Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty? [Archive] - Page 5 - Crime Library Message Boards

byn63

01-09-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There was some skin underneath Colette's fingernails which was lost by the CID lab.

That talk by Browning about a blue pajama fiber under Kristen's fingernail is really only the opinion of Browning of the CID lab. Fibers are similar or consistent. That fiber ought to have been properly examined by a MacDonald competent forensic expert.

Kathy Bond of the FBI lab talked about pajama like fibers, and mistakenly described the foreign fibers around Colette's mouth as pajama like fibers.

The memo from Thomas McNamara re. the MacDonald case in 1973 adds some background information to this. He wrote :-

"There is some question regarding how conclusive the CID lab report is in regard to the blue fibers and threads. At one time a Government witness said the fibers and treads "could have" come from the pajama top."

From the report by Murphy on the Freedom of Information findings:-

"From the govenment laboratory findings indicating the presence of unmatched fibers found underneath the body of Colette MacDonald Browning wrote "one long green/brown cotton fiber, bloodstained. One human pubic or body hair, no comparison due to a lack of a known source" (Exhibit 19. pp. 161-162).

Thus Browning identified at least one fiber for which he was unable to determine the source."

Fibers and threads can be identified to EXACT matches, as was the yarn fragment found under Kristen's fingernail. It matched not only chemically (Dacron-polyester) but also in makeup (percentage of polyester to cotton). Also, the color, wear, wash, fading and age of the yarn was 100% consistent with the rest of the blue yarns found throughout the crime scene.

As to defense "experts" examining any of the items - they were given plenty of opportunities to do just that - but for whatever reason they did not. Some people believe it is because Segal never accepted just how much physical evidence the prosecution had available. That Thorton or Morton never examined all the physical evidence does not make the work of Browning and Stombaugh and others of less value. As a matter of fact, since Browning was at one time employed by DuPont and Dacron Polyester is a DuPont product, he was invaluable. There is no reasonable doubt that he would indeed have been able to identify this fabric correctly.

The pubic hair you mentioned was indeed identified - it belonged to Inmate 00131-177. As to the other "unidentified" fibers you keep bringing up - you have been told ad nauseum - they are of no forensic significance. Every home has fibers and threads and probably hairs also without a known source. Not only that, but since Inmate got rid of most personal possessions of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen as soon as possible after the closing of the Article 32 hearing, there were very few items available for comparison purposes. However, there are known photos with the girls wearing knit caps, and even some film footage showing multicolor stocking caps on Kimmie and Kristy was used in the 48 hours show. No matter how you or any other macalite try, those few wool fibers that were unsourced will not create doubt (reasonable or otherwise).

NY-EVE

01-09-2006, 11:42 PM

am i brave enough to post this ????????

here goes..............i think he is innocent.......

.......[ now i'll hide from cami ]...............lol

cami

01-10-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
am i brave enough to post this ????????

here goes..............i think he is innocent.......

.......[ now i'll hide from cami ]...............lol

You better run NY, aahahahahahah you can run but you cannot hide from me.

Happy New Year :seeya:

cami

01-10-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by bettyboop
Do you believe McDonald is guilty or innocent?

Well there's your answer Betty. The posters here believe he's guilty. As did the jury who convicted him. As did LE who arrested him. As did the Judge who sentenced him.

Bunny2

01-10-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy
Is this the most active Mac thread right now?
Hi, Beesy - I think this CourtTV board is probably the least active of the three boards I visit. The other two are:

Crime & Justice/Jeffrey MacDonald
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showforum=10

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

Bunny2

01-10-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Since the children had bloody tissue under their fingernails and...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. A fiber from MacDonald's pajamas was found under Kristen's fingernail.

As for stating that Mac had no scratches, that's false.

MP Kenneth Mica and others testified that they did see scratches on MacDonald's chest.

During the Pruett and Kearns interview, MacDonald told Pruett, "There was a scratch on my left upper chest." Pruett then asked, "The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?" Macdonald replied, "Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple."

Kearns asked MacDonald, "Were these wounds bleeding?" MacDonald replied, "My left hand was, but not--it was a scratch really. It wasn't--it didn't require sutures."

During the Article 32 military hearing, Captain Somers asked MacDonald to describe his injuries. Among other things, MacDonald said, "There were several, what appeared to me to be small, small puncture wounds, on the left of the chest and some scratches..." He also said, "I had a scratch on my right arm." During the same hearing, MacDonald's lawyer Bernie Segal asked: "Now, did you have any others? Just describe each one as you recall discovering or finding on your body now." MacDonald replied, "Yes, sir. I had some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest..."

On August 16, 1974, during the grand jury proceeding, MacDonald said, "I had--there was a scratch somewhere on my right shoulder."

Bunny2

01-10-2006, 12:44 PM

I didn't see it posted here yet, so here's a link to the Government's response to the motion re: Jimmy Britt's allegations. A very good read!

Dec. 21, 2005: Government's response to MacDonald's latest motion re: Jimmy Britt (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/MacDonald_Master_12_21.pdf)

Monkeyloving*

01-13-2006, 01:40 AM

Hell ya! I think he's as guilty as sin!

byn63

01-13-2006, 11:52 AM

I am doing my read through w/detailed notes right now. Interesting read just doesn't do it justice imho! thanks for the link bunny - you are aces as always!:biggrin:

hohum

01-14-2006, 04:56 PM

There is a good article today about MacDonald winning his fourth appeal in the News and Observer.

hohum

01-14-2006, 04:58 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/388390.html

just_beesy

01-14-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by cami
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.
Why didn't that person do anything?? Maybe the neighbor thought it was just an arguement so didn't want to butt in?
I know how you feel. I have gone through periods when I can barely think about this case. It's so dark, so evil. I can't decide if it's the club that makes it so horrible or if it's that as a woman and mother, I can identify with Colette. How horrified she must have been, how desperate. It bothers me more than Darlie's case because I can't connect with her at all.

just_beesy

01-14-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Hi, Beesy - I think this CourtTV board is probably the least active of the three boards I visit. The other two are:

Crime & Justice/Jeffrey MacDonald
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showforum=10

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

Thank you Bunny

just_beesy

01-14-2006, 07:49 PM

I've been thinking about something really weird. I was watching a show about alien abductions and experts were explaining that it's really sleep paralysis. Not only can't you move, but you sense a presence at your feet, almost always, and sometimes feel pressure on your chest or lower limbs. So, here goes: We know Mac was on speed and wasn't sleeping well. Suppose when he woke up on the sofa he thought he saw these people at his feet because he was hallucinating or having sleep paralysis. Then once he really woke up and realized nobody was there, he went on to bed. Hadn't he been working at the hospital near the hippie area that weekend? Maybe he had hippies on the brain. So he was cranky and freaked out by that experience when he went into the bedroom and found Kim had wet his side of the bed. Then it went from there.

just_beesy

01-15-2006, 12:59 AM

Is this old news?
http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060113/43c733d0_3ca6_155262006011353746064

Notice at the bottom they provide the link to a Pro-Mac site

Bunny2

01-15-2006, 12:32 PM

We don't know that [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] was on speed on the night of the MacDonald murders at all.

His own handwritten notes indicate he thinks he might have taken speed (diet pill with amphetamine) that night, plus he'd lost a lot of weight in the preceding weeks. He claims the "intruders" were on LSD, which would make them lethargic. Speed, on the other hand, can cause a psychosis, which could be what helped to push Mac over the edge into murdering his family.

After the MacDonald murders...MacDonald's blood was tested. The medical report said that no narcotics were in his blood, no dangerous drugs, and a minimum amount of alcohol. Posters like Bunny and Byn have posted on the internet that...MacDonald's blood was never tested for amphetamines.

That's correct. Do your research and you will see it for yourself.

McGinniss had written in his Fatal Vision bok that MacDonald had committed the MacDonald murders during an amphetamine psychosis.

Not exactly, Albie. He presented it as a theory, a possibility. But of course I guess you wouldn't know that since you admitted you haven't even read the book.

I think it's good news that Jeffrey MacDonald seems to have won another appeal. I hope there will be no more hidden forensic evidence now, and no more corrupt bias.

The courts affirmed that no evidence was in this case was wrongly suppressed, nor was there ever any "corrupt bias," Albie. Haven't you even read the court documents yet?

Much as I admire MacDonald's lawyers in the past, none of them seem to have been able to cope with Murtagh's legal trickery and lack of principles.

I'm laughing. In all the months you've been posting, you have yet to come up with a single shred of any kind of evidence to back up your claims about Murtagh. In truth, it's MacDonald's trickery that needs watching out for, since he lies at every turn and wouldn't hesitate to continue lying in order to try to save his skin.

The FBI are a complete shambles. They ought to stick to intelligence gathering.

MacDonald's sister Judy said he told her that the FBI were the best investigators in the world.

What is needed is some thoroughness in the MacDonald murders investigation.

Where've you been, Albie?!? Didn't you know Mac has had every benefit allowable under the law? It's said that he's had his case in front of the Supreme Court more than any other murderer, the issues have been examined very thoroughly, and the result is that Mac remains in prison and most likely will always remain there.

Bunny2

01-15-2006, 03:16 PM

[Murtagh] described the only good detective on the case as “Befuddled Beasley” and said the foreign hairs and fibers on the bodies of the murder victims “probably” came from MacDonald clothes. There are other examples of Murtagh prosecutorial misconduct which are too complex to repeat here at the moment.

The "only good detective on the case"?? Of course you're joking. Aside from several other issues, Beasley didn't even go after the "intruders" Helena Stoeckley said were in the MacDonald apartment the night of the murders. Some detective. Thanks for the chuckle. At any rate, these facts do not comprise "prosecutorial misconduct" as you seem to believe. Beasley was indeed befuddled and found to be a confabulator. Threads and fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found under the victims, in their bedclothing, under the fingernail from his baby daughter Kristen, on the murder club, under the headboard where he'd written the word PIG in Colette's blood, and even entwined with one of Colette's bloody hairs.

I believe Segal tried to ask relevant questions. His cross-examinations were done to the best of his ability. It’s just that they weren’t good enough for a great murder trial.

And none of MacDonald's many lawyers since then have managed to make a dent in the overwhelming evidence which proved MacDonald's guilt. Isn't that something.

Judge Dupree was far too friendly with Proctor, the lawyer who was hell-bent on prosecuting [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald]. ...It’s just that there is reasonable doubt, based on reason and common sense, that there was judicial impartiality in the case.

Had you read the factual documentation describing Proctor's involvement, you would see why the court concluded that the Proctor issue was without merit. The courts found that the trial was conducted without error. As Judge Dupree noted, "...the defendant has never made the claim on the record that he did not receive a fair trial. On the contrary one of his trial attorneys has on more than one occasion expressed the view that the trial was fairly conducted."

The problem for [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald], as I see it, is what Roy Black, the criminal defense lawyer from Miami, Florida, once said when he wrote “you can’t beat the government without substantial resources. Money is not just the life blood of politics but trials as well.”

Sorry, but the problem for MacDonald isn't money; it's the incredible amount of overwhelming evidence which pointed to his guilt, and his repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of that guilt.

hohum

01-15-2006, 09:26 PM

What a mess. This Britt man comes forward after how many years? People like Helena Stokley weren't reliable witnesses due to drug use. And even the defense attorney Jim Blackburn now has a soiled record for honesty. So who is there to testify (still alive) that could be considered honest?

just_beesy

01-15-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[QUOTE]We don't know that Dr Jeffrey MacDonald was on speed on the night of the MacDonald murders at all
We do know. As Bunny said, Mac gave McGinniss access to all of his papers pertaining to the case. McGinnis found a hand-written note from Mac to his attorney saying he had been taking 3-5 capsules of the diet pills per day. Mac was concerned because he told the ER docs he had not taken any drugs of this nature. He was worried about the exretion rate. The amount of diet pills he said he was taking is way too much. Mac's actions also point to his consumption of a high dose of amphetamines. The day before he had worked a 24 hour shift in the ER on his moonlighting job. He was able to nap for a bit when things were slow, but he did not get a full night's sleep. When his shift was over, he went home, showered and went to his day job on the base, after which he felt peppy enough to play basketball for about an hour, then go home and drive the girls to feed their pony. They had an early supper because Colette had her class that night. Once again, in Mac's hand-written note he frets over if he took a diet pill that evening because he knew he had to watch the kids. He put Kris to bed at about 7, then dozed for about 30 mins on the floor til Kim woke him up. When Colette came home, he was still awake enough to have a drink with her, then stay up to watch the Carson show. After which he read, washed the dishes and believes he fell asleep at about 2ish. By the way, this is what Mac says. He does not deny any of these actions whatsoever.

I know there has been some talk of Colette and Dr MacDonald taking diet pills in the months before the MacDonald murders. I don't know why they took those pills. There was no law against it at the time. In 1970 those diet pills were widespread among the American population, and may even have been advertised as well.

At that time, the pills were widely used by the military to keep the men awake and alert during training and field work. The pills were found in the Mac's medicine cabinet. Colette had used them for weight loss, but stopped because she didn't like how they made her feel.
Those diet pills were subsequently taken off the market because some drugs safety agency must have considered the amphetamine content in the diet pills dangerous.

And what does that have to do with Dr. Mac?

After the MacDonald murders Dr MacDonald's blood was tested. The medical report said that no narcotics were in his blood, no dangerous drugs, and a minimum amount of alcohol. Posters like Bunny and Byn have posted on the internet that Dr MacDonald's blood was never tested for amphetamines. I have never seen any proof or report about that, and neither have I written to anybody in America who could provide me with any proof about the matter.
He was not tested for amphetamines, therefore there is no mention of them in the lab reports. As you said, these drugs were widely used and probably weren't too much of a concern that night. Also, they were going on the fact that Mac said he had not taken anything.

In about 1987 there was a big libel case between MacDonald and Joe McGinniss about this speed and diet pill business. McGinniss had written in his Fatal Vision bok that MacDonald had committed the MacDonald murders during an amphetamine psychosis. Under clever advocacy and a good cross -examination by MacDonald's Californian lawyer Bostwick, McGinniss admitted he didn't believe that diet pill theory himself. I reckon McGinniss got the idea from one of Kassab's crazy theories without facts
Actually Kassab never mentions anything about the diet pills. This is a theory of McGinniss' based on his research of the drug and into Mac's history.
The suit was over breach of contract, not libel. There was a mistrial and then it was settled out of court. Mac would never sue for libel because he'd have to prove it was libel and guess what, it's not, so he can't

I think it's good news that Jeffrey MacDonald seems to have won another appeal. I hope there will be no more hidden forensic evidence now, and no more corrupt bias. I hope the judges at the appeal will be good judges, and calm and judicial, and able to come to the right judgment.
He has not won an appeal. He has won the right to file this so-called new evidence.
I still think it's possible to thoroughly invetigate the Stoeckley murder gang. who I consider murdered Colette, Kristen and Kim, even thogh some of them are dead and others in mental institutions . The FBI conducted a few cursory and superficial interviews of some of the Stoeckley group in the past. The FBI are a complete shambles. They ought to stick to intelligence gathering.
Explain this theory please using all of the evidence or do you simply dismiss it? See, the problem with Mac supporters is that you have no proof of his innocence. You just ignore all of the evidence and simply say "shoddy police work

margiej

01-16-2006, 07:24 AM

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?

I don't know if this will help, but I remember reading a scenario about this when the murder first happened. Don't remember who wrote it but it has always stuck with me. The writer seemed to have inside info and stated that the fight in the MB started because Kim wet the bed and MacD got wet. He was spanking her with the hair brush when Colette was awakened from the couch and ran in, yanked the hairbrush from his hand and hit him on the forehead with it. He stood up and socked her in the nose, sending blood splatters to the window next to her. It makes as much sense as some other scenarios I have heard.

just_beesy

01-16-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[QUOTE]There is no evidence at all that Kim wet the bed in the master bedroom. It's manufactured evidence by Kearns and the CID lab. As the MacDonald lawyers Tim Junkin and Hart Miles have written there is no real evidence against Dr MacDonald.
There is NO evidence that any results or evidence were manufactured by the CID lab. However, there IS evidence that Kim wet the bed. It matters very little actually, this was not used as proof he is the killer. It is simply an interesting fact. The question is why did he want to keep Kim out of that room? Whether it was Kim or Kris doesn't name the killer. More parlor tricks from his camp.
Glisson of the CID lab tested that stain when the stain was 80 weeks old, which is against all the rules and regulations of forensic science. The test is inaccurate after 4 weeks.
Are a forensic scientist? If not, please give me the link for this information.
Dr MacDonald said Kristen wet the bed and that's what happened. Dr MacDonald then carried Kristen back to her bedroom and he went to sleep on the couch.
Why is it that you are willing to believe something which is not backed up by anything, but you are not willing to believe the experts? Do you know how many people would have to be involved if this were a conspiracy? I do think Mac fell asleep on the sofa, but I think he dozed off while reading, then woke up and went to his bed.
The MacDonald murders case is a difficult murder. This doesn't mean you have to be apt to jump to conclusions about the perpetrator, or to decide who did it on the first day before the case has been thoroughly investigated. You go by the evidence, not by emotion, and not by how much blood was spattered on the bedroom walls. It is a very difficult case, but nobody decided anything on the first day. If Mac could have explained these inconsistancies, and they could then be proven to be correct, they would have believed him. Um, blood spatter IS evidence. I guess you think blood spatter is just messy, not evidence?
The lab report about Dr MacDonald after the MacDonald murders reported there were no narcotics, no dangerous drugs and a minimum amount of alcohol in his blood. For the Army CID or Murtagh to then turn round and say Dr MacDonald "might" have had some diet pill amphetamine in his blood is scandalous. A murder trial is about evidence, not about what "might" have happened, or threads and fibers "could have" come from pajamas. McGinniss said that and it is simply one of his theories as to WHY Mac might have killed his family. The prosecution does not have to prove motive. He was not convicted because he "might" have taken diet pills. We aren't talking about a few blue fibers. We're talking about hundreds here. Hundreds!!!
They ought to have tested for diet pills before using it as an excuse to keep MacDonald in prison. If I said publicly that your fingerprints might have come from a murder scene you might be a bit annoyed and start asking for the evidence. I suppose they should have, then people like you couldn't scream "conspiracy!" Again, I say he was not convicted on that at all. Either the prosecutors must prove it, or Dr MacDonald must be released from prison. The only so-called evidence seems to be that Dr MacDonald was on a long shift and there are some MacDonald handwritten notes where he said he used to take some diet pills in order to control his weight. That isn't real proof of an amphetamine psychosis. Diet pills weren't controlled drugs at the time of the MacDonald murders. Neither were aspirins.
He was not convicted on the possibility that he was taking diet pills. It's a theory which COULD point to motive and motive does not have to be proven. Bunny ought not to keep posting misinformation about the MacDonald case like "MacDonald has dispayed consciousness of his guilt." Dr MacDonald has said he didn't killl his wife and daughters, he didn't carry them about at the murder rooms, and he loved them then and he loves them now. Bunny keeps saying there was a bare shoulder impression on the bedsheet when Dr Thornton said at the 1979 MacDonald trial that there was no possibility it could be a bare shoulder impression. There is more proof than the blood smear that appears to be a bare shoulder to prove he moved the bodies. For instance, Kimmy's blood in the MB doorway. If you don't believe he did, you have to write off all of the blood evidence, fiber evidence, well everything but Mac's word..scoff...I find it interesting that you believe this other person, but you do not believe all of the other experts. By the way, post that link for me.
With regard to Bunny's statement about "entwined with one of Colette's hairs" this is what Court TV Crime Library thinks about the matter. Does Bunny think Court TV are cheats and liars?
Well now you have somebody else to worry with because Bunny is right and I'm backing her. I was unable to find this statement. Please post the link. It sounds like one of your posts. :lol: Bunny and I both are getting this information from scanned documents, not interpretations, but the actual documents. I am not calling Court TV liars, but there are times when, yes, even Court TV gets something wrong. The hair is an easily proven fact. You're so interested in the Darlie case, a recent program said she was convicted of murdering both of her sons, which is not true and that she and two of her boys were rushed to the hospital. Both these things are wrong, wronger, and wrongest. And I have that taped. I can send it to you if you don't believe they said it.

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by just_beesy

When his shift was over, he went home, showered and went to his day job on the base, after which he felt peppy enough to play basketball for about an hour, then go home and drive the girls to feed their pony....See, the problem with Mac supporters is that you have no proof of his innocence. You just ignore all of the evidence and simply say "shoddy police work
Good post, beesy! And re: the pony, isn't it interesting that Mac said on Feb. 19, 1970 that he'd gone to feed the pony and then gone home (completely opposite to what he said later), and on Feb. 20 he told the CID he'd played basketball, returned to his residence, showered and ate the evening meal (no reference at all to the pony was made), and at the April 6 interview he said nothing at all about the pony. I think he only said later that he'd taken the kids to feed the pony because he thought it would enhance his image. What a liar he is and always will be.

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
My reference to the urine stains in the master bedroom came from a letter by MacDonald's wife on the Jeffrey MacDonald information website...

So your source is the murderer's website and a letter from the murderer's wife, despite the fact that you know without question that his website contains false information and that it's obvious that Mrs. Inmate isn't familiar with the facts of the case? How weird that you would rely on such a site for your reference material and ignore the facts about the urine on the master bed. Obviously your research is sorely lacking. Don't you even remember the posts to you by Byn just a month or so ago, in which she laid it out for you in a nutshell (emphasis mine)?: "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."

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is no evidence at all that...MacDonald moved any bodies.Of course there is. Even the defense agreed that the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet along with Colette's, and of course other forensic evidence also showed that he had moved not only Colette but Kimberly also.
The only so-called evidence against...MacDonald about this matter comes from a couple of idiot New York psychiatrists, Brussel and Silverman, who said that "hippies don't move bodies."
As you knew before you posted this, MacDonald agreed with Brussel that hippies would not have moved the bodies.
...MacDonald never said he was attacked by hippies anyway.
My, my, my. Even after months and months on the boards, you still apparently are not familiar with even the basic facts of the case. Of course he said it, Albie:

MP Richard Tevere, the first person to enter the apartment, was questioned at the 1979 trial about MacDonald's description of the intruders. Blackburn said, "...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?" Newman replied, "Yes, sir." Blackburn asked, "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'?" Newman replied, "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 him "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 the CID 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."

caphill

01-16-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by hohum
What a mess. This Britt man comes forward after how many years? People like Helena Stokley weren't reliable witnesses due to drug use. And even the defense attorney Jim Blackburn now has a soiled record for honesty. So who is there to testify (still alive) that could be considered honest?

Mr. Britt, a retired US Marshall, has a 40 year exemplar record . I think Mr. Blackburn can not boast of the same the ethical history in his ruined career.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the motion for this to be heard in a Raleigh federal court. Very rare. Huge legal win for MacDonald.

MacDonald's legal team will ask the Federal Court to vacate the conviction or grant a retrial.

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Mr. Britt, a retired US Marshall, has a 40 year exemplar record .Maybe not, caphill. There seem to be some discussions regarding alcoholism, and this may be the same Britt who was apparently chastised by the CID for inappropriate behavior (what this behavior was remains to be seen) and told if this behavior did not cease, he would be shipped off to Biloxi, Mississippi. It's also been indicated that he was suspended and tried in Raleigh, North Carolina, later to be reinstated (again, for what isn't known to me at this time).

And of course people are finding it very strange indeed that Britt claims he didn't come forward decades ago with this information because of his respect for Dupree and for the government, yet Dupree died many years ago and Britt retired from the government in 1990. Pretty strange.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the motion for this to be heard in a Raleigh federal court. Very rare. Huge legal win for MacDonald.
Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? The court's order only gives Mac the right to file the motion in district court (emphasis mine): "IT IS AJUDGED AND ORDERED that the motion is granted insofar as MacDonald may file in the district court the proposed 28 U.S.C 2255 motion now attached to his 2244 motion." As I and Byn and Jednme and others read this, it appears that Mac can file his motion for a hearing, it will be considered by the district court, and a hearing will probably be held on the Britt issue. I don't believe the court is going to allow Mac to present "all the evidence" and all the evidence "at once" as MacDonald's website implies, since of course that would be tantamount to a new trial, not a simple hearing.

As Petsie noted so eloquently on another board: "Checking the Federal Court's past rulings on MacD this is the next series of Activities: The 'hearing' will be held in front of Federal Judge (Charles?) Fox in Wilmington, NC as was his 1997 DNA request proceeding. I would suspect that Judge Fox will wait until he receives the DNA results from the AFIP to schedule a hearing. He will then rule (against MacD)- they will appeal this ruling to the 4th Circuit in Richmond; the 4th will agree with Fox (denying MacD's appeal) and then MacD will ask for the whole 4th Court (en banc as they say) to hear it and that forum will rule against MacD and then I suppose Mrs Inmate will insist it be appealed to the Supreme Court and the SC will refuse to hear it and bye bye MacD. "

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 02:03 PM

Hey, Caphill, got a question for you: If MacDonald really thought Britt's statements were so exculpatory, why didn't they say anything about this for almost an entire year?

just_beesy

01-16-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[QUOTE]My reference to the urine stains in the master bedroom came from a letter by MacDonald's wife on the Jeffrey MacDonald information website at:
I am no more impressed with this source than I would be with my dog's.
The forensic significance of this is that the false Kassab and Bob Stevenson and Kearns theories of sexual molestation of Kim causing the murderous rage can't possibly be true if it wasn't Kim in the bed in the first place.
Again, he was not convicted on this in any way. Kassab wasn't on the jury, either was her brother. As it pertains to his conviction, it is irrelavent.
There is no evidence at all that Dr MacDonald moved any bodies. I don't want to have a big argument about whether the bodies were moved. I accept they may have been moved by the murderers. The only so-called evidence against Dr MacDonald about this matter comes from a couple of idiot New York psychiatrists, Brussel and Silverman, who said that "hippies don't move bodies.". Dr MacDonald never said he was attacked by hippies anyway.
He used the words, hippie-like. He never corrected anyone when they said he claimed to see hippies. Dr. Thorton even said that the fabric impressions matched Colette and Jeff's pj shirts. So someone who was wearing his top, placed someone who was wearing her top onto the sheet and toted them into the MB, then put her top back on her body. Or you can always go with the theory that Jeff and Colette walked around with bloody pj tops on and at some point played in the sheet.

just_beesy

01-16-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[B[QUOTE]I think we are talking about semantics here rather than Dr MacDonald lying, as you imply. I grant you that Dr MacDonald may have given the impression to people who interviewed him that he was talking about hippies. He may have talked about hippy type clothes. Most of the murderers seemed to be 'absent without leave', drug addicted soldiers, rather than hippies. I suppose Helena Stoeckley could be described as a hippy and Cathy Perry as a hippy if she was there on the night of the MacDonald murders.
I'm not saying he was lying, I'm you were lying when you said he never used the word "hippies" I'm sure you are aware that one of Helena's stories was that she was in the house and saw Mac killing his family? If I were Mac, I wouldn't hang my hopes on her testimony at all. I'd pretend I'd never heard of her. She gave a different story everytime she was interviewed.

just_beesy

01-16-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by margiej
I don't know if this will help, but I remember reading a scenario about this when the murder first happened. Don't remember who wrote it but it has always stuck with me. The writer seemed to have inside info and stated that the fight in the MB started because Kim wet the bed and MacD got wet. He was spanking her with the hair brush when Colette was awakened from the couch and ran in, yanked the hairbrush from his hand and hit him on the forehead with it. He stood up and socked her in the nose, sending blood splatters to the window next to her. It makes as much sense as some other scenarios I have heard.
I don't think it was spatter. I think it was transfer, which would support what cami says about Colette possibly trying to get help

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I grant you that Dr MacDonald may have given the impression to people who interviewed him that he was talking about hippies. It was more than an "impression," Albie. MacDonald told several people outright that the people who attacked him were "hippies," and those people were quite firm that that was his exact word.

A pajama cuff brushing against a bedsheet proves absolutely nothing.I wonder why you seem to be unable to remember what has been said to you previously: The imprint was not made by MacDonald's cuffs "brushing" against anything, and this imprint and others indicate that he picked Colette up in the sheet. Colette's bloody pajama cuff imprints were also on the sheet. MacDonald, of course, denies touching the sheet at all.

This bare shoulder impression that Bunny keeps mentioning never happened.You seem to have a serious and chronic reading and/or comprehension problem. Very, very rarely have I ever mentioned this imprint at all in any of my posts, on any board. Why then do you keep saying that I "keep mentioning" it?

PrimeSuspect210

01-16-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Mr. Britt, a retired US Marshall, has a 40 year exemplar record . I think Mr. Blackburn can not boast of the same the ethical history in his ruined career.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the motion for this to be heard in a Raleigh federal court. Very rare. Huge legal win for MacDonald.

MacDonald's legal team will ask the Federal Court to vacate the conviction or grant a retrial.
Excellent post, caphill! Succinct and to the point.

If I may ... for the people that apparently don't comprehend the significance of this ruling ... the reason this is such a huge legal win for MacDonald, is that in order for the motion to be granted, the Court had to find that the evidence supporting this motion was not presented to the jury at the time of trial and that if the jury had been presented with the evidence supporting Deputy Marshal Britt's statement, they might have found Jeff not guilty.

This information (and only God & Jim Blackburn know how much more exists, IMO) is the kind of stuff that supports my belief that Jeffrey MacDonald did not get a fair trial.

PrimeSuspect210

01-16-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, Caphill, got a question for you: If MacDonald really thought Britt's statements were so exculpatory, why didn't they say anything about this for almost an entire year?
Hiya, Bunny2. I'm not caphill, but I can answer your question, I think. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what MacDonald thought of Britt's statements, nor does it matter how long MacDonald knew about them .... what matters is that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has found sufficient cause to grant a hearing for the evidence to be presented supporting Britt's statements.

Oh ... and I would also think that Britt is the one that decided when his statements would be presented to the Court ... Are you under the assumption that MacDonald had control over the information? Without support of the information, ya ain't got squat ... unless you're a prosecutor that makes threats of murder charges to witnesses, of course.

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
...the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has found sufficient cause to grant a hearing for the evidence to be presented supporting Britt's statements.There seems still to be some confusion over this since the court's order says only that they grant MacDonald the right to file a motion in District Court. Regardless, at any hearing there would be statements which refute Britt's statements or otherwise lessens their impact. So what's your point?

Without support of the information, ya ain't got squat ...I've been the plaintiff in at least one court case where the defendant asked for a hearing and there was nothing whatsoever to support the claims. The hearing was granted, and the fact that the defendant had no valid support for the claims was borne out by my winning the case as I've done with every case in court. Mac can present all the affidavits he wants to, but only the court will determine how much weight to give, if any, to Britt's statements.

And of course Mac seems to have jumped the gun with the statements on his website that "This means that the court has agreed that we have met their very high standard for seeking post-conviction relief: Newly discovered evidence that could not have been known at the time of trial, and that if this newly discovered evidence had been known at the time of trial, the outcome would have been different." A hearing has yet to even be held, and of course no court has yet determined that this "newly discovered evidence" would have been enough to cause a different outcome at trial. I guess once a liar, always a liar, eh?

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
... the reason this is such a huge legal win for MacDonald, is that in order for the motion to be granted, the Court had to find that the evidence supporting this motion was not presented to the jury at the time of trial and that if the jury had been presented with the evidence supporting Deputy Marshal Britt's statement, they might have found Jeff not guilty.Is this the same sort of "huge win" that happened with all Mac's other appeals? LOL!

This...is the kind of stuff that supports my belief that Jeffrey MacDonald did not get a fair trial.But of course as Dupree noted, "...the defendant has never made the claim on the record that he did not receive a fair trial. On the contrary one of his trial attorneys has on more than one occasion expressed the view that the trial was fairly conducted."

Bunny2

01-16-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Oh ... and I would also think that Britt is the one that decided when his statements would be presented to the Court ... Are you under the assumption that MacDonald had control over the information?So you're saying it was Britt who directed the defense to wait a year before presenting his statements to the court? My B.S. meter is running.

PrimeSuspect210

01-16-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
There seems still to be some confusion over this since the court's order says only that they grant MacDonald the right to file a motion in District Court. Regardless, at any hearing there would be statements which refute Britt's statements or otherwise lessens their impact. So what's your point?
The confusion seems to be yours. My point was clear. The fact that you butcher posts, and pull out what you want to be quoted, has no bearing on the facts.

I've been the plaintiff in at least one court case where the defendant asked for a hearing and there was nothing whatsoever to support the claims. The hearing was granted, and the fact that the defendant had no valid support for the claims was borne out by my winning the case as I've done with every case in court. Mac can present all the affidavits he wants to, but only the court will determine how much weight to give, if any, to Britt's statements.
Excuse me ... perhaps you don't understand. This is a hearing for an appeal. They work differently than pre-trial hearings or hearings during the course of the trial. If the Court found no basis for a hearing to be held, there wouldn't be a hearing. Now ... just what is your point?

And of course Mac seems to have jumped the gun with the statements on his website that "This means that the court has agreed that we have met their very high standard for seeking post-conviction relief: Newly discovered evidence that could not have been known at the time of trial, and that if this newly discovered evidence had been known at the time of trial, the outcome would have been different." A hearing has yet to even be held, and of course no court has yet determined that this "newly discovered evidence" would have been enough to cause a different outcome at trial. I guess once a liar, always a liar, eh?
Jumped the gun because they state the obvious on his website regarding the ruling? How does that make anyone a liar?

PrimeSuspect210

01-16-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
So you're saying it was Britt who directed the defense to wait a year before presenting his statements to the court? My B.S. meter is running.
I didn't say that.

PrimeSuspect210

01-16-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Is this the same sort of "huge win" that happened with all Mac's other appeals? LOL!
Nope. Didn't say that at all. Don't recall MacDonald ever being allowed to present new evidence. Comprehension problems on your end?

But of course as Dupree noted, "...the defendant has never made the claim on the record that he did not receive a fair trial. On the contrary one of his trial attorneys has on more than one occasion expressed the view that the trial was fairly conducted."
Oh, now quoting Dupree is really gonna sway my opinion. Not.

Care to provide a link to Dupree naming MacDonald's trial attorney that has stated that on the record? Or was this expression of confidence in the Government's presentation stated over shrimp and flounder at 42nd Street Oyster Bar?

caphill

01-17-2006, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Is this the same sort of "huge win" that happened with all Mac's other appeals? LOL!

But of course as Dupree noted, "...the defendant has never made the claim on the record that he did not receive a fair trial. On the contrary one of his trial attorneys has on more than one occasion expressed the view that the trial was fairly conducted."

LOL. Not to bash a dead man, but what did Judge Dupree really think when Dr. Macdonald filed motions for a new trial based on a discovery of new evidence found in the withheld evidence from the prosecution.

Filing a motion for a new trial based on suppressed evidence is putting that claim on record. Judge Dupree had to be aware of this motion filed since he rejected the motion.

I guess the Judge did not agree that suppressed evidence was any reason to believe it was not a fair trail. I don't think he denied the evidence was suppressed. He knew it took years to get the reports under FOIA but ruled it was too late to have this exculatory evidence heard.

caphill

01-17-2006, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by margiej

I don't know if this will help, but I remember reading a scenario about this when the murder first happened. Don't remember who wrote it but it has always stuck with me. The writer seemed to have inside info and stated that the fight in the MB started because Kim wet the bed and MacD got wet. He was spanking her with the hair brush when Colette was awakened from the couch and ran in, yanked the hairbrush from his hand and hit him on the forehead with it. He stood up and socked her in the nose, sending blood splatters to the window next to her. It makes as much sense as some other scenarios I have heard.

If this person had "inside" info of the details of what happened that night they must be one of the killers. All others that would know this are dead except Dr. MacDonald.

SirRalston

01-17-2006, 10:12 AM

Witness comes forward after 25 years

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- An appeals court has given new life to the defense of a former Green Beret doctor convicted of the 1970 murders of his wife and daughters, ruling that his lawyers can introduce evidence that a prosecutor threatened a witness.

A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, granted a motion Friday by Jeffrey MacDonald's lawyers to present the new evidence in Raleigh federal court. It could result in a new trial, said Hart Miles, one of MacDonald's attorneys.

"I think it's the biggest development in the case since the trial," Miles said.

The defense filed the motion last month, after a former deputy U.S. marshal came forward last year to say he heard a defense witness tell a prosecutor she was in the MacDonald home in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on the night of the slayings.

Jimmy B. Britt, part of the security detail during MacDonald's 1979 trial, said he heard prosecutor James Blackburn tell Helena Stoeckley that he would indict her for murder if she told the same story on the witness stand. Stoeckley later testified she could not remember where she was the night of the slayings.

Blackburn, who has denied making the remark, did not immediately return a call Friday seeking comment.

"She never told us she was there," Blackburn told The Associated Press last month. "I don't know why this man is coming forward 25 years later. I don't know what his motivation is, but he's simply mistaken."

MacDonald's wife, Kathryn, said she and her husband were "just overwhelmed" with the news, which she gave him in a brief telephone call Friday afternoon to the federal prison in Maryland where he is held.

"It's astonishing, wonderful," she said from her home in Columbia, Maryland. "It's given me back my faith that truth means something -- truth means everything -- and I know Jeff feels the same."

Lead attorney Tim Junkin said MacDonald's team will ask the federal court to vacate the conviction.

MacDonald, whose case was dramatized in the best-selling book and TV miniseries "Fatal Vision," responded to the ruling in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to exonerating him.

"We are grateful for the court's fair and thoughtful consideration, and are exhilarated that we will now be able to present all the evidence amassed since trial that demonstrates actual innocence," MacDonald said in the statement.

MacDonald, 62, is serving three consecutive life sentences in a federal prison for the murders of Colette MacDonald, 26, and their daughters Kimberley, 5, and Kristen, 2. He has argued that intruders killed his family in an attack that left him seriously injured.

According to MacDonald, one of the attackers was a woman with a long blond wig and floppy hat. He said he heard her say, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." Stoeckley, who died in 1983, fit the description, according to court papers.

Britt, now 67, said in an affidavit that he kept quiet for more than 25 years out of a sense of duty to people he worked with, but the secret eventually became too much to bear.

Britt said Stoeckley's interview with Blackburn was not the first time he heard her say she was in the MacDonald home the night of the murders. She told him the same story as he drove her from Greenville, South Carolina, to Raleigh for the trial and even described a hobby horse in the home, he said in the affidavit.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

moonriver

01-17-2006, 10:21 AM

Finally.....I've always had mixed feelings on this case...read the books, watched the shows about it and still could not reach any conclusions of my own. The lady in the floppy hat always stuck in my mind though.

Hopefully he will get the new trail and shame on Britt for not coming forward sooner.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Dunlurken
I would have to read up on this again. I remember the woman with the floppy hat and blonde wig, etc. but that's about all I remember. I don't remember MacDonald being hurt during the attack/killings. :read:

He was stabbed IIRC.

01-17-2006, 10:43 AM

It may be enough to release him with time served, if not acquit.

If there is a suggestion of impropriety on the part of the prosecution, it could really go either way.

I suspect they'll work out something and release him with time served. JMO.

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 10:49 AM

Helena Stokely was a nutcase. She was not only an illegal drug user...but she was on anti-psychotic meds...before, during, and after the trial, conviction, and sentencing. She had a history of mental illness and drug abuse.

This so-called new information won't help McDonald...who is right where he belongs. Unfortunately...he didn't get the death penalty!

The stab wound he had was in the muscle part of his left chest...and was suspected of being self-inflicted. He knew how deep to stab and in what area...considering he was a surgeon.

He ain't going nowhere! :read:

01-17-2006, 10:51 AM

I am not arguing with his conviction ;)

And yes. Malden was excellent Claw! Heart wrenching.

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by clawlicious
I do remember that there was a lot of focus on that pajama top and the fact that Jeffrey somehow wasn't killed by these drug crazed zombies but EVERYONE else in the house was.....hmmmmmm

Absolutely! Everyone else was slaughtered and McDonald walks away with a one inch stab wound that took a couple of stitches to close. The scene of the big fight in the living room...between the drugged out hippies and McDonald...was said to have been staged also. :mad:

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 10:57 AM

Didn't Helena Stoeckley tell several people and the FBI she was involved in some way..? IIRC she admitted to owning a blond wig, admitted she burned it, and they found some wig hair on the wife..? The details are cloudy, I apologize, did she make these comments and later recant..?

TIA for the follow up.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Dunlurken
It appears as though CTV has the best site regarding the case. The other site I went to was his defense fund, etc. :eek:

I'm reading that now.. it sure presents a strong case leaning towards his innocence. :confused:

NY-EVE

01-17-2006, 11:11 AM

i always felt he was innocent.......and i hope he gets a new trial ,,,there were too many cover-ups on the pros. side.......and then misconduct .........let justice prevail

oh cami..........where are ya girl ?????? i'm ducking over here ....lol

STEEL211 v1.0

01-17-2006, 11:13 AM

Knew the Man way back then,, as they knew each other,(not closly though), serving in the Miltary....
Too this day my father thinks Mr. Mc Donald is innocent....
He says that Mr. Mcdonald was framed up, and very Shoddy investagation by the Local PD,, well, was lacking in professionalism etc....
I do also....Believe He is innocent.
If you ever lived in the area at the time ALOT of LSD, PCP, Angle Dust, etc was going around back then.....
IMOP...

:patriot:

rph3664

01-17-2006, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
i always felt he was innocent.......and i hope he gets a new trial ,,,there were too many cover-ups on the pros. side.......and then misconduct .........let justice prevail

oh cami..........where are ya girl ?????? i'm ducking over here ....lol

I was once a "this is a no-brainer, he's guilty" person but now I believe he didn't do it. I don't think it happened as he described, however. And there is no doubt in my mind he was a terrible husband and father.

I tried to read "Fatal Justice", the book defending him, but just couldn't because it was a bore.

(rph3664 puts on a flameproof shield to defend herself from cami)

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by STEEL211 v1.0
Knew the Man way back then,, as they knew each other,(not closly though), serving in the Miltary....
Too this day my father thinks Mr. Mc Donald is innocent....
I do also....
If you ever lived in the area at the time ALOT of LSD, PCP, Angle Dust, etc was going around back then.....
IMOP...

:patriot:

Yeah right...and let's not forget the mood altering speed McDonald himself was using at that time.

He's as guilty as sin! :rolleyes:

Former Juror

01-17-2006, 11:17 AM

Pregnant Colette and the kids got the ice pick. Jeffrey had a small, superficial wound.

He will rot in prison....deservedly so.

IMO

NY-EVE

01-17-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by rph3664

I was once a "this is a no-brainer, he's guilty" person but now I believe he didn't do it. I don't think it happened as he described, however. And there is no doubt in my mind he was a terrible husband and father.

I tried to read "Fatal Justice", the book defending him, but just couldn't because it was a bore.

(rph3664 puts on a flameproof shield to defend herself from cami)

LOL .......cami is harmless.........she respects others views
..........as for the others ..........LOOK OUT ...........but our opinion is just as important as theirs............:seeya:

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Dunlurken
It appears as though CTV has the best site regarding the case. The other site I went to was his defense fund, etc. :eek:

Thoughts on the CTV info...?

NY-EVE

01-17-2006, 11:28 AM

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 11:29 AM

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 11:34 AM

Helena Stoeckley named the people that were supposed to have been with her that night. Each of them was cleared with legitimate alibies.

One of them called Stoeckley's story..."totally insane" and "the craziest thing I've ever heard." Another one who was investigated and clearned...termed her story as "the ravings of a madwoman." One of the guys she named was in jail when this horrible crime took place.

Stoeckley sounds really credible to me...NOT! :rolleyes:

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21
I also recall Patrick McGuiness, the author of Fatal Vision, was hired by MacDonald to right his story. Jeff ended up suing him, as he had hoped the book would be written as to his innocence. McGuiness said at the time, that by the end of his writing the book he believed in McDonald's guilt.

(I think I'm remember it right):)

imo

http://www.fataljustice.com/

"Joe McGinniss: "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."
Fourteen years ago, Joe McGinniss's best-selling book, Fatal Vision, depicted MacDonald as guilty. McGinniss theorized that MacDonald had abused diet pills, had suffered a violent amphetamine psychosis, and in a fit of rage, had murdered his family because one of the children wet the bed. The book and the pursuant movie convinced millions that this actually occurred. Yet, in a sworn deposition on October 30, 1986, McGinniss, incredibly, admitted he did not personally believe his own theory. He explained, under oath, that he had introduced the diet pill theory as a dramatic device in his "new journalism" where the story is more important than the facts. When asked why he said that he'd learned MacDonald had ingested an overdose of diet pills (which he had not learned at all), he said he hadn't wanted to give his readers the same old "rehash of the trial."

McGinniss finally revealed his true feelings about his central theory, the theory that had made him rich, and had convinced millions of people that MacDonald was guilty. Under oath, during hard questions by MacDonald's attorney, he admitted, "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."

:shrug:

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21

I also think inside the home as well. Also what about the Tate residence? Anyone recall?

imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Tate#Murder

Atkins took a towel and mopped up some of Tate's blood, and used the towel to write the word "PIG" on the front door.

My searching skills are getting a polishing today.. ;)

TuscanSun

01-17-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by clawlicious
I do remember that there was a lot of focus on that pajama top and the fact that Jeffrey somehow wasn't killed by these drug crazed zombies but EVERYONE else in the house was.....hmmmmmm
He's not going anywhere. He is guilty. They kill his children and don't stick around to make sure this loser is dead. No way.To bad they didn't have the DP back then he would have probably been toast by now. In my opinion. : (

TuscanSun

01-17-2006, 11:43 AM

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

kill the pigs was, but "groovy"? don't remember that written anywhere in blood.

The word "PIG" (in eight inch letters)...was also written (in blood) on the headboard of the McDonald's bed. :mad:

Former Juror

01-17-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21
Being that I am batting zero recalling names, I hesitate to post this one, but that Darlene Routier (sp), you know the one I mean from Texas that was convicted of killing her two children, when I followed her case, it always struck me as similar to the McDonald case, and I always wondered if she had read Fatal Vision. Just a thought.

moo

Darlie Routier

Former Juror

01-17-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21

Wasn't McDonald's wife also pregnant at the time of her death?

Yes. :(

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21

Good Work!! Gosh, these were the two biggest stories of the decade back then.. Tate/ Bianca and the McDonald case.

I hope we are not reading the rehash, decades from now about new evidence in the S Peterson case..

Somethings just never get put to bed.

moo

I don't think that will be the case. At least with today's technology.. I hope not.

This case.. I dunno. The thing that really bothers me the most is the DNA evidence. The hairs, the bloody hand print. Why not give the defense access and let them run the tests. If they have the right man then what's the worry...?
The other things that bother me are the evidence of the supressed items (blond wig hairs..?), the horrible collection and preservation of evidence, the lack of "security" at the crime scene.

I would hope they would at least allow the testing... but from the sounds of things they wont.

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

one of the peterson posters had relatives who were murdered at Ft. Bragg and she noted how paper thin the walls were on the base housing............NO WAY a big fight broke out and no one heard a thing.

MOO

Yep...and the upstairs neighbors (over the McDonald quarters) said they could hear when the McDonald's were arguing or fighting...but couldn't understand what they were saying. If there was any kind of fight going on that night...you know they would have heard something.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
The confusion seems to be yours. My point was clear. The fact that you butcher posts, and pull out what you want to be quoted, has no bearing on the facts.I guess you didn't even read the court's response, since I quoted nothing out of context and printed precisely what the order says. You want the entire wording? Here it is. Tell me where I misquoted it:

Upon consideration of the motion of Jeffrey R. MacDonald, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 2244,

IT IS AJUDGED AND ORDERED that the motion is granted insofar as MacDonald may file in the district court the proposed 28 U.S.C 2255 motion now attached to his 2244 motion.

Entered at the direction of Judge Niemeyer with the concurrence of Judge King and Judge Duncan.

Jumped the gun because they state the obvious on his website regarding the ruling? How does that make anyone a liar?Well, claiming that Britt's affidavit proved to a court that a jury's verdict would have been different, when no hearing has even been held on that issue yet, seems to me to be an outright lie. Take it however you want to; makes no difference to me.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
...and I would also think that Britt is the one that decided when his statements would be presented to the Court ... Are you under the assumption that MacDonald had control over the information?Originally posted by Bunny2
So you're saying it was Britt who directed the defense to wait a year before presenting his statements to the court? My B.S. meter is running.Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
I didn't say that.
Sure you did.

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21

Wasn't McDonald's wife also pregnant at the time of her death?

Yes....she was carrying their son!

Earl Grey

01-17-2006, 11:58 AM

Just goes to show that if you scream "innocence" long enough, some court somewhere will hear you out. I'm glad the court is going to hear this "evidence," so this case can be closed once and for all--and MacDonald can continue to fulfill his debt to society.

Seems to me he has it pretty good for a homicidal maniac. He's taken care of and he has a beautiful wife.

I wonder what Collette, Kim and Kristi are doing now?

:rolleyes:

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by caphill
...what did Judge Dupree really think when [the murderer] filed motions for a new trial based on a discovery of new evidence found in the withheld evidence from the prosecution.The appeals courts found that Mac's appeals based on "new evidence" were without merit, and the courts also found that no evidence was wrongly withheld.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

since when does the defense NOT have access to run its own tests? didn't realize the state had withheld discovery from the defense team? seems there would have been an outcry long before now.

MOO

http://www.fataljustice.com/

About 3/4 down the page. There are earlier updates, but too much to post.

AUGUST 1997 JUDGE JAMES FOX DENIES THE MacDONALD PETITION ON ALL POINTS

In his decision to deny MacDonald, Judge James Fox, who replaced the deceased Judge Franklin Dupree, found, incredibly, that MacDonald had no right to DNA test the foreign hairs found under his children's fingernails, brown hairs known by the army lab not to have been his blond hair, hairs suppressed by the lab and by the government prosecution. MacDonald's attorneys filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit pointing out the logical problems with this stance.

OCTOBER 1997, THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OVERULES JUDGE FOX AND ALLOWS DNA TESTING

Finally, a three judge panel at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA, overturned Judge Fox on the key issue of DNA testing of the foriegn hairs found under Kristen's and Kimberly's fingernails. Judge Fox then ruled that the MacDonald defense could now DNA test certain items. Since MacDonald had been denied the right to lab test the evidence for 27 years, this signified what was seen as a major victory in the case.

JUNE 2000, ANOTHER ROADBLOCK
But, nearly three years after the judge's ruling the defense team still has not been able to effect DNA testing due to legal jousting back and forth with the government lawyers. A microscopist's initial report about the state of some of the more important items the defense wanted to DNA test, however, was that those items, including the all important brown hairs found under the childrens' fingernails, are not of sufficient quantity or quality to be tested - - even though an army examiner in 1970 compared them with MacDonald's hairs and stated that they were not his. The issue of these hairs is the current focal point of contention between the government attorneys and Phil Cormeir, lead attorney of MacDonald's defense team at Silverglate and Good of Boston.

Also just above the case status section is an excerpt from a lab note:

Knowledge about hairs under the nails of murder victims, hairs that didn't match Dr. MacDonald, should not have been kept secret, but in long suppressed lab note R-11 the army lab tech writes in the last line: ". . . they are not going to be reported by me."

And yes, I understand this is a site supporting him, I'm not focusing on the opinions of the site owners.. just the case updates which are court documented facts.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Don't recall MacDonald ever being allowed to present new evidence. Comprehension problems on your end?No, I think more a lack of research on your end. Mac has filed re: "new evidence" before and the courts found no merit to his arguments.

Care to provide a link to Dupree naming MacDonald's trial attorney that has stated that on the record?Care to provide a link proving that Dupree was lying?

basketball

01-17-2006, 12:09 PM

HERE WE GO AGAIN!! I really have sympathy for her family;
This must open some terrible memories for them. McDonald has
had 2 trials and here we go for a 3rd. What's he doing in Md.?
He was in Ca. for a while, I thought. Here's roses for her
family. I hope they're doing well!:rose: :rose: :rose:

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by GRUMPYBEAR
Jefferey McDonald did murder his family, yet he refuses to admit it in order to get out on parole. He can rot in prison for all I care.Hey, Grumpybear, you're certainly not alone in that opinion! No one can foretell the future, but it's my guess that Mac will indeed remain in prison for the rest of his days. I think the only way he'll be leaving there is in a box.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

and since DNA testing wasn't deemed reliable until OJ made it famous, just what would have testing the hair under the girls' fingernails have proved in that inflammatory "27 years" quote? designed to prove how boo hoo unfair it was to poor little jeffrey?

without any other DNA to compare it to, how would that "exonerate" a sociopathic, control freak who murdered his wife and daughters?

i lived through the entire case from start to finish since i was in college when it happened..........the guy is guilty and had his little run of freedom.......about 10 years IIRC........before he was found guilty..........and that was when he still looked good. today he looks like a prison freak with that pasty skin and he's lost his golden boy appearance........pity.

MOO

I don't know what it would have proved then, but now wouldn't it at the very least be worth testing...?

"without other DNA to compare it to.." How about comparing it to him if it would exclude him as the killer..?

I have no idea if he did it. I just read things like evidence being withheld, shoddy detective work, etc... and I question how the case was handled. Nothing more, nothing less. If he's guilty and they are sure, then I say what's the harm in letting them do the testing now...? :shrug:

If he's guilty then pity is too good for him.

fdusa

01-17-2006, 12:22 PM

TuscanSun

01-17-2006, 12:30 PM

Did he have anymore children? Lousy babykiller. :~{

Sandpiper

01-17-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by SPYCEE3
Helena Stokely was a nutcase. She was not only an illegal drug user...but she was on anti-psychotic meds...before, during, and after the trial, conviction, and sentencing. She had a history of mental illness and drug abuse.

This so-called new information won't help McDonald...who is right where he belongs. Unfortunately...he didn't get the death penalty!

The stab wound he had was in the muscle part of his left chest...and was suspected of being self-inflicted. He knew how deep to stab and in what area...considering he was a surgeon.

He ain't going nowhere! :read: :beer:

fdusa

01-17-2006, 12:38 PM

througth the media, and people that lived in the area at the time. My brother in law, who was stationed at Fort Bragg when this happened (now retired) said they were not allowed to talk about it and to this day refuses to discuss it much. He did take me by the building where they lived. At the time it was still sealed as a crime scene and was for many years through all the court proceedings.

In the beginning I thought he might have done it. Then 'Fatal Vision' came out and I "knew" he did it.

As the years went by and I read more and more and actually lived in North Carolina and saw how the justice system worked, and did some research on the attorneys that prosecuted him I began to waver in my belief that he had ever gotten a fair trial in any of the proceedings.

For those that are not aware, some of the attorneys involved in his last prosecution, which resulted in him being comvicted have since been disbarred and are them selves serving time. (They may be out by now) They had a history of covering up evidence, hiding evidence and if I remember correctly destroying evidence. This has brought questions to the validity of any of their convictions while they were prosecutors.

Also, the crime scene was a forensic mess. The military police trampled that crime scene badly, and later admitted they picked up some things and set them upright in the living room. One of the things that the prosecution never allowed the defence to find out was that there was McDonald's blood on the hall floor which was consistant with his story. There was long blond synthetic hair found at the scene and on the body of Colette.

I, too, used to think he was 'guilty as sin', but after all these years of research, reading, and listening to people that actually lived there at the time I do have some doubts.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will ever know the real truth of what happened that night, but I no longer will say he is guilty as sin. If I were on a jury today and they actually brought into court all the evidence, including what was denied to the defense I would have to say there is at the very least resonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I think McDonald is a jerk. I am no longer ready to say he is guilty of triple murder.

I am going to go and get my books and freshen my memory so to speak.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi
and pray tell, would it exclude him as the killer? what if he had an accomplice? one who killed the girls as he was killing collete? does that make him any less guilty?

for the shoddy police work, you need to look at the army since they had the jurisdiction, not the local police. it WAS base housing and the MP's were the first responders..........sorry it doesn't allow the LE to be bashed.

the tests will prove nothing since his DNA belonged in that house.

MOO

Not sure why, but it seems you have some sort of problem with me questioning the case... ? :shrug:

Would you mind sharing why...? :confused:

If, if, if... what if he didn't do it...? That's all I'm asking.

TuscanSun

01-17-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by fdusa
througth the media, and people that lived in the area at the time. My brother in law, who was stationed at Fort Bragg when this happened (now retired) said they were not allowed to talk about it and to this day refuses to discuss it much. He did take me by the building where they lived. At the time it was still sealed as a crime scene and was for many years through all the court proceedings.

In the beginning I thought he might have done it. Then 'Fatal Vision' came out and I "knew" he did it.

As the years went by and I read more and more and actually lived in North Carolina and saw how the justice system worked, and did some research on the attorneys that prosecuted him I began to waver in my belief that he had ever gotten a fair trial in any of the proceedings.

For those that are not aware, some of the attorneys involved in his last prosecution, which resulted in him being comvicted have since been disbarred and are them selves serving time. (They may be out by now) They had a history of covering up evidence, hiding evidence and if I remember correctly destroying evidence. This has brought questions to the validity of any of their convictions while they were prosecutors.

Also, the crime scene was a forensic mess. The military police trampled that crime scene badly, and later admitted they picked up some things and set them upright in the living room. One of the things that the prosecution never allowed the defence to find out was that there was McDonald's blood on the hall floor which was consistant with his story. There was long blond synthetic hair found at the scene and on the body of Colette.

I, too, used to think he was 'guilty as sin', but after all these years of research, reading, and listening to people that actually lived there at the time I do have some doubts.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will ever know the real truth of what happened that night, but I no longer will say he is guilty as sin. If I were on a jury today and they actually brought into court all the evidence, including what was denied to the defense I would have to say there is at the very least resonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I think McDonald is a jerk. I am no longer ready to say he is guilty of triple murder.

I am going to go and get my books and freshen my memory so to speak.

My question is. Why would all these people want to frame this wonderful Dr. and let druggies go free? it makes no sense to me.

TuscanSun

01-17-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

no thank goodness.........he was too busy being the newly single bachelor or ...... sob........the unfortunate widower. he makes me sick.

MOO

Thank Goodness for that.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi
i have no problem with you questioning the case.........that's what the boards are for.

the issue is always the technical aspects of a case.........the things used to get killers out of jail.

i don't think anyone should be locked up who is not guilty, but on the other hand, macdonald has had 3 opportunities to have his story heard............and there just isn't enough collusion in the world that tells me he wasn't given a fair shake............3 times.

question away, but please lose the paranoia.........this is an anonymous board after all.

MOO

Not paranoid at all. Your reply was a tab bit abrasive, in my opinion. Hard to read emotion. No harm no foul.

3 opportunities...? :shrug: The first time it was brought to court it was dismissed, the second time he was convicted. I'm not familiar with a 3rd time?

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by fdusa

For those that are not aware, some of the attorneys involved in his last prosecution, which resulted in him being comvicted have since been disbarred and are them selves serving time. (They may be out by now) They had a history of covering up evidence, hiding evidence and if I remember correctly destroying evidence. This has brought questions to the validity of any of their convictions while they were prosecutors.

[/B]

These are pretty harsh statements....do you have a link to any of this information?

Jeffery McDonald IS GUILTY AS SIN AND WILL NEVER BE RELEASED! :rolleyes:

fdusa

01-17-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

all of those proceedings used the same tainted evidence.
well since he had more than one trial in different jurisdictions, are you suggesting that all the investigators, all the prosecutors, and all the judges colluded to make this man guilty?

his first trial was the army, followed by a criminal trial and then IIRC, a civil trial or was it two criminal trials?

MOO

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi
and for what reason would i single you out?

it is tiresome to hear those same old excuses.........collusion, defense being "denied" evidence, bad police work, trotted out over and over.........all in the defense of someone who was the scott peterson of his day. as Tuscan Sun so brightly pointed out, why would anyone want to frame him and let druggy killers go? makes NO sense at all.

he was court martialed by the army before he got to civvy court.
but he had 10 long years of freedom before he got hauled in.

MOO

I already addressed your first comment. I obviously misunderstood your intent. No harm... no foul...

Murder doesn't make much sence. That's for sure.

Court martialed, then civialian murder trial... you mentioned a 3rd opportunity..?

TuscanSun

01-17-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

DING.......DING....DING.............and that IS the central question. well done TS!!

MOO Thank You : )

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by ChiSox

Not paranoid at all. Your reply was a tab bit abrasive, in my opinion. Hard to read emotion. No harm no foul.

3 opportunities...? :shrug: The first time it was brought to court it was dismissed, the second time he was convicted. I'm not familiar with a 3rd time?

The first military trial was dismissed. The second trial was in Federal Court and he was found guilty on 28 Aug 1979. The murder conviction was overturned by the Federal Appeals Court on the basis that he did not receive a speedy trial. Then the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction in 1981....and McDonald is right where he belongs. :read:

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by TuscanSun
My question is. Why would all these people want to frame this wonderful Dr. and let druggies go free? it makes no sense to me.

Just from what I have read there are claims that Stoeckley was the daughter of a high up retired colonel, and was a narcotics informant for the local and army police. There are other claims from former army investigators that other sons and daughters of key officers on post were involved in the drug traffic, and one other daughter of a colonel was allegedly was buying her drugs from Stoeckley. Maybe they thought it easier to frame him rather then embarrass themselves... :shrug:

JMO.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

i can't recall exactly, but he either had 2 trials or a criminal and then a civil trial filed by his inlaws. they were ferocious and the reason he's in prison today.........the tenacity of freddy.

the trials happened after his court martial.

MOO

Thanks.

fdusa

01-17-2006, 01:10 PM

evidence that indicated that intruderes were in the crime scene.

Unidentified candle wax was found on the living room coffee table, also found of the west side of rhe sashing machine in the kitchen, this was not disclosed to the defence team.

Unidentified yellow wax with an unidentified hair embedded in it was found on the hall wall but not disclosed to teh defense and therefore the jury.

Burned match was found near the radiator in Kristen's room, not disloced to the defense or jury

Again, candle wax was found on Kimberly's bedding near her body, an unidentified hair was found on the fed, an unmatched flat black thread was found on her bottom sheet near a bloody splinter, unmatched pink and blue fibers were also found on bottom sheet and unamtched purple and black nylon figers wer found on her bed quilt, none of this was disclosed to the defense.
Also, in Kimberly's room was candle wax on an arm of a chair.

An unidentified red-pink wool fiber was found on Mac Donalds reading glasses, along with a speck of Type O blood. Human blood of undertermined type (they didn't bother to type it) was found on the living-room floor near the reading glasses. Not realeased to the defense or jury

Three-blood stained gloves were found in the kitchen

A stemmed drinkin glass bearing an unidentified adult finger print, apparetly female, was found on the living room end table, the glass held dregs of chocolate milk purchasead by Colette on the night of the murders.

A bloody syringe containing an unknown liquid was found in the ahll closet but not disclosed

An unidentified hair coered with a tarlike substance was found iun teh bathroom sink.

Two unidentified blue cotton fibers were also found in the sink, crumpled ina pink facial tissue

An unidentified fiber was found wehre MacDonald claimed to have lain unconscious.

An unidentified hair was also found there

Two unmatched black fibers wer found on the murder club

There are many more tha I am not going to type

I just took these from the Fatal Justic Book that I have, there is a complete list found after page 242 when they are showing pictures and illustrations, documents etc.

I am looking for links of printed documentation on the attorneys I mentioned earlier. I really want to find their names and data on them because they could be the same attorneys that were involved in the Blanche Moore death penalty case.

Ah, here is one of them.
James Blackburn was disbarred effective April, 16, 1993

If I recall correctly there was one maybe two more attorneys that ended up disbarred and I really believe I remember reading that they were serving prison time for something.

(I hate getting old and not having total recall!)

fdusa

01-17-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by fdusa

All I am saying is that not all of the evidence was produced at trial, not all of the evidence was tested, and there is a possiblity, since all of the proceeding used the exact same evidence and did not allow the evidence that was not released to be heard in court that there is a possibility for reasonable doubt.

Believe me, I thought he was guilty and as the years went by and I read more I have some doubts as to the validity of the prosecutions case.

He may have done it, he may not have done it.

But the trials were questionable at the very least.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by TuscanSun
My question is. Why would all these people want to frame this wonderful Dr. and let druggies go free? it makes no sense to me.
Originally posted by ChiSox
Just from what I have read there are claims that Stoeckley was the daughter of a high up retired colonel, and was a narcotics informant for the local and army police. There are other claims from former army investigators that other sons and daughters of key officers on post were involved in the drug traffic, and one other daughter of a colonel was allegedly was buying her drugs from Stoeckley. Maybe they thought it easier to frame him rather then embarrass themselves...
Of course, why didn't we think of that before. They framed him by walking into the crime scene and putting a fiber from Mac's pajamas under Kristen's fingernail, more fibers from his pajamas were put under the victims' bodies and in their bedclothing and on the murder club; then they walked around the apartment putting MacDonald's blood in the kitchen, staging the living room and bedroom scenes, and completely renovating Mac's pajama top so they could put Colette's and Kimmie's blood on it before it was torn; then of course they put the pajama top over Colette's body and stabbed her through it. Whoooeeee, what a scenario.

The Article 32 military hearing was an investigative proceeding, not a trial, and all the evidence was not known at that time. That aside, Rock (who apparently applied an illegal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") found the charges "not true," but of course Mac wasn't at all happy with that. He wanted to be found completely innocent of the crimes and vindicated, but that isn't what happened. He was never exonerated at the Article 32.

Regardless, isn't it strange that the same Army who was supposedly "out to convict" him found that the charges were "not true"? So much for a conspiracy, eh? Not to mention the countless people the Army would have had to involve in order to have a conspiracy to begin with: not only the babysitter and Mac's own best friend Ron Harrison, but also an entire boatload of investigators and lab technicians and witnesses. And meanwhile, they had no concern that "intruders" were supposedly walking around loose? Sorry, just not believable IMHO.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 01:29 PM

Bunny, really, there is no need to be condescending. I have no idea what the truth is or isn't. Just repeating what's been stated in statements by former folks connected to the case. Do I realize how crazy it sounds... yes. Is it possible? Anything is possible, IMO.

I understand some of you believe strongly in his guilt. I respect that and I am in no way belittleing your opinions. So, please, don't belittle mine.

Regards, ChiSox.

NY-EVE

01-17-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by fdusa
througth the media, and people that lived in the area at the time. My brother in law, who was stationed at Fort Bragg when this happened (now retired) said they were not allowed to talk about it and to this day refuses to discuss it much. He did take me by the building where they lived. At the time it was still sealed as a crime scene and was for many years through all the court proceedings.

In the beginning I thought he might have done it. Then 'Fatal Vision' came out and I "knew" he did it.

As the years went by and I read more and more and actually lived in North Carolina and saw how the justice system worked, and did some research on the attorneys that prosecuted him I began to waver in my belief that he had ever gotten a fair trial in any of the proceedings.

For those that are not aware, some of the attorneys involved in his last prosecution, which resulted in him being comvicted have since been disbarred and are them selves serving time. (They may be out by now) They had a history of covering up evidence, hiding evidence and if I remember correctly destroying evidence. This has brought questions to the validity of any of their convictions while they were prosecutors.

Also, the crime scene was a forensic mess. The military police trampled that crime scene badly, and later admitted they picked up some things and set them upright in the living room. One of the things that the prosecution never allowed the defence to find out was that there was McDonald's blood on the hall floor which was consistant with his story. There was long blond synthetic hair found at the scene and on the body of Colette.

I, too, used to think he was 'guilty as sin', but after all these years of research, reading, and listening to people that actually lived there at the time I do have some doubts.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will ever know the real truth of what happened that night, but I no longer will say he is guilty as sin. If I were on a jury today and they actually brought into court all the evidence, including what was denied to the defense I would have to say there is at the very least resonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I think McDonald is a jerk. I am no longer ready to say he is guilty of triple murder.

I am going to go and get my books and freshen my memory so to speak.

yes.........and those are the very reasons i think he is innocent.....
there are more reasons........but i'm outnumbered here and this case doesnt effect me personaly,,,,,,,so there's no point in arguing the case with those who feel differently..........
this man who came forward now after all these years has plenty to lose and nothing to gain but,,, telling the truth....so i say let there be a new trial with ALL the evidence not just some

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by fdusa

I am looking for links of printed documentation on the attorneys I mentioned earlier. I really want to find their names and data on them because they could be the same attorneys that were involved in the Blanche Moore death penalty case.

Ah, here is one of them.
James Blackburn was disbarred effective April, 16, 1993

If I recall correctly there was one maybe two more attorneys that ended up disbarred and I really believe I remember reading that they were serving prison time for something.

(I hate getting old and not having total recall!) [/B]

I hate to keep taxing your memory...but I really would like to read about the disbarments you are talking about. Where did you get the 16 Apr 1993 disbarment of James Blackburn?

NY-EVE

01-17-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by SPYCEE3

I hate to keep taxing your memory...but I really would like to read about the disbarments you are talking about. Where did you get the 16 Apr 1993 disbarment of James Blackburn?

hello spicey............google his name ''james blackburn'' and watch the stories pop up he was in fact disbarred and so were some of the investigators in mcdonalds case

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE

yes.........and those are the very reasons i think he is innocent.....
there are more reasons........but i'm outnumbered here and this case doesnt effect me personaly,,,,,,,so there's no point in arguing the case with those who feel differently..........
this man who came forward now after all these years has plenty to lose and nothing to gain but,,, telling the truth....so i say let there be a new trial with ALL the evidence not just some

What does he have to lose? What a shame he waited 25 years for his 15 minutes of fame?

NY-EVE

01-17-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by SPYCEE3

What does he have to lose? What a shame he waited 25 years for his 15 minutes of fame?

fame ??? i would think it would be very ebarrassing to say the least.......to withhold information all these years

we'll see what happens in the trial if there is one

have a great day spicey

fdusa

01-17-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by SPYCEE3

I hate to keep taxing your memory...but I really would like to read about the disbarments you are talking about. Where did you get the 16 Apr 1993 disbarment of James Blackburn?

I got the date from the book 'Fatal Justice'

But here is a link to the chrnology of the case I just found this on the web.

Sorry I am actually having to work today so not able to dig up everything at this time. Trying to do it in off moments here lol

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 01:53 PM

http://www.fataljustice.com/

Here's the Fatal Justice Web Site. Maybe that will help with the details.

FrankieBones

01-17-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

more like triple hearsay............remind anyone of the peterson "a corrections officer was told an inmate told his brother's wife's 4th cousin" that the burglars were confronted by laci?

pulleeeze..........macdonald is a carbon copy of peterson............a psychopath who showed fake remorse, whose pajama top showed he had been ontop his dead wife, who was sleep deprived from amphetamines, whose wounds were superficial while his wife and daughters were brutally and deeply stabbed and bludgeoned.

last year it was DNA evidence, this year someone overheard someone who overheard someone who might have been in the house.

stockley died years ago from liver disease related to her drug use. if she had been in the house that night, it was to buy drugs from the "golden" doctor.

MOO
Good post. MacDonald is where he should be. This dude loves the limelight.
imo

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by fdusa
evidence that indicated that intruderes were in the crime scene...I just took these from the Fatal Justic Book that I haveOnce you have researched the claims in FJ, you will see how badly you have been misled.

First of all, unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant. It's the sourced items which are important, and in this case, incriminating threads and fibers matched to MacDonald's pajamas, even with one of them being entwined with a bloody hair of Colette's.

Second, most, if not all, of the items you talk about were indeed known to the defense at the time of trial. In fact, as the 1985 court decision reflects, by 1985 Segal had given up his other claims ("Upon reflection, we think that we were wrong about two or three of them . . . and this morning we will want to abandon our motion as to a couple of them. But on about four of them, we still believe with all out strength [they] . . . would've made a real difference in the case."). The court found no merit to those four remaining issues.

Unidentified candle wax was found on the living room coffee table

The wax was found to be old and filled with household debris; I believe this was mentioned in Browning's testimony at the grand jury, so of course the defense did have access to it.

...also found of the west side of rhe sashing machine in the kitchen, this was not disclosed to the defence team.

What you are referring to is Potter and Bost's claim "Unidentifed candle wax was found on the west side of the washing machine in the kitchen (CID Exhibit D-27K and lab notes, March 3, 1970)..." But of course when you have researched this claim, you will see that Exhibit D-27K is not candle wax; it is "Red-brown stain on west side of clothes washer in kitchen," and the findings say that this was blood, human or animal unknown due to paucity of stain.

Unidentified yellow wax with an unidentified hair embedded in it was found on the hall wall but not disclosed to teh defense and therefore the jury.

Here, you refer to Potter and Bost's claim about CID Exhibit f-60. When you have done your research, you will find that this exhibit is actually not described as wax at all. It was described only as "yellow matter from north hall wall." The findings state that (1) examinations did not reveal any data of significance or relevance (paragraph 49) and (2) Examination of Exhibits F-60...showed same to be a small amount of hard yellow and white substance.

Burned match was found near the radiator in Kristen's room, not disloced to the defense or jury

Have you seen the photo of the pipe-smoking investigator inside 544 Castle Drive? And have you read that Colette sneaked smokes with her sister-in-law? Have you found any documentation that any intruder's fingerprints were found on this match?

Also, in Kimberly's room was candle wax on an arm of a chair.

This wax was found to be consistent with that of birthday candles. Regardless, the unsourced wax in the house was found to have come from three different candles. Do you believe Stoeckley was carrying three candles, or that three of the intruders held candles? If MacDonald is trying to claim that Helena Stoeckley carried three candles, or that any of the male "intruders" carried candles, then that would be completely at odds with Stoeckley's statement that "I was the only person who carried a candle." Also: No wax trails from any dripping candles were found in the apartment; Colette was fond of candles, and testimony was given that during the crime scene investigation candles were found in nearly every room of the house; and it can be assumed that candle stubs from candles the MacDonalds burned were thrown out, which of course precludes them from being matched to wax found in the apartment after the murders.

An unidentified red-pink wool fiber was found on Mac Donalds reading glasses, along with a speck of Type O blood.

Again, unsourced items aren't forensically significant, since they're common to every household. Regardless, Mac claimed he wasn't wearing his glasses when he checked Kristen (or any of his family). He later tried to claim that the spot of Kristen's blood was probably put there when he was treating a patient before the murders. However, MacDonald was seen professionally by LTC (Dr.) F. W. Pierce, optometrist, on February 16, 1970, the afternoon before the murders. If there had been blood on the lens, the optometrist would have noticed it, and since optometrists routinely clean lenses during an examination, it is highly unlikely that a speck of blood would have remained there after the office visit. Per MacDonald's attorney, Bernie Segal, during closing arguments at trial: "If anything you have learned physically about Dr. MacDonald is what--is he a sloppy man? Is he a man likely to walk around with a blood spot on his reading glasses having to read for several hours? It does not seem to me that there is evidence to sustain such a conclusion." If Segal was trying to imply that the blood on the glasses was put there as it was flung off of one of the "intruders" during the struggle on the sofa, why was no other blood of any type, cast-off or otherwise, found in that area?

Three-blood stained gloves were found in the kitchen

The gloves were oven mitts, fdusa! Are you saying you think the intruders wore potholders while committing the murders, and then walked back down the hallway over Mac's unconscious body in order to put the gloves back in the kitchen?

A bloody syringe containing an unknown liquid was found in the ahll closet but not disclosed

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

There are many more tha I am not going to type

And I'm not going to bother typing responses to the rest of the information you've posted, since this post is long enough already and you can see that much of what you've been told in FJ is misrepresented or outrightly false, including their false reporting of Stombaugh's testimony.

fdusa

01-17-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by fdusa

I got the date from the book 'Fatal Justice'

But here is a link to the chrnology of the case I just found this on the web.

Sorry I am actually having to work today so not able to dig up everything at this time. Trying to do it in off moments here lol

Sorry trying to talk on the phone and do this and messsed it up.

Here is the link\

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Chronology_4.html

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 02:06 PM

For those that are not aware, some of the attorneys involved in his last prosecution, which resulted in him being comvicted have since been disbarred and are them selves serving time. (They may be out by now) They had a history of covering up evidence, hiding evidence and if I remember correctly destroying evidence.
Going a bit overboard, aren't you, fdusa? Please provide the links proving that Murtagh or Blackburn or anyone else on the prosecution team covered up or wrongly suppressed evidence or destroyed evidence. And while you're gathering your links, be sure to note the courts' decisions showing that no evidence was wrongly suppressed in this case.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by ChiSox
http://www.fataljustice.com/

Here's the Fatal Justice Web Site. Maybe that will help with the details.
Here are some much better links to the details in this case:

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

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showforum=10

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Here are some much better links to the details in this case:

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

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showforum=10

I just found those from the other thread on this case. There is a bunch of stuff I have never seen.

fdusa

01-17-2006, 02:18 PM

fdusa

01-17-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
boy,,,,i'm really outnumbered here........i think he is innocent
why did the army suppress so much evidense ??
and what about the army mp who saw helena stoekly on the street corner the night of the murders ,, just standing in the rain?? and what about the candle wax that was tested and proved to NOT be from any candle in the house ??
i too can go on and on with questions .......a person who is guilty and has somthing to hide does'nt want people investigating ...he has begged for it .......ok people i'm just wanting a friendly discussion ......lets debate and not be mean.....
I thought he was guilty, then kept up with the saga of the trials, the books, etc.
Now I don't know if he is guilty or not guilty.
What I do think is that the whole case was botched from the befinning when the MP's arrived at that apartment.

I get bashed on here for not agreeing with all the posters that have been here a long time. Maybe because until I retired I did not have time to sit at the computer and read messages boards as I do now so I am only posting as someone that has worked in the criminal justice system, knows how it works for and against people, and still am able to have an opinion of my own. Evidently that is a crime here on these boards, having an opinion.

Deb B

01-17-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

...MacDonald's lawyers now are nice people...

Do you know them personally?

barskin&co.

01-17-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi

Also... has anyone EVER heard a "hippie" (or anyone else) say ANYTHING as stupid as, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs?" To me, that sounds like something that someone made up as being something that a hippie MIGHT say, if they'd never actually been around anyone who was using acid or if they'd never heard stoned people talk before...

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

As I was in high school and college in the 60's I was around a lot of hippies.........never ever heard anyone saying anything that silly. it sounds like bad screenwriting or a peter fonda/roger corman movie where he drops acid.

I completely agree. I "dropped" (to use the parlance of the time) acid, myself, in the sixties, and that line is as stupid and unlikely as it gets. I also thought it sounded like it came from a bad Corman movie or an old episode of "Dragnet" (does anyone else remember the classic "Blue Boy"episode?). Here is an interesting comment written on Christina's MacDonald Case info site:

I met Jeff at about the age of 12. I remember in those early days he was a pain...a Nat [sic] sort of flying around your head; small, smart, but just a bit off from the slang and social behavior of seventh graders...Is he guilty? Absolutely. When did I know? Just after the shock of being told, and then hearing the supposed chant, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." That was an example of Jeff missing the nuances of language at that time. Precisely the kind of thing he did all through adolescence and beyond.

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

byn63

01-17-2006, 03:05 PM

ok everyone - I've seen some odd and irrelevant and unusual posts in regards to the latest happenings in the case of Inmate 00131-177. So to clarify:

Inmate's latest petition was For Leave to File a Second or Sucessive Habeas Petition and his motion was granted in that the courts said he has permission to file the petition. This DOES NOT repeat DOES NOT mean he will get a hearing. We are still a bit far away from that determination.

The DNA report is due from AFIP in February. It is possible that the petition will not be filed in time to allow a decision on a hearing prior to that report being released. It is also probable that the Court might choose to delay setting a hearing date until after the report is received. I believe that the DNA testing is going to be released and the final nail in Inmate's coffin will be hammered in at that point.

The testing on the urine stain in the masterbedroom showed that a person with either A or AB type blood made the stain. There is no way that Kristen made that stain. Period. It is physically and medically impossible. There was no sign that Colette had urinated and there were signs that Kimmie had urinated. Therefore, the stain was made by Kimmie.

There is overwhelming evidence that Inmate moved the bodies. There are the pj threads in Kimmie's bedding (which Inmate claimed he was no longer wearing the torn top); there were Inmate's bloody footprints EXITING Kristen's room made in Colette's blood and from the "spread" on the foot, forensic specialists stated he was carrying something heavy when he left those prints; AND there were the bloody impressions of the BACK of Colette's pj top along with the bloody impressions of the cuff and torn sleeve of Inmate's pj top along with the myriad threads and yarns from that top UNDER Colette's body.

Inmate claims that he never said they were hippies just like he claims to have never said the girl was carrying a candle. Too bad that multiple witnesses state that those were indeed his words. Also, IF THE GIRL WASN'T CARRYING A CANDLE then WHY has the defense tried so hard to make something of the three wax drippings found inside 544 Castle Drive? Even though the forensic experts stated that the three drippings were chemically different from each other and the one on the coffee table was old and brittle and filled with household debris?

Oh, and even if there is a hearing, that does not mean that Inmate will be allowed to try and introduce evidence other than the Britt affidavit. Most of the data that Inmate and his attorney's dujour have once again claimed as "newly discovered" falls under the legal heading of res judicata.

res judicata means this issue has already been judged.

SPYCEE3

01-17-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Once you have researched the claims in FJ, you will see how badly you have been misled.

First of all, unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant. It's the sourced items which are important, and in this case, incriminating threads and fibers matched to MacDonald's pajamas, even with one of them being entwined with a bloody hair of Colette's.

Second, most, if not all, of the items you talk about were indeed known to the defense at the time of trial. In fact, as the 1985 court decision reflects, by 1985 Segal had given up his other claims ("Upon reflection, we think that we were wrong about two or three of them . . . and this morning we will want to abandon our motion as to a couple of them. But on about four of them, we still believe with all out strength [they] . . . would've made a real difference in the case."). The court found no merit to those four remaining issues.

Unidentified candle wax was found on the living room coffee table

The wax was found to be old and filled with household debris; I believe this was mentioned in Browning's testimony at the grand jury, so of course the defense did have access to it.

...also found of the west side of rhe sashing machine in the kitchen, this was not disclosed to the defence team.

What you are referring to is Potter and Bost's claim "Unidentifed candle wax was found on the west side of the washing machine in the kitchen (CID Exhibit D-27K and lab notes, March 3, 1970)..." But of course when you have researched this claim, you will see that Exhibit D-27K is not candle wax; it is "Red-brown stain on west side of clothes washer in kitchen," and the findings say that this was blood, human or animal unknown due to paucity of stain.

Unidentified yellow wax with an unidentified hair embedded in it was found on the hall wall but not disclosed to teh defense and therefore the jury.

Here, you refer to Potter and Bost's claim about CID Exhibit f-60. When you have done your research, you will find that this exhibit is actually not described as wax at all. It was described only as "yellow matter from north hall wall." The findings state that (1) examinations did not reveal any data of significance or relevance (paragraph 49) and (2) Examination of Exhibits F-60...showed same to be a small amount of hard yellow and white substance.

Burned match was found near the radiator in Kristen's room, not disloced to the defense or jury

Have you seen the photo of the pipe-smoking investigator inside 544 Castle Drive? And have you read that Colette sneaked smokes with her sister-in-law? Have you found any documentation that any intruder's fingerprints were found on this match?

Also, in Kimberly's room was candle wax on an arm of a chair.

This wax was found to be consistent with that of birthday candles. Regardless, the unsourced wax in the house was found to have come from three different candles. Do you believe Stoeckley was carrying three candles, or that three of the intruders held candles? If MacDonald is trying to claim that Helena Stoeckley carried three candles, or that any of the male "intruders" carried candles, then that would be completely at odds with Stoeckley's statement that "I was the only person who carried a candle." Also: No wax trails from any dripping candles were found in the apartment; Colette was fond of candles, and testimony was given that during the crime scene investigation candles were found in nearly every room of the house; and it can be assumed that candle stubs from candles the MacDonalds burned were thrown out, which of course precludes them from being matched to wax found in the apartment after the murders.

An unidentified red-pink wool fiber was found on Mac Donalds reading glasses, along with a speck of Type O blood.

Again, unsourced items aren't forensically significant, since they're common to every household. Regardless, Mac claimed he wasn't wearing his glasses when he checked Kristen (or any of his family). He later tried to claim that the spot of Kristen's blood was probably put there when he was treating a patient before the murders. However, MacDonald was seen professionally by LTC (Dr.) F. W. Pierce, optometrist, on February 16, 1970, the afternoon before the murders. If there had been blood on the lens, the optometrist would have noticed it, and since optometrists routinely clean lenses during an examination, it is highly unlikely that a speck of blood would have remained there after the office visit. Per MacDonald's attorney, Bernie Segal, during closing arguments at trial: "If anything you have learned physically about Dr. MacDonald is what--is he a sloppy man? Is he a man likely to walk around with a blood spot on his reading glasses having to read for several hours? It does not seem to me that there is evidence to sustain such a conclusion." If Segal was trying to imply that the blood on the glasses was put there as it was flung off of one of the "intruders" during the struggle on the sofa, why was no other blood of any type, cast-off or otherwise, found in that area?

Three-blood stained gloves were found in the kitchen

The gloves were oven mitts, fdusa! Are you saying you think the intruders wore potholders while committing the murders, and then walked back down the hallway over Mac's unconscious body in order to put the gloves back in the kitchen?

A bloody syringe containing an unknown liquid was found in the ahll closet but not disclosed

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

There are many more tha I am not going to type

And I'm not going to bother typing responses to the rest of the information you've posted, since this post is long enough already and you can see that much of what you've been told in FJ is misrepresented or outrightly false, including their false reporting of Stombaugh's testimony.

Great post, Bunny! You are well versed on this case and it's nice to see the facts...as versus far fetched and unbelievable opinions from the Fatal Justice site. Thanks for the info. :beer:

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by silverspring21

Thank you so much for your dilegence in researching this case. Seems I have a lot of reading and catching up to do.. This is really getting to be fascinating. Who would have thought?

moo

Agree. I didn't realize I hadn't seen so much.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by fdusa
James Blackburn was disbarred, just google it yourself.
But he had no problems during the trial, did he? His misdeeds were white-collar and they pale in significance to MacDonald's horrific crimes in bludgeoning and butchering Colette, Kimberly and Kristen. That said, have you seen the info in Scales of Justice which indicates that Dennis Eisman, one of Mac's attorneys, was being investigated for (I believe) drug abuse or something of the sort? Some people speculate that he may have committed suicide over this.

The items listed in a previous post were not shown to the defense or the jury.In virtually no trial does "all the evidence" come out, especially with regard to unsourced items which are forensically insignificant. As Bernie Segal said, "You just can't say that everything in the world can be given to the jury." (And as Bugliosi points out, routinely it's the defense who has interest in hiding information, not the prosecution.) Regardless, the government has another 40% in evidentiary items they didn't use against Mac, so of course not "all the evidence" came out at trial. And Mac should be pretty happy about that, since so many of his falsehoods could have been questioned at trial but weren't, nor were psychiatrists heard from who would have testified that Mac had indications of psycopathy, narcissism, issues with latent homosexuality, etc.

The military police did trample the crime scene. Even the account in 'Fatal Vision' made that clear just from the description of what they did.No medic, MP or investigator put Colette's and Kim's blood on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn; no medic, MP or investigator put 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in MacDonald's pajama top which matched 21 holes in Colette's chest; and none of them put MacDonald's bloody footprint in Colette's blood, exiting Kristen's room. No medic, MP or investigator put MacDonald's pajama fibers on the murder weapon or under the victims' bodies or in their bedclothing or under Kristen's fingernail or entwined with a bloody hair of Colette's; none of them put MacDonald's blood in front of the kitchen sink; none of the scattered latex glove fragments inside the bedding and around the master bedroom; none of them removed the hairs, fibers and other evidence which should have been on and around the sofa area where MacDonald claims to have been attacked; none of them forced MacDonald to make repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt in the months and years that followed; and so on and so on.

I doubt anything will come of this new attempt for a new trial, courts will rarely go against another court.
It remains to be seen, of course, but I tend to agree with you. Nearly everything in the latest Mac motion is old, old history and has already been ruled upon. Only the Britt issue is new, and IMHO the government did a pretty good job of answering those charges in its response.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by fdusa
I thought he was guilty, then kept up with the saga of the trials, the books, etc.
Now I don't know if he is guilty or not guilty....I get bashed on here for not agreeing with all the posters that have been here a long time. Maybe because until I retired I did not have time to sit at the computer and read messages boards as I do now so I am only posting as someone that has worked in the criminal justice system, knows how it works for and against people, and still am able to have an opinion of my own. Evidently that is a crime here on these boards, having an opinion.
Fdusa, it isn't a crime to post your opinion. The boards are for discussion, and your input is as welcomed as anyone else's here. But please try to put yourself in the position of many of us who have been digging out the details on the case for years; after a while, it gets tiresome and irritating to see the same old issues repeatedly posted as fact, when some of us know those issues are misrepresented or outrightly false. Most of the time the irritation is kept in check, but sometimes not. Take "Arthur Thorp," for example (aka. Albert Webb and almost certainly several other aliases; he likes to post as more than one person). Albie knows the facts and has seen them for himself, yet he continues to post false information (I'm not talking about a difference of opinion here; I'm talking about deliberately posting things he knows are false or misrepresented). So, while I stand by my statements, you will have to try to forgive me if now and then I simply can't hold in the frustrations. Try answering the same question a few thousand times and you'll see what I mean.

What I do think is that the whole case was botched from the befinning when the MP's arrived at that apartment.
And of course that's just what MacDonald wants you to think. You may come to a different conclusion once you've studied a little more of the evidence.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I think it's a monstrous thing for an innocent man like...MacDonald to be put in prison for 25 years.
MacDonald isn't innocent. He was adjudged to be guilty of triple homicide by a jury he chose.

The jury at the MacDonald trial didn't hear all the evidence in the MacDonald murders case.
And I'll bet Mac thanks his lucky stars every day that they didn't!

I don't know for certain if...MacDonald has ever protested that he didn't get a fair trial, as Judge Dupree is supposed to have said. That's not the impression I get from reading Dr MacDonald's website.
The fact that you depend on the murderer's website for factual information speaks volumes.

I still believe Dr MacDonald had bad luck with his lawyers.
He's had "bad luck" with all of those many, many lawyers and paralegals and other defense team members over all these years? "Bad luck" with what, four various teams of attorneys? I don't think so. What actually seems to be the case is that the evidence against MacDonald was so overwhelming that none of his lawyers has ever managed to make a dent in it.

Judge Fox...was unlikely to be fair and just with regard to the MacDonald case.
So now you're adding Fox to your list of everyone who's supposedly been unfair to Mac. Gee, how many people do you have on that list by now? You've accused virtually everyone of being unfair, including the babysitter and every single CID investigator and the lab technicians and Judge Dupree and MacDonald's best friend Ron Harrison and so many others I've lost count. Your list of conspirators must be in the thousands by now.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 03:55 PM

What I really don't understand... the CTV True Crime site varies greatly from the MacDonald case site. The CTV one almost leans towards him being innocent... I would think that the CTV one would have all the comments and rebuttals so that both sides could be represented. If someone (as I did initially) took the CTV site as credible info and not looked further, they might lean towards innocence.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by ChiSox
[B]What I really don't understand... the CTV True Crime site varies greatly from the MacDonald case site. The CTV one almost leans towards him being innocent...
Chi - there are a number of sites out there that are flatly biased towards MacDonald, and at least one which some people think was written by Fred Bost under an assumed name. I think this was one of the reasons Christina began her website, to show people that there was another side to the case which those other websites do not present, and to show that much of the information on some of those websites is actually misrepresented and/or blatantly false.

ChiSox

01-17-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Chi - there are a number of sites out there that are flatly biased towards MacDonald, and at least one which some people think was written by Fred Bost under an assumed name. I think this was one of the reasons Christina began her website, to show people that there was another side to the case which those other websites do not present, and to show that much of the information on some of those websites is actually misrepresented and/or blatantly false.

I realize that now. I have always taken CTV to be a credible source to get reliable details on cases. I will think twice of that in the future.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by SPYCEE3
Great post, Bunny! You are well versed on this case and it's nice to see the facts...as versus far fetched and unbelievable opinions from the Fatal Justice site. Thanks for the info. :beer:
Thanks for the nice words, Spycee...and by the way, I've enjoyed reading your posts too. Keep 'em coming.

Bunny2

01-17-2006, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Ron Harrison has always seemed to me to be a good friend, and army friend, of...MacDonald. He has always spoken and written most highly of...MacDonald...From what I can gather Ron Harrison was a first-class soldier.Which would add to the weight of his accounting of MacDonald at Thanksgiving, when MacDonald was asking "where's the icepick?" and then went out to the back yard storage shed to look for it. Mac had forgotten all about that incident, I'm sure, when he claimed he didn't even own an icepick.

just_beesy

01-17-2006, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by clawlicious

[QUOTE]RC he remained in the service. I think the investigation took a long time- heck it's been so long I need to bone up on this one too.
No, shortly after the Article 32 hearing, he applied for and received an honorable discharge. Then he lived in NY for awhile, then moved to CA. The investigation itself did not take that whole time. Time and time again, the case was presented and time and time again, the courts refused to indite him. Finally they found the right judge and well you know the rest.

just_beesy

01-18-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by STEEL211 v1.0
Knew the Man way back then,, as they knew each other,(not closly though), serving in the Miltary....
Too this day my father thinks Mr. Mc Donald is innocent....
He says that Mr. Mcdonald was framed up, and very Shoddy investagation by the Local PD,, well, was lacking in professionalism etc....
I do also....Believe He is innocent.
If you ever lived in the area at the time ALOT of LSD, PCP, Angle Dust, etc was going around back then.....
IMOP...

:patriot:
Nobody, including the DA, has ever denied there was a large drug community there. Why does that make him innocent? It doesn't. Why would they frame him? Oh no! Conspiracy!!

just_beesy

01-18-2006, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21

Wasn't this "groovy,kill the pigs" mantra also written on the walls of the Bianca home. The murders that Charles Manson and his groupies were involved in?

moo
It's La Bianca. The word pig was used and the phrase
Healter(sic) Skelter, there and at the Tate house

not groovy, no self-respecting hippie would be using groovy at that time. and not acid

just_beesy

01-18-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by silverspring21

Wasn't McDonald's wife also pregnant at the time of her death?
yes, about 5 months along

just_beesy

01-18-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by BlueWasabi

and didn't one of the "staged" magazines on the LR floor have an article about the manson killings in it? realllllllllllll imaginative dr. jeff!

MOO
The magazine itself wasn't really staged, it was just there on the coffee table. It was an Esquire magazine with the cover title "Lee Marvin is Scared". It was about the Tate/La Bianca murders and the hippie culture in general.

just_beesy

01-18-2006, 12:30 AM

This wax was found to be consistent with that of birthday candles. Regardless, the unsourced wax in the house was found to have come from three different candles. Do you believe Stoeckley was carrying three candles, or that three of the intruders held candles? If MacDonald is trying to claim that Helena Stoeckley carried three candles, or that any of the male "intruders" carried candles, then that would be completely at odds with Stoeckley's statement that "I was the only person who carried a candle." . Quote by Bunny

This is the "evidence" which makes me laugh the most. So let's see...Helena brought a supply of candles with her. She must have stored them in her floppy hat, which became floppier as time wore on. Did you notice how her stringy blond hair became a long blond wig? Maybe she slipped the wig on while they were attacking Mac

margiej

01-18-2006, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy
This wax was found to be consistent with that of birthday candles. Regardless, the unsourced wax in the house was found to have come from three different candles. Do you believe Stoeckley was carrying three candles, or that three of the intruders held candles? If MacDonald is trying to claim that Helena Stoeckley carried three candles, or that any of the male "intruders" carried candles, then that would be completely at odds with Stoeckley's statement that "I was the only person who carried a candle." . Quote by Bunny

This is the "evidence" which makes me laugh the most. So let's see...Helena brought a supply of candles with her. She must have stored them in her floppy hat, which became floppier as time wore on. Did you notice how her stringy blond hair became a long blond wig? Maybe she slipped the wig on while they were attacking Mac

Someone on another board said "if the wax don't fit, you have to acquit". She was being humorous, as in who cares if unsourced wax was found in a home known to have candles in almost every room for the whole six mos. they lived there. Birthday candle wax was found in Kimmie's room. Was Helena carrying a birthday candle? No. She wasn't even in that house that night or any other night. Unsourced candle wax does not implicate anyone, especially with the numerous versions MacD has told over the years in regards to candles and wax. He has denied several times that he said the female was carrying a candle. JMO

byn63

01-18-2006, 07:36 AM

Yes indeed, can't you just picture Helena wandering around with a lit birthday candle!?!? I wonder how closely one would have to hold a single birthday candle to their face in order to "shine some sort of light" enough to enable Inmate to make a description?

Isn't it interesting that Inmate 00131-177 claims to have been awaken suddenly, was NOT WEARING his glasses, to face alleged intruders who were BACKLIT yet he gave such clear descriptions of them? (No lights on in the living room, just in the kitchen which would have been behind the "intruders"). Isn't it interesting that Inmate could not identify a photograph of Helena? Isn't it telling that Inmate had absolutely NO REACTION to seeing Helena at his trial? Isn't it interesting that his story includes the use of a slang word that even us elementary aged children didn't use anymore?

If you haven't read it - take a trip through MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour! bunny has spent lots of time working on it and I go back and reread it from time to time and always find something I missed previously. Check out her 3Ds of the apartment too! FABULOUS!!!!!!!

just_beesy

01-18-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[[QUOTE]All this stuff about "acid is groovy" not being said may be true about America, or not being customary usage in America. I distinctly remember several British rock stars in the 1960's or 1960s using "groovy" in their songs. What about Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders with "Groovy Kind of Love?"
I think what people are saying is that by 1970, "groovy" was not cool anymore. You yourself are referring to songs from the '60s. Slang quickly becomes cliche and at that point, the cool people don't use it anymore. I mean like Gag Me With a Spoon, duh

JuneinJuly

01-18-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

snip
I am in disagreement with posters about this "acid is groovy" remark by Helena Stoeckley. It strikes me most of the posters on this forum weren't born in 1970, let alone know what the slang expressions were at the time. I agree the expression sounds ridiculous now, and would certainly not be used now in the drugs culture of let's say Los Angeles now. I still maintain that the expression wasn't all that odd for 1970.

I remember there were fashionable words in the 1970s in the UK like saying "super" or "fabulous " which would sound ridiculous now. Further back in history there were expressions like "rich cad" or "fop" which would never be used now.

snip
A

Born in 1948, first went to college in 1966. Noone doing acid would say "acid is groovy" Then again noone doing acid could carry out the murder of 3 people and leave no trace.

cami

01-18-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy

The magazine itself wasn't really staged, it was just there on the coffee table. It was an Esquire magazine with the cover title "Lee Marvin is Scared". It was about the Tate/La Bianca murders and the hippie culture in general.

Actually yes it was Beesy. There were two neat stacks of magazines under the upturned table, not on top.

You can see them in this photo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo111.html)

Click on it to make it larger. Not a good image I know but if you look in Fatal Vision or look around the photo pages, you might find a better image. On top of one of the stacks was a child's game. Hard to believe drug crazed intruders would knock the magazines off the table in two neat stacks, eh?

byn63

01-18-2006, 12:37 PM

It was said, I believe at the Grand Jury hearing, by a Fayetteville Newspaper reporter that 4 people on ACID couldn't organize a trip to the toilet, let alone the murder of 3 people. That is a fact. Just like it is a fact that by 1970 "groovy" was passe'.

No, Artie, I don't proclaim to be an expert in the manufacture of candles or wigs (blonde or otherwise). However, experts in CHEMISTRY have been interviewed/deposed. One candle from one manufacturer WOULD BE OF THE SAME CHEMICAL COMPOSITION all the way throughout the candle. Chemical companies such as DuPont give their products a specific chemical signature. It is just as true for the blue pjs that were made of a blend of DuPont's DACRON polyester and cotton. Candles, explosives, fibers, and the like can be traced to the manufacture by the chemical signature. Birthday candles are made differently than tapers, and tapers are made differently than column styles, and scented candles would be different still. Those are facts, the wax is a non-issue and you KNOW that, you've been told before. One of the deposits was old, brittle and filled with household debris and one was similar to birthday cake candles. Besides, Helena who never claimed Satanic rituals, it was WITCHCRAFT, claimed her candle dripped BLOOD not wax.

The fact is that there is absolutely no trace evidence to suggest that anyone other than Inmate 00131-177 was involved in the savage and brutal butchery he inflicted on his pregnant wife and two precious children.

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Helena Stoeckley distinctly said she used candles in her Satanic cult activities and that she used a candle /candles at the MacDonald murders.She also said she wasn't a witch, that she wasn't at the MacDonald apartment, and that MacDonald committed the murders. And of course no trace of her or any other "intruder" was ever found in the apartment. So what's your point?

The argument by Byn that the candles had different chemiclal compositions isn't conclusive evidence. It's the same with the synthetic saran fibers. Is Byn an expert in the manufacture of blond wigs? How does Byn know if blond wigs all have fibers of the same chemical composition?How do you know the technicians were wrong in stating that the wax and the synthetic fibers were of three different compositions? Are you a forensic expert who's examined these pieces of evidence?

Candle wax was found in the MacDonald murder rooms which didn't come from MacDonald candles.You were aware before you posted this, because you've been told countless times and you can see it as fact when you do your research, that unsourced items are common to every household and are forensically insignificant, so insignificant that they're often not even reported. You also knew before you posted this that Colette burned a lot of candles and of course the stubs from many of those (if not all) would have been long gone by the time of the murders. Candles were found in nearly every room of the house. No wax trails from any candles were found. The wax on the coffee table was old and contained household debris; the wax in Kim's room was consistent with birthday candles.

Since you continue to act as though unsourced items prove the existence of intruders, please tell us about the intruders who have been in your home.

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by just_beesy
The magazine itself wasn't really staged, it was just there on the coffee table. It was an Esquire magazine with the cover title "Lee Marvin is Scared". It was about the Tate/La Bianca murders and the hippie culture in general.In addition to the article about Manson there was another article in the Esquire which McNamara refers to in his memo (emphasis mine): "This article contains a sequence in which a reporter is surrounded by a group of four hippies, one of whom is a Negro, one a blond who chants about acid. There is also a reference to a back door, a princess' bedroom, and a table covered with wax. It can be proven that MacDonald read this article two days before the murder and thought it was 'wild.'"

Talk about coincidences, eh? Mac's "intruders" not only match people like his own girlfriend, but also the New York Four and Stoeckley and her gang and even - what are the odds! - a story in a magazine article, right down to the wax on the table. Will wonders never cease.

byn63

01-18-2006, 02:04 PM

Artie/Bertie - Judge Judy would say to you Don't P on my leg and tell me its raining! Now, once again:

Unsourced hairs and fibers are forensically insignificant; in other words USELESS they are not inculpatory and they are not exculpatory. Every single home or office will have unsourced hairs or fibers - we pick them up and transfer them from place to place just by going through our lives. However, there were plenty of SOURCED yarns and threads found with, under, around the bodies of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. For example, the blue yarn fragment from Inmate's pj top that was found lodged UNDER Kristen's little fingernail, and the 19 threads and yarns found in Kimmie's bedding were HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT!

Don't worry though Artie/Bertie boy aka ramblin rose - the FINAL DNA report on the hair exhibits is due to be released by AFIP soon and the uncomparable hair fragments will no longer be unsourced and you will have to pick a new subject to pretend to not understand.

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I am in disagreement with JuneinJuly that the Stoeckley child killer gang left no trace. There were foreign hairs and the fibers ON THE BODIES and under the fingernails of the murder victims which have never been explained by Murtagh and Dupree.
Where is your evidence to prove that any unsourced item was left by Stoeckley or anyone else, Albie? Didn't you know that if any item had been sourced to Stoeckley or anyone else, we certainly would have known that by now? The fact is that not a single shred of any kind of conclusive evidence ever surfaced to show that any "intruder" was ever in the apartment, and moreover, Stoeckley's stories were directly at odds with your hero's, and her "confessions" were found to be worthless.

For Murtagh to say that those fibers and hairs PROBABLY came from MacDonald clothes and fibers COULD HAVE come from pajamas isn't enough evidence to keep anybody in prison for 25 years.It's too bad that even after all this time, you still don't know that the fibers and threads found under the victims' bodies and in the bedclothing and on the murder weapon and under baby Kristen's fingernail matched in all respects the fibers and threads from MacDonald's pajamas. I know it's difficult for you as a worshipper of the murderer to accept that, but I'm afraid it's something you'll just have to do, unless you can provide conclusive proof that the technicians were flatly wrong in their assessments.

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi
I'm not saying that "groovy" wasn't slang - although by 1970, I wouldn't have expected anyone to use it much.I was Helena's age in 1970, a senior in high school, traveled around the U.S. in the military during those years, and can say that no self-respecting hippie I ever knew would ever have dreamed of using the word "groovy" in 1970 unless it was a joke.
It's not the word "groovy" that throws me, although it WAS out of current use by that time. It's the fact that supposedly this person was going around SAYING, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." Folks on acid don't sit around and talk about how groovy it is - oh, maybe a comment along the lines of, "Hey, this is pretty good stuff, man" - but NOT "Acid is groovy" while you're in the middle of a killing spree. It's not a logical thing to say, and it SOUNDS like a statement that someone would make up for someone to say in order to establish that they were a hippie.I agree completely, Tsi.

caphill

01-18-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Going a bit overboard, aren't you, fdusa? Please provide the links proving that Murtagh or Blackburn or anyone else on the prosecution team covered up or wrongly suppressed evidence or destroyed evidence. And while you're gathering your links, be sure to note the courts' decisions showing that no evidence was wrongly suppressed in this case.

I think you are confused between documented facts and emotion driven commentary that has been writte over the years.

Firstly, Dr. McDonald has had only one trial for the murder of his wife and daughter. There are NO court decisions "showing that no evidence was wrongly suppressed"

Any evidence and discovery that is suppressed is wrongly suppressed and in blatant violation of the rights of everyone to a fair trail. How can any trial be fair if any the evidence is hiddened.

Through FOIA in May 1996, 1400 pages of documents were found that been suppressed by the prosecution. Including FBI agent Michael Malone's report about the fibers found on the club. These documents were not available to McDonald and it took years to get access . Only through Freedom of Info Act were they made available.

In 1990 the FBI issues report of the re examining of the evidence. Mike Malone lists unsourced black wool fibers on the club. Not blue fibers from pj's as he originally reported. In April 1997 Mike Malone had made national news detailing misconduct in a number of cases including McDonald.

In 1985 Judge Duree denies motion for a retrial citing the pj fibers found on the club as the most incrimination evidence. He also promises that if the defense finds any exculpatory evidence he will allow a retrial.

In 1996 after the FOIA had uncovered 1400 pages of suppressed evidence, including Malone's report of black wool fibers, Judge DePree forgot his 1985 promise and again denied McDonald a retrial to be able to have the suppressed evidence heard.

So you can see that hidden evidence is certainly very seriously business. I have read on this thread a number an argument that McDonald is guilty based on the blue pj fibers on the club. Would it have made a difference if the jury had heard what was hidden in 1400 documents? Would it have makde a difference if the jury knew there numerous fibers, hairs that were not sourced to McDonald? Would it have made a difference that the 22 inch blond synthetic hair testimony was false. Even Judge Dupree thought the blue pj fibers was compelling evidence to guilt and now we know Mike Malone lied about the fibers and they were black wool. Would it have made a differnce that a lab tech had a report that said the hair found on one the girls bloody fingernails was not McDonald's.

The prosecution had hidden this exculpatory evidence and argued to the jury that was NO evidence that anyone else had been in that house that evening. Would you not consider that prosecutorial misconduct? Would you conside that a fair trial when 1400 documents are hidden

caphill

01-18-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by byn63
Artie/Bertie - Judge Judy would say to you Don't P on my leg and tell me its raining! Now, once again:

Unsourced hairs and fibers are forensically insignificant; in other words USELESS they are not inculpatory and they are not exculpatory. Every single home or office will have unsourced hairs or fibers - we pick them up and transfer them from place to place just by going through our lives. However, there were plenty of SOURCED yarns and threads found with, under, around the bodies of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. For example, the blue yarn fragment from Inmate's pj top that was found lodged UNDER Kristen's little fingernail, and the 19 threads and yarns found in Kimmie's bedding were HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT!

Don't worry though Artie/Bertie boy aka ramblin rose - the FINAL DNA report on the hair exhibits is due to be released by AFIP soon and the uncomparable hair fragments will no longer be unsourced and you will have to pick a new subject to pretend to not understand.

NOt all hair was allowed to be tested. Of course there is lab report that was found where some hair found on the body was noted as not being from Dr. McDonald . Of course this report was suppressed and never shown to the jury.

What do you think about Agent Michael Malone presenting false tesimony about the fibers on the club.

Unsourced hair and fibers are quite significant to a crime scene. Especially if the argument from the prosecution is there is no evidence there was anyone other that McDonald in the house. The argument being if there was anyone else in house there should be other trace evidence of that. Oh, that explains why there was 1400 documents suppressed and within those documents were info that there were numerous unsourced hairs and fibers found. If that inforamtion had been brought forth to the jury, the prosecutors couldn't have made that argument , now could they.

Deb B

01-18-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by caphill

...

Firstly, Dr. McDonald has had only one trial for the murder of his wife and daughter. There are NO court decisions "showing that no evidence was wrongly suppressed"
...

Actually, there are plenty of court decisions addressing MacDonald's claims of exculpatory evidence - the blond hairs, the unsourced fibers found on the club, his claims of Malone lying, claims re: Helena Stoeckly, et. al, lcaims of hidden evidence, etc. Macdonald has filed several petitions and appeals that have been heard and denied by the courts. Here are links to some of them:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us4th_saran_1998sep8_01.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/4th_circuit_1992jun02.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_vs_macdonald_1985mar1.html

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by caphill
I think you are confused between documented facts and emotion driven commentary that has been writte over the years. Firstly, ...McDonald has had only one trial for the murder of his wife and daughter. There are NO court decisions "showing that no evidence was wrongly suppressed"I never implied in any way that MacDonald had more than one trial. Where did you get that from??

Regardless, the court noted in July 1991: "Defendant did not establish that Government suppressed any evidence to which he was entitled, even though he was not given access to handwritten laboratory notes describing certain fibers found at [the] scene of [the] murder of his family, where the Government allowed defendant to examine and test any of the physical evidence, including those fibers. And in 1998, the court noted that "In his 1990 petition, MacDonald alleged that the prosecution withheld from the defense evidence...MacDonald asserted, specifically, that the Government withheld laboratory notes referencing the presence of three blond synthetic hairs...The district court denied the 1990 petition on the grounds that the fiber evidence at issue was not material, that the Government violated no duty to disclose exculpatory evidence..."Through FOIA in May 1996, 1400 pages of documents were found that been suppressed by the prosecution.Isn't it funny that in all the years since then, no court decision to my knowledge has affirmed this. What's taking so long?
...Including FBI agent Michael Malone's report about the fibers found on the club.In 1998, the court wrote "We also conclude that the district court properly found that MacDonald failed to present facts which could clearly establish that Malone deliberately deceived the district court or this court."

In 1990 the FBI issues report of the re examining of the evidence. Mike Malone lists unsourced black wool fibers on the club. Not blue fibers from pj's as he originally reported.The fact is that both unsourced fibers AND fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found on the murder club.

Would it have makde a difference if the jury knew there numerous fibers, hairs that were not sourced to McDonald?Highly unlikely, IMHO, since unsourced items are so common to every household that they're forensically insignificant and often aren't even reported.

Would it have made a difference that the 22 inch blond synthetic hair testimony was false.My guess is not much, since the synthetic fibers were of three different compositions, and of course there's no evidence of intruders at all, much less that one or three of them were wearing wigs and brushing their hair while committing the murders.

Would it have made a differnce that a lab tech had a report that said the hair found on one the girls bloody fingernails was not McDonald's.The hairs were dissimilar, were not compared to the hair of Colette, Kimberly or Kristen, and were compared to only three of nine sample hairs from the body of Jeffrey MacDonald. And of course the two hairs were hair fragments. Hair fragments do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons. Therefore there is no forensic basis for claims of intruders being the source for those two hair fragments.

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by caphill
NOt all hair was allowed to be tested. Of course there is lab report that was found where some hair found on the body was noted as not being from...McDonald. Of course this report was suppressed and never shown to the jury.Are you referring to the hair in Colette's hand? This hair was known to the defense as early as the 1970 Article 32 hearing where it was reported, so it certainly wasn't "suppressed," was it?

And of course although this hair did not match MacDonald, it was not tested against hairs from the children's heads, nor was it tested against hairs from all parts of MacDonald's body. The unidentified hair was classified by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh as the distal portion or the tip of a limb hair. Limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there is no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair is Greg Mitchell's, as he claims it is.

And let's not forget that MacDonald's website has to tout him as having been blonde (because the hair in question is brown), but that's not what the factual records say. MacDonald is described as having brown hair in the Criminal Investigation Division report: "MacDonald: 12 Oct 43; Jamaica, NY; M; Cauc; 71 in; 175 lbs; brown hair; green eyes; medium build; discharged from US Army 4 Dec 70..."

Unsourced hair and fibers are quite significant to a crime scene.No, they're not. Such unsourced items are common to every household and are considered to be forensically insignificant, so insignificant, in fact, that they're often not even reported.

If you believe unsourced items are so forensically significant, Caphill, please, to start with, tell us about the unsourced dog hair with root intact that Frier found, and the other unsourced animal hairs that were found. I'm dying to know: Which intruder brought his dog with him to the murder scene?

SunflowerKS

01-18-2006, 06:21 PM

Yes, I've always believed he is guilty.

caphill

01-18-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
I never implied in any way that MacDonald had more than one trial. Where did you get that from??

Regardless, the court noted in July 1991: "Defendant did not establish that Government suppressed any evidence to which he was entitled, even though he was not given access to handwritten laboratory notes describing certain fibers found at [the] scene of [the] murder of his family, where the Government allowed defendant to examine and test any of the physical evidence, including those fibers. And in 1998, the court noted that "In his 1990 petition, MacDonald alleged that the prosecution withheld from the defense evidence...MacDonald asserted, specifically, that the Government withheld laboratory notes referencing the presence of three blond synthetic hairs...The district court denied the 1990 petition on the grounds that the fiber evidence at issue was not material, that the Government violated no duty to disclose exculpatory evidence..."Isn't it funny that in all the years since then, no court decision to my knowledge has affirmed this. What's taking so long?
In 1998, the court wrote "We also conclude that the district court properly found that MacDonald failed to present facts which could clearly establish that Malone deliberately deceived the district court or this court."

The fact is that both unsourced fibers AND fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found on the murder club.

Highly unlikely, IMHO, since unsourced items are so common to every household that they're forensically insignificant and often aren't even reported.

My guess is not much, since the synthetic fibers were of three different compositions, and of course there's no evidence of intruders at all, much less that one or three of them were wearing wigs and brushing their hair while committing the murders.

The hairs were dissimilar, were not compared to the hair of Colette, Kimberly or Kristen, and were compared to only three of nine sample hairs from the body of Jeffrey MacDonald. And of course the two hairs were hair fragments. Hair fragments do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons. Therefore there is no forensic basis for claims of intruders being the source for those two hair fragments.

There is still a misunderstanding here. Dr. MacDonald has had only one trial where the evidence was reviewed and the jury was allowed to make a decision on the the evidence presented. The jury are the ones that decided the weight of the evidence.

The other courts that you speak of have been through the process of appeals. These court have made decisions to not allow Dr. MacDonald to present any evidence that was found based on legal techicalities.

The 4th CC has just granted his motion for retrail and sent to a Raleigh NC federal court. This takes out the roads blocks he has faced in his previous attempts to get a retrial. Since a the 4th CC is a higher court that granted the motion the lower federal court can not deny or override the higher courts decision.

I find it interesting that some of the "new" evidence if being argued here and dismissed when it has even been presented yet.

I see bold comments of what the actual evidence is and also the evaluation of the evidence. This evidence has never been seen in a court of law, so some of you must be psychic .

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by caphill
These court have made decisions to not allow...MacDonald to present any evidence that was found based on legal techicalities.Hmmm...I didn't exactly interpret "that the Government violated no duty to disclose exculpatory evidence" as being a "legal technicality," but whatever.

The 4th CC has just granted his motion for retrail...Interesting, considering that supposedly the motion that the Jan. 12 order granted was filed just today (you remember the Jan. 12 order, the one that Mac's website said granted him a hearing but really it didn't?), and there hasn't even been a hearing yet, in fact, the motion is so new the court apparently doesn't even have it online yet...and yet you say he's been granted a retrial! Without even a hearing on the Britt issue! And so fast! My, my, my. I do wonder if it could be a mistake, just something that results from people not doing their research.

Bunny2

01-18-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi
Seems to me that the most commonly-used slang word in my school was "paddy," to tell you the truth...I've just got to ask...what's "paddy" mean?

...but the idea that anyone under the influence of acid would walk around talking about how neat it was and using the word "groovy" to describe the experience, in 1970, just doesn't ring true. Yes, there's quite a few things in Mac's accounts that don't ring true; in fact, the list is virtually endless. His referring to the intruders as "alleged" assailants is very telling, since he claims to have fought with these people, and the time he claimed that either the medics or he himself must have put the towel on Colette (forgetting to allow for the possibility that an "intruder" put it there) also rates high on my list. When it comes to Mac's Bloopers, it's hard to pick a favorite.

caphill

01-19-2006, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hmmm...I didn't exactly interpret "that the Government violated no duty to disclose exculpatory evidence" as being a "legal technicality," but whatever.

Interesting, considering that supposedly the motion that the Jan. 12 order granted was filed just today (you remember the Jan. 12 order, the one that Mac's website said granted him a hearing but really it didn't?), and there hasn't even been a hearing yet, in fact, the motion is so new the court apparently doesn't even have it online yet...and yet you say he's been granted a retrial! Without even a hearing on the Britt issue! And so fast! My, my, my. I do wonder if it could be a mistake, just something that results from people not doing their research.

On January 13,2006 the Undited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Rchmond Va granted a motion to present the new evidence in a Raleigh federal court. This motion was on the Britt issue. That motion was filed with the 4th Circuit on Dec 13th. The 4th Circuit Court has 30 days to consider the motion. On Jan 13th they granted the motion.

McDonald's attorney's will ask the federal court to vacate the verdict or a new trial

What part of that is not understood. The 4th Circuit has already granted the motion. The new evidence amassed since the trial can now be presented.

The previous motions for a new trial McDonald made were not granted and he could not present any his new evidence.

I never said he was granted a new.trial. Those are your words. His motion for a new trial was granted.

The Britt "issue" is an issue of an allegation that one State prosecution attorney(Blackburn) intimidated and threatened a primary witness for the defense into changing her testimony before the trial. Testimony that could have had gotten a different verdict had the jury been allowed to hear it.

just_beesy

01-19-2006, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by cami

Actually yes it was Beesy. There were two neat stacks of magazines under the upturned table, not on top.

You can see them in this photo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo111.html)

Click on it to make it larger. Not a good image I know but if you look in Fatal Vision or look around the photo pages, you might find a better image. On top of one of the stacks was a child's game. Hard to believe drug crazed intruders would knock the magazines off the table in two neat stacks, eh?
Ok, I see it now. Thanks cami. Now why would he do that? He didn't seem to get the whole idea of 4 or 5 druggies carrying a supply of candles, matches and weapons only managing to a few bits of damage to that apartment

margiej

01-19-2006, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by caphill

The 4th CC has just granted his motion for retrail and sent to a Raleigh NC federal court. This takes out the roads blocks he has faced in his previous attempts to get a retrial. Since a the 4th CC is a higher court that granted the motion the lower federal court can not deny or override the higher courts decision.

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that the 4th CC merely gave MacD the go ahead to file a habeas petition with the district court in NC. Then the district court has the power to agree to hear the petition or throw it out. Did I misunderstand?

byn63

01-19-2006, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by caphill

On January 13,2006 the Undited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Rchmond Va granted a motion to present the new evidence in a Raleigh federal court. This motion was on the Britt issue. That motion was filed with the 4th Circuit on Dec 13th. The 4th Circuit Court has 30 days to consider the motion. On Jan 13th they granted the motion.

McDonald's attorney's will ask the federal court to vacate the verdict or a new trial

What part of that is not understood. The 4th Circuit has already granted the motion. The new evidence amassed since the trial can now be presented.

The previous motions for a new trial McDonald made were not granted and he could not present any his new evidence.

I never said he was granted a new.trial. Those are your words. His motion for a new trial was granted.

The Britt "issue" is an issue of an allegation that one State prosecution attorney(Blackburn) intimidated and threatened a primary witness for the defense into changing her testimony before the trial. Testimony that could have had gotten a different verdict had the jury been allowed to hear it.

First - yes you did state in one of your previous posts that Inmate 00131-177 had been granted a new trial; bunny quoted your post then responded. However, he hasn't been granted a new trial or even a hearing.

Secondly, Inmate 00131-177 no longer deserves to be addressed by the honorific you insist on using and it is an insult to the memories of Colette, Kimberly, Kristen and the unborn son to continue to address him in that manner.

Third, the motion that Inmate and his attorney's dujour filed in December was For Leave to File a Second or Successive Habeas Petition in other words, by law he was required to get the permission of the court to file another motion. On January 12, 2006 the court approved Inmate's motion insofar as granting permission to file the 2255 motion. In other words, the Courts have given him permission to file the 2255 habeas petition. Now, up to now there has been no record of the motion being filed, although it is possible that it just hasn't reached the databases yet. Regardless, Inmate HAS NOT been granted a hearing of any sort. Once Inmate files his 2255 petition the Government will be granted time to respond before the case goes to a Judge for review/determination. THEN, it is POSSIBLE that a hearing will be granted, but we are still a bit far away from that today.

Fourth - I think this is Inmate 00131-177's last gasp and hope that the paperwork can be accomplished prior to the release of the DNA report. All the items that were DNA testing were hair exhibits including good ol' E5 which was microscopically uncomparable because it was the Distal portion or tip of a limb hair. My gut says E5 is indeed going to turn out to belong to Inmate and the final nail will be driven into the coffin.

byn63

01-19-2006, 08:27 AM

oh and btw - the blue pajama yarns that were found on the murder club...................

the reason Michael Malone didn't find them there is because they had been mounted on slides back in the 70's when they were being examined for trial. the finding of black wool was in addition to the pj yarns. And, since Inmate 00131-177 got rid of almost all of the personal items belonging to Colette, Kimberly and Kristen ASAP upon closing of the Article 32, there was nothing remaining to compare several of the different "fibers" to...............

cami

01-19-2006, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy

Ok, I see it now. Thanks cami. Now why would he do that? He didn't seem to get the whole idea of 4 or 5 druggies carrying a supply of candles, matches and weapons only managing to a few bits of damage to that apartment

His story is he fought off three drug crazed armed men while he was sitting up on the chesterfield. He had to make it look as if he was in some kind of fight, hence he tips over the coffee table. He has no idea how to stage it so that's what he did, just tipped it up on top of the two neat stacks of magazines he placed on the floor.

Bunny2

01-19-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by caphill
I never said he was granted a new.trial. Those are your words.Here are your words, Caphill: "The 4th CC has just granted his motion for retrail and sent to a Raleigh NC federal court." (I certainly hope you're not claiming the misspelling of "trial" as defense to your claim that you never said he was granted a new trial.)His motion for a new trial was granted.As Byn has pointed out, no, it wasn't. A hearing hasn't even been held yet, much less any court order granting a new trial.

Bunny2

01-19-2006, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
It wasn’t [the murderer's] fault that MacDonald clothes and dolls were disposed of by him after the MacDonald murders.Apparently it was, since he seems to have been the one who disposed of them.

...MacDonald isn’t a professional policeman, or a lawyer, or a forensic expert.You're right. He's a triple convicted murderer who now occupies his time by cleaning latrines.

Frier found a total of five black wool fibers, one green wool fiber, and one white fiber, on the body of Colette and the wooden club, which he was unable to match to any known source.And there are hairs and fibers in your household right now which are unsourced. So what's your point?

Bunny2

01-19-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi
It just does not make sense that intruders would not immediately kill or incapacitate the strongest person in the house, the one who would be the most likely to be able to fight them. In MOST cases when someone breaks into your house like this, they go for the man of the house first. It's LOGICAL to want to eliminate the most likely cause of trouble, and the idea that they would not have continued attacking him until he was dead or unconscious doesn't make any sense. That's right, Tsi. And isn't it interesting to note that MacDonald wants everyone to believe Stoeckley when she says the plan was to leave him alive because they thought that would be more punishment for him than being dead. Yet of course in Fatal Justice, which many believe was overseen and edited by the murderer himself, the claim is put forth that the "intruders" were frightened when they learned that he was still alive. Go figure.

Bunny2

01-19-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by cami
His story is he fought off three drug crazed armed men while he was sitting up on the chesterfield. He had to make it look as if he was in some kind of fight, hence he tips over the coffee table. He has no idea how to stage it so that's what he did, just tipped it up on top of the two neat stacks of magazines he placed on the floor.And I think later, he pulled that Esquire magazine out from under the game box or got it from the magazine stand, refreshed his memory about the article which described not only wax on a table and a back door, but also the "retinue of four" which included a Negro male and a female chanting. Then he slid the magazine back into the stack, which resulted in a bloody mark in the shape of a fingertip being on it, but no blood on the game box above it.

Mac blew it all the way around. Not only did he leave many pieces of incriminating evidence around during the murders themselves, but he practically sealed his fate when he went around staging the scenes.

Bunny2

01-19-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
My point is that there are fibers in a murder room which are forensically significant, like on a murder victim's body, or around her mouth, or on a wooden murder weapon, and other forensics, like a dog hair, which are not forensically significant.Ah, yes, the old MacDonald camp tactic of picking and choosing which bits of evidence you like and ignoring the rest. Hmmmm. Are you aware that the evidence tends to show that in the master bedroom MacDonald unrolled Colette from the sheet, so that her face was on the floor? Did you also know that indications are that the club rested on the floor at one point?

That forensically significant information ought to have been presented to the court and jury at the MacDonlad trial in 1979...It wasn't forensically significant. In order for those things to be significant to a jury, I think they would have to be matched to the "intruders," much as the many, many threads and fibers around the murder scenes were matched to MacDonald's pajamas. Although it would have been kind of funny, watching Segal try to account for that dog hair...LOL! But of course as Segal himself said, "You just can't say that everything in the world can be given to the jury."

[The murderer] was savagely attacked when he was asleep by three strong soldiers or former soldiers. No, he wasn't. He was barely scratched, and required only a Vaseline gauze bandage, some sedatives and a chest tube to treat the pneumothorax from the self-inflicted chest wound. He was out of intensive care the day after he was put there, and per Dr. Gemma, he only remained in the hospital after the chest tube was removed because the investigation was continuing and he had no "real home" to go to. Meanwhile, Colette and her children had been so beaten and butchered by him that it was described as "overkill." It was Colette and her children who were savagely attacked, by none other than Jeffrey MacDonald, and he himself has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes, every time he changes his story to try and account for all that incriminating evidence he left.

There is quite a bit of information about the attack on Dr MacDonald and his family in the 1970 cross-examination of CID so-called investigator Bill IvoryThere is a lot more information also at http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html and http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

...Q If MacDonald were asleep, according to your information when this--at least according to Captain MacDonald's statement--when they came into the house--isn't that correct?Colette was also supposedly asleep when she was attacked, and had even taken some meds which would make her even more sleepy, yet she fought like a tigress, sustaining two broken arms (one of which was broken twice), and numerous bruises and lacerations. But poor Mac...he just couldn't seem to manage to get that lightweight afghan off his legs and couldn't get that thin, old, worn pajama top off his wrists so that he could fight back. Maybe that's what he was trying to do when the intruders had hit him the first time and he fell back on the sofa, then he sat up and they all waited around while he tried to get free of the pajama top so he could continue the fight. It must be, because they had every chance to do him in completely at that point, yet they apparently did nothing except stand there waiting.

byn63

01-19-2006, 05:15 PM

bunny you are too funny! LOL!

I believe it was this board that I read where someone stated that the Courts never said there was no suppression of evidence. If it wasn't that is ok because this is still documented court records:

[b]USA vs JRM 75-26-CR-3 (decided March 1, 1985)
640 F. Supp. 286; 1985 US Dist. LEXIS 22143

Memorandum of Decision

quote:
The court has not found, however, that the government suppressed any evidence or acted in bad faith in responding to the defense's requests for exculpatory material. Because there has been no suppression of evidence and the items which {Inmate 00131-177} claims were suppressed would, in all probability have been of no exculpatory value to him, the motion to vacate sentence must be denied.
end quote

and

US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
USA vs JRM No. 85-6208
decided 12/17/85
argued 10/7/85
Circuit Judges Murnaghan, Russell, and Sr. Judge Haynesworth

quote:
{Inmate 00131-177} was convicted of the gruesome murder of his wife and two young daughters, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. US vs JRM 688 F. 2d 224 (4th Circ 1982). Subsequently he filed two motions for relief under 28 USC 2255, one motion for a new trial under Rule 33 FRCP, and a fourth motion under 28 USC S455 to have the trial judge recuse himself. All four motions were denied.

We find no merit in this appeal, and affirm.
endquote

also from same source:

quote: Relief under subsection 2255 - suppression of exculpatory evidence was extensively and meticulously reviewed by the district judge. rejection of defense claims are found to be proper.

cami

01-19-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi

It just does not make sense that intruders would not immediately kill or incapacitate the strongest person in the house, the one who would be the most likely to be able to fight them. In MOST cases when someone breaks into your house like this, they go for the man of the house first. It's LOGICAL to want to eliminate the most likely cause of trouble, and the idea that they would not have continued attacking him until he was dead or unconscious doesn't make any sense.

Yes, that's correct. Especially when he was the one they were allegedly after. You don't savagely murder a two-year old when it's the father you are allegedly after. His story is so ridiculous, he fought off three drug crazed, armed men with a pajama top aaaahahahahahahahaha get real Mac. I guess if we all had lobotomies we might believe that story eh?

Ice pick baby killer.

sneakers

01-20-2006, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

Frier found a total of five black wool fibers, one green wool fiber, and one white fiber, on the body of Colette and the wooden club, which he was unable to match to any known source.” Imo, this is not significant, especially in light of the other facts of this case.

Unless you are prepared to prove that the MacDonald house was hermetically sealed and it's occupants never having come into contact with any other people, public places, etc., this "evidence" means nothing, imo.

Colette attended a class earlier that evening, she could have picked up those fibers there.
Likewise, Mac had a very busy day, himself, and the children were taken out too.

Fibers are everywhere, I'm sure there are some in my home which cannot be traced, from a neighbor's visit, shopping, ect., and yours, too.

imo

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by sneakers
Unless you are prepared to prove that the MacDonald house was hermetically sealed and it's occupants never having come into contact with any other people, public places, etc., this "evidence" means nothing, imo.Right, sneakers. Mac's never been able to show that any unsourced item came from any "intruder," and until he can do that and put it together with quite a few other conclusive evidentiary items to show the presence of "intruders," the courts wouldn't give it much (if any) weight. Not to mention that he would still have to overcome all those hundreds and hundreds of evidentiary items which pointed to him as the murderer.

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
You can't say that fibers which "could have" come from...MacDonald's pajamas are forensically significant, and then at the same time say that fibers found on the mouth and biceps of Colette MacDonald, which have no known source, "probably" came from MacDonald clothes and are forensically insignificant.MacDonald's pajamas were torn. They shed threads and fibers. He claims the pajama top was on his body when he lay down on the sofa and was still on his body when he woke in the hallway. He claims he did not take it off until he walked (or crawled, depending on which of his stories you choose to believe) into the master bedroom to check on Colette. Yet threads and fibers found in all respects to match his pajamas were found underneath Colette, scattered in the master bedroom, under the headboard where he'd written the word PIG, in the bedclothing of the victims, under his baby daughter's fingernail and elsewhere. Two fibers from his pajamas were found on the murder club, which is very, very interesting, considering that the club was found outside. On the other hand, no threads or fibers from his pajamas were found around the sofa area where he claims to have been struggling with the intruders and stabbed, nor was any blood found.

According to you, while committing the murders one of the intruders was wearing an old, thin, worn pajama top which had the exact same threads and fibers (right down to the zig-zag shape on some) as MacDonald's pajamas, or the intruder was actually wearing MacDonald's own pajama top while committing the murders.

Unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, and often aren't even reported. That aside, I'm sure you remember the post of Rashomon, where she said: "JFYI, Albert - the 'unidentified fibers' on Colette's mouth area (Q 100), on her arm (Q 88), and on the club (Q 89) all were from different sources, and none of it was pure black. Two were dark purple (Q 100), Q 88 was bluish-black, the fibers on the club (Q 89) were one fine bluish black fiber different from Q 88, and one fine green wool fiber. So the Mac camp can throw their whole 'Stoeckley the assailant in black clothing' concoction out the window - it's worthless! And aside from that, didn't Stoeckley allegedly merely hold a candle during the killing spree? Per Mac's story, Helena was standing in the living room while Colette was fighting off attackers in the master bedroom. How could she at the same time have been involved in a fight with Colette and leave any fibers there? It's the same with Mitchell, who per Mac's story was among the four people he saw in the living room, but who, like Helena, must have been ubiquitous, because he also was fighting with Colette in the MB at the same time."I think [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] had bad luck with the judges in his case.No, he didn't. The judges and justices in this case know the law and abided by it, and to the best of my knowledge, not one of them was found to have made a wrong decision, unless you count the speedy trial issue (in which Dupree was later upheld). The truth is that he had bad luck with the evidence, because it was so overwhelming and incriminating that none of his defense team has ever been able to overcome it.The only good judge on the MacDonald case was Colonel Rock at the Article 32 Investigation in 197O...Rock wasn't a judge, Albie. He was an investigating officer.Colonel Rock was fair and just and didn't believe...MacDonald did it.Per McNamara, Rock applied an incorrect standard during the proceeding, i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And of course all the evidence had not come out at that time. His advisor, Cpt. Beale, apparently enjoyed a relationship with MacDonald, bringing his wife to see Mac, etc., which I do believe is a conflict of interest. It was also said that had the hearing been an actual trial, Segal would have never been allowed to get away with some of the things he did during it. And of course as has been pointed out to you many, many times by now, Colonel Rock was not able to declare MacDonald innocent of the charges, which Mac so desperately wanted him to do.

As it turned out, Colonel Rock is probably hated and despised by Mac now, since if he had found the charges were "true," a court-martial would have taken place, MacDonald would not have been able to be tried again, and would be a free man today.

caphill

01-20-2006, 03:38 PM

Appeals

Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald's mile-wide streak of bad luck continues throughout most of the appeals that have been filed on his behalf, despite the highly capable and prestigious lawyers that have worked pro bono (without pay) to prove his innocence.

In 1990, Harvey Silverglate and his colleagues from his Boston law firm filed motions with Judge Dupree for a new trial based upon the discovery of evidence from the laboratory notes that was withheld by the prosecution in the original trial. The long, blond synthetic fiber in Colette's hand was prominent in this motion for a new trial. The prosecution argued that the saran synthetic fiber was never used to make wigs — like the wig that Helena Stoeckley admitted wearing — and was instead the fiber used in the hair of dolls. Regardless of the falsity of this particular technical statement, Judge Dupree, who was never impartial on this case, took advantage of recent court decisions (McCleksey vs. Zant), which limited the time in which a defendant could produce new evidence in an appeal. Despite the fact that Judge Dupree had specifically promised in the original trial that if the lab notes which the prosecution withheld turned out to be exculpatory he would allow a new trial, he reversed himself. Dupree, fully aware that it took years to get the laboratory notes under the Freedom of Information Act, ruled that the defense was presenting the exculpatory evidence too late. It is very difficult to justify the reasoning in this ruling.

chapter continues
advertisement

This case was again reopened in 1997 with the defense team proving that the prosecution witness, an FBI agent who subsequently was found to have testified falsely in other cases, was wrong about the saran fibers. An expert witness from the toy industry testified that saran fibers were never used for doll's hair, while saran fibers were in fact used in the manufacture of wigs. Another part of this new petition was the ability to subject the "foreign" hairs (meaning hairs that were not from members of the MacDonald household) found under the fingernails of the victims to the DNA testing which had not been available at the time of the original trial.

Judge Fox, who replaced Judge Dupree who had died in the interim period, denied that MacDonald had the right to request that the brown "foreign" hairs be subjected to DNA testing.

Fortunately, this unusual decision was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has given the MacDonald defense team an opportunity to begin the DNA testing. Despite this order from the federal court, the government is still refusing to turn over the evidence for DNA testing on the grounds that it is a violation of the writ of habeas cor
Snipped

©2005 Courtroom Television Network LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Privacy Guidelines

Speaking of conflict of interest. What does anyone think about the fact that Judge Dupree was the sitting judge in the original trial and after ascendeding to higher court sits in judgement of a case of one of his cases.

That is asking him to find serious error in a case that he presided over? Does that give new meaning to the fox watching the henhouse? It was only after Judge Dupree died that Dr. McDonald could even start getting any relief in the appeal courts to have the evidence tested or revisited.

caphill

01-20-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by byn63
bunny you are too funny! LOL!

I believe it was this board that I read where someone stated that the Courts never said there was no suppression of evidence. If it wasn't that is ok because this is still documented court records:

[b]USA vs JRM 75-26-CR-3 (decided March 1, 1985)
640 F. Supp. 286; 1985 US Dist. LEXIS 22143

Memorandum of Decision

quote:
The court has not found, however, that the government suppressed any evidence or acted in bad faith in responding to the defense's requests for exculpatory material. Because there has been no suppression of evidence and the items which {Inmate 00131-177} claims were suppressed would, in all probability have been of no exculpatory value to him, the motion to vacate sentence must be denied.
end quote

and

US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
USA vs JRM No. 85-6208
decided 12/17/85
argued 10/7/85
Circuit Judges Murnaghan, Russell, and Sr. Judge Haynesworth

quote:
{Inmate 00131-177} was convicted of the gruesome murder of his wife and two young daughters, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. US vs JRM 688 F. 2d 224 (4th Circ 1982). Subsequently he filed two motions for relief under 28 USC 2255, one motion for a new trial under Rule 33 FRCP, and a fourth motion under 28 USC S455 to have the trial judge recuse himself. All four motions were denied.

We find no merit in this appeal, and affirm.
endquote

also from same source:

quote: Relief under subsection 2255 - suppression of exculpatory evidence was extensively and meticulously reviewed by the district judge. rejection of defense claims are found to be proper.

And who was one of the district judges that made that ruling?

Who was the district judge that the defense asked to recuse himself?

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by caphill
And who was one of the district judges that made that ruling? Who was the district judge that the defense asked to recuse himself?Who was the district judge who wasn't recused?

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
A lot of this so-called pajama fiber evidence is "could have" come from pajamas anyway. Actually, your claims that vampires committed the murders, and your claims that the CID were all Masons and that's why they were protecting Stoeckley, and that Stoeckley wore three different wigs, and that someone else was wearing MacDonald's pajama top while the murders were being committed..it's all nothing but "could have" on your part.Let's assume the two fibers on the murder weapon were pajama fibers. MacDonald was being struck by the wooden club and according to him he tried to parry the blows with his pajama top. That could easily cause a couple of pajama fibers to appear on the murder weapon.But nowhere else around the sofa area? Not scattered throughout the living room, as they were in the master bedroom? Not down in the sofa cushions (but yet somehow inside the childrens' bedclothing and in the master bedroom bedding...?)...not a single fiber or thread found in that area? How strange.The murder weapon could also have been used on Colette. What's so mysterious about that? There is nothing in the laws of physics which say a murder weapon has to be used on one person only.Aside from the silly notion that they only tapped Mac with the club, while bludgeoning Kim and Colette hard enough to cause Kim's brain serum to leak out, and Colette to have two broken arms, a skull fracture and numerous other bruises and injuries, did you forget that Mac claims that Colette was screaming, and that's what woke him? But at that same time Colette and the children were being attacked, he was being attacked in the living room with the same weapons! What a story.one thing is certain, they weren't MacDonald fibers.Where do you get info to support that? They were UNSOURCED, Albie, as you know. No one knows if they came from clothing from neighbors or friends or traveling salesmen or friends of friends or total strangers or from other items the MacDonalds had recently disposed of, or if they belonged to any of the items MacDonald himself disposed of after the murders. Where did you find information showing that these unsourced fibers were found not to match any clothing or any other item that any of the MacDonalds ever owned, gave away or threw away?In any case, [the murderer] said he carried Kristen to her bedroom when she wet the bed in the master bedroom. A stray...fiber could easily have tranferred to Kristen that way.Too bad none of Mac's lawyers have ever managed to make anyone believe that, nor did they much try to.
As far as I can remember there was a blood spot found where...MacDonald fought with the murderers. I don't think Bunny is correct in saying no blood was found there. Just like you did recently with the "bare shoulder" issue, you knew before you posted this that a small spot of blood was found on the north side of the hallway, which doesn't square with Mac's accounts of having been repeatedly stabbed in the living room yet not bleeding there, and which easily could have resulted from the lacerations Colette may have given him while trying to fend him off with the Geneva Forge knife, or from his self-inflicted chest wound. Why do you try so hard to pull the wool over peoples' eyes so much, Albie? Just to amuse yourself? Are you really that desperate?In my opinion [the murderer's] best lawyer was Eisman...Oh yeah, Eisman. Wasn't he being investigated for some kind of felony when he was supposedly "murdered"? I know there was some speculation that he committed suicide over the pending litigation, but I've never heard much else about it.
FJ: "By the time laboratory technicians got around to collecting evidence, from the hallway floor three days later, the "pile" of fibers had been reduced to a mere two fibers analyzed as pajama fibers."IMHO, it would be a pretty strange thing for a pajama top to be torn in the living room (Mac told Dr. Sadoff that the pajama top was being ripped over his head while he struggled with the "intruders" on the sofa), but for some weird reason it sheds not shed a single thread or fiber there, yet it begins to shed in the hallway, where, interestingly enough, there was a pile of clothing that hadn't been disturbed (despite this great life-and-death struggle and despite it being in precisely the spot in which MacDonald claims to have fallen). Nor, of course, would FJ want to point out that this issue amounted to nothing, since Mac left fibers all over the place in the bedrooms where he bludgeoned and butchered his family, so why not during one of his trips down the hallway as he was staging the scenes?

caphill

01-20-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Right, sneakers. Mac's never been able to show that any unsourced item came from any "intruder," and until he can do that and put it together with quite a few other conclusive evidentiary items to show the presence of "intruders," the courts wouldn't give it much (if any) weight. Not to mention that he would still have to overcome all those hundreds and hundreds of evidentiary items which pointed to him as the murderer.

That is exactly the point. Dr. McDonald has never been able to present any of the evidence that he purports is exculpatory. That's what the fuss is all about! His previous motions were denied by Judge Dupree . Judge Dupree made "legal" rulings of why the new evidence could not be considered. Therefore, the suppressed evidence of Michael Malone, as an example, does not have to be weighted, because legally it is not recognized as existing. This maybe an over simplication but the Judge can write there is no suppressed evidence because he doesn't "legally" recognize it. Doesn't mean it was not there, it just means Judde Dupree found a " legal "way to deny it.

While Judge Dupree was presiding over the original trial, the defense voiced discovery violations to which the Judge over ruled. When he ascended to the appeals court, do you think he would rule himself in error and reverse his own previous rulings. Judge Dupree should have recused himself and never heard an appeal motion on one of his own previous decisions while presiding as trial judge.

When the defense walks in with 1400 pages of court documents that had been suppressed and only found through a FOIA court order, Judge Dupree basically said "too bad, you should have found them earlier", therefore, I don't recognize they exist.

How can a trial court with a jury give it any weight at all until they get to hear it to be able to make a determination of the evidentiary value. That value is detmermined in a trial court by the direct and cross examination of the evidence. I realize that standard doesn't apply on a message board.

The evidentiary value has been decided by many posters here, even though much of it has never been examined in a trial court. This is then presented here as facts and factual knowledge of the case and the guilt or innocence of Dr. MacDonald.

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by caphill
That is exactly the point. ...[the murderer] has never been able to present any of the evidence that he purports is exculpatory.JTF answered this quite nicely on another board: "The only pieces of evidence not discussed at the Article 32 hearing, Grand Jury hearing, or 1979 trial were the 3 saran fibers and the 2 hair fragments found under the girl's fingernails. MacDonald's defense team, however, knew of the existence of the saran fibers for they had access to Paul Stombaugh's 1974 lab notes at trial. Stombaugh listed the saran fibers as, 'synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc.' _If the 2 hair fragments were brought forth at the 1979 trial, what would be the argument from either side? Hair fragments are microscopically uncomparable, so the only presentation either side could make is that the source of those hairs is unknown."

Aside from this, we also know that the synthetic fibers (which the defense so long tried to claim were from Stoeckley's wig) seem to actually have been of three different compositions, and we know that Stoeckley's famous wig was actually Maggie Mauney's fall, and that Stoeckley claims she wore long pants that night, and that the unsourced fibers were of different compositions.

We also know that the court found that "Defendant did not establish that Government suppressed any evidence to which he was entitled..." and that "Perhaps because the actual fibers would do little to provide evidence that drug-crazed intruders were in the MacDonald home on the night of the murders, MacDonald attempts to argue that the lab notes discussing the presence of the fibers--and not the fibers themselves--constitute the important new evidence that would result in acquittal if presented to the jury. However, even if the lab notes could have been introduced at trial, in the court's opinion the jury's verdict would not have been affected, since the government would have been able to show the relative insignificance of the underlying fibers as discussed above." Not to mention: "MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that the large amount of unmatched evidence in the apartment supported a conclusion that intruders had committed the murders. Nevertheless, the jury apparently rejected MacDonald's argument that the unexplained household debris undermined the showing made by the government's presentation of physical evidence pointing toward MacDonald's guilt. Where, as here, the allegedly suppressed fibers 'would have provided merely cumulative evidence' of unmatched household debris, a new trial is not warranted."

In short, it looks to me like all the old, old evidence presented in Mac's latest motion is res judica and the only thing "new" is the Britt issue, and it has yet to be decided if that has any weight or not. JMPO.

caphill

01-20-2006, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2 [/ Snipped

We also know that the court found that "Defendant did not establish that Government suppressed any evidence to which he was entitled..." and that "Perhaps because the actual fibers would do little to provide evidence that drug-crazed intruders were in the MacDonald home on the night of the murders, MacDonald attempts to argue that the lab notes discussing the presence of the fibers--and not the fibers themselves--constitute the important new evidence that would result in acquittal if presented to the jury. However, even if the lab notes could have been introduced at trial, in the court's opinion the jury's verdict would not have been affected, since the government would have been able to show the relative insignificance of the underlying fibers as discussed above." Not to mention: "MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that the large amount of unmatched evidence in the apartment supported a conclusion that intruders had committed the murders. Nevertheless, the jury apparently rejected MacDonald's argument that the unexplained household debris undermined the showing made by the government's presentation of physical evidence pointing toward MacDonald's guilt. Where, as here, the allegedly suppressed fibers 'would have provided merely cumulative evidence' of unmatched household debris, a new trial is not warranted."

In short, it looks to me like all the old, old evidence presented in Mac's latest motion is [i]res judica and the only thing "new" is the Britt issue, and it has yet to be decided if that has any weight or not. JMPO. [/B]

What court made this findings that a new trial was not warranted? What judge actualy made this finding and wrote this brief?

Who was "this" judge that stated all the evidence that the defense was "entitled" to had been turned over. The attorneys are entitled to all evidence not what the prosecution decides that should have.

This brief admits the lab notes were not turned over by deciding if the jury would have heard them it would not resulted in a different verdict. That means "this" judge in his opinion decides this is harmless error.

Now back to the question. Who was "this judge" that decided that there should no reversal error of the originial trial?

Would that be the same old fox in the henhouse that presided over the first trial? Would this be Judge Dupree who found no error of his own rulings in the original trial ? Say it ain''t so!

caphill

01-20-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Who was the district judge who wasn't recused?

The defense asked that Judge Dupree recuse himself from the trial since James Proctor was the father of the Judge's first grandchild. The Judge refused .

Judge Dupree was one and the same that later denied all motions for a new trial. In his opiinion he had made no reversal error in what he done or any of hos ruling when he presided over the original trial.

Judge Dupree had to die before any of the appeal motions could move forth. He controlled the trial and the motions for retrial until the day he died.

caphill

01-20-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

snipped

JTFIn short, it looks to me like all the old, old evidence presented in Mac's latest motion is res judica and the only thing "new" is the Britt issue, and it has yet to be decided if that has any weight or not. JMPO.

If Britt statements are deemed credible against the denials of the disbarred, disgraced felon Blackburn, that constritutes witness tampering a clear violation of the defendant's right to a fair trail.

There are only two remedies for a violation of defendant's Constitutional rights to a fair trial. That wouldd either order a new trial or vacate the verdict.

In a new trial the so called "old" evidence and any new evidence can and will be brought in.

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 10:21 PM

Dupree was only one in a long, long line of people whom Mac and his few remaining supporters want to blame for the way things turned out, and they love to pick his bones the same way they do Stoeckley's and Blackburn's. Bottom line is that to date, Mac has claimed "new evidence" in the past and gotten nowhere with it. Except for four items addressed in 1985, Bernie had by then abandoned his other claims, and Mac has been to the Supreme Court umpteen times (and I don't believe Dupree served on that court...) and ultimately, he remains in prison. Not a single defense attorney to date has even come close to overcoming all that evidence against MacDonald which taken as a whole proved to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he did indeed murder his family, and none of his claims since then seem to have gotten anywhere. Also, I think it's been said that except for Bost's discovery of Glisson Lab Note R-11, all of the "new" evidence was discovered and presented to the appeals courts before Dupree's death in 1995.

As Jednme so succintly pointed out once, Mac "could have filed 100 consecutive motions to get the handwritten notes as all 100 would have been denied because the defense was not entitled to wholesale discovery of bench notes and work product."

Bunny2

01-20-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by caphill
If Britt statements are deemed credible against the denials of...Blackburn, that constritutes witness tampering a clear violation of the defendant's right to a fair trail.And if Britt's statements are not deemed credible, then Mac stays in prison. It could go either way, but no one knows at this point because no hearing has even been held yet, much less any decision handed down.

What's much more interesting at the moment is that Dr. Cyril Wecht has been indicted on a whopping 84 courts. It'll be interesting to see what the Mac camp has to say about that!

TEXT OF WECHT'S INDICTMENT:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/video/2002-01-20_wecht/wecht_indictment.pdf

Free Adobe Reader for those who need it:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Articles about the indictment:
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=7451

caphill

01-21-2006, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Dupree was only one in a long, long line of people whom Mac and his few remaining supporters want to blame for the way things turned out, and they love to pick his bones the same way they do Stoeckley's and Blackburn's. Bottom line is that to date, Mac has claimed "new evidence" in the past and gotten nowhere with it. Except for four items addressed in 1985, Bernie had by then abandoned his other claims, and Mac has been to the Supreme Court umpteen times (and I don't believe Dupree served on that court...) and ultimately, he remains in prison. Not a single defense attorney to date has even come close to overcoming all that evidence against MacDonald which taken as a whole proved to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he did indeed murder his family, and none of his claims since then seem to have gotten anywhere. Also, I think it's been said that except for Bost's discovery of Glisson Lab Note R-11, all of the "new" evidence was discovered and presented to the appeals courts before Dupree's death in 1995.

As Jednme so succintly pointed out once, Mac "could have filed 100 consecutive motions to get the handwritten notes as all 100 would have been denied because the defense was not entitled to wholesale discovery of bench notes and work product."

Supreme Court umptten times?? That gives me a clue that the appeal process that Dr.MacDonald has been going for years is a misunderstood process by many here on this board.

Dr. MacDonald's claims are the jury never heard the whole evidence because of judicial misconduct and suppression of pertinent evidence. This evidence has never been heard and tried in a trial court.

I don't know who is Jednme is. I do know that Jednme is not a scholar of jurisprudence. How could anyone who respects or understands law justify a suppression of lab reports that has pertinent information regarding the evidence being presented. How could anyone defend the known actions of the likes of Michael Malone in this case as well as other cases. The total lack of personal, legal character and integrity of Prosecutor Blackburn is known. It is known he is not beyond lying, cheating, stealing and forgery of court documents. What makes you think he would not possibly perpetrate misconduct in this case? Do you really think the appeals court can justify finding any credibility in what he says and does after the shame he brought on himself and the legal profession..

What kind of thinking is it that drug crazed alcohol soaked low lifes with no discipline or control could not have possibly done this crime. It is easier for some to think the good soldier and Doctor with a history of discipline suddenly lost control at 2:00 am in the morning over a small child wetting the bed and get three different weapons and started ice picking, stabbing and clubbing his family to death. And after he kills his family, he starts clubbing and stabbing himself until he collapses. I don't know if he used all three weapons on himself or just two.

Any criminial investigator will tell you a person killed with 3 different weapons is indicative of more than one attacker. One of the investigators said Colette was clubbed by someone that was left handed. She had ice pick and knife wounds . There was a bloody palm print left on the bed. There were numerous finger prints, one of them bloody that could not be linked to family members or or known people who were in the house that night.
But to some, too many or too few, blue pj fibers found in home carries more weigth than an unidentified bloody palm print and a bloody finger print.

tracy turnblad

01-21-2006, 06:55 AM

in NC at least, isn't it standard procedure for the presiding judge to hear an appeal? before the issue(s) can be presented to the higher courts? :confused:

Bunny2

01-21-2006, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by caphill
...MacDonald's claims are the jury never heard the whole evidence because of judicial misconduct and suppression of pertinent evidence.Except for four issues, MacDonald had abandoned his other claims by 1985, with Segal saying the defense had been "wrong" about some of them. The four issues were found to have no merit.How could anyone who respects or understands law justify a suppression of lab reports that has pertinent information regarding the evidence being presented.The defense is not entitled to everything the prosecution has. The courts found no trial errors and found that MacDonald had failed to show evidence that anything was wrongly suppressed.The total lack of personal, legal character and integrity of Prosecutor Blackburn is known.The total lack of personal character and integrity of the murderer is much more well known.What makes you think he would not possibly perpetrate misconduct in this case?Because no evidence whatsoever of that has ever surfaced.Do you really think the appeals court can justify finding any credibility in what he says and does after the shame he brought on himself and the legal profession.Blackburn had no such problems at the time of trial. MacDonald, on the other hand, was known to have been a liar long, long before the murders, and has continued to be a liar to the present day.What kind of thinking is it that drug crazed alcohol soaked low lifes with no discipline or control could not have possibly done this crime. The evidence showed that no drug-crazed alcohol soaked low lifes were in the apartment or committed the crimes. The evidence showed overwhelmingly and conclusively that MacDonald himself murdered his family.And after he kills his family, he starts clubbing and stabbing himself until he collapses.Uhhh, no, I don't think the evidence showed that he clubbed and stabbed himself until he collapsed. LOL! MacDonald himself said that when he spent time examining himself in the bathroom (before making sure help was on the way for his family) that "there wasn't even a cut or anything." Per his own words a few weeks later, he says he had some "little" and "small" and "small, small" wounds. The records actually reflect that he had a minor bump on the forehead with the skin apparently not even broken (it's speculated that this is probably from Colette's striking him with the hairbrush when the fight began), he had a couple of lacerations on the abdomen (which Colette either gave him or he self-inflicted), some scratches (likely the result of Colette trying to defend herself) and the tiny, neat, clean 1-cm. chest wound he inflicted on himself, probably with a scalpel. His vital signs were normal. His treatment consisted of a Vaseline gauze bandage initally put over the chest wound, some sedatives, and a chest tube to treat the pneumothorax which resulted from the self-inflicted chest wound. He was out of intensive care after only a single day, while Colette, Kim and Kristen lay in the morgue, horrifically bludgeoned and butchered in what was described as "overkill."Any criminial investigator will tell you a person killed with 3 different weapons is indicative of more than one attacker.Yes, when he decided to model the crimes after the magazine article in the Esquire, he realized he needed more weapons so investigators would think there had been more than one assailant. It didn't work.One of the investigators said Colette was clubbed by someone that was left handed.No, actually MacDonald's website claims that Dr. Wright said this, because MacDonald claims to be right-handed (Kassab said he was actually ambidextrous). But when one actually researches this, it can be seen that in Dr. Wright's he stated that "In analyzing the severe blow to Colette MacDonald’s head, the handedness of the person cannot be determined with certainty. Individuals intoxicated with psychomimetic drugs or enraged by their wife cannot be presumed to strike with their handed side. Therefore, while perhaps slightly more often forceful blows delivered from a deceased’s right to left are delivered by left handed folk (adjusting for their minority status); it is certainly not unusual to see such a blow delivered by a right handed individual."

The autopsy report for the children states: "...a determination as to whether the assailant(s) stabbing the victims were right or left handed could not be made since the relative position of the assailant(s) to the victims is unknown. The only one in which there is a suggestion of position is in Kimberly where an impression is that the wounds extended to the neck area. If she was on the right side of the bed as found during the crime search and lying on her back, then it is suggested that these wounds were inflicted by a right handed person."There was a bloody palm print left on the bed. There were numerous finger prints, one of them bloody that could not be linked to family members or or known people who were in the house that night.For this, probably the best bet is simply to quote from the response to the parole board, since it contains the facts in a nutshell:

"MacDonald begins this claim by misrepresenting to the Commission that these items were discovered post trial via FOIA releases, when in fact the evidentiary basis for these assertions (which he overstates) was provided in pre-trial discovery. With the exception of the general claim that unidentified fingerprints proves the presence of intruders, which the jury heard and rejected...the detailed claims are nothing but arguments that he could have made at trial, and didn't do so for whatever reason."

MORE: Similarly, MacDonald's contention that FOIA documents were the basis of the discovery of "a partial bloody palm print" on the footboard of the master bedroom bed, that was also compared to 125 people with no match found, is also false. Crime scene photos provided to the defense in 1970 during the Article 32 Investigation, and marked for identification as Accused's exhibits A-17 and A-18, depict a blood stain on the corner of the footboard opposite Colette MacDonald's body. This stain, designated D-29, is described in the CID Preliminary Laboratory Report of April 6, 1970 (also provided in discovery in 1970) as being a "red brown stain from footboard of the bed in east bedroom. Paragraph 10 in the Chemistry Division portion of the report, reflect that this blood stain is in the International Bloody Group type A [Colette] or O [Kristen]. Paragraph "8" in the Fingerprint Division portion of the Consolidated CID Lab Report, provided in 1975, reflects that: "examination of Exhibit W-5, headboard and footboard, revealed the presence of partial latent palm print on the footboard.

On February 12, 1975, the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division reported the results of its findings with respect to the re-examination of the latent and finger and palm prints collected by the Army in 1970, as well as the comparison of known finger and, where available, palm prints of 125 listed individuals. With respect to the partial latent palm print on the footboard of the bed (referred to by the CID as 3X30), the FBI report reflects that this print, and others "...were compared with the available inked prints of Jeffrey Robert MacDonald, Colette S. MacDonald, and with the available inked prints of 125 individuals, whose names appear on the attached list, but no identifications were effected. Conclusive comparisons could not be made in some instances because the inked prints are not fully recorded, including tip, sides, lower joint areas of finger and palm prints, and some copies of the prints are not completely legible. This report also was made available to the defense in 1975.

What MacDonald has attempted is to confuse a bloodstain, which if it had any observable ridge lines would be a patent, not a latent print, by conflating the references to the blood stain with those of the partial latent palm print. In any event, the information was made available years before the trial in 1979, and had he chosen to, he could have attempted this slight [sic] of hand before the jury.

Bunny2

01-21-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I agree with Caphill that the way Dupree was the main MacDonald appeal judge in the MacDonald case seems extraordinary. Dupree was hardly likely to say he had screwed up on the MacDonald case or that there had been any legal irregularities. The other appeal court judges just rubber stamped Dupree’s decisions.I do believe all parties must act according to various rules of procedure, and of course the same rules had been followed in countless other cases besides this one. The courts found nothing wrong with the way the appeals were handled, so why do you? It's a pretty safe bet to say that you only find something wrong with it because your hero was convicted and you need someone to blame, that's all.The MacDonald lawyer O’Neill of California presented some excellent arguments about MacDonald innocence at the 1985 MacDonald Dupree appeal, which were rejected for no good reason by Dupree himself.Let's let the readers here decide for themselves if Dupree had "no good reason" to reject MacDonald's claims:

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

In my opinion, there were some obvious legal irregularities at the 1979 MacDonald trial besides the hidden forensic evidence and lab notes.The courts found no legal irregularities and found that MacDonald had not proved his claim that any evidence was wrongly suppressed.No evidence from the thorough and comprehensive 1970 Article 32 investigation was allowed at the 1979 trial...This is such a silly statement it doesn't even deserve an answer. Do your research, Albie, since you obviously still don't have a clue about the case even after all these months.The way Dupree used legal trickery on Segal to get Drs Brussel and Silverman to write a biased psychiatric report on [the murderer]...Again, more false statements. Why do you lie and misrepresent things so much, Albie? I don’t believe Dupree fully comprehended the forensics in the MacDonald case. One instance was when he declared all the blood was dry on the morning of the murder, when Segal made it perfectly clear to Dupree that the MacDonald murder victim blood still oozed at that time.Well, that would be hard for you to say, wouldn't it, since you've shown conclusively throughout the past few months that you yourself don't comprehend even the most minor bits of forensic evidence, much less something important like blood evidence. And how interesting that you didn't even mention Mac's beloved Short Study, which itself contains excerpts from people at the scene who said the blood on Colette's head appeared to be dry, as well as the blood on MacDonald! LOL!Bunny seems to think somebody thinks the synthetic fibers ought to be DNA tested. I have never said such a thing and I don’t think anybody else has either.You posted this in the A&E forum and your post was subsequently removed by the moderators, just one of many of your posts which was removed.
I don’t know if the Army CID are Freemasons.But you said in A&E that the CID were all Masons (not Freemasons, which you began saying later), and you said that's why they protected Stoeckley. Why did you say this if you didn't know it to be true?I do know that the police, lawyers and judges are known in the UK to very often belong to the Freemasons. There is nothing very sinister about this, unless they are keeping corruption a secret and supporting each other in a MacDonald miscarriage of justice.What does the UK have to do with this case? I mean, you're not British (you were already "outed" on A&E when you blew your cover and Rash picked up on it), and Mac isn't British, and the case didn't take place in the UK, so what does this have to do with anything?Helena Stoeckley did say that a vial was taken to the MacDonald murder scene because her Satanic devil worship gang prized the blood of pregnant women. Sounds like vampires to me.LOL! Did she say this before or after she said she saw MacDonald committing the murders?Just because the synthetic fibers at the murder scene have been reported to have different chemical compositions doesn’t mean that there were three different wigs there as Bunny says.How funny! Poor Albie, claiming for months that the synthetic fibers all came from Stoeckley's wig, and then you're thrown for a loop when you realize they were all of different compositions. Besides, since you believe Stoeckley, then you must believe her when she said she wasn't there, and that she wasn't wearing a wig that night at all, and that her story of being with Mitchell was a fabrication. Can't have it both ways, can you, Albie?...[the murderer] said he put the pajama top on Colette. He has never denied that. I can’t see how that makes him guilty of murder.That's because you aren't familiar with the case.As I understand it the couch or sofa was situated close to the hallway in the living room. A struggle did take place and fibers were found in the hallway. I think it’s semantics for Bunny to say no fibers were found in the living room.Two investigators went over the living room and sofa area with a magnifying glass and found not a single thread or fiber from the pajama top MacDonald said had been torn there, yet many, many fibers from his pajamas were found in very incriminating places, including on the murder club, under the victims' bodies and even under his baby daughter's fingernail. Moreover, no blood was found on or around the sofa area where MacDonald claims he was repeatedly stabbed.

Bunny2

01-21-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...MacDonald had a terrible problem in that he knows he’s innocent and that Helena Stoeckley and her child killing gang did it...No, actually the truth is that he had a terrible problem because he had exploded in a murderous rage and slaughtered his wife and two small daughters and then tried to hide and suppress the evidence of that. And of course he said there were two black males and then changed his story, and also described intruders which matched the New York Four, not to mention matching his own girlfriend and a few hundred other suspects, and lo and behold, even an article in the Esquire which described a "retinue" of four hippies, one of which was a Negro and one of which was a female chanting, along with a back door and wax on a table...well, taken altogether, and combined with the fact that not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to support Mac's claims of "intruders" and it all pointed directly to him, pretty much seems to sum up the fact that there never were any intruders at all. And Mac confirms this for you, with all his many demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt....but he was unable to prove his innocence because the forensic evidence about Helena’s involvement in the MacDonald murders was hidden from the MacDonald lawyers.False.Neither the FBI or the Army CID or Murtagh or Kassab ever made a serious attempt to investigate Helena Stoeckley.Stoeckley and many other people were investigated over a very lengthy period of time and there was no evidence that anyone committed the crimes except MacDonald.MacDonald’s claim is based upon the suppression of laboratory bench notes.And his claim had no merit.Judge Dupree promised at the MacDonald trial that “I have always taken the position that, if the Government has anything that classifies as Brady material and they do not give it to you, they are certainly going to get a reversal.” Why didn’t this happen then?I guess because reversal wasn't warranted.It’s been proved that there were foreign fibers on the wooden murder weapon, never disclosed at trial...As you knew before you posted this, unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, so insignificant, in fact, that they're often not even reported. There was also an unsourced dog hair with root intact found, as well as other unsourced fibers and hairs. Since you believe that the existence of an unsourced item points conclusively to an assailant and no one else, can you please tell us (1) which intruder brought his dog with him to the crime scene, and (2) what assailants have been in your home?
I’m annoyed that the Army CID disregarded the bloody clothes and boots which Helena may have given to Cathy Perry...Oh, Albie, why oh why do you continue to post things you know are false? Jeffrey MacDonald's military lawyer and Agent Ivory both signed statements listing the items that were submitted for examination and subsequently returned. No clothing appears on the list. In 1985 the court found that MacDonald, through two of his former attorneys, knew that the CID once had possession of the boots. The court also found that the boots were properly returned to the woman who gave them to the CID because they did not match MacDonald's description of those worn by the female assailant and a laboratory analysis of the boots yielded no evidence connecting the boots to the crimes. Per Jeffrey MacDonald's website (quote copied Oct. 10, 2005), he claims that Stoeckley "burned the hat, wig and boots...," leading to the conclusion that he believes that the boots were burned and that they were not burned. At no time did Mrs. Garcia, Mr. Nance, Mr. Kirkman or Cpt. Douthat furnish to the CID or advise them of the existence of any bloodstained clothes alleged to belong to Cathy Perry. James Nance, Jr., who represented MacDonald's legal counsels in any actions introduced in the State and Federal Courts of North Carolina during the 1970 Article 32 military hearing, told CID Agents Ivory and Kearns that while there was no apparent connection with the MacDonald murders, he was trying to humor Mrs. Garcia. And finally, MacDonald told CID investigators that the female intruder was wearing boots that were "wet, but not bloody."
...and the lost piece of skin under Colette’s fingernail...Yeah, Mac lucked out there, for sure. There's some speculation that the "skin" may have been a piece of latex glove Mac wore during the staging of the scenes, but if it had been "skin" and had not been lost, no doubt the jury's verdict against him would have come in even faster than it did, since it would have almost certainly been his own skin from where Colette raked her nails into him as she was trying to fight him off.
The MacDonald trial jury were never told that black wool fibers on Colette MacDonald’s body and the wooden club murder weapon...It wouldn't have made much difference either way, Albie, since unsourced items aren't forensically significant, and MacDonald had already argued that the presence of unsourced items pointed to "intruders" but the jury didn't buy it.
...long blond wig hairs... Helena Stoeckley admitted to the jury that she owned and wore a shoulder length blond wig and usually wore black clothing.These fibers were of three different compositions and of course were never matched to any "wig," much less a wig of Stoeckley's, and the famous Stoeckley wig was apparently actually only a fall, which belonged to Maggie Mauney. And now we know from Glisson's notes that they were described as "curly," something Mac's never indicated in any of the last 35 years. (Heehee, no wonder he doesn't want everyone to see all these notes on Christina's website; he never, ever dreamed that all this stuff would come out and everyone would be able to finally see things like this!) And of course since the unsourced fibers on the club were of different compositions, that should pretty much wrap up the entire "Stoeckley-in-black-wool" argument.The Appeal court (4th cir. 1980) emphasized its view that, had MacDonald presented admissible evidence through Stoeckley’s mouth or otherwise, that she was involved in the crimes, it would have destroyed the government’s case.No, they didn't. I believe you're referring to the "Had she testified 'as it was reasonable to expect she might have testified" statement. But of course that wasn't a statement made by the court en banc, was it? Actually, IMHO, Stoeckley did testify as it was reasonable to expect she might: Despite Bernie's best effort to force her into admitting something she didn't do, she stayed strong and told him the truth, that she wasn't there, and of course she also testified to that under oath. Backing her up was the obvious fact that not a single shred of any forensic evidence was found that supported a claim that she (or any other intruder) was there, and of course her fingerprints and hair samples didn't match any found in the house. Not to mention that her "confessions" were recanted, and it was found that Gunderson and Beasley had coerced her into making those false confessions.

audpaud

01-22-2006, 12:27 AM

It's hard for me to understand what the 12 folks who have voted that MacDonald didn't commit the murders of his family are basing their vote on????:shrug: :confused:

audpaud

01-22-2006, 12:41 AM

After all these years, I STILL occasionally say a prayer for Colette, Kimmie and Kristie.:rose:

I've read FV AND the laughable FJ. I went on the Mystery Tour AND to MacDonald's self serving web sites.

I believe the FACTS presented in Fatal Vision and also the THEORY on why this happened the way it did ie: a little "physician healing thyself" in the amphetamine section of his home pharmacy.

MacDonald needs to come clean for any hope of redemption--but guessing he would need to have an actual SOUL for that to happen?:rolleyes:

sneakers

01-22-2006, 08:58 AM

He's at the same stage as the Manson girls; tired of being imprisoned and wanting out. Now, the REAL punishment begins.

SUFFER, Mac.

GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY

imo

Bunny2

01-22-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
After all these years, I STILL occasionally say a prayer for Colette, Kimmie and Kristie.:rose: Hi, audpaud - nice to meet you! Your post couldn't have come at a better time. Christina has just put up something new, and I think it's wonderful:

The Colette, Kimberly and Kristen MacDonald Scholarship
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/memorial.html

May the victims never be forgotten...!!

audpaud

01-23-2006, 12:16 AM

Nice to meet you as well, bunny2!:beer:

Tx for all of your Posts/work~it's been a great read.

Christine's site is amazing and the scholarship is a wonderful idea!

Deb B

01-23-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This may have been a mistake by MacDonald lawyers Segal and Wade Smith. I honestly think most women are unreliable when it comes to any trial involving blood, or sexual matters. I don’t know why this is. It could be most women, with a few honorable exceptions, go by emotion rather than evidence...

Let me guess, those "honorable exceptions" are women who think MacDonald is innocent? It's interesting all the claims you make about the investigation, trial, conviction, appeals - involved mostly men - kinda shoots down your misogynist theories about women.

MacDonald's blood was not tested for amphetamines.

I thought McGuiness presented the amphetamine theory as just that - a theory. That's what I thought when I read Fatal Vision. A plausable one, too, since Macdonald was taking diet pills - he was dishing them out to other folks - the pills he was taking were later taken off the market because of a link to psychosis - he lost 12 lbs. in the 3 weeks prior to the murders.

byn63

01-23-2006, 12:34 PM

I cannot believe the stubbornness with which Albie and Capy stick to repeating the same inane and incorrect arguements even when PROOF is provided that clearly shows them to be wrong! For example: the pj threads and fibers were NOT reported as COULD HAVE come from Inmate's pj top they were all reported as BEING IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS TO THOSE REMAINING ATTACHED TO THE PJ TOP, including the dye composition, washing wear patterns, the z pattern, the chemical composition - IDENTICAL is considerably more than could have.

Capy insists on insulting the memory of the VICTIMS in this case Colette, Kimberly and Kristen (and the unborn son) so then Albie goes back to doing so. Inamte 00131-177 IS NO LONGER A DOCTOR. HIS LISCENSE HAS BEEN REVOKED AND THEREFORE NO LONGER DESERVES THE HONORIFIC YOU KEEP USING. Why do you have to insult THE REAL victims? If you want to be a macalite that is fine, but there is no cause to insult his victims even further.

Albie we all know you are not from the UK and we all know that you prefer to believe the macalite bible despite the proof as seen on the tjmis.

Inmate 00131-177's case has been to the USSC 7 times to date. The USSC found no error by the trial judge nor the appeals court. there was no suppression of evidence. the reason Inmate was convicted was (1) the overwhelming amount of evidence that points directly to him as the murderer and (2) his own inability to keep his mouth shut (3) his consciousness of guilt and the obvious changing of his story to try and explain away the damaging evidence (4) the stellar work of the Prosecution team and Freddy Kassab (including FBI, CID, and especially Brian Murtaugh). None of Inmate's appeals have ever been found to have merit; his only appellate victory was in the Government agreement to allow 15exhibits DNA tested.

OH btw ALBIE - you are the one who suggested that the saran fibers should be DNA tested. You even said the majority of the crime scene items should have been tested before trial, even though the science of DNA fingerprinting did not yet exist. AND you were the one to claim the CID as Mason's, and that HS was a vampire and these are only the favorites of your absurd theories!

Bunny2

01-23-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...[the murderer's] blood was tested after the MacDonald murders. The report said that no narcotics, dangerous drugs, and only a minimum amount of alcohol was in his blood.MacDonald wasn't tested for the presence of amphetamines.
The Fatal Vision author Joe McGinniss confessed in a court of law that he had lied in his book about MacDonald abusing amphetamines and killing his family in a drugs frenzy.
How could something that was an obvious theory be a "lie"? Regardless, can you please post a link to the trial transcript or other factual information which says that McGinniss told a court of law that he had "lied" about MacDonald killing his family? My guess is that this will be impossible for you to do, since the testimonies and other factual documents are quoted practically word for word in McGinniss's book and most readers seem to have come to the same conclusion McGinniss and the courts did, that MacDonald certainly, without question, was the murderer of his family.The prosecution evidence in the MacDonald case is very weak evidence. It mainly seems to be something about brushing pajama cuffs against a bed sheet...LOL! What is this, about the nine hundredth time you've posted this? Of course the evidence wasn't "weak," Albie. It was incredibly strong, so strong that it proved MacDonald's guilt to a jury and nothing has ever overcome it in all the years since. As for the "brushing," you will not be permitted to continue to perpetuate this false information as long as I'm around. The cuff imprints were not made by "brushing." You need to go reread the case documents on this issue, since obviously you never have, or you simply ignored what you saw in those documents.
...which proves nothing, and a pajama pocket that may or may not have had blood on it before it came apart from the pajama top. From the MMT: There were 10 blood stains from Colette that were on Jeff's pajama top before it was torn. Six stains were located on the pajama top pocket which was torn from the jacket and ended up at Colette's feet. The remaining four stains were located on the left front seam, left shoulder, left sleeve, and left cuff of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. Colette's blood was found on the face of the pocket in six locations, but that portion of the pocket was found on an unbloodied section of a throw rug at Colette's feet. The six stains did not soak through the double layer of the pocket, indicating that Colette's blood was on the pocket before it was torn from the jacket.
...the MacDonald defense lawyers didn’t even bother to cross-examine Laber because they considered his testimony so unimportant.Oh, I don't think that was the reason at all, Albie. Reviewing the record as a whole would tend to show that Segal almost certainly realized that Laber's testimony was so damaging to MacDonald that he didn't want to continue to impress it on the jury's minds. And all you have to do to come to that conclusion is to see how avidly he cross-examined other witnesses whose testimony wasn't anywhere near as damaging as Laber's.I honestly think most women are unreliable when it comes to any trial involving blood, or sexual matters. I don’t know why this is. It could be most women, with a few honorable exceptions, go by emotion rather than evidence.Another marvelous "weirdo" quote from the resident wacko. Thanks, Albie, for again showing everyone your true colors.The eminent lawyers Harvey Silverglate and Alan Dershowitz have said about the MacDonald case that it "is the product of prosecutorial chicanery at its worst.”The prosecutors and jury and appeals courts and Supreme Court obviously didn't support that silly contention; in fact it was found that the trial was conducted without error. Here are a couple of quotes for you to reflect upon: "...one of [MacDonald's] trial attorneys has on more than one occasion expressed the view that the trial was fairly conducted." And: "The court has had the opportunity to observe the conduct of counsel for the government and for MacDonald over the last sixteen years and has found all counsel, without exception, to have performed in a diligent and professional manner.... the court has not perceived any instance where attorneys for either side crossed the boundary between zealous advocacy and impropriety. Any suggestion that the government engaged in conduct intended to deny MacDonald his right to a fair trial is unsupported by the extensive record in this action."

Bunny2

01-23-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Deb B
Let me guess, those "honorable exceptions" are women who think MacDonald is innocent? It's interesting all the claims you make about the investigation, trial, conviction, appeals - involved mostly men - kinda shoots down your misogynist theories about women.

MacDonald's blood was not tested for amphetamines.

I thought McGuiness presented the amphetamine theory as just that - a theory. That's what I thought when I read Fatal Vision. A plausable one, too, since Macdonald was taking diet pills - he was dishing them out to other folks - the pills he was taking were later taken off the market because of a link to psychosis - he lost 12 lbs. in the 3 weeks prior to the murders.
Deb, IMHO Albie was pretty much thoroughly discredited on A&E as being anything other than a troll and flamebaiter; it's his stock in trade. He bashed women there, put out many r-a-c-i-s-t statements, baited people, etc., and was finally apparently banned from the board, since his endless daily postings ceased abruptly and he claimed he couldn't access the board anymore. I do believe he had previously been banned from C&J under another alias, since of course that's the main MacDonald board and it's just about a certainty that since he's so dedicated to spewing out this nonsense everywhere he can, he'd certainly be posting there if he could.

Bunny2

01-23-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by byn63
I cannot believe the stubbornness with which Albie and Capy stick to repeating the same inane and incorrect arguements even when PROOF is provided that clearly shows them to be wrong! For example: the pj threads and fibers were NOT reported as COULD HAVE come from Inmate's pj top they were all reported as BEING IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS TO THOSE REMAINING ATTACHED TO THE PJ TOP, including the dye composition, washing wear patterns, the z pattern, the chemical composition - IDENTICAL is considerably more than could have.

Capy insists on insulting the memory of the VICTIMS in this case Colette, Kimberly and Kristen (and the unborn son) so then Albie goes back to doing so. Inamte 00131-177 IS NO LONGER A DOCTOR. HIS LISCENSE HAS BEEN REVOKED AND THEREFORE NO LONGER DESERVES THE HONORIFIC YOU KEEP USING. Why do you have to insult THE REAL victims? If you want to be a macalite that is fine, but there is no cause to insult his victims even further.

Albie we all know you are not from the UK and we all know that you prefer to believe the macalite bible despite the proof as seen on the tjmis.

Inmate 00131-177's case has been to the USSC 7 times to date. The USSC found no error by the trial judge nor the appeals court. there was no suppression of evidence. the reason Inmate was convicted was (1) the overwhelming amount of evidence that points directly to him as the murderer and (2) his own inability to keep his mouth shut (3) his consciousness of guilt and the obvious changing of his story to try and explain away the damaging evidence (4) the stellar work of the Prosecution team and Freddy Kassab (including FBI, CID, and especially Brian Murtaugh). None of Inmate's appeals have ever been found to have merit; his only appellate victory was in the Government agreement to allow 15exhibits DNA tested.

OH btw ALBIE - you are the one who suggested that the saran fibers should be DNA tested. You even said the majority of the crime scene items should have been tested before trial, even though the science of DNA fingerprinting did not yet exist. AND you were the one to claim the CID as Mason's, and that HS was a vampire and these are only the favorites of your absurd theories! Good post, Byn, as always!

2L8 4A D8

01-23-2006, 01:24 PM

...and the lost piece of skin under Colette’s fingernail...
Yeah, Mac lucked out there, for sure. There's some speculation that the "skin" may have been a piece of latex glove Mac wore during the staging of the scenes, but if it had been "skin" and had not been lost, no doubt the jury's verdict against him would have come in even faster than it did, since it would have almost certainly been his own skin from where Colette raked her nails into him as she was trying to fight him off.

Hi Bunny! If Colette "raked her nails into him as she was trying to fight him off" where were the scratch marks on JM? This is the first time that I have heard this. It seems that if JM had scratch marks that would have pretty much put the big nail in his coffin for sure. Just curious.

JMO and MOO!!

Bunny2

01-23-2006, 01:53 PM

Yeah, Mac lucked out there, for sure. There's some speculation that the "skin" may have been a piece of latex glove Mac wore during the staging of the scenes, but if it had been "skin" and had not been lost, no doubt the jury's verdict against him would have come in even faster than it did, since it would have almost certainly been his own skin from where Colette raked her nails into him as she was trying to fight him off.Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Hi Bunny! If Colette "raked her nails into him as she was trying to fight him off" where were the scratch marks on JM? This is the first time that I have heard this. It seems that if JM had scratch marks that would have pretty much put the big nail in his coffin for sure. Just curious. JMO and MOO!!2L8 - Oh, yeah, Mac had scratches, all right. He says so himself. It's interesting to note that even today, his website claims "There were no scratch or gouge marks on Jeffrey MacDonald."

The MMT has this info in a nutshell, taken from the actual records in the case:

MP Kenneth Mica and others testified that they did see scratches on MacDonald's chest.

During the Pruett and Kearns interview, MacDonald told Pruett, "There was a scratch on my left upper chest." Pruett then asked, "The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?" Macdonald replied, "Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple."

Kearns asked MacDonald, "Were these wounds bleeding?" MacDonald replied, "My left hand was, but not--it was a scratch really. It wasn't--it didn't require sutures."

During the Article 32 military hearing, Captain Somers asked MacDonald to describe his injuries. Among other things, MacDonald said, "There were several, what appeared to me to be small, small puncture wounds, on the left of the chest and some scratches..." He also said, "I had a scratch on my right arm." During the same hearing, MacDonald's lawyer Bernie Segal asked: "Now, did you have any others? Just describe each one as you recall discovering or finding on your body now." MacDonald replied, "Yes, sir. I had some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest..."

On August 16, 1974, during the grand jury proceeding, MacDonald said, "I had--there was a scratch somewhere on my right shoulder."

Bunny2

01-24-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Judge Fox doesn’t give the appearance of impartiality in the MacDonald case.I'm sure if there was a problem with that, it would have been hashed out and settled long ago. I’ll never believe that [the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald] folded his pajama top and stabbed Colette more than 20 times with an ice pick through the pajama top. That theory without facts was disproved by Dr Thornton at the MacDonald trial in 1979.No, it wasn't. The jury didn't buy Thornton's argument but apparently did find merit in Stombaugh's, since they convicted MacDonald on three counts of murder. I’ll never believe Dr MacDonald wanted to be a bachelor boy again, or had a violent argument over child bedwetting, diet pills, one night stands with other women, and certainly not child molestation. ...MacDonald has never been seriously mentally ill, and to my knowledge isn’t seriously mentally ill now.From what I understand, psychopaths act out of choice, Albie, not mental illness. MacDonald has a character disorder, a personality disorder if you will, which results in his being psychopathic and narcissistic.I’ll never believe...MacDonald smashed the skulls of his little daughters more than 30 times. Only a maniac would do such a thing. ...MacDonald isn’t a maniac.I know it's difficult for you, but the facts show that he did do this and he remains in prison to this day for those horrific crimes against his family.Segal gave a perfectly plausible explanation for the pajama cuff impressions on the bedsheets, and the pajama pocket.If it was "perfectly plausible" the jury would have agreed with it. They didn't...."You have every reason to believe from all the evidence in this case that the blood was still moist and that the sheets touching each other with the blood on them produced these contacts which account for some of the various smears in there That is at least as rational as any explanation the Government has offered."But again, the jury didn't think so, did they?

audpaud

01-25-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
. . . I honestly think most women are unreliable when it comes to any trial involving blood, or sexual matters. I don’t know why this is. It could be most women, with a few honorable exceptions, go by emotion rather than evidence. . . .

I honestly think most men that Post on Message Boards in defense of male murderers are unreliable when it comes to any trial involving upheld CONVICTION, or sexual matters. I don't know why this is. It could be these men, with a few honorable exceptions, go by the same latent desires Ole Mac was diagnosed with?:shrug: :seeya:

audpaud

01-25-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
MacDonald wasn't tested for the presence of amphetamines . . .

Tx bunny2~I didn't think so. I also believe that MacDonald may never have snapped had he not been using amphetamines. I believe that some of the most driven and successful folks in our society are sociopaths that lead extraordinarily successful lives~prolly because of their ability to make hard decisions WITHOUT the moral dilemma/ethical questions that the rest of us WHO CAN EXPERIENCE EMOTION (vs "mirroring" emotion) deal with.

I think the amphetamine abuse (or "use"~whatEVAH) shredded whatever inner control this monster had. The whole trip to Russia/boxing team/Dr. thing smells awfully of something a speed freak suffering from grandiose non-reality based ideas would babble about.

MacDonald wanted out . . . in a different time and place he may have bought a ticket on the divorce clue bus . . . 1970 Jeff MacDonald missed that bus and is right where he belongs.

cami

01-25-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

Tx bunny2~I didn't think so. I also believe that MacDonald may never have snapped had he not been using amphetamines. I believe that some of the most driven and successful folks in our society are sociopaths that lead extraordinarily successful lives~prolly because of their ability to make hard decisions WITHOUT the moral dilemma/ethical questions that the rest of us WHO CAN EXPERIENCE EMOTION (vs "mirroring" emotion) deal with.

I think the amphetamine abuse (or "use"~whatEVAH) shredded whatever inner control this monster had. The whole trip to Russia/boxing team/Dr. thing smells awfully of something a speed freak suffering from grandiose non-reality based ideas would babble about.

MacDonald wanted out . . . in a different time and place he may have bought a ticket on the divorce clue bus . . . 1970 Jeff MacDonald missed that bus and is right where he belongs.

Hi Audpaud,

I don't post much on this case these days but I have been around it longer than Bunny and Byn, my girls. I tend to agree with you that had IPBK not been ingesting speed, he would not have snapped during the argument and brutally murdered Colette and Kim making it necessary then to kill Krissy. Surely, they had arguments but with his impulse control shredded by speed this time, he lost it.

cami

01-25-2006, 01:41 PM

QUOTE]The prosecution evidence in the MacDonald case is very weak evidence. It mainly seems to be something about brushing pajama cuffs against a bed sheet...[/QUOTE]

Ha ha ha, you are getting worse Bertie. You quite rightly know that Stombaugh proved before the jury at the 1979 trial, using photographs and the sheet itself that Colette MacDonald's bloody pajama sleeves transferred stains to that sheet. It's right there in black and white. Why do you ignore it and post like this? At the same time, her killer wearing a torn and bloody pajama top, transferred bloody patterns from the cuffs of that pajama top and his bare shoulder to the sheet. Which hippie had a bare shoulder, Bertie? Greg Mitchell?

What do you hope to gain by ignoring the evidence presented in court, the same evidence that the jury convicted on. The same evidence that the pathetic defense experts could not poke a reasonable doubt hole in?

You also know that this evidence is not weak and it's not the only evidentiary item to be put before the jury.

What is your game anyway, Bud? You are only succeeding in making yourself look foolish to anyone here who can read and comprehend what they read.

cami

01-25-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi

Some slang stays, some slang disappears. "Groovy" is one of those that disappeared. Now, people I know (and we were only KIDS in the 60's, me being born in '61 and my S.O. being born in '60) WILL still say something like, "Far out!" that WERE still being used by people when we were growing up, but "groovy" died out fairly soon, and I don't know if all THAT many people actually used to use it, anyway, at least in real life. We will use it occasionally to poke fun at something. Someone shows up wearing a really, really wild tie - "Hey, man, like, that's a groovy tie, man. Where can I get one?" Or if we're channeling Tommy Chong - "Oh, far out! That's groovy, man!" But I don't recall hearing it when I was in 4th grade in 1970, and believe me, I heard a lot of stuff. Seems to me that the most commonly-used slang word in my school was "paddy," to tell you the truth... but the idea that anyone under the influence of acid would walk around talking about how neat it was and using the word "groovy" to describe the experience, in 1970, just doesn't ring true.

I completely agree. I was a teenager in the 60's and although Groovy was used in around the mid-sixties, by 1968 it was an old word and none of us would have been so "un cool" as to use it. The words "hip", "happening" "vibe" "cool" were in use then.

only "greasers" used the word groovy and Inmate 131 certainly was a one of them.

cami

01-25-2006, 01:56 PM

So you can see that hidden evidence is certainly very seriously business. I have read on this thread a number an argument that McDonald is guilty based on the blue pj fibers on the club. Would it have made a difference if the jury had heard what was hidden in 1400 documents? Would it have makde a difference if the jury knew there numerous fibers, hairs that were not sourced to McDonald? Would it have made a difference that the 22 inch blond synthetic hair testimony was false. Even Judge Dupree thought the blue pj fibers was compelling evidence to guilt and now we know Mike Malone lied about the fibers and they were black wool. Would it have made a differnce that a lab tech had a report that said the hair found on one the girls bloody fingernails was not McDonald's.

Gee that's funny. I could swear I just read Tim Junkin's new motion to the Fourth Circuit and he now agrees with the prosecution that the black fibres found on the murder club were IN ADDITION to the blue pajama fibres found. Is he lying too?

cami

01-25-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Tsi Tsalagi

It's amazing how much junk we manage to transfer from one place to another without ever suspecting it. If my S.O. takes my hairbrush with him to work, he could leave some of my hair in the men's room there when he goes in to spiff up after lunch. Then someone I don't even know could wash their hands at the sink, and they could get my hair on their arm and take it out with them. If they then go to the grocery store, they could leave my hair clinging to a tomato they decide to squeeze. And then Arnold Schwarzenegger could have had that tomato for lunch, which would explain why one of MY hairs was found in his motorcycle sidecar. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Seriously, though. Clothing is a great collection device and you are liable to come home from any outing with a great many leavings from quite a few people. If you tried on clothes at the mall you might have someone else's hair on you; if you shook someone's hand after they petted a dog you might have dog hair on you; if you wear shoes you might collect the fingernail clippings someone nasty left under the table at the restaurant in a bit of mud on the sole of your shoe, and you'll NEVER figure out whose fingernail clippings ended up on your clean carpet when there was no one home but you and you know you didn't do it...

Yeah not to mention the fact that Colette Macdonald was in the habit of allowing her neighbours to use her clothes dryer which was outside the master bedroom in the utility room.

What are the chances that they might have shaken out the clothes before or after the dryer leaving their fibres and hair on the master bedroom floor.

We had a case in Canada years ago where a young girl was raped and murdered. Her neighbour was charged with the crime. The CFC matched fibres and hairs from his car to her. Both families used the same laundromat. The forensic analyst responsible for the case disagreed under oath, and repeatedly dismissed the situation as unlikely – though in October 1992, the same forensic department wrote a letter in response to a Toronto lawyer stating that they refused to examine penitentiary clothing due to the common use of laundry equipment.

This was a high profile case here-Guy-Paul Morin--he was set up by the cops however and later released when dna proved he did not commit the crime. He then was awarded a few million from the Ontario government in compensation for his wrongful conviction.

audpaud

01-25-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
. . .

I think it’s most unfair on Dr MacDonald to accuse him of an amphetamine psychosis on the night of the MacDonald murders when you have no real proof to back it up . . .

Nobody ought to suggest Dr MacDonald murdered his family in an amphetamine psychosis unless they can prove it. That’s illegal, and what is known in law as libel and slander . . .

You know you may be right!:confused: :eek:

It's no longer my opinion that MacDonald slaughtered his "family" (read: objects/possessions) due to an amphetamine induced psychosis . . .

It's NOW my opinion based on the Evicence and Facts~ that Colette, Kimberly and Baby Krissy were butchered by Pure Evil Incarnate~whose name remains:

Jeffrey MacDonald!

audpaud

01-25-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by cami

Hi Audpaud,

I don't post much on this case these days but I have been around it longer than Bunny and Byn, my girls. I tend to agree with you that had IPBK not been ingesting speed, he would not have snapped during the argument and brutally murdered Colette and Kim making it necessary then to kill Krissy. Surely, they had arguments but with his impulse control shredded by speed this time, he lost it.

Hi to you cami!

I've enjoyed your Posts immensely in this Thread and others!:)

MacDonald "healing thyself" reminds me a lot of Elvis Presley's pharmaceutical problems---thinking the drugs were "ok" since they were presribed by a Doctor and even going to the White House to get that special Drug Agent badge! Elvis may have even thought the word "groovy" was still cool in 1970???

If MacDonald has to admit guilt/show remorse in order to even be considered for parole . . . how much ya wanna bet that "amphetamine induced psychosis" will be his excuse for his atrocities???:rolleyes:

Like OJ . . . I'm sure this Creature has even convinced HIMSELF he is not guilty!:flamemad:

Deneece

01-25-2006, 05:13 PM

This is probably one of the best-argued boards that I have ever seen! I am truly amazed how closely you all have studied this case and the evidence, and actually back up the information with very sound documentation.

I am in the process of familiarizing myself with this case and have yet to read any of the books mentioned…I have ordered them from our local bookstore and will peruse the information. I am also going through all the information on the websites and am very impressed with the website that gave a point-by-point analysis of McDonald claims vs. evidence. A very thorough and thought out page, as it even has established numerous contradictions of McDonald and shows how often his story changed in details.

I would have to say, why would a victim of such an attack change his story so often? How is it possible for weapons to be simultaneously attacking victims in different rooms (if his version of events were true). I also can’t imagine Colette screaming “why are they doing this to me?” when being attacked by strangers (I would be screaming Help! Along with yelling “get the **** off me”… reasonable assumption) however might believe “why are you doing this to me” when being attacked by someone I know….but that’s just me.

OK…so here’s what I see…I don’t buy the “loving family guy wouldn’t do such a thing” as we all know by various CTV shows we have all watched that it does happen…and often for no real provocation or reason. I also don’t see why innocent person would blatently lie about events when there is blood proof (evidence) that contradict the stories.

I also find the argument about fiber evidence inconsistent on both sides, un-sourced fibers evidence does not accuse nor does it extol. You can’t make the claim that a lot of people visited the home and that fibers get transferred in the wash then claim that those few known fibers are proof the accused committed this crime. Any more than can be argued that the few known fibers are immaterial to the case yet those unknown, un-sourced fibers are all important. I just does not make sense to argue back and forth over the importance (or not) of fibers that could easily be explained away by either side.

What I find more damning are the words of McDonald himself and the various stories he’s told, refining them until they are nearly a mantra to him and his supporters, yet does not explain why his earliest versions are so inconsistent. It also makes no sense to put this down to a vast conspiracy. Were he and his supporters to be believed, the MP’s, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, the supreme court, the FBI, the lab techs, the EMT’s and attending doctors are all in on a huge conspiracy to lie, supplant evidence, etc… to “get” this guy and protect a small time drug informant and her hippie friends. Does anyone else see this as an odd reason for his conviction…what was so important about McDonald that everyone else was out to “get him”? Does anyone else see the paranoid delusions of such a claim? It isn’t like he wasn’t a white male, ivy league doctor that everyone is “out to get”….whatever….
:rolleyes:

I also find it odd that drugged out hippies would have worn gloves throughout the house…they must have, because none of the ‘hippies’ fingerprints were found anywhere in the house. I also find the hair fiber thing oddly laughable because if it is to be exonerating for McDonald…then we would have a picture of a doped up hippie, wearing a wig, carrying a candle in one hand and brushing her hair with the other chanting (acid is groovy, kill the pigs)…ladies…please inform me how you would brush a wig with ONE hand?…anyone who knows about wigs, knows that you do not brush your wig on your head because it will “adjust” itself and look silly.

Now…for my final question/comment (since, as usual, I am rambling as I am prone to do)…About the baseball bat…I want to know…there was a phone number written on it (who the heck writes a phone number on a baseball bat?)…anyway, was there ever any handwriting analysis of this? It is probably not very important, however, I was just curious about it….

cami

01-25-2006, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Deneece

I

I also find the argument about fiber evidence inconsistent on both sides, un-sourced fibers evidence does not accuse nor does it extol. You can’t make the claim that a lot of people visited the home and that fibers get transferred in the wash then claim that those few known fibers are proof the accused committed this crime. Any more than can be argued that the few known fibers are immaterial to the case yet those unknown, un-sourced fibers are all important. I just does not make sense to argue back and forth over the importance (or not) of fibers that could easily be explained away by either side.

Now…for my final question/comment (since, as usual, I am rambling as I am prone to do)…About the baseball bat…I want to know…there was a phone number written on it (who the heck writes a phone number on a baseball bat?)…anyway, was there ever any handwriting analysis of this? It is probably not very important, however, I was just curious about it….

I would like to address just these two points. From your first paragraph. Yes, unsourced fibres neither accuse nor extol. However, the blue pajama fibres from the pajama jacket that MacDonald was wearing that night were found scattered all over the master bedroom.

The fibres and threads that make up the jacket are purple cotton sewing threads and warp yarns (fibres).

MacDonald tells the story that he used his pajama top to ward off the blows of an ice pick and a knife (sure) and at some point the jacket is pulled over his head and ripped.

Yet the fibre evidence shows:

Master Bedroom---60 purple threads
18 yarns
Kim's bed--14 purple threads
5
Kris's bed--1 purple thread
1 yarn

Debris removed from beneath Colette's trunk & legs---15 purple threads and 3 warp yarns (fibres)

East wall, Headboard---1 prple sewing thread
Sheet on MB--7 yarns (fibres), 15 prple sewing threads.

In the living room where the pajama jacket was alleged ripped

0 purple cotton threads, 0 warp yarns, 0 blue black sewing threads.

I think the case is made that the fibres and warp yarns found in all three bedrooms, under Kim's covers, under Colette's prone body are very incriminating and damaging evidence against MacDonald.

The phone number of Mac's CO was written on the club he used to bash Colette's and Kim's heads in, not on a baseball bat. The block of wood was sourced to the Macdonald home, it matched wood from bed slats on Kim's bed. I don't believe there was any handwriting analysis but Bunny and Byn are better suited to answer that since they are very active in the case now and I am not.
Welcome aboard Denicce :seeya:

cami

01-25-2006, 08:33 PM

snipped to save bandwidth.

I read that remark by Tim Junkin about the pajama fibers on the wooden murder weapon. I can't quite see what's so significant about it.

aaaahahahaha you don't? Gosh you are a hoot. For over 25 years Ice pick baby killer and his lawyer du jour have alleged there were no pajama fibres on the club, just black wool. Malone lied about them and so did Blackburn. Murtagh supressed the report that alleged only black wool fibres were found on the club. These are the allegations all these years.

You know the significance of the blue pajama fibres found on the club so why do you try to deny it. It's very incriminating to Macdonald that's why. The club was allegedly outside before he ever stepped foot in the MB wearing his torn pj top that he puts over Colette's chest to "try and keep her warm" never mind there's a blanket and sheets there, the good doctor needs only the top. How did those fibres walk out of the MB and stick to the club outside the back door?

Now after 20 something years, Tim Junkin, mack the knife's lawyer AGREES WITH THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTORS THAT THE BLUE FIBRES FROM THE INMATE'S PAJAMA JACKET WERE ON THE CLUB AS WELL AS UNSOURCED BLACK WOOL FIBRES in a motion to the court.

I can't even be bothered with the rest of your nonsence post.

2L8 4A D8

01-25-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Deneece

<snipped>

What I find more damning are the words of McDonald himself and the various stories he’s told, refining them until they are nearly a mantra to him and his supporters, yet does not explain why his earliest versions are so inconsistent. It also makes no sense to put this down to a vast conspiracy. Were he and his supporters to be believed, the MP’s, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, the supreme court, the FBI, the lab techs, the EMT’s and attending doctors are all in on a huge conspiracy to lie, supplant evidence, etc… to “get” this guy and protect a small time drug informant and her hippie friends. Does anyone else see this as an odd reason for his conviction…what was so important about McDonald that everyone else was out to “get him”? Does anyone else see the paranoid delusions of such a claim? It isn’t like he wasn’t a white male, ivy league doctor that everyone is “out to get”….whatever….
:rolleyes:

<snipped>

This is the exact same insanity that is going on over at the OJ Simpson Thread. The NG's truly believe that OJ is completely innocent and in their quest to prove it, they feel that there was a vast conspiracy by everybody from the get-go to "frame" OJ for the murders. It's ridiculous and defies logic and common sense, but the NG's just won't give it up. It's frustrating!

JMO and MOO!!

JTF

01-26-2006, 01:17 AM

Hello, everyone. I'm a first time poster on this particular MacDonald Case discussion board and have spent the last 21 years researching this case. I would like to add to what the always impressive Cami had to say about the significance of the pajama fiber evidence:

1) MacDonald has always claimed that he never got close enough to the bed in the master bedroom to see the word PIG on the headboard. There were 22 pajama fibers found on the bottom sheet, 6 pajama fibers found on top of a pillow on the bed, and a single pajama fiber found on the floor near the headboard.

2) There were 15 entangled fibers found under the rug at Colette's feet, 7 pajama fibers, and 8 rug fibers. The only way that fibers become entangled in that manner is through direct contact and MacDonald's torn pajama top pocket was found in that same area of the master bedroom.

3) There were 14 pajama fibers found under Kimberly's bedcovers, a 20.5 inch pajama fiber found on top of her pillow, and another pajama fiber found under that same pillow.

4) There were 24 pajama fibers found under Colette's body and 2 pajama fibers found under Kristen's bedcovers. That makes 4 locations where pajama fibers were found under a body or bedding. This indicates that Colette's body, Kimberly's body/pillow/bedcovers, and Kristen's body/bedcovers were moved.

5) There were two locations where pajama fibers were found that indicated a violent struggle. The multi-colored bedspread contained a bloody head hair from Colette twisted around a blood soaked pajama seam thread and there was a pajama fiber found under Kristen's fingernail.

Compare that type of trace evidence to what the MacDonald camp claims is evidence of intruders. Three woolen fibers found on Colette's body, 2 out of the 3 fibers differ in chemical composition, and the 2 woolen fibers found on the club also differ in chemical composition. If you add the fact that most of the MacDonald family clothing items were given away by Jeffrey MacDonald shortly after the Article 32 hearing, any claims as to the source of those 5 woolen fibers are worthless.

JTF

cami

01-26-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Hello, everyone. I'm a first time poster on this particular MacDonald Case discussion board and have spent the last 21 years researching this case. I would like to add to what the always impressive Cami had to say about the significance of the pajama fiber evidence:

1) MacDonald has always claimed that he never got close enough to the bed in the master bedroom to see the word PIG on the headboard. There were 22 pajama fibers found on the bottom sheet, 6 pajama fibers found on top of a pillow on the bed, and a single pajama fiber found on the floor near the headboard.

2) There were 15 entangled fibers found under the rug at Colette's feet, 7 pajama fibers, and 8 rug fibers. The only way that fibers become entangled in that manner is through direct contact and MacDonald's torn pajama top pocket was found in that same area of the master bedroom.

3) There were 14 pajama fibers found under Kimberly's bedcovers, a 20.5 inch pajama fiber found on top of her pillow, and another pajama fiber found under that same pillow.

4) There were 24 pajama fibers found under Colette's body and 2 pajama fibers found under Kristen's bedcovers. That makes 4 locations where pajama fibers were found under a body or bedding. This indicates that Colette's body, Kimberly's body/pillow/bedcovers, and Kristen's body/bedcovers were moved.

5) There were two locations where pajama fibers were found that indicated a violent struggle. The multi-colored bedspread contained a bloody head hair from Colette twisted around a blood soaked pajama seam thread and there was a pajama fiber found under Kristen's fingernail.

Compare that type of trace evidence to what the MacDonald camp claims is evidence of intruders. Three woolen fibers found on Colette's body, 2 out of the 3 fibers differ in chemical composition, and the 2 woolen fibers found on the club also differ in chemical composition. If you add the fact that most of the MacDonald family clothing items were given away by Jeffrey MacDonald shortly after the Article 32 hearing, any claims as to the source of those 5 woolen fibers are worthless.

JTF

Hey JTF, welcome aboard. :seeya:

Bunny2

01-26-2006, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There have never been any inconsistencies in...MacDonald's story of what happened at the MacDonald murders.

And this is precisely the sort of absurd statement which has resulted in virtually no one at all giving any weight to what you say.

As you knew before you posted, there were an incredible number of inconsistencies in MacDonald's stories, which neither you nor he can deny. If you'd like a rundown, you can see some of them here:

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

Deneece

01-26-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
snipped
(point #1) There have never been any inconsistencies in Dr MacDonald's story of what happened at the MacDonald murders.

I agree that Dr MacDonald has never been the most articulate person in the world. He has always been candid. He had never been an insurance salesman, or a professional TV performer before the MacDonald murders. If Dr MacDonald said he wasn't certain how the pajama pocket became detached from the pajama top, that isn't an inconsistency.

(point #2)It's most unfair to accuse Dr MacDonald of murder because there were no fingerprints of intruders. The fingerprint examination at the MacDonald murders was a complete shambles. A fingerprint expert Osterburg at the MacDonald trial said he was "totally mystified" by it.

There were numerous unidentified fingerprints at the MacDonald crime scene which were lost because there were technical problems. This wasn't Dr MacDonald's fault. The photography was a shambles. I don't know if you have ever heard of wedding photos which never came out, or were a disaster, but the same sort of thing happened at the MacDonald crime scene investigation.

(point #3) It's also a bit unfair on Dr MacDonald for JTF and Murtagh to say foreign fibers "probably" came from MacDonald clothes. If those MacDonald clothes and MacDonald dolls were so forensically significant then the Army CID and FBI ought to have kept those clothes and dolls as evidence. It wasn't Dr MacDonald's fault. Why blame him for it? Judges ought to have been most severe in their criticism of the FBI and Army CID for the loss of that crucial forensic evidence.

I do think JTF needs to be far more skeptical about all this so-called pajama fiber forensic evidence. The crime scene was hopelessly contaminated by almost an army of military police. Anybody who was unnecessary ought to have been asked to leave the crime scene.

The bedsheets and the pajama top ought to have been professionally collected by a competent forensic expert, not just all thrown into a bag by CID agent Ivory who had no scientific training. All kinds of bloody pajama cuff impressions coud have been caused in that bloody bag. The pajama bottom ought never to have been lost.

(point #4) All this pajama fiber business is "could have" come from pajama fibers anyway. It proves nothing. The bodies may have been moved. There is no hard evidence at all that any body was moved by Dr MacDonald , to another location, after the murders.

As I have stated before, I am just beginning to familiarize myself with this case and haven’t had the opportunity to read all the material, however, I have found the information on both sides here (on this thread) very enlightening, informative and thorough. And, I do not mean to attack just your posts but I am finding some of the things you mention very illogical. Here are a few of the reasons;

(Point #1) McDonald stated several different things to various individuals and at times exaggerated his injuries (per his attending physician vs. his claims). If McDonald is being completely truthful, what reason does his doctor have to lie about his injuries?

How is it that he was being attacked by the same weapons that were attacking his wife at the same time, in different rooms (he could hear her screaming “Jeff, why are they doing this to me”…?wtf? who would really say that while being brutally attacked?).

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html <--this is a very informative sight that shows the contradictions in McDonalds statements. If you are right about the vast conspiracy against him, then everyone else is lying…and I ask again…what is so important about HS and JMcD that would cause everyone else to protect her and frame him? It makes no sense to me…(just thinking out loud here).

(Point # 2)So….it’s your contention that EVERY fingerprint these drugged up hippies (btw, how did McDonald know they were hopped up on FIVE different drugs and named them…how did he know what these people took…maybe while he was being hit in the head, they stopped long enough for him to ask “what are you on” and they responded “oh, we took five different drugs and this is what we took…”, but I digress) was lost due to technical errors. I am quite sure that fingerprints were compared with HS and her named accomplices (from one of her various stories), excluding of course, the individual who was in jail at the same time he was killing this family.

(Point #3) Once again, I reiterate; you cannot claim that foreign fibers (un-sourced) are all important to exonerating JMcD while claiming his pj fibers are immaterial. JMO…the fiber evidence is so inconsistent and so easily explained away that it becomes virtually (although not completely) immaterial. What fiber evidence was found is easily explained away because this family had guests in their home, washed their laundry in a machine shared by others and managed to cross contaminate their own laundry with fibers from each others clothes. And your claim contradicts itself when you say that fibers from his pj’s prove nothing but those un-sourced fibers mean everything…

(Point #4) We know (by blood evidence) that the bodies of these people were moved…would drugged up hippies have done such a thing…and to what purpose?

****As always,…these are just my thoughts and opinions as I become more familiar with this case and am attempting to work through the information….

Bunny2

01-26-2006, 01:17 PM

Bunny2

01-26-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
As I have stated before, I am just beginning to familiarize myself with this case and haven’t had the opportunity to read all the material, however, I have found the information on both sides here (on this thread) very enlightening, informative and thorough.Deneece, just wanted to say I'm enjoying your posts, and hope to see much more from you in the future. I've seen many people who say they're new to the case but they've already made up their minds as to Mac's innocence (or guilt), despite the fact that they haven't read the records, so it's refreshing to see someone who's new but who is taking the time and effort to actually read the facts and come to conclusions based on those facts.

As I think you are seeing, some Mac supporters (who shall remain nameless) want only to take singular bits of evidence and discount them, but it's the evidence as a whole which showed a jury that Mac was guilty of the brutal murders of his family. The physical, circumstantial and negative evidence convicted him, and of course tied in with that were the many demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt, as he tried to change his stories to match the evidence.

JTF

01-26-2006, 01:33 PM

Cami/Bunny: Thanks for the welcome!

Deneece: Individuals like AT are not serious MacDonald case researchers nor are they seeking the truth in this case. They are merely MacDonald groupies who have an agenda and that is to preach the MacDonald gospel. That gospel is a set of evidentiary items which they contend point to the presence of intruders at 544 Castle Drive. Despite the fact that most of these items have been explained away in prosaic terms, they will continue to repeat them as fact over and over again. There is nothing new about what they present. It is the same evidence presented at the Article 32 hearing, Grand Jury hearing, 1979 trial, and to 7 appellate courts since 1980. Pending the DNA test results, there is not a shred of evidence to back MacDonald's claims.

JTF.

Bunny2

01-26-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There were numerous unidentified fingerprints at the MacDonald crime scene which were lost because there were technical problems.Didn't you know that the presence of unsourced items is so common to every household that it's considered to be forensically insignificant and often isn't even reported? And didn't you know that MacDonald was allowed to argue to the jury that the presence of unsourced items pointed to intruders, and the jury didn't buy it? The crime scene was hopelessly contaminated by almost an army of military police.No, it wasn't. That's just hype from the Mac camp, Albie. No medic, MP or investigator put 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in MacDonald's pajama top which matched 21 holes in Colette's chest; no medic, MP or investigator put MacDonald's pajama fibers on the murder club which was outside; none of those people put MacDonald's blood in front of the kitchen sink, or arranged Kimberly in her bed and tucked her in or carried Colette in the sheet; no medic, MP or investigator removed the threads and fibers and hairs and blood which should have been on and around the sofa where MacDonald claims to have fought with intruders and been stabbed; no medic, MP or investigator put the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs and Colette's pajama cuffs on the master bedroom sheet, and so on and on and on, ad nauseam.

Deneece

01-26-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by cami

(Point #1)
I would like to address just these two points. From your first paragraph. Yes, unsourced fibres neither accuse nor extol. However, the blue pajama fibres from the pajama jacket that MacDonald was wearing that night were found scattered all over the master bedroom.

The fibres and threads that make up the jacket are purple cotton sewing threads and warp yarns (fibres).

MacDonald tells the story that he used his pajama top to ward off the blows of an ice pick and a knife (sure) and at some point the jacket is pulled over his head and ripped.

Yet the fibre evidence shows:

Master Bedroom---60 purple threads
18 yarns
Kim's bed--14 purple threads
5
Kris's bed--1 purple thread
1 yarn

Debris removed from beneath Colette's trunk & legs---15 purple threads and 3 warp yarns (fibres)

East wall, Headboard---1 prple sewing thread
Sheet on MB--7 yarns (fibres), 15 prple sewing threads.

In the living room where the pajama jacket was alleged ripped

0 purple cotton threads, 0 warp yarns, 0 blue black sewing threads.

I think the case is made that the fibres and warp yarns found in all three bedrooms, under Kim's covers, under Colette's prone body are very incriminating and damaging evidence against MacDonald.

(Point #2)
The phone number of Mac's CO was written on the club he used to bash Colette's and Kim's heads in, not on a baseball bat. The block of wood was sourced to the Macdonald home, it matched wood from bed slats on Kim's bed. I don't believe there was any handwriting analysis but Bunny and Byn are better suited to answer that since they are very active in the case now and I am not.
Welcome aboard Denicce :seeya: (Point #1)
OK…but isn’t fiber evidence (excluding the bloody one, which I will return to later) easily explained? Here’s the way I see it…when I cook, unless I tie my hair up, I get hair in the food (eww)…when I sit on the furniture, hair and fibers are dropped everywhere, I tuck my kids in for the night, my hair gets on their bed, along with clothing fibers while I read them stories. I don’t wash bedding every day so these fibers stay in the bed, until…one of my kids rolls in the bed and picks up some of these hair/fiber samples and leaves them all over the house and while I pick up fibers from them as well. I am not the best housekeeper in the world and all dark clothes are washed together (you should see the lint trap from the dryer! Not to mention the balls of crap on some of my finer socks and clothes…*sidebar; ironic how lint balls slap themselves onto your nicer clothes and manage to escape the paint-splattered work clothes with holes…end of sidebar**.) Now, when I undress, my clothes go into a heap in the bathroom or next to the bed, leaving stuff everywhere! Do you see where I’m going with this?…So, How is it that these fibers that have plausible reasons for being there are important, yet un-sourced fibers found on and around individuals are not?

Bloody threads were easily explained away because he conveniently covered his wife with his shirt…as well as attending his daughter…he could have dragged fibers variously as well as the (drugged up stoner hippie) attackers who were busy moving bodies and tucking the youngest body under covers….ummm….I know what you are thinking at this point and I must say it too…yeah, right…

His fibers are easily explained as being on the club because he was hit with said club (remember, while his wife was being clubbed and stabbed with the same weapons, he was being attacked…don’t you remember?) and that would explain his fibers on the weapon.

Also, as Arthur Thorp pointed out; Those pj’s were not made of some rare thread or material…isn’t it possible that others had fibers (clothing) similar in nature?…remember, lab and dye testing were not as complex back then as they are now, nor was cloth made in bulk by exploited foreign children in far off third world countries so material was rather consistent in texture and dye…(this of course excludes they guy in cami’s ‘cause they didn’t make purple/blue cami’s back then…I believe it was mainly done in army green but I could be wrong…you never know when our guys might need to camouflage themselves in the purple/blue tundra…)

IMO…the ONLY fiber evidence that is not so easily explained away are the missing ones at the point of attack…weird huh? Everyone walks around dropping fiber evidence and brushing wigs (while they are wearing them and holding a candle) but manage to not drop fibers at a vicious point of attack…??? (I hear Twighlight Zone music)….

(Point #2)
OK…onto the next point…now that you mention it, I remember it being stated that that club came from his daughters bed…but again…why on earth was a phone number written there? It is probably the most odd thing I have heard of yet…any theories? And do you know where I’d find a picture of said club or at least a close up of the writing?

Deneece

01-26-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Didn't you know that the presence of unsourced items is so common to every household that it's considered to be forensically insignificant and often isn't even reported? And didn't you know that MacDonald was allowed to argue to the jury that the presence of unsourced items pointed to intruders, and the jury didn't buy it?No, it wasn't. That's just hype from the Mac camp, Albie. No medic, MP or investigator put 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in MacDonald's pajama top which matched 21 holes in Colette's chest; no medic, MP or investigator put MacDonald's pajama fibers on the murder club which was outside; none of those people put MacDonald's blood in front of the kitchen sink, or arranged Kimberly in her bed and tucked her in or carried Colette in the sheet; no medic, MP or investigator removed the threads and fibers and hairs and blood which should have been on and around the sofa where MacDonald claims to have fought with intruders and been stabbed; no medic, MP or investigator put the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs and Colette's pajama cuffs on the master bedroom sheet, and so on and on and on, ad nauseam. Ahh…but aren’t you forgetting…they were ALL in conspiracy to FRAME JMcD! They had to protect the small time drug addicted informant so everyone lied and planted as well as supplanting evidence to convict him…

EVERYONE was in on it apparently, the EMT’s and doctors who attended his wounds, the FBI and MP’s, the prosecutor and judge, as well as the father-in-law who coerced the appeals courts and Supreme Court into believing it all…did I miss anyone who was in on it???? (there it is again…that twighlight zone music…dang it…I’m going to get my ears checked or turn off that dang cd….)
:chicken:

Deneece

01-26-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Cami/Bunny: Thanks for the welcome!

Deneece: Individuals like AT are not serious MacDonald case researchers nor are they seeking the truth in this case. They are merely MacDonald groupies who have an agenda and that is to preach the MacDonald gospel. That gospel is a set of evidentiary items which they contend point to the presence of intruders at 544 Castle Drive. Despite the fact that most of these items have been explained away in prosaic terms, they will continue to repeat them as fact over and over again. There is nothing new about what they present. It is the same evidence presented at the Article 32 hearing, Grand Jury hearing, 1979 trial, and to 7 appellate courts since 1980. Pending the DNA test results, there is not a shred of evidence to back MacDonald's claims.

JTF. Thanx for the welcome…and I understand that JMcD has supporters, he even has celebrity supporters as well as the average Arthur Thorp, I mean, Joe. What I am trying to understand is the basis of this support…I can’t wait to read both books now and I will. I also have an open mind when it comes to evidentiary information, however have a hard time with illogical arguments such as “they framed the ivy league doctor to protect the small time druggy informant and her gang of miscreants”, and the “everyone is in on it” argument as well.

On the other side, I also know that occasionally an innocent person goes to jail based on faulty evidence and over exuberant prosecution, however, those persons generally have a consistent version of their story and I have not found that here (at the beginning phase anyway, until the version was refined enough to make it a little more consistent in context). It is the reason HS is not believable as well as the fact that she had a severe drug problem.

Deneece

01-26-2006, 04:44 PM

Sorry…I’m on the fence with this (so far) because I am familiarizing myself with this case and the evidence along with trying to understand why he has such a large base of supporters…I really want to understand where they are coming from because thus far there is a lot going against him, and I am looking for logical reasons and clear evidence not “A loving father wouldn’t DO such a thing” and “ Everyone else is framing him and hiding evidence to protect the REAL perpetrator” etc… I also want harder evidence than un-sourced fibers and a couple phrases such as “It won’t be reported by me” (knowing it’s completely out of context yet lauding it as evidence of a cover-up).

As you can see…I may be on the fence (thus far) but am leaning over to the “guilty, he should have fried and why is he still breathing and now I’m spending all this time researching the case because no one could use the death penalty and now it’s resurfacing” side…but I still have some give and could be persuaded should logical argument and evidentiary evidence surface….OK….where’s the button for that vote????….
:confused:

Atok

01-26-2006, 05:26 PM

Took me a long time to go through all the material on this case.

I was introduced to the subject through friends of mine who are interested in wrongly imprisoned cases. For those of you still on the fence, just keep reading and thinking critically and you will come to the same conclusions.

I have no doubt that Mr. Mcdonald is guilty of this slaughter. He should be stored in a bland box without access to the world. He should be fed one pill daily with the necessary required nutrients in it. He should have access to water. He should have a basic porta potty and some dispensible body wipes.

He should sit and rot till he dies of boredom.

JTF

01-26-2006, 06:31 PM

Deneece: The reason for seemingly reputable people believing in MacDonald is simple. None of them have accessed Christina's website nor have they taken the time to read the written record. All of their knowledge of the case comes from the MacDonald camp and/or the book, Fatal Justice. They read claims like the hair in Colette's hand didn't match Jeff's hair or that there were multiple bloody gloves found in the kitchen, and rather than fact check those claims, they simply get their knickers in a bunch. The people that believe in MacDonald are either groupies or individuals who have not done their homework.

JTF.

audpaud

01-27-2006, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Deneece
. . .
(Point #2)
OK…onto the next point…now that you mention it, I remember it being stated that that club came from his daughters bed…but again…why on earth was a phone number written there? It is probably the most odd thing I have heard of yet…any theories? And do you know where I’d find a picture of said club or at least a close up of the writing?

I'm curious about this as well.:confused:

audpaud

01-27-2006, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
. . .
I agree that Dr MacDonald has never been the most articulate person in the world. He has always been candid . . . . . .

Macdonald THINKS he's articulate and has NEVER been candid.

As a matter of fact, his arrogance about the ability to articulate is part of the reason he's where he belongs, I think.

cami

01-27-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Atok
Took me a long time to go through all the material on this case.

I was introduced to the subject through friends of mine who are interested in wrongly imprisoned cases. For those of you still on the fence, just keep reading and thinking critically and you will come to the same conclusions.

I have no doubt that Mr. Mcdonald is guilty of this slaughter. He should be stored in a bland box without access to the world. He should be fed one pill daily with the necessary required nutrients in it. He should have access to water. He should have a basic porta potty and some dispensible body wipes.

He should sit and rot till he dies of boredom.

LOl, i completely agree. I can't for the life of me understand why he is treated like a celebrity. Only in America I guess.

cami

01-27-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
You need to go by the evidence in a murder case, not by emotion. There is no real evidence against Dr MacDonald.

In my honest opinion, Dr MacDonald is completely innocent. It was definitely an unsafe verdict and he definitely didn't get a fair trial. That's enough to release him from prison immediately even if the real culprits in the Stoeckley group are never going to be thoroughly investigated.

Probing murder is an exact science. It's not about being able to surmise about lunatic theories with regard to rages about child bed-wetting.

Albert you need to start qualifying your posts with "in my opinion." As you are well aware, there was more than enough evidence to convict that IPBK of murder. It's only your opinion that there is no real evidence. Why you insist is beyond all of us.

MacDonald is completly guilty, he received a fair trial as evidenced by his repeated trips to the Appellate courts. He will never be released from prison because he is guilty as sin, he should be further charged with the murder of his unborn baby son and receive the DP for it, in my opinion. Helena Stockeley was no where near his apt on the night of the murders. Neither she nor anyone else committed the murders, Macdonald did. They've been thoroughly investigated and you know it so why do you post this way.

No, the only lunatic theories here are yours.

JTF

01-27-2006, 12:20 PM

Arthur: Typical MacDonald groupie post. Your arguments are so filled with distortions and mistatements of fact that I don't even know where to begin.

1) You make the claim that the limb hair found in Colette's left hand was significant and then you list documents referring to fiber, not hair evidence found at the crime scene, LOL!

2) The phone number on the club was confirmed as being the Kane's home phone number.

3) The hair found under Colette's body was identified in 1991 by Michael Malone. The hair was a pubic hair from your hero. The MacDonald defense team has never disputed Malone's hair analysis.

JTF.

Bunny2

01-27-2006, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...MacDonald has always been frank and candid.No, he hasn't. http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.htmlThere were black wool fibers found around the mouth of Colette and on the wooden murder weapon.There were also blue cotton fibers on the club which matched MacDonald's pajamas.The CID and FBI laboratory technicians recorded numerous other unmatched hairs and fibersAlbie, since you believe so strongly that any unmatched item in a home points directly to assailants and no one else, can you please tell us which intruder brought his dog with him to the murder scene? And can you tell us about the assailants who have been in your home?They failed to include these findings in the typewritten lab reports that were turned over.MacDonald already argued to the jury that unsourced items meant that assailants had been in his house, and the jury didn't accept that argument. So please tell us how the unsourced items you keep claiming were "suppressed" would explain all those many, many incriminating pieces of evidence against MacDonald?

Bunny2

01-27-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
OK…onto the next point…now that you mention it, I remember it being stated that that club came from his daughters bed…but again…why on earth was a phone number written there? It is probably the most odd thing I have heard of yet…any theories? And do you know where I’d find a picture of said club or at least a close up of the writing?Deneece and audpaud, the number appears to be Mrs. Kane's phone number. Mrs. Kane was the wife of MacDonald's former commanding officer.

From the MMT:

[MacDonald] claimed to have neither made nor received any telephone calls during the evening hours of Feb. 16 or during the early morning hours of Feb. 17. He was also asked specifically if he had placed a call to Mrs. Kane, the wife of his former commanding officer. He denied making such a call.

Mrs. Kane executed a written statement wherein she discussed certain details of a telephone call she received at her residence at about 3:20-3:30 a.m. on February 17. She said the caller was a male but she could not identify his voice or recall his conversation due to her sleepy state.

From the grand jury testimony:
Q (Mr. Woerheide) All right, I'm going to ask you about a telephone number, 842-5226. Does it mean anything to you, Dr. MacDonald?
A No, sir.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_us_1984july_redupree.html (page 34):
"The examination also revealed a series of numbers written on the club in pencil which appear to represent a telephone number '842-5386'."

I have to assume that the variation in the phone numbers is due to a typographical error, since only the fifth and sixth numbers are different and I haven't run across any other information indicating that MacDonald wrote anyone else's number on the club.

And as has been noted here before, Mrs. Kane said later that she thought MacDonald's lawyers used legal trickery and deception in defending him. A woman scorned...?

audpaud

01-27-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Deneece and audpaud, the number appears to be Mrs. Kane's phone number. Mrs. Kane was the wife of MacDonald's former commanding officer . . .

I DO remember reading about this on the mcdonaldcase website now . . .

Is Mrs. Kane still alive? Has she ever been articulate, frank and candid?

I had a married co-worker who hid his GF's phone #'s by marking them with a felt tip pen on his credit cards/#'s! (This, of course, was POST 1970) . . . perhaps an amphetamine-using MacDonald thought jotting the # on an innocuous piece of wood was a sly enough way to keep the info from Colette?

Perhaps it was more than convenience to use this piece of wood to bash his wife and daughters' skull in with~but rather a subconcious symbolic choice of weapon?

audpaud

01-27-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
. . . I also can’t imagine Colette screaming “why are they doing this to me?” when being attacked by strangers . . .

I've enjoyed reading your observations Deneece~especially this one! Just can't imagine having my skull bashed in, BOTH my arms broken, fighting for my VERY LIFE and the LIVES of my children while yelling "WHY are THEY . . . "

Has MacDonald remained consistent on this recollection?

To me, its almost as ridiculous as the whole "acid is groovy . . . kill the pigs" thing!

MORE ridiculous than Darlie Routier taking the time to tell a 911 operator that she "picked up the knife" while her sons lay dying/dead.:mad: :(

audpaud

01-27-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
. . .
Where was that hair found?
A In the hand of Colette.
Q Can you tell which hand?
A The left hand.
. . . .

Wasn't Colette right handed?

I'm so proud of the way Colette fought!!!

I wonder if MacDonald had already broken her right arm so she had switched to using her left hand when she grabbed Jeff and got the hair?

Bunny2

01-27-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
That hair in Colette's hand was discussed with so-called CID agent Bill Ivory at the Article 32 Investigation under Colonel Rock in 1970. JTF seems very definite that the hair was some sort of "limb" hair, in the same way as he is very definite that all the blue fibers at the murder scene are pajama fibers, or household debris.Albie, Janice Glisson, Dillard Browning and Paul Stombaugh classified this hair as the distal portion of a limb hair. As you knew before you posted this (again), limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there is no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair is Greg Mitchell's or any other "intruder's."

As JTF has also said on another board: "...unidentified body/limb hairs have nothing to do with the bloody pajama cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet or the massive blood stains from Colette on both pieces of bedding or the pajama fiber under Kristen's fingernail or the profusion of fibers under Colette's body or Colette's blood on Jeff's pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn or..............."

As Murtagh noted in his response to the murderer's application for parole: "Had the defense wanted to reveal to the jury Glisson's futile attempt to compare the limb hair, they could have called her as their own witness. Although defense counsel Bernard Segal announced that he intended to call Glisson as his own witness, he never did."

Of course the defense wants to claim that this brown hair didn't come from MacDonald because they claim MacDonald was blonde, but we know that he was described as having brown hair in the Criminal Investigation Division report: "MacDonald: 12 Oct 43; Jamaica, NY; M; Cauc; 71 in; 175 lbs; brown hair; green eyes; medium build; discharged from US Army 4 Dec 70..."I think it came from one of the Stoeckley group killer gang.There was no "Stoeckley group killer gang," Albie. Didn't you know MacDonald's descriptions matched the New York Four? LOL! And regardless, where is your forensic evidence that showed that any "intruder" at all was there? There is none, not a shred. No forensic evidence of any "intruders" at all has ever surfaced, and the evidence that did exist, including MacDonald's repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt, proved to a jury beyond any reasonable doubt that MacDonald himself was the murderer.

Deb B

01-27-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...The Murphy affidavit of October 16, 1990, gives an explanation of some of the fiber and hair mysteries in the MacDonald case:

“I suspect that many of these “unidentified" fibers were either transported into the north bedroom, or left there by Colette MacDonald, or transported from the north bedroom to the master bedroom by her body.

On December 14, 1978, Murtagh indicated on page four of his request to the FBI that he was particularly concerned about an unknown fiber, identified by the designations E-4 and Q-117 that had been found in one of Colette’s hands. Murtagh stated Special Agent Stombaugh’s report dated November 5th 1974 reflects that that specimen Q-117(E-40 from Colette MacDonald’s hand contained a single blue acrylic fiber. This fiber is dissimilar to the fibers comprising the Q-12 pajama top and did not originate from that source. Murtagh said "I an greatly concerned that the source of this fiber be identified, however I only have a hunch as to its origin.”

The unsigned typed Frier report, which was picked up personally by Murtagh, was never disclosed to the defense prior to, or during the 1979 trial. Frier found a total of five black wool fibers, one green wool fiber, and one white fiber, on the body of Colette, which he was unable to match to any known source.

The CID omitted any reference to having found ( as reflected in Browning’s lab notes) fibers underneath the body of Colette MacDonald which could not have originated from Dr MacDonald’s blue pajama jacket (D-210), such as the green /brown cotton fiber.

The report omitted any reference to Browning’s discovery of a possible piece of skin tissue, or a possible human pubic hair or body hair found within the debris taken from the sheet.

In conclusion, at no point in time during the trial was the defense informed that 1) Janice Glisson had discovered the presence of long blond synthetic hairs on the clear-handled hairbrush taken from the MacDonald home; 2) James Frier had found black, green and white wool fibers for which he could find no known source within the MacDonald household, and that those fibers were found within the debris taken from the body of Colette Macdonald and from the wooden club murder weapon 3) that the CID and FBI had found fibers underneath the body of Colette MacDonald for which there was no known source and 4) that there were numerous unmatched human hairs, as well as a piece of human skin, found in the bedding of the victims and the other locations within the MacDonald home.

Didn't MacDonald raise the issue of this so-called exculpatory evidence not being disclosed to him in his 1990 appeal? He claimed that the government withheld this "exculpatory evidence" from him at trial. However, the court in no uncertain terms denied his appeal because the court found the evidence he claimed as exculpatory was not. In fact, the court stated they "could find no likelihood the jury would have rendered a different verdict" and that the evidence he claimed as exculpatory "provides little if any support for his account of the crimes."

JTF

01-27-2006, 05:49 PM

Arthur, Arthur, Arthur. Repeating the same old song, dancing the same old dance.

1) There is no way that Colette could have moved from room to room with at least 2 male intruders assaulting her in the master bedroom.

2) There is ample evidence that Jeffrey MacDonald transported his wife from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. This includes; bloody pajama cuff impressions from both Jeff's and Colette's pajamas found on the blue bedsheet, a bloody head hair from Colette found twisted around a blood soaked pajama seam thread found in the multi-colored bedspread, massive direct bleeding stains from Colette on both the bedsheet and bedspread, and 3 bloody footprints from Jeffrey MacDonald found exiting Kristen's room with 2 of those footprints formed in Colette's blood.

3) Every single fiber evidentiary item mentioned in your post has been introduced to various appellate courts. The evidence was found to be non-exculpatory. Next.

4) The 15 limb/body hairs and hair fragments found at the crime scene are currently being DNA tested, so what exactly is your point?

JTF.

JTF

01-27-2006, 11:31 PM

I believe one of the reasons why Bob Stevenson hasn't commented publicly on the 4th Circuit Court's decision is that he has the confidence in Brian Murtagh to do his job. For the heck of it, I attempted to find public records of some of Murtagh's work that didn't involve the MacDonald case. I found an interesting tidbit involving awards given out by the Justice Department.

Title: Terrorism and Violent Crime Section

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

Recipient: Brian Murtagh

Pretty cool. JTF.

Deb B

01-28-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

This a slightly different opinion of Murtagh and Blackburn from the Mark Pincus Blog website:

"As much as I'm opposed to capital punishment, I think I could live with it being carried out on Mr. James Blackburn of Raleigh NC (the dirty prosecutor). Mr. Blackburn, I hope our paths never cross, and if they do that I am able to abide by the laws which you so clearly have not.

Also scary is the fact that Mr. Blackburn's co-counsel, Brian Murtagh, is now deputy cheif of terrorism and violent crime at the Justice Department. Murtagh declines to comment on the case. that's really ****ing big of you Murtagh when another man rots in prison. how ****ing convenient, 'no comment'. wouldnt want to hurt your precious career. Maybe you can climb even further up the ladder on the broken lives of innocent men.

..."

He's threatening violence. Sounds like unreasonable hostile rantings from someone who if encountered in real life, the police would be called.

Bunny2

01-28-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I can't quite see how JTF can be so definite about all this.It might be because he's studied the evidence and you haven't.How on earth does JTF know if two male intruders were attacking Colette so that she couldn't move to Kim's and Kristen's bedroom's in a desperate attempt to save them?There is no evidence that Colette "moved" to Kimberly's room at all, Albie. But that aside, can you tell us how it is that two intruders managed to shed a profusion of MacDonald's pajama fibers throughout the master bedroom? Can you tell us which intruder was wearing MacDonald's pajama top when Colette ripped the pocket from it? And why would two intruders simply have stood there and let Colette leave the room?Colette's dead body may have been transported to another roomThere is no "may" about it, Albie. Colette was carried in the master bedroom sheet from Kristen's room back into the master bedroom, where MacDonald then arranged her body in an unsuccessful attempt to make investigators think she had been murdered there.Why not ask Don Harris, Al Mazerolle, Bruce Fowler or Dwight Smith if they might have any little clue as to whether Colette was moved or not?None of those people would know that, since they weren't there.This pajama cuff business proves nothing.Sure it does. The defense agreed with the prosecution that Colette's and MacDonald's bloody pajama cuff imprints were on the sheet (on the same side of that sheet, no less), along with bloody handprints, a chin print and the imprint of what appeared to be a bare left shoulder. Coincidentally, MacDonald's pajama top was ripped on the left side, leaving his shoulder bare. This, combined with other evidence shows he moved her from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. He also moved Kimberly from the master bedroom and tucked her back in her bed, then raised his club and bludgeoned her again and stabbed her in the neck to be sure she was dead.There was blood contamination by Dr Neal and Bill Ivory of that pajama cuff and bedsheet when they examined the bodies and collected the bedsheet.No evidence that I know of supports that speculation. Also, crime scene photos were taken before the bodies were moved.[The murderer] has never denied that the footprints could have been his. He may have caused the footprints in a number of ways as he moved into the the murder victims rooms in an attempt to examine and revive his wife and daughters.LOL! Tell us, Albie, of the "number of ways" he could have made footprints in Colette's blood exiting Kristen's room but not entering them. Even the defense hasn't been able to adequately answer that question, so it's remarkable that you think that you can.This is what the Court TV Crime Library thinks about the JTF bloody head hair from Colette entwined with pajama fibers businessWhy did you quote this when you know it doesn't match the facts, Albie?

There certainly was a bloody hair of Colette's (not Kimberly's) found entwined around a fiber from MacDonald's pajamas. In fact, JTF explained this to you way back in October of last year: "The information contained in your last few posts are perfect examples of why the pro-MacDonald websites are a joke. The pajama fiber entwined with Colette's head hair was not initially presented in 1979, but in 1974. CID Exhibit D-229 notes 2 pieces of blood soaked thread found in the multi-colored bedspread and a 1974 handwritten lab note by Paul Stombaugh noted 2 long pieces of blood soaked thread with 1 of those threads having a, 'hair twisted with it.' Stombaugh added that the hair had traces of, 'blood along its shaft.' This debris was labeled Q96 by the FBI and the seam thread was soaked in water to remove the hair which was then placed on a slide. Stombaugh stated in his notes that the, 'hair had no root, but was probably broken due to blow to head.' To claim that Brian Murtagh somehow manufactured a broken head hair from Colette MacDonald and proceded to wrap it around a pajama seam thread from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top, is simply ludicrous."