard before. The "new evidence" claim is laughable, I don't know how many years ago I read about it. But I think JMD believes if he says it enough times, "hippies, I'm innocent, new evidence" yada yada, that somehow it will become true and he'll get out.
JMO

2L8 4A D8

11-08-2005, 05:37 PM

You know the saying, "The sqweaky wheel always gets the grease"? This is how JM thinks that he is going to get the key to his freedom. That if he makes enough noise day in and day out that it will drive everyone crazy and they will let him out just to shut him the he** up!

Let's all hope that he is proven wrong!

JMO and MOO!!

red rover

11-08-2005, 09:30 PM

I believe that JM is guilty for several reasons. First off, even though JM and Collette dated for years they were not engaged but she then became pregnant. This was '63 so a majority of unexpected premarital pregnancies resulted in a quick wedding. I feel that JM felt trapped since it was proven that he had numerous affairs throughout their short 7 year marriage.

There were rubber glove 'finger-tips' found that JM stated he had washed the dishes earlier the night of the murders (anyone who knew the couple well dispelled the notion that JM EVER washed dishes). Who had access to rubber surgical gloves in 1970, maybe a doctor? Aside from the compelling blood evidence (each family member had a different blood type) which was easy to trace where each body bled, you had JM bloody footprint in Collette's blood on the floor along with her blood in Kimmy's room. Kimmy's blood was found in the MBR and also on the wood club. Collette was wrapped in her bed sheet. The ice-pick holes was quite telling. Besides his pajama top not having torn holes from the weapon, how could anyone who was fighting for their life not get their hands nicked by the flailing ice-pick? Not to mention JM single wound to the chest which didn't penetrate too deep. IMO he inflicted this injury to himself. What drug crazed murderous hippies would kill little children much less return one to their own bed? Why kill Kristin since she's asleep in her crib and too young to identify the hippy killers even if she awoke.

There are a lot of similarities between JM and SP IMO. Both are habitual liars. Appear undaunted by the loss of their family. JM went on DC show and claimed he had several stab wounds which was an outright lie (he had only ONE). He also said he had to have 2 surgical procedures performed on him which is an exaggeration - yes his lung was collapsed therefore, he had to have a chest tube inserted in order to release the air in his chest as to allow his lung to re-inflate. This procedure is not done in the OR. Why would someone lie like that? Sounds familiar, he had an enormous ego along with being narcissistic he just couldn't resist all the attention he was getting and had to embellish the story, just like 'horny-*******'.

While I don't believe this was pre-meditated with regards to Collette and Kimmy, I think it started with his daughter wetting his side of the bed and then escalated. It is totally realistic with the amphetamines and the lack of sleep all added to the mix.

Also, Fatal Vision's Joe McGinnis was sued because he was hired by JM to write this story which JM thought would slant his way towards his innocence. When it did the very opposite, he sued the author.

Just like Scott Peterson, JM will go to their graves professing their innocence. These two are quite frightening IMO.

hohum

11-08-2005, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by red rover
I believe that JM is guilty for several reasons. First off, even though JM and Collette dated for years they were not engaged but she then became pregnant. This was '63 so a majority of unexpected premarital pregnancies resulted in a quick wedding. I feel that JM felt trapped since it was proven that he had numerous affairs throughout their short 7 year marriage.

There were rubber glove 'finger-tips' found that JM stated he had washed the dishes earlier the night of the murders (anyone who knew the couple well dispelled the notion that JM EVER washed dishes). Who had access to rubber surgical gloves in 1970, maybe a doctor? Aside from the compelling blood evidence (each family member had a different blood type) which was easy to trace where each body bled, you had JM bloody footprint in Collette's blood on the floor along with her blood in Kimmy's room. Kimmy's blood was found in the MBR and also on the wood club. Collette was wrapped in her bed sheet. The ice-pick holes was quite telling. Besides his pajama top not having torn holes from the weapon, how could anyone who was fighting for their life not get their hands nicked by the flailing ice-pick? Not to mention JM single wound to the chest which didn't penetrate too deep. IMO he inflicted this injury to himself. What drug crazed murderous hippies would kill little children much less return one to their own bed? Why kill Kristin since she's asleep in her crib and too young to identify the hippy killers even if she awoke.

There are a lot of similarities between JM and SP IMO. Both are habitual liars. Appear undaunted by the loss of their family. JM went on DC show and claimed he had several stab wounds which was an outright lie (he had only ONE). He also said he had to have 2 surgical procedures performed on him which is an exaggeration - yes his lung was collapsed therefore, he had to have a chest tube inserted in order to release the air in his chest as to allow his lung to re-inflate. This procedure is not done in the OR. Why would someone lie like that? Sounds familiar, he had an enormous ego along with being narcissistic he just couldn't resist all the attention he was getting and had to embellish the story, just like 'horny-*******'.

While I don't believe this was pre-meditated with regards to Collette and Kimmy, I think it started with his daughter wetting his side of the bed and then escalated. It is totally realistic with the amphetamines and the lack of sleep all added to the mix.

Also, Fatal Vision's Joe McGinnis was sued because he was hired by JM to write this story which JM thought would slant his way towards his innocence. When it did the very opposite, he sued the author.

Just like Scott Peterson, JM will go to their graves professing their innocence. These two are quite frightening IMO.

Thanks for keeping us on our toes with the facts. I agree 100%. And I am glad you clarified the lawsuit against McGuinniss and why it evolved. I read the book and distinctly remember him coming to realize that MacDonald was guilty, because he really believed in his innocence until he went to California. There is something that is very mean looking in MacDonald's face, though he was a handsome man, Princeton graduate too, so add smart to that. I am convinced his temper was something fierce. :seeya:

Cyndi

11-08-2005, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

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.

I agree completely. That's the main reason I believe he is 100% guilty. If crazed hippies or any other lunatic was bent on slaughtering the family I believe they would have taken him out first as he was the biggest threat to them. Instead he survives with barely a scratch.

cami

11-09-2005, 10:27 AM

http://www.azwest.net/c&j/html/cj000180-crime.html

Link to the 3d work up of the Macdonald apt. It's fantastic. You can take walk around views or fly around views.

barskin&co.

11-09-2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

I guess over the course of 35 years he finally got a clue that he should at least TRY to appear as if he is emotionally distraught over the slaughter of his family.

I remember seeing his lowlife carcass in the early years - & on the Dick Cavett show - he sure didn't have a freakin' clue back then. He didn't have it on the 60 Minutes interview that aired so long ago when Fatal Vision was released. He could do the voice cracking routine, but he couldn't even squeeze out the first tear.

What chilled me to the bones was the way the 60 Minutes interview was interspersed - first with McGuinnes, then with MacDonald, then back to McGuinnes, etc.

McGuinnes' predictions of what Jeff would say & how he would portray himself were so accurate it was horrifying. He predicted the exact way Jeff would playact out the "pause, let your voice crack, act like you are going to cry" scenario. He said to watch him & notice how well he could do all that, but nary a tear, not any showing of grief or loss, no matter how much he tried to fake it. And he NAILED it - because that is exactly what MacDonald did.

COLD BLOODED.

I always thought Joe McGuinnes had a very interesting theory about what Collette yelled during the murder. Remember, McDonald claims she cried out "Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" A very strange thing to be saying, when you think about it. You would expect, "Jeff, help me," or "don't hurt my children,” or just screams. But McGuinnes said change the word 'they' to 'you.' "Jeff, why are you doing this to me?" Suddenly, these words make perfect sense. I think McGuiness was on to something there.
I also can't help remembering how McGuinnes described McDonald as he watched that poor, pathetic Helena Stokley testify in court. He said that McDonald showed more emotion when he watched Saturday Night Live than when he listened to this woman who the defense contended was responsible for the brutal murder of his wife and daughters.

barskin&co.

11-09-2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
You know the saying, "The sqweaky wheel always gets the grease"? This is how JM thinks that he is going to get the key to his freedom. That if he makes enough noise day in and day out that it will drive everyone crazy and they will let him out just to shut him the he** up!

Let's all hope that he is proven wrong!

JMO and MOO!!

MOO, too! Let's hope this monster rots in prison where he is.

barskin&co.

11-09-2005, 02:02 PM

hohum

11-09-2005, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

Why should the state have to reopen a case on the whim of a convicted killer when all his appeals have been exhausted?

I think that the state feels that this again is only a tactic...I can hear Jeffy now "They botched the DNA because they are trying to protect the military"
I think it is a no win situration, and alot of expense.

JMO

BB

I should think that Jeffrey's new wife might pay for him to have DNA testing if he is so certain that he will be exonerated based on that. What are they waiting for? Maybe the new Mrs. MacDonald likes him better in prison. ;)

Icculus

11-10-2005, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
There is no evidence of outsiders so how can you be going by it?

I have read all the info about evidence and I still see it pointing to an outsider...I even have the book about the case. I see no reason for Helena to have admitted to something as serious as this horrible tragedy if she had not been there and a part of it. There was(among other items)a long blonde wig hair found. She admitted she was wearing one under the floppy hat she had on. I believe Dr McDonald is innocent. I believe he has served long enough. The man looks far older than his years. My husband is 70 yrs old, and doesn't look as old as he does at 61 years old. He has served a lot longer than some do for crimes as bad. Nothing will ever bring his family back, and that cetainly was a horrible tragedy...but I do not believe he is guilty, and my opinion is not subject to change.

Helena was a drug addict. She has told a multitude of versions of what happened, but finally admitted she was NOT there.

The long, blonde wig hair has been proven to match a hair piece found in the house, owned by Colette. It's a red herring, and you're falling for it by trusting in fantasy fiction like Fatal Justice. Everyone wore floppy hats then, it's obviously what MacDonald based his descriptions on.

How could you think he's served long enough for what he's done? He's lucky he didn;t get the death penalty! Have you SEEN the autopsy photos? What is wrong with you???

Originally posted by nomi21
I know I am in the minority here...but I followed the blood trail, and it leads to an outsider. BTW I thought Helena sounded remarkably sincere, and I believed her. I have not and will not believe Dr McDonald committed the brutal murder...I see no motive whatsoever. Noone is going to change my opinion. You each have yours, I have mine. AND yes, I listen to him, and I do not believe the man is lying.

You are choosing to be remain in the dark in spite of the light IMO. You refuse to see the real evidence. You are not some all-knowing being who can just see who is and isn;t lying or sincere. The evidence does not point to an intruder in any way. It doesn't matter if you see no motive, he still did it. It is irrefutable. It is not opinion, it is FACT. I feel sorry for you, you will never learn if you are closed off to factual information. You have chosen delusion and the path of ignorance, instead of truth, you choose to support an ice pick baby killer. Do you think you're some champion of justice? You're so way off, save it for someone who DESERVES it. God help you. You disrespect the dead with your stubborn blindness.

That's JMO as always, and YES I obviously feel strongly about it. I'm sick of this phenomenon of murderer-worshippers. It sickens me.

2L8 4A D8

11-10-2005, 01:46 AM

Excellent post as usual Icculus! Miss you! Unfortunately, this Poster also feels that Darlie Routier is innocent and that she didn't kill her boys; that there was no motive and that she was railroaded!

:rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

Mimi428

11-10-2005, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Icculus

That's JMO as always, and YES I obviously feel strongly about it. I'm sick of this phenomenon of murderer-worshippers. It sickens me.

(snipped for space)

I think part of the problem is that there are a whole slew of people in the world who either cannot or will not use critical thinking when making decisions. They rely on emotions - & so are often lead to believe things that have no factual basis. They come to conclusions on what they "feel", rather than what is real.

I think that is what allows people to discount logic - like the reality that there is no LOGICAL explanation for the fact that Jeff got a tiny poke between the ribs in the middle of a household where the rest of the family was smashed & stabbed horrendously.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

Icculus

11-10-2005, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Excellent post as usual Icculus! Miss you! Unfortunately, this Poster also feels that Darlie Routier is innocent and that she didn't kill her boys; that there was no motive and that she was railroaded!

Thank you, 2L8 my love.
:rose:

Good grief...it's like an epidemic of ignorance!!!

JMO of course

Icculus

11-10-2005, 02:18 AM

2L8 4A D8

11-10-2005, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

(snipped for space)

I think part of the problem is that there are a whole slew of people in the world who either cannot or will not use critical thinking when making decisions. They rely on emotions - & so are often lead to believe things that have no factual basis. They come to conclusions on what they "feel", rather than what is real.

I think that is what allows people to discount logic - like the reality that there is no LOGICAL explanation for the fact that Jeff got a tiny poke between the ribs in the middle of a household where the rest of the family was smashed & stabbed horrendously.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.
:beer: :D :beer:

And a very, very excellent 2 cents worth I might add. I think you have hit the nail on the head. They don't care about what is testified to in the trial transcripts; what is said by the DNA experts; what is said by the forensic experts ~ nada! And if that isn't bad enough, they come here and post their nonsense without any substantiation or back-up whatsoever other than, "it is my gut instinct" or "there is no motive whatsoever!" Then when they are put on the spot, they get all upset and either blow you off or tell you, "that's my opinion, I am entitled to it and I am not going to change it." AD NAUSEUM!!!

JMO and MOO!!

klehnerz

11-10-2005, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

(snipped for space)

<snip>

I think that is what allows people to discount logic - like the reality that there is no LOGICAL explanation for the fact that Jeff got a tiny poke between the ribs in the middle of a household where the rest of the family was smashed & stabbed horrendously.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

This is where it starts and ends for me-a pregnant wife and 2 little girls bludgeoned, stabbed, ice-picked. Jeff-bonk on the head and one "ice pick" wound. Also, the pj top not being shredded as it would have been if he was using it as a shield. The End (imo)

barskin&co.

11-10-2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:confused: I see too many rationalizations here. I do not believe everything that is in transcripts is always the truth...I do not believe all DNA evidence(it can be planted, hidden etc), nor do I believe Helena necessarily told the truth in the trial. I do believe she perhaps decided later it was right to be completely honest, knowing a man was in prison for this brutal crime, who was innocent. While the truth is "supposed" to come out in court....I don't take it as a matter of fact that it always does. AND I don't believe the strand of hair could be any other, than what Helena said it was. I have my own reasons for believing this way. AND I still believe he is innocent.

Oh, we're rationalizing? Uh huh.

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

"The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

"Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

"Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

Mimi428

11-10-2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
AND I don't believe the strand of hair could be any other, than what Helena said it was. I have my own reasons for believing this way. AND I still believe he is innocent.

(space snip)

Can you give ANY reason why the strand of hair can ONLY be explained by what Helena said?

The children had dolls. Collette had a hairpiece (fall). But the ONLY explanation you can accept is that it came from Helena's wig?

I'm sure you do have your "own reasons" for believing. Why won't you let everyone else in on what your "own reasons" are?

Lobsters

11-10-2005, 05:56 PM

Actually, from what I understand, they have been trying to get this DNA testing done for awhile now. It was hung up in court for awhile...

and then when it got started, it was put on hold due to 9/11. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is doing the testing...and they had to work on the casualties from the Pentagon attack.

Apparently, they've also had NUMEROUS personnel changes that have held it up.

And then it was slowed again as AFIP identified Iraq War casualities.

Looks like now...according to Mac's site...Mac's DNA testing (http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/DNA_2.html)

that testing was just completed in October. They are now comparing the tests to the known samples.

hohum

11-10-2005, 11:43 PM

lucielle

11-11-2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

I don't believe it would be that simple to say a synthetic hair came from a particular wig. I believe Helena, because the woman had to know she was putting herself in a very precarious position by owning up to the crime. I know that she died, but I believe she told the truth about what she knew happened. I believe McDonald should be given(after 25 years)the benefit of the doubt, and paroled.

I still find no reason whatsoever this man would have wanted to slaughter his entire family. Anyone who wants can disagree with me, but that is how I see it.

The reasoning behind it really doesn't matter. IMO this was more a crime of rage--which usually happens in the spur of the moment~~therefore motive is irrelevant.

So you discount every piece of physical evidence just because you refuse to believe that he would have done this? That makes no sense at all. The evidence shows that he did.

And you believe Helena Stoekley's confession?

Well, which one? Because she confessed multiple times, each with different scenarios--so which on e is correct to you? Why? Also, did you know in one cofession she stated that MacDOnald had done it. DId you know that?

bahamamama

11-12-2005, 05:59 PM

Am I crazy or did I see recently that McDonald was denied parole and wouldn't be eligible again until 2020, at which time he would be 76 y/o? I thought it was on A&E American Justice or something like that....

crazyhorse

11-12-2005, 07:26 PM

let me go dig out my wooden nickle for this so called "defense fund"

hohum

11-12-2005, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

That is sadly the way many people feel; the dead are gone, and the living (even if they killed people) still have the right to move foward with their lives; I have heard it said a hundred times: where is life there is hope......I just hate when that statement is used for murderers. JMO

BB

I hate to say this but I totally disagree, especially since I think JM slaughtered his family, denies doing it, and thus has no remorse. He has cost us, the taxpayers, a whole lot of money and I, for one, don't like supporting murderers. Of course, if his new wife wants to marry him that's her business. I just don't feel he deserves a happy life after what he did. If he showed any remorse I might feel differently. He caused a lot of people a lot of pain. Collete was an only child and this just killed her mother and stepfather. And to all this I will add I am very sorry he had the free years he did after the murders.

2L8 4A D8

11-12-2005, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I don't see this as a rage killing. AND I do not believe he was the type of person who just all of a sudden went berserk and killed his family. I believe rage killings are not that common, not for someone who has never shown a propensity for violence. I believe what Helena said when I saw her on TV before she died. I( believe the woman was telling the truth, despite anything she may have said before.

Speaking of rage killing...I believe O.J. Simpson slaughter his wife and Ron Goldman in a rage....but he had motive and had threatened Nicole. I firmly believe he got away with murder, just as she had said he would.

One thing is for sure...you won't change me, and I seriously doubt I will change you...so we can just agree to disagree and move on.

You state that you feel that OJ killed Nicole and Ron in a rage, but he had a motive. Really? Rage killings, per se, usually don't involve a motive. They are "spur of the moment" uncontrolled acts of violence. Thus, I would be interested in hearing your "take" on what OJ"s motive was. Just curious.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-12-2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by bahamamama
Am I crazy or did I see recently that McDonald was denied parole and wouldn't be eligible again until 2020, at which time he would be 76 y/o? I thought it was on A&E American Justice or something like that....

No, you are not crazy. It was on last Saturday night, 11-5. And, yes, he won't be up for parole again until 2020. Too bad. So sad!

barskin&co.

11-14-2005, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

No, you are not crazy. It was on last Saturday night, 11-5. And, yes, he won't be up for parole again until 2020. Too bad. So sad!

Ah, yes, which leaves me with two conclusions:

A) Debating with nomi is merely beating one's head against the wall

and

B) The wife and child killer does not even have the chance of getting out of prison for another 15 years, by whch time he might very well be dead.

So all of us who feel that justice has been served, can RELAX.
Ain't that nice?

lucielle

11-14-2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I don't see this as a rage killing. AND I do not believe he was the type of person who just all of a sudden went berserk and killed his family.

WHy? What makes you think that? The way he looks? The fact that he is a doctor? He looks nice? Do you know him?

cami

11-14-2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:confused: I see too many rationalizations here. I do not believe everything that is in transcripts is always the truth...I do not believe all DNA evidence(it can be planted, hidden etc), nor do I believe Helena necessarily told the truth in the trial. I do believe she perhaps decided later it was right to be completely honest, knowing a man was in prison for this brutal crime, who was innocent. While the truth is "supposed" to come out in court....I don't take it as a matter of fact that it always does. AND I don't believe the strand of hair could be any other, than what Helena said it was. I have my own reasons for believing this way. AND I still believe he is innocent.

I don't rationalize anything. I go by the evidence that is at the core of this case. The forensics, you know, blood, hair, fibre. You cannot rationalize the neat, round, ice pick holes with no tearing at the edges. You cannot rationalize the bloody fabric impressions on the blue bedsheet. These two items are the core of the macdonald case and they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that MacDonald is the killer of his pregnant wife and two daughters.

Your reasons stink. Not everyone is mauled over by a prosecutor. You are holding up every case and trial as a yardstick against your own. I don't know what happened to you or your family but to judge every case on it's basis is really unfair and biased.

A question for you, asked before but I don't believe you tendered an answer. If Helena was in the MacDonald home wearing a blonde wig and brushing her hair on the night of these murders, how did the two girls snare her real, brunette hair under their fingernails?

Poor poor Helena, she was a sad case. She was coerced by Gunderson.

cami

11-14-2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by bahamamama
Am I crazy or did I see recently that McDonald was denied parole and wouldn't be eligible again until 2020, at which time he would be 76 y/o? I thought it was on A&E American Justice or something like that....

It was on the 48 hours program and no you are not crazy. It's Federal parole. He was prosectuted by the DOJ and convicted in federal court not state as the crimes occurred on a military base.

cami

11-14-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

I disagree with you. I believe rage killings most of the time do have a motive, whether it is apparent or not. O.J.'s? Jealosy for one thing. He was a batterer, and f he could no longer have her, he would see that no man would. That is a typical attitude of a wifebeater(and he was proven to be one). I don't say some people don't make "spur of the moment" decisions to kill...but I still believe most times there is a reason behind it, call it motive or not. Rage killings often end up with overkill, such as O.J. Some of these things may be open for debate...but they are my beliefs. I still believe O.J. got away with murder, because of who he is and having the money to buy a "dream team" to get him out of it..

You don't consider the damage inflicted on Colette, Kim and Kris an "overkill"? If it isn't, I'd like to know what is. Colette beaten with that club, six separate blows to the head, both arms broken, stabbed over 30 times with ice pick and knife? No, no overkill there. MacDonald lost control Nomi, unlike OJ who premeditated Nicole's death. It was Goldman showing up that threw him off and enraged him that much more.

Colette was the source of all MacDonald's stress and depression as was his daughter Kim. He tried to obliterate both of them by bashing their heads in with that club.

Lobsters

11-14-2005, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

I will eat my hat if JMD is innocent...in fact...I will eat it and ask all his supporters to pass the pepper.

But (and I know I sound like a die hard) even if 'other' DNA shows up it does not mean he had nothing to do with the murders, too much other stuff is hard to swallow...JMO

sorry had to edit.....is this a site for MacDonald supporters? I mean, stokely is dead...and well...kinda having a problem with the wording and the fact a defense fund is set up on the site.

BB

Yeah, the site I linked to, that had the DNA timeline, is his site.

So he can try and woo supporters to his cause.....it's run by his "wife" I believe.

Tracian...I'm with ya. It would pretty much take an act of God at this point to convince me that Mac didn't do this. I'm serious. There is nothing that points to anyone other than him, imo.

and for the record,,hohum,,Colette was not an only child. She has a brother, Robert Stevenson. Who has, imo, taken over the role that Freddy Kassab (Colette's stepfather) took for many years. The role of making sure that MacDonald stays in prison for what he did.

lucielle

11-14-2005, 04:36 PM

hohum

11-15-2005, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Lobsters

Yeah, the site I linked to, that had the DNA timeline, is his site.

So he can try and woo supporters to his cause.....it's run by his "wife" I believe.

Tracian...I'm with ya. It would pretty much take an act of God at this point to convince me that Mac didn't do this. I'm serious. There is nothing that points to anyone other than him, imo.

and for the record,,hohum,,Colette was not an only child. She has a brother, Robert Stevenson. Who has, imo, taken over the role that Freddy Kassab (Colette's stepfather) took for many years. The role of making sure that MacDonald stays in prison for what he did.

Thanks for the clarification about the brother. I did read that when I went to the website. Is he Collette's brother or stepbrother, or I guess he could be a half brother?

Lobsters

11-15-2005, 08:34 AM

I'm pretty certain that he's Collette brother. He calls Freddy his step-father.

lucielle

11-15-2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by nomi21

Since when do any of these reasons you give mean a person is a killer? I don't see that as a reason for him to kill his family. He apparently had no woman at the time, he was trying to be with, so your reasoning doesn't make sense at all.

None of those things nec. make him a killer, but they do add to the motive arguement.

What YOU are arguing makes no sense. Good way to completely ignore the request.

Why are you so convinced that he is innocent? Even in the face of mountians of evidence you say that he is not the killer. Why? Do you know him? You seem to blindly follow him like a groupie. Or do you have any actual reason that you think he is not guilty?

greenbandit

11-15-2005, 11:19 AM

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

greenbandit

11-15-2005, 11:24 AM

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!!

read the book by Alan Dershowitz. He was his appellate lawyer... some real shady goings on with the evidence.

greenbandit

11-15-2005, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by hohum

I hate to say this but I totally disagree, especially since I think JM slaughtered his family, denies doing it, and thus has no remorse. He has cost us, the taxpayers, a whole lot of money and I, for one, don't like supporting murderers. Of course, if his new wife wants to marry him that's her business. I just don't feel he deserves a happy life after what he did. If he showed any remorse I might feel differently. He caused a lot of people a lot of pain. Collete was an only child and this just killed her mother and stepfather. And to all this I will add I am very sorry he had the free years he did after the murders.

Collette was not an only child she had a brother.

lucielle

11-15-2005, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o The same evidence you say points to him as the killer....I see points to an outsider. Just that simple.

No, nomi. You would be wrong.

The evidence imo that points to him as the killer is the blood evidence in that house, the pajama top tears, (or lack therof) the amount of overkill on Colette, Kim, & Krissy, etc.

That IS NOT the same as you just saying you "believe" he couldn't have done it, can't you see that? Or do you just refuse to?

WHat evidence supports an intruder thoery in your opinion? (And not just your "idea' that he is innocent.)

barskin&co.

11-15-2005, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

No, nomi. You would be wrong.

The evidence imo that points to him as the killer is the blood evidence in that house, the pajama top tears, (or lack therof) the amount of overkill on Colette, Kim, & Krissy, etc.

That IS NOT the same as you just saying you "believe" he couldn't have done it, can't you see that? Or do you just refuse to?

WHat evidence supports an intruder thoery in your opinion? (And not just your "idea' that he is innocent.)

lucielle, good luck getting an answer! :D

JuneinJuly

11-15-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by greenbandit

read the book by Alan Dershowitz. He was his appellate lawyer... some real shady goings on with the evidence.

There was a book out many years ago, written by F. Lee Bailey, back when he was an up and comming defense lawyer. He spoke of alot of misconduct etc. by the Army. I remember reading that and thinking maybe he didn't do it, but when you come down to the evidence no one but JM could have done this crime. Collettes blood was on his PJ top before the neat round puncture wounds and that is exactly opposite to what JM says happened, that after he awoke he covered her with his top, (to explain all the blood), the holes were not tears, that he fought off how many men? and had not one defensive wound. that he was barely injured, while his family suffered overkill, no blood in the living room, nothing left behind by a bunch of "drug crazed hippies", who came into the house, obtained weapons from the house, killed these people, wiped the weapons free of prints and tossed them outside the door, only his footprint in the blood. etc. etc. It just goes on and on. GUILTY

cami

11-15-2005, 01:42 PM

cami

11-15-2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

lucielle, good luck getting an answer! :D

LOL, yeah she runs the other way when she has to answer a legitimate question about evidence.

2L8 4A D8

11-15-2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

lucielle, good luck getting an answer! :D

You forgot to add "...getting an answer" that makes any SENSE at all. Not, "I believe; It is my gut instinct; There's no motive; I believe Helena's story; I followed the blood trail and it leads to an outsider; and I'm a Mother and Grandmother!" Blah Blah Blah! AD NAUSEUM!!!!!

JMO and MOO!!

barskin&co.

11-15-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

You forgot to add "...getting an answer" that makes any SENSE at all. Not, "I believe; It is my gut instinct; There's no motive; I believe Helena's story; I followed the blood trail and it leads to an outsider; and I'm a Mother and Grandmother!" Blah Blah Blah! AD NAUSEUM!!!!!

JMO and MOO!!

I can't help noticing nomi's attitude toward Helena. She talks about believing her story (well, one of her stories, anyway) and her "sincerity." I mean, this is a woman she claims is responsible the violent stabbing deaths of a woman and two very young girls, and she is impressed by her "sincerity?" Is there something a tad illogical here?
Of course, what was overwhelming in the case against MacDonald, besides the blood evidence, the magic pajama top, etc., was that there was simply no evidence whatsoever of an "outsider," much less four "drug crazed hippies" wreaking havoc in the MacDonald home. Four drug crazed hippies who thought that "acid was groovy," so they had to "kill the pigs," yet they curiously left the man of the house and an eyewitness alive with a pin prick of a wound. Four drug crazed hippies who, after a struggle with MacDonald and his magic pajama top, left the living room in startlingly pristine condition with not much more than an overturned coffee table. No, we have a blood trail that leads from one bedroom to another and to the ultimate insider- Jeffrey MacDonald- and nowhere else.

11-15-2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

I can't help noticing nomi's attitude toward Helena. She talks about believing her story (well, one of her stories, anyway) and her "sincerity." I mean, this is a woman she claims is responsible the violent stabbing deaths of a woman and two very young girls, and she is impressed by her "sincerity?" Is there something a tad illogical here?
Of course, what was overwhelming in the case against MacDonald, besides the blood evidence, the magic pajama top, etc., was that there was simply no evidence whatsoever of an "outsider," much less four "drug crazed hippies" wreaking havoc in the MacDonald home. Four drug crazed hippies who thought that "acid was groovy," so they had to "kill the pigs," yet they curiously left the man of the house and an eyewitness alive with a pin prick of a wound. Four drug crazed hippies who, after a struggle with MacDonald and his magic pajama top, left the living room in startlingly pristine condition with not much more than an overturned coffee table. No, we have a blood trail that leads from one bedroom to another and to the ultimate insider- Jeffrey MacDonald- and nowhere else.

There are some that if you had a video of them doing it some would still not believe.:rolleyes:

Presented with all the evidence the only clear conclusion is Jeffery MacDonald is as guilty as sin and should never see outside the prison walls again.

2L8 4A D8

11-15-2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

:(Of course it is overkill in this case...but I do not believe Dr McDonald did the crime. Why...because he had no reason to want to kill his family. The people who did kill them I believe they simply didn't care they were committing a brutal act, and destroying a family. Can you give me even one reason why McDonald would have wanted his family dead?

I don't think that JM woke up that morning and decided, "I think that I am going to slaughter the wife and kids today."

IIRC, he was taking heavy duty diet pills and had been working 3 days straight at the hospital. He was hopped up on the diet pills, completely exhausted and tired. When he finally got home, he found Kristen in bed with Colette and the bed was wet. When Colette woke up, an argument ensued and I think it was then that JM completely "lost it."

Once he began his rage and rampage, he couldn't stop. He had to finish the "job." And finish it he did with such viciousness and overkill that cows at the slaughterhouse get more humane treatment than he gave Colette and the girls. After it was all over with, JM has to put together his alibi and that's where you fell hook, line and sinker. You believed him and the major drug addict from the "get go" ~ Helena!

If you feel JM didn't have a motive, WTH do you think Helena and her gang's motive was? Nothing was stolen; there is no evidence that there was a break-in or that any of them were in the apartment; and why the overkill of just Colette and the girls? Why not JM too? My God, if you are going to slaughter a mother and her kids, what is one more person added to the body count?

It absolutely defies logic and common sense to believe that someone other than JM did this. Let me know when you finally come to your senses. However, I won't be holding my breath!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-15-2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

I can't help noticing nomi's attitude toward Helena. She talks about believing her story (well, one of her stories, anyway) and her "sincerity." I mean, this is a woman she claims is responsible the violent stabbing deaths of a woman and two very young girls, and she is impressed by her "sincerity?" Is there something a tad illogical here?
Of course, what was overwhelming in the case against MacDonald, besides the blood evidence, the magic pajama top, etc., was that there was simply no evidence whatsoever of an "outsider," much less four "drug crazed hippies" wreaking havoc in the MacDonald home. Four drug crazed hippies who thought that "acid was groovy," so they had to "kill the pigs," yet they curiously left the man of the house and an eyewitness alive with a pin prick of a wound. Four drug crazed hippies who, after a struggle with MacDonald and his magic pajama top, left the living room in startlingly pristine condition with not much more than an overturned coffee table. No, we have a blood trail that leads from one bedroom to another and to the ultimate insider- Jeffrey MacDonald- and nowhere else.

:beer: Very good post barskin. My sentiments exactly!

decneirepxxxe

11-15-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
[B...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. [/B]

Your position on this case makes little sense and is very contradictory to the positions you've taken on other murderers. A search of your posts evidences that.

I tend to think that you are really projecting events from your own family and life to the resolution you feel is acceptable. After all you cannot even accept that this is a rage killing. Further proof that denial is more then a river.

hohum

11-15-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by JuneinJuly

There was a book out many years ago, written by F. Lee Bailey, back when he was an up and comming defense lawyer. He spoke of alot of misconduct etc. by the Army. I remember reading that and thinking maybe he didn't do it, but when you come down to the evidence no one but JM could have done this crime. Collettes blood was on his PJ top before the neat round puncture wounds and that is exactly opposite to what JM says happened, that after he awoke he covered her with his top, (to explain all the blood), the holes were not tears, that he fought off how many men? and had not one defensive wound. that he was barely injured, while his family suffered overkill, no blood in the living room, nothing left behind by a bunch of "drug crazed hippies", who came into the house, obtained weapons from the house, killed these people, wiped the weapons free of prints and tossed them outside the door, only his footprint in the blood. etc. etc. It just goes on and on. GUILTY

One thing is for sure, he almost got away with it. Had it not been for Freddie Kassab, he probably would still be a free man. Did anyone read the note that Jeffrey wrote Freddie when he was dying?

decneirepxxxe

11-15-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

I can't help noticing nomi's attitude toward Helena. She talks about believing her story (well, one of her stories, anyway) and her "sincerity." I mean, this is a woman she claims is responsible the violent stabbing deaths of a woman and two very young girls, and she is impressed by her "sincerity?" Is there something a tad illogical here?
Of course, what was overwhelming in the case against MacDonald, besides the blood evidence, the magic pajama top, etc., was that there was simply no evidence whatsoever of an "outsider," much less four "drug crazed hippies" wreaking havoc in the MacDonald home. Four drug crazed hippies who thought that "acid was groovy," so they had to "kill the pigs," yet they curiously left the man of the house and an eyewitness alive with a pin prick of a wound. Four drug crazed hippies who, after a struggle with MacDonald and his magic pajama top, left the living room in startlingly pristine condition with not much more than an overturned coffee table. No, we have a blood trail that leads from one bedroom to another and to the ultimate insider- Jeffrey MacDonald- and nowhere else.

Nomi is none to clear as to which of Helena's storys she supports. I don't think anyone can, there are far too many contradictions in them.

I just don't understand how the archetypical language can be convincing to anyone. Lets face it in those days it was quite common to demonize hippys.

decneirepxxxe

11-15-2005, 03:36 PM

velvetbrown

11-15-2005, 03:48 PM

Mac wrote a note to freddy? what did it say????

lucielle

11-15-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I believe the girl decided to finally come clean, and fully take responsibility for what she and her bddies did. I don't believe anyone other than a total fool would admit to something so serious if it were not true.

Then why does her story not fit with the physical evidence?

Face it, Nomi, you will find any reason for him to be innocent---even in the face of extremem evidence otherwise.

2L8 4A D8

11-15-2005, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

Then why does her story not fit with the physical evidence?

Face it, Nomi, you will find any reason for him to be innocent---even in the face of extremem evidence otherwise.

She also feels this way about Darlie Routier. It seems that "all logic and common sense" have just flown right over the top of her head! Go figure!

:shrug:

2L8 4A D8

11-15-2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

<snipped>

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.

<snipped>

JMO and MOO!!

I don't know why there are 2 different Threads on 2 different Boards re: Jeffrey MacDonald. I think that they should be merged together. I am going to contact CW. Hope that this is okay with everybody.

JMO and MOO!!

califgirl

11-15-2005, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by velvetbrown
Mac wrote a note to freddy? what did it say????

The website link on this page indicates that Joe Maguiness (sp?) wrote Freddy a note. I didn't see anything about Jeffrey MacDonald writing him a note, but I could have missed it. :shrug:

Sunflower

11-16-2005, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Tracian
Ya know, I was just rereading something, which makes me kinda take pause.

MD claimed he was sleeping on the couch, when he heard his wife scream, and say "jeff jeff why are they doing this to me' and also heard his daughter, saying "daddy, daddy, daddy'

In the mean time, he sees standing over him, a woman with a floppy hat, holding a candle; and two men looming over him ready to strike.

This means, in a house that size the minimum of five to six people had to be in the house, to attack his family; none of which brought in an outside weapon; save the candle.

Now, there is all this comotion going on, screaming, crying, and two men attacking MD, and this woman, with a floppy hat, holding a candle is saying..acid is groovy....kill the pigs.

This completely defies logic. IMO

any thoughts?

BB

Yes, I think MD has been reading too much 'Helter Skelter' .... it sounds SO contrived !! IMO

Hey Tracian ~~:seeya:

cami

11-16-2005, 12:23 PM

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

Not intending to bash you at all but please, if someone was after MacDonald he would be as dead as his wife and two daughters. They were not just murdered, they were slaughtered.

You are incorrect about the MP. The MP, Ken Mica is his name, saw a woman wearing a floppy hat a few blocks from the crime scene. She was not wearing boots, nor did she have long blonde hair. The only similarities to the alleged intruder MacDonald described is the floppy hat. Mica described her "nice legs" and her raincoat during his testimony at the Article 32 I believe.

cami

11-16-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I don't know why there are 2 different Threads on 2 different Boards re: Jeffrey MacDonald. I think that they should be merged together. I am going to contact CW. Hope that this is okay with everybody.

JMO and MOO!!

Someone started a new thread on Cold Cases, 2L8 I think because of the 48 hours programme. Yes they should be merged,

cami

11-16-2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Tracian
Ya know, I was just rereading something, which makes me kinda take pause.

MD claimed he was sleeping on the couch, when he heard his wife scream, and say "jeff jeff why are they doing this to me' and also heard his daughter, saying "daddy, daddy, daddy'

In the mean time, he sees standing over him, a woman with a floppy hat, holding a candle; and two men looming over him ready to strike.

This means, in a house that size the minimum of five to six people had to be in the house, to attack his family; none of which brought in an outside weapon; save the candle.

Now, there is all this comotion going on, screaming, crying, and two men attacking MD, and this woman, with a floppy hat, holding a candle is saying..acid is groovy....kill the pigs.

This completely defies logic. IMO

any thoughts?

BB

Yes Macdonald tried to copy cat the Sharon Tate murders of August 1969. He had a copy of Esquire magazine that detailed the crimes and the hippie culture in California so he used it to try and throw blame elsewhere. A bloody transfer from his fingers was found on the top pages of the magazine where he leafed through it to get the idea.

cami

11-16-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Thanks for the clarification about the brother. I did read that when I went to the website. Is he Collette's brother or stepbrother, or I guess he could be a half brother?

Bob Stevenson is Colette's biological brother. Their biological father, Cowles Stevenson committed suicide when Bob was a teenager and Colette 11 years old. Fred Kassab was their step father.

cami

11-16-2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by greenbandit

read the book by Alan Dershowitz. He was his appellate lawyer... some real shady goings on with the evidence.

Read the trial testimony and it will prove Alan Dershowitz wrong. There was no shady goings on with the evidence.

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com.

Contains everything a serious researcher could ever want. It contains the Article 32 testimony. Read Bennie Hawkins and you will learn about the New York Four, the four friends of Mac's brother that he based his four intruders on.

It also contains the Grand Jury testimony, the 1979 Trial testimony (not all of it is up yet), autopys photos, etc.

It contains links to all the lab reports on the evidence.

I would suggest anyone who wants to learn this case read the trial testimony. Start with Terry Laber, the blood expert, then onto Paul Stombaugh, then Janice Green, then John Thornton, the defense forensics expert, then end with Morton, another defense expert. Try not to rip your hair out at Segal's cross.

cami

11-16-2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
Posted by Lucille:

Face it, Nomi, you will find any reason for him to be innocent---even in the face of extremem evidence otherwise. Quote/

I believe in justice, maybe you don't. I believe McDonald, and Darlie are innocent, and I don't give one rat's behind what anyone else thinks about my views of him/her.

But Nomi justice was met when both MacDonald and Darlie were convicted. Whether you want to believe it or not both are guilty as sin. The physical evidence points to only them as the killers. Their defense attornies were unable to prove reasonable doubt at trial because there just isn't any Nomi. It bothers me no end that you blame the prosecutors for their convictions when you refuse to look at the evidence that convicted them. None of us want to believe that a mother could raise her hand to her two boys and slaughter them the way she did but she did it as did Macdonald.

It also bothers me that MacDonald continues to allege that Helena Stockeley was involved with the murders of his family. I cannot understand why her family will not do something about her name on his website. If she were my daughter, deceased or not, I would be suing MacDonald to the highest court in the land and making him remove those false allegations against her on his website. Not one shred of physical evidence places her inside that home at all.

barskin&co.

11-16-2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I believe the story she told before her death in the latest interview that was done with Dr McDonald. She asmitted she and the others she was with were high on drugs, and that she was in the house when the murders were committed. She came across as honest and sincere(unlike some few I know), and I believe her.

"Honest and sincere." An honest and sincere drug crazed hippie who took part in the violent stabbing to death of a woman and two little girls? Am I missing something?

nomi:

Where are her three cohorts?

Why is there no sign of a major struggle in the living room?

Why did she leave Jeff alive and barely injured?

How was Jeff able to fend off this band of violent hippies with a pajama top?

Why was the pajama top in the state that it was?

Why didn't they steal anything?

Just a few of many questions.

cami

11-16-2005, 02:01 PM

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.

Oh no, not FJ again.

No, it was not proved in court that FV was a fictional account of the case. The jury hung on the very first question and the judge would have declared a mistrial. McGinniss knowing Mac would keep him in court for years and years offered to settle for $325,000. Macdonald needing money to pay his lawyers, jumped at the settlement, a far cry from the $15M he was suing for.

No, there were not fresh candle wax drippings in the home that didn't match candles. There were old wax drippings in the home, some containing household debris, that didn't match any candles found in the home. Chances are Colette threw them out once they burned away. She loved to burn candles. Interesting to note there were no candle wax drippings where Mac alleges the woman holding the candle was standing.

LOL, you'll be interested to learn those three bloody gloves were actually oven mitts and a heavy dish rubber glove that Colette used to wash dishes.

From CID lab report No. FA-D-P-C-FP-82-70

"D-33K(1-2) Two rubber gloves bearing red-brown stains from kitchen
D-34K(1-3) Three cloth gloves bearing red-brown stains from kitchen"

Saran fibres were found on the hair brushes. Fibres matching falls or hairpieces that both Colette and her mother, Mildred owned.

Yes, lots of unidentified fibres and hairs near Colette's body. Her body was resting on the floor in the master bedroom. The carpet was most likely vacuumed before her body came to rest there. We all drop hair daily. If you look around your own home I am quite sure you will find unidentified hair and fibres. Colette was in the habit of leaving her back door open so her neighbour could come in to use her clothes dryer located outside the MB in the utility room. Maybe they shook their clothes out as the conversed with Colette in the bedroom or maybe those hairs and fibres came from the previous tenants. Lastly, since Mac gave away or sold most of Colette's and the childrens' clothes, toys, dolls, etc. before they could be compared, those fibres quite possibly belong to their clothing.

Link to the CID Lab Reports (http://azwest.net/c&j/html/cid_reports.html)

cami

11-16-2005, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

I really don't understand why that fact keeps getting ignored. That JMD had that issue of Esquire. Also, after reading that one link about the MacDonald case, Helena Stokley, she was the daughter of a Officer stationed there; so perhaps that is where JMD got that description of the woman???? JMO

Hiya Sunflower....I have been almost afraid to look at the Horowitz thread....everyone playing nice?????

:seeya:

BB

MacDonald actually described four friends of his brother Jay. We call them the Fire Island Four. The CID called them the New York Four. Here's a link to the testimony at the Article 32.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article32_11.html

cami

11-16-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by TOOLS

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??!!

You are wrong. Provide some proof that the prosecutors did anything illegal or wrong in the MacDonald case. Bring forth the court motions where the prosecutor is delaying the dna tests or doing everything to prevent the testing. Sure he fought like a tiger to have the court disallow any dna testing in this case. Most prosecutors would. Just taking Mac's word for it are you? The pathological liar and killer. And actually it was Mac who continued to delay the dna testing by his continual motions. Once he had the testing stopped because one of the lab techs wrote an unfavourable book report on Mac in college.

Blackburn did embezzle money from his own law firm, long after the MacDonald conviction. He made restitution, admitted his guilt, served his time. All that is asked of him.

There is nothing that proves Mac's innocence nor is their exculpatory evidence.

cami

11-16-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

Thanks for that link....I never heard about that.

Though I will say that Helena was seen on base; and she did have some of the items that MacDonald 'recalled'

I think the guy is guilty; just the fact that he lied about which daughter wet the bed is annoying; and that this fact keeps getting lost in the debate.

MacDonald said, his youngest daughter wet the bed, he changed her, gave her a bottle then put her to bed; because his side of the bed was wet he went to sleep on the couch....but testing proved that it was Kimmy not Christen that wet the bed. Why would he lie about something like that?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/soj-stevensonnote.html

BB

Oh you found Christina's site. isn't it great. Mac can no longer hide behind his FOIA documents. They are now on the net for the world to peruse.

I believe Mac was trying to hide the fact that Kimberley was in the MB that night for some reason and that's why he insists it was Kris in the bed and Kris's urine. I believe he wanted the authorities to think they were killed in their beds. Obviously he had no clue that the authorities would be able to track his and his families movements that night by the differing blood groups.

Kassab had a theory that MacDonald was molesting Kimmy and that Colette caught him at it that night and threatened to expose him and he couldn't have that so he killed her. I for one don't subscribe to this theory. I think it was a comination of things that touched off the argument that led to the physical altercation. Bob Stevenson presented this theory on MSNBC the day of the parole hearing.

cami

11-16-2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Tracian
What would the motive be to frame MacDonald?
Was he that important? Did he find the real Kennedy assassins?

Even if you just look at the 'little' things in this case, the fact that he lied about the bed wetting, he was tom catting around during his hearings just months after the death of his family; just reading his statement to police arches an eyebrow.

Another poster brought up important points also....if these were 'drug crazed' hippees, why was nothing taken?

IMO MacDonald got lucky he did not get the DP, and that he can still spew his nonsense.

I mean, there was less evidance to convict Scott Peterson, and he is sitting right were he belongs; I am just sorry MacDonald is not his roomy.

JMO

BB

It really bugs me when people post that way. They have no clue what they are talking about. It's very irresponsible if you ask me. Can't they see that MacDonald's website (which is run by his new wife) is biased in his favour?

Exactly, why was Mac so important that the Army had to frame him? To protect some scruffy drug addicts? It defies logic.

And there's not a drug addict alive who would have passed up those drugs and needles in his hall closet. What a dork eh?

the fact that he's alive and barely injured should raise an eyebrow or two as well. Especially when his wife and daughters were brutally slaughtered. the only Green Beret tiger in that apt that night was Colette.

cami

11-16-2005, 03:10 PM

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.

The prosecution has done no such thing. Fatal Justice is full of lies and misconceptions. The authors used the FOIA documents "cutting and pasting" the lab reports to make it appear as if the prosecution hid exculpatory evidence. Can you provide some proof to back up your allegations? There should be court documents if the prosecution has made any motions regarding the dna testing.

2L8 4A D8

11-16-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

Just for clairifcation...is Darlie the mother with the silly string at the grave site of her child? The Texas case that she claims an intruder killed her children?

I did not really follow that case to close...is there a link?

Thanks
BB

Yes, that be Darlie. It was a sickening site to say the least. Here is a link. Hope it helps!

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/1.html

cami

11-16-2005, 03:13 PM

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

Yes, here's a link to a photo of one of Colette's falls.

Link to photos (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photomacdonald-10.html)

cami

11-16-2005, 03:17 PM

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.

No, it was not proved in court that FV was BS. McGinniss sat through the trial, he used the trial transcripts to write the book on the evidence and he used the Grand Jury transcripts to write the psychological profiles. Compare the trial transcripts with the book. You can find them at www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

cami

11-16-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

I will eat my hat if JMD is innocent...in fact...I will eat it and ask all his supporters to pass the pepper.

But (and I know I sound like a die hard) even if 'other' DNA shows up it does not mean he had nothing to do with the murders, too much other stuff is hard to swallow...JMO

sorry had to edit.....is this a site for MacDonald supporters? I mean, stokely is dead...and well...kinda having a problem with the wording and the fact a defense fund is set up on the site.

BB

The dna tests will not exonerate MacDonald. They will be inconclusive at best so keep your hat. They tested 15 hairs, mostly limb hairs that are not comparable. He needs those hairs to match Helena or one of the alleged intruders. Since he's the killer and there were no intruders, he won't be sprung on the dna tests.

hohum

11-16-2005, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by cami

Oh no, not FJ again.

No, it was not proved in court that FV was a fictional account of the case. The jury hung on the very first question and the judge would have declared a mistrial. McGinniss knowing Mac would keep him in court for years and years offered to settle for $325,000. Macdonald needing money to pay his lawyers, jumped at the settlement, a far cry from the $15M he was suing for.

No, there were not fresh candle wax drippings in the home that didn't match candles. There were old wax drippings in the home, some containing household debris, that didn't match any candles found in the home. Chances are Colette threw them out once they burned away. She loved to burn candles. Interesting to note there were no candle wax drippings where Mac alleges the woman holding the candle was standing.

LOL, you'll be interested to learn those three bloody gloves were actually oven mitts and a heavy dish rubber glove that Colette used to wash dishes.

From CID lab report No. FA-D-P-C-FP-82-70

"D-33K(1-2) Two rubber gloves bearing red-brown stains from kitchen
D-34K(1-3) Three cloth gloves bearing red-brown stains from kitchen"

Saran fibres were found on the hair brushes. Fibres matching falls or hairpieces that both Colette and her mother, Mildred owned.

Yes, lots of unidentified fibres and hairs near Colette's body. Her body was resting on the floor in the master bedroom. The carpet was most likely vacuumed before her body came to rest there. We all drop hair daily. If you look around your own home I am quite sure you will find unidentified hair and fibres. Colette was in the habit of leaving her back door open so her neighbour could come in to use her clothes dryer located outside the MB in the utility room. Maybe they shook their clothes out as the conversed with Colette in the bedroom or maybe those hairs and fibres came from the previous tenants. Lastly, since Mac gave away or sold most of Colette's and the childrens' clothes, toys, dolls, etc. before they could be compared, those fibres quite possibly belong to their clothing.

Link to the CID Lab Reports (http://azwest.net/c&j/html/cid_reports.html)

Speaking of gloves, were there any surgical gloves found?

hohum

11-16-2005, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by cami

Bob Stevenson is Colette's biological brother. Their biological father, Cowles Stevenson committed suicide when Bob was a teenager and Colette 11 years old. Fred Kassab was their step father.

Thanks for the information. :seeya:

hohum

11-16-2005, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by cami

You are wrong. Provide some proof that the prosecutors did anything illegal or wrong in the MacDonald case. Bring forth the court motions where the prosecutor is delaying the dna tests or doing everything to prevent the testing. Sure he fought like a tiger to have the court disallow any dna testing in this case. Most prosecutors would. Just taking Mac's word for it are you? The pathological liar and killer. And actually it was Mac who continued to delay the dna testing by his continual motions. Once he had the testing stopped because one of the lab techs wrote an unfavourable book report on Mac in college.

Blackburn did embezzle money from his own law firm, long after the MacDonald conviction. He made restitution, admitted his guilt, served his time. All that is asked of him.

There is nothing that proves Mac's innocence nor is their exculpatory evidence.

It sounds like MacDonald cannot abide being contradicted in any way. Does anyone know if he's had any infractions since going to prison?

2L8 4A D8

11-17-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I guess you can see it whatever way you choose...but I do not believe Darlie is guilty. I never have and never will.

Yes, thank you very much. You have made this statement many times on a few of the other Boards. Thus, as far as I am concerned, there is no further reason to post with you on this subject anymore. Buh bye!

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya:

cami

11-17-2005, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I guess you can see it whatever way you choose...but I do not believe Darlie is guilty. I never have and never will.

Yes we understand that Nomi. You can just look at her and go on your gut instinct that she is innocent. Poor Devon and Damon, they deserve much better.

Well at least you have stopped blaming LE and the prosecution for setting her up!

cami

11-17-2005, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Tracian

Thanks....I caught the case on Dateline, several months ago, and from what the report showed...I felt that she was guilty...but I am glad for more info.

BB

The Silly String tape shows Darlie's inappropriate behaviour a few short days after her sons' deaths but I in no way believe she is guilty because of it. I base my belief on the physical evidence, the blood evidence that cannot be explained away from a position of innocence.

The trial transcripts are the best and only way to learn this case.

You need to look at everything, including the 911 call.

The best explanation of the physical evidence I have seen explained is the Forensics Files program here at Court Tv. It's the old Medical Detectives program from Discovery. We don't get it in Canada unfortunately but I have seen it many times on Discovery. When you see the explanation and the demonstration by the blood expert as to how that cast-off blood got on the back of Darlie's nightshirt, I think it will reinforce her guilt for you.

I believed Darlie was innocent until I saw that program and read the trial transcripts. Her testimony for one thing.

:seeya:

cami

11-17-2005, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by nomi21

Since when do any of these reasons you give mean a person is a killer? I don't see that as a reason for him to kill his family. He apparently had no woman at the time, he was trying to be with, so your reasoning doesn't make sense at all.

Actually Nomi, MacDonald was having affairs with two, quite possible three women at the time of the murders.

Why does Macdonald have to have reasons to kill his family? These were not premeditated crimes. He lost control during an argument while under the influence of powerful amphetemines.

Both Macdonald and Colette were very unhappy in the marriage. Poor Colette, pregnant with his third child and trapped.

cami

11-17-2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
:o I believe the girl decided to finally come clean, and fully take responsibility for what she and her bddies did. I don't believe anyone other than a total fool would admit to something so serious if it were not true.

Well how do you explain that her confessions conflict with the physcial evidence found there? And they conflict with the story Mac himself told of that night? How do you explain that?

Do you believe her when she says her candle was dripping blood? Do you believe her when she alleged that Mac himself is the killer?

cami

11-17-2005, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:chicken: I believe her candle could drip blood with all the bloodletting that happened in the brutal crime. Blood could and did go everywhere. I believe the comment about McDonald was before she decided to come clean and confess to what really happened and who the real killers were.

but there was no blood letting in the living room and no blood dripped where she allegedly stood holding the candle. don't forget while this is going on, Macdonald says he hears his wife and eldest daughter yelling in the master bedroom and that's where most of the blood is dripped.

Blood didn't go in the living room where the alleged fight with the three men occurred and the pajama top acquired the 48 ice pick holes--according to MacDonald that is.

How do you explain your "real killers" passing polygraphs while MacDonald failed?

lucielle

11-17-2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:chicken:Blood could and did go everywhere.

C'mon Nomi, everywhere but in the living room where the life & death struggle took place, right?

:rolleyes:

Just admit you don't WANT him to be guilty & despite the evidence of his guilt, you would deny his guilt to the last breath.

There are PLENTY of defendants in our criminal court system that need your sympathy but MacDonald is not one of them.

cami

11-17-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Speaking of gloves, were there any surgical gloves found?

There was a finger from a surgical glove found in the crumpled up bedsheet and bedspread and a piece of surgical glove found in the MB. They matched surgical gloves found under the sink in the kitchen.

cami

11-17-2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by hohum

It sounds like MacDonald cannot abide being contradicted in any way. Does anyone know if he's had any infractions since going to prison?

He can't! That's what probably started the fight that night, she disobeyed him.

I'm afraid I can't remember. I know my discussion group has bandied it about and I think he was written up allegedly for sexual activity with a female visitor.

cami

11-17-2005, 02:59 PM

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.

Yeah then go look at the autopsy photos on www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com. When you see the damage inflicted on those two children, it will break your heart. When you see that photo of the ice pick holes in Colette's chest matching the pattern in the pajama top, you'll understand that the pajama top was not used to fend off armed intruders.

The link you gave is MacDonald's own website hosted by his wife, Kathryn.

Link to the Autopsy Photos (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/autopsy_photos.html)

Warning the photos are very graphic.

cami

11-17-2005, 03:05 PM

I wonder if he and Scott Peterson are penpals?

LOL, I doubt it. Both have egos bigger than the sky.

cami

11-17-2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by hohum

A defense fund? What does he need that for? Stuff from the vending machine. Here is MacDonald still alive with another wife who loves him, and soliciting money for his defense. In the grave lies his first wife and two children. Where's the fairness?

It's to pay for the dna tests.

hohum

11-17-2005, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by cami

There was a finger from a surgical glove found in the crumpled up bedsheet and bedspread and a piece of surgical glove found in the MB. They matched surgical gloves found under the sink in the kitchen.

Well that's it for me right there. Case closed.

hohum

11-17-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by cami

He can't! That's what probably started the fight that night, she disobeyed him.

I'm afraid I can't remember. I know my discussion group has bandied it about and I think he was written up allegedly for sexual activity with a female visitor.

I read some of the letters on the website and was it Freddie who said he thought that Colette fell asleep on the sofa, not Jeffrey, and when she came back into the master bedroom found Jeffrey molesting the oldest daughter? I guess this was a total assumption on Freddie's part or whoever wrote the letter. I scanned a few of them quickly and can't remember for sure who wrote that.

NY-EVE

11-17-2005, 10:57 PM

cami and lucille....................hello there...........i been reading the forever going debate about jeff mcdonald........of course yall know i still think he's innocent........lol........but,,,,,,,,the discussion is very intertaining.......cami,,,,,,,,do you have any links about the lie detectors tests?.............or any new links about the case ??

how yall been ?? :seeya:

2L8 4A D8

11-18-2005, 04:38 AM

I don't buy into JM molesting Kimberly theory. Why? Because it couldn't have possibly been the first time and if JM did it more than once, you would think that the autopsy report would have said something about "prior molestations" of Kimberly. I think JM is one psycho, sick bas****, but I don't think he would be into molesting the girls. I could be wrong though, but I doubt it.

JMO and MOO!!

cami

11-18-2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
I don't buy into JM molesting Kimberly theory. Why? Because it couldn't have possibly been the first time and if JM did it more than once, you would think that the autopsy report would have said something about "prior molestations" of Kimberly. I think JM is one psycho, sick bas****, but I don't think he would be into molesting the girls. I could be wrong though, but I doubt it.

JMO and MOO!!

I don't either. I too believe that evidence of molestation would have shown up on the autopsy.

Mac was home alone with the children that night. He had ample opportunity to molest Kimmy before Colette returned from her class.

I think his defiance over the prosecution's bed wetting theory indicates that's what caused the initial fight in the MB that night. His insistence, despite evidence to the contrary, that it was Kris who wet the bed that night. Something caused it to escalate into a physical fight. I believe it was something that Colette had never done before, she either hit him or pushed him while he was yelling at her and that caused him to lose all control.

As always just my opinion.

cami

11-18-2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by hohum

Well that's it for me right there. Case closed.

Well that's one of Mac's more laughable claims--that one of the intruders was wearing rubber gloves--just like the ones found opened under the kitchen sink and just like the fragments found in the bedding.

cami

11-18-2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
cami and lucille....................hello there...........i been reading the forever going debate about jeff mcdonald........of course yall know i still think he's innocent........lol........but,,,,,,,,the discussion is very intertaining.......cami,,,,,,,,do you have any links about the lie detectors tests?.............or any new links about the case ??

how yall been ?? :seeya:

Hey NY how are you? Haven't seen you for a while.

Yes it just so happens I have a link to Cleve Backster's testimony at the civil trial where Mac sued McGinniss. Cleve Backster administered the polygraph test to Mac in Segal's office in 1970. It's an eye opener.

Here's the link (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/backster_1987aug11.html)

:beer:

lucielle

11-18-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Tracian
I have been reading through the transcripts, and have a question:

Has MacDonald or his attorneys ever made mention of why the only bloody footprints in the house where from MacDonald? I mean with the amount of blood on the floor, one would think that four to six intruders would have left a footprint, somewhere.

Thanks in advance

BB

From what I understand (which is not a lot, LOL!) the defense was "With all the people walking through the crime scen, how could you have been able to distinguish between any footprints?"

cami

11-18-2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Tracian
I have been reading through the transcripts, and have a question:

Has MacDonald or his attorneys ever made mention of why the only bloody footprints in the house where from MacDonald? I mean with the amount of blood on the floor, one would think that four to six intruders would have left a footprint, somewhere.

Thanks in advance

BB

No. His attorney, Bernie Segal, kept hammering home the point of excessive people being inside the crime scene. Segal then could focus on the theme of crime scene contamination and Army mistakes which are at the core of the defense.

barskin&co.

11-18-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by cami

Hey NY how are you? Haven't seen you for a while.

Yes it just so happens I have a link to Cleve Backster's testimony at the civil trial where Mac sued McGinniss. Cleve Backster administered the polygraph test to Mac in Segal's office in 1970. It's an eye opener.

Here's the link (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/backster_1987aug11.html)

:beer:

Wow. Great link, cami. "The results were very unambiguous," "they were not borderline at all," "he failed the polygraph examination."

cami

11-18-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

okay...that seems to follow their odd logic. Thanks

BB

Do you know their explanation for those bloody footprints of Mac's exiting Kris's room? Talk about your odd logic, LOL

Mac made those prints when he got off the gurney as the medics were wheeling him down the hallway to the waiting ambulance. He fought the MPs to get into Kris's room to see her. They forget to add the prints were made in Colette's blood and were exiting the room, not entering it. He would have had to backflip off the guerney over the heads of the MPs guarding the room to leave his prints exiting the room! Magical Mac!

cami

11-18-2005, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:( In my opinion he was the one most able to put up a fight, which he did do. Of course, this is my own opinion. I know some others here don't agree.

Good Lord, his baby, a two-year old put up more of a fight than he did. He fought off three drug crazed, armed intruders with his pajama top.

Yeah some Green Beret he was.

cami

11-18-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

Wow. Great link, cami. "The results were very unambiguous," "they were not borderline at all," "he failed the polygraph examination."

Absolutely, he failed two polygraphs.

Even more, that testimony corroborates what Joe McGinniss wrote about the polys in the book Fatal Vision.

11-18-2005, 05:36 PM

was he not also a Green Beret? Surely he knew a little about self defense.

deputydi

11-18-2005, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by OddKnutsen
I have followed the JM thing from the start, and there is no way he is innocent. He did it... Why? I can't even come up with a shred of an idear why anybody would do anything like this. Guess I'm normal. That"s all.
Your logic is interesting. You say you can't imagine anyone doing something like this and in the same breath you can imagine a loving father and husband committing three brutal murders.

I don't know whether he is guilty or not. What I do know is there was evidence that was never explored and not disclosed to the defense. The two that bother me the most are the strand of synthetic hair and the mysterious fiber -- neither of which could be associated with anything in the house.

deputydi

11-18-2005, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

Not true...the synthetic hair can be atibuted to colette's falls and the mysterious fiber...that IMO could have been from anyone that ever visited....

Link to the hair:http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photomacdonald-10.html

That link is BTW thanks to Cami

I personally have problems with the lies that Jeff told...Kimmy wet the bed not the baby...his recounting of this was very detailed in his statement.

BB
You don't really believe that a site dedicated to convincing the world that this man is guilty and should never be paroled would actually tell the whole story?

The book "Fatal Justice" is a very interesting read and may change a lot of minds -- or not. At any rate, McGinnis admitted that he changed the slant of "Fatal Vision" not necessarily because he thought MacDonald was guilty, but because that slant would sell more books.

Just an exerpt:

The authors say that key findings supporting MacDonald's version of events -- that a Manson-like group had committed the crimes -- were never presented to the jury. They found, for example, evidence of fresh candle wax drippings that did not match any candles in the home and were found precisely where MacDonald reported he saw flickering candlelight while struggling with his attackers; three bloodstained gloves; (the implication was that one person would not need three gloves, whereas four people likely would); blonde wig hairs found on a hairbrush (MacDonald said the candle was held by a blond woman in a floppy hat) and numerous unidentified fibers and hairs near the bodies of Kimberly, Kristen and Colette that did not match MacDonald's or anything in the home. In all, Bost and Potter describe in detail 21 items of physical evidence never presented in MacDonald's defense that clearly point to the presence of others. Among them: a bloody syringe and an unidentified piece of skin under Colette's fingernail that was extensively tested and subsequently disappeared when it did not match MacDonald's.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1995/03/05/RV52209.DTL

Honest, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- because I'm not convinced myself. But, if you read "Fatal Vision", in the name of fairness, read "Fatal Justice". Then tell me how convinced you are.

2L8 4A D8

11-20-2005, 04:23 AM

Came across this link looking at something else:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml

cami

11-21-2005, 12:12 PM

"You don't really believe that a site dedicated to convincing the world that this man is guilty and should never be paroled would actually tell the whole story?"

And Macdonald's website, run by his wife Kathryn, does tell the whole story? Or is it biased towards his innocence?

Honest, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- because I'm not convinced myself. But, if you read "Fatal Vision", in the name of fairness, read "Fatal Justice". Then tell me how convinced you are.

Fatal Justice's claims are mostly false. The authors, in conjunction with Macdonald, the editor, used the FOIA documents to try and blow smoke in your eyes.

If you look back a few pages, you will find the CID documents noted that refer to the "three bloody gloves"

Investigative agents having firsthand knowledge of the contents of the hall closet state, or would have stated if called to testify at trial, that no "bloody half-filled syringe" or other half-filled syringe was found in the closet. Moreover, the chemist who processed the hall closet for blood stains, Craig Chamberlain, and the agent who inventoried the medical supplies in the closet, Hagan Rossi, state without reservation that no half-filled syringe of any kind was found during the crime scene investigation.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_vs_macdonald_1985mar1.html

D-33K(1-2) Two rubber gloves bearing red-brown stains from kitchen
D-34K(1-3) Three cloth gloves bearing red-brown stains from kitchen

Link: http://azwest.net/c&j/html/cid_reports.html

Can you picture the alleged intruders committing murder wearing dish gloves and oven mitts?

G(1-8) Eight (8) candles from premises of 544 Castle Drive, Ft
Bragg, NC
G-9 Beams Choice Bourbon bottle containing a yellow candle and
bearing multi-colored wax on bottle
G-10 Beams Choice Bourbon bottle containing a yellow candle
G-11 thru Candles of assorted colors

No fresh candle wax was found where MacDonald places the alleged intruder with the candle. There was candle wax found on the bottom of the upturned coffee table but it was old and contained household debris.

http://azwest.net/c&j/html/cid_reports.html

Easy to see Colette liked to burn candles and in liqour bottles like we did in the late 60's early '70s, usually Cold Duck or Chiantti wine bottles.

cami

11-21-2005, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Came across this link looking at something else:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml

Yeah that's the transcript of the 48 Hours program that was on one November 5th. Well not a transcript but a run down of the program.

That Tim Junkin just looks sillier and sillier. He should have researched his subject matter before appearing on that program. The lab documents clearly show the saran fibres came from Colette's and Mildred's falls and not from a wig of a drug crazed intruder.

cami

11-21-2005, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:no: This article convinces me even more that Dr MacDonald is innocent. Some spell his name McDonald.... guess it works either way. I hope someday he can be free.

Yeah we know, a mass murderer convinces you he's innocent just by saying it.

Actual evidence that proves he's a quadruple murderer you just ignore. We get it.

Nomi don't hold your breath, he'll never get out except in a pine box. :seeya:

barskin&co.

11-21-2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by cami

Yeah we know, a mass murderer convinces you he's innocent just by saying it.

Actual evidence that proves he's a quadruple murderer you just ignore. We get it.

Nomi don't hold your breath, he'll never get out except in a pine box. :seeya:

He might just be dead before his next parole hearing in 2020, and amen to that!

deputydi

11-21-2005, 06:36 PM

And Macdonald's website, run by his wife Kathryn, does tell the whole story? Or is it biased towards his innocence?
No, cami -- I don't believe all that either side claims. I honestly don't know what I believe nor do I have a firm opinion of Dr. MacDonald's guilt or innocence. If -- and that's a big "IF" -- Dr. MacDonald gets a new trial I think a good attorney will be able to present plenty of reasonable doubt to a new jury. Make no mistake -- that does not mean the man is factually innocent of the murders. I just think enough doubt can be raised for a finding of not guilty this time around.

deputydi

11-21-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

this is a scary idea....he may be guilty...but with enough good lawyering it will not matter...he will go free.

Sorry, I have a problem with that.

BB
I'm not crazy about it either, but it happens. Remember OJ? How about Michael Jackson?

If MacDonald really did commit these murders, there is a special place in Hell reserved for him.

deputydi

11-21-2005, 08:09 PM

We are totally on the same page. I, too, believe in jury nullification. If this were a more active forum, we'd both be in for a bashing. Some laws and some jury instructions make it impossible to render a verdict that you feel in your heart is the right one.

The words "jury nullification" were never used, but I watched a rerun of "The Practice" this morning that personified this concept. A woman was on trial for shooting a drug dealer in her neighborhood in cold blood. Security cameras had caught the act on film and she never denied killing him. A defense of justifiable homicide was denied by the judge and she would not allow an insanity defense. Great episode and the jury found her not guilty -- obviously jury nullification at its finest.

hohum

11-21-2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by deputydi

I'm not crazy about it either, but it happens. Remember OJ? How about Michael Jackson?

If MacDonald really did commit these murders, there is a special place in Hell reserved for him.

I guess when you have a beautiful woman come along and defend you it's easy to carry on with the I'm innocent theme.

hohum

11-21-2005, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by deputydi
We are totally on the same page. I, too, believe in jury nullification. If this were a more active forum, we'd both be in for a bashing. Some laws and some jury instructions make it impossible to render a verdict that you feel in your heart is the right one.

The words "jury nullification" were never used, but I watched a rerun of "The Practice" this morning that personified this concept. A woman was on trial for shooting a drug dealer in her neighborhood in cold blood. Security cameras had caught the act on film and she never denied killing him. A defense of justifiable homicide was denied by the judge and she would not allow an insanity defense. Great episode and the jury found her not guilty -- obviously jury nullification at its finest.

Good for her.

cami

11-22-2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by deputydi

No, cami -- I don't believe all that either side claims. I honestly don't know what I believe nor do I have a firm opinion of Dr. MacDonald's guilt or innocence. If -- and that's a big "IF" -- Dr. MacDonald gets a new trial I think a good attorney will be able to present plenty of reasonable doubt to a new jury. Make no mistake -- that does not mean the man is factually innocent of the murders. I just think enough doubt can be raised for a finding of not guilty this time around.

Well as one who has researched his case, I do believe firmly in his guilt.

IF, but I don't ever see him getting a new trial. There just isn't anything to grant a new trial. The hair being dna tested would have to come from one of those alleged assailants he described for him to be granted a new trial. Since there were no intruders, the dna tests will be inconclusive at best.

There's still the blood and fibre evidence from his 1979 trial that the defense would have to poke a reasonable doubt hole in. They couldn't do it in 1979 and they won't do it now or in the future. Just my opinion as always.

:seeya:

lucielle

11-23-2005, 08:39 AM

barskin&co.

11-23-2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:read: Because I see all the evidence as pointing away from him.

Care to be just a tad more specific?

(she asks knowing full well that nomi is never more specific)

lucielle

11-23-2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:read: Because I see all the evidence as pointing away from him.

Can you interpret more?

cami

11-28-2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

:chicken: I can say this to you in reverse...you are saying he's a murderer...well, he says he isn't, and I believe him.And don't tell me he was convicted. I already know that, BUT I don't agree with the conviction. AND you probably are right...he may well never get out, other than in a box...but that to me, just is another indication of a grossly flawed "justice(IMO unjust)system". Justice may win out once in a great while...but I consider that the exception..not the rule.

Actually no you cannot Nomi. I've studied this case for years. I don't just believe MacDonald because he says he's innocent, LOl, like you do. He's lying Nomi. You can't understand that? You just accept at face value because he says he's innocent, he is?

The physical evidence is at the core of the Macdonald case, the blood, the bedsheet, the pajama top, the pajama fibres--the most important forensics of the Macdonald case. Then there's his minor injuries and the fact that his wife and two daughters were brutally slaughtered, butchered. What motive would a stranger have to butcher a two year old child and leave him alive?

Don't worry Nomi, justice was not flawed in this case. No one but MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife and his two baby girls. The killer will not be set free to walk the streets and to perhaps kill again. If you took the time to learn something about the case instead of blaming prosecutors you'd see that.

cami

11-28-2005, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

Can you interpret more?

You see, no answer from Nomi...................

Come out come out wherever you are.

Mimi428

11-28-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:no:Can you give me just one good reason why he would have wanted his family dead? I don't believe you can, because there is none.

Sounds like you believe all murders are pre-meditated. That all murderers take time & effort to plan ahead of time how to kill their victims.

Surely you realize that isn't the case in every murder. Some do plan ahead - like Scott Peterson.

Others kill in fits of rage - like Jeff MacDonald.

I don't think Jeff planned ahead to murder his family. I don't think he plotted it all out beforehand. I do think he became murderously enraged & killed his wife & oldest daughter in a furious outburst.

Then, in order to cover up those murders, he hastily decided that he had to kill his younger daughter as well. He had to quickly decide on his story of they were all attacked.

FrankieBones

11-28-2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:no: This article convinces me even more that Dr MacDonald is innocent. Some spell his name McDonald.... guess it works either way. I hope someday he can be free.
Do you really want a convicted murderer out walking the streets?
Did you read up on the trial? The evidence was overwhelming.
imo

2L8 4A D8

11-28-2005, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:no:Can you give me just one good reason why he would have wanted his family dead? I don't believe you can, because there is none.
Nomi: Did you even read my response to your post shown below? I think that I gave you more than "just one good reason why he would have wanted his family dead." So what is your response now?

2L8 4A D8
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Motive or not......

Originally posted by nomi21

Of course it is overkill in this case...but I do not believe Dr McDonald did the crime. Why...because he had no reason to want to kill his family. The people who did kill them I believe they simply didn't care they were committing a brutal act, and destroying a family. Can you give me even one reason why McDonald would have wanted his family dead?
Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I don't think that JM woke up that morning and decided, "I think that I am going to slaughter the wife and kids today."

IIRC, he was taking heavy duty diet pills and had been working 3 days straight at the hospital. He was hopped up on the diet pills, completely exhausted and tired. When he finally got home, he found Kristen in bed with Colette and the bed was wet. When Colette woke up, an argument ensued and I think it was then that JM completely "lost it."

Once he began his rage and rampage, he couldn't stop. He had to finish the "job." And finish it he did with such viciousness and overkill that cows at the slaughterhouse get more humane treatment than he gave Colette and the girls. After it was all over with, JM has to put together his alibi and that's where you fell hook, line and sinker. You believed him and the major drug addict from the "get go" ~ Helena!

If you feel JM didn't have a motive, WTH do you think Helena and her gang's motive was? Nothing was stolen; there is no evidence that there was a break-in or that any of them were in the apartment; and why the overkill of just Colette and the girls? Why not JM too? My God, if you are going to slaughter a mother and her kids, what is one more person added to the body count?

It absolutely defies logic and common sense to believe that someone other than JM did this. Let me know when you finally come to your senses. However, I won't be holding my breath!

JMO and MOO!!

Old Post 11-15-2005 11:43 AM

2L8 4A D8

11-28-2005, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

I agree with you about McDonalds guilt....but the urine tested to be that of Kimmy the older girl.....that is the real problem with JMD's statement...even on the 'small points' it is riddled with lies.

JMO

BB

Thank you for catching that T. For some reason, I am always getting the girls' names mixed up. You are correct, it was Kimberly who was sleeping with Colette and wet JM's side of the bed, not Kristen. Thanks again!

I think JM thought that it would be more believable to the Police, etc. if he said that the baby, Kristen, wet the bed instead of the older Kimberly. Of course not realizing that the urine would be tested and that he would be caught in one of the many lies that he told to try and save his *****!

cami

11-29-2005, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:no:Can you give me just one good reason why he would have wanted his family dead? I don't believe you can, because there is none. :no:

:no: There you go again wanting a motive. There is no motive Nomi. He had an argument with his wife, an argument that got out of hand, perhaps precipitated by those diet pills containing amphetemines he was ingesting, his lack of sleep, and his wife's new attitude. He lost all control.

lucielle

11-29-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by cami
:no:

:no: There you go again wanting a motive. There is no motive Nomi. He had an argument with his wife, an argument that got out of hand, perhaps precipitated by those diet pills containing amphetemines he was ingesting, his lack of sleep, and his wife's new attitude. He lost all control.

IMO evidence supercedes motive. I can't possibly truly understand why ANY parent would do this to their children and it is hard to fathom why a man would do that to his wife or vice versa---that does not mean it does not happen all the time.

cami

11-30-2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by nomi21

:rolleyes: That makes no sense and I don't buy it.

Well I don't care if you buy it or not, it's what the physical evidence says happened and it's what convicted MacDonald. Why can't you understand that--there is evidence that supporst Macdonald's guilt. What do you think the authorities should have done with that evidence? Ignore it?

You can't conceive of a man getting angry to the point of rage? That doesn't make sense to you? Yet a young girl who was hooked on drugs, had a schzoid personality, was paranoid, who craved attention, a father figure, to the point that she let Macdonald's investigators talk her into giving a crazy confession that is not consistant with the evidence, you believe. :lol:

:seeya:

cami

11-30-2005, 11:55 AM

Snipped....

Originally posted by Tracian
If both persons were asleep, then logically they were both attacked unaware...so with all his training, why was he hardly touched...when Collette fought like a tigeress.

I expect an attack...but could someone logically explain that? I mean, does Jeff offer any explaination? We all know that Collette cannot.

JMO

BB [/B]

Actually Macdonald alleges Colette's and Kimmy's screaming woke him and as he sat up he was attacked by the three armed men. He offers no explaination for why he was hardly touched and Colette and the children murdered. But he had the magical pajama top that he fought the three men off with. His hands were bound up in it and he couldn't get them free and his feet were caught up in the afghan he used to cover himself that night making him a very ineffective green beret unable to save his family.

Hard to believe yes that once he was passed out there in the hallway these murdering hippies carried Colette from Kris's room, stepping over Mac lying in the hallway and left her in the MB and Kim back to her room, tucking her up in bed, stepping over Mac there passed out in the hallway.

lucielle

11-30-2005, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: The hippies theory makes more sense than the doctor doing it. It was a hoprrible crime, no matter who did it. BUT it makes no sense in any way that he killed his family. Some of the reasons offered are no more than whistling in the dark, in my opinion.

Why does that make more sense? You act as if hippies were running rampant brutally murderig people. There is only one case that I know of that that happened & that was Charles Manson. (I also don't believe they were real hippies)

Although I can site tons of cases were a man has brutally murdered his wofe.

So why does it make more sense that hippies would break in & murder these 3?

They would have to have motive, too, hon. (And taking acid does not make someone violent. Some people who have bad trips may feel paranoid but I have never seen someone act out violently for no reason because they were tripping. Do you even understand what that would do to one's psyche WHILe tripping? If those hippies had done this, they would have still been standing in the house when the cops got there--they would have been so out of it. They may have forgotton WHAT they were doing WHILE they were doing it. They would have also been seen by numerous people wondering around the base with blood dripping off of them. Acid makes you very disoriented, hallucinatory, and well, happy. Maybe too much info for you guys but the times I ate acid I laughed so hard my stomach ached the whole next day.)

So imo the "hippies" did it scnario does not wash at all. Also, there is no evidence that there were hippies in the house that night.

cami

11-30-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

Why does that make more sense? You act as if hippies were running rampant brutally murderig people. There is only one case that I know of that that happened & that was Charles Manson. (I also don't believe they were real hippies)

Although I can site tons of cases were a man has brutally murdered his wofe.

So why does it make more sense that hippies would break in & murder these 3?

They would have to have motive, too, hon. (And taking acid does not make someone violent. Some people who have bad trips may feel paranoid but I have never seen someone act out violently for no reason because they were tripping. Do you even understand what that would do to one's psyche WHILe tripping? If those hippies had done this, they would have still been standing in the house when the cops got there--they would have been so out of it. They may have forgotton WHAT they were doing WHILE they were doing it. They would have also been seen by numerous people wondering around the base with blood dripping off of them. Acid makes you very disoriented, hallucinatory, and well, happy. Maybe too much info for you guys but the times I ate acid I laughed so hard my stomach ached the whole next day.)

So imo the "hippies" did it scnario does not wash at all. Also, there is no evidence that there were hippies in the house that night.

Thank you Lucielle. No "real hippie" would have done what those Manson creeps did nor would they have slaughtered the MacDonald family. Hippies were peaceful, peace loving and committed to stopping the war in Viet Nam through peaceful protest, not murder.

My own experience with LSD is the same. The people I have seen take it just sat around laughing their heads off. They could no more form a plan to murder a pregnant woman and two babies than they thought they could fly.

ON the LKL show last year, Macdonald alleges his intruders had ingested six different drugs that night. Well they'd be comatose wouldn't they if they took that many drugs.

lucielle

11-30-2005, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: I don't give a flying flip what you say, Cami. I have my own opinion, and that is all yours is...your opinion. I don't believe every person who is convicted is guilty, and that is that. I belive too all often the cops go after the most handy person, and the DA's fit the story and crimes scene to that person, whether they fit or not. Some are obviously guilty...but I do not believe Dr MacDonald was.

Actually, she has basis in fact. She has actually tried LSD & knows it's effects. (I also want to add that HOW would MacDonald know how many drugs--much less what drugs-- the hippies took?

SHe also has evidence to back up her opinions as far as the crime scene goes.

YOU have nothing but opinion.

2L8 4A D8

12-01-2005, 01:50 AM

2L8 4A D8

12-01-2005, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by cami
Snipped....

Actually Macdonald alleges Colette's and Kimmy's screaming woke him and as he sat up he was attacked by the three armed men. He offers no explaination for why he was hardly touched and Colette and the children murdered. But he had the magical pajama top that he fought the three men off with. His hands were bound up in it and he couldn't get them free and his feet were caught up in the afghan he used to cover himself that night making him a very ineffective green beret unable to save his family.

Hard to believe yes that once he was passed out there in the hallway these murdering hippies carried Colette from Kris's room, stepping over Mac lying in the hallway and left her in the MB and Kim back to her room, tucking her up in bed, stepping over Mac there passed out in the hallway.

So Cami, are we then to believe that if JM had stayed asleep on the couch and not woke up that the "hippies" would have just let him go on sleeping away in LaLaLand while they slaughtered his family for no apparent reason other than, well, no apparent reason?

:lol: Oh excuse me! I thought that I was posting to nomi21! LOL! :lol:

2L8 4A D8

12-01-2005, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: I don't give a flying flip what you say, Cami. I have my own opinion, and that is all yours is...your opinion. I don't believe every person who is convicted is guilty, and that is that. I belive too all often the cops go after the most handy person, and the DA's fit the story and crimes scene to that person, whether they fit or not. Some are obviously guilty...but I do not believe Dr MacDonald was.

I have finally figured out why you are of the opinion, "I don't believe every person who is convicted is guilty, and that is that." The answer obviously starts with an "S" and ends with an "R"! Do I get to advance to "Go" and "Win $200"?

JMO and MOO!!

decneirepxxxe

12-01-2005, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by nomi21

:no: My opinion is as good as yours.

Unfortuanately your opinion has absolutely no basis in fact. If it did you would be able to support it.

12-01-2005, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I have finally figured out why you are of the opinion, "I don't believe every person who is convicted is guilty, and that is that." The answer obviously starts with an "S" and ends with an "R"! Do I get to advance to "Go" and "Win $200"?

JMO and MOO!!

yes you win.:D

barskin&co.

12-01-2005, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: Meaning decneirepxxxe and Luvvie are two dingbats, who think you know more than anyone else here. My opinion is as good as yours any day.

No, it is not, because you do not have any facts to back it up with, which they do, and as we all, who believe that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, do.

Mimi428

12-01-2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

:no: My opinion is as good as yours.

How do you come to that conclusion? The people who believe MacDonald is guilty have all taken a great deal of time to point out exactly why they think so. Evidence, forensics, etc.

You, on the other hand, have offered nothing other than "my opinion is as good as yours" & have said you don't think it makes sense that he would want to kill his family.

Newsflash....when an entire family is slaughtered & the one remaining family member is left alive...the statistics reveal it is far more likely that the survivor did the murder than a stranger.

It is NOT common for strangers to enter someone's home & kill all but one person. It has happened on a few occasions, but those are VERY RARE.

So far, you have been batting zero in offering ANYTHING which points to anyone OTHER than Jeff MacDonald as the guilty party. Calling other posters "dingbats" does nothing to absolve Jeff of his guilt & does nothing to demonstrate that you have come to your conclusion based on anything even remotely associated with the facts.

decneirepxxxe

12-01-2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: Meaning decneirepxxxe and Luvvie are two dingbats, who think you know more than anyone else here. My opinion is as good as yours any day.

Nomi anytime someone confronts you on your vacant claims or outright lies you call names. Your behavior and ability to enter into civil discourse on these boards is evidently degenerating.

12-01-2005, 05:56 PM

A video tape of the murder would not change Nomi21's mind.

Honestly if you go over all the evidence and read everything the only conclusion is he is guilty. How can you think otherwise. A man and past navy seal is the only one to survive? No no way.

barskin&co.

12-02-2005, 09:46 AM

Oh, for joy! nomi has an advocate. However, Arthur Thorp doesn't have any facts, either, but instead has replaced words like "dingbat" for words like "mad," "biased," and (my personal favorite) "even madder." Oh, and Art, here, even drags the British Secret Service into the matter in order to try to confuse us away from the evidence, which points to Jeffrey MacDonald and only Jeffrey MacDonald.

decneirepxxxe

12-02-2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
:

flamemad: Who says I haven't examined the forensics? I have followed this case for years. AND none of the forensics point to him. Just because he was the only one who lived does not make him the killer. Who says this isn't that RARE occasion? AND I call the two who are constanting berating me dingbats, because that is how they act. My "attitude" is that I am tired of you two always trying to act like noone is ever right but you two. AND you know which two I mean.

Since this is your posit. Perhaps you can attempt to respond in a somewhat more mature manner rather then resorting to calling names. Just point out the specific forensic evidence and disprove it in a logical or rationale manner. Is that so difficult? You spend so much time attacking posters and none logically defending your position, it oftentimes causes me to ponder what your TRUE motivation is for coming on these boards.

lucielle

12-02-2005, 10:55 AM

Mimi428

12-02-2005, 11:27 AM

Mimi428

12-02-2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:mad: I finally see a voice of reason here. Albert sees same as I do...that some of you just want to twist the "evidence" to suit your own judgmental ideas. I am glad there are a few of us, who see the truth of the matter, namely....Dr MacDonald did not kill his family....case closed.

Did you notice that Albert also offered NOTHING to back up his assertions?

Why do you think regular, average people WANT Mac to sit in jail, if he is so innocent? Does it really make sense to you that people would not be alarmed if a band of murderous "hippies" were roaming around at will, breaking into houses & slaughtering people?

Why did this bloodthirsty group just stop after they murdered Jeff's wife & daughters?

decneirepxxxe

12-02-2005, 01:26 PM

cami

12-02-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I agree with Nomi.

With regard to some of the talk on previous posts about stains in the master bedroom being Kim's and not Kristen's, that is incorrect..

Dr MacDonald said Kristen wet the bed and he put Kristen back into her own bed. Dr MacDonald then went to sleep on the couch. That is what happened.

The biased CID agent Kearns had the false and utterly ridiculous theory that the stain must be Kim's and not Kristen's. Glisson of the CID lab tried to support this mad Kearns theory with a forensic test on the stains when they were 80 weeks old. Glisson knew that the tests were definitely inaccurate after 4 weeks. The FBI lab has said those stain tests were considered unreliable in the 1970's even before 4 weeks.

Kearns then spoke to Kassab and Stevenson about the matter in New York. They developed the even madder theory that Kearns theory somehow indicated child molestation. There is no supporting evidence for that theory without facts at all.

If Kassab was in the British Security Service as some internet posters have suggested then I would have my doubts and very little confidence in the British Secret Intelligence Service as well.

Oh Albert get lost, please. What happened? Did you get kicked out of aande finally.

1. First of all you know darn well that the urine is Kim's and not Kris's so don't try this over here. I will happily go to aande and get Byn, JTF, Rashoman, etc and bring them along so we can start putting out your factless, non logical, idiotic posts. You know that all four MacDonald's had different blood types and that the urine was typed as AB--Kim's blood type.

2. That is not what happened Albie and you know it. MacDonald is lying about which child wet the bed--it was Kim, not Kris and the medical documents prove it.

3. Peter Kearns headed the 1971 re-investigation. He was not biased, nor did he provide a false and utterly ridiculous theory that the stain must be Kim's. The stain is Kim's and you know it so does that ice pick baby killer. Glisson did not try to support any mad claims of the CID. The only mad claims are yours. If you continue to post this way Albert, the posters here at CTV will see for what you are--a complete nut and Macdonald groupie. The FBI lab has said nothing of the kind.

4. You also know that Freddie Kassab was with the Canadian Intelligence during WWII and not British Security at all. That's another one of your false and ridiculous claims. And who gives a rat's *** what intelligence agencies you place your faith in since you are a complete nut, an american pretending to be British.

and you know darn well that Kearns, Kassab and Bob Stevenson did not develop the even madder theory that Mac was molesting Kimmy. Why do you make these things up? Typical of Macdonald groupies, he's a liar so they all follow suit.

The folks over here will see right through you as we did on aande. What happened did you get banned from posting your nonsense over there or are you just bored?

cami

12-02-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:mad: I finally see a voice of reason here. Albert sees same as I do...that some of you just want to twist the "evidence" to suit your own judgmental ideas. I am glad there are a few of us, who see the truth of the matter, namely....Dr MacDonald did not kill his family....case closed.

Oh Nomi get real. Arthur the voice of Reason? aaahahahahahah oh I see you used his aande name--Albert--you must be lurking over there are you. Scared to jump in are you? Then you know that nothing he posts is based in facts whatsoever. He is a flame baiter, a MacDonald groupie, with a made up macdonald case that has nothing to do with the original.

There's no way the evidence can be "twisted" to suit anybodies own judgmental ideas, get real. How do you "twist" blood Nomi?

Macdonald and no one else killed his family--case closed. That ice pick baby killer does not deserve the title doctor. He's a convict, not a doctor.

your posts disgrace the memory of Colette, Kim and Kris. You are a disgrace.

cami

12-02-2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by decneirepxxxe

Actually if one reads both your posts and Thorps, its patently obvious that neither of you are willing to back up your opinions with any valid citations. There is no reason to to view your posits or those of Thorps with any level of credibility until you do so.

Oh Albert won't ever back up his opinions. Well he'll post Segal's closing arguments as if that's evidence. Although he's been told over and over and over again that closing arguments have nothing to do with the evidence.

Albert brings his own made up MacDonald case with him. Stick around it get's better and better. You'll see what a nut he is.

As for Nomi, no you won't ever get any fact based opinions from him/her. She's an Albert groupie. Both of them are just flame baiters.

cami

12-02-2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I believe that Cami once said that that Kassab worked for Canadian military intelligence during the war. I think she also said this somehow involved Kassab working with the British.

I know nothing about Kassab's biographical details. To my mind Kassab spoke sense about the MacDonald case at first. Kassab then went a bit odd. He persuaded his wife Mildred to go odd as well.

Perhaps the temptations of lucre and a cut of the royalties from the Joe McGinniss libel book didn't help Kassab to be more fair- minded.

Personally, I consider it a major error on the part of Dr MacDonald and his lawyers not to have stamped hard on Kassab, Stevenson and Kearns and Dr Brussel in the 1970's, before they were allowed to put the innocent Dr MacDonald in grave peril with all their nonsense.

Judge Dupree was obviously biased and pro-prosecution.

There were tons of smack passing through Fort Bragg at the time of the MacDonald murders. The police and DEA and American Navy adopted a deafening silence about this because it was the responsibility of the Army CID to act drastically against it. I don't know if there is a business relationship between the CID and CIA. There are allegations that the CID were involved in drug trafficking themselves.

There is no evidence that Pickering, Kearns, Ivory or Shaw and Grebner were involved in all this. It's just that nobody ever investigated the matter, least of all the police. The CID were above the law.

The MacDonald murders have never been thoroughly investigated. The CID decided Dr MacDonald did it when there was no evidence against him. The CID ought to have followed the evidence. This would have led the CID directly to the Stoeckley gang killers.

Colonel Rock described the CID as "biased" in his report in 1971. This is at :-

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_rock_1971-01-05_p1.html

Dr MacDonald's wife explains the Kearns, Kassab and Stevenson bungles with regard to their utterly false and ridiculous bedwetting and molestation theory at :-

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/ltr_emailkurichh_2002nov17_2.html

[COLOR=red]
No Albert dear I did not. Don't put words in my mouth. You know and I know that Kassab was Canadian (as I am) and he served with the RCA (Royal Canadian Army) during WWII in Intelligence and that he was a war hero, wounded four times in the line of duty and that he lost his wife and young baby during the Blitz. You know that I did not say anything about the British service Albie, you did

and yes you do know about Kassab biography because you have been told over and over and over again by Byn and Bunny and JTF, you just choose to ignore the truth and make up your own false theories and details. You know that Kassab was not odd and he did not persuade his wife Mildred to go odd as well. You know that Kassab was a grieving father and grandfather who would not rest until the killer of his daughter and grandchildren was caught and convicted.

you also know that Fatal Vision is a true and accurate accounting of the facts in the Macdonald case. You also know that Kassab sued MacDonald for wrongful death and that's how he got the monies from the royalties not from Joe McGinniss. And once again, you will not get away with Kassab bashing over here either as you tried to do elsewhere.

Personally, I consider it a major error on the part of Dr MacDonald and his lawyers not to have stamped hard on Kassab, Stevenson and Kearns and Dr Brussel in the 1970's, before they were allowed to put the innocent Dr MacDonald in grave peril with all their nonsense.

LOL, that ice pick baby killer put himself in grave peril when he murdered his family you dork. What gives Albert? Why are you suddenly bringing Bob Stevenson into your made up conspiracy theories?

And there you go with your crazy drug trafficking stories and hippie murder gangs, LOL. Get off those drugs Albert and get into the real world.

cami

12-02-2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: I don't give a flying flip what you say, Cami. I have my own opinion, and that is all yours is...your opinion. I don't believe every person who is convicted is guilty, and that is that. I belive too all often the cops go after the most handy person, and the DA's fit the story and crimes scene to that person, whether they fit or not. Some are obviously guilty...but I do not believe Dr MacDonald was.

LOL, what's wrong Nomi dear, don't like being challenged when you can't back up your opinions with facts and evidence.

:lol:

cami

12-02-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

So Cami, are we then to believe that if JM had stayed asleep on the couch and not woke up that the "hippies" would have just let him go on sleeping away in LaLaLand while they slaughtered his family for no apparent reason other than, well, no apparent reason?

:lol: Oh excuse me! I thought that I was posting to nomi21! LOL! :lol:

LOL, you nut....:beer:

decneirepxxxe

12-02-2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by cami

Oh Albert won't ever back up his opinions. Well he'll post Segal's closing arguments as if that's evidence. Although he's been told over and over and over again that closing arguments have nothing to do with the evidence.

Albert brings his own made up MacDonald case with him. Stick around it get's better and better. You'll see what a nut he is.

As for Nomi, no you won't ever get any fact based opinions from him/her. She's an Albert groupie. Both of them are just flame baiters.

Well Albert is a newbie to me, Nomi has been the same for years, only she's getting much worse. Ruder and unable to parse the simplest of sentences to articulate a coherent thought. Does Albert explode like Nomi does???:lol:

12-02-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by cami

LOL, what's wrong Nomi dear, don't like being challenged when you can't back up your opinions with facts and evidence.

:lol:

Better watch out Cami or you'll be called names like us two dingbats are:D

I've concluded that Nomi can't produce anything to back up her claims but her gut.:rolleyes:

barskin&co.

12-02-2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by luvvie

Better watch out Cami or you'll be called names like us two dingbats are:D

I've concluded that Nomi can't produce anything to back up her claims but her gut.:rolleyes:

I wanna be a dingbat, like decneirepxxxe and luvvie, too. !:(

12-02-2005, 04:48 PM

OK Barskin your in. :D

12-02-2005, 06:01 PM

Why sure you can be a dingbat too. Welcome aboard. Of course now you must understand there is other names too. :D

12-02-2005, 06:07 PM

LOL I've been called so many I just sit back and wonder what's next. As for bothering me nope. I just consider the source.

Bunny2

12-03-2005, 04:07 PM

Countless people who were closely involved in this case, from the investigators and reinvestigators to witnesses and the prosecution and the jury and the appeals courts, and tens of thousands of people who have read about the case and its evidence, do believe that the evidence overwhelmingly and conclusively proved MacDonald's guilt beyond any question. And of course MacDonald himself has repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes, a rather difficult fact to ignore. Not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence ever surfaced to support his stories of "intruders." However, if you choose to believe that a band of hippie vampires committed three brutal and frenzied murders without leaving any trace of themselves, and to believe MacDonald's wild and contradictory and implausible stories, and to disregard his demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt, that of course is up to you.

12-03-2005, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Countless people who were closely involved in this case, from the investigators and reinvestigators to witnesses and the prosecution and the jury and the appeals courts, and tens of thousands of people who have read about the case and its evidence, do believe that the evidence overwhelmingly and conclusively proved MacDonald's guilt beyond any question. And of course MacDonald himself has repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes, a rather difficult fact to ignore. Not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence ever surfaced to support his stories of "intruders." However, if you choose to believe that a band of hippie vampires committed three brutal and frenzied murders without leaving any trace of themselves, and to believe MacDonald's wild and contradictory and implausible stories, and to disregard his demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt, that of course is up to you. :beer: :beer: Great post.

Bunny2

12-04-2005, 12:07 PM

Arthur/Albert Webb/Lawjunkie: Of course MacDonald demonstated consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes, and he did so repeatedly.

And of course he claimed that he hadn't killed anyone, but that's standard behavior for many murderers. In this case, the evidence proved his guilt conclusively, and no conclusive evidence was ever found to support his stories of "intruders."

You wrote that "MacDonald was convicted on speculation, bad police work, legal trickery, and ignorant and biased judges." Actually, the truth of the matter is that the evidence proved his guilt, "Arthur" (or should I call you Albie or Lawjunkie or Flamebaiter instead?).

You wrote: "Murtagh's evidence consists of the fact that the pajama top which was found on Colette's body was placed there by [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald], which MacDonald never denied anyway. " I guess you haven't taken a very close look at the records in this case, since if you had, you would have easily seen that the fact that MacDonald simply put his pajama top on Colette was of course not of primary importance. The important thing was the fact that he forgot the top was there, and made the fatal mistake of stabbing Colette through the top and into her body, creating 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in the pajama top which matched 21 holes in her chest.

What "false and utterly ridiculous psychiatric report by Drs Brussel and Silverman" are you referring to, flamebaiter? (Oops, sorry, I meant Arthur.) Where are your facts to back up anything you say? You have none at all, just as you had none during all those months you posted on C&J and A&E. No matter how much you may wish it was not so, the fact is that MacDonald was found to be a narcissistic psychopath, and no psych report was "false."

You wrote: "There was evidence of intruders. There were unidentified fibers, hairs, fingerprints and candle wax which Murtagh tried to explain away as "household debris." My goodness, Albie, do you mean to tell me that you STILL don't understand that unsourced items are found in every household, and are so common that they're forensically insignificant? Of course you understand it. We know that from your posts on A&E, the ones you put there before you were apparently banned from that board. By the way, if you've now changed your mind (again) and feel that unsourced items are so very significant, what is the great significance of the unsourced black dog hair with root intact that Frier found?

As you knew before you posted, Jan Snyder never witnessed any murderers leaving the MacDonald apartment, Albie. And as for the candle wax, you know that it was found to be of three different compositions, that the wax in the living room was found to be old wax and filled with household debris, and that the wax on Kim's chair was consistent with that from a birthday candle. You also know that there were no wax trails from any candle, and that Helena claimed her candle didn't even drip wax at all, and that Colette was very fond of burning candles. So why do you deliberately post such nonsense, when you know beyond any question that it's false?

Bunny2

12-04-2005, 03:54 PM

Sad but true, Albie, yes of course MacDonald murdered his family. He left clues everywhere which showed conclusively that he was the murderer, and not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence whatsoever ever surfaced to back up his wild and implausible stories of crazed hippie "intruders."

You need to reread the records about Snyder and all the rest, because your "facts" are wrong. I don't know what makes you think that you can simply post deliberate misrepresentations and outright falsehoods, when you know that everyone can see for themselves that you're lying. Perhaps it's some deep-seated psychological disability you have which causes you to be unable to control yourself and stop flamebaiting, but it doesn't really matter what causes you to lie repeatedly, because nothing you could ever say will erase the incredibly overwhelming conclusive evidence that showed beyond question that MacDonald slaughtered Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

Regarding the candles, upon which you seem fixated, why are you unable to accept the fact that a candle burned a year ago or a month ago, the stub of which would have been long since thrown out, would of course not be matched to a drop of old, household-filled wax on the underside of a coffee table slat? Why are you so completely fixated on unsourced items being proof of MacDonald's innocence, when those items are found in every household and are so common that they're forensically insignificant?

As you know already, it isn't the unsourced items which matter; it's the SOURCED ones. In this case, fibers which matched those of MacDonald's pajamas were found everywhere they shouldn't have been, and none were found on or around the sofa where MacDonald claims the "struggle" took place. That's because the struggle between MacDonald and Colette actually took place in the master bedroom, and MacDonald left the fibers from his torn pajama top throughout the bedrooms and underneath the victims' bodies when he was staging the scenes.

And no, Jan Snyder did not witness any murderer either entering or leaving the apartment that night, since MacDonald never left the apartment.

Bunny2

12-05-2005, 07:50 AM

The fact of the matter is that there was unidentified candle wax at three places at the MacDonald murders scene.

Of course, this meant nothing, since unsourced items are forensically insignificant. That aside, it should be noted that Colette MacDonald loved candles as evidenced by CID Exhibits G-9 through G-17 which include a, "Beams Choice Bourbon bottle containing a yellow candle and bearing multi-colored wax on bottle" and "candles of assorted colors including purple, yellow, green, white, and pink," and also as evidenced by the fact that boxes of candles were found in the apartment.

Additionally, the lab reports indicate that all the unidentified wax drippings were from different sources. An intruder who was moving about the apartment carrying a single candle would not account for all the unidentified drippings found in the apartment. Nor would Helena's candle have left any wax drippings, since she claimed her candle dripped blood and not wax.

Lead CID reinvestigator Peter Kearns also filed a report during the CID reinvestigation stating that "the deposit of wax removed from the left slat of the coffee table was comparitively old and contaminated with household debris." Kearns also noted that "if a deposit were made on the end table which prevented the wax from reaching the floor area, it is logical to assume that somewhere on the floor area a second area of more recent wax deposits would be in evidence."

According to lab reports, the wax in Kimberly's room was found to be consistent with birthday candle wax.

Bunny2

12-05-2005, 08:06 AM

From crime scene photos the MacDonald apartment looked very clean and tidy to me.

Actually, Colette was known to be a sloppy housekeeper, apparently even admitting to her stepfather Freddy Kassab that she didn't want him to visit unless he had given her a couple of hours notice so that she could clean the apartment before he arrived. Witness testimony, crime scene photos of the utility room and descriptions of unwaxed floors and the debris under the children's beds all seem to indicate that Colette was more interested in spending time with her children than in cleaning house.

[The murderer] said he thought he saw a woman holding a candle but he wasn't sure.

MacDonald told MPs at the scene that the blonde female was holding a candle. At the hospital, he told an orderly that the female was carrying a candle. He told surgical resident Benjamin Klein at the hospital that the blonde female was holding a candle. He told Mildred Kassab (Colette’s mother) at the hospital on February 17 that "when he pitched forth off of the sofa he saw this woman carrying a candle..." At the hospital on the day of the murders, he told his best friend Ron Harrison that the "girl was carrying a candle." He also told CID investigators on February 17 that the female "intruder" was holding a lit candle in her hands in front of her body.

This is what a neighbor...had to say...This is from the declaration of Richard Comisky...From the declaration of Lyn Markstein...

This is what the jury, who saw and heard the evidence, had to say: Guilty, guilty and guilty yet again, beyond any reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. In the years since the trial, MacDonald has continued to demonstrate consciousness of his guilt in these brutal crimes, and the jury's verdicts have been repeatedly upheld by the appeals courts. All of MacDonald's legal avenues have long been exhausted; the only thing remaining is the final outcome of the DNA testing, which is expected this month, and which will most likely result in sealing MacDonald's fate.

byn63

12-05-2005, 08:08 AM

cami

12-05-2005, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

I wanna be a dingbat, like decneirepxxxe and luvvie, too. !:(

LOL, I've been called a lot worse by MacDonald groupies so Nomi/TSScarlett doesn't bother me. Just consider the source I always say.

I see my Fire Brigade is here. They booted Albert off aande so he decided to appear here as Arthur so the fire brigade came with him, LOL. Actually, I don't have the strength to deal with his long winded, utter nonsense, ****** posts.

cami

12-05-2005, 09:32 AM

cami

12-05-2005, 10:04 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald claimed he didn't murder his wife and children because he didn't murder his wife and children.

Nobody has ever proved he did murder his wife and children.

Just because a North Carolina jury decided Dr MacDonald did it when most of the evidence was deliberately hidden from them doesn't mean the jury or judge were right in their judgment.

A& E forum seems to be another Crime and Justice Forum where the same four or five posters, or nitwits club as they have been described, don't allow any disagreement with regard to their absurd theories. Any sane government would allow a pro-MacDonald forum on to the internet.

The pajama folding experiment at the MacDonald trial was scientifically silly and contrived. It was manufactured and fabricated evidence. Dr Thornton proved how silly it was at the MacDonald trial.

Dr Sadoff was a highly qualified forensic psychiatrist. He said that he was fairly certain Dr MacDonald didn't do it. There were several other psychiatrists who also interviewed Dr MacDonald and they agreed with Dr Sadoff. Dr Brussel who said he thought Dr MacDonald did do it also made the extraordinary remark that hippies don't move bodies!

I don't know what is supposed to qualify internet posters and judges, and Murtagh, as competent forensic experts. If foreign hairs, fibers, and fingerprints are found on the bodies of murder victims and beneath their fingernails, and on the murder weapons, then those forensics ought to be identified. It's crucial evidence and ought not to be disregarded or disbelieved.

Frier found fibers on the murder weapon. Frier told Gunderson that he didn't think that was forensically significant. Frier said he never told Murtagh or Segal about it. Frankly I don't believe Frier about that. It was just more hiding of the evidence from the MacDonald defense and jury.

Colette may have been fond of burning candles. It's just nobody has proved that candle wax was MacDonald candle wax. Browning terstified that "I was sent six candles from the house by the CID, I compared these three samples with the six, from the six, and they were not from any of these six candles."

Helena Stoeckley was heard asking Don Harris if it was possible to detect fingerprints on candle wax. Sounds suspicious to me.

Jan Snyder witnessed the Stoeckley murderers leaving the MacDonald apartment all right. If you don't believe that you must be living in cloud cuckoo land. It's just that some rather unsmiling people pointed a rifle at her apartment a few days after the MacDonald murders. This put Jan Snyder in two minds about testifying in court about what she had seen.

NO Albie Dear, he did murder his wife and children, he lied to you when he said he didn't. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming

Yes Albie, the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the 1979 trial that MacDonald and no one else murdered his wife and children.

The jury made the right decision, there was no evidence hidden from them, Albie and you know that.

The pajama top theory was scientifically sound and proves that the ice pick holes were made while the top was stationary and not being used to fend off an armed intruder. Dr. Thornton did not prove anything. The jury did not find reasonable doubt.

And once again, you are misquoting Dr. Sadoff. You know for a fact Albie that Dr. Sadoff,once presented with the evidence, realized he had been lied to and would have revised his opinion had he been presented with all the facts.

As well Albert, you know that Colette was fond of burning candles and that the candle wax found in the MacDonald home was old and some of it contained household debris. Some of it matched drippings found on the liquor bottles. The candle wax belonged to the MacDonald home prior to the murders and was not brought in and dripped from candles Helena or anyone else was holding. Anyway Helena stated her candle dripped blood not wax.

More of your Jan Snyder nonsense too. These good people here can read for themselves Albie, they won't take your interpretations to heart, LOL.

byn63

12-05-2005, 10:39 AM

Lest someone forget - let us remember that the 3 unsourced wax drippings found inside 544 Castle Drive were each chemically different from the other.

The wax deposit on the bottom slat of the coffee table was old, brittle, and contained household debris (i.e. hairs or fibers, dust etc)

The wax deposit in Kimmie's room was similar to birthday candle wax.

3 different chemically composed deposits would come from 3 different candles. No way that Helena's candle (had it been in existence) could have made the deposits. ESPECIALLY since her candle supposedly dripped blood not wax.:read:

byn63

12-05-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't know why Kearns and Ivory and internet postors seem to think they're qualified as doctors and competent forensic experts.

Every fiber and thread found at the murder scene was described by Ivory as "it could have come from pajamas."

Kearns disregarded the foreign candle wax at the murder scene as "household debris." There was no scientific evidence for that conclusion. Byn is mistaken and plain wrong when she writes that the stains found in the main bedroom were Kim's. The stains were Kristen's.

There were no scientific tests at the time that could prove the identity of the stains, particularly after 80 weeks which was what Glisson of the CID lab tried to attempt.

Browning of the CID lab was at least a purported forensic expert. Browning did have qualifications as a chemist even though he had only two months training in forensics. There was no evidence to suppoert Browning's belief that the assumed fiber under the little girl's fingernail was a pajama fiber. In my opinion it was just speculation. It was just another "could have come from pajama fibers" speculation.

At least Browning was truthful about the candle wax at the murder scene. Whether the mystery candles had different chemical compositions is besides the point. They weren't MacDonald candles, period.

This is what Browning said about the candle wax at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970 :-

Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q So the point of your testimony today, your testimony is that the wax found is not similar to any wax found on the candles you have been supplied thus far by the criminal investigation. Is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

you are just too funny! You want to sound plausible and educated, yet, you sound robotic and groupie like.

Ivory and Kearns were investigators. They supplied the sewing threads and yarns to Forensic specialists. Both Stombaugh and Browning agreed that the blue yarns were from Inmate 00131-177 pajamas. Also, they agreed that the purple sewing threads and the blue black sewing threads found also came from the same pj top. The blue yarns that made up the pj top were made of a polycotton blend. It was DACRON polyester made by the DuPont Company. Browning had at one time worked for DuPont, so he would have been familiar with the special Chemical signature of DACRON. Each chemical co. adds some ingredient that is not in other companies version of the material. It is a signature that makes one able to trace the manufacturer.

The 3 wax drippings that you keep attempting make important evidence of intruders were CHEMICALLY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. One dripping was old and brittle and contained household debris, one was similar to birthday candle wax. Just because no candles found in the home at the time of the murders matched doesn't mean the wax drippings were from some outside candle. Very few, if any, people hold on to candle stubs once they are burnt to the socket. They get thrown away. Besides the fact that Helena when she did claim to have a candle and be there said her candle dripped blood not wax. Of course, she said she WAS NOT involved more often than she claimed she was - Inmate 00131-177 did it. He will remain cleaning the toilets at FCI Cumberland for the rest of his miserable life!!!!!

Bunny2

12-05-2005, 03:53 PM

Arthur/Albert Webb/Lawjunkie/Airknocker/Flamebaiter: The blue cotton/dacron fibers and threads found in such places as throughout the master bedroom, under and on Colette's body, under the headboard where the word "PIG" was written, under the bedclothing of his children and under the fingernail of his daughter Kristen were examined and found to match in all respects the fibers and threads from MacDonald's pajama top, right down to the zig-zag of the threads. Are you still trying to claim that while murdering Colette, Kimberly and Kristen, one or more of the "intruders" just happened to be wearing an old, thin, torn blue cotton/dacron pajama top that exactly matched MacDonald's?

Byn is mistaken and plain wrong when she writes that the stains found in the main bedroom were Kim's. The stains were Kristen's. There were no scientific tests at the time that could prove the identity of the stains, particularly after 80 weeks which was what Glisson of the CID lab tried to attempt.

Of course the stains were Kimberly's; we know that from the lab reports and other evidence. Aside from that, if, as you claim, any testing was invalid, then what lab document did you find that claimed the tests showed the stain came from a person with the type O blood that Kristen had? There is no physical evidence at all that shows that Kristen was in the master bedroom, but there is, of course, incontrovertible physical evidence showing that Kimberly was in the room.

For some reason, MacDonald does not want people to believe that Kim was in the master bedroom. This may have had something to do with the fact that Kim claimed that he was a "mean daddy"; that MacDonald had no qualms about having sex with underage females; that Colette had told her child psychology class that MacDonald wanted Colette to sleep on the sofa so that the child could share the bed with him, and with the fact that it was Kassab's theory that Colette may have caught MacDonald in the act of molesting Kim, which may have been the cause of the argument they had that night.

And to head off your standard response about Kassab ("Kassab was biased and a liar and a drunk..."), don't even bother, Albie. We've heard it all before from you, so don't waste your time. Alfred Kassab knew MacDonald better than you ever will, and whether or not you choose to believe it, his theory did have evidence to support it. MacDonald, of course, is the only one who knows whether or not he was molesting Kim when Colette came home, so neither you nor anyone else can say for sure whether he was or was not.

There was no evidence to suppoert Browning's belief that the assumed fiber under the little girl's fingernail was a pajama fiber.

Of course there was. Read the lab reports and testimonies again, because apparently you either failed to read them the first fifty times around or you simply aren't comprehending plain English.

Whether the mystery candles had different chemical compositions is besides the point. They weren't MacDonald candles, period.

I'm laughing. You claim Helena was carrying a dripping candle around the apartment and yet left no trace of any wax trails, and that all of the droplets which were found to have come from different candles actually came from her single candle? And that the fresh drippings from her candle somehow magically turned into old wax filled with household debris and also into birthday candle wax? And that the many candles Colette burned mean nothing? And that Helena's candle would have left wax even though she claimed it didn't drip wax, but dripped blood instead? Get a grip, Albie; you're losing it.

This is what the jury concluded about the candle wax: There were no "intruders" at all, either with candles or without candles, and MacDonald's stories of assailants were a complete fabrication, concocted in order to try and divert suspicion away from himself.

byn63

12-05-2005, 04:29 PM

sorry to whoever it was thinking me incorrect about the stain on the bed in the masterbedroom, but, I am RIGHT and you are wrong. That is a plain and simple scientific fact. Once again:

the stain was tested and Antigen A was found in the stain. Therefore, only Colette or Kimberly could have made that stain. There was no evidence that Colette had wet herself, yet, there was evidence that Kimberly had wet herself. So, common sense and process of elimination means that it was Kimberly.

If Kristen had been the one to make the stain then the scientists would have found Antigen H and anti A and Anti B antibodies. Or of course a combination of these compounds. Kristen could not REPEAT COULD NOT have created the stain that had Antigen A.

Unless, you would like us to believe that some "intruder" relieved him or herself on the masterbed? When? While brushing their wigs and wearing Inmate 00131-177's pj top?

btw - the pj fiber found IMBEDDED under Kristen's fingernail was so saturated with blood, that when first looked at under the stereomicroscope, the techs believed it was a blood clot. Further examination however revealed a portion of a blue Dacron polyester/cotton blend with the zigzag of the manufacture of the subject pj top.

Oh yea, the Eisman/Browning questioning doesn't support intruders either; since Colette was known to love to burn candles and similar wax drippings were found on the Chianti bottles in the house that were covered in wax drippings. A favorite decor item at that time.

:read:

Bunny2

12-05-2005, 07:20 PM

The FBI told Murtagh that those tests were inaccurate before 4 weeks.

Inaccurate before they were four weeks old? I don't think so, "Arthur."

That's why the matter was never presented in court by the prosecution at the 1979 MacDonald trial.

What document shows that this is the reason for Blackburn and Murtagh not questioning MacDonald about the stain? Provide the link, please.

How do you explain that Kim wet her own bed and the master bedroom bed as well. Did she have a weak bladder, or something?

MacDonald stated that he put Kim to bed at about 9 p.m., so it's quite possible that she wet her own bed and then could have gone to the master bed and fallen back asleep, wakening when MacDonald began his murderous rampage.

This is what Browning said about the pajama fibers in 1970

This is just some of what Browning said during the grand jury in 1974:

"Microscopic examination, of course, is just that. We examine the hair for microscopic similarities. We don't necessarily try to identify fibers as such. We are mainly concerned with whether or not it compares to a known source that we have." He also said that the fibers and the threads, both, matched those in MacDonald's pajama top in all ways.

"Incidentally, the threads, the purple threads I was just talking about, the cotton threads used to sew the jacket, was so rotten that you could take actually your fingers and grab on these two little threads and give it a good strong pull and it would break. It was pretty well deteriorated. The polyester, of course, was much more stable and it was a much stronger thread."

"It was exhibit D210 which was a torn pajama top. I used this as a known. When I received this pajama top, it was, of course, in a very ripped and torn condition. I believe the pocket was missing and all of the seams were ripped open at the seams. It was a rather old jacket from looking at it under the microscope. You could tell that it had been fuzzed and pretty well used. And the seams were sewn with a cotton type thread."

Do you believe that Don Harris was wearing jeans which happened to be made of the same thin, worn material as MacDonald's pajama top, and that the threads used to sew the seams of the jeans were -- against all odds! -- the exact same ones as had been used in sewing the seams of MacDonald's pajamas, and that during that supposed frenzied life-and-death struggle on the sofa those thin old jeans didn't tear or rip, but somehow they did manage to rip and scatter jean-fibers throughout the master bedroom and underneath the bodies of the victims and under the headboard and under Kristen's fingernail and on the murder club which was outside? How implausible, to say the least.

2L8 4A D8

12-06-2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Tracian

<snipped>

My theory is a bit different regarding these murders. Personally, I believe that Stokely may have been in the house...Cami would know for sure, but if I am not mistaken, Collette was out that night; perhaps she came home early and walked in on something; which lead to the violence that occured....and Jeff was a self preserving human, and gave up a few of those that were in the house.....kinda, offering very generic discriptions...(kinda like the BHS Diane Downs offered.)

JMO
BB

With all due respect T, I don't think that Colette "came home early and walked in on something; which lead to the violence that occurred...." because Colette was found slaughtered in her pajamas. I also don't buy into the Kimberly molestation theory because something would have showed up in Kim's autopsy. I honestly believe that it all started with Kim wetting JM's side of the bed and escalated from there.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

12-06-2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

<snipped>

She told Comisky that when the police questioned her she was wearing the same clothes she had worn during the murders, including a wig, a hat and boots. During the conversation, Stoeckley asked Comisky if he knew whether the police could obtain fingerprints from wax."

Just this statement alone should have made all the bells go off in anyone who had an ounce of common sense and weren't brain dead. If Helena was at the Police Station "wearing the same clothes she had worn during the murders..." wouldn't they have had to be covered in at least a little blood (sarcasum intended)? IIRC, Kristen was stabbed at least 30 times, yet Helena didn't get a drop of blood on her clothes? Yeah, right! GMAB!

:rolleyes:

barskin&co.

12-06-2005, 09:40 AM

Gee, "Arthur," what about that testimony convinces you it is the truth, "J*s*s C***st" or "Scientific bullchit?" :lol:

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 10:07 AM

Helena Stoeckley and her clothes are a vast, complex subject which would take me too long to reference at the moment.

Uh-huh. Right. Actually, Albie, it's pretty simple. Helena claimed she was wearing pants and a skirt. How then did MacDonald see her bare knee?

As for any black clothing she might have owned, I'm sure you read Rash's post to you in A&E, written after you tried to imply that Helena's statement about wearing black on the night of the murders proved her guilt, but here it is again to refresh your memory: "the 'unidentified fibers' on Colette's mouth area (Q 100), on her arm (Q 88), and on the club (Q 89) all were from different sources, and none of it was pure black. Two were dark purple (Q 100), Q 88 was bluish-black, the fibers on the club (Q 89) were one fine bluish black fiber different from Q 88, and one fine green wool fiber. So the Mac camp can throw their whole 'Stoeckley the assailant in black clothing' concoction out the window - it's worthless! And aside from that, didn't Stoeckley allegedly merely hold a candle during the killing spree? Per Mac's story, Helena was standing in the living room while Colette was fighting off attackers in the master bedroom. How could she at the same time have been involved in a fight with Colette and leave any fibers there? It's the same with Mitchell, who per Mac's story was among the four people he saw in the living room, but who, like Helena, must have been ubiquitous, because he also was fighting with Colette in the MB at the same time."

Helena did say she had several floppy hats and several boots.

And so did countless other women. Colette herself apparently owned a floppy hat, since it was seen by Dupree in the MacDonald house when the jury did its walk-through.

She said she wore the blond wig at the MacDonald murders as a "joke".

Actually, under oath she testified that she was not wearing her wig at all on Feb. 16-17 because Greg Mitchell didn't like how it looked on her. And MacDonald, of course, never claimed that the female "intruder" was wearing a wig. The main thing, though, is that the saran fibers found in the house were all different from one another, so if you're trying to hook Helena's wig in with the fibers, it's a lost cause, Albie, unless you have some evidence that three "intruders" were wearing wigs and brushing their hair while committing the murders of Colette, Kim and Kristen.

The boots and other items which were not burned were later handed in to the CID who disregarded those items and returned them to Mrs Garcia.

You know already from seeing the receipt signed by MacDonald's lawyer, and from reading the factual records, that the boots were returned because they didn't match the description MacDonald had given. So why do you falsely claim the boots were "disregarded" by the CID?

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 10:19 AM

This is what Dr MacDonald said about bed-wetting of Kim and Kristen at the 1975 Grand Jury. As far as I'm concerned it's the truth

MacDonald claimed that Kristen had wet the master bedroom bed to such an extent that he didn't want to sleep there. Later, he changed his story, and said that Kristen was not that wet, that there was just a small amount of urine on her pants. The urine stain on the master bed was about 18" in diameter.

MacDonald claimed to have taken Kristen from the wet master bedroom bed and carried her back to her own bed. No urine was found on MacDonald’s pajama top.

During the grand jury proceeding in 1974, when asked about Kristen’s bedwetting, MacDonald said, "the bed-wetting was a relatively infrequent thing...it was kind of an infrequent thing or a weekly thing by now..." But MacDonald had told CID investigators on April 6, 1970, that with regard to Kristen’s bedwetting, "This happened all the time." And of course Pam Kalin, the babysitter, testified that Kristen "would wet the bed pretty often."

MacDonald claimed that Kimberly, age 5, had stopped wetting the bed at about age two. But a nurse with whom MacDonald had had intimate relations told investigators that MacDonald had told her that Kimberly suffered from enuresis (bedwetting).

Given these contradictions, and given the fact that it's been proven beyond any doubt that MacDonald is a chronic liar and lies about anything and everything if he thinks it will help his cause, I have to echo the thoughts of others: What in the world makes you think he was telling the truth here? You obviously have nothing at all to back it up; it's just another example of your propensity to dream up wild, unfounded "theories without facts," just as you've admitted you do with other issues.

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 10:23 AM

Just this statement alone should have made all the bells go off in anyone who had an ounce of common sense and weren't brain dead. If Helena was at the Police Station "wearing the same clothes she had worn during the murders..." wouldn't they have had to be covered in at least a little blood (sarcasum intended)? IIRC, Kristen was stabbed at least 30 times, yet Helena didn't get a drop of blood on her clothes? Yeah, right! GMAB!

Good point, 2L8!

byn63

12-06-2005, 11:30 AM

I must say it is entertaining to hear Albie/Arthur/LawJ/Bertie whoever try to act as if HE has the sole truth on the forensic evidence. No, I am not a forensic scientist, but since I can read, and have read the CID report that states the stain from the bottom sheet or the masterbed contained ANTIGEN A then, why would your ignorance make me question it? ANSWER: It would not. The stain was tested during the testing of all the exhibits from 544 Castle Drive. It had degraded to the point that ANTIGEN A was the only compound that was clearly identifiable. Since Kristen was TYPE O she could not have made the stain. That is plain and simple fact. Combine the finding of Antigen A with the fact that Kimberly's blood and brain serum were found on the door jam and a 6" circle on the floor of the master bedroom and her Type AB blood was found on a pair of shoes in the closet that is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that it was indeed Kimberly who wet the bed. The truly interesting part of this is WHY Inmate 00131-177 has continued to lie about this in the face of the documented evidence.

In the 1979, the Prosecution presented only about 60% of the physical/forensic evidence it had available. The evidence presented was more than strong enough to show Inmate 00131-177's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a morale certainty. Over the years, Inmate 00131-177 has shown that he is a chronic (possibly even compulsive) liar. It was one thing for people to believe his nonsense when his version was the only one being shouted from the rooftops. But, what excuse is there now? With tjmis containing so much of the factual documentation, there is not an excuse for people to continue to believe the cut and paste revisionist history of Inmate 00131-177 and his groupies.

The blonde wig Helena occasionally wore was not long enough for her to have been wearing it with a floppy hat on the night of the murders. Her wig was cut in a page boy the length of which would not have gone much below her chin. Inmate 00131-177 claimed to see a female with long stringy blonde hair. Now, we know he made up the story, and he created his intruders to resemble the Long Island Four -- so, why continue to bring up poor drugged out easily manipulated Helena, who would say anything to anybody?

Besides, since Inmate 00131-177 was (1) not wearing his glasses, (2) allegedly waking up suddenly, (3) NO LIGHTS on in the living room, (4) kitchen light on - it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to describe "the people" who attacked him. All he could have seen were 4 black shapes. YOU KNOW that is true, so, why continue to post things that only show ignorance of the facts?

cami

12-06-2005, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Tracian
while I do appricate that fact that you responded to me; you did not really answer the question.

1. Why did they bring no weapons
2. Why did they not 'over kill' Jeff like the rest of the family
3. Why did they not take any drugs, money or jewerly from the house.
4. Why would murderers, bring only a candle and hairbrush?

My theory is a bit different regarding these murders. Personally, I believe that Stokely may have been in the house...Cami would know for sure, but if I am not mistaken, Collette was out that night; perhaps she came home early and walked in on something; which lead to the violence that occured....and Jeff was a self preserving human, and gave up a few of those that were in the house.....kinda, offering very generic discriptions...(kinda like the BHS Diane Downs offered.)

JMO
BB

Colette was taking a night class in child psychology at the uni there so she was out at her class. She returned a little after 9:30 p.m., too early for any of the fighting to have occurred, in my opinion. I don't believe Helena Stockeley was anywhere near that house that night.

Actually Tracian, if you read the Bennie Hawkins testimony you will discover that Mac described friends of his brother Jay from Fire Island as the intruders. Called the New York Four by the CID, the Fire Island Four by Bunny, Byn and me.

Here's the Testimony by Volume of Bennie Hawkins at the Article 32 (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article32_11.html)

You will need to scroll down a bit to get to Hawkins as Grebner's testimony is first.

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 11:51 AM

Hey, Byn - also regarding Helena's wig, it's interesting that she told Beasley that it was a fall, which of course is different than a full-head wig. If it was a fall, which is only a partial hairpiece meant to be worn as a pony-tail type or "topknot," then it really seems to knock Mac's story all to pieces, since most of Helena's own black or dark hair would have been visible, and not the blonde fall. That's of course giving Mac the huge benefit of the doubt that he could even see the color of anyone's hair, since the room was dark at the time.

cami

12-06-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by byn63
I must say it is entertaining to hear Albie/Arthur/LawJ/Bertie whoever try to act as if HE has the sole truth on the forensic evidence. No, I am not a forensic scientist, but since I can read, and have read the CID report that states the stain from the bottom sheet or the masterbed contained ANTIGEN A then, why would your ignorance make me question it? ANSWER: It would not. The stain was tested during the testing of all the exhibits from 544 Castle Drive. It had degraded to the point that ANTIGEN A was the only compound that was clearly identifiable. Since Kristen was TYPE O she could not have made the stain. That is plain and simple fact. Combine the finding of Antigen A with the fact that Kimberly's blood and brain serum were found on the door jam and a 6" circle on the floor of the master bedroom and her Type AB blood was found on a pair of shoes in the closet that is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that it was indeed Kimberly who wet the bed. The truly interesting part of this is WHY Inmate 00131-177 has continued to lie about this in the face of the documented evidence.

'snipped to save BW'

I completely agree Byn. It's very amusing how he manages to twist the evidence to suit his purposes. Thanks for manning the brigade! I don't carry my notes with me, LOL.

Inmate 131's continued lying about who wet the bed leads me to believe that this is where the argument ignited that night. Well you know I don't believe in the molestation theory, Albie's posts notwithstanding.

Macdonald = ice pick baby killer

cami

12-06-2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, Byn - also regarding Helena's wig, it's interesting that she told Beasley that it was a fall, which of course is different than a full-head wig. If it was a fall, which is only a partial hairpiece meant to be worn as a pony-tail type or "topknot," then it really seems to knock Mac's story all to pieces, since most of Helena's own black or dark hair would have been visible, and not the blonde fall. That's of course giving Mac the huge benefit of the doubt that he could even see the color of anyone's hair, since the room was dark at the time.

And Bun, I know she was a serious drug addict but can you see any woman wearing a blonde fall with brunette hair, LOL. Oh maybe that answers the important question as to how the girls managed to rip off the blonde wig and snare brunette hair under their fingernails!

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 01:09 PM

I personally know women who have dark hair and wear light corlor wigs. Nothing unusual about that.

Uhhh, Nomi, if you had read my post to which you replied, you'd have seen that according to Helena, it wasn't a full wig, it was a fall. And of course it would be highly unusual indeed for a woman with black hair to attach a blonde hairpiece to the top or back of her head.

AND yes his arguments make perfect sense.

Hmmmm. As many as 17 oven-mitt wearing intruders in the apartment, committing three murders while crazed on drugs, with at least three of them wearing wigs and brushing their hair and singing a "Groovy" song from an airline commercial, and not a single one of them leaves any conclusive trace whatsoever of themselves? Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell and the weapons all in the living room and the bedrooms at the same time makes "perfect sense" to you? Mazerolle being in jail at the same time he was in the apartment makes "perfect sense" to you? MacDonald's pajama top never leaving his body until he took it off, but yet it leaves its threads and fibers everywhere that they shouldn't be and nowhere that they should be makes "perfect sense"?

Among many other things, Albie/Arthur/Lawjunkie has told us that black wool wig fibers were found in the living room, that the CID were all Masons; that the "intruders" were vampires; that a videotape he thought was made of MacDonald committing the murders was a "fraud" and wasn't introduced in court even though it was known to exist by the defense; that information known to the defense in 1970 was not known by them in 1979; that he believed there were two eyewitnesses, one of whom saw MacDonald leaving the apartment to put the weapons under a bush and another person who looked through the bedroom window and saw MacDonald stabbing Colette, but that both of these witnesses were wrong and should have been harshly cross-examined; that ...? This all makes "perfect sense" to you? Fascinating.

cami

12-06-2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

:seeya:Women do do that. I personally know women who have dark hair and wear light corlor wigs. Nothing unusual about that.

AND in response to whoever asked....I think Albert/Arthur...are quite eloquent...since they are....I find it suffices for me to agree. AND yes his arguments make perfect sense.

It's not a wig though Nomi, it's a fall, a hair piece. A wig completely covers your hair, a fall adds to it, to add length at the crown or an upswept do like a bun or a braid on top of the head. We used them frequently in the 60's and 70's.

There are two photos of Colette wearing the falls but they have been removed from the Information site due to ownership laws but these next two links are photos of one of her hairpieces and it's those fibres that are in the hairbrushes and not wig hairs.

Link to photo of Colette's fall (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo081.html)

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo082.html

:seeya:

cami

12-06-2005, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The CID could all be Freemasons. I must admit I have no hard documentary evidence to back that up.

I was quoting with regard to black fibers somebody who said he had studied the MacDonald case for twenty years. He said there were black fibers in the living room. It looks as though there were black fibers on the murder weapon. These black fibers were hushed up by the FBI forensic lab. The person who said there were black fibers in the living room sounds as confused and mistaken about the MacDonald case as Bunny and Byn.

It was Bunny who posted that a video tape had been made of the MacDonald murders. Perhaps it was her idea of a joke. I replied by asking her to "come off it" and wrote that any video tape presented as evidence woud be laughed out of court.

The theory that Dr MacDonald invented the woman with the floppy hat and man with the jacket with sergeant's stripes, because those two murderers resembled the Long Island Four, was the argument promoted by the prosecution at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970.

Dr MacDonald saw what he saw. He only saw what he saw for a few seconds before he was knocked unconscious. He only had a brief impression of the killers.

If what he saw resembles the Long Isaland Four then that is coincidence. Dr MacDonald's brother Jay knew the Long Island Four. Some of the people connected to the Long Island Four had North Carolina car number plates.

To me it's perfectly obvious there was drug trafficking between Fort Bragg and New York in 1970. Dr MacDonald was not involved in drug trafficking. Dr MacDonald was very opposed to drug trafficking. There have been allegations that the CID and CIA were involved in drug trafficking out of Fort Bragg in 1970.

According to CID agent Bennie Hawkins there were OTHERS involved with the Long Island Four, including, perhaps, Helena Stoeckley and some of her pals. Helena confessed that she had been involved in drug peddling in New York.

All this ought to have been thoroughly investigated. It never was.

CID agent Mahon told Helena Stoeckley that the CID deliberately lost the pajama bottoms in the MacDonald murders when Dr MacDonald was in hospital.

Some of the judges and lawyers in the MacDonald cases remind me of judges in Zimbabwe, Africa. Those particular judges go around Zimbabwe stealing farms from white farmers, and arranging for white farmers to be murdered.

This is what the MacDonald prosecutor Murtagh said about the MacDonald case at this year's MacDonald parole hearing. To my mind Murtagh's remarks are silly remarks. Murtagh's remarks are patently untrue. Dr MacDonald never denied covering Colette with his pajama top. I would like a word in the ear of Murtagh so I could say exactly what I think of him :-

"His admission of covering Colette MacDonald with his pajama top, taken by itself was sufficient to sustain his conviction. As Chief Justice Burger wrote the facts in this case are not an issue. A jury heard and saw all the witnesses and saw the tangible evidence."

Laughter in court.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, your paranoia and your mental instability are showing.

barskin&co.

12-06-2005, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The CID could all be Freemasons. I must admit I have no hard documentary evidence to back that up.

I was quoting with regard to black fibers somebody who said he had studied the MacDonald case for twenty years. He said there were black fibers in the living room. It looks as though there were black fibers on the murder weapon. These black fibers were hushed up by the FBI forensic lab. The person who said there were black fibers in the living room sounds as confused and mistaken about the MacDonald case as Bunny and Byn.

It was Bunny who posted that a video tape had been made of the MacDonald murders. Perhaps it was her idea of a joke. I replied by asking her to "come off it" and wrote that any video tape presented as evidence woud be laughed out of court.

The theory that Dr MacDonald invented the woman with the floppy hat and man with the jacket with sergeant's stripes, because those two murderers resembled the Long Island Four, was the argument promoted by the prosecution at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970.

Dr MacDonald saw what he saw. He only saw what he saw for a few seconds before he was knocked unconscious. He only had a brief impression of the killers.

If what he saw resembles the Long Isaland Four then that is coincidence. Dr MacDonald's brother Jay knew the Long Island Four. Some of the people connected to the Long Island Four had North Carolina car number plates.

To me it's perfectly obvious there was drug trafficking between Fort Bragg and New York in 1970. Dr MacDonald was not involved in drug trafficking. Dr MacDonald was very opposed to drug trafficking. There have been allegations that the CID and CIA were involved in drug trafficking out of Fort Bragg in 1970.

According to CID agent Bennie Hawkins there were OTHERS involved with the Long Island Four, including, perhaps, Helena Stoeckley and some of her pals. Helena confessed that she had been involved in drug peddling in New York.

All this ought to have been thoroughly investigated. It never was.

CID agent Mahon told Helena Stoeckley that the CID deliberately lost the pajama bottoms in the MacDonald murders when Dr MacDonald was in hospital.

Some of the judges and lawyers in the MacDonald cases remind me of judges in Zimbabwe, Africa. Those particular judges go around Zimbabwe stealing farms from white farmers, and arranging for white farmers to be murdered.

This is what the MacDonald prosecutor Murtagh said about the MacDonald case at this year's MacDonald parole hearing. To my mind Murtagh's remarks are silly remarks. Murtagh's remarks are patently untrue. Dr MacDonald never denied covering Colette with his pajama top. I would like a word in the ear of Murtagh so I could say exactly what I think of him :-

"His admission of covering Colette MacDonald with his pajama top, taken by itself was sufficient to sustain his conviction. As Chief Justice Burger wrote the facts in this case are not an issue. A jury heard and saw all the witnesses and saw the tangible evidence."

Laughter in court.

Let me see, in a nutshell, everything Jeffrey MacDonald or Helena Stoeckley says is true and anything the C.I.D., prosecution, or Judge says is false, because they are "silly," "mad," corrupt as "in Zimbabwe," or even (gasp!) Freemasons.

Laughter on the message board.

barskin&co.

12-06-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by cami

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, your paranoia and your mental instability are showing.

My favorite bit is where the C.I.D. not only "deliberately lose the pajama bottoms," but also blithely admit this to Helena Stoeckley.
:lol:

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

It was Bunny who posted that a video tape had been made of the MacDonald murders. Perhaps it was her idea of a joke. I replied by asking her to "come off it" and wrote that any video tape presented as evidence woud be laughed out of court.

Sorry, "Arthur," but of course you're purposely misquoting and misrepresenting things and lying, as usual.

Referring to a "magical mystery tour" I'd like to see, I wrote in jest on July 7 in A&E that "In 1983, a former neighbor of MacDonald's, who had been walking his dog on the night of the murders, presented a videotape to Jim Blackburn and Brian Murtagh, a tape which showed MacDonald committing the murders. The neighbor said he had not presented the tape earlier because MacDonald was known to be a vicious and "bad-tempered" person, and the neighbor chose not to be involved because he was afraid of repercussions. In 1984, however, the defense admitted that they knew of the tape in 1978, but had decided to suppress it at the 1979 trial, since it so clearly showed MacDonald's guilt."

Your answer on the same day was "Come off it. You say a former neighbor of MacDonald's presented a videotape of the MacDonald murders to Jim Blackburn and Murtagh. Blackburn and Murtagh have both been proved to be rogues and rascals. Blackburn has been in prison as a fraudster. They suppressed the video in 1979 because they knew it was a fraud and would be laughed out of court."

Quite a bit different than what you tried to imply to the posters here, isn't it, "Arthur"? Why do you lie so much?

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 04:11 PM

[any video tape presented as evidence woud be laughed out of court.

You honestly believe that had a videotape existed which showed MacDonald murdering his family would be "laughed out of court"? What planet are you on?

He only had a brief impression of the killers.

So how was he able to describe all of them in such incredible detail? And how was it that his memory of those "few seconds" got better and better over the years? And when did the killers get time to go around planting all those many, many, many overwhelmingly incriminating evidentiary items against him? My, my, my, they must have been very busy, indeed. Not only did they have to plant all that evidence, but they also had to take MacDonald's pajama top off his body so that one of the intruders could wear it as he committed three murders, and then put the bloody, torn top back on MacDonald as he lay there in the hallway, and then they had to go back over every step they'd taken throughout the house and painstakingly, with tweezers and magnifying glass, one presumes, remove every single bit of trace evidence of themselves. And somewhere in all this, they had to take the time to cauterize MacDonald's many supposed stab wounds so that he wouldn't bleed on the sofa, and of course when they were all done, they had to put their oven mitts back into the kitchen, traipsing back down the hallway and stepping over MacDonald to do it (and then cleaning up all the bloody prints they must have left while doing that), and they had to get rid of all those tell-tale bloodwax drippings from Helena's candle which dripped blood and not wax...

Quite a feat, and quite amazing that you pretend to believe it.

Bunny2

12-06-2005, 04:37 PM

If what he saw resembles the Long Isaland Four then that is coincidence. Dr MacDonald's brother Jay knew the Long Island Four. Some of the people connected to the Long Island Four had North Carolina car number plates.

The New York Four were roommates of Jeff's brother during the summer of 1969 and Jeff visited his brother during that time period. During his visit Jeff went out with his brother to the Shortstop Bar in Long Island and a number of bar patrons witnessed Jeff in the presence of individuals who matched the descriptions of the New York Four.

During the Article 32 hearing, CID agent Bennie Hawkins described the New York Four. The descriptions matched the descriptions MacDonald had given of the so-called "intruders." During his Grand Jury testimony, MacDonald called the Article 32 testimony of Bennie Hawkins "bizarre" and denied ever being aware of the New York Four.

In December 1970, MacDonald reviewed the arrest records of the NY Four. Yet he said nothing to anyone about these people matching the descriptions of the people he saw in his house. Very odd.

Gee, Albie, you've got a lot of work to do now. In addition to every CID agent, and everyone in the FBI and MacDonald's mother and his brother, and Blackburn and Murtagh and Dupree and MacDonald's best friends and the babysitter and the babysitter's mother, and all of MacDonald's girlfriends and the jury and the Supreme Court Justices and Joe McGinniss and Cleve Backster and Freddy and Mildred Kassab and Bob Stevenson and Stombaugh and Shirley Green and Janice Glisson and countless other people, you're now going to be forced to add to your "conspiracy" list a "number of bar patrons" who saw MacDonald with the New York Four.

MacDonald was very opposed to drug trafficking.

Maybe, and maybe not. He certainly had his own little closetful of drug paraphernalia, didn't he. Syringes, Thorazine and amphetamines and much more. Do you believe that Colette, Kim or Kristen needed Thorazine? Is it more likely that MacDonald was, as he seemed to be admitting, treating many people in the neighborhood, people who were not his patients? (Do you realize he could have lost his license for that?) Or perhaps he was selling on the side, and he thought the "I hate drug users" attitude would be a good one to adopt, even though he himself was using amphetamines. For whatever reason, there he was with all those goodies in the closet, and supposedly the intruders even tried to get him to make a phone call to get drugs for them, but oddly enough, they ignore Mac's stash. A weird scenario, and of course not plausible at all.

seawolf4

12-07-2005, 07:15 AM

Arthur you're posts are incredibly silly. Amphetamine is a class B controlled substance. If it is injected, (you know with a syringe) it becomes a Class A drug. Amphetimine was a popular street drug. He was an ER doctor, ER=hospital. He might be called to a psychiatric emergency in the street? That is why he had Thorazine? Burst of laughter.
Ohhhh, I forgot, MacDonald said. Oh of course that makes it true.
But how did Collettes blood get all over his pajama top BEFORE the holes were made?
Why did he do it? Rage. Rage at being saddled with his HS girlfriend and alot of children. The HS idea of living on a farm had given way to a desire to be an urban, dashing rich doctor. IMO he was a sociopath to begin with, amphetamine abuse can lead to psychosis. So an argument over bedwetting caused the psychotic, rage filled sociopathy to commit these monstrous murders. Fortunately it is a moot point. The "good doctor" is in prison where he will stay for the end of his days for the brutal murders of his wife and children.

byn63

12-07-2005, 07:40 AM

roflmao bertie! Inmate 00131-177 the glorified janitor who was responsible for being sure the latrines were clean and that the monthly STD reports were filed had more than "some sort of medicine cabinet". The hall closet near the bathroom contained more than a tiny little first aide kit. I have been trained in First Aide for years, and I have NEVER carried a single syringe, yet Inmate 00131-177 had enough "spikes to supply the Fayetteville drug community for months". Inmate 00131-177 was a THIEF as well as a murderer. The medical supplies he had in that closet had belonged to the Special Forces Group to which he was originally assigned, prior to it being disbanded. Those supplies should have been destroyed per government regulations, complete with a stack of forms that were to have been properly filled out and signed and turned in to the proper authority.

the fact that the Army didn't go after Inmate 00131-177 for the theft does not make it any less of a theft. Inmate 00131-177 would not have been called to an emergency psychiatric situation on the street and there was absolutely no reason for him to have kept Thorazine or 98% of the other medications that were found in that closet.

:read:

byn63

12-07-2005, 10:37 AM

right bertie - you don't know about America - ha ha ha ha ha! you are not British, you are a faker, and you know that we know that about you.

However, that is beside the point. It is in the military records that the 3rd Spec Forces were disbanded. Any and all supplies (medical or otherwise) were either to be destroyed or redeployed to other units. The regulations in regards to medications SHOULD have been followed but even Inmate 00131-177 admitted that he took things home that were to have been destroyed. There is no call whatsoever for someone to have hundreds of syringes, Thorazine, Eskatrol, disposable scalpels etc. Even the most advanced home first aide kit does not require these items.

Spec Agent Hagan Rossi did a full and in-depth inventory of the items found in Inmate 00131-177's hall closet at 544 Castle Dr. Inmate 00131-177 not only stole these items, but he retained much of the stolen goods himself, while distributing medications to people without perscriptions. He is a liar and a thief and he will spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets at FCI Cumberland.:patriot:

cami

12-07-2005, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Tracian
Cami...

Didn't McGinnis settle the case?

Yes, the jury hung on the very first question and the judge was about to declare a mistrial. Knowing that MacDonald would keep in court for years as he desperately needed money, McGinniss offered to settle out of court for the $100,000 that was in escrow, Mac's earnings on the book, and $225,000 his insurance company agreed to pay. Mac quickly jumped at the settlement although he sued for $15M. Then, the Kassabs sued Mac for wrongful death and won I think it was $75,000, I can't remember the actual figure but Byn or Bunny will know, and his lawyers took the rest so Mac ended up with a paltry $50,000, half of what he would have received had he not sued.

Have you seen Bunny's 3d mockup of the MacDonald apt? It's absolutely awesome, she did a marvelous job and now she has completed the neighbourhood and houses surrounding Mac's.

Here's a link to her site with the 3d views of 544 Castle Drive (http://www.azwest.net/c&j/)

Bunny2

12-07-2005, 12:09 PM

How on earth does seawolf know if Colette's blood got all over the pajamas before the holes were made. Is seawolf a competent forensic expert?

Stombaugh at trial:

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

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

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

There is no evidence that there was any rage over bedwetting, or amphetamine diet pill psychosis, or that Dr MacDonald is a sociopath. Unless you can prove that in court, which you can't, then it's libel as Joe McGinniss found out.

You know so little about this case that you don't even know that no one referred to the murderer Jeffrey MacDonald as "Dr. MacDonald" back then; he was "Captain" MacDonald, not Dr. And obviously you didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the facts outlined for you in A&E and elsewhere about the civil suit, which MacDonald did not win. McGinniss settled to be done with it, and Mac was sorely disappointed that things didn't go the way he planned. Seems to be the story of his life, doesn't it!

Face it, "Arthur." You were exposed as a ****** and a fraud on A&E, you're not British, you post under various aliases, some of which pretend to support MacDonald and others which don't, you've been banned from Crime & Justice and banned from A&E, and the only reason you put up such idiotic posts, in which you pretend to ignore the incredibly overwhelming evidence against MacDonald, is because you enjoy baiting people.

cami

12-07-2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.

My favorite bit is where the C.I.D. not only "deliberately lose the pajama bottoms," but also blithely admit this to Helena Stoeckley.
:lol:

We've been putting up with his nonsense for months now. Well Byn and Bunny are great at putting out his fires, I don't have the strength anymore and they know the evidence and the legal documents much better than I do. I am still struggling reading trial testimony, LOL, and making notes. I know that I know all the most important aspects.

Bunny2

12-07-2005, 12:12 PM

Hey, Cami, what do you think...if nomi is tscarlett, is she/he also Albert Webb and Lawjunkie and Airknocker and Arthur?

cami

12-07-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is what the MacDonald prosecutor Murtagh said about the MacDonald case at this year's MacDonald parole hearing. To my mind Murtagh's remarks are silly remarks. Murtagh's remarks are patently untrue. Dr MacDonald never denied covering Colette with his pajama top. I would like a word in the ear of Murtagh so I could say exactly what I think of him :-

"His admission of covering Colette MacDonald with his pajama top, taken by itself was sufficient to sustain his conviction. As Chief Justice Burger wrote the facts in this case are not an issue. A jury heard and saw all the witnesses and saw the tangible evidence."

Laughter in court.

You go right ahead and try and find Mr. Murtagh and express your displeasure Albie. I am sure you will be laughed out of his office, if you get that far.

You have misinterpreted this so perhaps a re-read is in order, Murtagh said "his admission" that means he is agreeing with Mac that he covered Colette with the top. What he is also saying is it was enough all by itself to convict Mac of murder. The holes in the pajama top, the pattern, the rips, the blood all extremely incriminating and pretty much prove that the story Inmate 131 told about what happened in his home that night is a lie.

cami

12-07-2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by byn63
roflmao bertie! Inmate 00131-177 the glorified janitor who was responsible for being sure the latrines were clean and that the monthly STD reports were filed had more than "some sort of medicine cabinet". The hall closet near the bathroom contained more than a tiny little first aide kit. I have been trained in First Aide for years, and I have NEVER carried a single syringe, yet Inmate 00131-177 had enough "spikes to supply the Fayetteville drug community for months". Inmate 00131-177 was a THIEF as well as a murderer. The medical supplies he had in that closet had belonged to the Special Forces Group to which he was originally assigned, prior to it being disbanded. Those supplies should have been destroyed per government regulations, complete with a stack of forms that were to have been properly filled out and signed and turned in to the proper authority.

the fact that the Army didn't go after Inmate 00131-177 for the theft does not make it any less of a theft. Inmate 00131-177 would not have been called to an emergency psychiatric situation on the street and there was absolutely no reason for him to have kept Thorazine or 98% of the other medications that were found in that closet.

:read:

Last night I was a programme on tv, can't remember if it was Canadian or American, but it was about the Vietnam war and the protests in the early '70's, this was 1974 I think. At the microphone, a woman was rallying the crowd, she had long blonde hair and was wearing a floppy hat. I almost called Tim Junkin!

cami

12-07-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

I still want to know what the FreeMasons have to do with this case?

Absolutely nothing. It's just Bertie and his r@c!st comments. They won't let me use the word so had to disguise it. He's blamed these murders on everyone from vampires to Mick Jagger.

byn63

12-07-2005, 12:41 PM

cami - you mean you DIDN'T report this OBVIOUS suspect? roflmao! Everytime someone tries to make out like a floppy hat being worn by a female in 1970 is UNIQUE, I just roll with laughter! You couldn't swing a dead cat in 1970 without hitting a female with long hair and a floppy hat! Matter of fact, I still have one of mine! Might come back in style, ya know! LOL!

well, I have never found any connection with the Masons and Inmate 00131-177. the only person who seems to think there is one is old ramblin'rosie himself, bertie, arthur,albie whatever name you pick to remember. He is a flamebaiter pure and simple. The ignorance of many of those posts is inexcusable impo, and I will argue the nonsense as often as necessary.

I am hoping to see/hear the DNA results soon! Won't it be fun to watch Junkin and the attorney's du jour for Inmate 00131-177 start jumping through hoops? They are going to have to explain how hairs that are OBVIOUSLY from the intruders/attackers now turn out to be Inmate 00131-177s (or of course the family members) and are no longer vital to proving his innocence! :lol:

cami

12-07-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There was background information to the Long Island Four or Fire Island Four, or New York Four, whatever you want to call them, at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970.

This is part of what was said :-

This is from the cross-examination of CID investigator Bennie Hawkins from the Colonel Rock inquiry in 1970 :

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article32_11.html

Q And did your investigation, particularly in this interview, disclose whether these people had any association or relationship with any member of the MacDonald family?
A Yes, sir, it did.
Q And what was that?
A It was a friendship with Captain MacDonald's brother.
Q Do you know how long that association existed?
A I know that it existed from a period of last summer to the time I was there in May.

CPT SOMERS: I think that covers the ruling.

CPT BEALE: Well, of course, you can ask him other questions, or at least attempt to. I just
--as pertains to the visit to New York, that's what that ruling went to. I don't know what else you might want to elicit from him.

Q You mentioned the summer, what is it about the summer that makes you give that date? Are you speaking about last summer, 1969?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what is it about that summer?
A Well, the summer of 1969 there was a house on Fire Island, rented on Fire Island and it was occupied by this group of four, Captain MacDonald's brother, and others whose names I could not obtain.
Q Do you know from your investigation whether this group habitually had any particular type of apparel?

Why does Bertie believe all this quoting of tesimony is making his points? Are we meant to believe by this that Macdonald didn't visit his brother Jay on Fire Island and didn't meet the FIF? LOL. We all can see you are quoting out of context, Bertie. We can also read the full transcript of Hawkins testimony for ourselves dear Bertie. Try again hey, you are not making any points here.

cami

12-07-2005, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by byn63
cami - you mean you DIDN'T report this OBVIOUS suspect? roflmao! Everytime someone tries to make out like a floppy hat being worn by a female in 1970 is UNIQUE, I just roll with laughter! You couldn't swing a dead cat in 1970 without hitting a female with long hair and a floppy hat! Matter of fact, I still have one of mine! Might come back in style, ya know! LOL!

well, I have never found any connection with the Masons and Inmate 00131-177. the only person who seems to think there is one is old ramblin'rosie himself, bertie, arthur,albie whatever name you pick to remember. He is a flamebaiter pure and simple. The ignorance of many of those posts is inexcusable impo, and I will argue the nonsense as often as necessary.

I am hoping to see/hear the DNA results soon! Won't it be fun to watch Junkin and the attorney's du jour for Inmate 00131-177 start jumping through hoops? They are going to have to explain how hairs that are OBVIOUSLY from the intruders/attackers now turn out to be Inmate 00131-177s (or of course the family members) and are no longer vital to proving his innocence! :lol:

I too cannot wait for those results to be made public. maybe finally it will shut inmate 131 up but I won't hold my breath. Anyone with two eyes and a brain knows he's the baby killer.

Bunny2

12-07-2005, 01:26 PM

Tracian - regarding "Arthur's" talk about Freemasons, when he first brought up this wild notion in A&E, he claimed the CID were all "Masons" and that is why they were protecting Helena Stoeckley. (Later, I think it was Rashomon who said she thought he meant Freemasons, whereupon he started referring to Freemasons instead of Masons.)

I leave it to you to decide if the claim had any validity.

:lol:

cami

12-07-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, Cami, what do you think...if nomi is tscarlett, is she/he also Albert Webb and Lawjunkie and Airknocker and Arthur?

hmmmm never thought of that Buns. I"ve been posting with Nomi for a while now and I've never gotten the feeling she/he is any of the above. It's possible. I don't even know if it is TS, just a guess, based on the first post where she called him Albert and not Arthur. Oh and the "dr." Nomi never used that before old Bertie showed up here. Wouldn't surprise me if they are one and the same.

cami

12-07-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by byn63
cami - you mean you DIDN'T report this OBVIOUS suspect? roflmao! Everytime someone tries to make out like a floppy hat being worn by a female in 1970 is UNIQUE, I just roll with laughter! You couldn't swing a dead cat in 1970 without hitting a female with long hair and a floppy hat! Matter of fact, I still have one of mine! Might come back in style, ya know! LOL!

well, I have never found any connection with the Masons and Inmate 00131-177. the only person who seems to think there is one is old ramblin'rosie himself, bertie, arthur,albie whatever name you pick to remember. He is a flamebaiter pure and simple. The ignorance of many of those posts is inexcusable impo, and I will argue the nonsense as often as necessary.

I am hoping to see/hear the DNA results soon! Won't it be fun to watch Junkin and the attorney's du jour for Inmate 00131-177 start jumping through hoops? They are going to have to explain how hairs that are OBVIOUSLY from the intruders/attackers now turn out to be Inmate 00131-177s (or of course the family members) and are no longer vital to proving his innocence! :lol:

Yeah I should have called him, I should have. See even Canada is in on the conspiracy to get MacDonald. We have those hippies up here, they were draft dodgers but we refuse to send them back.

byn63

12-07-2005, 02:36 PM

btw - the Mason's or Freemason's as an organization reach back to the American Revolution here in the US. However, in 1970, Helena would not have been eligible for membership because (1) she was not 21 years of age and (2) she was FEMALE. So, basically it was just an ignorance based red-herring tactic. There is no reason to assume all of the CID personnel were members of the Masonic Lodge and even if they were they'd have had to reason to "protect Helena" in any shape manner or form.

bertieboy/arthur/whoever has a penchant for posting long sections of testimony out of context as if it supports his "theories". Only problem is that even after he does his cut and paste job, he still doesn't prove HIS point. He apparently went to the Potter and Bost school of debate. His posts remind me of the Bost Short Study that is so glaringly inaccurate and distorted etc. it makes ones head spin!!!

:biggrin:

byn63

12-07-2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't believe the DNA results in the MacDonald case will be made public this December.

Murtagh and Judge Fox said the same thing, that the results would be ready in December 2002, and they never were. The excuse seems to be the Iraq war and 9/11.

My belief is that Judge Fox and Murtagh know the DNA forensic evidence proves Dr MacDonald's innocence. They never want this information to be made public.

If any information is ever released to the public it will say that that the exhibits were too small to be microscopically examined or else it was "household debris."

Only 15 of the 50 items have been allowed by Judge Fox to be DNA examined and Murtagh has managed to lose or destroy DNA evidence.

The AFIP lab which is supposed to be testing the MacDonald case DNA hasn't always been quite so biased against Dr MacDonald. This is what the AFIP lab has said about the forensics in the MacDonald case in the past :-

Q And in the final exit meeting where Dr Froede spoke in summarizing the findings of the AFIP, was there any statement made that there was certain evidence which links Dr MacDonald to the killings or which showed that he was involved in these killings?

A No, on the contrary, Dr Froede, if anything, helped all of us to believe on the basis of what was presented, there was no way they could implicate or connect Dr MacDonald with the homicides that occurred at Fort Bragg. He did not commit himself, but he did say this, on the basis of what he had, THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY WOULD RETURN A REPORT INDICATING ANY IMPLICATION OF DR MACDONALD.

First of all, Judge Fox and Murtaugh would not have given a date when testing results would be announced, they have nothing to do with the testing.

Secondly, the AFIP had nothing to do with this case until 1998 when it was named as the testing laboratory for the 15 items to be tested for DNA. In the meantime, Inmate 00131-177 and his attorney's du jour have held up the testing time and again with motions to the court. Each time Inmate 00131-177 filed papers, the testing would have to be stopped until responses could be prepared per court orders.

Now, the DNA testing is allegedly completed, and the AFIP is checking its results against the exemplars that were collected. The odds are overwhelming that at least one of those 15 hairs that Inmate 00131-177 has been claiming would clear him are in fact HIS. The only chance Inmate 00131-177 has of getting back into court is for one of the 15 hairs to match a KNOWN suspect.

Inmate 00131-177 is a narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic with a histrionic personality disorder. He brutally, savagely butchered his pregnant wife and 2 little girls. Then, he concocted the most outragious scenario, and staged the scene (poorly). Then showing no remorse only a few hours later he sat up in his hospital bed and ate dinner with enjoyment. He is the scum of the earth, lower than low and he will spend the rest of his miserable existence scrubbing toilets. Which is much better than what he deserves!

byn63

12-07-2005, 03:00 PM

btw - The DNA testing results will be made public. The size of the items will have no impact at this late date. The appropriateness of each exhibit for testing was done BEFORE the testing started. Also, your comment about microscopic examination is simply ignorant. You have been told ad nauseum that ONLY HUMAN HEAD HAIR OR PUBIC HAIR CONTAINS ENOUGH DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISITICS TO ALLOW FOR MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON. The 15 exhibits being tested for DNA include limb hair, the distal portion (or tip) of limb hairs and possible portions or segments of head hairs.

those items have all been tested, many using both mitochondrial and nuclear dna, and are currently being compared against exemplars. Since we all know that there were no intruders in that apartment, the most likely scenario is that those hairs will turn out to be Inmate 00131-177s.

barskin&co.

12-07-2005, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by byn63
btw - The DNA testing results will be made public. The size of the items will have no impact at this late date. The appropriateness of each exhibit for testing was done BEFORE the testing started. Also, your comment about microscopic examination is simply ignorant. You have been told ad nauseum that ONLY HUMAN HEAD HAIR OR PUBIC HAIR CONTAINS ENOUGH DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISITICS TO ALLOW FOR MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON. The 15 exhibits being tested for DNA include limb hair, the distal portion (or tip) of limb hairs and possible portions or segments of head hairs.

those items have all been tested, many using both mitochondrial and nuclear dna, and are currently being compared against exemplars. Since we all know that there were no intruders in that apartment, the most likely scenario is that those hairs will turn out to be Inmate 00131-177s.

And what do you think "Arthur" will call these results- lab error or "scientific bullchit?"

Deb B

12-07-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by byn63

Then showing no remorse only a few hours later he sat up in his hospital bed and ate dinner with enjoyment.

Didn't he also have a buddy bring him some Cold Duck to enjoy while he was in the hospital?

*shudders at the thought*

Deb B

12-07-2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I expect Dr MacDonald just thought to himself that he needed some cheering up after the devastating blow with regard to the murder of his wife and children by the Stoeckley drug-crazed killers.

*still shuddering at glibness of MacDonald requesting champagne in hospital following gruesome murders of wife and small children*

byn63

12-07-2005, 04:42 PM

well - old bertieboy will probably call the DNA results both "lab error" and "bullchit" completely ignoring the fact that the attorney's dujour for Inmate 00131-177 have had an expert witness present during the testing.

yes, Deb you are correct Inmate 00131-177 had Ron Harrison bring him a bottle of champagne in the hospital.

bertieboy, IF the scenario Inmate 00131-177 claimed took place had indeed happened, then he would have been either dead like the rest of his family OR incredibly seriously injured. IF it had happened the way he said, he would have been receiving INTRAVENOUS feedings. Inmate 00131-177 was sitting up and eating solid food with obvious enjoyment while his pregnant wife, unborn son, 5 year old and 2 year old daughters were in a refrigerated box. Most people would say there was something VERY VERY VERY wrong with his taking a meal in that manner.

A human would have been too upset to eat even if he or she had not been seriously injured.

:read:

Bunny2

12-07-2005, 05:13 PM

Fatal Justice alleges that CID lab tech Janice Glisson, years earlier, had come to a different conclusion...(FJ, 1997 paperb., p. 148): "During Shedlick's and Dannelly's forays in the FOIA documents they discovered that the government failed to reveal at trial that CID lab tech Janice Glisson, years earlier, had explored the same bloodstain theory and had come to a different conclusion. She had determined that the stain edges on either side of the rips did not intersect, that the pajama top was, therefore, stained after it was ripped, not before."

Gee, Albie/Arthur, how come you didn't tell the real story behind what MacDonald's shills wrote in FJ?:

Glisson's note actually says "much blood, ripped, pocket missing, blood stains do not match on front and sleeve."

I think it was Cami who found that Potter and Bost just decided to take two stains which were located on completely different parts of the pj top, then they distorted Glisson's lab note, and then claimed that the bloodstains hadn't formed a contiguous whole before. As Jednme noted, "Of course they couldn't have, if one stain was e. g. on the shoulder, and the other one on the front panel of the garment!! Unbelievable!!!"

Bunny2

12-07-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Deb B

Didn't he also have a buddy bring him some Cold Duck to enjoy while he was in the hospital?

*shudders at the thought*
Hi, Deb - Yes, Ron Harrison, Mac's best friend, gave a statement to the CID that said that MacDonald had asked Harrison to get some champagne for him, so Harrison did that. And not only did MacDonald enjoy his dinner while his family lay in the morgue, but two different people said they'd overheard him having a conversation with another doctor about a mutual patient they'd treated.

What a day Mac had, eh? First there was that unpleasant little incident with those hippie people, then later some stimulating conversation with a colleague, dinner and some celebratory champagne to finish off the evening. Just another day in the life of an unrepentent murderer, I guess.

byn63

12-08-2005, 08:31 AM

and you have the nerve to say that bunny and byn present misinformation? get real bertie boy.

First, neither bunny nor I said Inmate 00131-177 had champagne on the night of the murders. What we said was, he was sitting up in bed, eating a full meal with apparent enjoyment. While his wife, unborn son, and daughters were laying in a refrigerated box. That is not misinformation that is total and complete fact. It is also a fact, that if Inmate 00131-177 HAD BEEN attacked as he claimed he would have been EITHER DEAD or at the very least ON INTRAVEINOUS FLUIDS. Even if by some miracle, he had actually been attacked and come out if so unscathed - a person of HUMANITY would have been grieving the loss of his family and unable to eat a full meal especially not with GUSTO!

As for Dr. Thorton - you love skipping over the fact that he AGREED with Paul Stombaugh on some of the major points of testimony. And, as hard as Dr. Thorton TRIED to claim the demonstration by Murtaugh and Blackburn was unscientific, the jury found his ham on a sled experiment to be USELESS. Not just scientifically silly, but plain old silly silly. An experiment to prove the pj top could have been in motion and still sustained perfectly round cylindrical holes AND the person wearing that top NOT SUSTAIN any ice pick injuries should have taken all the aspects of the described events into consideration (i.e. Inmate 00131-177 claimed the top was twisted and tangled around his writsts, and that he was thrusting forward to blunt the blows) which the slice of ham wearing a piece of fabric smoothed over it on a sled that moved only side to side DID NOT

The fact that Inmate 00131-177 had NO DEFENSIVE wounds is also telling. Little 2 year old Kristen had several defensive wounds, and Colette also had defensive wounds. But, Inmate 00131-177 not only didn't have any defensive wounds, he didn't have any critical wounds. Not a single one of his injuries need so much as a single suture, no bandages, nothing. He had a partial lung collapse which was easily treated and he could have been released 3 days later if he'd had a place to go. Any thinking being should be able to discern the implausibility of his scenario. Then combine that with the physical evidence such as no blood, fibers, threads, or splinters in the living room where the alleged struggle took place and GUILTY X3 IS WHAT YOU GET!

Inmate 00131-177 has consistently shown the white feather - he is a coward, narcissist, sociopath, psychotic family slaughterer. He will spend the rest of his life scrubbing the toilets in the Pen - exactly where he belongs!
:read:

barskin&co.

12-08-2005, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald had defensive wounds all right.

Oh, really? Name one.

It wasn't Dr MacDonald's fault that he wasn't murdered. Dr MacDonald was knocked unconscious. Dr MacDonald isn't Superman or Rambo.

Okay, you have a point, there. Superman or Rambo never stabbed a pregnant woman and two little girls to death.

It looks as though Colette was murdered by Greg Mitchell and Kristen by Helena Stoeckley.

Looks to whom?

Dr MacDonald tried to protect himself, and his wife and children, when he was asleep on a couch and had been taken completely by surprise by Don Harris and Dwight Smith, and possibly others.

Okey doke. He tried to protect himself when he was asleep, huh?

Fred Bost has a perfectly plausible explanation for this. This is what Bost said :-

"My belief is that he received the majority of his wounds as he lay unconscious on the hall floor. I think some ice pick holes were made on the garment as MacDonald's unconscious body was attacked.

My major belief for this is based upon the four ice pick wounds found in his upper left chest. They were so curiously placed that they made a great impression on Dr Jacobson.They were so close together that to Jacobson they appeared like punctures made by the tines of a fork.

Jacobson testified at the Army Article 32 hearing that any of the four ice pick wounds could easily have gone deeply enough to puncture the lung with no outward evidence that such lung injuries had occurred."

"Perfectly plausible." And, this from the side which calls the prosecution evidence "bullchit science."

byn63

12-08-2005, 09:54 AM

bertieboy you make me laugh. Bost and Potter are the worlds prime cut and paste revisionist historians and YOU spout their silliness as if it makes sense.

How could Inmate 00131-177 have received his wounds while laying unconscious on the floor? He claimed he was face down, hands bound up and twisted inside his magic pj top and arms underneath his stomach. Inmate 00131-177 DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE WOUND ON HIS BACK OR BACKSIDE. Also, Inmate 00131-177 did not, repeat DID NOT have a single defensive injury.

You need to go back to the beginning, and study the evidence from the truthful side, not from the murderer's own website OR that work of fiction called Fatal Justice. Inmate 00131-177 is a cowardly, narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic with a histrionic personality disorder family slaughterer who will spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets in the pen. He deserves worse!

:read:

byn63

12-08-2005, 10:05 AM

The following is a copy of one of my posts on A&E - maybe some of you here might get something out of it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Segal didn't even try to cross examine TLaber which makes his testimony seem even stronger**

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

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

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

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

From the 1979 Trial Testimony of Dr. Frank Gemma:

Q. Could that also be termed an incised wound?

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

From the Manual: Standard First Aide and Personal Safety

page 20: Incisions

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

2. bleeding may be rapid and heavy.

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

No matter how hard Mr. Bost would like to believe otherwise, Inmate 00131-177 is guilty, he's shown consciousness of his guilt, and he continues to show the white feather by failing to face his guilt.

:patriot:

barskin&co.

12-08-2005, 10:22 AM

I went to the A&E forum, which you have mentioned, and took a look at the excellent discussion there. And your long history with our own "Arthur Thorp." Very interesting- and informative. "Arthur's" M.O. is consistant. Everything Jeffrey MacDonald says is taken at face value as the God's own truth, every bit of testimony, evidence, judicial ruling, etc. that is not from the defense is corrupt or "bullchit," and every piece of twisted rationalization or contortions to fit the MacD version of he events is "perfectly plausible."

byn63

12-08-2005, 11:46 AM

ha ha haa haa ha ha haa haa good old bertieboy NOW he is a Dr? Get real Artie/bertie whoever you are - recently on A&E you talked about how Dr. Gemma had done such a good job - now you are arguing with his TESTIMONY? Post your curricula vitae if you have more qualifications than Dr. G. (you don't of course)

The only wound Inmate 00131-177 had that was of ANY consequence was the chest wound that caused a partial collapse of his lung. He did it himself impo. But, that is not related to this particular topic. Inmate 00131-177 was INDEED AN INCISED WOUND. No matter how much you choose to believe the nonsensical ignorance you prefer to post - it doesn't make it true!

cami

12-08-2005, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Deb B

Didn't he also have a buddy bring him some Cold Duck to enjoy while he was in the hospital?

*shudders at the thought*

Yep buddy Ron Harrison. I wonder what they were celebrating. Mac's instant bachelorhood?

Bunny2

12-08-2005, 12:12 PM

[The murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] had defensive wounds all right.

MacDonald claims to have been using his pajama top to fend off a frenzied, icepick-wielding "intruder" who was repeatedly trying to stab him. He was asked at trial about icepick wounds to his hands and wrists and arms, and his reply was "I did not receive any ice picks on my hands and arms. My answer to that is yes, I did not receive any wounds on my hands and arms. Why I did not I cannot say."

The emergency room orderly and the chief of surgery both testified that Jeffrey MacDonald had no icepick wounds on his body. Staff surgeon Merrill Bronstein testified that MacDonald "absolutely did not have any icepick wounds anywhere, and I saw his entire body because when I was there his pajamas were removed and I examined him from head to toe."

...MacDonald tried to protect himself, and his wife and children, when he was asleep on a couch and had been taken completely by surprise by Don Harris and Dwight Smith, and possibly others.

No conclusive evidence whatsoever ever surfaced to show that any "intruder" was ever in the house. Moreover, even the defense and Potter and Bost and most of MacDonald's supporters long ago discarded Dwight Smith as a suspect because he didn't match MacDonald's descriptions of any of the "intruders."

cami

12-08-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald didn't have a bottle of champagne on the day of the MacDonald murders. That's usual Bunny and Byn misinformation. Dr MacDonald did ask Ron Harrison to bring in a bottle to the hospital just before he was due to leave hospital. There is no law against that.

Bunny ought not to talk about bare shoulders again when Dr Thornton proved in court that the purported FBI forensic expert Stombaugh was talking nonsense about that.

What Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's theory about a bare left shoulder at the 1979 MacDonald trial :-

Q Dealing first of all with the statement that Area "E" has the appearance of a bare left shoulder, do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
A I disagree.
Q What is the basis of your own opinion in this regard?
A I am unable to replicate an impression that has the appearance of "E" on that item by using a shoulder, neck, or clavicle region of a human being. I can replicate it to some extent by folding the fabric over an area of bloody cloth.
Q Let me go back over what you just told us. First of all, is it your opinion that it is not in any reasonable fashion a bare--it is not an impression made by a bare left shoulder as far as you can ascertain?
A That is correct. I don't think there is any credible possibility that it could be a bare left shoulder.

Unh Bertie, Dr. Thornton was practically laughed off the witness stand with his "ham" demonstration. He proved nothing in court. As a matter of fact, it was Morton who talked the nonsense, Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on the cuffs and you know it.

Regardless, the jury convicted so Thornton proved nothing at trial, didn't even poke a reasonable doubt hole in this evidence, the most damaging against that ice pick baby killer.

Bunny2

12-08-2005, 12:25 PM

Fred Bost has a perfectly plausible explanation for this. This is what Bost said :- ..."My belief is that he received the majority of his wounds as he lay unconscious on the hall floor. I think some ice pick holes were made on the garment as MacDonald's unconscious body was attacked."

From the CID's "Comparisons and Observations":

"Jeffrey MacDonald was not engaged in a moving altercation with his alleged assailants at the time he sustained the ice pick wounds; that since he claimed he was conscious when attacked, he would have had to sustain the ice pick wounds after being rendered unconscious. Since he admits that he was lying face down when he woke from unconsciousness he would have had to roll onto his stomach in an involuntary motion. This latter observation is occasioned by the fact that he claimed when he woke from unconsciousness, the pajama top was wrapped around his wrists and lay between his chest and the floor. If the attackers stabbed through the fabric while he lay on the floor, then there should have been some evidence of such activity discernable upon examination of that floor area during the crime scene search and no such evidence was present. If the alleged assailants stabbed through the fabric with the ice pick when it was on his person, then resulting wounds should have been in evidence -- no such evidence of multiple stab wounds from the ice pick was developed."

In addition, MacDonald claims to have fallen at the west end of the hallway. He said his torso was in the hallway and his legs were on the steps, extending into the living room.

A crime scene photograph shows a pile of coats and/or clothing on the hallway floor exactly at the place where MacDonald said he fell. Testimony was given by the first people in the apartment after the murders that they did see the clothing in the hallway. MacDonald claimed to have struggled with three intruders at the same spot in the hallway where the clothing was. In the photograph, the clothing does not appear to have been disturbed. The small blood spot found in this area of the hallway, which MacDonald believes supports his story of falling there, was found on the floor itself. Had MacDonald fallen there, the blood spot would have been on the clothing, not the floor. Despite many tellings of his various accounts of the night of the murders, MacDonald has never said he fell upon any coats or clothing.

cami

12-08-2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I may be wrong about this but seawolf seems to be implying that Dr MacDonald inflicted the wounds on himself as well as on the pajama top.

This seemed to be the nonsensical theory of the CID agents on the MacDonald case as well.

This is what so-called CID agent Shaw rambled about the matter when questioned by MacDonald lawyer Eisman at the 1970 Article 32 Investigation.

Q How did he stab himself with the icepick, if he had already put the icepick outside?
A (No answer.)
Q He must have wounded himself prior to taking the weapons outside? Is that correct?
A Probably, if he was stabbed with the icepick.
Q What do you believe he was stabbed with?
A I do not know. According to medical opinion, he wasn't stabbed with the icepick at all, but with a knife.
Q With a knife?
A Right.
Q Which of the two knives we have discussed was it thought to be; which knife inflicted the wound?
A There was no opinion rendered as to that. The knife blades are pretty much a type configuration.
Q In other words, if he chose the knife with the bent blade to wound himself--is that correct?
A Well, I am not sure, I do not want to be pinned down about this because according to what I am told by corpsmen and one thing and another, MacDonald's injuries weren't serious at all. They were serious, yes; if a pneumothorax becomes infected, of course that is serious, but as far as impairing his movements, one corpsman went so far as to say he could have run to the hospital. Other people have told me of him waking up and asking the MPs for mouth-to-mouth resuscitation because he was going in shock; a medical man, what did he do that for? I don't know; I wasn't there and I don't know what he was thinking, or as to which knife he used or as to the depth of the wound; it has to be a quarter of an inch; it had to make the pneumothorax, so it could have been most anything.
Q I don't want to qualify you as a doctor?
A Please don't.

Yes, Bertie that Ice Pick Baby Killer did inflict his own chest injury. How likely is it drug crazed armed men in a frenzy cut him neatly between two ribs? It's not logical at all considering what happened to his wife and family.

And once again posters, you can see the method Bertie is using. He is quoting Robert Shaw an agent of the CID at the Article 32, the first hearing, when there were not a whole of lab test results completed. Robert Shaw was not a medical doctor and should not have been even asked for his opinion on Mac's chest wound.

Bunny2

12-08-2005, 12:40 PM

...This is what Bost said :- "...I think some ice pick holes were made on the garment as MacDonald's unconscious body was attacked. My major belief for this is based upon the four ice pick wounds found in his upper left chest. They were so curiously placed that they made a great impression on Dr Jacobson.They were so close together that to Jacobson they appeared like punctures made by the tines of a fork.

You believe one of the attackers stabbed MacDonald with a fork?

Regardless, Jacobson also testified at trial:

Q Now, how would you classify, sir, Dr. MacDonald's general condition after you observed him?
A Well, his general condition was good. His blood pressure was okay; his pulse was 88 which is probably normal for us but for him that is probably a little fast. He moved around well on the gurney. Good, I would have to say.

cami

12-08-2005, 12:43 PM

Dr MacDonald didn't have "an incised wound." Dr MacDonald had several wounds, the details of which are a bit too complex and gruesome for this forum.

Bertie you are a scream, that's the funniest thing you've posted so far. Please point to the medical testimony of Bronstein et al that alleges IPBK had several complex and gruesome wounds aaaahahaha he had a bruise on the forehead, skin not even broken, inflicted by Colette when she whacked him with that hairbrush, some fingernail scratches inflicted by Colette when she tore the pajama top and one chest wound, neatly self-inflicted in between two ribs by a doctor interested in surgery and who witnessed the same type of surgery only days before the murders. That little tearing wound in the abdomen was probably given to him by Colette as well as she tried to defend herself against his rage.

Wake up and smell the roses, Bertie. Your hero is a baby killer, an ice pick weilding maniac.

Bunny2

12-08-2005, 12:52 PM

[The murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] didn't have "an incised wound." ...MacDonald had several wounds, the details of which are a bit too complex and gruesome for this forum.

A vaseline gauze bandage and some tranqulizers is "too gruesome" for this forum? I'm laughing.

What really might be too gruesome for some members of this forum are the autopsy photos of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen, who were brutally beaten and butchered by Jeffrey MacDonald.

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

Eisman was murdered in about 1992. That was no suicide.

Some people, knowing that Eisman was apparently involved in illegal activities and was about to be brought up on charges for that, speculate that he committed suicide. No way to tell for sure, from what I've read.

cami

12-08-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald's theory about the pajama pocket. This also makes sense to me:-

Q Can you tell us how that pocket got there?
A There are several possibilities. Do you want me to go through them?
Q Sure.
A It could fallen from the pajama top when I took it off my wrists. It could have been moved when they moved myself or Colette. I have--you know, there were probably ten people in that room at one time.
I have no idea how it got there. I think there are a lot of possibilities.
Q It didn't get on there during the struggle with you and Colette?
A I'll repeat: Colette and I did not have a struggle.

No, it doesn't make sense, Bertie. The pocket was ripped off by someone standing in front of Macdonald at the same time as the pajama top was torn, the left panel of his top was ripped straight down, by Colette as she held on to him, digging her nails into his chest. As well Mac is LYING about the fight between he and Colette. Now you know this, it's in the evidence. Mac was not qualified to render his own opinion on the pajama top.

Bunny2

12-08-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.
I went to the A&E forum, which you have mentioned, and took a look at the excellent discussion there. And your long history with our own "Arthur Thorp." Very interesting- and informative. "Arthur's" M.O. is consistant. Everything Jeffrey MacDonald says is taken at face value as the God's own truth, every bit of testimony, evidence, judicial ruling, etc. that is not from the defense is corrupt or "bullchit," and every piece of twisted rationalization or contortions to fit the MacD version of he events is "perfectly plausible."
Hey there, barskin - Yep, those posts are pretty revealing, aren't they. Albie lost his credibility there almost as soon as he started posting. He's not British as he tries to imply, and of course his ludicrous statements about Mick Jagger and vampires and Masons and 17 intruders in the apartment and black wool wig fibers and DNA testing on synthetic hairs and much more didn't do him any good at all.

Indications are that he was also posting as "Lawjunkie/Airknocker" until he was banned from the Crime & Justice board and then banned from A&E, and under that persona, he claims MacDonald is almost certainly guilty.

Bunny2

12-08-2005, 01:09 PM

One of the little girls definitely was stabbed in the back, and not just once. The letter S (Satan?) was also marked on her chest. I'll never believe...MacDonald did that and nobody has ever proved that he did do that.

Did you realize that when you lay the autopsy pictures of Colette, Kim and Kristen side by side, the wounds spell "Jeffrey MacDonald is the murderer"? I'll never believe any "intruders" did that and nobody has ever proved that they did. In fact, on the contrary, it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Jeffrey MacDonald was indeed the killer of his family.

byn63

12-08-2005, 01:39 PM

Byn has absolutely no problem seeing what happened the night of February 16-17, 1970. The blood throughout the apartment tells the compelling story. First, for whatever reason Inmate 00131-177 entered the master bedroom and a fight between Colette and the murderer began. Colette's blood was smeared and spattered onto the pj top which was subsequently torn, showering the bedroom with numerous yarns and threads. (Including one that was twisted together with a bloody torn head hair from Colette).

Somehow, Kimberly got in the way (probably trying to stop the fight between her mommy and daddy) and Inmate 00131-177 slammed the wooden club into the side of her head so firmly as to dislocate her entire midline and breaking her cheek and jaw in such a manner that the bone broke through the skin of her face. It also, spattered her blood and brain serum onto the door jam of the MB and she lay in the room bleeding and most probably comatose long enough to make a saturated 6" stain of her blood and brain serum in the MB rug just inside the door.

Of course, we know that Inmate 00131-177 staged the scene and tried to claim drugged out hippies did it. He also carried Colette and Kimberly from one place to another in the bedding. Not to mention that his story of the fight is not only implausible but impossible.

1) there were no lights on in the living room
2) there was a light on in the kitchen (back lighting anything in the living room/dining room area)
3) he allegedly was asleep so NO GLASSES
4) it is medically impossible for a person to REMEMBER the blow that knocked them unconscious. Plus, depending on the length of time a person was out, short term memory will also be affected as will memory right after consciouness is regained.

Therefore, IF the events of that night had been as Inmate 00131-177 had described THEN he couldn't have described it, period.

byn63

12-08-2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
One of the little girls definitely was stabbed in the back, and not just once. The letter S (Satan?) was also marked on her chest. I'll never believe...MacDonald did that and nobody has ever proved that he did do that.

Did you realize that when you lay the autopsy pictures of Colette, Kim and Kristen side by side, the wounds spell "Jeffrey MacDonald is the murderer"? I'll never believe any "intruders" did that and nobody has ever proved that they did. In fact, on the contrary, it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Jeffrey MacDonald was indeed the killer of his family.

I have never read anything stating that the letter S was in any way marked on Kristen's chest. Is that Bertieboy ignorance? We know it can't be true of Kimberly because she didn't have any chest injuries. I'm with ya, bunny. Since there is overwhelming physical and circumstantial evidence against Inmate 00131-177 and not the least to point to any intruders, I think we are safe to believe that Inmate 00131-177 will spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets in the Pen. (which is better than he deserves imo)