Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[Bunny2]

I can assure you that I'm not Lawjunkie/Airknocker.

But of course you've already shown yourself to be a liar over and over again, "Arthur," so why would anyone believe anything you say? In addition, it's been shown that you love to purposely misrepresent and distort things, and it's been shown that much of what you write has similarities to Lawjunkie/Airknocker's writings, and you both disappeared at the same time from A&E. I could be mistaken, but until I see something that indicates otherwise, my conclusions about you and your various aliases will stand.

[Bunny2]

I have never read anything stating that the letter S was in any way marked on Kristen's chest. Is that Bertieboy ignorance?

Byn, I wish JTF or Jednme or Rash were here...I can't remember now where that turned up, but I think it might have been in FJ or buried somewhere in the records. Looking at Kris's autopsy pictures, I can't see it, myself, and JTF said he couldn't either. Actually, I've never run across anyone who said they've seen it at all, so I'm guessing that this was just another spin put on things by Mac or one of his shills.

[byn63]

Originally posted by Bunny2
I have never read anything stating that the letter S was in any way marked on Kristen's chest. Is that Bertieboy ignorance?

Byn, I wish JTF or Jednme or Rash were here...I can't remember now where that turned up, but I think it might have been in FJ or buried somewhere in the records. Looking at Kris's autopsy pictures, I can't see it, myself, and JTF said he couldn't either. Actually, I've never run across anyone who said they've seen it at all, so I'm guessing that this was just another spin put on things by Mac or one of his shills.

As terribly distraught as I get whenever I look at those photos of Kristen and Kimberly in the morgue, I went again and using my photo magnifier checked every single picture of Kristen's chest. I do not see any S. I am with you, JTF, Jednme or Rash would have the answer to where this particular piece of drivel was derived. Isn't the fact that you can see the bone protruding out the side of Kimmie's face, and can see by the photos that little Kristen was stabbed directly in the heart several times HORRIFIC enough without that cowardly family slaughterer allowing trash like that to be perpetuated? It is in my opinion! Yes, I am angry that this unsubstantiated nonsense keeps appearing. Someone certainly shows that they have no respect for the VICTIMS in this case Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen Stevenson.

May they rest in peace knowing that the butcher who ended their lives will never again breath free air!

[byn63]

I am sorry that you cannot seem to see the overwhelmingly strong evidence of Inmate 00131-177's guilt. The prosecution only presented about 60% of the available evidence against Inmate 00131-177. The jury took a little over 6hours to convict beyond a reasonable doubt and to a morale certainty after a 7 week trial. There has been no evidence found to support the tale of Inmate 00131-177. He will remain in prison scrubbing toilets for the rest of his life - a much better fate than he deserves IMO.

:read:

[Deb B]

There is a mention of an "s" pattern on Kristen's chest on the "summary" page of her autopsy report. Paragraph 3 of Page 7. Here is a link:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_death_autopsy_kris_p07.html

I don't see anything in there where the examiner said that is wasn't possible she was held over someone's lap - that sounds more like someone's opinion of the autopsy findings. Can someone point me to that, if it is in her autopsy report?

Also, was Helena ever able to produce any of the jewelry she supposedly stole from the box?

[Bunny2]

I have been trying to find the exact reference where Helena Stoeckley said there was an S scratched on the chest of one of the little girl murder victims by the Stoeckley murderers. There doesn't seem to be any reference to it in any of her confessions or polygraphs.

Maybe that's because Helena never said it.

Courtesy of JusttheFacts:

Source: 1979 trial testimony of Dr. Hancock

The other lesions that I described---the significant ones---were small, maybe less than a quarter of an inch circular kind of bruises that---a few of these occurred under the nipples, and then there was sort of an "s-shaped" pattern. There were approximately ten of these circular small wounds, a few of which appeared to penetrate through the skin.

The MacDonald camp then takes gigantic leaps of assumption by attributing specific motivations for this "s-shaped" pattern. Could the pattern signify SATAN?? Please. Excuse me, I need to go obtain my lovely manure shovel.

[Bunny2]

Helena Stoeckley did say she wore a black vest and Posey mentioned she also wore purple clothes. Those were some of the foreign fibers found at the MacDonald murders scene.

Pink fibers and a dog hair with root intact were also found, Albie. Which "intruder" was wearing pink and had his dog with him? Of course unsourced items aren't significant at all forensically. It is the SOURCED items which are significant, and in this case, the incriminating fibers that were found under the victims' bodies and on the murder club and elsewhere, were matched to the pajamas of none other than Jeffrey MacDonald.


..."There is nothing to indicate that her injuries were not sustained in her bed." I think this is in regard to one of the little giirls that is being mentioned. That absurd theory is still doing the rounds on other MacDonald forums.

What evidence do you have that Kristen ever left her bed? None. The only "absurd theories" here are your own.


[Fred Kassab] was the genius who arranged for...MacDonald to be indicted

More moronic theories from Arthur in Wonderland.


These are some of Fred Kassab's remarks

Thanks for bringing up Kassab's notes and remarks, Albie. He hit the nail on the head every time.


"Helena Stoeckley claims the German Shepherd dog was chained in the back yard. Mrs Pendlystock says the dog was not out that night." My reply : This information needs to be verified and corroborated. What the bus driver said isn't evidence.

The bus driver?? The bus driver never said anything about Pendlyshok's dog. You need to get your eyes checked.


"Stoeckley saw and leaned against a rocking horse in a child's room and said that it had a broken spring. The horse is a rocking horse. It had no broken springs, it had wheels." My reply : That remark also needs to be corroborated and verified.

It was. First, the horse wasn't broken at all, and second, Stoeckley had seen a picture of it before she made her statement.


"Helena Stoeckley says she described the jewelry box - size - shape - color. Also it was open, pushed back to the back, and placed about one and a half feet from the left edge of the dresser. Quite a memory." My reply : It was quite a memory. That's because Helena stole jewelry from the jewelry box when she was at the MacDonald murders. The Army CID don't deny jewelry was stolen. Dr MacDonald was compensated for that.

MacDonald agreed with investigators that nothing had been stolen from his house.


"She claims they were in the house approx. 1 hour 15 minutes from 2.15 to 3.30. What were they doing all this time? Why did they not take drugs and the syringes that were in the open closet? My reply :...Medlin of the CID lab told FBI Special Agent Tool that a bloody syringe, or syringe containing an unknown fluid, was found at the murder scene. This fact was then categorically denied, or hushed up, by everybody else.

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 sy- ringe was found in the closet. Moreover, the chemist who processed the hall closet for blood stains, Craig Chamberlain, and the agent who in- ventoried 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. You knew this before you posted the above, Albie, so why did you deliberately put up false information again?


"Nor do I have any idea who may have transferred them from room to room if they were transferred. What was the purpose of that Stoeckley statement? Who said either of the children were moved?" My reply : That idiot Dr Brussel said just that when he spoke to so-called CID agents in New York and falsely accused Dr MacDonald at the same time.

MacDonald agreed with investigators that hippies would not move the bodies.


"She says she had white boots. He says they were light brown - he had the impression they were wet or patent leather." My reply : ...MacDonald only managed to get a brief impression of the murderers. Boot colors, and shoe colors, can be distorted and shadowy in poor light conditions...

On February 17, Jeffrey MacDonald told the hospital orderly that the female intruder wore white boots. He told his friend Ron Harrison the same thing. When questioned by investigators on the day of the murders, MacDonald said that the female intruder wore brown or black fake leather boots. On Feb. 19, 1971, he said the boots were red. During the Larry King Live interview on October 24, 2003 (long after MacDonald had learned that the boots the CID had were beige), MacDonald described the boots: "They were light in color..." The boots the CID had were returned to Garcia because they did not match MacDonald's description of the "female intruder's" boots.


"Stoeckley claims they entered through the kitchen door, yet that door was locked when the MPs got there." My reply : The kitchen door may have been locked....There is no evidence at all that the back door was opened by...MacDonald as some internet posters have suggested.

Of course there is. All the evidence showed that he was the murderer and that there were never any "intruders" at all; ergo, he opened the door.

[Bunny2]

"Helena Stoeckley says she described the jewelry box - size - shape - color. Also it was open, pushed back to the back, and placed about one and a half feet from the left edge of the dresser. Quite a memory."

A little more info about the jewelry box, which some may find interesting, from the FBI's Feb. 1981 report on Stoeckley:

Helena said that in approximately early December, 1980: "The next day Gunderson and Beasley took her out to various stores looking at jewelry boxes..."

And then later: "She eventually recalled signing another statement for Gunderson which was very similar to the first, but was more specific regarding the description of a jewelry box."

[Bunny2]

Hi, Deb - The document Arthur was referring to was a synopsis of the autopsy report by Christina Masewicz, into which she interjected her own comments. She believes absolutely that MacDonald stabbed Kristen, but not while he was holding her over his lap. Justthefacts doesn't believe it either, I think mostly because he believes there would have been an imprint from MacDonald on the bed if Mac had been seated there.

[Deb B]

Hi Bunny. Thanks for the explanation. Although Albert's posts must be maddening, I'm learning from the replies to them - hope I'm not clouding things up with my misc. comments.

[byn63]

Source: 1979 trial testimony of Dr. Hancock

The other lesions that I described---the significant ones---were small, maybe less than a quarter of an inch circular kind of bruises that---a few of these occurred under the nipples, and then there was sort of an "s-shaped" pattern. There were approximately ten of these circular small wounds, a few of which appeared to penetrate through the skin.

Sort of an "s-shaped" pattern went to and S scratched on her chest? Get real, the Dr. doing the autopsy had to describe the injuries and there is a huge leap from sort of an s-shape to an S scratched into Kristen's chest. It is obvious we are being told about the ice-pick holes which did not all penetrate the skin.

I have not seen anything anywhere to suggest that Kristen was ever moved. However, we KNOW that both Colette and Kimberly were moved. How? The blood trail tells the story. Kimmie was orginally injured in the master bedroom - the 6" pool of her blood and brain serum were from DIRECT BLEEDING and not transfers. Colette's blood all over Kristen's room some of which was direct bleeding also puts her being moved. The finding of both blood and hairs of Kimberly and Colette in the crumpled bedding corroborates the findings that the bedding was used to transfer Kimmie back to bed and Colette to her position on the floor.

[Bunny2]

I wouldn't describe MacDonald's lawyer Bernie Segal as a great lawyer. As Fred Kassab said, Segal's closing arguments are probably a lesson to law students in how not to do it.

Gee, Bernie went on to become a law professor, Albie. Strange that he couldn't manage the Mac trial very well, isn't it, considering he'd had about 10 years to do it. Maybe it's because neither he nor anyone else could ever have overcome all that incredibly overwhelming and conclusive evidence that showed without question that MacDonald was the murderer.

However I do agree with what Segal said at the MacDonald trial about the stolen jewelry. Colonel Rock said one or more rings were stolen in 1970. The CID compensated Dr MacDonald for that.

The CID never compensated MacDonald for any "stolen" jewelry. MacDonald himself agreed that nothing at all had been stolen. Later, when he realized that it would look much better for him if something had been stolen, he claimed that a ring or rings were missing. Once a liar, always a liar, I guess.

I honestly don't see how Bunny can deny that jewelry was stolen or say that...MacDonald agreed jewelry wasn't stolen.

I guess you never bothered to read the April 6 interview, one of the most important interviews that took place in the entire case. Why don't you do that sometime? You'll see the words directly from his own mouth.

Perhaps shorts is another word for "pants." Helena said she was wearing a skirt and "pants" whatever that is.

You don't know that "pants" in this context means long trousers? How weird that you would not know that. Are you trying to say that Helena had on shorts while standing in the living room? What was Mac doing, looking up her skirt? LOL!

This is MacDonald lawyer Bernie Segal's explanation for the stolen jewelry. ...why would the Government in having gone through the efforts that the prosecutor had gone to prove the opposite that there were no intruders and then concede, "We have to pay you for the rings because they are not there"?

They not only paid MacDonald based only on his word, but I recall reading in the records that they also apparently paid him for things that he knew he'd received back from them. That aside, of course nothing was ever stolen on that night, since it was proven that there were no "intruders" in the house at all, and that MacDonald himself was the murderer.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Deb B
Hi Bunny. Thanks for the explanation. Although Albert's posts must be maddening, I'm learning from the replies to them - hope I'm not clouding things up with my misc. comments.
Deb, of course you're not clouding anything up. From everything I can tell, Albie/Arthur is the only one posting who likes to cloud things up! Regardless, when CM first posted about the autopsy reports in Crime & Justice (I think this was in 2003), I wondered about some of the things I was reading and asked if there were scans available of the actual reports. I wish I hadn't asked that at that particular time! She had been questioned so often before by people that she admits to me now that she was a little upset when I asked her that, then later she did put up the actual reports as you can see on her website. As for the document in on the "Resources" page at http://www.azwest.net/c&j/ it will soon be replaced with pointers to the actual reports on CM's website. Sorry for the confusion.

[Bunny2]

Correction: I said previously that the "autopsy reports" Resources link was from the actual reports with CM's words interjected. She tells me today that it all came from a CID report and says she'll scan that and get it online as soon as she can.

[Bunny2]

One of the aspects about the one or more rings stolen at the MacDonald murders by Helena Stoeckley...

MacDonald himself agreed with investigators that nothing had been stolen from his house, and the complete and total lack of even a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence of "intruders" backed him up.

Osterburg said he was "totally mystified" by the CID fingerprint examination.

Hmmm...Osterburg...wasn't he the one who gave Segal an "avuncular" pat on the knee, and said that the testimony regarding the imprints of MacDonald's bloody pajama cuffs on the master bedroom sheet was incredibly damaging, "like a fingerprint"?

And speaking of fingerprints, Stoeckley's were found not to match any in the apartment.

I was interested to read that Helena said she wore a black vest and a skirt (perhaps denim) and "pants" at the MacDonald murders. This might expalin Kristen's supposed blue (perhaps denim) fiber under her fingernail. That is if Kristen struggled violently with Stoeckley as she was being murdered.

The fiber under Kristen's fingernail wasn't denim, "Arthur." It was found to match the fibers in MacDonald's old, thin, worn pajama top in all respects. How horrifying to realize that that little baby knew what was happening, and struggled with her father to try and prevent him from murdering her.

...MacDonald never did say he was attacked by hippies. That is only what that idiot in New York, Dr Brussel, said.

"Arthur," do you ever intend to actually start learning the facts in this case? You don't even have the name of the doctor correct; it was Sadoff, not Brussell, who said that MacDonald told him the crimes were committed by "hippies." And of course Mac told the same thing to a number of other people:

Military policeman Richard Tevere, the first person to enter the apartment, was questioned at the 1979 trial by Blackburn regarding MacDonald's description of the intruders:

Q ...You have told us both this morning and this afternoon that Dr. MacDonald said that the attacks on himself and on his family were committed by a group of hippies; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now are those your words describing what Dr. MacDonald said; in other words, is that your word, "hippie," or is that Dr. MacDonald's word, "hippie"?
A It was Dr. MacDonald's word.

MacDonald also told the hospital orderly that the intruders wore "hippie-style" clothing.

SSG Wallace Henniger, a medical corpsman on duty at the hospital, furnished a written statement to the CID which said that MacDonald told Henniger "that he had seen a blonde girl and she stated, 'Acid is groovy!'; that in addition to the female there were two Negro males and a male Caucasian and all were dressed in hippie clothes."

Ron Harrison, MacDonald's best friend, told CID investigators that when he visited MacDonald in the hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970, MacDonald referred to the alleged intruders as "hippies."

An FBI report states that "Capt. MacDonald... advised crime committed by four 'hippies'..."

During the grand jury, Woerheide said to Dr. Sadoff, "...[Jeffrey MacDonald] used the term hippies or longhairs...Did he interject the word hippie or did you interject the word hippie?" Dr. Sadoff replied, "Those are his words."

...MacDonald was perfectly honest...

LOL! Of course he wasn't honest. He was proven to be a repeated liar and confabulator, and it was shown that his stories of "intruders" were concocted in order to divert suspicion away from himself.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[Bunny2]

With regard to the controversy on other forums about "no doctor would remove a knife" from Colette,...MacDonald had a perfectly reasonable explanation..."You take it out and you fix the wound; put in a chest tube if they're still alive, or open the chest and do a chest massage if they have a cardiac arrest. But if you mean take it out or leave it in, you take it out. You leave it in the field unless you have to do closed chest massage....If you have to do closed chest massage, you're pumping up and down on the chest, right? And the knife blade is going to puncture the organs each time you move it up and down. The trained personnel are trained to leave it in place so the doctor can see for instance, how deep the blade is because every witness will tell you different.

As a doctor, MacDonald would have known that pulling a knife from a wound is directly contrary to accepted medical practices; the knife should remain in place until X-rays can be done, since it provides a "plug" for the wound and also because it may be near vital organs which might be damaged should the weapon be removed.

No fingerprints were found on the Geneva Forge knife.

Forensic studies showed that it was exceedingly unlikely that any of the stab wounds in Colette's body were made with the Geneva Forge knife.

No holes in Colette's pajama top were made by the Geneva Forge knife.

MacDonald claimed that Colette appeared to be dead when he saw her. When a pulse can be felt, but a person is not breathing, mouth-to-mouth is given (the chest is not compressed, as it is when performing CPR). On April 6, 1970, MacDonald told the CID that he merely gave Colette mouth-to-mouth resuscitation: "All I did was see her and" - he cleared his throat - "take the knife out of her chest and breathe into her mouth, really."

When no pulse can be felt and a person is not breathing, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (with chest compression) is performed. On August 16, 1970, during the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald was asked why he took the knife out of his wife's chest, and now his explanation was that he performed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, explaining: "...you have to compress the chest to give artificial respiration and the knife was in the way."

[Bunny2]

Arthur/Albert Webb/Lawjunkie/Airknocker - you need to go back and reread all those posts to you, and also the online documents, since your theories have already been addressed many times and the answers were provided to you.

Have you made that appointment with your psychiatrist yet?

[Bunny2]

Dr Sadoff said at the Grand Jury that Dr MacDonald mentioned the Sharon Tate case to him when hippies were mentioned. Dr MacDonald himself said, and I believe him, that "And I never said I saw hippies. I never said that. Colonel Kriwanek said I saw hippies. I said I saw people. I saw a person with long blonde hair and a floppy hat on, and there was a light on her."

But of course Mac lied, "Arthur." Didn't you bother to even read the most recent posts to you?

Sorry for the "deja vu," people, but I guess Albie missed this so here it is again:

Military policeman Richard Tevere, the first person to enter the apartment, was questioned at the 1979 trial by Blackburn regarding MacDonald's description of the intruders:

Q ...You have told us both this morning and this afternoon that Dr. MacDonald said that the attacks on himself and on his family were committed by a group of hippies; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now are those your words describing what Dr. MacDonald said; in other words, is that your word, "hippie," or is that Dr. MacDonald's word, "hippie"?
A It was Dr. MacDonald's word.

MacDonald told the hospital orderly that the intruders wore "hippie-style" clothing.

SSG Wallace Henniger, a medical corpsman on duty at the hospital, furnished a written statement to the CID which said that MacDonald told Henniger "that he had seen a blonde girl and she stated, 'Acid is groovy!'; that in addition to the female there were two Negro males and a male Caucasian and all were dressed in hippie clothes."

Ron Harrison, MacDonald's best friend, told CID investigators that when he visited MacDonald in the hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970, MacDonald referred to the alleged intruders as "hippies."

An FBI report states that "Capt. MacDonald... advised crime committed by four 'hippies'..."

During the grand jury, Woerheide said to Dr. Sadoff, "...[Jeffrey MacDonald] used the term hippies or longhairs...Did he interject the word hippie or did you interject the word hippie?" Dr. Sadoff replied, "Those are his words."

[Bunny2]

I'm still annoyed by the way Janice Glisson of the CID lab persuaded the Grand Jury in 1975 that the u-r-i-n-e stains in the master bedroom were Kim's and not Kristen's. The jury were never told that the stains were tested when they were 80 weeks old. Glisson didn't have the good grace to even say they were likely to be Kim's, or say there was no scientific certainty. It was all "trust me I'm an expert."

As Byn has already told you: "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."

When it came to Mac, his stories all amounted to nothing more than "trust me, I'm truthful," but of course the real truth was that he was a constant, chronic liar, lying about anything and everything whenever he thought it would suit his purpose. The twelve jurors had brains and minds -- which he hadn't counted on -- and they saw through his ridiculous stories just as countless other people did.

I don't pretend to be a forensic expert.

Well, I don't know why you don't add that to your list, "Arthur," since you love the game of pretending to be so many other people.

It's just that if I was a juror on the MacDonald case I would be skeptical about Browning's pajama like fiber under Kristen's fingernail.

As it turned out, it appears that the jurors weren't skeptical at all. The testimony about MacDonald's pajama fibers being found throughout the house -- everyplace they shouldn't have been and nowhere that they should have been -- combined with many, many other highly incriminating evidentiary items proved to them conclusively, beyond any reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that there never were any "intruders" at all, and MacDonald was the murderer of his family. MacDonald himself has repeatedly shown consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes. In the years since his conviction, the appeals courts have repeatedly confirmed the jury's verdicts, and MacDonald will always be known as the brutal, vicious and unrepentent murderer of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

[Bunny2]

Was that conversation between military policeman Tevere and...MacDonald tape recorded? Why is Bunny so sure it's the truth?

It was testified to under oath at trial, "Arthur." Unlike the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald, Tevere had not demonstrated that he was a chronic liar, and because there are several other corroborating instances of MacDonald claiming that the crimes were committed by "hippies," his word about this must be believed unless you can prove him and all the other people to all be liars, which of course you cannot do.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[byn63]

You have been told many many many times that Helena Stoeckley confessed and recanted multiple times over the years. That does not mean she did it or was there when the murders took place. HOWEVER, among her many confessions she stated that SHE WATCHED Inmate 00131-177 stab and bludgeon his family. So, why choose to believe what she says in one confession and ignore others?

Also, in all the confessions PRIOR to the 1979 trial there was no "insider information". Good ol'Bernie Segal took care of that problem by showing her ALL the crime scene photos while attempting to get her to confess to being present. Even after she saw the crime scene photos Helena's confessions did not match the facts. For example, she stated that Allen Mazzerole was among the "cast of thousands" at 544 Castle Drive. Of course, that was IMPOSSIBLE since he was in jail for drugs and HS was the informer who got him busted so she KNEW he was not involved. Why did she claim that she was?

Helena was a poor drugged out troubled being. She had a penchant for telling tall tales and her own parents stated that she would say anything for approval from Prince Beasley (and other male "father figures"). She was a drug informant for several poliice departments and very good at that - but even in high school she had a reputation for exaggerated tale telling. NO ONE BELIEVED A WORD THAT CAME OUT OF HER MOUTH.

The taped interview with HS and Gunderson is laughable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that HS is stoned and working from a prepared script. A couple of times Gunderson cuts in to keep HS on track in what he wanted her to say. Also, by the time that tape had been made Helena had used so many drugs that most of her brain cells were "burned out" and she had already suffered a severe stroke.

Helena and poor old Prince Beasley were quite a pair. Helena fried her brain voluntarily. However, PB was already suffering in 1970 from the onset of the Inorganic Brain Disease that would later kill him. PB was an alchoholic who was forced to retire from the Police Department due to his drinking and the symptoms of the brain disease. Among other symptoms, PB suffered from CONFABULATION.

CONFABULATION was a main symptom of PB's symptoms - confabulation means that large gaps in his memory would be filled in with details that he made up. Not that he intended to lie but, his brain would require him to fill in the blanks subconsciously with details that HE THOUGHT made sense, rather than admit to gaps in his memory.

Of course, you've been given this information many times before - you can't choose to believe HS as 100% truthful in certain confessions and totally ignore the ones where she (1) watched Inmate 00131-177 kill his family or (2) where Inmate 00131-177 stood over her with a blood soaked ice-pick in his hand and similar confessions.

:no:

[Bunny2]

The police and the FBI believed what Helena Stoeckley told them, even if the CID didn't.

Wrong.

The local police detective Beasley was a good, astute, and decorated police detective.

Wasn't Beasley the one who dressed up in a devil's costume and went to the home of a female witness and told her she was going to hell?

Detective Beasley had...Greg Mitchell, Dwight Smith, Sanders and I think Don Harris down at the police station the day after the MacDonald murders.

Again your facts are wrong. Reread the documents in this case.

Nobody seems to know for sure if Mazerolle was involved in the MacDonald murders...Mazerolle was officially supposed to have been in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders.

Why did you post this again, "Arthur," knowing that it's an absolute fact that Mazerolle was in jail during the murders, and his arrest records are online for everyone to see?

[Bunny2]

To "Arthur" - in answer to all your many silly, ludicrous posts, turnabout is fair play!

MacDonald may have been a child molester. There does seem to be some evidence to that effect. Blackburn and Murtagh were good, astute lawyers and probably decided to keep this quiet because they didn't want to embarrass Mildred and Freddy.

MacDonald may have told Colette she couldn't have any of his amphetamines because he wanted them all to himself. This may have been what caused the argument between them.

It's too bad MacDonald disregarded the warning signs of his own psychosis. No telling how long it had been brewing in him but obviously he was no stranger to violence. Brussell and Silverman and Mack and Bailey and others could have helped him if he had only let them. It may be that he has requested psychiatric help while in prison, but they've found that it's now too late for him.

It may be that MacDonald was disciplined for taking apart one of his toilet brushes and using a twisted wire in it to make a shiv which he then hid under his mattress. I don't know if there is any validity to this but there could be.

Carole Larson and countless other women definitely knew MacDonald intimately while he was married. There is no doubt about that.

MacDonald didn't always give an honest and accurate account of the MacDonald murders. Have you ever known a murder suspect who did give an honest and accurate account of a murder?

[byn63]

Prince Beasley may indeed at one time been an astute and decorated detective. That does not in any way negate the fact that medical records PROVE that he suffered from Inorganic Brain Disorder and ALCOHOLISM and he was FORCED TO RETIRE from the police force because of these facts. It also does not remove the fact that he suffered from CONFABULATION.

confabulation-fabrication of facts or events in response to questions about situations or events that are not recalled because of memory impairment. It differs from lying in that the individual is not consciously attempting to deceive.

Inmate 00131-177 and his attorney's dujour attempted to get Prince Beasley's testimony in appeals under Rule 33 F.R.E. which states in part:

quote:....the court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if required in the interest of justice.........A motion for a new trial based on the grounds of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within 2 years after final judgement....endquote

The court found that PEBeasley was unreliable for corroborating Helena Stoeckley's statements. Medical records provided by the Prosecution were accepted by the court that detailed his inability to consistently distinguish fact from fantasy.

the court evaluated PEBeasley's trustworthiness at the time of the 1979, and that evaluation remained unchanged by more recent statements and the court's observation of the demeanor of the witness during evidentiary hearings. The court did not believe that this seriously ill man to be lying, medical records introduced by the prosecution clearly showed that he cannot consistently distinguish fact from fiction. (summary USA vs. JRM 485 F. Supp@1092)

:read:

[byn63]

"Arthur" or whatever name you choose to use - YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT PAID ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

Prince Beasley may indeed at one time been an astute experienced detective. (As was, Grebner, Ivory, Shaw and Kearns each experienced and skilled investigators) That does not in any way negate the fact that medical records PROVE that he suffered from Inorganic Brain Disorder and ALCOHOLISM and he was FORCED TO RETIRE from the police force because of these facts. It also does not remove the fact that he suffered from CONFABULATION. Confabulation is a medical condition, and your attempts to use the term so flippantly is ridiculous. Not to mention that we already know you are not British and are a complete PHONEY! Your ignorance is showing once again.

confabulation-fabrication of facts or events in response to questions about situations or events that are not recalled because of memory impairment. It differs from lying in that the individual is not consciously attempting to deceive.

Inmate 00131-177 and his attorney's dujour attempted to get Prince Beasley's testimony in appeals under Rule 33 F.R.E. which states in part:

quote:....the court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if required in the interest of justice.........A motion for a new trial based on the grounds of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within 2 years after final judgement....endquote

[b]The court found that PEBeasley was unreliable for corroborating Helena Stoeckley's statements. Medical records provided by the Prosecution were accepted by the court that detailed his inability to consistently distinguish fact from fantasy.

the court evaluated PEBeasley's trustworthiness at the time of the 1979, and that evaluation remained unchanged by more recent statements and the court's observation of the demeanor of the witness during evidentiary hearings. The court did not believe that this seriously ill man to be lying, medical records introduced by the prosecution clearly showed that he cannot consistently distinguish fact from fiction. (summary USA vs. JRM 485 F. Supp@1092)

Peter Kearns especially, did an outstanding and thorough job of reinvestigating the murders of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen. No matter how often you try to make it otherwise with your ignorant uneducated inanities you will not be able to alter THE FACTS. The reinvestigation created a 13 Volume report with two supplements and took over 2 years to complete. No stone was left unturned, thousands of witnesses were interviewed and physical evidence was reviewed and re-reviewed. It still comes down to the fact the Inmate 00131-177's story of the events of that night is implausible. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back up his tail of intruders, his description didn't match the people he later tried to finger, there were no blood stains, yarns, threads or splinters in the area he claimed to have struggled for his life, he has consistently lied about which daughter was in the masterbed, he has lied about his attempts to "resuscitate" his family, and he has lied about so many other things.

Inmate 00131-177 is a narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic with a histrionic personality disorder. He is a brutal and savage family slaughterer and he will remain in the pen cleaning toilets for a living for the rest of his miserable little life!




:read:

[Bunny2]

For "Arthur," who also likes to post as other people who believe Mac is guilty:

Kearns, Grebner, Shaw, Ivory and Pickering did an outstanding job.

MacDonald was dishonest and murdered his family for his own personal gain, and will likely remain in prison until he draws his last breath.

President Reagan has nothing to do with the MacDonald case.

It has been shown to the satisfaction of most people that Gunderson and Beasley coerced a "confession" from Stoeckley, which she recanted.

Stoeckley said she was at the MacDonald apartment on the night of the murders and saw MacDonald killing his family.

As far as I can judge there is a lot of "confabulation" in MacDonald's words. Who else might he murder, if he were ever let out of prison?

Not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence ever surfaced to support MacDonald's ludicrous stories of "intruders." The evidence pointed directly to MacDonald as the murderer. Colette, Kim and Kristen were murdered by Jeffrey MacDonald. MacDonald ought to have been thoroughly evaluated for psychosis when he was a child.

MacDonald was a latrine cleaner and still is.

MacDonald was rightly accused and convicted, and I plan to order 20 copies of McGinniss's excellent book Fatal Vision to distribute to friends who are interested in the case.

[byn63]

No bertie boy, byn is not mistaken in what she posted. She posted that there were no blood stains, fibers (yarns and threads) or splinters found at the scene of Inmate 00131-177's alleged life and death struggle. That is fact, and no matter how much you would like to be able to manipulate the facts, you just can't do it. Also, since we know Inmate 00131-177 did not actually ever lose consciousness, the finding of 2 yarns and a small drop of blood in the hallway about 2 feet from the stairs is not "in the exact spot where Inmate 00131-177" passed out. First, how does one go about passing out UP two stairs? Secondly, there was a pile of clothing on the foot of the stairs yet Inmate 00131-177 never mentions waking up on them or mention them at all! No blood or pj fibers found on them either btw.

As for PEBeasley, he was already suffering the effects of his illness by 1970. He was forced to retire, I believe it was 1972, after one more "oops" caused by his illnesses (IOBD/Alcoholism). I believe he was found passed out in his car at an intersection. This became the final straw, along with alleged misconduct (ie dressing in a devil's costume and threatening a witness), loss of notes and or files, and similar infractions. YOU don't get to pretend he was normal - the medical evidence is clear. He very well may have been the world's best detective at one time, but by the time of this case - he would have been scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

:read:

[byn63]

btw - as if you don't already KNOW that Inmate 00131-177's website is full of misrepresentations, distortions and flat out lies, I will state it here AGAIN.

Inmate 00131-177's website is full of misrepresentations, distortions and flat out lies and has been proven as unreliable. It should not be trusted as a source of TRUE information.

Inmate 00131-177 DID NOT allege that the struggle took place in the HALLWAY, he said it took place in the living room, and he could not get his feet out of the afghan, he was laughing as he fell off the couch, and he couldn't get his hands free from his ragged old pj top! Some Green Beret!:lol:

[Bunny2]

This is what the liar MacDonald had to say:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[Beasley] was hot on the murder trail of the Stoeckley killers the day after the MacDonald murders.

Apparently not, since evidence proved that there never were any "Stoeckley killers." Beasley and Gunderson, mostly Gunderson, seem to have had no regard for ethics or truth, and coerced Stoeckley to say things in order to benefit their cause. Among many other things too numerous to list here, Stoeckley was of the opinion that the mention of cult activities in her statement was primarily Gunderson's idea and not hers.

The grossly incompetent...FBI...

Didn't you know that MacDonald told his sister Judy that the FBI were the best investigators in the world?

[Bunny2]

There was blood and fibers found at the spot where...MacDonald said he fell unconscious.

The drop of B blood found in the hallway was known to the defense. The droplet and fiber, if there was one, was no doubt left by Mac as he traipsed up and down the hallway after murdering his family. It certainly wasn't left by any "intruder," that's for sure.

There was also a pile of clothing in the exact spot where MacDonald claims to have struggled with intruders and fallen unconscious. He's never said he fell upon any clothing. No blood whatsoever was found on the clothing. No fibers were found on it.

If MacDonald had been knocked unconscious, he would have little to no memory of the events preceding the blow that rendered him unconscious. Also, depending upon long he was unconscious, his memory of events afterward would also be impaired.

More of MacDonald's lies:

During the 1979 trial (August 24), in answer to Blackburn's questions regarding the supposed "struggle" with intruders, Jeffrey MacDonald gave the following testimony:

Q Well, have you ever told anyone that you actually struggled with them in the hallway?
A Not in the sense that there was a fight back in the middle of the hallway; no.
Q How about towards the end of the hallway-- towards the steps?
A No; we never had a discussion with anyone about a struggle in the hallway.

But of course the liar MacDonald had told CID investigators on February 17, 1970, that he noticed that one of the assailants had a knife or icepick while he was struggling with the three male assailants in the hallway. And during the April 6, 1970 interview, MacDonald said "We were kind of struggling in the hallway right there at the end of the couch..."

Thanks for the mention of the murderer's website, Albie. It's good that everyone can see from that that you don't have the faintest clue how to properly research a case. Way to go!

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Detective Beasley seemed like an astute detective to me. He was hot on the murder trail of the Stoeckley killers the day after the MacDonald murders...
A Oh, yeah; I went to Helena's apartment, staked it out, and there was no one there.
Q Let me ask you, Mr. Beasley, if you recall about what day that would have been?
A That was on the 18th, I believe.

Beasley testified at trial that on the morning of the 18th, while he was staking out Helena's place, she did show up in a vehicle with some male companions - that they fit the description of the killers provided by MacDonald. What does he do? He says he called the CID, but got sick of waiting after an hour and let them go. He didn't bother writing a report about this, so the names of the individuals with Helena are not known.

His actions (even if you believe what he says) belie that he was "hot on the murder trail". An "astute detective" would have said, "You all fit the description - I'm taking you in for questioning." But no, he lets them go 'cause he gets sick of waiting. 3 horrible murders - people must have been in near hysteria at Fort Bragg in the days after the murders - and HE LETS THEM GO.

[Bunny2]

His actions (even if you believe what he says) belie that he was "hot on the murder trail". An "astute detective" would have said, "You all fit the description - I'm taking you in for questioning." But no, he lets them go 'cause he gets sick of waiting. 3 horrible murders - people must have been in near hysteria at Fort Bragg in the days after the murders - and HE LETS THEM GO.

Right, Deb! Doesn't make sense, does it?

Also, we have Helena telling Gunderson that Beasley detained her for about 20 minutes. Gunderson wasn't happy with that answer at all...she was supposed to say about an hour and 15 minutes. I guess she forgot to memorize that part of Gunderson's script.

Interesting also that Helena specifically noted that both Beasley and Gunderson told her not to talk to the FBI or the Department of Justice. There they are, with one of the supposed "intruders" right there within easy reach, and they tell her not to go to the authorities. Very strange.

Also very strange is their coercing a "confession" from her but then holding it for what, six months or more? Why didn't they march her immediately to a police station?

Judge Dupree had the following to say about Beasley:

"The Fayetteville detective, one Beasley, interviewed Stoeckley at her home in Fayetteville between 2:30 and 3:00 AM on the morning of Feb. 18, which was the day following the murders...Curiously this officer's notes of his interviews with Stoeckley and her companions were lost or misplaced, and he has never seen them again...It is simply incredible that any self respecting competent police officer who really thought he had a substantial lead towards solving these sensational murders would allow the suspects to go...and that he would never again pursue the lead on his own."

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

A She didn't have the wig and the hat with her. I believe she brought me the hat and the wig on the 19th or the 20th.
Q Did she leave those with you?
A She did for a while.
Q How long did you keep them?
A I can't really recall just how long I kept them, but she came back and asked me if she could have them back, and I gave them back to her, and she told me she burned them. She wanted to get rid of them.

Another example of what an "astute detective" Beasley was - Helena supposedly gives him her blond wig and floppy hat 2 or 3 days after the murders and what does he do with them?? Gives them back to her 'cause she asked if she could have them back!!

This guy is like Secret Agent Maxwell Smart showing up in an Edgar Allen Poe story.

[Bunny2]

I think Judge Dupree was being unfair about those lost, or stolen, Detective Beasley police reports and notes...

I don't.

Beasley's side of the story is that he asked for the police reports and notes relevant to the Stoeckley killer group when he retired (about 1973).

But of course aside from many, many other things that "don't fit" with your theories, that doesn't even begin to answer the question of why Helena's story doesn't match Beasley's, or why for six months Gunderson and Beasley held on to the coerced "confession" they got from her instead of driving her to the nearest police station, does it.

That wasn't Beasley's fault as Judge Dupree seemed to think.

I think Dupree was much better qualified than you are to decide where "fault" lies.

There is background information to this in an article by Ken Adachi

From what I can gather, Adachi is a conspiracy freak. Like you, he seems to enjoy spreading misrepresentations. Must be some psychiatric problem you both have in common.

...she showed Beasley her wig and hat.

And apparently neither one fit the descriptions MacDonald had given.

MacDonald said that the "female intruder" could have been a male. Of course, we know that the evidence proved that there was only one assailant, and he was a male, and his name was Jeffrey MacDonald.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by Deb B
Another example of what an "astute detective" Beasley was - Helena supposedly gives him her blond wig and floppy hat 2 or 3 days after the murders and what does he do with them?? Gives them back to her 'cause she asked if she could have them back!!

This guy is like Secret Agent Maxwell Smart showing up in an Edgar Allen Poe story.

LOL! Good post, Deb!

And of course Stoeckley said her wig was a fall, which wouldn't be a full-head wig, and the hat she gave Beasley was black, while Mac said the hat the "female intruder" had on was white or oyster-colored.

I think it was despicable of Gunderson and Beasley to gang up on poor Helena and take advantage of her drug-addled mind and try to force her to confess to something she didn't do. Gunderson only wanted to make a buck from her, that's all. In fact, he said that once they'd gotten what they wanted from her, he didn't care if she was run over by a truck. Pathetic. May he rot in hell for what he did to that poor girl.

[Deb B]

Hi Bunny.

Helena's life is a sad story, and those two (amoung others) exploited that. Although I recall reading that Beasley had some second thoughts in later years and when it seemed he was going to tell all for a media interview, got threatened with a lawsuit by the MacDonald group.

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by Bunny2
One of the aspects about the one or more rings stolen at the MacDonald murders by Helena Stoeckley...

MacDonald himself agreed with investigators that nothing had been stolen from his house, and the complete and total lack of even a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence of "intruders" backed him up.

Osterburg said he was "totally mystified" by the CID fingerprint examination.

Hmmm...Osterburg...wasn't he the one who gave Segal an "avuncular" pat on the knee, and said that the testimony regarding the imprints of MacDonald's bloody pajama cuffs on the master bedroom sheet was incredibly damaging, "like a fingerprint"?

And speaking of fingerprints, Stoeckley's were found not to match any in the apartment.

I was interested to read that Helena said she wore a black vest and a skirt (perhaps denim) and "pants" at the MacDonald murders. This might expalin Kristen's supposed blue (perhaps denim) fiber under her fingernail. That is if Kristen struggled violently with Stoeckley as she was being murdered.

The fiber under Kristen's fingernail wasn't denim, "Arthur." It was found to match the fibers in MacDonald's old, thin, worn pajama top in all respects. How horrifying to realize that that little baby knew what was happening, and struggled with her father to try and prevent him from murdering her.

...MacDonald never did say he was attacked by hippies. That is only what that idiot in New York, Dr Brussel, said.

"Arthur," do you ever intend to actually start learning the facts in this case? You don't even have the name of the doctor correct; it was Sadoff, not Brussell, who said that MacDonald told him the crimes were committed by "hippies." And of course Mac told the same thing to a number of other people:

Military policeman Richard Tevere, the first person to enter the apartment, was questioned at the 1979 trial by Blackburn regarding MacDonald's description of the intruders:

Q ...You have told us both this morning and this afternoon that Dr. MacDonald said that the attacks on himself and on his family were committed by a group of hippies; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now are those your words describing what Dr. MacDonald said; in other words, is that your word, "hippie," or is that Dr. MacDonald's word, "hippie"?
A It was Dr. MacDonald's word.

MacDonald also told the hospital orderly that the intruders wore "hippie-style" clothing.

SSG Wallace Henniger, a medical corpsman on duty at the hospital, furnished a written statement to the CID which said that MacDonald told Henniger "that he had seen a blonde girl and she stated, 'Acid is groovy!'; that in addition to the female there were two Negro males and a male Caucasian and all were dressed in hippie clothes."

Ron Harrison, MacDonald's best friend, told CID investigators that when he visited MacDonald in the hospital on the morning of February 17, 1970, MacDonald referred to the alleged intruders as "hippies."

An FBI report states that "Capt. MacDonald... advised crime committed by four 'hippies'..."

During the grand jury, Woerheide said to Dr. Sadoff, "...[Jeffrey MacDonald] used the term hippies or longhairs...Did he interject the word hippie or did you interject the word hippie?" Dr. Sadoff replied, "Those are his words."

...MacDonald was perfectly honest...

LOL! Of course he wasn't honest. He was proven to be a repeated liar and confabulator, and it was shown that his stories of "intruders" were concocted in order to divert suspicion away from himself.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html


MacDonald fit the profile to a tee in regards to husbands that have murdered their pregnant wives. Like the Peterson case, he was a cheater (thus a liar), who lived a double life. Pretending to be the perfect husband, and all around guy when in fact he was probably a sociopath from way back. Now MacDonald has conned yet another victim, his 2nd wife Kathryn. These guys usually prey on women with low self esteem, or who buy into their stories until the stories and behavior don't add up. Difficult to understand how any women could have judgement so bad as to get involved with someone in prison, but don't be surprised if you hear of Scott Peterson getting married sometime. As for MacDonald there was mounds of evidence against him, but the typical sociopath can be very convincing to the niave. MacDonald is so arrogant that he will end up going to his grave giving interviews and still denying, which is typical sociopath behavior.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
How can you possibly say Dr MacDonald was "probably a sociopath from way back" without providing any supporting evidence for that statement.

If I said to you that you were "probably a child molester and a lesbian from way back" you would probably be a bit upset about that remark. You might even say to me that you'll see me in court about the matter.

There is no "mounds of evidence" against Dr MacDonald. There is no evidence against Dr MacDonald at all. It was a tragedy, and a gross injustice that he was ever put in prison in the first place.

It ought not to be a question of whether the prosecution lawyers were able to impress the jury more than MacDonald's lawyers. It ought to be a question of whether Dr MacDonald is guilty or innocent. If you follow the evidence it proves Dr MacDonald is innocent.

"Arthur," many people on this thread who, unlike yourself, have actual knowlege of this case have posted- over and over- the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the guilt of this murderer. The justice was amply served by the conviction of Jeffrey MacDonald. How do we know he is a sociopath? The proof is in his actions. He brutally murdered his own pregnant wife and two very young daughters. It is horrific to imagine what they experienced as they were being bludgeoned to death by this monster. I sincerely hope his years in prison have been miserable for him; it is better than he deserves.

For Collette, Kimberly and Kristen :rose:

For Inmate 00131-177 :flamemad: :cuss:

[byn63]

Originally posted by barskin&co.


"Arthur," many people on this thread who, unlike yourself, have actual knowlege of this case have posted- over and over- the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the guilt of this murderer. The justice was amply served by the conviction of Jeffrey MacDonald. How do we know he is a sociopath? The proof is in his actions. He brutally murdered his own pregnant wife and two very young daughters. It is horrific to imagine what they experienced as they were being bludgeoned to death by this monster. I sincerely hope his years in prison have been miserable for him; it is better than he deserves.

For Collette, Kimberly and Kristen :rose:

For Inmate 00131-177 :flamemad: :cuss:

AMEN! Also, let us not forget that all the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined and tested Inmate 00131-177 and DID NOT RELY SOLELY on him, Bernie Segal or Perry MacDonald for data found Inmate 00131-177 to be a sociopath. The best synopsis of this data is from Hirsch Silverman's report.

QUOTE:
MacDonald is a psychopath subject to violence under pressure, rather effeminate, given to overt behavior when faced with emotional stress. Sociopathic individual with troublesome psychopathy with an overlay of submerged and confused sexuality.

Despite his hedonism he seems self-destructive, naive, superficial and even illogical at times. Seeks freedom and emancipation for personal removal from constraint, controls and restrictions.

He seeks attention and is given to denial of truth. Is seriously emotional and gives evidence of secretiveness with questionable moral standards. He is detailistic and lacks insight in seeing the gestalt, the whole quality of things and events and persons, as well as circumstances.
END QUOTE

Just screams INMATE 00131-177 to me!

[byn63]

Originally posted by nomi21




:no: I don't believe any of that psycho babble. I don't see any of those traits in Dr MacDonald. I see him as an intelligent man, who was deeply grieved over the loss of his family. I will never accept that he is/was a murderer of his wife and children. Just because a court says it, doesn't make it so.

Well dear, of course you don't believe the psychiatrist and psychologist reports, because you show idoltry for a proven liar and convicted family slaughterer. You ignore the obvious and overwhelming evidence against Inmate 00131-177 and you believe the proven lies and distortions bandied about by the Inmate, Mrs. Inmate and the attorney's du jour.

btw, it is a statistical fact that many family slaughterers that show the same psychological makeup as Inmate 00131-177 are intelligent persons. That DOES NOT make them innocent and nowhere in my post did I ever state that he was unintelligent. Actually, many sociopaths in general are well above average in intelligence. Prime Example: Ted Bundy.

Another family slaughterer who has a very similar psychological makeup to Inmate 00131-177 is Diane Downs. Both are psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists with Histrionic Personality Disorder. They are the HE/SHE of the same murderous coin. Although Inmate 00131-177 murdered 4 humans and Diane only actually murdered 1 (she paralyzed her toddler son and her oldest daughter is partially paralyzed due to the stroke she had from severe blood loss).

I guess you will be sadly disappointed when the DNA test results are announced and those "mystery hairs" that Inmate 00131-177 always claimed came from the "intruder/assailant" comes back as in fact belonging to Inmate 00131-177 himself. Of course, he will finally have told the truth in that he was the only assailant. Inmate 00131-177 is the basest coward. He bruatally and savagely ended the life of his pregnant wife and unborn son, his 5 year old daughter and his 2 year old daughter. He even told Dr. Sadoff that he laughed when he fell off the couch. I find that pretty telling.

Inmate 00131-177 will spend the rest of his life behind bars scrubbing toilets which is a much better fate then he deserves. Remember he IS NOT THE VICTIM in this case. Also, each minute, hour, day and year that passes while he continues to show the white feather lowers him more and more.:chicken:

The victims of this case are Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen Stevenson, unborn unnamed son, Mildred and Freddy Kassab, and Bob Stevenson and his family. I pray always that Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen rest in peace knowing that the cowardly butcher who ended their lives will never again be free.

[2L8 4A D8]

Hi BYN63!

You seem very knowledgeable about this case and with what little information that I have, I can't find the answer to a question that I have. Could you please let me know, if you can?

JM appeared on The Dick Cavette Show in the 70's. When DC introduced JM, he made a comment of the tragedy and JM's answer to DC's comment was absolutely shocking! What exactly did JM say? I am just curious.

Thanks for your help!

[byn63]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Hi BYN63!

You seem very knowledgeable about this case and with what little information that I have, I can't find the answer to a question that I have. Could you please let me know, if you can?

JM appeared on The Dick Cavette Show in the 70's. When DC introduced JM, he made a comment of the tragedy and JM's answer to DC's comment was absolutely shocking! What exactly did JM say? I am just curious.

Thanks for your help!

Actually, I've never seen the Dick Cavette Show appearance in its entirety. I saw the clip that was included in the 48 Hours Mystery Time for Truth (which Inmate 00131-177 still hasn't told). I don't remember the exact words that were used but the TONE of response was sort of like yeah, isn't it a bite in the *****? Inmate 00131-177 played to the audience and played for laughs including his grin, lowered eyes, cheeky upward look at the camera and audience after stating that he and Colette had watched a late night talk show (telling little pause for the appreciative laugh from the audience). It was disgusting and incredibly inappropriate.

Interestingly enough, Inmate 00131-177 actually seems NOW to have realized that he was incredibly STUPID to have behaved in that manner on the National TV program. However, unlike the claims of some, Inmate WAS NOT FORCED to make the appearance and he CHOSE his own banter and behavior. Noone held a gun to his head. If he had been telling the truth about intruders, then he would have used the format as his supporters intended. He would have stuck to descriptions of the intruders, and what a vicious crime had been committed against Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen. Instead, he played the poor picked upon me role, accussed the military of serious misdeeds and criminal acts, and celebrated his own importance (in his own mind).

I wasn't allowed to stay up late enough to watch the Dick Cavett show in 1970 - I was only a year older the Kimmie at the time. But, I found DC's comments on the 48 hours mystery episode pretty interesting. He seemed to me to have been creeped out by Inmate 00131-177's behavior then, and it hasn't seemed to have changed much in all these years. I will see if I can find out the exact quotes - but, I'm not sure if there is a transcript available anywhere.

[byn63]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is what Dr MacDonald said about the psychiatrists in the MacDonald case :-

"To make it worse, the powerful psychiatric evaluation - including the three favorable exams from the government’s own Walter Reed Army Hospital - were ruled inadmissible by Judge Dupree, who also ruled inadmissible Col. Rock’s report and the testimony of seven witnesses who were in court to tell of Helena Stoeckley’s statements of watching the murders."


Since Inmate 00131-177 was not pleading NOT GUILTY by REASON OF INSANITY there was no need for psychiatric testimony. However, you are not quite correct about the Walter Reed Examinations being favorable to the inmate. Dr. Sadoff is the only head Dr. that made a truly favorable report on him until after the 1979 Trial. Then later, 1 Dr. who ONLY USED data gathered from Inmate and Mother of Inmate to compile his report. Drs that used psychodiagnostics testing and independent sources of data collection found Inmate to be a psychopath, sociopath, narcissist with a histrionic personlity disorder.

Also, Judge Dupree DID NOT rule that Psych Evals were inadmissable, he ruled that if the DEFENSE presented Psych evidence than the prosecution could also, and that dueling experts would probably do more harm then good. Not only that, but if Segal had indeed called Dr. Sadoff to the stand, he would have been open to cross examination by the prosecution. Under cross examination Dr. Sadoff would have had to testify that his original report was based solely on information provided by Inmate and Segal, and having been informed of THE TRUTH his opinion had indeed been altered.

And ARTIE - there is a thing called HEARSAY and very strict rules under which such can be admitted in court. those 7 witnesses you mention did not have any direct evidence to present. Not to mention that Segal was only attempting to present the Rock Report trying to show that Inmate had already been tried - which of course he had not been. Of course, you KNOW all of this because we have told you time and time again. You really really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
:read:

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by byn63


AMEN! Also, let us not forget that all the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined and tested Inmate 00131-177 and DID NOT RELY SOLELY on him, Bernie Segal or Perry MacDonald for data found Inmate 00131-177 to be a sociopath. The best synopsis of this data is from Hirsch Silverman's report.

QUOTE:
MacDonald is a psychopath subject to violence under pressure, rather effeminate, given to overt behavior when faced with emotional stress. Sociopathic individual with troublesome psychopathy with an overlay of submerged and confused sexuality.

Despite his hedonism he seems self-destructive, naive, superficial and even illogical at times. Seeks freedom and emancipation for personal removal from constraint, controls and restrictions.

He seeks attention and is given to denial of truth. Is seriously emotional and gives evidence of secretiveness with questionable moral standards. He is detailistic and lacks insight in seeing the gestalt, the whole quality of things and events and persons, as well as circumstances.
END QUOTE

Just screams INMATE 00131-177 to me!


That is absolutely MacDonald, and there are many in high profile jobs in our society with the same traits. MacDonald just crossed over to becomming a murderer, while most don't. There is outstanding evidence against him, which amazes me that other's try and explain away. One wonder's if their friends or relatives in denial>

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bearclaw

PEOPLE! PUT YOURSELF IN THIS SITUATION! If you were happily married and your family was brutally slaughtered, would you drink in the hospital after suffering horrific wounds (as macdonad claims but they aren't true) and then go on a tv show, and crack jokes?

So true. And even a few hours after the killings, MacDonald ate dinner at the hospital with enjoyment. The fact that he could eat at all in such a situation speaks volumes re his guilt imo. Even as early as that, he was glad to have gotten rid of his whole family and was already full of optimism that people would buy his story.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald's appearance on the Dick Cavett Show was a public relations mistake...I don't think Dr MacDonald had ever appeared on TV before. He had little training and little experience in TV interviews. A professional would probably have advised him to have all the questions prepared before the show, and to rehearse, rehearse, rehearse, exactly what he was going to say.

A sociopath would need to "rehearse, rehearse, rehearse" in order to show a semblance of human emotion. I think that's also why he had to make notes to himself about showing emotion during his trial testimony.

[Bunny2]

There are no "mounds of evidence" against...MacDonald as you people say. All it amounts to is Murtagh saying...MacDonald put the pajama top on Colette, which Dr MacDonald never denied anyway.

There was so much evidence against MacDonald that he was convicted in a mere six hours or so. The jury did not convict merely because MacDonald said he put his pajama top on Colette. The physical, circumstantial and negative evidence proved beyond any question that MacDonald was indeed the murderer of his family.

Dr Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on one thing, and one thing only, that a pajama cuff brushed against a bedsheet.

Sorry, "Arthur," but the imprint of MacDonald's pajama cuff wasn't caused by it "brushing" against anything. The defense expert Thornton agreed with the prosecution that the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet along with a cuff print of Colette's. That testimony was so damaging that the defense never recovered from it.

No fibers on the couch proves nothing either when some strange guy, who has never been identified, sat down on the couch in the middle of the forensic examination.

I may be mistaken, but I do believe it was an ambulance driver, Paulsen, who was there. Regardless, are you trying to make people believe that someone sitting on the sofa would result in every blood spot and fiber and hair being removed from that spot? Better go back to the drawing board, "Arthur." Your scenarios are getting more and more unbelievable all the time.

There was blood and fibers found in the hallway which was where...MacDonald...said he fell unconscious

Evidence showed that MacDonald was lying about falling unconscious anywhere. Go back and reread the posts and documentation about this, "Arthur," even the posts just a few days ago about the clothing in the hallway. When you're done, come on back and we'll accept your apologies gracefully.

I believe Dr Brussel and Dr Silverman were unethical.

Evidence proves you wrong. Both were highly qualified and completely unbiased in the case, and their conclusions about MacDonald were absolutely right.

This is what the MacDonald website says...

You believe what a murderer's website says, even though you've seen for yourself that it's chock-full of misrepresentations and outright lies? Of course you don't. You only claim to because it's Rule #89 in your Flamebaiter's Handbook.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by rashomon
So true. And even a few hours after the killings, MacDonald ate dinner at the hospital with enjoyment. The fact that he could eat at all in such a situation speaks volumes re his guilt imo. Even as early as that, he was glad to have gotten rid of his whole family and was already full of optimism that people would buy his story. Yes, Rash, I agree. Mac thought he was such a Golden Boy that no one would question a thing he said. But of course "Arthur" wants us to believe that the CID and FBI and Dupree and Blackburn and Murtagh and Kassab and Mac's own relatives and his best friend and the babysitter and the bus driver and countless other people all just decided to get together and pin the blame on this Golden Boy while letting a band of murderous hippies go free. I don't know what's more ludicrous, Mac's stories or Albie's pretense that he believes them. LOL!

[Bunny2]

Re: Brussel and Silverman: If they were such phonies and so unethical, "Arthur," why didn't the defense protest years earlier?

Note how the defense once more tries to pull the wool over the Court's eyes, claiming that in 1979 the defense knew nothing of Brussel's prior consultation with the CID. From the Government's Response to Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Conviction:

"It is interesting to note that movant, whose counsel [O'Neill] claims to have acquired the complete files of his predecessor [Segal], also claims that the defense was unaware at the time of the trial of Dr. Brussel's prior consultation with the CID. However as the affidavit of Peter E. Kearns (#4) reflects, on May 17, 1971, Bernard L. Segal and Jeffrey MacDonald were forwarded a letter identifying Drs. Brussel and Silverman as the CID's experts to review MacDonald's Rorschach tests, accordingly we invite counsel to produce a copy of that letter."

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by Bearclaw


OMG!!! Kathryn MacDonald has moved over to this board? Hey Arthur/Albert/Kathryn....nice to see you over here now!

Couldn't pursuade anyone from other boards so you are now boring these ppl with your quotes.

This person will put EVERYONE to sleep and won't see the truth for what it is.

MaDonald had MOTIVE, and killed his wife and CHILDREN! yes!!!! the unborn child would be considered, imo, baby number 3 dead! There was MOUNDS of EVIDENCE also.

There is NO WAY that a group of hippies or what Albert would like all of you to believe, Satan Worshippers would come in and murder a pregnant woman, and 2 small children, and leave the most likely person to be able to identify the killers, with barely a scratch!
Then to "celebrate" with a bottle of booze while Macdonald was in the hospital, is pure despicable!

PEOPLE! PUT YOURSELF IN THIS SITUATION! If you were happily married and your family was brutally slaughtered, would you drink in the hospital after suffering horrific wounds (as macdonad claims but they aren't true) and then go on a tv show, and crack jokes?
Would you pick up and make a new life for yourself, or would you spend every waking moment looking for the killers and making sure justice was served?

MacDonald also cheated on his family, so he was never happily married nor can a sociopath be with anyone. MacDonald explained his cheating much like Peterson, not a big deal because sociopaths haven't any conscious. They do however, become very angry when their lies are uncovered. Why Kathryn or any women would get involved with a cheater, liar, and murderer is one for the therapist. Of course these men prey on people with little self esteem and poor judgement. Never a shortage of women that write to prisoner's, or even sicker become involved.

[Deb B]

I'm curious about the timing of MacDonald's claims re: Brussels and Silverman. When did he first complain about their behavior at the exam? Was this issue raised prior to the post-conviction motions filed in 1984? I think that would say something about the veracity of his claims. I don't see anything really verifying his claims in the affidavits of the people who were there, such as a person in that outer office swearing that when the exam was done, MacDonald came out and was upset about the content and commenting that one of the Doctors didn't even know where he was - something like that?

[Bunny2]

The report by Drs Brussel and Silverman was legal trickery by Judge Dupree.

As usual, more unfounded nonsense from Arthur in Wonderland.

This is from the Court TV Crime Library about the matter

Sad to say, that site doesn't tell the truth, "Arthur." And neither do you.

"The defense never got a copy of this report by Brussel before the trial even though one was provided to Brian Murtagh and Judge Dupree.

"It is interesting to note that movant, whose counsel [O'Neill] claims to have acquired the complete files of his predecessor, also claims that the defense was unaware at the time of the trial of Dr. Brussel's prior consultation with the CID. However as the affidavit of Peter E. Kearns (#4) reflects, on May 17, 1971, Bernard L. Segal and Jeffrey MacDonald were forwarded a letter identifying Drs. Brussel and Silverman as the CID's experts to review MacDonald's Rorschach tests, accordingly we invite counsel to produce a copy of that letter."

The remark by Bunny that the pajama cuff brushed against the bedsheet is "devastating" evidence is wild nonsense.

Of course it isn't. It was incredibly damaging to the defense, so damaging that they never recovered from it. Evidence showed that MacDonald had carried a dead or dying Colette in the master bedroom sheet, and that is how the imprints of both of his bloody pajama cuffs were placed on the sheet. Too bad you can't change that fact with all your ludicrous and false postings, isn't it, "Arthur"?

The pajama top could have been kicked about by at least ten people who were in the murder room at the time.

Could we see all the many testimonies which support the idea that the pajama top "could have been kicked about by at least ten people"?

Poor Albie. Your attempts to misrepresent facts are so pathetic. You remind me of a driver in a car with bald tires: You just keep spinning your wheels, but you have no traction at all.

[cruisemamma]

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/004417.html


I read this quite awhile ago, but it's important because it goes back to how the crime scene was discovered, and why the investigator who had 20 years experience knew something was not right, and MacDonald was lying. Mac didn't have years to rehearse his lies, or invent more of his ridiculous theories to fool the gullible. Since he snapped and killed his family there was no preplanning, so he was not able to do a very good job in staging the crime scene. IMO he was caught in the very beginning, but he continues to rant and rave how everyone was incompetent and so on. Mac may have been a smart man, but he didn't know enough about forensics or staging crime's scene's apparently.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by cruisemamma
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/004417.html


I read this quite awhile ago, but it's important because it goes back to how the crime scene was discovered, and why the investigator who had 20 years experience knew something was not right, and MacDonald was lying. Mac didn't have years to rehearse his lies, or invent more of his ridiculous theories to fool the gullible. Since he snapped and killed his family there was no preplanning, so he was not able to do a very good job in staging the crime scene. IMO he was caught in the very beginning, but he continues to rant and rave how everyone was incompetent and so on. Mac may have been a smart man, but he didn't know enough about forensics or staging crime's scene's apparently.

Well said, cruisemamma. And even though he'd been caught lying time and time again, he just couldn't stop doing it. Even today, he continues to perpetuate outright and deliberate lies, despite the fact that he knows that documents are online which prove his statements to be unequivocally false. I guess Mac thinks that if he repeats his lies often enough, he can change history. Too bad for him that each time he opens his mouth, he only digs his grave more deeply.

[Bunny2]

I'm curious about the timing of MacDonald's claims re: Brussels and Silverman. When did he first complain about their behavior at the exam? Was this issue raised prior to the post-conviction motions filed in 1984? I think that would say something about the veracity of his claims.

Deb, others here will be able to fill you in better than I can on this, but to the best of my recollection, Mac didn't complain about Brussell or Silverman prior to 1984 post-conviction motions.

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by Deb B


A sociopath would need to "rehearse, rehearse, rehearse" in order to show a semblance of human emotion. I think that's also why he had to make notes to himself about showing emotion during his trial testimony.

That's a good point, and if you remember the Peterson interviews he basically got it all wrong. Either he showed little emotion, or as we saw with Diane Sawyer he could barely muster up the tears, and his phoney dialogue sounded like it came right out of a book. The part about how he and Laci had a "Glorious" marriage sent me right over the edge. lol Like Peterson, Mac loved the limelight, and started to enjoy it just too much, in fact there seemed to be no grieving at all. Another clue to his guilt, not overlooked by his fatherinlaw who like other's kept uncovering his lies.

[Bunny2]

Just ran across this in my notes...

Excerpted from an affidavit of Brian Murtagh's:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_murtagh_1984jun11.html

"4. In addition to compiling defendant's prior statements for possible use in cross-examination, I also caused to be made by the FBI a small blue booklet. (Gov._Ex._1141, admitted in evidence 8/10/79) consisting of selected statements I believed to be probative evidence of defendant's consciousness of guilt. This notebook which contains defendant's responses to questions he contends were first asked by Dr. Brussel, had to be printed by the Exhibits Section of the FBI, and as I recall, I edited the proofs before coming to Raleigh a week before trial, although I did not receive these notebooks until late in the Government's case in chief.

"In compiling this notebook, which was offered and admitted in evidence on August 10, 1979, before MacDonald's August 13, interview by Dr. Brussel, I could not possibly have made any use of any statements by defendant to Dr. Brussel. 1/ Both the Lipsitz Notebook and the blue notebook were furnished to AUSA James L. Blackburn for possible use in his anticipated cross-examination of the defendant.

"1/ For example, MacDonald claims that the Government first learned of his response to the questions (Motion at 11) concerning the ripping of his pajamas top from Dr. Brussel. As a comparison of his prior statements on this point demonstrates it is clear that the prosecution already knew what MacDonald would say (see attached Exhibits A, B & C).

"5. During the trial, and in anticipation of having to offer rebuttal testimony on the issues of the alleged incompatibility of defendant's psychological make up with the commission of the crime, and the ability of his experts to opine that based on the application of certain psychiatric interviewing techniques, there was no pyschriatic evidence of any deception in defendant's account of the crime (Tr. 4935), I caused Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman to be engaged as Government consultants. As the admissibility of such testimony had not yet been ruled on by the Court, these consultants were retained despite the Government's contention, ultimately vindicated by the Court of Appeals (see United States v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, 688 F.2d, at 227-8) that psychiatrists are in no better position than jurors at detecting defendant's lying about factual issues."

[byn63]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Just ran across this in my notes...

Excerpted from an affidavit of Brian Murtagh's:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_murtagh_1984jun11.html

"4. In addition to compiling defendant's prior statements for possible use in cross-examination, I also caused to be made by the FBI a small blue booklet. (Gov._Ex._1141, admitted in evidence 8/10/79) consisting of selected statements I believed to be probative evidence of defendant's consciousness of guilt. This notebook which contains defendant's responses to questions he contends were first asked by Dr. Brussel, had to be printed by the Exhibits Section of the FBI, and as I recall, I edited the proofs before coming to Raleigh a week before trial, although I did not receive these notebooks until late in the Government's case in chief.

"In compiling this notebook, which was offered and admitted in evidence on August 10, 1979, before MacDonald's August 13, interview by Dr. Brussel, I could not possibly have made any use of any statements by defendant to Dr. Brussel. 1/ Both the Lipsitz Notebook and the blue notebook were furnished to AUSA James L. Blackburn for possible use in his anticipated cross-examination of the defendant.

"1/ For example, MacDonald claims that the Government first learned of his response to the questions (Motion at 11) concerning the ripping of his pajamas top from Dr. Brussel. As a comparison of his prior statements on this point demonstrates it is clear that the prosecution already knew what MacDonald would say (see attached Exhibits A, B & C).

"5. During the trial, and in anticipation of having to offer rebuttal testimony on the issues of the alleged incompatibility of defendant's psychological make up with the commission of the crime, and the ability of his experts to opine that based on the application of certain psychiatric interviewing techniques, there was no pyschriatic evidence of any deception in defendant's account of the crime (Tr. 4935), I caused Dr. Brussel and Dr. Silverman to be engaged as Government consultants. As the admissibility of such testimony had not yet been ruled on by the Court, these consultants were retained despite the Government's contention, ultimately vindicated by the Court of Appeals (see United States v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, 688 F.2d, at 227-8) that psychiatrists are in no better position than jurors at detecting defendant's lying about factual issues."


Thanks for the EXCELLENT Post, bunny! Here's a flag!:patriot:

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The interview of Dr MacDonald was a hostile interrogation at the time of the MacDonald trial in the guise of a psychiatric examination. This was by Dr Brussel and Dr Silverman.



Why didn't Team MacDonald raise this issue before the 1984 post-conviction appeals?

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
That article from Red's bookshelf posted by Sheila was inaccurate. Like the Joe McGinniss Fatal Vision book and film.

Grebner wasn't the Provost-Marshal of the CID as it says in that article. As far as I know that was Colonel Kriwanek. Grebner was the commanding officer of Detachment B, 3rd military police group, Criminal Investigation.

I have tried to find out in the past if Grebner was a know nothing, very inexperienced, and had never dealt with a murder before. I think he just normally dealt with affrays at Fort Bragg. That's what it looks like to me. Ivory described himself as a "drugs intelligence analyst." He wasn't a homicide detective

Neither Ivory, Grebner or Shaw were competent forensic experts. They said they found some fibers under Colette's body which were grossly similar to pajama fibers. Those fibers could have been grossly similar to my blue socks for all military police investigators know about the matter. They were certainly not qualified to jump to conclusions about how the fibers got there.

It was plain wrong of them to say the crime scene was staged.

This is from an internet article about this matter at the fair and just Article 32 Investigation in 1970 :-

"The investigators claim the crime scene was staged.

They base this theory on the fact that the coffee table was found turned on its side, as opposed to on its top. Their theory is the table was "top heavy" and could not have landed on its side unless it was placed that way. The lead investigator, Bill Ivory, substantiated this theory by explaining the 30 times or more times investigators kicked the table, it always fell on its top.

Before the hearing, Colonel Rock went to the crime scene to test Ivory's theory and reports. In the presence of witnesses, Colonel Rock kicked the coffee table. It fell on its side, hitting the rocking chair and resting on its edge.

Colonel Rock returned to the hearing to establish that his one kick, contrary to Ivory's claims, resulted in the coffee table coming to rest, exactly as seen in the crime scene photographs. Exactly as Ivory had claimed was impossible."

This post seems a bit desultory! Or maybe I was actually expecting an answer to my question. :shrug:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Deb B


This post seems a bit desultory! Or maybe I was actually expecting an answer to my question. :shrug:

Typical Albie/Artie strategy: whenever he has been cornered by a post and doesn't know how to answer, he quickly runs off on a tangent to dilute things.
We've had this stuff by him ad nauseam at the A&E board.
I can only hope they'll never let him post there again!

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In reply to Deb the matter of the hostile interrogation of Dr MacDonald by Drs Brussel and Silverman is discussed by the MacDonald lawyers O'Neill in 1984.

This is at :-

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/def_1984-04-03.html



I've read MacDonald's 1984 motion for a new trial, in which he first raises the issue the of Dr Brussell's behavior during the psychiatric exam of him. I've also read the Government's response to that motion and the final decision on it.

It doesn't answer my question (actually, it lead to my question). I don't see anything in the motion showing that MacDonald complained about the egregious behavior of Brussells and Silverman prior to 1984. Bernie Segal was in the outer office during the exam - did he not say anything to his own attorney when he came out? Bernie Segal's affidavit indicates nothing about MacDonald's reaction to the exam, nor do the affidavits of the others who were there.

Also, that motion says that Dr. Brussell and Dr. Silverman had a "significant role in advising the government concerning the physical evidence" in this case. That seems like quite a stretch. Weren't they simply briefed on the case and evidence, and asked for their opinion (in 1971) as to whether MacDonald had the psychological makeup to commit the crime and had nothing further to do with the case until the exam in 1979?

[jednme]

What amazes me is that everything MacDonald claimed in that appeal about Dr. Brussell was based on MACDONALD'S RECOLLECTION! How could he recall word for word the questions Brussell asked AND his response to them? The interview wasn't taped. Nothing exists outside of MacDonald's word to support the exchange he claims occured during that interview. It's all part of the "I said it so it is true" method of entering evidence.

It was a ploy by the MacDonald camp to attempt, yet again, to get MacDonald out of prison. Brussell acting as a government agent...that was the claim and MacDonald's "recollection" was the evidence used to support. I guess no one told MacDonald that his word was worthless as evidence.

It's laughable really, that not only MacDonald, but his lawyers, really thought they could present MacDonald's "recollection" as strong evidence of anything. "We claim that Brussell was used as a government agent and we can PROVE it because MacDonald remembers every word of that interview and he can repeat it word for word!" Watch out Murtagh!

[jednme]

Hey Tell! Welcome! How are you? Hope you are doing well.

BTW, how did you decide on the screen name "bearclaw" LOL!

[byn63]

Actually I think we should feel at least a little bit sorry for old bertie/artie! Anyone who has so much problem with reading comprehension as him is in need of pity. Also, a really good psychiatrist, a social worker, and probably occupational therapy as well.

Look at the evidence: He cuts and pastes long rambling sections of testimony attempting to prove his ignorant suppositions and lots of times he actually is proving the other side of the argument! It is really really sad!

I don't have my notes here, but, I recall that Murtaugh debriefed Dr. Brussel and asked his opinion. Dr. B stated that Inmate was lying about what happened, but that didn't necessarily mean that he had murdered his family. Of course, this was before the psychodiagnostic testing was completely analyzed and a final report prepared.

The court found absolutely no merit in Inmate claims that Dr. B was used as an investigative tool or that cross examination was based on the questions/answers from that one session with Dr. B. Inmate never got over the use of "because I said so" mentality. We are supposed to just believe what he says no matter how ignorant or inane it may be!

artie/bertie - :read: get help with your reading and comprehension. you really really really need it!
:seeya:

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by Bearclaw



I just don't understand why one post the facts, and It's like oh their not credible or they weren't competent! That can only go on for so long, and my main question would be why is this person so obsessed about a slam dunk case?? I respect everyone's opinion, but when there are links and so much info. as to Mac's guilt there's just little point to argue or debate.

:shrug:

[byn63]

artie/bertie - once again you show that either you have a SEVERE problem with reading comprehension or you have the worlds WORST memory.

First, there is plenty of Psychodiagnostic evidence to suggest with safety that Inmate went into a murderous rage when he killed his PREGNANT WIFE AND UNBORN SON, AND 2 LITTLE GIRLS.

Secondly, why are you once again bringing up the wax deposits? You have been told time and time again, the 3 wax deposits found by the CID were of no forensic significane. Once more, THE THREE WAX DEPOSITS WERE OF DIFFERING CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED FROM THE SAME SOURCE. Now, you must try hard to retain this information AND the fact that the wax deposit on the coffee table was old, brittle and contained HOUSEHOLD debris. The wax deposit found in Kimmie's room was "similar to birthday cake candles" and I'd say we can be fairly sure no "intruders" would be lighting their way thru the apartment with tiny b-day cake candles. NOW, Colette was lnown to love candles and burned them all the time, there were several Chianti bottles with wax drippings on the outside and some of those drippings appeared similar to 2 of the deposits inside 544 Castle Dive. Since MOST people throw away their candles once burned to nothing - the lack of similar candles found inside DOES NOT MEAN it wasn't once there.

[cami]

Originally posted by Bunny2
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!!!"

That's correct Bunny. It was in Bost's Short Study from Mac's old website. You note it's been removed. I guess they didn't realize that people like me and Jednme would read it, LOL. Jed even took a magnifiying glass to it she was so determined to read it. There it was in black and white, comparing a stain on the sleeve with a stain on the front. It's on aande if you want to dig for it I think. At least my posts on the stains when all I had was the Short Study are there. You could plainly see how Fatal Justice was manipulating the court documents. It's like R-11 and the "they will not be reported by me" manipulation

Anyway, here's a link to my post on aande year's ago about the stains (http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=19978&start=0&tstart=465)

I loved Lbug's reply--"you have too much time on your hands."

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by byn63
artie/bertie - once again you show that either you have a SEVERE problem with reading comprehension or you have the worlds WORST memory.

First, there is plenty of Psychodiagnostic evidence to suggest with safety that Inmate went into a murderous rage when he killed his PREGNANT WIFE AND UNBORN SON, AND 2 LITTLE GIRLS.

Secondly, why are you once again bringing up the wax deposits? You have been told time and time again, the 3 wax deposits found by the CID were of no forensic significane. Once more, THE THREE WAX DEPOSITS WERE OF DIFFERING CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED FROM THE SAME SOURCE. Now, you must try hard to retain this information AND the fact that the wax deposit on the coffee table was old, brittle and contained HOUSEHOLD debris. The wax deposit found in Kimmie's room was "similar to birthday cake candles" and I'd say we can be fairly sure no "intruders" would be lighting their way thru the apartment with tiny b-day cake candles. NOW, Colette was lnown to love candles and burned them all the time, there were several Chianti bottles with wax drippings on the outside and some of those drippings appeared similar to 2 of the deposits inside 544 Castle Dive. Since MOST people throw away their candles once burned to nothing - the lack of similar candles found inside DOES NOT MEAN it wasn't once there.

Interesting, and my gosh I remember those bottles that everyone had, I mean back then everyone had candles so that wouldn't help ole Mac anyways! lol

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

This article sums it all up from beginning to end. The guys not getting out, his next parole date is 2020.

[byn63]

bertie/artie ramblin rosie - you are too funny for words! If there is anyone in this whole ghoulish scenario who tries to say "I said it so it is true" it is good old convicted family slaughterer Inmate 00131-177.

You, who have tried over and over again to convice people of how expert Thorton was, now want to try and claim we should not believe in Stombaugh? Get Real! Stombaugh was a qualified forensic expert who above and beyond testifying at Inmate's trial, had testified in excess of 300 times as an expert witness, including before the Warren Commission. PS had testified in court in 48 of the 50 States - as an expert. Not only that but Stombaugh TAUGHT college level courses in crime scene investigation and associated sciences at the University of Marylan, Greenville Tech College, George Washington University not to mention seminars at places INCLUDING AFIP.

Now Thorton may be a credible expert, but I have to say slapping a slice of sandwhich ham under a fabric swatch on a sled and trying to stab it while it moved back and forth did not make him look very impressive imo. As a matter of fact, Thorton didn't just look scientifically silly, but just plain old SILLY silly.

[cami]

MACDONALD on Larry King Live tonight. Well Katherine is on, don't know about Old Ice Pick baby Killer.

[Bunny2]

When Segal asked for the photographic evidence to support this dangerous new theory, Stombaugh was not able to prove it in court, but maintained that it was so.

Why did you post this again, "Arthur," knowing that it's false?

Years later, when the defense team finally got it hands on the lab notes through the Freedom of Information Act, they found that the Army's "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 tops was therefore, stained [after] it was ripped, not before.

Why did you post this again, "Arthur"? This was just discussed here - please pay attention!

I repeat: The facts show 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 Cami told you, this is indisputable; it's in the Short Study which was so highly touted by MacDonald, "in black and white, comparing a stain on the sleeve with a stain on the front."

What part of this don't you understand?

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I think internet posters, and possibly juries, are far too trusting about so-called forensic experts like Stombaugh. It's all "trust me I'm an expert."

The forensic experts themselves aren't quite so credulous. This is from a report by a forensic expert on the internet :-

"The laboratory practices are based on intuition and deduction, not on empirical proof. Wisdom may be valuable in science, just as wisdom may be valuable elsewhere, but wisdom has little use without a scientific answer to the question. Science requires that skeptical, probing questions be met with testable answers verified in a reproducible manner. Only empirical work can provide an answer to a scientific dispute."

I think that folding the pajama top so that the 48 holes matched the 21 holes in Colette's chest is empirical proof of the prosecution's theory that MacDonald put the top on her and then stabbed her through it with the ice pick.

It was the responsibility of MacDonald's defense attorneys to muster skeptical, probing questions of the prosecution's forensic testimony. Thornton's lame attempt to show the pajama top could have sustained the holes according to MacDonald's explanation shows they couldn't do it.

BTW, you have an empirical proof that Helena Stoeckley, et. al., killed Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, right?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by cami


That's correct Bunny. It was in Bost's Short Study from Mac's old website. You note it's been removed. I guess they didn't realize that people like me and Jednme would read it, LOL. Jed even took a magnifiying glass to it she was so determined to read it. There it was in black and white, comparing a stain on the sleeve with a stain on the front. It's on aande if you want to dig for it I think. At least my posts on the stains when all I had was the Short Study are there. You could plainly see how Fatal Justice was manipulating the court documents. It's like R-11 and the "they will not be reported by me" manipulation

Anyway, here's a link to my post on aande year's ago about the stains (http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=19978&start=0&tstart=465)


Kudos to you, cami and jednme: even before Christina's site was up, you two had gone through the Short Studies with a fine-toothed comb, and your discovery of the monstrous distortion of the bloodstain lab note by the Mac camp is one of the many things you found out and posted on C&J.
Great detective work - you are indeed super-sleuths! :cool:

[cami]

Originally posted by Deb B


I think that folding the pajama top so that the 48 holes matched the 21 holes in Colette's chest is empirical proof of the prosecution's theory that MacDonald put the top on her and then stabbed her through it with the ice pick.

It was the responsibility of MacDonald's defense attorneys to muster skeptical, probing questions of the prosecution's forensic testimony. Thornton's lame attempt to show the pajama top could have sustained the holes according to MacDonald's explanation shows they couldn't do it.

BTW, you have an empirical proof that Helena Stoeckley, et. al., killed Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, right?

LOL, no he doesn't have any proof because there is none. Bertie is just a flame baiter using the transcripts to try and allege a massive government conspiracy.

I completely agree. There is no way that top could be folded to match that pattern if the pattern wasn't there. YOu can see it in the photos. There was one with the pattern mapped out beside the autopsy photo of Colette's chest but it appears to have been removed from the site.

[cami]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I'm not an expert on blood spatter analysis.

I have never examined the famous MacDonald pajama top or looked at the bloodstains.

Dr MacDonald said he placed his pajama top on Colette in a vain attempt to keep her warm. The pajama top would then have become bloody. That's what I believe happened.

[b] Really Bertie? When there was bed linen right there, blankets and sheets that he could have used to keep her warm. His explanation defies logic.


From what I can gather Stombaugh testified in court that the bloodstains matched around some kind of rip and this somehow proved Dr MacDonald had a violent argument with Colette. From what I can gather also, Glisson of the CID lab and the forensic experts at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic lab were in disagreement with Stombaugh about those bloodstains.

Stombaugh never provided any photographic evidence for his wild and wonderful theory.

Wrong again Bertie and you know it. The stains in Colette's blood were on the pajama top before it was ripped down the front. The trial testimony clearly shows this. And don't start with the Stombaugh never provided any photographic evidence. It's not up to Stombaugh to provide photographs, that was the job of the prosecutor and provide them he did as the trial testimony clearly shows. Get in the real world Bertie. You're not in Britain now.

I don't really know why Segal and Dr Thornton didn't make more of a fuss about that. Personally I don't believe Segal or Dr Thornton ever expected a trial date for the MacDonald case to ever be announced. When a trial date was suddenly announced both Segal and Dr Thornton were lacking in careful preparation. Dr Thornton only had three days in the end to examine the forensics in the MacDonald case.

Why? because they couldn't Bertie, that's why. You are reading Bost and Potter the old manipulators of the documents, the cut and paste show. Dr. Thornton was not going to put his reputation on the line any more than he did Bertie. He could examine those stains until the cows come home but he would not have been able to refute the findings. Nothing to do with preparation silly man and you know it.

This matter of the pajama top and ripping was discussed at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970 by MacDonald lawyer Eisman and CID man Shaw :-

Q Captain MacDonald never said it got ripped; he said it somehow got entangled over his arm in the living room in the struggle and he staggered into the hallway and became unconscious, is that your recollection also of his story?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then he regained consciousness and went into the bedroom and then took off the top or freed his hands?
A He said to me in the only personal statement I heard him make, that he has no recollection of it going over his head because he has no recollection of the top being pulled over the head, but he did say at one point that the pajama jacket was wrapped somehow around his wrist and that someone was punching him and he was trying to fend off the punches with the top in his hands and when he regained consciousness, he went through these four people and wound up on the floor of the hallway and regained consciousness, he stood up and walked to his wife's body, pulled the pajama jacket off his hand and placed it on her body in an attempt to keep her warm and treat her for shock. So that is what I heard him say.
Q But he never said the jacket was ripped?
A I don't believe he used that term. I would have to read the transcript of his statement again.
Q If fibers were found in the hallway near the living room, isn't it possible this got there from his falling down there and lying there with his hands entwined in the jacket for a period of time--we don't know how long--before he got up to go in the bedroom? Couldn't they have gotten there that way?
A If that happened, yes, they could have

What does this testimony have to do with Stombaugh's and the prosecution's theory that the top was stained with blood before it was ripped?

[byn63]

I like that part of the short study too! Notice how they (P&B) talk about Inmate being out cold and the holes could have been made then? My answer to P&B:

Now that would indeed have been a neat trick. Inmate claimed to have passed out UP 2 stairs and a short distance into the hallway and landed face down. At this point, his hands were allegedly still tangled up in his magic pj top. So, how did intruders get ice-pick holes into it, if Inmate was tangled up in and lying on top of it? Hmm?

Not to mention that if Inmate had passed out face forward while his hands were tangled up, then how come he didn't have any other facial bruising besides the one on his left forehead? There was nothing to break the fall!

[cami]

Originally posted by byn63
I like that part of the short study too! Notice how they (P&B) talk about Inmate being out cold and the holes could have been made then? My answer to P&B:

Now that would indeed have been a neat trick. Inmate claimed to have passed out UP 2 stairs and a short distance into the hallway and landed face down. At this point, his hands were allegedly still tangled up in his magic pj top. So, how did intruders get ice-pick holes into it, if Inmate was tangled up in and lying on top of it? Hmm?

Not to mention that if Inmate had passed out face forward while his hands were tangled up, then how come he didn't have any other facial bruising besides the one on his left forehead? There was nothing to break the fall!

Yes Byn P&B want us to believe those blood thirsty hippies, stoned on five drugs, stabbed the empty pajama top as Mac lay there on the floor. They were too stoned to realize they were stabbing air. How clean they were too, not even one ice pick hole in the wood floor of the hallway, not so much as a nick.

[byn63]

Originally posted by nomi21
:no: Let me clear something up for you....I think what happened to the family of Dr MacDonald....was absolutely horrible. I have no sympathry for the REAL killer...which I beleive Dr MacDonald isn't. If you don't agree with me....sorry about that.

No, I certainly don't agree with you on many points. Starting with the fact that Inmate 00131-177 is not entitled to be addressed by the honorific you and bertie boy insist on using. Secondly, I find the continued use of that honorific to be an insult to the VICTIMS of this case Colette, Kimberly, Kristen and the unborn son.

Next, I think you obviously do have sympathy for the REAL killer, otherwise you wouldn't keep posting the things you post. Inmate 00131-177 is a thrice convicted murderer. He was tried by a jury of his peers in a trial that lasted 7 weeks. Over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence were presented in conjuction with 28 witnesses (both lay and expert). The prosecution used only about 60% of the evidence available and still proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Inmate 00131-177 is guilty. He has shown consciousness of his own guilt, and he is the basest of cowards for continuing to proclaim himself "factually innocent". The evidence against him is overwhelming, and the DNA results will be the final nail in his coffin (so to speak).

How can you possibly believe his story of intruders? How exactly could all those people have been inside the residence yet not leave a single trace of themselves? Why would you believe the coerced confessions of Helena where she claims participation, yet, not consider the ones where she claims to have watched Inmate kill his family?

Yes, you have the right to your opinion, but, I also have the right to try and point you to documented proof that counters your Opinion. The point of debate is to back up what you have to say. So far, your answer always seems to be "I think". So, what are you basing the opinion on? It certainly isn't the actual case documentation.
:read:

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
It was so-called FBI Special Agent Caverly who first described Dr MacDonald's wounds as "superficial." Caverly wasn't medically qualified to say such a thing. The FBI is a complete shambles.

What the bus driver says is not evidence in law.

In my opinion, Byn girl doesn't seem to be able to imagine exactly what happened on the night of the MacDonald murders. If a homicidal maniac comes at a woman in her bedroom with a knife, or ice pick, the night dress she would be wearing could become way out of its proper position. This would happen if the woman was using that night dress to fend off, or parry the blows.

Byn Girl???? Bertie you have really lost it now. Colette was wearing pajamas not a night dress and she certainly did not attempt to fend off the ice pick and the knife with her pajama top, you silly. The ice pick and knife wounds were inflicted when her body was prone on the MB floor, Bertie and you know it you fool, LOL.

The same sort of thing happened in the MacDonald case. There could be ice pick marks, or knife marks, in any part of the pajama top which didn't correspond with Dr MacDonald's body. There were no wounds in Dr MacDonald's back because he was never stabbed in the back.

Get real, no such thing happened in the Mac case.

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 Dr MacDonald did that and nobody has ever proved that he did do that.

no one did that, it was overlapping of wounds

As far as I'm concerned Dr MacDonald's wounds and injuries were far from superficial. I don't suppose those injuries would shock any ER Department at a hospital. I do know Dr MacDonald was suffering from those injuries for many months after the MacDonald murders.

Fatal Justice,

page 220-221
At Womack Army Hospital, Michael Newman, the noncom in charge of the emergency room night staff, noted that Dr. MacDonald's mouth area was bloody, a fact which supports MacDonald's statement that he had used the mouth-to-mouth revival method on his family members.

His body shook visibly, and he cried about his family. The wound in his right chest bubbled bloody froth with each quick breath, creating a mound of pink foam over the wound, an unmistakable sign that the lung had been punctured.

Another jagged wound in his upper left abdomen was larger than the chest wound and looked worse, but didn't seem as serious as the stab wound into his lung.
After X-Rays, Dr. Severt Jacobson, the surgeon on call, arrived to examine MacDonald, and discovered "four or five" additional wounds in the left upper chest, as opposed to the stab wound in the right chest which had collapsed the lung (page 223 "listed as one-half to to three-quarters of an inch wide into the anterior chest between the ribs at the seventh intercostal space"). These left chest wounds were like ice pick wounds, small round punctures made by an instrument with a pointed shaft.

Dr. Merrill Bronstein, another surgeon, showed up to take charge at 5 A.M. in the intensive care ward. He found MacDonald still semi-hysterical and, despite the presence of blunt-trauma head wounds, Bronstein decided to sedate his patient.

The collapse of MacDonald's right lung seen on X-ray worsened, and he was moved to an operating room ....
... after 7 A.M. .. MacDonald had already been given four intravenous sedation injections.

Page 222
Wounds to Dr. MacDonald's head included one discolored, swollen and scraped blunt-trauma bruise to the left forehead at the hairline. .... A smaller bruise on his right forehead, at the hairline, was observed by several people, including medics .... Doctors who examined him a few days later saw additional contusions on the left posterior portion of Dr. MacDonald's head, hidden by his hair. In all, at least three head injuries were reported.

Page 223
Dr. MacDonald's left shoulder and upper left arm suffered a large bruise attributed to blunt trauma ... a "through and through" knife wound into the biceps muscle ... and several puncture wounds. The left forearm was also bruised, a wound usually considered defensive.
A cut on a finger of MacDonald's left hand and a cut in the web of the index finger and left thumb were also noted but ... prosecutors ... stated during the trial there were none.

In addition, a three-inch-long laceration down to the rectal muscle in the left upper quadrant of MacDonald's abdomen crossed another knife laceration that extended outward and down. These two different knife wounds formed an upside down "V" with the outside laceration of the "V" being slightly shorter than the inside, deeper, laceration.

Across the center of MacDonald's abdomen were several ice pick wounds that were never charted, although one doctor did list them. Two other surgeons later testified to having seen these wounds ....
... the first chest tube inserted into MacDonald's collapsed lung was not functioning, so a second surgical operation was required.

Page 224
... MacDonald spent ten days in the hospital .... he suffered three blows to the head, and five or six defensive wounds on his hands and arm. He experienced twelve to seventeen ice pick wounds and at least four stab wounds from a knife.


Page 225-226
.... Dr. Jacobson, the initial responding surgeon, has since specifically stated that these wounds definitely were not fingernail scratches.

.... Dr. Merrill Bronstein called the stomach laceration "kind of gaping. It was open. And you could see down to the bottom of it. You could see - every muscle in the body has a covering called a fascia - you could see the fascia of the muscle there." Bronstein said it really should have been sutured, but in concern over the more serious chest wound and collapsed lung it was overlooked ....

... Dr. Jacobson ... " I think one could call this up to forty percent pneumothorax ... This judgment was confirmed by Dr. Gemma. And Gemma also explained why visitors saw MacDonald "sitting up" in his hospital bed on the day of the murders. ... because his chest wound was serious and "air will rise when you are upright, and the fluid will be down." Thus, his position in bed was part of the treatment for a collapsed lung from a stab wound.

At the army hearings in 1970 each of the doctors ... was asked if he would risk stabbing himself in the seventh intercostal space .... At that time, each one of the doctors considered it too dangerous, due to the proximity of the liver.

As Dr. Gemma explained, the liver changes position with every inhalation and exhalation of breath. He told the grand jury that if the knife was angled just a bit downward, "it might only have to go in two or three inches to damage the liver."

Fatal Justice is a piece of trash that has been completely refuted

[byn63]

Hey cami - lets not forget not just no icepick holes on the floor but no ice pick holes on Inmate! Now that is a neat trick since the pj top was underneath him, if they were trying to reach in and stab it then how did he escape Brian Murtaugh's fate at trial when Blackburn stabbed him during the demo????? LOL! I guess we weren't supposed to remember that Inmate claimed to have been laying on top of the pj top and his hands which were still entangled in it! Too bad P&B, I tend to retain information that I read - may not remember EXACTLY where I read it, but I'll remember that I DID READ IT! LOL!:rose:

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21


:biggrin: I totally agree with you. I never have believed he was/is guilty.

NOmi you are a hoot. Bertie thinks Mick Jagger and Vampires were involved in the murders. Do you agree? Do you think Mick has immunity from prosecution or what? I wonder what he was doing at Ft. Bragg in 1970. Were the Rollling Stones performing there?

[jednme]

Originally posted by byn63
Hey cami - lets not forget not just no icepick holes on the floor but no ice pick holes on Inmate! Now that is a neat trick since the pj top was underneath him, if they were trying to reach in and stab it then how did he escape Brian Murtaugh's fate at trial when Blackburn stabbed him during the demo????? LOL! I guess we weren't supposed to remember that Inmate claimed to have been laying on top of the pj top and his hands which were still entangled in it! Too bad P&B, I tend to retain information that I read - may not remember EXACTLY where I read it, but I'll remember that I DID READ IT! LOL!:rose:

Can you imagine the "killers" turning MacDonald's limp, lifeless body over and ever so cautiously stabbing through the pajama top, take extra care NOT to injure MacDonald! Oh, that sly little Bost. I can't for one single minute believe Bost was serious with this explanation. Well, so much for his "investigative" efforts. Had he seriously investigated the matter he would have had a hard time reconciling MacDonald's account (that the pj top was between his body and the floor) with his silly silly explanation that the killers put the holes in the top after MacDonald feel unconscious.

[cami]

Originally posted by jednme


Can you imagine the "killers" turning MacDonald's limp, lifeless body over and ever so cautiously stabbing through the pajama top, take extra care NOT to injure MacDonald! Oh, that sly little Bost. I can't for one single minute believe Bost was serious with this explanation. Well, so much for his "investigative" efforts. Had he seriously investigated the matter he would have had a hard time reconciling MacDonald's account (that the pj top was between his body and the floor) with his silly silly explanation that the killers put the holes in the top after MacDonald feel unconscious.

Kathryn is challenging Blackburn to take a polygraph, LOL.

The silly thing Jed is that Bost would believe that intelligent, rational humans would believe this fantasy. As Bunny would say Bost in Wonderland. Looney Tunes, thaaat's all folks--but it never is.

Well I am watching LKL. The same tired old thing. I like how Kathryn took the opportunity to bring out the same tired old crap that's been refuted long ago, wig hairs, black fibres, candle wax, etc.

[jednme]

Um, yeah Kathryn...

Hey Cams, why doesn't Blackburn just line up behind MacDonald! Hey, put Kathryn in that line too. I would like for her to answer the question of just when it was that she first met MacDonald and whether or not she was "involved" with him as a teenager. I think that would be explosive new information that could break this case wide open. I think it goes to the state of MacDonald's grief at the time he first met her in the early 70's after having lost his entire family to such a brutal murder. She met him when she was a "kid". When, how, and to what degree did she "know" him? From someone who wants "all the truth" to come out, they sure keep those circumstances a mystery!

jednme

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by byn63
artie/bertie - once again you show that either you have a SEVERE problem with reading comprehension or you have the worlds WORST memory.

First, there is plenty of Psychodiagnostic evidence to suggest with safety that Inmate went into a murderous rage when he killed his PREGNANT WIFE AND UNBORN SON, AND 2 LITTLE GIRLS.

Secondly, why are you once again bringing up the wax deposits? You have been told time and time again, the 3 wax deposits found by the CID were of no forensic significane. Once more, THE THREE WAX DEPOSITS WERE OF DIFFERING CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED FROM THE SAME SOURCE. Now, you must try hard to retain this information AND the fact that the wax deposit on the coffee table was old, brittle and contained HOUSEHOLD debris. The wax deposit found in Kimmie's room was "similar to birthday cake candles" and I'd say we can be fairly sure no "intruders" would be lighting their way thru the apartment with tiny b-day cake candles. NOW, Colette was lnown to love candles and burned them all the time, there were several Chianti bottles with wax drippings on the outside and some of those drippings appeared similar to 2 of the deposits inside 544 Castle Dive. Since MOST people throw away their candles once burned to nothing - the lack of similar candles found inside DOES NOT MEAN it wasn't once there.
Ahhh ... absence of evidence proves guilt, huh? The old standby. Ask Scott Peterson.

BTW ....... must you demean other posters because they don't have the same perception of this case as you?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Ahhh ... absence of evidence proves guilt, huh? The old standby. Ask Scott Peterson.

BTW ....... must you demean other posters because they don't have the same perception of this case as you?
Oh, it's quite a bit more than just a case of someone not having the same "perception" of events as someone else does, Suspect! "Arthur" is a fraud and a dedicated flamebaiter, someone who has several aliases online and who has posted both as someone who believes in Mac's guilt and as people who believe in his "innocence." To him, this is all a game. As "Arthur," he's come up with a character who either purposely misrepresents information or endlessly and robotically repeats information known to be false, in order to bait people. The things "Arthur" talks about here are the same copy-and-paste jobs he was doing on C&J and A&E. It appears now that he was banned from the A&E board just as he was banned from Crime & Justice. Regardless, just as the truth is shown here for every lie MacDonald has told, so too will the truth continue to be shown here for every deliberate misrepresentation and outright lie from "Arthur in Wonderland."

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by cami


Kathryn is challenging Blackburn to take a polygraph, LOL.

The silly thing Jed is that Bost would believe that intelligent, rational humans would believe this fantasy. As Bunny would say Bost in Wonderland. Looney Tunes, thaaat's all folks--but it never is.

Well I am watching LKL. The same tired old thing. I like how Kathryn took the opportunity to bring out the same tired old crap that's been refuted long ago, wig hairs, black fibres, candle wax, etc.

I haven't seen the show yet (no reception here) but from what I heard on the phone today from JTF and from reading the posts on the other boards, looks like except for a few new tidbits (like the black wool-pajama fiber admission) it's nothing more than the same old same old. So what else is new.

I'm still curious as to why CM says this was a motion about perjury. I thought that was strange when she first told me about it quite some time ago, but she insisted that was what it was about. So said to myself wait and see. Now I'm waiting, but I still don't see how this could be considered to be perjury. Can anyone fill me in?

[2L8 4A D8]

They are having the same problems over at the OJ Simpson Thread. Only, there's approximately 5+ of them, instead of only 1 or 2 here. It's maddening to say the least. It's like posting to a brick wall. Nothing you say or do makes any difference to them. They just keep on posting their psycho-babble ad nauseum!

What I find so sad is that all of the knowledgable people (the Guilties) of the OJ case just keep trying to persuade the "Not Guilties" and it is never going to happen. The people in he** will get a glass of ice water first!

Don't waste your time or breath on Nomi. She also thinks that Darlie Routier is innocent in the deaths of her children. However, she does firmly believe that OJ is guilty in the murders of Nicole and Ron. But Jeffrey MacDonald is not guilty of slaughtering his whole family. Go figure! It's just mind boggling!

[cami]

Originally posted by Bunny2


I haven't seen the show yet (no reception here) but from what I heard on the phone today from JTF and from reading the posts on the other boards, looks like except for a few new tidbits (like the black wool-pajama fiber admission) it's nothing more than the same old same old. So what else is new.

I'm still curious as to why CM says this was a motion about perjury. I thought that was strange when she first told me about it quite some time ago, but she insisted that was what it was about. So said to myself wait and see. Now I'm waiting, but I still don't see how this could be considered to be perjury. Can anyone fill me in?

Sorry bunny, I did miss parts of it. I am sure JTF will be on top of it, I expect he will be calling. Regardless, the motion is going nowhere. I can't download it from his site, that adope thing won't work so I am in the dark, I can't read the affidavit. I will try again later to download it.

I completely lost all respect for Dr. Wecht. I tried to get through to the show to challenge both Kathryn and him. How could a doctor sit up there and make those statements as he did. He's nothing but a paid you know what begins with a W.

Contrary to the show content, that jailhouse door ain't swinging open anytime soon.

[cami]

Originally posted by jednme
Um, yeah Kathryn...

Hey Cams, why doesn't Blackburn just line up behind MacDonald! Hey, put Kathryn in that line too. I would like for her to answer the question of just when it was that she first met MacDonald and whether or not she was "involved" with him as a teenager. I think that would be explosive new information that could break this case wide open. I think it goes to the state of MacDonald's grief at the time he first met her in the early 70's after having lost his entire family to such a brutal murder. She met him when she was a "kid". When, how, and to what degree did she "know" him? From someone who wants "all the truth" to come out, they sure keep those circumstances a mystery!

jednme

They sure do. Of course we know their truth is at odds with the real truth. Hey maybe she was that teenager he drove to California.

[byn63]

Originally posted by cami


They sure do. Of course we know their truth is at odds with the real truth. Hey maybe she was that teenager he drove to California.

now that would NOT surprise me a bit! I am with bunny, I don't see how if Blackburn DID threaten Helena with indictment on FD murder, that works out to perjury?! I must be missing something. Betcha Blackburn has absolutely no problems taking a polygraph unlike old Inmate 00131-177.

:lol:

[PrimeSuspect210]

Quite a few of the same old ad hominem attacks and even a couple of "new" ones hitting national airwaves, towards the MacDonald side of the fence.

Check it out. If it weren't so incredibly unsubstantiated, and didn't involve so-called justice, it would be funny, IMO.

Click here for LKL 12/14/05 transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/14/lkl.01.html)

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
SNIP

Don't waste your time or breath on Nomi. She also thinks that Darlie Routier is innocent in the deaths of her children. However, she does firmly believe that OJ is guilty in the murders of Nicole and Ron. But Jeffrey MacDonald is not guilty of slaughtering his whole family. Go figure! It's just mind boggling!
Well there ya go! I don't think OJ is guilty, (for the most part, I happen to believe as William C. Dear (http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00554.htm) does, and I have believed it and posted it on another message board a very, very, very long time before Mr. Dear's book was published.) so it looks to me like NG's don't all think alike as opposed to the G's (who, IMO, believe everyone accused of/tried for a crime is guilty).

Seriously -- is it necessary to personally attack other posters when debating your point?

[rashomon]

Dr MacDonald said he placed his pajama top on Colette in a vain attempt to keep her warm. The pajama top would then have become bloody. That's what I believe happened.

Murderer MacDonald placed his pajama top on Colette in a vain attempt to explain the massive amounts of her blood on his pj top, which had gotten there as he carried her from Kristen's room to the MB. That's what I know happened because the prosecution proved MacDonald's guilt to the jury beyond reasonable (and actually beyond any) doubt.

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by Bearclaw


who are you referring to? me? or Albert/Arthur?


Albert, or other's who refuse to ignore the facts. So much evidence against MacDonald, but Albert seems to think everyone was incompetent all the way done the line. IMO

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by Bearclaw


Who said the murderous rage was over the bed wetting? Maybe Colette confronted good ol'Mac about all of his affairs? Maybe she was upset about his recent trip out of town that could leave her without any help when she was due to give birth. How are we EVER going to know since Dr. Death keeps denying it ever took place.
But the woman who lived in the duplex NEXT to MacDonald and his family, HEARD arguing and yelling. I don't know about any of you, but to hear your neighbors yelling and arguing in the middle of the night, CAN'T be a good thing! Unless somebody won the lotto.


I wouldn't doubt if they were fighting about his affairs, and her pregnancy. Dr. Mac fit the profile right down to the tee regarding his behavior, he wanted out and snapped. Didn't take him long to move on either, nor did he grieve for the loss of his family. Yet another obvious sign to his guilt!

[byn63]

well, we are all supposed to believe that Artie isn't Bertie and of course, that neither is Airknocker/Lawjunkie and none of them ever posted at C&J. Well, too bad bertie boy - you posted some very telling post's awhile back on A&E that PROVED you had once been a poster there and had obviously been banned. You, of course, seem to want to believe it is because the board doesn't allow more than one opinion which is totally untrue. I guess the life of a flamebaiter is harder than we all thought.........

Ok everyone, lets have a moment of silent thoughts for bertie/artie/ramblin rose/AK/LJ whichever - his flamebaiting is harder than we give him credit for..........

Inmate 00131-177 couldn't or wouldn't keep "it" in his pants and that COULD have been the issue that finally set of his rage. Also, the fact that Kimberly was the one in the master bedroom, and all these years later Inmate still tries to claim it was Kristen, could show that ENURESIS was indeed the reason for the rage. All we know for sure, is that Inmate and Mrs. Inmate are trying a new tact to get back into court, and isn't it interesting that it happens in December - just when the DNA test results could be announced at any time?!?!?!?

[Bunny2]

I have never been banned from the Crime and Justice MacDonald forum because I've never posted there.

Yeah, right, Arthur/Lawjunkie/Airknocker and almost certainly Investigating. You really expect people to believe that as vocal and long-winded as you are, you wouldn't post on C&J, the major message board about the case? Give me a break. Nothing would keep you from posting there if you could. But you can't, because you've been banned. JMPO.

Helena Stoeckley was involved in that sort of thing. There isn't much doubt about that.

Stoeckley told Beaber: "I'm not a true believer in witchcraft at that time, I was hanging on by a small thread it was like taking a course in school. If I wanted the end results, I'd have to get into it, and I didn't like what was going on."

It's obvious to me that Blackburn threatened Helena Stoeckley at the time of the MacDonald trial in order that she kept her mouth shut about her guilt.

Actually it can't be "obvious" to you at all, "Arthur," since you weren't there. What we do know is that Segal threatened Helena, and that's a fact. I would have thought that was improper, and illegal. It's what is known in law as threatening witnesses.

Some of the remarks made by Kearns and Stevenson on the Larry King Live show yesterday I would describe as silly remarks.

No, actually they were right on the money. You must have been reading a different transcript than the rest of us.

It was grossly incompetent of the CID and FBI not to have photographed Dr MacDonald's wounds and injuries

It was grossly incompetent of MacDonald not to demand that photographs be taken of his few minor, superficial injuries. I guess he didn't want photos taken because he knew there was nothing much to photograph since Colette hadn't hurt him much while he was murdering her, and since he probably wouldn't have wanted that tiny little self-inflicted chest wound documented permanently in photos anyway.

Stevenson also said on TV : "Helena Stoeckley and her husband were coached as to what kind of testimony would be appropriate." That's completely untrue.

When you start learning the facts of the case, "Arthur," you'll see that of course it's true. No doubt whatsoever about it. Her statements were not only inconsistent with MacDonald's account and inconsistent with each other, but they were also inconsistent with physical evidence from the crime scene, and were obtained under false pretenses and duress.

AFIP have been painfully slow so far.

That was because the defense was delaying the DNA testing.

Kearns of the CID seems like a bit of a lunatic to me.

More flamebaiting from Arthur in Wonderland.

There is no evidence at all that Colette and Dr MacDonald ever had violent arguments about anything

Of course there is. You ought to read what Mrs. Kalin said. Apparently you missed it the first hundred times it was pointed out to you. There was an argument between Colette and MacDonald, and MacDonald decided to shut her up by smashing her head in. How wonderful to know that he was caught and convicted and that he will most likely never be free again.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

it looks to me like NG's don't all think alike as opposed to the G's (who, IMO, believe everyone accused of/tried for a crime is guilty).


Just my personal observations, but it seems to me that the posters who think MacD is guilty are far less guided by 'belief' than by factual documentation (evidence, trial transcripts), which in their opinion proved his guilt beyond any doubt.
Whereas with Mac supporters, it is always a matter of belief.

Example from Nomi's post:

I have no sympathy for the REAL killer...which I believe Dr MacDonald isn't.

They can't believe he's guilty because it probably would shatter their belief in many things and principles they hold dear.
That's why they cling so ferociously to the claim of his 'innocence'.

Such an approach to the MacD case (guided by blind belief) is entirely different from having come to the conclusion that he is guilty by the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to JMD as the killer.

[PrimeSuspect210]

Originally posted by rashomon


Just my personal observations, but it seems to me that the posters who think MacD is guilty are far less guided by 'belief' than by factual documentation (evidence, trial transcripts), which in their opinion proved his guilt beyond any doubt.
Whereas with Mac supporters, it is always a matter of belief.

<snip>
I believe we are all guided by our interpretation of the evidence and transcripts -- trial & Article 32 alike, in forming our opinions on this case. What is overwhelmingly apparent, is the fact that NG's not agreeing the G's is more often than not, sufficient cause for the G's to believe that the NG's don't know the same evidence/information, instead of seeing that they do know it, they just interpret it differently. Is that really such a difficult concept? Which brings me full circle to derogatory, insulting posts from G's to NG's simply because they don't interpret the evidence/information in the same manner as G's.

I believe the transcripts and correspondence/lab notes/results, etc which have so graciously been provided by the anti-MacDonald site, prove that he did not get a fair trial and IMO, anyone that thinks it proves he got a fair trial, is a few bricks short of a load. Of course, as I've posted before, I have nothing to gain or lose due to my belief in the lack of a fair trial and just because I believe the G's load is short, that does not make it true. Besides, if all the G's are so confident that the evidence points to guilt, what will a REAL trial with all the evidence and facts laid on the table once and for all, hurt?

BTW ... saw y'all's hero, Jim, on TV today at lunch. He looks tired and a little pale, IMO.

__________________

©2004, 2005 PrimeSuspect210 ... Tact has never been my strong point. (me)
Prosecutorial Misconduct is a CRIME even if you believe the defendant "did it."
"This is an adversary system. There can't be but so much love" ~ Judge Orlando Hudson

[byn63]

The facts show that Inmate 00131-177 is NOT entitled to another trial. The facts support that Inmate had a fair trial, it lasted 7 weeks, at which the prosecution introduced over 1,100 pieces of evidence with 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) and after which a jury of his peers took just over 6 hours to find him guilty x3 beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. Not only that but Inmate has been heard in the appellate courts and by the United States Supreme Court more than any murderer in U.S. Jurisprudence history. None of Inmate's appeals have been found to be of merit, and none of the appeals processes have found ANY judicial error for which a new trial should be given.

There is a legal principle here:

res judicata-Noun - Latin: meaning "the thing has been judged". In other words the issue has been decided between the Prosecution and Defense by another court.

And, Quoted from Appellate Decision 3/1/85:

456 U.S. at 165 Frady
Once a criminal defendant has been convicted and his chance to appeals has been waived OR EXHAUSTED, "[the public is] entitled to presume he stands fairly and finally convicted......."Id.

[Bunny2]

I don't know why Bunny persists in saying there was a violent argument heard by the Kalins on the night of the MacDonald murders.

Because the evidence showed it, "Arthur."

Not only was the evidence overwhelming against MacDonald, but testimony had been given that neither Colette nor MacDonald looked very happy after about January, and of course we have MacDonald admitting that he felt trapped in marriage, cheating constantly on Colette, and telling two different doctors that he felt relief that his family was gone. Not to mention being a possible child molester.

And of course Mrs. Kalin, the next-door neighbor, testified during the 1974 grand jury proceeding that in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970, "I came out of a deep sleep and heard Colette's voice...and it woke me up. The voice I heard was mad enough to kill." She was not able to distinguish the words, but said, "I got the gist of it, and I would swear on the Bible that it - that what - what it was like she was saying was, 'What do you think I'm going to be doing, while you are doing all of this? Do you think I am going to be standing here doing nothing? If you touch one hair of those children's head or my head, I'll kill you!'"

As it turned out, of course, Colette never got the chance to kill MacDonald, because he killed her first.

IMHO, Mac should have gotten three consecutive first-degree murder convictions. He got off easy.

[Bunny2]

I have read all the evidence, and I came to a differnt conclusion...that...MacDonald is innocent.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that up to 17 "intruders" were in the apartment with at least three of them wearing wigs and brushing their hair during the murders and that they spent hours upon hours removing every single bit of trace evidence of themselves and that at least three of them were carrying candles, some of which turned into birthday candles, and that one of them was wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top and then put the top back on Mac's body as he lay there in the hallway, and that at least three intruders -- along with the weapons -- were in two places at the same time. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Have you also read Grimm's Fairy Tales? If you haven't, you probably should, since it's a lot more believable than the ludicrous stories Mac told.

[cami]

I believe the transcripts and correspondence/lab notes/results, etc which have so graciously been provided by the anti-MacDonald site, prove that he did not get a fair trial and IMO, anyone that thinks it proves he got a fair trial, is a few bricks short of a load. Of course, as I've posted before, I have nothing to gain or lose due to my belief in the lack of a fair trial and just because I believe the G's load is short, that does not make it true. Besides, if all the G's are so confident that the evidence points to guilt, what will a REAL trial with all the evidence and facts laid on the table once and for all, hurt?

I for one don't think it will 'hurt' anything. I am quite interested again in why you believe he did not get a fair trial.

I am quite confident that if the prosecution took the evidence back into court that MacDonald would once again be convicted and receive the DP this time. There's no doubt he committed the crime.

[cami]

Originally posted by Bearclaw


"This is what CID investigator Grebner had to say"

SOOOO typical Albert! You GIVE your identity away so easily! Folks? This is soso typical of Albert Webb/Artie.....He is ALWAYS quoting somebody ELSE!

Rash? Bunny? It's ME! Twriterall! Don't ask.....I had a DEVIL of a time finding this forum, and then decided to go with this username. I probably should have used twriterall2, like you, Bunny2!:confused:

Oh it's you Tell. I was wondering who Bearclaw from aande was, LOL.

[Bunny2]

The intruder story makes sense...MacDonald doing it does not. Simple as that.

Actually, the fact is that absolutely nothing whatsoever fits together if one tries to believe what Mac said, but it fits together very, very well if one knows he is the murderer. The evidence was overwhelming and conclusive against him, and not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence ever supported his silly stories of "intruders." And of course to cap it off, he himself has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes. I know it's difficult for you to accept that, but I'm afraid that's the way it is.

[Bunny2]

...MacDonald knows he is innocent.

MacDonald has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes, so of course he could not possibly believe he's "innocent." It's only a charade, just like the one you put on every day for the readers here.

[Bunny2]

Hey, twriter/Bearclaw...nice to see you here, no matter which name you use!

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21


Maybe I am a hoot...but I don't give a hoot for the ridculous idea that Dr MacDonald did the dastardly crime.:lol:

LOL, I guess you believe the vampires did it then eh?

Ridiculous? He lived in the home, he had the violent temper, he was strung out on amphetemines, he was the serial adulterer, he wanted out of his marriage,

[Deb B]

Did anyone catch Kathryn's comment that McGuiness had signed a contract to tell the truth, he didn't and that's why he was sued? Sued by a pathalogical liar. Barf.

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald wasn't a serial adulterer. He may have had a few one night stands when he was away on military exercises. Does that deserve the death penalty?

Dr MacDonald is a very intelligent man. If he had wanted "out" of his marriage, as some internet posters suggest, he would have arranged a divorce. He must have known that killing his wife and kids was bound to lead to endless worry and anxiety and legal tangles and imprisonment. He never murdered his wife and kids.

The blood tests on Dr MacDonald after the MacDonald murders indicate no narcotics and just a minimum amount of alcohol. No tests seem to have been done for amphetamines for some reason. It could be that particular test wasn't technically possible in 1970.

From an article on the internet, 'Fatal Conviction', by Resa LaRu Kirkland :-

"Let's begin by pointing out that McGinniss was sued and forced to pay about $300,000 to Dr. MacDonald when he confessed in a court of law that he had lied in his book about MacDonald abusing amphetamines and killing his family in a drugged frenzy.

According to the book Fatal Justice - written by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost and released in 1995 methodically debunking the shame of MacDonald's case - McGinniss explained he "had introduced the diet pill theory as a dramatic device in his "new journalism" where the story is more important than the facts." Under fierce questioning, he also finally confessed, "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."

I'm not a great admirer of Dr Wecht because of some of the nonsense Wecht wrote about the JonBenet Ramsey case. However, in yesterday's Larry King Live MacDonald case TV show Wecht may have been correct when he said one of the murder weapons was never found.

Helena Stoeckley said scissors were used with other murder weapons found at the crime scene in the MacDonald murders. Helena said those scissors were taken away by the Stoeckley group from the crime scene.



Get a grip Bertie. He was having at least two possibly three affairs at the time of the murders. He entered into a sexual relationship with a secretary a few short months after he murdered Colette, Kim and Krissy. Yes they one night stands, but there's seven nights in a week, 30 in a month, 365 in a year.

Bertie of course he knew. He couldn't stop himself Bertie dear, those amphetemines made him lose complete control and before he knew it, Kim was dying on the bedroom floor. This wasn't a premeditated crime. Too late to arrange for a divorce regardless of how intelligent he is/was. He's just an old con now.

No, his blood wasn't screened for amphetemines because they were not a dangerous or controlled drug in 1970, they were widely prescribed. Regardless, he himself says he was taking amphetemines-Eskatrol. Just because his blood was screened doesn't mean he wasn't taking them.

Don't even start with the Civil case Bertie. You know the outcome. McGinniss was not forced to give MacDonald anything. The judge was about to declare a mistrial. Knowing that Mac needed money and knowing he would have kept him tied up in court for years, McGinniss offered to settle. Mac certainly jumped at that $300,000 pretty fast, he was asking for $15M.

Fatal Justice is a piece of trash. It's P&B's cut and paste show. Don't even bother to reference it, you know it's full of misrepresentations and outright lies.

Dr. Wecht just proved what a professional ***** he is by his appearance on LKL. He didn't even know his subject matter. You know and I know that piece of wood found outside the house was the club that killed Kim and Colette. His reputation was in the toilet on the Peterson case and now it's been flushed.

Helena Stockeley was no where near 544 Castle Drive when MacDonald was murdering Colette, Kim and Kris so her observations of scissors is false.

[cami]

Originally posted by Bearclaw


Who is aande? Oh lord....can't you tell that I am not a regular poster on message boards? :tongue: I am a moron when it comes to registering on them and I have NO idea what I picked. I hate questionaires.

:confused:

LOL!!!

Folks. This doesn't mean I know not of what I talk about.
(will probably get slam dunked for this post!) :no:

Oh stop, you mentioned in another post you missed the aande board. Don' t you miss 'Dougie, LOL? and Goody?

[cami]

Originally posted by Bearclaw
[
"Let's begin by pointing out that McGinniss was sued and forced to pay about $300,000 to Dr. MacDonald when he confessed in a court of law that he had lied in his book about MacDonald abusing amphetamines and killing his family in a drugged frenzy.

He wasn't forced ANYTHING! He paid MacDonald (not the sum YOU mentioned) to get rid of MacDonald and to get ON with his life!

If he had shelled out that kind of money, then why is MacDonald so broke and has to beg ppl to contribute to his defense fund? Why doesn't Kathryn work a few more jobs to add to this supposed $300,000 so that POOR Dr. Death MacDonald can receive a NEW trial since he's claimed he has had bad advice, bad attorneys, bad judges and EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET POOR LITTLE JEFFREY MACDONALD!

and ppl? He is NOT a doctor anymore! We tried explaining that to you, Albert, on the A & E boards! He was stripped of those rights when he was convicted of murder!

Mac ended up with $50,000. His lawyers took a bunch then the Kassabs sued him and won $75,000.

[hohum]

Did anyone hear the news today that someone came forward to say that Helena Stokley was at the MacDonald house the night of the murders and that Jim Blackburn was involved in keeping this quiet. I heard this second hand so if anyone can add to or correct anything I posted, please do.

[PROPROS]

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 agree!But, I hope he stays right where he is until he gets there!

[NY-EVE]

hello cami..........i been skiming around reading here.........and ran across the larry king live transcript........trying to keep an open mind.........but now this adds to my belief that he didnt do it

what are you going to do with me ???? lol

by the way ''HAPPY HOLIDAYS'' i would say merry CHRISTmas but,,,,,,,,but,,,,, well you understand i wouldnt want to afend anyone :seeya:

[byn63]

Originally posted by nomi21



:shrug: The intruder story makes sense. Dr MacDonald doing it does not. Simple as that.

Nothing simple about it. There is no evidence to back up the Inmate's story, which btw, he has continually altered over the years to attempt to explain away evidence. (unsuccessfully). There is overwhelming evidence that Inmate did it.

1) a grown man, in good fit condition couldn't get his hands unwound from a worn pj top?
2) a fit man, in good condition, couldn't get his feet untangled from a crochetted afghan?
3) a life and death struggle leaving none of his blood, pj fibers or splinters from the club in the room?
4) savage butchery of a pregnant woman and 2 little girls, and leave the strong good condition male with neglible wounds?
5) pj fiber found under the fingernail of 2 year old and 2 year old has several defensive wounds, yet big bad Inmate didn't have any?
6) none of Inmate's wounds required a single suture, while the rest of the family ended up in the morgue?

These things make sense to you? ghua, if that is really true.

At least have the courtesy to stop using Dr. in reference to Inmate 00131-177 - HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO USE THAT HONORIFIC AND IT INSULTS THE MEMORIES OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE, Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen.

:rose: Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen may you rest in peace knowing that the butcher that ended your life will remain in prison for the rest of his.

Originally posted by hohum
Did anyone hear the news today that someone came forward to say that Helena Stokley was at the MacDonald house the night of the murders and that Jim Blackburn was involved in keeping this quiet. I heard this second hand so if anyone can add to or correct anything I posted, please do. IIRC, Helena Stokeley was a drug addict, and schizophrenic. She was thoroughly questioned by LE, and found to be an unreliable witness. She would have been destroyed on the witness stand. She's deceased.

IMO

[caphill]

Originally posted by cami


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:



What about the hairs with the roots intact that were under the children's bloody nails. What about Janice Glisson of the CID lab putting in her notes that the hair did not match any taken from MacDonald. What about her notes stating that she would not put that info in her report. This was not put in the report and the jury never heard it. These notes were found by the investigators years after the trial.

The issue of the 22inch blond hair was the testimony that the material of the hair was not used in wigs at that time. Later it was found that Malone testimony about the hair was false and in deed wigs were made from that material.

Originally posted by cami


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: I agree. A new trial would only reinforce his guilt, imo.

I think he's snowing his wife, he knows what he did. What does he have to lose with a new trial? Maybe his wife, who seems to be all he's got.
IMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I saw his wife on LKL last night (I think that was the show) & something to that effect was mentioned. I find it odd that this guy waits 25 yrs to have this recollection. My gut reaction is the guy is now retired & wants his piece of the pie in terms of a book deal. Why is his conscience just now speaking to him? I just wanted to shake his wife & say "he's a murderer", get a grip. lol.

Purportedly the guy came forward because he wants to "clear his conscience." First thing that came to my mind is that he is terminally ill. That is just my thought though and was not on TV. I agree with you, why come forward now after so many years. Jim Blackburn is now a motivational speaker after losing his law license.

Originally posted by caphill




What about the hairs with the roots intact that were under the children's bloody nails. What about Janice Glisson of the CID lab putting in her notes that the hair did not match any taken from MacDonald. What about her notes stating that she would not put that info in her report. This was not put in the report and the jury never heard it. These notes were found by the investigators years after the trial.

The issue of the 22inch blond hair was the testimony that the material of the hair was not used in wigs at that time. Later it was found that Malone testimony about the hair was false and in deed wigs were made from that material. Where you getting this info?

IIRC, the "wig" hair was reported to have come from one of the children's dolls. Imo, it could also have come from Colette, who attended a class that evening, and undoubtedly occupied a seat used by someone else somewhere along the line. It's only one of many factors in this crime.

IMO

[bitzi]

Years ago, in Myrtle Beach, I met a man named Jim.I was a bartender and he was a customer for about 2 months. He had lots of $$$$ and spent it foolishly.........move to 8 years later, Im watching a special on Jim Macdonald and low and behold, there is that guy Jim. He was giving a interview to a newscaster. I didnt get to hear what he said.....move to now, Last week I went to internet site and emailed them about Jim, di they know him, if so how and how was he related to this case. I got a answer......He said that the night of the murders he called the Macdonald residence, by accident, and a hysterical woman answered the phone. So who was the woman, Helena?? Interesting, huh?

[rashomon]

Rash? Bunny? It's ME! Twriterall! Don't ask.....I had a DEVIL of a time finding this forum, and then decided to go with this username. I probably should have used twriterall2, like you, Bunny2!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH, it's you tellwriterall! I was just going through the list of regular posters on the MacD forum on A&E, wondering who 'Bearclaw' might be, lol!
Wow, Bearclaw is a great poster name for a true crime forum. As a kid, I often thought that bears are the most powerful animals because they can run, swim and climb.

And with all that bickering here, you might use your claws when needed.
Sadly, such bickering seems to be part of every true crime forum, but having had to stomach AlbertWebb and his clones for the past months has made me competely thick-skinned in that regard, lol!

I often think about your other fight and how you are doing.
I just know that you are truly a fighter, and a very strong person in many ways.
Always glad to hear from you!

Rash

[rashomon]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Besides, if all the G's are so confident that the evidence points to guilt, what will a REAL trial with all the evidence and facts laid on the table once and for all, hurt?

BTW ... saw y'all's hero, Jim, on TV today at lunch. He looks tired and a little pale, IMO.

__________________

©2004, 2005 PrimeSuspect210 ... Tact has never been my strong point. (me)
Prosecutorial Misconduct is a CRIME even if you believe the defendant "did it."
"This is an adversary system. There can't be but so much love" ~ Judge Orlando Hudson

BTW, ... saw the Mac camp's hero on the CBS 48 hours advertisement pic. He looked like a zombie. He has now finally gotten the face a triple murderer deserves, lol!.

And in terms of your other question- you asked what a new trial for Mac will hurt?

Lol, it will hurt MacDonald himself.
A poster on the A&E forum just asked the same question, and this was my reply to him:

"MacDonald has been screaming 'new trial' ever since he was incarcerated. They all scream "I deserve a new trial", don't they, all those guilty convicts. (And the vast majority of convicts are rightfully in jail).

But just for the sake of the discussion (disregarding the DNA tests for a moment, which will make this a moot question anyway): should Mac ever get a new trial (he won't of course), he would afterwards regret ever having wanted one.
For the prosecution would have a field day. Don't forget that they only used 60 per cent of what they had against Mac in terms of evidence. Murtagh said no problem to unearth the other stored evidence in case it should be needed.

And on what sand would a defense have to build their cardboard case! For they would merely have to offer:
- some silly Saran fibers in a house full of dolls because two little girls lived there.
- some silly wax drippings (one of them old and brittle) in a house where the residents lighted candles very often).
- stories about a silly floppy hat at a time when nearly every young woman owned one.
- the incoherent testimony (no recollection/differing versions of 'confessions'/recantations) of a drugged-out flake named Helena Stoeckley, whose different confessions not only contradicted each other, but also crucial parts of MacDonald's own intruder story. (e. g. "We talked to Dr. MacDonald for eight minutes"); Helena, whose fingerprints and hairs were found nowhere in the apartment.

Would you want to be MacDonald's defense lawyer with nothing but such flimsy stuff?

And how strong would the prosecution's evidence stand out against the other side's case:
The bedding, the pj top, the bloodspots, the fibers, everything would be used again.
And Murtagh would be Mac's nemesis once again. Murtagh has kept on his toes about the case all through the years - have you read his great written response re MacD's parole application? Every issue is addressed there.
Murtagh saw it coming that MacDonald would never keep his mouth shut because he can't accept his guilt.

To sum it up, the prosecution's case against MacD has always been so strong that theoretically, the 'Stoeckley Seven' could have thrown an 'Acid is Groovy' party at the MacD home on that night, and still the physical evidence would have pointed to no one else than JMD as the killer. That's what his supporters always forget when they focus on Helena."

[caphill]

Originally posted by Challenger2
IIRC, Helena Stokeley was a drug addict, and schizophrenic. She was thoroughly questioned by LE, and found to be an unreliable witness. She would have been destroyed on the witness stand. She's deceased.

IMO

When Stokeley was prepared to testify, she was in room talking with Blackburn. It is reported by a now retired US Marshall Brit who was also in the room with them that Blackburn threatened Stokeley if she testified she was at the murder scene he would indict her for 1st degree murder.

The US Marshall's swore statement has already been filed in a 1000 page motion with 4th Circuit Court that the lead prosecutor threatened the lead witness regarding her testimony.

I thought heard or read that 3-4 family members of Greg Mitchell also have sworn statements that he told them he had murdered this family before he died.

I just read there were 6 witnesses that were ready to testify that Stokeley had confessed to them of being in the house with Greg Mitchell and others. The judge would not allow their testimony because he believed Stokeley as an admitted drug addict to be unsable.

Hello..... this is the kind of crime that someone would need to be unsable and drug crazed to commit.

Read some her writings and signed statements where she describes the scene. She admits say she was in and out of a drug fog. Her different statements taken at different times shows her memory changes somewhat but she was consistent she was there but did not actually kill anyone herself.

[bettyboop]

Do you believe McDonald is guilty or innocent?

[cami]

Originally posted by Bearclaw


you mean A & E? Of course I've talked with Doug. As for Goody, if I figure out he was using all of us with an alias of "flywithme" then I want NOTHING to do with that person.

I honestly had no clue what you were talking about, Cami, so "oh stop" means nothing to me.

You know, just because all of you post on here doesn't mean I am so wise to these message boards as all of you seem to be. I remember on the Betty board that some poster mentioned this board and I had NO IDEA how to even get onto this forum.

When I read YOUR post about Albert being over here, and supplied a link, I then saw that this was the same board.

I know ALL computer software programs, but NOT so adept at message boards, my dear.

As for Nonni's post. MANY of these posters have spent YEARS of their life devoted to this murder case. It's true that they weren't there the night of the murders, but when you've researched as long and as hard as Bunny2, Rashomon, Cami, Jednme ,(and I wish Justthe facts would join us) have, they are the NEXT BEST THING TO BE ABLE TO POINT THE FINGER AND ACCUSE MacDonald!

Jeez, don't get your knickers in a knot. Are you not Tewriterall from aande? YOu said you were in another post, that's all I am referrring to. Lord didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. And Goody is not a he and she is not Flywithme, she's Goody. You need a thicker skin, LOL.

:beer:

[caphill]

Originally posted by bitzi
Years ago, in Myrtle Beach, I met a man named Jim.I was a bartender and he was a customer for about 2 months. He had lots of $$$$ and spent it foolishly.........move to 8 years later, Im watching a special on Jim Macdonald and low and behold, there is that guy Jim. He was giving a interview to a newscaster. I didnt get to hear what he said.....move to now, Last week I went to internet site and emailed them about Jim, di they know him, if so how and how was he related to this case. I got a answer......He said that the night of the murders he called the Macdonald residence, by accident, and a hysterical woman answered the phone. So who was the woman, Helena?? Interesting, huh?


Helena Stokeley has a written statement that while the chaos is going on around her with the four or five guys attacking and killing the family, the phone rings and she answers it. IIRC, she says she was giggling and told them it was wrong number. One of the guys tells her to hang up the phone.

She said she wiped the phone in the kitchen off with her sleeve. When the investigators arrived they were all over the house and were in the kitchen on the phone so that was the reason given for not having prints from the phone.

His story has been a matter of record since very early in this case.

[cami]

Originally posted by NY-EVE
hello cami..........i been skiming around reading here.........and ran across the larry king live transcript........trying to keep an open mind.........but now this adds to my belief that he didnt do it

what are you going to do with me ???? lol

by the way ''HAPPY HOLIDAYS'' i would say merry CHRISTmas but,,,,,,,,but,,,,, well you understand i wouldnt want to afend anyone :seeya:

LOl, yes NY, he's innocent because some US Marshall 28 years ago heard Helena tell Blackburn she was in the house that night, LOL. Yep new trial and he'll be set free on this explosive piece of evidence. Blackburn, Murtagh, Kassab, Malone, Stombaugh, all will be indicted for prosecutorial misconduct, perjury and just plain bad manners and thrown in prison cells throughout the US for the rest of their lives for what they did to the poor, innocent, doctor. Yep, it will be the trial of the century. I bet the President even grants him clemency if he should horror of horrors be convicted again.

Somebody shake Cami awake she's dreaming.


Merry Christmas to you NY. Here's my Christmas card for you and all the posters. I'll never stop saying Merry Christmas but Happy Holidays to those who are offended by it. Jeesh!

Click and Enjoy my Christmas Card to my CTV buddies (http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=0212320003)


:beer:

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is no evidence that Dr MacDonald was unable to control his temper as Cami says.

A good character reference for Dr MacDonald at the 1979 trial by Dr Paul Manson, a plastic surgeon :-

Q Did you have an opportunity at that time to reflect on the relationship that Jeff and Colette had had?
A Yes.
Q Is there any one word or maybe two words or three that you could use to describe the relationship that they had had together?
A It was a very good relationship. It was obvious to everyone, I think, that their relationship was based on love, respect, and openness toward each other. It was a kind of relationship that, if you could project that for yourself, for your own family, you would wish to have that kind of relationship or that kind of a family.
Q Did they ever argue in your presence?
A Not argue. They might occasionally have a difference of opinion, but Jeff was always very quick to express his--he wouldn't keep things inside--he would say things, and that was pretty much the--you know--they would resolve it.
Q Did you ever see at any time Jeff become violent with anyone?
A I can't recall that I did.
Q Have you ever seen Jeff lose his temper?
A No.
Q Have you observed Jeff in stressful situations?
A Yes.
Q What was he like in stressful situations?
A In episodes in medical school in surgery he was calm and collected. He, I think, controlled himself quite well. He is not a nervous or anxious person. He is a good competitor and we were involved in sports.

Albert, was Dr. Paul Manson in 544 Castle Drive on February 16- 17, 1970?

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Fred Kassab said that he and his wife Mildred Kassab used an ice pick at the MacDonald household at Christmas !969.

Frankly, I believe Kassab was lying or mistaken about that, or else he had been coached to say it by Kearns and Murtagh.

From CID man Bill Ivory in 1970 about the ice pick :-

QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:

Q Did Captain MacDonald ever say, according to your knowledge of the case, that this particular ice pick came from his house?
A To my knowledge, he said he never said that particular ice pick.
Q In your presence did he ever make a statement that he had an ice pick in the house?
A No, he did not.
Q Actually, when you interviewed Captain MacDonald on the 6th of April, he denied ever having an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.
Q He also denied ever telling anyone else that he had an ice pick, isn't that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is one of the points you and Mr. Shaw and Mr. Grebner questioned him about, whether in fact he had an ice pick or ever said he had an ice pick, is that correct?
A (Affirmative nod.)
Q And he emphatically denied it at that time?
A Yes.
Q Is there anyone else who has told you or anybody in the Criminal Investigation Division, that he did have an ice pick in the house?
A I am not thoroughly familiar with these interviews with the babysitter; she may have said it or may not.
Q But to your knowledge, at this time, you cannot report anyone who did say that he did?
A (Shakes head negatively.)

why aren't you posting Mrs. Kassabs testimony on the ice pick instead of Ivory's. You mention the Kassabs and then offer Ivory's testimony as some sort of proof. We all can see your method of trying to blow smoke. You've learned it very well from your heros--Inmate and Mrs. Inmate. What's this testimony supposed to prove anyway? Everyone knows MacDonald is a pathological liar.

[JuneinJuly]

Hello Cami,

Merry Christmas! and thank you for the card!

(I read all the posts here. I am impressed with the knowledge of this case that some posters have. I admire the patience you have to keep trying to explain to "Arthur".

June

[bitzi]

Did Mr. Friar testify?

[Bunny2]

That isn't evidence from Byn. There is no evidence against Dr MacDonald.

Boy, are you behind the times, "Arthur"! Allow me to fill you in on what you seem to have missed. There was a trial in 1979, and at the trial there was so much evidence against MacDonald, so much that showed conclusively and beyond any reasonable doubt that he murdered his family and that there never were any "intruders" at all, that the jury returned their verdicts in only a mere six hours or so. Not only did the physical and negative evidence convict him, but entwined with that was the inescapable fact that he repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his guilt in the crimes. In the years since the trial the appeals courts have continued to uphold the jury's verdicts, and as a result of the fact that MacDonald murdered his family, he will likely remain in prison for the rest of his life.

[byn63]

artie/bertie - you must be in the round room looking for the quarter in the corner. Otherwise, why would you post such an INCORRECT and inane statement AGAIN?

There is OVERWHELMING AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE AGAINST Inmate 000131-177. Only about 60% of which was used by the prosecution in his 1979 Trial that lasted 7 weeks. A jury of his peers listened to ALL the testimony, including the presentation of over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence and 28 witnessess (both lay and expert) by the prosecution. The jury deliberated just over 6 hours and returned with a verdict of Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.

Evidence against Inmate includes:
1) pj yarns and threads UNDER Colette's body.
2) Colette's blood on pj top PRIOR to it being torn.
3) pj yarns and threads UNDER THE COVERS of Kimmie's bed.
4) blood soaked yarn from pj UNDER the fingernail of Kristen.
5) Type AB blood and brain serum in Masterbedroom.
6) Type A blood in Kristen's room.
7) Children tucked in bed.
8) Colette moved from Kristen's room back to Masterbedroom.
9) Inmate's bloody footprints EXITING Kristen's room.
10) No Type B blood, no yarns or threads from pj top, no splinters from murder club FOUND IN THE LIVING ROOM, where Inmate alleges he had a life and death struggle.
11) No evidence of any intruders.
12) Blood trail in house tells the story.
13) Insistence on claiming Kristen' peed the bed even though it had to have been kimberly (testing showed Antigen A which Kristen's type O blood doesn't contain).

These are only the tip of the iceburg. You cannot explain away the evidence or claim it doesn't exist. The rug is gonna be yanked out from under his feet soon - yet, he will try some other crazy manner of getting people to throw common sense, logic, physical evidence and documented proof out the window and believe him "factually innocent" just because he says so. He is so guilty and actually scrubbing toilets at FCI Cumberland is much too good for him!

[Bunny2]

Re: the ice pick:

MacDonald claimed no knowledge of the ice pick used in the murders and denied that it came from his house. The babysitter claims she did use the icepick to aid in removing popsicles and other treats from the freezer, for the children. Lt. Harrison, Jeffrey MacDonald's best friend, stated that during a Thanksgiving visit, MacDonald asked, "Where's the icepick?" and that MacDonald even attempted to look for it in an outside storage shed. Mildred Kassab (Colette's mother) saw an icepick in the apartment and used it during their Christmas 1969 visit. CID agent William Ivory reported on Dec. 17, 1971, that "Jeffrey MacDonald, when initially interviewed by a CID and an FBI agent, stated that he had an icepick in the house..." 17 years after the murders, another icepick was found (as well as more needles), and 25 years after the murders, yet another icepick was found in the woodwell near the back door.

A very interesting additional note is that some years ago it seems that MacDonald said something to the effect that investigators ought to have looked in the woodwell more thoroughly. As I recall from talking to CM, he either said they might be surprised at what they found there, or he referred directly to an icepick being there. If I'm not mistaken, I believe this incident was also backed up by Lucia Bartoli, who was a defense investigator.

[rashomon]

A very interesting additional note is that some years ago it seems that MacDonald said something to the effect that investigators ought to have looked in the woodwell more thoroughly. As I recall from talking to CM, he either said they might be surprised at what they found there, or he referred directly to an icepick being there. If I'm not mistaken, I believe this incident was also backed up by Lucia Bartoli, who was a defense investigator.

Bunny, do you happen to know when exactly MacDonald made this statement? For if he made it before the icepick(s) were found - wow!
17 years after the murders, this would be in 1987, and 25 years after the murders, this would be in 1995.
Do you know when Bartoli got involved with MacDonald?
For if she she was an eye-witness to that statement of his, we could compare the time frame to the actual date when the additional ice-pick(s) were found.

[Bunny2]

As far as I'm concerned unless Bunny has any evidence to support that statement then it's a big fat lie.

I don't need to defend my statement at all. As far as I'm concerned, unless you have any conclusive evidence to support the idea of "intruders" -- which you don't have and never have had -- then what you say is a big fat lie.

Mildred Kassab ought never to have testified in court that there was an ice pick in the MacDonald household when nobody else who had been in the MacDonald household could find an ice pick. I agree there may have been an ice pick in the MacDonald household at one time. Dr MacDonald didn't know where it was, and neither did anybody else except, miraculously, the Kassabs.

Go reread the documents in the case again, "Arthur." As usual, your ignorance of the facts is sadly lacking. Not only did others see the icepick, but the official reports indicate that MacDonald himself said he had one. And of course the icepick MacDonald used to stab his family to death was found outside.

To my mind it's what is known as perjury, or perverting the course of justice, and is punishable in this country by a term of imprisonment.

And that is, in essence, exactly what happened. MacDonald's lies under oath helped to convict him, and he was indeed sentenced to life in prison.

There is no evidence at all that Kim peed on Colette's bed

You need to acquaint yourself with the facts, "Arthur." As it is, you know so little about the facts and what they mean that you're embarrassing yourself by your ignorance. The facts are consistent with Kimberly's urine being in the bed, and MacDonald's story of Kristen wetting the bed seems to be false.

The fibers under the bodies prove nothing

They prove that MacDonald murdered his family, Albie. Perhaps you ought to consider taking a course in forensics, since you seem to be incapable of understanding the simple fact that the incriminating fibers found in the house were matched to MacDonald's pajamas, and that their existence in the places they were found (and not found) showed that MacDonald's accounts of the night of the murders were false.

Stombaugh's bloodstain theory that the pajama top was stained before the pajama was ripped is a red herring. Glisson of the CID lab was in disagreement with Stombaugh about that.

Wherever did you get that silly idea? Go back and reread the facts, please, since you still seem to be unable to grasp the FACT that Colette's blood was on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn.

There needs to be some good judges on the MacDonald case.

There were. Not only was Dupree shown to have conducted the trial impeccably and without error, but the appeals courts judges who reviewed the case also seem to have conducted themselves impeccably, since I've never seen anything to the contrary.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by rashomon


Bunny, do you happen to know when exactly MacDonald made this statement? For if he made it before the icepick(s) were found - wow!
17 years after the murders, this would be in 1987, and 25 years after the murders, this would be in 1995.
Do you know when Bartoli got involved with MacDonald?
For if she she was an eye-witness to that statement of his, we could compare the time frame to the actual date when the additional ice-pick(s) were found.

Rash, sorry, this is all I know about it. I may be wrong, but I do believe that JTF told me that he heard this from Lucia also. Since he's not here, maybe you can bring it up on one of the "other boards" and see what he says.

[byn63]

Artie you are laughable!

Judge Murnaghan was an appellate Judge so if either Judge "overruled" the other it would have been Judge Murnaghan that Overturned Judge Dupree not the other way around.

There is FORENSIC evidence that Kimmie peed on the Masterbed. The stain was tested by CID and Antigen A was found. Kristen had Type O bloody so her blood contained Antigen H and Anti A and AntiB antibodies. Kimberly had type AB blood which contained Antigen A and Antigen B with NO antibodies. The only other member of the household who could have made the stain was Colette (Type A) and there was no evidence that she had wet herself and there was evidence that Kimmie had wet herself. You of course, have been told this before, and your constantly reverting back to it WAS KRISTEN a la Inmate doesn't make it any more true than the first 200 times.

Mildred Kassab was perfectly within her rights to testify at trial about using the ice pick during times when she stayed with her daughter. Even Inmate's buddy Ron Harrison testified that Inmate had an ice pick. Most households did!

The yarns and threads that were positively identified as being part of Inmate's torn and bloody pj top certainly do mean something. One, it means that the fight took place in the masterbedroom. Two, it means that Inmate was still wearing it when he carried Kimmie back to bed and tucked her in to die. Three, it means he was still wearing it when he viciously, coldly and calculatingly slaughtered his two year old daughter. Four, the yarns and threads show that Inmate is a lying narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer. Five, it shows that Inmate 00131-177 has shown consciousness of guilt.

There is no other RATIONAL explanation and you know it. He bludgeoned and stabbed his family in a most vicious and brutally savage manner. He coldly and calculatedly used a disposable scalpel and created his one serious wound. He didn't even have the humanity to mourn his family - but ate hardily and happily only hours later while everyone else were locked in refrigerated compartments.

[cami]

Originally posted by byn63
Artie you are laughable!

Judge Murnaghan was an appellate Judge so if either Judge "overruled" the other it would have been Judge Murnaghan that Overturned Judge Dupree not the other way around.

There is FORENSIC evidence that Kimmie peed on the Masterbed. The stain was tested by CID and Antigen A was found. Kristen had Type O bloody so her blood contained Antigen H and Anti A and AntiB antibodies. Kimberly had type AB blood which contained Antigen A and Antigen B with NO antibodies. The only other member of the household who could have made the stain was Colette (Type A) and there was no evidence that she had wet herself and there was evidence that Kimmie had wet herself. You of course, have been told this before, and your constantly reverting back to it WAS KRISTEN a la Inmate doesn't make it any more true than the first 200 times.

ildred Kassab was perfectly within her rights to testify at trial about using the ice pick during times when she stayed with her daughter. Even Inmate's buddy Ron Harrison testified that Inmate had an ice pick. Most households did!

The yarns and threads that were positively identified as being part of Inmate's torn and bloody pj top certainly do mean something. One, it means that the fight took place in the masterbedroom. Two, it means that Inmate was still wearing it when he carried Kimmie back to bed and tucked her in to die. Three, it means he was still wearing it when he viciously, coldly and calculatingly slaughtered his two year old daughter. Four, the yarns and threads show that Inmate is a lying narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer. Five, it shows that Inmate 00131-177 has shown consciousness of guilt.

There is no other RATIONAL explanation and you know it. He bludgeoned and stabbed his family in a most vicious and brutally savage manner. He coldly and calculatedly used a disposable scalpel and created his one serious wound. He didn't even have the humanity to mourn his family - but ate hardily and happily only hours later while everyone else were locked in refrigerated compartments. :


Have a good weekend everybody, these boards will be closed.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bitzi
Did Mr. Friar testify?


I don't know. I just recall from a long time ago that there was a wrong number call that came in. I read from the statements from Stokeley that she answered the phone in the middle of the killings.

You probably know more than I do about that.

Did he tell you that he had contacted the authorities about his wrong number?

That's pretty important evidence that there was someone else in that house at the time of the murders.

[byn63]

Artie/Bertie -

Mildred testified that NOT ONLY HAD SHE SEEN an ice pick in her daughter's house, but that she HAD USED THE ICE PICK. There is absolutely no reason to assume she is lying. Especially, since the babysitter, and Inmate both stated they had an ice pick, and Ron Harrison stated that Inmate SAID he had one but couldn't find it on that particular occasion. It wouldn't be difficult to see how an icepick could be temporarily misplaced during a move such as the one that Colette and the girls did - from Long Island to North Carolina.

In the meantime, Mildred said she used the ice pick at christmas when she was there, just two months before Inmate brutally and savagely slaughtered his entire family.

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald wasn't a serial adulterer. He may have had a few one night stands when he was away on military exercises. Does that deserve the death penalty?

Dr MacDonald is a very intelligent man. If he had wanted "out" of his marriage, as some internet posters suggest, he would have arranged a divorce. He must have known that killing his wife and kids was bound to lead to endless worry and anxiety and legal tangles and imprisonment. He never murdered his wife and kids.

The blood tests on Dr MacDonald after the MacDonald murders indicate no narcotics and just a minimum amount of alcohol. No tests seem to have been done for amphetamines for some reason. It could be that particular test wasn't technically possible in 1970.

From an article on the internet, 'Fatal Conviction', by Resa LaRu Kirkland :-

"Let's begin by pointing out that McGinniss was sued and forced to pay about $300,000 to Dr. MacDonald when he confessed in a court of law that he had lied in his book about MacDonald abusing amphetamines and killing his family in a drugged frenzy.

According to the book Fatal Justice - written by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost and released in 1995 methodically debunking the shame of MacDonald's case - McGinniss explained he "had introduced the diet pill theory as a dramatic device in his "new journalism" where the story is more important than the facts." Under fierce questioning, he also finally confessed, "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."

I'm not a great admirer of Dr Wecht because of some of the nonsense Wecht wrote about the JonBenet Ramsey case. However, in yesterday's Larry King Live MacDonald case TV show Wecht may have been correct when he said one of the murder weapons was never found.

Helena Stoeckley said scissors were used with other murder weapons found at the crime scene in the MacDonald murders. Helena said those scissors were taken away by the Stoeckley group from the crime scene.


People said the same about S Peterson, he only had to ask for a divorce. He was also somewhat intelligient, which these crimes are never about. They usually begin with a fight which escalates, and typically the woman is pregnant, and many time affairs are part of the equation. Peterson didn't have any known anger problems nor did Mac, probably only the spouses and kids were privy to their rages. Mac had all the markings of a sociopath, lack of remorse, and over inflated sense of self. That combined with all the evidence leaves little doubt as to his guilt.

[bitzi]

At the time i met Jim friar, i didnt know about his relationship with this case. And yes, i agree, this is awesome evidence.But this couldnt have been overlooked years ago or should I say it shouldn have been. I really hate that Helena is deceased.

[Bunny2]

Mac had all the markings of a sociopath, lack of remorse, and over inflated sense of self. That combined with all the evidence leaves little doubt as to his guilt.

And the jury found no doubt at all about it. Good post, cruisemamma - keep 'em coming!

[caphill]

Originally posted by bitzi
At the time i met Jim friar, i didnt know about his relationship with this case. And yes, i agree, this is awesome evidence.But this couldnt have been overlooked years ago or should I say it shouldn have been. I really hate that Helena is deceased.

She and Greg Mitchell are bothgone. There is a boat load of statements she made and signed. There is also a lie detector she took. Of course that means about nothing.

I thought some DNA results were due some time this months. After a battle a judge allowed select DNA testing 8 years ago. I can't understand why or how the Government got away with delaying these tests until this year.

[hohum]

Originally posted by bitzi
At the time i met Jim friar, i didnt know about his relationship with this case. And yes, i agree, this is awesome evidence.But this couldnt have been overlooked years ago or should I say it shouldn have been. I really hate that Helena is deceased.

I suppose even though Helena was a heavy drug user, she might still have accurately remembered some things if she were in the MacDonald house that night. Even if she had cleaned herself up in later years and was still alive, she was still high the night of the murders, right? Meaning her testimony would not be reliable about that night. Is there anyone still alive with info who could testify in court about Helena or any of those people?

[byn63]

Originally posted by nomi21



:rolleyes: Are you a psychiatrist or psychologist? I wondered since you seem so sure you know all about Dr MacDonald's mental and psychological state. I don't believe everything I read, hear, or even see. It is quite easy to be wrong. Even experts are sometimes wrong. In this case, I do believe the evidence and it all points to an intruder.

Well, even if not - Drs. Brussells and Silverman were well qualified and highly respected Psychiatrist/Psychologist (respectively) and after interviewing Inmate and completing a battery of psychodiagnostic testing they determined that he was sociopath.

Actually, I posted the summary of their report earlier on this thread. But in essence the Drs. said Inmate was a sociopath with a troubling psychopathy. Also, they stated he is a narcissist with a histrionic personality disorder.

btw - Inmate did have a history of outbursts that at a minimum would be classified as Angry and some probably qualified as RAGE. He hit Colette at least once during their dating years and he got into fist fights frequently. This is not the behavior of someone who DOESN'T have anger issues. During his years of freedom in CA, he was reported as having lost control and pulverized people on opposing teams in the adult sports leagues he played in and crushing a boy's head between his boat and the dock is not exactly what one could call RATIONAL behavior. It is all documented.

[Bunny2]

There is no evidence at all that [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] was unable to control his temper.

You must've missed all of the following somehow, "Arthur."

During a fight with his brother, Jay, MacDonald had once "almost killed" Jay.

During a sporting match it was reported that he flew into an uncontrollable violent rage against another player, and had to be physically pulled away by others because he kept beating the man even after he was down.

June Reich, a friend of Colette's said that once when they were dating each other, she witnessed an incident when MacDonald had hit Colette.

During a visit with a female friend and her child in which they were boating, he became so enraged at the boy that he threatened to crush the child's skull against the dock, and ended up throwing him into the water.

He told Woerheide during his grand jury testimony that at the Shortstop bar, he initiated a fight with someone he believed to be selling drugs to his brother Jay. He told the grand jury that "...the words got a little heated and I pushed him and he pushed me and I hit him."

MacDonald was obviously familiar with fighting behavior, since when Woerheide questioned him at the grand jury, he asked Woerheide whether he wanted MacDonald to recount "every little fist- fight."

And of course in 1979 it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that MacDonald murdered Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

[Lobsters]

Originally posted by caphill


She and Greg Mitchell are bothgone. There is a boat load of statements she made and signed. There is also a lie detector she took. Of course that means about nothing.

I thought some DNA results were due some time this months. After a battle a judge allowed select DNA testing 8 years ago. I can't understand why or how the Government got away with delaying these tests until this year.

For the record, the DNA testing for this case is being done at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

The DNA testing didn't actually begin until right before Sept 11th. Thus, when the Pentagon was attacked, the AFIP had quite a few other things to do than do Mac's DNA testing (they were heavily involved in identifying the Pentagon casualties)

Also since then, we've started and engaged in a war that has cost many soldiers their lives. AFIP is, I'm certain, invovled in identifing and doing forensic work on the dead.

Sometimes there are just more important things going on than Mac's DNA testing...KWIM?

Originally posted by bitzi
At the time i met Jim friar, i didnt know about his relationship with this case. And yes, i agree, this is awesome evidence.But this couldnt have been overlooked years ago or should I say it shouldn have been. I really hate that Helena is deceased. IIRC, she was diagnosed Schizophrenic, or mentally ill, at the very least. Her brain was fried, imo. I recall reading that she was interviewed several times, by LE. Her statements were inconsistent.

Also, as I recall, the military investigated the immediate scene, LE stepped in later.

I don't recall anything about a phone call to the house while the crime was committed, or shortly after.

Mac's wife's father believed in him at first, but changed his mind after he finally got a transcript of the testimony in court, and found that M. was lying to him.

IMO

Originally posted by caphill



I don't know. I just recall from a long time ago that there was a wrong number call that came in. I read from the statements from Stokeley that she answered the phone in the middle of the killings.

You probably know more than I do about that.

Did he tell you that he had contacted the authorities about his wrong number?

That's pretty important evidence that there was someone else in that house at the time of the murders. How would he know the wrong number was to that house? :confused:

How would he know it was HS?

I think someone is fibbing. IMO

[Bunny2]

[The murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] was a tough army doctor. He wasn't like the pansies who work for British television who proudly proclaim same sex marriages in Northern Ireland.

What in the world does British television or Northern Ireland have to do with the MacDonald case?

...MacDonald wouldn't be a sentimental softhead if ever he had to deal with a cheeky kid who was misbehaving.

"Cheeky." I have to laugh. Sorry, "Arthur," it's way, way too late for you to try to recover and make everyone think you're British. You were already exposed as a fraud on A&E, and we all know you're no more British than MacDonald is.

There is no evidence against him.

Of course there was evidence against him. Mountains of it. So much of it that the jury returned its verdicts in a mere six hours or so. And not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence ever surfaced to support his silly stories of "intruders."

This was some of the nonsense being discussed at the MacDonald Grand Jury in 1974/1975.

The grand jurors returned an indictment, Albie, and no one here is going to buy your nonsense that all of the grand jurors plus Woerheide were brainless.

What Dr Thornton thought...

What Dr. Thornton thought was that the prosecution was correct in saying that the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet. That was some of the most damaging testimony to come out at trial, and Mac never recovered from it. How lovely that the jury found him guilty, guilty, guilty. Justice was truly well-served in this case.

I would like to speculate about the murder club weapon.

No need to speculate, "Arthur." The murder weapon not only had MacDonald's pajama fibers on it but it also had Mrs. Kane's phone number written on it. You can find more facts about this and the other weapons by reading the documents online at Christina's website.

[Frier] thought the [unsourced] murder weapon fibers were "forensically insignificant"

And how right he was. It's common knowledge among forensic experts, Albie, and since you've had months now to do the research and see for yourself that this is true, it's funny that you would still be hanging on to the ridiculous notion that unsourced items -- which are common to every household -- are so hugely significant, yet the sourced fibers mean nothing whatsoever to you. Don't you ever get tired of being a fraud?

Speaking of Frier, since you are so 100% certain that unsourced items are so very, very forensically significant, tell us all about those pink fibers and that black dog hair with root intact that Frier found, Albie. I've asked you about this several times, but for some reason you seem completely unable to come up with any answers. Which of your mythical "intruders" was wearing pink and brought his dog with him to the murder scene?

[byn63]

excellent post bunny! I had forgotten that ol ramblin rosie had not answered the question about dog hairs and pink fibers. he surely has had enough time by NOW to answer?

Bertie - please, answer bunny's question! we await your "vision" with baited breath!(ok, I'm not really holding my breath, I was being sarcastic!):punch:

[hohum]

Originally posted by Challenger2
IIRC, she was diagnosed Schizophrenic, or mentally ill, at the very least. Her brain was fried, imo. I recall reading that she was interviewed several times, by LE. Her statements were inconsistent.

Also, as I recall, the military investigated the immediate scene, LE stepped in later.

I don't recall anything about a phone call to the house while the crime was committed, or shortly after.

Mac's wife's father believed in him at first, but changed his mind after he finally got a transcript of the testimony in court, and found that M. was lying to him.

IMO

Was the lie about having an affair?

[byn63]

the pj cuff impression on the blue bedsheet is INCREDIBLY DAMAGING to Inmate 00131-177, especially since he denies having touched that sheet and bedspread. Not to mention the fact that it was not just the cuff, but the torn sleeve, and the piping of the pjs that were visible, and the imprint of a bare shoulder. Since Colette's bloody pj sleeve(s) (back of) are also found on that sheet we can state that Inmate 00131-177 used that sheet to carry her from Kristen's room, back to the masterbedroom. That sheet is incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that Inmate is the killer, because drugged out hippies would have left the bodies where they fell, not transported them from room to room.

But, then, you've known that for some time ramblinrosie - and you still didn't really answer bunny2's question.

[Bunny2]

MacDonald said at the Grand Jury in 1974/5 that he didn't carry Colette anywhere...The brushing pajama cuff proves nothing at all.

The "brushing"? Sorry, Albie, but the imprints of both MacDonald's left and right pajama cuffs on the sheet weren't made by "brushing." They were made when he picked Colette up and carried her in the sheet. Your theories that the imprints may have gotten there in some other manner are pure speculation without facts to back them up.

The only evidence the CID has come up with to support it is the...theories of Dr Brussel and Dr Silverman...

Again you're wrong. This certainly wasn't the only evidence against MacDonald, was it? Why would you post such an asinine remark when you know it's false?

Dr Brussel and Dr Silverman in New York who made the profound remark that "hippies wouldn't move bodies."

Gee, Albie, you don't know much about this case at all, do you? Silverman never said anything about hippies moving bodies. Wherever did you get such an idea? As for the fact itself -- that hippies wouldn't move dead bodies -- MacDonald himself agreed with that. So how do you explain that one, fraud?

...MacDonald never said he was attacked by hippies anyway.

Sure he did, over and over and over and over and over and over again. He used the word "hippies" when describing things to Tevere, to the hospital orderly, to medical corpsman Henninger, to his best friend Ron Harrison, to the FBI, and to Dr. Sadoff. Do you plan to start learning about this case anytime soon, Albie?

They should talk to Dr Thornton about it

Dr. Thornton agreed with the prosecution that the imprints of Jeffrey MacDonald's bloody pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet. Incredibly damaging evidence. Too bad you can't change that, isn't it, "Arthur"?

[Bunny2]

Just so that readers are not left with "Arthur's" cut and paste job about the bare shoulder and some other imprints, here's what Stombaugh said about it:

Grand jury:

"I call your attention, now, to this one, and it’s a strange stain, but it was made in blood, and it comes down, comes out this way, and down and straight across. It tears down, then off and then it trails on off again, and stops right about there.
"In examining this and comparing this stain with this blue pajama top, I was able to conclude that this stain was made by the torn left sleeve of this blue pajama top.
"Now, if you look a little further, right up above this stain, you can make out the outline in blood of the bare shoulder of a human being, including the clavicle, these bones in his neck, as well as the outline of his chin.
"Now, down here is a hand impression made by a hand that was very bloody. We have another one right here, one is a right hand. One is a left hand.
"Now, on the reverse side of this sheet, this stain right here was made by the right sleeve of this pajama top, and this is another stain made by the cuff area of that same right sleeve. We were able to match these up, and say it came from this, because of the configuration of this blood stain on it."

And at trial, in a nutshell:

Q Finally, sir, let me hand you Government Exhibit 824 and ask you whether or not you can identify that.
A Yes, sir; this is the top portion of the area designated "E." It conforms to a left bare shoulder.

How interesting, isn't it, Albie, that it did appear that this imprint conformed to a bare left shoulder, and MacDonald's pajama top just happened to be torn in a way that would have resulted in his left shoulder being bare. And also how interesting are the other imprints on the sheet, which you would just love to dismiss as "speculation."

Which "intruder" was wearing MacDonald's torn, bloody pajama top when carrying Colette in the master bedroom sheet?

The jury, of course, did not seem to find that this was all "speculation," did they, Albie? No, indeed. They used their minds and brains and because the evidence against MacDonald was so incredibly overwhelming and because there was not a single thing which conclusively corroborated his silly stories of "intruders," and because MacDonald had repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt, they determined, very rightly, that MacDonald was guilty of the triple murders of his wife Colette and his two little daughters, Kimberly and Kristen.

[Bunny2]

"Arthur," I asked you (for about the fourth time): "Speaking of Frier, since you are so 100% certain that unsourced items are so very, very forensically significant, tell us all about those pink fibers and that black dog hair with root intact that Frier found, Albie. I've asked you about this several times, but for some reason you seem completely unable to come up with any answers. Which of your mythical 'intruders' was wearing pink and brought his dog with him to the murder scene?"

Your non-answer was "The pink blanket and black dog hair were found by Frier of the FBI lab with regard to Kristen's room." What's the matter, Albie? Why can't you answer the question?

You claim repeatedly that contrary to all forensic knowledge, unsourced items are incredibly significant. So tell us which intruder they came from, and show your sources, please.

[Bunny2]

I don't have the background information to this Colonel Kane phone number supposedly on the murder weapon business and Bunny saying the CID took a statement from Colonel Kane's wife saying she received a mystery phone call from an unidentified voice at the time of the MacDonald murders.

Maybe you claim not to have the background information because you're a fraud, eh, Albie? I think so.

In any event, here's a little more info for you about Mrs. Kane's phone number being written on the club. The club was of course examined very closely, and "The examination also revealed a series of numbers written on the club in pencil which appear to represent a telephone number '842-5386'."

Pretty interesting that this apparently turned out to be Mrs. Kane's number, isn't it, Albie? Very interesting that she did confirm that she received a phone call from a male at about 3:00-3:30 a.m., and that she apparently did have a conversation with him but claims that she couldn't remember his name or what they talked about due to her "sleepy state." Obviously, the evidence does seem to show that MacDonald did call her. Of course, that would mean nothing to you, since you've shown that you haven't the faintest idea how to evaluate even the most simple bits of evidence, much less more complicated ones like a phone number being written on a murder weapon.

[Bunny2]

I can't believe...MacDonald did it after a character reference like this from...MacDonald's commanding officer Colonel Kingston at the article 32 investigation in 1970

You're joking, of course, pretending to disregard all that incredibly overwhelming evidence against MacDonald and instead deny he did it merely because of a character reference? Puh-leez.

You get more absurd with every post, Albie. One of these days maybe you'll grow up. I have my doubts, but one can always hope.

[cami]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Just so that readers are not left with "Arthur's" cut and paste job about the bare shoulder and some other imprints, here's what Stombaugh said about it:

Grand jury:

"I call your attention, now, to this one, and it’s a strange stain, but it was made in blood, and it comes down, comes out this way, and down and straight across. It tears down, then off and then it trails on off again, and stops right about there.
"In examining this and comparing this stain with this blue pajama top, I was able to conclude that this stain was made by the torn left sleeve of this blue pajama top.
"Now, if you look a little further, right up above this stain, you can make out the outline in blood of the bare shoulder of a human being, including the clavicle, these bones in his neck, as well as the outline of his chin.
"Now, down here is a hand impression made by a hand that was very bloody. We have another one right here, one is a right hand. One is a left hand.
"Now, on the reverse side of this sheet, this stain right here was made by the right sleeve of this pajama top, and this is another stain made by the cuff area of that same right sleeve. We were able to match these up, and say it came from this, because of the configuration of this blood stain on it."

And at trial, in a nutshell:

Q Finally, sir, let me hand you Government Exhibit 824 and ask you whether or not you can identify that.
A Yes, sir; this is the top portion of the area designated "E." It conforms to a left bare shoulder.

How interesting, isn't it, Albie, that it did appear that this imprint conformed to a bare left shoulder, and MacDonald's pajama top just happened to be torn in a way that would have resulted in his left shoulder being bare. And also how interesting are the other imprints on the sheet, which you would just love to dismiss as "speculation."

Which "intruder" was wearing MacDonald's torn, bloody pajama top when carrying Colette in the master bedroom sheet?

The jury, of course, did not seem to find that this was all "speculation," did they, Albie? No, indeed. They used their minds and brains and because the evidence against MacDonald was so incredibly overwhelming and because there was not a single thing which conclusively corroborated his silly stories of "intruders," and because MacDonald had repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt, they determined, very rightly, that MacDonald was guilty of the triple murders of his wife Colette and his two little daughters, Kimberly and Kristen.

The pajama top/bed sheet are the two most damaging pieces of evidence against MacDonald. There's just no other explanation for them. They cannot be explained away from a point of innocence. It's absolutely not logical to believe anything other than Macdonald used that bedsheet to carry Colette's battered and bleeding body back to the master bedroom.

Why would drug crazed blood thirsty killers move the bodies? And why would they remove Mac's bloody, torn pajama top and don it before they did? Why did they just leave him lying there alive when they have murdered all the rest? How did his pajama top even get bloody at that point?

Take note that Uncle Albert neglects to post the testimony from MacDonald's own fabric expert, Thornton, agreeing with Stombaugh. The inclusion of Morton was just the defense last ditch effort to try and show reasonable doubt. Failed miserably.

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr MacDonald was a tough army doctor. He wasn't like the pansies who work for British television who proudly proclaim same sex marriages in Northern Ireland.

Dr MacDonald wouldn't be a sentimental softhead if ever he had to deal with a cheeky kid who was misbehaving.

There is no evidence against him. Stombaugh of the FBI was a former insurance salesman and, in my opinion, not a qualified expert.

This was some of the nonsense being discussed at the MacDonald Grand Jury in 1974/1975. Does it sound to you like clear and convincing evidence against Dr MacDonald? To me it sounds like a bunch of children speculating as to whether the moon is made of green cheese :-

Mr Woerheide :" That of course is pure speculation. Well we can only speculate. We know what the evidence of the threads and the fibers and the garments and the sheet and the bed things and the club and the knives tell us, but you have to speculate as to, you know, just the details of how it was done.

Juror : I would like your speculation on why you feel that his pajama bottoms probably had O type blood. I hadn't thought of that."

I would like to speculate about the murder club weapon. Murtagh still says there were pajama fibers on the murder weapon as well as black fibers. I have never examined this murder weapon and neither has Dr Thornton or MacDonald's new lawyers. They have to take the word of that man of character MacDonald prosecutor Blackburn, and the man who hid the lab bench notes at the MacDonald trial, Murtagh, about the murder weapon.

As far as I can judge there is no hard evidence that there are any pajama fibers on the murder weapon. As the new MacDonald lawyers, Tim Junkin and Hart Miles say, it doesn't prove Dr MacDonald did it even if there were pajama fibers on the club.

This is what the FBI lab technician Frier said about the club. He thought the murder weapon fibers were "forensically insignificant" so the evidence was never presented in court at the MacDonald trial or the MacDonald lawyers informed about it :-

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/fbi_frierjames_1990-12-17_p3.html

"Frier advised that according to his notes, "Q-89" consisted of debris originally removed from a piece of wood. Furthermore, this debris had been preserved in a pillbox and a slide which were originally obtained from the CID Laboratory.

His examination revealed two black woolen fibers and one green fiber; however, he could not make a comparison of these items due to a lack of a known source.

He also found synthetic fibers of different colors that matched "K-30", the multi-colored throw rug. Two of these synthetic fibers were green lobed, three were blue lobed fibers and one was a gold lobed fiber, all being made of rayon."

The pajama folding demonstration at the MacDonald trial was scientific bullchit. This is what the MacDonald competent forensic expert Dr Thornton thought about it :-

What Dr Thornton thought about Ms Green and her 1979 trial testimony :

Q Is it possible, based upon your knowledge, information, and training, for Ms. Green, using the information that she had, to have made the reconstruction of the pajama top as she did? Is it possible for her to have done that and done it correctly--moving the 48 holes into 21?
A No.

More from Dr Thornton with regard to Ms Green :-

Q I asked you whether you had read testimony of Shirley Green in regard to the reconstruction experiment that she said she did in terms of putting 48 probes into holes in the--rather, taking 48 holes in the pajama top and making them fit into 21 holes.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you at that time the question of whether you had an opinion as to whether or not she did in fact do what she said she did, and you said you had an opinion in that regard.
A Yes.
Q And what was that opinion?
A I consider her reconstruction to be impossible. I consider it to be conceptually unsound and contrived.

More about Stombaugh from Dr Thornton :-

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can we say in lay person's terms that she did it differently than the way he described the holes?
A Yes.
Q All right. Hereafter, let's use my terms and then see if that will work better. What, if anything else, did you base your opinion on?
A Hole 36 was originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh as inside-out or an exit hole. In Ms. Green's reconstruction, it is designated as outside-in or an entrance hole. Again, just with respect to that one particular discrepancy, I think that it negates the validity of this reconstruction.

Goodness more of his ****** and prejudical posts. Hey Bertie did you know we started same sex marriage here. Yes, one of the colonies, part of the Commonwealth. You've been busted as an American remember. I'm more British than you are, you daft git.

Get a grip, the murder weapon had two pajama fibres on it as well as black, green, gold and white fibres. All sourced but the black ones. LOL, you know Albert Mac is really stupid if he thinks he is making any points with his constant harranging of Murtagh and Blackburn.

Love Mr. Junking's statement don't you. It's typical of a defense attorney. Of course two pajama fibres on the club doesn't mean he did it, the totality of the evidence proves he did it.

Oh why bother, you've been told over and over and over again. I don't know how Bunny and Byn keep their patience, I never can, LOL. You dosey git.

[cami]

Originally posted by nomi21



:rolleyes: Are you a psychiatrist or psychologist? I wondered since you seem so sure you know all about Dr MacDonald's mental and psychological state. I don't believe everything I read, hear, or even see. It is quite easy to be wrong. Even experts are sometimes wrong. In this case, I do believe the evidence and it all points to an intruder.

Why can't you tell us how you feel that evidence points to his innocence, Nomi. That's all we've ever asked of you. You continue to post your opinion that he's innocent but you refuse to elaborate. Obviously your opinion is not based on the factual evidence of his case. How do you feel the bloody fabric impressions on the blue bedsheet point to intruders as opposed to Mac having made them?

:seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cami


Why can't you tell us how you feel that evidence points to his innocence, Nomi. That's all we've ever asked of you. You continue to post your opinion that he's innocent but you refuse to elaborate. Obviously your opinion is not based on the factual evidence of his case. How do you feel the bloody fabric impressions on the blue bedsheet point to intruders as opposed to Mac having made them?

:seeya:

"You continue to post your opinion that he's innocent but you refuse to elaborate." Oh, but Nomi has Cami. Here's some of them:

It is my gut instinct
I know because I am a Mother and a Grandmother
I believe Helena Stokely is a credible witness and was telling the truth
JM didn't have a motive for killing his family

Yada Yada Yada! Need I say more?

[Windy_Nights]

Originally posted by hohum


Was the lie about having an affair? No I believe it was a number of things, such as he Macdonald saying that they did not own an ice pick and the father-in-law remembers seeing one while visiting them. He also watched a program with Macdonald on it exagerrating his injuries. He Macdonald was laughting and joking on this program (If I remember correctly) this was not long after his families deaths. There was a number of lies that he Mr Kassab found.

[caphill]

Originally posted by hohum


Was the lie about having an affair?


Pardon me if I don't get the details exacty right since I am going from memory from reading few years ago.

From recall the step granddad and grandmother had become obsessed with the murder of their beloved daughter and grand children.Their grief had no bounds. I read they purchased life size dolls and dressed those dolls in the grandchildren clothes. They wanted Jeffrey to continue to grieve with them and stay in the area so he could visit the graves etc. According to Jeffrey, as an appeasement to the father inlaw he told him the "lie". Because the father in law believed he should not move away and should continue the seach for the killers, he told him he had seached, found and killed the man who actualy killed the family.

When Jeffrey moved to Calif, the father in law turned on him and decided he was a known liar. The father started a crusade that went to the halls of Congress to get Jeffrey brought back from Calif to stand trial.

It also came out in the trial that Jeffrey had a sexual fling outside the marriage. That didn't do much for the confidence of the in laws either.

What is shocking about the pull and power of the father in law was his ability to get the bodies exhumed, moved to a different site and their names changed back to the maiden name.

From what I have read , the grand parents who could not go on with their lives or cope with their grief, believed that Jeffrey starting a new life in Calif was indicative of his disregard for his dead family and was reason to suspect him of the murders.

The rest is history of how the in laws' purpose in life became the conviction of their son in law.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Windy_Nights
No I believe it was a number of things, such as he Macdonald saying that they did not own an ice pick and the father-in-law remembers seeing one while visiting them. He also watched a program with Macdonald on it exagerrating his injuries. He Macdonald was laughting and joking on this program (If I remember correctly) this was not long after his families deaths. There was a number of lies that he Mr Kassab found.


The ick pick and "other things" were after Mr. Kassab turned on him for moving away and not continuing to grieve

The TV show was The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. This seemed to enrage the Kassabs and they started talking of his arrogance and how he was using the death of his family for his personal gain and "stardom".

[caphill]

Originally posted by Challenger2
How would he know the wrong number was to that house? :confused:

How would he know it was HS?

I think someone is fibbing. IMO


I don't recall how it was known that a wrong number came in. I don't recall if Dr. MacDonald heard the phone ring. I do know that HS did sign statements that she answered the phone and it was a wrong number. She recalled one of the men with her told her to get off the phone.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lobsters


For the record, the DNA testing for this case is being done at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

The DNA testing didn't actually begin until right before Sept 11th. Thus, when the Pentagon was attacked, the AFIP had quite a few other things to do than do Mac's DNA testing (they were heavily involved in identifying the Pentagon casualties)

Also since then, we've started and engaged in a war that has cost many soldiers their lives. AFIP is, I'm certain, invovled in identifing and doing forensic work on the dead.

Sometimes there are just more important things going on than Mac's DNA testing...KWIM?


That was a court ruling for allowing DNA of a few select items in 1997. There have many excuses for the DNA testing being delayed for more than 8 years. 911 is just one of them

[WasThere]

Originally posted by Bunny2
I don't have the background information to this Colonel Kane phone number supposedly on the murder weapon business and Bunny saying the CID took a statement from Colonel Kane's wife saying she received a mystery phone call from an unidentified voice at the time of the MacDonald murders.

Maybe you claim not to have the background information because you're a fraud, eh, Albie? I think so.

In any event, here's a little more info for you about Mrs. Kane's phone number being written on the club. The club was of course examined very closely, and "The examination also revealed a series of numbers written on the club in pencil which appear to represent a telephone number '842-5386'."

Pretty interesting that this apparently turned out to be Mrs. Kane's number, isn't it, Albie? Very interesting that she did confirm that she received a phone call from a male at about 3:00-3:30 a.m., and that she apparently did have a conversation with him but claims that she couldn't remember his name or what they talked about due to her "sleepy state." Obviously, the evidence does seem to show that MacDonald did call her. Of course, that would mean nothing to you, since you've shown that you haven't the faintest idea how to evaluate even the most simple bits of evidence, much less more complicated ones like a phone number being written on a murder weapon.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any event, here's a little more info for you about Mrs. Kane's phone number being written on the club.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still having trouble keeping our Colonel "K's" straight, are we?

Colonel Kingston was the last Commander of the Third Special Forces Group prior to it's disbandment in December 1969.
It was Colonel Kingston's wife "Jo" and their daughter, whom MacDonald became friendly with.

Colonel Kane was the Commander of the Sixth Special Forces Group to which many of us from the de-activating Third Group were transferred upon the Third's disbandment.

Although I certainly do not know "whom" MacDonald may or may not have called, it is my understanding that the call was placed to "Jo", the wife of Colonel Kingston.
Colonel Kingston was either enroute or already back in Vietnam at the time if recalled correctly.

WasThere

[Bunny2]

Still having trouble keeping our Colonel "K's" straight, are we?

No, I don't think I'm having any trouble with that. Are you?

Woerheide asked MacDonald about calling Kane, not Kingston, on the night of the murders. It was inferred by Woerheide that Mrs. Kane's number was apparently the one written on the club, it was Mrs. Kane and not Mrs. Kingston that the CID questioned, and it was Mrs. Kane who said she'd received a call from a male at 3:00-3:30 a.m.

Perhaps you were confused because it has been conjectured that MacDonald may not only have been "spending time" with Mrs. Kingston and her daughter, but also with Mrs. Kane.

[PrimeSuspect210]

I won't vote in the poll, because there isn't an option for what I believe.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial, hence, he should have a new trial.

Originally posted by hohum


Was the lie about having an affair? Not particularly, LLRC. They were staunchly defending him until Mr. K, after much delay on McDonald's part, finally got the transcripts of the court proceedings. It was there that he found numerous contradictions in M's statements (to him). That turned him around.

McDonald also told Mr. K. that he and a couple of buddies found and killed one of the murderers. M. admits this was a lie.

IMO

[Deb B]

If my husband received a valentine at work from another woman with lipstick kisses on it, and a clipping of a magazine article about a woman having a marriage crisis, I wouldn't call wondering, "hmmmmm... something's going on here" a "crazy theory" - seems like drawing a reasonable conclusion by utilizing deductive reasoning.

[byn63]

Originally posted by Deb B
If my husband received a valentine at work from another woman with lipstick kisses on it, and a clipping of a magazine article about a woman having a marriage crisis, I wouldn't call wondering, "hmmmmm... something's going on here" a "crazy theory" - seems like drawing a reasonable conclusion by utilizing deductive reasoning.


Deb B - there you go using LOGIC again! LOGIC and bertie are mutually exclusive. I wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to make ANYTHING ol'ramblinrosie posts make sense. LOL!
:beer:

[Lobsters]

Originally posted by caphill



The ick pick and "other things" were after Mr. Kassab turned on him for moving away and not continuing to grieve

The TV show was The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. This seemed to enrage the Kassabs and they started talking of his arrogance and how he was using the death of his family for his personal gain and "stardom".


Umm...no it wasn't the Tonight Show.....it was the Dick Cavatt show..


CBS 48 Hours article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954_page2.shtml)



You need to go here....The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/)


and read up a bit......you're not quite clear on all your facts!

;)

[cami]

Originally posted by WasThere




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any event, here's a little more info for you about Mrs. Kane's phone number being written on the club.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still having trouble keeping our Colonel "K's" straight, are we?

Colonel Kingston was the last Commander of the Third Special Forces Group prior to it's disbandment in December 1969.
It was Colonel Kingston's wife "Jo" and their daughter, whom MacDonald became friendly with.

Colonel Kane was the Commander of the Sixth Special Forces Group to which many of us from the de-activating Third Group were transferred upon the Third's disbandment.

Although I certainly do not know "whom" MacDonald may or may not have called, it is my understanding that the call was placed to "Jo", the wife of Colonel Kingston.
Colonel Kingston was either enroute or already back in Vietnam at the time if recalled correctly.

WasThere

aaaahahahahaha where did you spring from WT? LOL, I'm awfully suspicious of you now.

Yeah and there was mac keeping the Colonel's Missus all nice and warm for him while he did his patriotic duty in Vietnam. The pig.

[Bunny2]

Could Bunny quote an exact reference where Colonel Kane's wife made a statement that she received a mystery phone call from an unidentified voice at the time of the MacDonald murders?...To me it all sounds like manufactured evidence with no evidence to support it.

I'm sorry to see that you're apparently still suffering from those nasty paranoid delusions, Albie. I would have thought you would have sought some help for that by now, but I guess not.

I was also surprised to see that you apparently haven't even read the CID records yet.

As for Mrs. Kane, I will get you started, but considering you have yet to even begin to provide sources for the countless ludicrous statements you've made, I'm not inclined to do your homework for you beyond this. Aside from quite a few other things (see Questions for Albert Webb in A&E) I'm still waiting to see your sources which prove that all of the CID agents were Masons and for the unsourced black dog hair with root intact and the other unsourced animal hairs which you seem convinced were sourced to intruders. What's taking so long on that?

See CM's website, CID Records, CID Record 4: Comparisons and Observations, page 10.

[byn63]

bertie boy - it IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that someone inside 544 Castle Drive called Mrs. K that night. And, since we already KNOW that the only living being inside 544 Castle Drive was Inmate 00131-177, common sense would say he made the phone call.

[cami]

Originally posted by byn63
bertie boy - it IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that someone inside 544 Castle Drive called Mrs. K that night. And, since we already KNOW that the only living being inside 544 Castle Drive was Inmate 00131-177, common sense would say he made the phone call.

Hey Byn, tomorrow forensics files will be broadcasting Invisible Intruder (Darlie Routier). Any chance you can tape it for me, LOL. I sent you an email.

[Bunny2]

I have found a reference to the wife of the former Commanding Officer receiving a phone call during the night of the MacDonald murders in the CID records.

You "have found," as though you found it on your own? I told you where it was, remember?

It doesn't specifically name the wife of the Commanding Officer involved. From what I would deduce from the information provided by the poster WasThere on this forum I would deduce that it was Mrs Kingston.

First of all, I told you I would get you started on this, Albie. Doesn't that imply to you that there is more than meets the eye in the reference I provided to you?

That aside, let's review. A phone number is found written on the club in pencil. The CID questions Mrs. Kane as to whether she received any phone calls that night. And, as you would have known had you bothered to read the documentation, MacDonald was also questioned specifically by the CID as to whether he had placed a call to Mrs. Kane. MacDonald was also questioned years later at the grand jury about whether he had thought of calling the Kane residence. Nothing whatsoever is said in any of this about Mrs. Kingston. Yet your convoluted mind deduces that the number on the club was Mrs. Kingston's. Fascinating, and very weird.

It sounds as if Colonel Kingston was the former Commanding Officer and Colonel Kane was MacDonald's Commanding Officer at the time of the MacDonald murders.

Your intellectual hernia has surfaced again, Albie. You describe WasThere's post, and then conclude that Kingston was the former commanding officer, which isn't at all what WasThere said. Proving once again the point that has already been made countless times: You have either a reading or a comprehension problem, or both.

In my opinion, this doesn't prove [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] made that phone call, even if it happened. Mrs Kingston knew...MacDonald socially and would surely have been able to recognize his voice if it definitely was him.

Didn't you even bother to read what you just transcribed? Although Mrs. KANE (not Kingston) apparently did have a conversation with this "male," she claimed she could not identify the voice or recall the conversation due to her "sleepy state," which may or may not be true. I tend personally to believe that most likely, she simply didn't want to be involved.

Interesting to note that Criminal Investigator Temple seems to have reported that according to Mrs. Kane she only met Jeffrey MacDonald on one or two occasions and in her opinion his lawyers used legal trickery and deception in defending him.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by WasThere

Still having trouble keeping our Colonel "K's" straight, are we?

Colonel Kingston was the last Commander of the Third Special Forces Group prior to it's disbandment in December 1969.
It was Colonel Kingston's wife "Jo" and their daughter, whom MacDonald became friendly with.

Colonel Kane was the Commander of the Sixth Special Forces Group to which many of us from the de-activating Third Group were transferred upon the Third's disbandment.

Although I certainly do not know "whom" MacDonald may or may not have called, it is my understanding that the call was placed to "Jo", the wife of Colonel Kingston.
Colonel Kingston was either enroute or already back in Vietnam at the time if recalled correctly.

WasThere

No need to lecture us about who were Kingston and Kane, WasThere, because this has been discussed recently on the A&E board when you 'weren't there', at least not as a poster.
And no, the woman MacD placed the call to was not Jo Kingston, but Mrs. Kane.
As for Jo Kingston, she was the woman MacD in all probability had an affair with while her husband Colonel Kingston was away in Vietnam. Read between the lines in FV and there is no doubt about this imo.

[Bunny2]

The CID report distinctly says the mystery phone call on the night of the MacDonald murders was made to the wife of MacDonald's FORMER Commanding Officer who would be, according to WasThere, Colonel Kingston. No wonder... [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] was astonished to be asked if he had made a phone call to Mrs Kane on the night of the murders when the CID had reported a phone call was supposedly made to Mrs Kingston.

Wherever did you read that MacDonald was "astonished" at being asked if he had made such a call to Mrs. Kane, or that he was "astonished" because he'd actually placed the call to Mrs. Kingston? Cite your source, please.

Because you deserve to be shown up for the fraud you are, "Arthur," and because now I can show that not only did you fail to read and/or comprehend the original CID "Comparisons and Observations" document to which I had referred you, but you also apparently failed even to read (and/or comprehend) the final CID report for the period Feb. 17, 1970 to April 10, 1972, I'm going to renege on my former statement and will go ahead and do some more of your legwork for you.

See page 72 of the following zip file, where the name "Mrs. Joan T. KANE" is very clearly shown:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_cid_1970feb17-1972apr10.html

"Mrs. Joan T. KANE, wife of the former Commanding Officer of Jeffrey MacDonald, executed a written statement wherein she discussed certain details of a telephone call she received at her residence at about 0320-0330, 17 Feb 70. She said the caller was a male but she could not identify his voice or recall his conversation due to her sleepy state. (EXHIBIT 'F-3')"

Kane was Mac's commanding officer at the time of the murders, so describing Mrs. Kane as the wife of his former commanding officer was obviously either just a typo, or else they simply meant it in retrospect, since by April 10, 1972, Kane would have indeed been a former commanding officer. Doesn't change even one whit the fact that they questioned Mrs. Kane about receiving a phone call on the night of the murders and that she did admit receiving such a call, does it?

Nowhere at all does it say that they questioned Mrs. Kingston about such a call.

[byn63]

go get'em bunny! I know you really didn't want to do bertieboy's homework for him, but maybe with the GRAND HINTS you provided, he might actually...............................oh, what was I thinking, he isn't ever going to understand. (blonde moment?!?) But, I appreciated what you referenced anyway! thanks! you're aces as usual!

:beer:

[byn63]

Originally posted by cami


Hey Byn, tomorrow forensics files will be broadcasting Invisible Intruder (Darlie Routier). Any chance you can tape it for me, LOL. I sent you an email.

you betcha! As long as I get home in time, consider it taped.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by rashomon


No need to lecture us about who were Kingston and Kane, WasThere, because this has been discussed recently on the A&E board when you 'weren't there', at least not as a poster.
And no, the woman MacD placed the call to was not Jo Kingston, but Mrs. Kane.
As for Jo Kingston, she was the woman MacD in all probability had an affair with while her husband Colonel Kingston was away in Vietnam. Read between the lines in FV and there is no doubt about this imo.

Rash, maybe one of these days we'll be lucky enough to see "exhibit F-3," which apparently describes those "certain details" that took place during this telephone conversation. Maybe it'll amount to nothing, and then again, maybe it contains certain things that were part of that 40% of the evidence the gov't had, but didn't use, against Mac. Either way, it fascinates me to think that Mac almost certainly did make this phone call after committing the murders of his family.

[Bunny2]

There seems to be some confusion about this. Unless WasThere is incorrect Colonel Kingston was...MacDonald's former Commanding Officer.

Small correction: I have no problem at all admitting when I've made a mistake, and I did here, and want to apologize to WasThere and "Arthur." WasThere did indicate Kane was Mac's commanding officer and Kingston his commanding officer formerly. I don't think I said Kane wasn't the current commanding officer at the time of the murders, and this doesn't change the possibility that by the CID's reference to "former" they meant only that by April 10, 1972, Kane was no longer Mac's commanding officer, but I did indicate WasThere hadn't said this, when in fact he did.

[Bunny2]

Rash and Byn (and Jednme if you're reading this) - what's your guess, do you think when Mac called Mrs. Kane, he told her outright what he'd done? I know none of us can say for sure one way or another, but it fascinates me to think he might have done that. I thought a long time ago that maybe he was already lying about it and maybe ranting and raving to her about "hippies" doing it...but then if that's so, why would she be (seemingly) reluctant about identifying him as the caller? All things considered, I think he definitely called her, and I think he told her things that she found incriminating, and she decided she just simply wasn't going to get mixed up in it at all. I'd give my eyeteeth right now to see that "exhibit f-3," and I'll bet I'm not the only one!

[Ergoth]

this case turned on mcdonald being caught in lie after lie with the old expression " blood will tell" proving without any doubt that mcdonald murdered his family. the kids and wife all had different blood types making a map of the movements of the victims and the killer unimpeachable.

once the blood typing was done mcdonalds story was destroyed and his guilt proven.

he's scum, pure and simple.

[jednme]

Hi Bunny! I certainly do think that MacDonald called the Kane residence that morning. I think it was the first phone call he placed after the murders. I am not certain though if he was looking for Mrs. Kane or his commanding officer. I would so love to see the "details" of the conversation!!!

Did he simply ask to speak to her husband and hung up when he learned he wasn't home? I don't know but I wish I did!!!

jednme

[red rover]

Originally posted by caphill



The ick pick and "other things" were after Mr. Kassab turned on him for moving away and not continuing to grieve

The TV show was The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. This seemed to enrage the Kassabs and they started talking of his arrogance and how he was using the death of his family for his personal gain and "stardom".

I believe it was JM's outright lies about the ice pick and 'other things' that made FK question, doubt and later turn on JM.

The show was not JC it was the Dick Cavett show and I believe John Lennon was also a guest that day if I remember correctly. JM's character was 'odd' to say the least. He was playing to the audience during the interview and talked up how awful HIS injuries were (which were minor in comparison) and not his family members.

I've never heard the story of the life-size dolls that you mentioned (which of course doesn't mean that I couldn't believe it happened). I just wonder how much of these 'stories' have come out after the Kassab's were already deceased and unable to refute them.

[byn63]

Hi bunny and nMe - I totally agree, Inmate did indeed call Mrs. Kane. I have often wondered exactly the same thing "did he tell her the truth of what happened?" but, I usually come down on the No side. Mainly, I think not, just because of the personality makeup of Inmate. I believe it is possible that he was already attempting to get his story straight, and we would definitely have some additions to the MMMT if we saw the details, imho. Also, although I have no proof, I've always had a gut feeling that Mrs. Kane was another of Inmate's conquests (so to speak) and that it is possible that the phone call was sort of like calling a 900 number. A rage such as Inmate had built up does often accompany sexual tensions and a little "pillow talk" (to put it politely) may have been what he was looking for from her.

(Dr. Ken Taylor the NJ dentist who also murdered his wife in a rage was proven to have dialed multiple 900 numbers in an attempt to satisfy himself, apparently unsuccessfully)

:beer:

[rashomon]

Hi Bunny, Byn, jednme:
That strange phone call to the Kane home is indeed very interesting.
If MacDonald had been innocent, I think he would have called an ambulance and the police and not his commanding officer.
But if he committed the crimes, it would fit his personality type imo to first call his commanding officer.
Do we know if he specifically called Mrs. Kane or did he just dial the Kanes' home number, and Mrs. Kane happened to answer the phone?
So this call to the Kane home may have been a call on a first impulse immediately after he committed the crimes.
But I think that as soon as Mrs. Kane answered the phone, he quickly changed his mind and did not say what he'd done. Maybe it was the same thing he told the telephone operator later :"Some people have been stabbed ..."

But if he specifically called Mrs. Kane, I have no doubt at all that this was because she was one of his conquests too - ITA with you, Byn.

Oh, me too Bunny: how I'd like the to read the statements contained in F-3 !!! :read:

[cami]

Originally posted by rashomon
Hi Bunny, Byn, jednme:
That strange phone call to the Kane home is indeed very interesting.
If MacDonald had been innocent, I think he would have called an ambulance and the police and not his commanding officer.
But if he committed the crimes, it would fit his personality type imo to first call his commanding officer.
Do we know if he specifically called Mrs. Kane or did he just dial the Kanes' home number, and Mrs. Kane happened to answer the phone?
So this call to the Kane home may have been a call on a first impulse immediately after he committed the crimes.
But I think that as soon as Mrs. Kane answered the phone, he quickly changed his mind and did not say what he'd done. Maybe it was the same thing he told the telephone operator later :"Some people have been stabbed ..."

But if he specifically called Mrs. Kane, I have no doubt at all that this was because she was one of his conquests too - ITA with you, Byn.

Oh, me too Bunny: how I'd like the to read the statements contained in F-3 !!! :read:

I think he was calling his CO for orders/direction as to what to do.
I think he was starting damage control.

I just won't allow myself to believe he was phoning his squeeze for any reason. Not after just killing his wife and kids. Stranger things have happend though eh?

[cami]

Originally posted by Bunny2
The CID report distinctly says the mystery phone call on the night of the MacDonald murders was made to the wife of MacDonald's FORMER Commanding Officer who would be, according to WasThere, Colonel Kingston. No wonder... [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] was astonished to be asked if he had made a phone call to Mrs Kane on the night of the murders when the CID had reported a phone call was supposedly made to Mrs Kingston.

Wherever did you read that MacDonald was "astonished" at being asked if he had made such a call to Mrs. Kane, or that he was "astonished" because he'd actually placed the call to Mrs. Kingston? Cite your source, please.

Because you deserve to be shown up for the fraud you are, "Arthur," and because now I can show that not only did you fail to read and/or comprehend the original CID "Comparisons and Observations" document to which I had referred you, but you also apparently failed even to read (and/or comprehend) the final CID report for the period Feb. 17, 1970 to April 10, 1972, I'm going to renege on my former statement and will go ahead and do some more of your legwork for you.

See page 72 of the following zip file, where the name "Mrs. Joan T. KANE" is very clearly shown:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_cid_1970feb17-1972apr10.html

"Mrs. Joan T. KANE, wife of the former Commanding Officer of Jeffrey MacDonald, executed a written statement wherein she discussed certain details of a telephone call she received at her residence at about 0320-0330, 17 Feb 70. She said the caller was a male but she could not identify his voice or recall his conversation due to her sleepy state. (EXHIBIT 'F-3')"

Kane was Mac's commanding officer at the time of the murders, so describing Mrs. Kane as the wife of his former commanding officer was obviously either just a typo, or else they simply meant it in retrospect, since by April 10, 1972, Kane would have indeed been a former commanding officer. Doesn't change even one whit the fact that they questioned Mrs. Kane about receiving a phone call on the night of the murders and that she did admit receiving such a call, does it?

Nowhere at all does it say that they questioned Mrs. Kingston about such a call.

I wonder if Albie picked up where Mrs. Kane said Mac's lawyers used " legal trickery and deception" in defending him, LOL. Not that Albert would admit it if he did read that since they are Gods to him.

[tidefan311]

Originally posted by Ergoth

once the blood typing was done mcdonalds story was destroyed and his guilt proven.

he's scum, pure and simple. :beer: :beer: I agree!!

[mysterylurker]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
I won't vote in the poll, because there isn't an option for what I believe.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial, hence, he should have a new trial.

I completely agree with this! Give him an appeal already! Let the evidence both old & new speak for itself :patriot:

[cami]

Originally posted by cami


I wonder if Albie picked up where Mrs. Kane said Mac's lawyers used " legal trickery and deception" in defending him, LOL. Not that Albert would admit it if he did read that since they are Gods to him.

I always hit that send button too early. I meant to say given Albie's castigation of all the prosecution lawyers, Kearns, Stombaugh, etc.

[Bunny2]

I could detect plenty of legal trickery by the MacDonald prosecution lawyers. The list is too long for me to mention now. A couple of examples would be the deliberate hiding of the forensic evidence which the defense was unaware of, prior to, and during the MacDonald trial.

Sorry, but the courts disagreed with you, didn't they? They found no evidence of wrongful suppression by the prosecution whatsoever. Of course, you knew that already, since you have not only been told about it over and over again but you have seen it for yourself in the factual records.

There is something seriously wrong with the prosecution blood and fiber evidence from the CID and FBI forensic labs, when the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic lab said there was nothing that implicated...MacDonald in any crimes, or murders.

The AFIP were not acting as judge and jury, were they, Albie? Of course not. The jury who actually evaulated the evidence and who heard from MacDonald himself, and who had absolute unequivocal evidence that he had indeed repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his guilt, came to a very different conclusion. MacDonald was certainly, without any doubt, guilty of the murders of his family.

I'm not on firm ground with all this Colonel Kane and Colonel Kingston business. All I know is that Colonel Kingston and his wife spoke most highly of Dr MacDonald at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970. Colonel Kane took a firm line with the CID and seemed to be fair and just.

Hitler and Idi Amin and Satan himself all seem to be fair and just to their admirers. So what's your point?

If...MacDonald is going to spend the rest of his life in prison over a dispute about whether the rocking horse had a broken spring, or not...

Oh, dear. You haven't even started researching the case yet?? Didn't you even know the most basic fact, that he was convicted based on huge, huge amounts of incredibly incriminating evidence that proved his guilt? He was never convicted because Helena Stoeckley said a rocking horse had a broken spring! Wherever do you get such completely absurd ideas??!?

This is what Helena Stoeckley said about it. Don't ask me if it's true or not.

Well, we wouldn't dream of it, Albie, since you're still a newcomer to the case and as yet, don't seem to be on very firm ground with the basic evidence yet. In fact, we don't need to ask anyone about it, since the idea of Stoeckley being in the apartment is long, long outdated...we know now that of course she was never there at all, and neither were any of her friends. Mac just said all that because he was fabricating, trying to divert suspicion away from himself. Just one of many, many demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt.

[Bunny2]

I was interested to read some of the latest uploads on Christina's Jeffrey MacDonald information website.

Yes, very interesting stuff! Did you see that post JTF put up in C&J?:


Things that rattled around in my head after reading the New Uploads on Christina's website:

1) Gunderson claimed for years that Helena Stoeckley's "confessions" were consistent, yet he tells Butch Madden that Stoeckley, "runs hot and cold."

2) Pat Mitchell states that Greg only discussed the MacDonald case with her once. This occurred after he met with the FBI in 1981. It's hard to believe that Greg Mitchell would confess to the Lanes about murdering the MacDonald family, but make no mention of his involvement to his own wife.

3) Pat Mitchell also states that the Lanes never told her that Greg confessed to murdering the MacDonald family.

4) Dwight Smith lived in the same apartment complex as Pat Reese in 1970.

5) Helena Stoeckley's statements to Kathy Smith and Butch Madden contained a number of interesting tidbits. Stoeckley couldn't remember Bruce Fowler's name, she couldn't remember borrowing Maggie Mauney's car, she claimed that her infamous blond wig was actually a fall owned by Maggie Mauney, and that she had no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970.

Justthefacts.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
I won't vote in the poll, because there isn't an option for what I believe.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial, hence, he should have a new trial.

If he didn't get a fair trial, all he would need is ONE competent attorney to raise a reasonable appeal.

He has had numerous attorneys & has filed numerous appeals - yet all have been rejected.

I guess there is some mighty grand conspiracy going on to keep ole Jeff in prison. He must be something incredibly important that one appeals court after another is willing to just throw out the Constitution in order to keep him locked up.

<insert sarcasm icon here>

[Bunny2]

As JTF noted, "Gunderson claimed for years that Helena Stoeckley's 'confessions' were consistent, yet he tells Butch Madden that Stoeckley, 'runs hot and cold.'"

This reminded me of all that wonderful stuff we read in Murtagh's 91-page submission to the court which was posted some time ago. A fabulous document:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip-court1984dec.html

IMHO, Gunderson ought to be strung up and boiled in oil for what he did to Helena and also for his manipulation of Beasley. It's obvious that Beasley had some doubts about Gunderson's tactics, but poor "befuddled" Beasley seems to have been easily led. Gunderson knew exactly how to pull the strings on these two puppets. In the end, of course, he blew it. He didn't even bother to check things against Mac's own accounts, didn't bother even trying to locate the people Helena said were there, etc. And then having the audacity to give transcripts to the court that were obvious cut-and-paste jobs, trying to pull the wool over their eyes...how great that he was exposed for the conniving, manipulative person he truly was.

And then of course Beasley says in describing his conversations with Gunderson: "And also the remark was made that now that [Gunderson] had everything he needed he couldn't care less if [Stoeckley] was run over by a truck."

IMO, Gunderson was a liar and a flake. I hope he rots in hell alongside MacDonald.

[Bunny2]

Cami, Rash, Byn and Jednme -

Thanks for the great sharing of thoughts on the Kane issue!

I was talking to CM last night and she said she's going to keep an eye out for that Kane exhibit F-3. Let us hope it surfaces sometime.

In the meantime, fa la la la la...Christmas cheer and good tidings to all. I have already received a great Christmas present this year (and every year): that is, MacDonald is not out walking among us! Wishing all you right-minded people a fabulous holiday season, and many lumps of coal in Albie's stocking for being such a naughty, naughty boy this year.

:hat:

[hohum]

Originally posted by red rover


I believe it was JM's outright lies about the ice pick and 'other things' that made FK question, doubt and later turn on JM.

The show was not JC it was the Dick Cavett show and I believe John Lennon was also a guest that day if I remember correctly. JM's character was 'odd' to say the least. He was playing to the audience during the interview and talked up how awful HIS injuries were (which were minor in comparison) and not his family members.

I've never heard the story of the life-size dolls that you mentioned (which of course doesn't mean that I couldn't believe it happened). I just wonder how much of these 'stories' have come out after the Kassab's were already deceased and unable to refute them.

Didn't someone tell me recently that JM spent 8 days in intensive care after the stabbing?

[hohum]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
I won't vote in the poll, because there isn't an option for what I believe.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial, hence, he should have a new trial.

Did he have one or two trials?

[Suzee10]

Originally posted by Tracian



I think he is guilty....guilty..guilty....

I believe that his appeal requests have been denied.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/6.html

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/ 11/02/48hours/main1002954_page4.shtml

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


Just like any convicted criminal...he had his chance...a great deal more than his victims had.

JMO

BB



I agree :beer:

[caphill]

Originally posted by hohum


Didn't someone tell me recently that JM spent 8 days in intensive care after the stabbing?


He spend several days in the ICU. His most serious wound was the stab wound that collasped his lung. It was a dangerous wound and was very close to his liver.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lobsters



Umm...no it wasn't the Tonight Show.....it was the Dick Cavatt show..


CBS 48 Hours article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954_page2.shtml)



You need to go here....The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/)


and read up a bit......you're not quite clear on all your facts!

;)


As I stated in a previous post I was reciting from memory and the details could be faulty. I remember watching the interview and from memory thought it was Johnny Carson. My bad.

[red rover]

Originally posted by hohum


Didn't someone tell me recently that JM spent 8 days in intensive care after the stabbing?

He was at a military hospital which is more than likely why, if he was, placed in ICU. He was probably put in there to keep a closer eye on him and watch for PTSD, no one knew if he'd 'flip out' re-living his traumatic experience.

A pneumothorax (collapsed lung) is not a critical condition unless it accompanied by more serious or multiple ailments. His other 'stab' wounds (if you can actually call them that) were merely superficial. So based on the fact that he had one stab wound that penetrated the chest wall requiring a chest tube is not 'critical'. As for his stabbing wound that was close to his liver- that just means he was lucky <wink> he didn't stab himself too hard! (not to mention that his medical education just paid for itself)

[byn63]

bertie - get with it - fingerprint samples were obtained of Helena Stoeckley by Gaddis himself. Isn't it just like you to take an early conversation as proof of something that was later taken care of.....

Bunny - lumps of coal may be too good for this naughty naughty boy. Joyous, safe and merry Christmas to all! Especially bunny, cami, jednme, rashomon, debB and the rest of the fire brigade.

:rose: :beer: :rose:

[cami]

Originally posted by Bunny2
As JTF noted, "Gunderson claimed for years that Helena Stoeckley's 'confessions' were consistent, yet he tells Butch Madden that Stoeckley, 'runs hot and cold.'"

This reminded me of all that wonderful stuff we read in Murtagh's 91-page submission to the court which was posted some time ago. A fabulous document:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip-court1984dec.html

IMHO, Gunderson ought to be strung up and boiled in oil for what he did to Helena and also for his manipulation of Beasley. It's obvious that Beasley had some doubts about Gunderson's tactics, but poor "befuddled" Beasley seems to have been easily led. Gunderson knew exactly how to pull the strings on these two puppets. In the end, of course, he blew it. He didn't even bother to check things against Mac's own accounts, didn't bother even trying to locate the people Helena said were there, etc. And then having the audacity to give transcripts to the court that were obvious cut-and-paste jobs, trying to pull the wool over their eyes...how great that he was exposed for the conniving, manipulative person he truly was.

And then of course Beasley says in describing his conversations with Gunderson: "And also the remark was made that now that [Gunderson] had everything he needed he couldn't care less if [Stoeckley] was run over by a truck."

IMO, Gunderson was a liar and a flake. I hope he rots in hell alongside MacDonald.

I completely agree Bunny. Gunderson is a complete nut job anyway. It's typical of Macdonald that he would surround himself with nuts like Gunderson with his government conspiracy theories.

I really wish that Helena's family would get their collective thumb out and do something about this. Get her name and those false accusations against her off MacDonald's website. It's really bothering me and I want to find some way to force Mrs. Inmate to remove all alllegations against Helena from that website. There's not one scrap of physical proof of anyone else committing these murders.

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is some interesting information about Stoeckley fingerprints on the new uploads on Christina's Jeffrey MacDonald information website.

It makes me wonder if the CID ever obtained any accurate fingerprints of Helena Stoeckley, according to the statement of James Gaddis, April 29, 1971.

Gaddis was a Nashville police officer who used Helena as an informant, after the MacDonald murders, when she moved there. This is what Gaddis said about the fingerprints :-

"Q Have you asked her for hair samples and fingerprints?

A I've asked her on numerous occasions and she has always refused. When she was arrested on Mar 31st 1971, she was fingerprinted, to include fingertips and the sides of her hands, but those prints didn't turn out too good and she has refused to give her prints to us again voluntarily.

I obtained some samples of her hair without her knowledge by passing my hand through her hair. I also obtained some hair from her hair brush that day. The hair and the fingerprints were given to the CID.

She said that she is afraid that the fingerprints will prove that she was in the MacDonald house."

Aaah Albert there you go, trying to make a point with misquoting. Did you write Fatal Justice? If not, you sure learned well from your heros. You know that Gaddis obtained Helena's prints and that they were not found anywhere inside 544 Castle Drive.

Yes, lumps of coal from Father Christmas to you Albie. You have not been nice, but very naughty. :mad: Yes, he's called Father Christmas in England isn't he Bertie?

[cami]

Originally posted by byn63
bertie - get with it - fingerprint samples were obtained of Helena Stoeckley by Gaddis himself. Isn't it just like you to take an early conversation as proof of something that was later taken care of.....

Bunny - lumps of coal may be too good for this naughty naughty boy. Joyous, safe and merry Christmas to all! Especially bunny, cami, jednme, rashomon, debB and the rest of the fire brigade.

:rose: :beer: :rose:

Ding, Ding, Ding, LOl.

And a merry Christmas to you all, Bunny, Rash, "Me", Byn, Deb, Tracian, Icculus, 2L8...., Nomi, who else..... oh okay even you Albert, LOL.

Originally posted by Ergoth
this case turned on mcdonald being caught in lie after lie with the old expression " blood will tell" proving without any doubt that mcdonald murdered his family. the kids and wife all had different blood types making a map of the movements of the victims and the killer unimpeachable.

once the blood typing was done mcdonalds story was destroyed and his guilt proven.

he's scum, pure and simple. Yep. And if DNA tests ever get done, imo, they won't find a trace of any other person.

I think his wife is pushing this, and he knows it won't fly.

JMO

[Lobsters]

Originally posted by hohum


Did he have one or two trials?


he had a hearing before the Army (as the case was originally under Army jurisdiction) to decide whether or not he should be court-marshalled. They decided not to do that.

Then he had his civilian trial, where he was, rightly imo, found guilty of being a cold-hearted murdering SOB.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Challenger2
Yep. And if DNA tests ever get done, imo, they won't find a trace of any other person.

I think his wife is pushing this, and he knows it won't fly.

JMO


Since the children had bloody tissue under their fingernails and Dr. MacDonald had no stratches on his body, I would not be so sure there is no trace of someone else being in that house.

[sneakers]

Originally posted by caphill



Since the children had bloody tissue under their fingernails and Dr. MacDonald had no stratches on his body, I would not be so sure there is no trace of someone else being in that house. What?????? No scratches from fighting off those killers????? And he's still alive??? The only one left alive???????!!!!

No tissue testing?????? Geesh! LE is really stuuuupid... :rolleyes:

imo

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by sneakers

What?????? No scratches from fighting off those killers????? And he's still alive??? The only one left alive???????!!!!

No tissue testing?????? Geesh! LE is really stuuuupid... :rolleyes:

imo

Please! Fingernail tissue scrapings were taken from all 3 victims at autopsy and submitted for testing. I can't remember the results though. The 2 Experts on this case are Cami and Goody. They post over at the other Jeffrey MacDonald Board that is located at the Crime Library Message Boards under the Thread entitled "Nortorious Murders." You really should go there and start reading all of the posts to get a better idea of what really happened. Cami and Goody are always there and will answer any and all questions. They are great! Just a suggestion.

JMO and MOO!!

[sneakers]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Please! Fingernail tissue scrapings were taken from all 3 victims at autopsy and submitted for testing. I can't remember the results though. The 2 Experts on this case are Cami and Goody. They post over at the other Jeffrey MacDonald Board that is located at the Crime Library Message Boards under the Thread entitled "Nortorious Murders." You really should go there and start reading all of the posts to get a better idea of what really happened. Cami and Goody are always there and will answer any and all questions. They are great! Just a suggestion.

JMO and MOO!! Thanks. I was being sarcastic...

I'm not disputing that scrapings or clippings were done. I find it hard to believe that Mc didn't have any scratches on him, don't you?

As for your suggestion to go to another thread, I followed this case when it happened, and I'm sure he's guilty.

imo

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by sneakers

Thanks. I was being sarcastic...

I'm not disputing that scrapings or clippings were done. I find it hard to believe that Mc didn't have any scratches on him, don't you?

As for your suggestion to go to another thread, I followed this case when it happened, and I'm sure he's guilty.

imo

Remember that JM had on long-sleeve pajamas. Also, unfortunately DNA capabilities didn't exist in the 70's. Testing of DNA is now underway on some evidence, but I don't know if the fingernail scrapings are a part of it. I doubt very much that there was anything under the victims' nails. I think that everyone is waiting with baited breath for the results of the DNA testing. Then we will finally know the truth of what really happened that night at Fort Bragg.

Also, I am not sure that he's guilty, I KNOW THAT HE IS GUILTY!!!

JMO and MOO!!

[sneakers]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Remember that JM had on long-sleeve pajamas. Also, unfortunately DNA capabilities didn't exist in the 70's. Testing of DNA is now underway on some evidence, but I don't know if the fingernail scrapings are a part of it. I doubt very much that there was anything under the victims' nails. I think that everyone is waiting with baited breath for the results of the DNA testing. Then we will finally know the truth of what really happened that night at Fort Bragg.

Also, I am not sure that he's guilty, I KNOW THAT HE IS GUILTY!!!

JMO and MOO!! As I recall, JM said his pjs were pulled up, restricting his arm movements.

If, as he says, he fought them, there should have been scratches on him. Oh, yeah, the perps wore gloves?

Of course, he's guilty, and was judged so, he will lose this appeal. I have no doubt, and IF they saved the fingernail evidence, DNA will confirm it, and this matter will be put to rest, once and for all.
imo

[hohum]

Originally posted by Tracian



I agree he is guilty, but IMO it will never be put to rest--because there are always going to be those that will never believe a Doctor could do such a thing...regardless of the evidence, or the logic of this conviction.

JMO

BB

Because he's a doctor? There are many cases in the news where doctors kill their husbands or wives. For instance the Harris case in Texas.

[sneakers]

Originally posted by Tracian



I agree he is guilty, but IMO it will never be put to rest--because there are always going to be those that will never believe a Doctor could do such a thing...regardless of the evidence, or the logic of this conviction.

JMO

BB Oh, bull. I don't know anyone who thinks that.
After the priest/molest cases, I think most people are willing to believe anything about anyone.

It will be put to rest, with the last appeal.

imo

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by sneakers
Oh, bull. I don't know anyone who thinks that.
After the priest/molest cases, I think most people are willing to believe anything about anyone.

It will be put to rest, with the last appeal.

imo

Don't be so sure. It's been 11 years for the OJ Simpson case and the G's and NG's are still going at it!

[cami]

Originally posted by sneakers
Thanks. I was being sarcastic...

I'm not disputing that scrapings or clippings were done. I find it hard to believe that Mc didn't have any scratches on him, don't you?

As for your suggestion to go to another thread, I followed this case when it happened, and I'm sure he's guilty.

imo

That thread is closed now anyway. I was just there.

[cami]

Originally posted by sneakers
As I recall, JM said his pjs were pulled up, restricting his arm movements.

If, as he says, he fought them, there should have been scratches on him. Oh, yeah, the perps wore gloves?

Of course, he's guilty, and was judged so, he will lose this appeal. I have no doubt, and IF they saved the fingernail evidence, DNA will confirm it, and this matter will be put to rest, once and for all.
imo

The dna is being conducted on some 15 hairs. Two of those hairs, partial limb hairs, were found under each child's fingernails. The hairs are limb hairs so are not subject to nucleur dna tests but mitochrondial which we all know is less precise. The hairs allegedly have female characteristics. I believe those hairs are most likely their own that they transferred to each other as they played. They have to match Helena for Mac to be sprung from prison. What a catch 22 position Mac has himself in with these two hairs, eh? Weren't those wig hairs from Helena's wig found at the scene?

[cami]

Originally posted by sneakers
Oh, bull. I don't know anyone who thinks that.
After the priest/molest cases, I think most people are willing to believe anything about anyone.

It will be put to rest, with the last appeal.

imo

LOL, you should take some time to read through these threads, here and at aande, and you'll see how many believe he's innocent because he was a doctor.

I am part of a group who has researched and discussed this case for years. It will never be put to rest until MacDonald is dead and buried regardless of the outcome of the dna tests. He'll just get back on tv and blame the evil government for contaminating the dna tests and falsifying the results. It will never end with him.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cami


That thread is closed now anyway. I was just there.

Hi Cami! Why is that Board locked? Do you know? Just curious! Thanks!

[cami]

Originally posted by Challenger2
How would he know the wrong number was to that house? :confused:

How would he know it was HS?

I think someone is fibbing. IMO

the alleged phone call was from an alcoholic/drug addict who was in recovery at Womack, name--Jimmy Friar. He snuck out of the hospital and proceeded to the nearest bar and got stinko drunk. He had no money to get back to the hospital so he thought he would call his doctor, Richard MacDonald and ask him to help him out. He called the operator for the number and allegedly she gave him Jeffrey Macdonald's phone number. Which he says he called, a woman answered and he heard lots of noise. Someone hollered hang up so she did.

Friar called the macdonald defense team during the 1979 trial, from his jail cell where he was then ensconced, and offered up this story to them. They didn't bother to rush him from prison to the trial so he could testify. As a matter of fact, Wade Smith, Mac's lawyer turned thumbs down in the courtroom when he was asked if Friar would be called to testify. So what does that tell you?

Link to the source (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_murtagh03_1984jul12.html)

[cami]

Originally posted by hohum


Didn't someone tell me recently that JM spent 8 days in intensive care after the stabbing?

No he did not spend 8 days in intensive care, LOL. He had minor injuries, one of them self-inflicted. He was in intensive care after the insertion of the chest tube then moved to his room.

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill



Since the children had bloody tissue under their fingernails and Dr. MacDonald had no stratches on his body, I would not be so sure there is no trace of someone else being in that house.

the children did not have bloody tissue under their fingernails. And yes MacDonald did have scratches on his chest where his wife Colette dug her nails in in an attempt to protect herself from him. There is no evidence anyone other than the family was in that house. The physical evidence, the blood evidence is overwhelming proof of his guilt.

[cami]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Hi Cami! Why is that Board locked? Do you know? Just curious! Thanks!

No, I don't know why, sorry. It says "these boards will remain open during the holidays" but they weren't.

[cami]

Originally posted by hohum


Was the lie about having an affair?

No, the lie was about his ridiculous story that he and some of his GB buddies tracked down one of the alleged killers and killed him and buried him. Kassab confirmed for himself there was no such murder. Kassab fully believed in Mac's innocence UNTIL he read the Article 32 transcript. Mac's testimony just didn't sit well with him and he started to research the crime. He came to believe that Mac was lying about what happened in the house that night. He questioned....why would he lie about the events of that night if he's innocent.

It had nothing to do with Mac's moving to California. That just shows you how shallow Mac really is. The Kassabs turned against him because they knew he murdered their daugther and their two baby granddaughters. Kassab made it his life's mission to see MacDonald convicted and imprisoned. None of us who have children would do any less, would we?

Sources are: www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com. This website contains everything--all the transcripts from the trial and hearings, the appeal documents, the autopsy results, the cs photographs--warning very graphic autopsy photos, everything a serious researcher could want.

[just_beesy]

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:
Nobody has ever said there was no hippie culture in Fayetteville. Are you saying Dr. Mac was found guilty because the Prosecutor lied and said there were no hippies there at the time? That is what it sounds like you are saying. If that is your only argument for Mac, you should be chicken. That's the dumbest one yet

[just_beesy]

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.
I realize this was posted 2 months ago, but as I am reading through, I cannot keep my mouth shut. Mcginnis was sued for breach of contract, not lible. He did breach his contract as he was hired by MacDonald's team to write a book FOR his innocence. Therefore, the book WAS NOT proven to be a lie, nor can it be.
The book aroused by interest, but I have used it only for my belief that Mac is guilty. One read of the autopsy reports and his injuries is enough on it's own.

[just_beesy]

cami,
what's your take on the Collette's blood found on the bedroom window? That really bothers me. Was she trying to escape or scream for help or was it spatter?
Is this the most active Mac thread right now?

[basketball]

The case was shown again on "American Justice" last week on
A&E. McDonald's brother in-law was featured. His pain showed
so much even after all these years. I don't think anyone would
ever completely recover from a terrible experience like that.
Roses for the mom and 2 girls.:rose: :rose: :rose:

[basketball]

Forgot something, gang!! I thought you had to admit your
guilt to be considered for parole!! Anybody have any ideas?:shrug:

[just_beesy]

Originally posted by basketball
Forgot something, gang!! I thought you had to admit your
guilt to be considered for parole!! Anybody have any ideas?:shrug:
No, if a convict is given the option of parole, they can go before the board no matter what. However, to get OUT they have to admit. The board is going on the assumption that you are guilty since you have been found guilty. That is not the place to boo-hoo about how you were railroaded. And that's why dear Mac did not get out.

[cami]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Dr Jeff MacDonald knows he's innocent and that he was wrongfully convicted.

There is no real evidence against MacDonald. There was no motive for him to murder his wife and children. It was proved MacDonald was a loving father to his children. There was no evidence of insanity.

There is no evidence that MacDonald ever treated his wife and children with any form of physical violence.

The integrity of the crime scene was destroyed and the evidence was tampered with by Military Police Investigators.

The real culprits in the Stoeckley terrorist group were never thoroughly investigated by the FBI, or Army CID.

What advice does the rampant internet gossip system give to somebody who is wrongfully imprisoned and convicted? Should they all become Thatcherite? What would you do if you were falsely accused of murder by incompetent cops, and lawyers who bribed and threatened witnesses to tell lies against you in court?

Even if you are falsely accused of shoplifting there needs to be evidence. That's why it can be wise to keep a receipt. In a murder trial there needs to be real evidence.

I would have thought that wrongfully imprisoning an innocent man for 25 years was against the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. I don't suppose many Americans, or the American media, are terribly concerned about that, or about privacy and an abstract sense of justice.

MacDonald knows he's guilty and that he was rightfully convicted but he will never ever admit it.

There is a ton of physical evidence, fibres and blood, proving he is the sole killer, beyond doubt.

No prosecutor ever bears the burden of proving motive. It was NOT proven that Macdonald was a loving father, quite the contrary, he worked 24/7 he probably knew very little about his own children. There are many many psychiatrists and psychologists reports done on MacDonald from tests he underwent in 1970 and 71--of course he's insane, there's no doubt. So what, insanity didn't make him commit the crime.

The integrity of the blood and fibre evidence was not destroyed nor was it tampered with by the MPs.

The real culprit is the one sitting in prison convicted, Jeffrey R. Macdonald, Inmate 131..... There is no Stockeley Terrorist group or anything else. Stockeley is nothing but a red herrring.

As for your Thatherite rant, it's just that a rant, nothing more. MacDonald is not wrongfully impriosoned or wrongfully convicted. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming. MacDonald is the only one who has lied, he lied to the jury on the stand and they knew it, he lied about intruders being in his home, he lied about his committing the murders, he lied and lied and lied and he still lies and lies and lies. Mac's defense lawyers and his p.i. gunderson are the only lawyers who lied and threatened witnesses (Helena) to tell lies in court.

No Bertie that's correct neither the media nor American citizens are concerned that Mac is in prison. he's where he should be, he was not falsely convicted nor imprisoned. He slaughtered his pregnant wife and his two daughters. He should have received the Death Penalty.

[cami]

Originally posted by basketball
Forgot something, gang!! I thought you had to admit your
guilt to be considered for parole!! Anybody have any ideas?:shrug:

No, you don't have to admit guilt.

But you do have to show some remorse for the crime committed and show you have been rehabilitated. Mac will never show remorse so he will never be granted parole. Since it was a federal crime, not state, tried by the Justice Dept, he will not be eligible again for 15 years.

mac tried to get paroled on the merits of his term he served--basically what it comes down to was he was asking for a pardon, LOL. Not too likely for a triple killer.

[cami]

Originally posted by just_beesy
cami,
what's your take on the Collette's blood found on the bedroom window? That really bothers me. Was she trying to escape or scream for help or was it spatter?
Is this the most active Mac thread right now?

She might have been trying to get the window open yes, to call for help. A neighbour who lived behind them heard a woman screaming and two children crying.

I don't know what is going on with these threads. First it's open then it's closed and moved all around. The last thread I was posting on was on the CL boards. I'm not here that often anymore. This Macdonald case has really gotten to me, the pain the sadness of it all. I grieved deeply for this family a while ago and I can't bring myself to go any further. It's enough for me to know he did and he's never getting out. This lastest appeal is just another red herring meant to detract from those dna results.

[cami]

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
I won't vote in the poll, because there isn't an option for what I believe.

I believe he didn't get a fair trial, hence, he should have a new trial.

He's appealed to the SC seven times and all seven times the justices found no cause, no reasonable doubt to grant him a new trial--ergo he had a fair trial.

[cami]

Originally posted by nettathirty



WOW!!!

I'm floored, I only thought minorities were railroaded by this JUSTICE SYSTEM.. Who would have thunk a Prominent Military Blonde Blue Eyed Physician could be the victim of a Rush to Judgement DA...

What's next?

aahahahaha love it! Nine years it took them to get him to trial, some rush, aahahahahahahaha

[cami]

Originally posted by hohum


Did he have one or two trials?

He had one trial in 1979. Prior to that there was an Article 32 in 1970, a Military tribunal, a hearing, not a trial.

[barskin&co.]

Is the Pope german?