Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty? [Archive] - Page 6 - Crime Library Message Boards

Bunny2

01-28-2006, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I’m sorry, but I still maintain that all this talk about bloody pajama cuff impressions on sheets is very weak evidence.The bedding evidence and the blood evidence in the rooms of the apartment and somewhere around 1,100 pieces of evidence as a whole were so overwhelmingly conclusive of MacDonald's guilt that the jury, who arrived at its verdicts in only a few hours, had no choice but to find him guilty of the brutal triple murders of his wife and children. To this day not a single one of his 19 or so lawyers on his various defense teams has ever been able to overcome this evidence. Are you seriously suggesting somebody ought to be executed because a pajama cuff may have brushed against a bed sheet? Is that all Murtagh, Stombaugh, and Blackburn had to offer in order to impress the jury?Further proof that you have only a passing acquaintance with the evidence in the case.I would say it was blood contamination at the crime scene.Too bad that your theory wouldn't be supported by the evidence.I can’t quite see what’s so suspicious about these footprints either....MacDonald tried to revive his wife and daughters and may have left footprints.I guess you didn't realize that none of Colette's blood was on Kristen's floor, and that MacDonald made no prints entering Kristen's room, but while in that room stepped on Colette's body or on the master bedroom bedding he'd brought in there, and made the footprints in Colette's blood as he exited the room.If I was a professional criminal investigator I would have been far more interested in the foreign hairs and fibers at the murder sceneMaybe that's why you're not a professional investigator. You'd be laughed out of the business for thinking that unsourced items are forensically significant but sourced ones aren't.The rubber glove fragments found at the murder scene weren’t MacDonald rubber gloves.The rubber glove fragments were found to be of the same composition as other rubber gloves MacDonald owned.That little piece of information ought to have been thoroughly investigated, and more effort put into identifying the mystery candles at the murder scene.MacDonald's arguments about unsourced "mystery" items seems to have carried no weight at all with the jury nor any appeals court since that time.

Bunny2

01-28-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There was some suggestion the footprints may have been Colette’s. If they were, it was all hushed up by the CID lab and FBI lab.If I'm remembering correctly, an overlay of MacDonald's footprint was put on top of a life-sized photo of the footprint on Kristen's floor and it matched. The footprints exiting Kristen's room were MacDonald's which he himself concedes.

“The matter of this moving of the body again with the sheet: if, in fact, Colette’s body was picked up with the sheet or the bedspread that we have here, why are there no smear marks of blood?Even MacDonald himself agreed that his drug-crazed "intruders" would not have moved any of the bodies. So if, despite the extremely severe injuries Colette suffered while in Kristen's room, she managed to move under her own power back to the master bedroom (what were those at-least six "intruders" doing during this time?), where are the smear marks or trails of blood she would have left as she exited? If she moved under her own power and collapsed face up in the master bedroom, how, then, would the bloody imprints of the backs of her pajama cuffs have gotten onto the master bedroom sheet?

And if an "intruder" carried her out, what in the world was he doing wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top?

fdusa

01-28-2006, 07:28 PM

My son called me this week about this case. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina.

He said a lot of people are discussing this case since it looks like it is going to go before a judge again. He said generally people think that all of the trails that the prosecuter was involved with should be thrown out. They could only convict him of the theft charges but that there was a lot more that he was guilty of. That of course is always a matter of opinion, they could not prove it in court so that is just speculation anyway.

He said that a lot of people are not saying he is innocent but that he never got a fair trail and want it tried again. They are tired of this making all of NC look bad.

Just thought I would pass that along. Not worth anything, but thought it was interesting to see what the feeling was in the home state of the murders and trails.

Bunny2

01-28-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by fdusa
My son called me this week about this case. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina.

He said a lot of people are discussing this case since it looks like it is going to go before a judge again. He said generally people think that all of the trails that the prosecuter was involved with should be thrown out. They could only convict him of the theft charges but that there was a lot more that he was guilty of. That of course is always a matter of opinion, they could not prove it in court so that is just speculation anyway.

He said that a lot of people are not saying he is innocent but that he never got a fair trail and want it tried again. They are tired of this making all of NC look bad.

Just thought I would pass that along. Not worth anything, but thought it was interesting to see what the feeling was in the home state of the murders and trails. Interesting that other posters on other boards have said just the opposite, that they live or lived in the area or even knew MacDonald personally and the feeling was that MacDonald was as guilty as could be. Did your son say that these people had read the factual documents, especially the one that pointed out that MacDonald had never complained on the record that he didn't get a fair trial, and that one of his attorneys had said more than once that the trial was fairly conducted?

Bunny2

01-28-2006, 08:14 PM

For those who are interested in first-hand accounts of Life According to MacDonald, here are the four rather interesting posts from "sorryladynow," which appeared on the A&E board late last summer.

This board will only allow a maximum of 10,000 characters so I will split this into two parts, with two posts in each.

Posted: 18 Aug 2005 01:46 PM
let me tell you about jeff macdonald. first he is no gentlemen, he no friend to anyone. he is so full of himself that it is pathetic. what i write is first hand information, not hearsay. i was involved with him for many years because i believed he was innocent. i spent so much money on him it makes me sick to death now that i could have been so stupid.

i can not tell you how many packages i personally mailed out to people containing records about the case that he would send out to them. why? because he was begging for money. forget about the defense fund which was joke. people sent him hundreds and hundreds of dollars to the prison that he lavished himself with things he wanted. and his news letter which i personally worked on was also a way he begged for money. one old lady even put him in her will leaving him property. macdonald is a theft of the worse kind. he not only took advantage of people, he lied in the process. i have come to know first hand that he is a murderer who robbed his family of their life.

in those days i spent a lot of time on planes flying to do his work and visiting him. staying over night in motels on the weekends to be able to see him both days while he would carefully write out what he wanted me and others for me to contact to do asking 50 times if i hadit right. taking pictures of him was also a top thing. he would pose and then study the pictures and want them retaken. every thing had to be just right. and yes he does have a mean side and can be verbally abusive and telling me you don't know how to take pictures.

february 17 was always a big day for him. he started weeks before talking about how the reporters would all be around again and then as time went on and they were no longer there he would react in total disbelief when no one came to give him time to speak.

and now we come to miss kathryn. birds of feather flock together and when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. i know well when she came into picture and how she got there. she is a miserable human being who is in for a big surprise down the road. one day she too will wake up, but chances are it will be too late. so miss kathryn take advise from one who has been there. you spend your time trying to protect him, wake up honey, he is a murderer.

as to macdonald's mother, i knew perry well. we spent a lot time together. she did not really like me because she thought i was getting too close to him. she never wanted any one to get close to him and once when she was close to death she told me why. for sometime before her death she was on oxygen but still smoked. i am surprised she never blew herself up. she was obsessed with many things as well as the suicides in her family. when judy came to visit all she did was disrupt things. macdonald didn't even like to talk to her and would always call when we felt she wasn't around so he could just leave a message and poor jay another messed up person who in spite of his problems is very likable. i drove thousands of miles taking his mother to visit him as long as she was able to. first thing he wanted to do was buy something out of the machine with my money and then ask if I brought him the pills. boy he never wanted to take the normal dose always double.

it is time for a reunion of the all the people who got suckered in by him and start our own information center for the public to see. landsakes alive, the stories i could tell all true. i know them all michelle (shelly) phyliss, randi hegeler, debra ackert, rhonda jo, carol, tracy, dudley, barbara, jerry hughes and oh so many more. almost forgot miss kathryn, remember july drive apt 402. always fun there.

Posted: 19 Aug 2005 08:54 AM
aw i truly do feel sorry for you and i can understand how you feel. for years i was in the same boat. macdonald can mesmerize you. now i call it brainwashing. and one more thing aw, i do not feel scorned, i feel blessed that my common sense took over and brought me back to reality.

as to the three people i was asked about, yes i know all three of them. each of us had our area that we worked in. melinda totally believed jeff to be innocent. she wrote a book about the case which in my opinion was a total flop. she was married and had two sons. i will say this about melinda, she was the type who would not think twice about putting a live rattle snake in anyone's mail box that disagreed with her.

lucia was very reserved classy lady. very educate woman that speaks five languages. she has one daughter who was also involved in the cause. they designed and started the first website which was called themacdonalddefense. she has always been highly involved in catholic church that created a problem with jeff as he does believe in god. he believes in meditating, fortune telling and psychics. i guarantee if anyone would write jeff today telling him they were a psychic, he would drop everything and answer their letter. she is one that believes everyone should be given the benefit of doubt. from my experience with her she was never one who totally believed he was innocent.

kathryn is the most dangerous of them all. her purpose is self serving and has been since the beginning. she was married, denies now having any children, but in the beginning did say she had two children in boarding school. she started visiting when he was at sheridan prison in oregon. then he had to start shifting everyone around to make room for her to visit and adding her to his phone list. she is very snippy, rude much like him. you don't cross her, she is like a snake that will curl up and strike out. she likes to take control. i have seen her action.

i am not one to write on boards of any kind. but i do have a lot of information and i have found a website on the internet where someone did their homework and knows the case well. it is the best i have seen. i have written to website and offered my help and to past on vital information i have and know about this case.

I had no contract with jeff or the defense team, i was not paid for any work i did. not even expense money. i paid dearly with my own money, my time and my knowledge. so i am at liberty to do with the information as i please and if i start putting it out, some heads are going to start rocking and some knees shaking.

(cont'd next post)

Bunny2

01-28-2006, 08:15 PM

(cont'd from previous post)

Posted: 27 Aug 2005 12:56 PM
seems everyone here is well aware of what the evidence is. my purpose is to show what jeff was and is still is like. did you ever wonder why so many supporters left him? he talks about everyone behind their backs. take lucia for instance, that whole thing started over a valentine's day visit. she had finally had enough and let him know in no uncertain terms. he was so mad he started on a crusade to nail her as the enemy. first we were all told not to have anything to do with her. now there was another person who did a lot of work and spent his own money tracing people down. jeff told him he was not to have anything to do with lucia. this did not set well with him and he told jeff, she is my friend. jeff told him then you are no longer needed and stay out of things. this same person had done so much work on this case including making it possible for an article to be published that jeff wrote about the case.

there was toni who jeff called big red. she did a radio show and jeff was creaming his jeans and the letters he wrote to her was something else. she too finally had enough and made some of the letters he wrote public. you might ask how i know this, because i saw them with my own eyes. i typed up many things for him and even i had shake my head in disbelief as to some things he wrote.

jerry hughes worked hard on the case until he could no longer take it and he left.

it was mystery as to why jeff got involved with randi. basically she was not his type as he loved blondes who drew attention when they went out together. randi was not a bimbo, she was different from macdonald. she was reserved and a very nice person. i remember well when he announced their engagement. perry had a very sad look on her face and remained withdrawn the rest of the evening.

jeff talked about his family, but only when it would benefit him. there was never any just plain talk about them or the fact that he missed them. when he was going to be interviewed he would spend days rehearsing and studying his notes and records.

perry never forgot them. she was one hard cookie when it came to defending jeff but she was warm in her remembrance of kimmy and kristy. i think she was cursed with having a son like jeff.

as to money jeff received, i can tell you he never deprived himself of anything that was available for him to buy in prison.

mrs maczilla, now that's a good name for her. she became involved in 1997 when he was at sheridan prison in oregon. she is not the sweet little thing standing beside her man as she wants people to believe.

they became engaged in 2001 and married in prison in california in 2002 i believe. i was out of it by that time, but i remember hearing about the wedding from phyillis who was jerry hughes ex-wife.

there was talk of her having two children, now i see she denies that.

barbara galagher was jeff's secretary at st marys. she did a lot for him. even when he was in prison he was still using her to do his errands. it was like he wanted her to be at his beaconing call to attend to things he wanted. she cared a lot about him, more than he will ever know.

after perry passed there was several garage sales to dispose of her things and I don't have to tell you who got the money.

Posted: 29 Aug 2005 08:48 AM
bigoted southerners, now that's a switch. macdonald is the biggest bigot of all.

i remember one of the so called topics that was to be typed. it appeared to me that he just might be going to accuse the ku klux klan of being the murders. he was rambling as always talking about colette seeing the sign on i-95 entering into fayetteville that said home of the ku klux klan. oh my, how he went on and on saying that colette saw things in layers and he was always racing ahead to new things. there were few people he did not hate and he said about jane fonda, "i'd like that commix b**** in my sniper scope cross fire." macdonald ending this as he called it memo with the following, "so now, when I think of fayetteville, and i feel anew, each time, the terrible loss of colette and kimberly and kristen, i sometimes wonder if those events were so singular as they seemed back then, gruesome, sudden, wounding, but simply an aberration, crazies gone amok. or, did fayetteville sneak onto ft. bragg, in the heat of the night, the beast craving just another meal to appease its old hunger? i wonder, now, was it an echo of the past? and i wonder if i would have understood the message, had i seen that sign, as i think maybe colette did, in her primal dread. maybe, had i seen it, i at least would have listened more carefully, when my wife asked, 'what kind of message does it send? what kind of place is this?' what kind of place, indeed. i do think of Fayetteville."

another thing about jeff is all the mail he received was always filed under the title of fan mail. those he chose to answer he would, others he had different form messages that he would use to reply with.

you cannot put kathryn and lucia in the same category. each one is very different. lucia got out as many others of us did because we could no longer be summoned to do the things he wanted us to do using our own money to so. there is a point of what is called as self respect. some who left did so still feeling he was not guilty but the way he treated people and walked on them was uncalled for. he wrote to many women at the same time. saying i love you to jeff was like anyone else saying hello or goodby. it meant nothing unless he thought they had ways and means to help him.

we organized many fund drives and things to raise money in his defense, but it got old after while. people got tired of opening up their pocketbook and getting treated as if they were nothing. the macdonald news letter was just a ploy to beg for money month after month after month.

JTF

01-28-2006, 08:20 PM

Fdusa: I'm sure your son is a nice young man, but stating that James Blackburn was involved in unreported criminal acts is not an opinion, it is the height of innuendo. Interesting that despite his legal difficulties in 1993, Blackburn is well respected in your community, and he is flourishing as a motivational speaker. Blackburn, unlike MacDonald, took full responsibility for his actions. He faced his demons like a man and, unlike MacDonald, didn't cry like a baby about being railroaded by the system.

JTF.

margiej

01-29-2006, 01:07 AM

Hello Fdisa - We have friends and relatives in and around Fayetteville. They say just the opposite. They all believe MacDonald is guilty and so do all their acquaintances and friends. Depends on who you talk to, I guess. I have heard many more good things from them about Blackburn than MacDonald.

JTF

01-29-2006, 10:42 AM

Arthur: Wow. Trust me, taking medications is a good thing.

1) Kimberly's brain serum was found on the master bedroom door frame.

2) A 6 inch circle of Kimberly's blood was found at the entrance to the master bedroom.

3) A trail of Kimberly's blood was found in the hallway.

4) Kimberly's urine was found on the bottom sheet of the bed in the master bedroom.

5) Kimberly's bloody hairs were found on the blue bedsheet and the multi-colored bedspread.

6) Kimberly's blood was found on the blue bedsheet.

7) The tips of Kimberly's hair were bloody indicating that she did not received all her injuries while in her bed.

8) Kimberly's left cheek was split open by blunt trauma and a piece of bone was sticking out of her face, yet she was found laying on that side of her face.

Can't wait for your post regarding the alien/human hybrid experiment conducted by the CID which resulted in Allen Mazzerolle being able to control the Stoeckley group from inside his jail cell.

JTF.

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Segal made some interesting comments about the rubber gove fragments found at the MacDonald murders crime scene during his closing argument at the 1979 trialHey, Albie, did you notice Segal's practically non-existent answer to the latex inside the wadded up master bedroom bedding?:

"They don't know what is there. They first pick it up and out falls a piece of latex. They then say, 'Gee, we better gather it up.'"

As I wrote on another board long ago: I do believe that these three short sentences comprise Segal's entire rebuttal to the bits of latex glove found inside the bundle of bedding. Pretty weak response, all things considered. IMHO, it was no rebuttal at all.

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
"Dr Guinn, unchallenged by the Government because they know it to be true..."So I guess since you believe this, then you must also believe that Segal didn't challenge Laber's testimony because he knew it to be true.

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
All the evidence in the MacDonald case suggests that Kim was fast asleep in her bed when she was murdered and that she moved nowhere.You knew before you posted this that several pieces of evidence showed conclusively that Kimberly had indeed been moved from the master bedroom and put into her own bed. JTF has given you a rundown of that evidence. Why do you deliberately post such completely and totally false statements, "Arthur"? Do you really think that by posting such falsehoods you are going to change the evidence or the factual records in the case? I'd be interested in seeing your explanation as to how Kimberly was struck on the left side of her face if that side of her face was against the pillow, just for starters.This crazy theory without facts by so-called CID agent Kearns, and Kassab and Bob Stevenson, that Kim was in bed in the master bedroom and that it was Kim who wet the bed in the master bedroom is just a wild, and plain wrong, speculation...The first urine test done was "inconclusive." The second test was ordered by Kearns after he took charge of the case when the urine stain was 80 weeks old. That was ludicrous.
Here we go again (and again and again). Sorry for the repeats, folks, but until "Arthur" gets his facts straight, repetition is required to answer his repetitious and misleading statements.

Here is just one of the many times Arthur has been corrected on this issue. This one comes from Byn: "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."

And of course we also know that he wanted Colette to sleep on the sofa while his child shared the master bed with him.

We also know that Kimberly said that her daddy was a "mean daddy," and that she wished the bus driver was her father instead of MacDonald. And it's also known that a child may urinate in the bed in order to ward off the advances of molestation. The urine in the master bed was either Kimberly's, Colette's or an intruder's. The records don't show that Colette was wet with urine, so if you don't believe the urine was Kristen's, Albie, then tell us: which intruder urinated on the master bed while wearing MacDonald's torn and bloody pajama top?...[The murderer] said Kristen was in the master bedroom and it was Kristen who wet the bed...It appears that the murderer was lying, as he did so often and still does.[The murderer] then carried Kristen back to he own bedroom and then went to sleep on the couch in the living room. It was no big deal that led to any murderous rage, or violent argument.Oh, he was smiling and happy when he murdered his family, then? Hmmm...maybe you're right. After all, he did tell Sadoff that he was laughing as he fell off the couch.

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 01:04 PM

JTF, just wanted to say thanks for the posts showing the good rundown of evidentiary items re: Kim in the master bedroom and other issues. I'm sure having such nice concise listings of things like this helps those new to the case as well as the old-timers.

audpaud

01-29-2006, 01:41 PM

I appreciate the rundown list of evidentiary items as well. I'm also interested in the theories about the how/why's of this savage crime MacDonald committed.

Any thoughts on why Jeffie is so brain blocked on the OLDEST daughter Kimberly being the bed wetter? He's adapted his story so many times to fit the "facts"~why not admit that it was Kimberly with the bed wetting instead of Kristy? After all these years why would which daughter was the bed wetter be such a sticking point?

One of the reasons I think, is that having the older daughter be the bed wetter never fit in with his idea of being "Dr. Perfect" with the perfect family.

I'm also still interested in the phone # on the bed slat--I have no real theories about that or why the phone call was made. This is substantiated by phone records isn't it? Truly weird!:confused:

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
All the evidence in the MacDonald case suggests that Kim was fast asleep in her bed when she was murdered and that she moved nowhere.If you can't answer the previous question as to how she managed to be bludgeoned on the left side of her head if she was asleep with the left side of her head on the pillow, can you tell us how is it that her blood and brain serum was found in the master bedroom if she never left her bed? Do you have explanations for any of the other evidentiary items JTF listed for you in regards to this issue?

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
Any thoughts on why Jeffie is so brain blocked on the OLDEST daughter Kimberly being the bed wetter? He's adapted his story so many times to fit the "facts"~why not admit that it was Kimberly with the bed wetting instead of Kristy? After all these years why would which daughter was the bed wetter be such a sticking point?

One of the reasons I think, is that having the older daughter be the bed wetter never fit in with his idea of being "Dr. Perfect" with the perfect family.Some people also think that he didn't want anyone to know she was there because he may have been molesting her. Although MacDonald is the only one who knows for sure, some people have conjectured that he may have told Colette to sleep on the sofa that night (she told her child psychology class that he did want her to sleep on the sofa while one of the children slept in the master bed with him), that she did go to sleep on the sofa, and woke because she heard something going on in the master bedroom. She enters the room, and the rest is history. No one will ever know for sure, though, because certainly MacDonald would never tell.I'm also still interested in the phone # on the bed slat--I have no real theories about that or why the phone call was made. This is substantiated by phone records isn't it? Truly weird!:confused: Audpaud, MacDonald seemed to enjoy currying the favors of the wives of officers, among other women. It's speculated that he may have had some sort of intimate relationship with Mrs. Kane, who was the wife of his former commanding officer, and that he may have, in a moment of panic or fright, called her after committing the crimes. He also could have been wanting to speak to her husband; we don't know for sure.

I don't know if you caught this in previous posts or not, but Mrs. Kane said later that she thought MacDonald's lawyers used legal trickery and deception in defending him. Draw your own conclusions...was she a woman scorned? Or did she say this because he said things during that phone call which indicated to her that he had murdered his family and she turned against him then? I don't know, but Christina is pretty sure that sometime, somewhere, she will run across exhibit "F-6" which as I recall is the number assigned to the written statement she is supposed to have executed, "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." I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she will find this, since my guess is it would make for some interesting reading.

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I want conclusive evidence of this urine stain before I accept any talk of "antigen A" being on the sheet.Gee, isn't that kind of similar to saying "I want conclusive evidence that people need water before I accept any talk of H20 being crucial to life."?All this talk of Kim's brain serum doesn't prove...MacDonald guilty of murder.The jury found from the evidence that MacDonald did indeed bludgeon and stab Colette, Kimberly and Kristen, and none of MacDonald's various teams of lawyers in the 26 years since the trial has ever managed to overturn those verdicts.There seems to be a lot of confusion about Kim's blood and hairs on the A & E MacDonald forum. I think if you reread the posts on A&E - especially the "Questions for Albert Webb" thread, you will see that most of the confusion in this case has been on your end.JTF's source of information seems to be Christina's book Scales of Justice, which I don't regard as particularly reliable.LOL! Yeah, right, "Arthur," JTF studied the case for 21 years but somehow all his information came from a book published a year and a half ago. Wherever do you get such silly ideas? And how is it that you can comment on SoJ at all, when you've never read it?From what I can gather there was an unsourced hair under Kristen's fingernail and an unsourced hair under Kim's fingernail.MacDonald presented his argument that unsourced items pointed to "intruders," but the jury didn't buy it. That aside, 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. As you knew already, hair fragments do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons, so there is no forensic basis for claims of intruders being the source for those two hair fragments.In reply to Audpad, I don't think the phone number on that piece of wood has ever been presented as evidence in court. That's because, in my opinion, it never existed.What a funny coincidence, then, that the number seems to have been Mrs. Kane's, and that the CID asked MacDonald specifically if he had called Mrs. Kane, and that the CID questioned Mrs. Kane about it, and that she said she did get a phone call from a male just shortly before MacDonald phoned for help, but claimed she was too sleepy to remember who it was.There was confusion expressed about Kim on the night of the MacDonald murders on the A & E forum a few months agoSo even in the face of the countless errors you've made in discussing the case during the last eight months or so, you actually had the nerve to pick at a discrepancy like this? Amazing.

How did Kim's blood soak into the master bedroom carpet, and her brain serum end up in the doorway, if she never left her bed, as you claim? Why can't you answer that, Arthur?

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This might partly explain some of Kim's blood and hair contamination at the MacDonald murder scene.I guess you forgot to finish the rest of that, Albie. Here's what came afterwards:

MR. BLACKBURN: We OBJECT to that. He said he doesn't recall it.

MR. SEGAL: Well, if the Government will let us have a copy of the transcript they are buying, we'll be glad to read it back.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: The answer is the witness said that he did not make any such statement.

And of course the witness was correct. But of course you wouldn't show that testimony in your post, because you didn't want anyone to see what Connolly had actually said:

Q When you went into Kimberly's bedroom, describe what happened, sir?
A I stood at the base of the bed. The doctor walked around the lefthand side of the bed. He reached over, he took the girl's pulse, and just lifted up the sheet a little bit. Again, Mr. Ivory told him, "Look, don't touch anything." At this time, he put it back down and pronounced her dead.
Q How much did he move Kimberly?
A He did not move the body at all, he just touched--I believe he touched the forehand and he started to move the sheet. That is when Mr. Ivory told him not to touch anything.

So now that we've cleared that up, tell us, Albie, how Dr. Neal manage to put Kim's blood soaking into the MB rug and her brain serum in the doorway to that room?

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Eisman mentioned something about Kim's hair in his cross-examination of CID lab chemist Browning in 1970I think it was also Browning who confirmed in various testimonies that the threads and fibers found in all those incriminating places at 544 Castle Drive matched MacDonald's pajama top, right down to the zig-zag shape of some of the threads. Just one of over a thousand bits of evidence that showed a jury that MacDonald had murdered his family.

JTF

01-29-2006, 04:14 PM

Arthur: Try to focus on 1 topic at a time. You jump from evidence of Kimberly being transported to the hair fragments found under the girl's fingernails in a single post. I realize that you have no explanation for the evidentiary items put forth by knowledgeable posters on this board, but at least be a man and own up to that fact. Additional thoughts regarding your last few posts.

1) The urine stain on the bed in the master bedroom being Kimberlys is a matter of science, not speculation. If you want to continue to place speculation above science, that is your business, but understand that serious researchers of this case will always side with science.

2) The two hair fragments found under the girl's fingernails are part of the DNA exhibit's list, so any discussion of their origins is fruitless until the results are announced by the AFIP next month.

3) Massive amounts of data in this case translates into multiple sources of information. Christina spent her own money purchasing FOIA documents on this case which include the CID's original lab notes. She provided the information regarding bloody hairs from Kimberly found on the blue bedsheet and traces of Jeffrey MacDonald's blood in the kitchen in her book, Scales of Justice. I trust that she accurately reported the contents of those particular lab notes. You can choose not to believe her. To each his own.

JTF.

byn63

01-29-2006, 07:50 PM

I didn't have time to read all of Artie's craziness, but, having seen some of it, I am compelled to respond.

Where in the world have you been Artie? There is plenty of evidence that proves Kimberly was in the Masterbedroom. Starting with her blood and brain serum being found in a six inch pool of blood near the door. Next, her blood and brain serum were splattered on the door jam INSIDE the masterbedroom. Then, we have the fact that the urine stain on the masterbed was made by someone with either Type A or Type AB blood. Therefore, only Colette or Kimmie could have made that stain. PERIOD! That is a scientific fact, and since there was no evidence to suggest that Colette had urinated but there was evidence that Kimmie had, then she was the one who made the stain on the masterbed.

Of course, next we have Kimmie's blood and some of her bloody hairs found on/in the bedding evidence, her blood on Inmate's pj top and the trail of her blood in the hallway from the masterbedroom to her bedroom. There is also places on her arms and hands that had blood drip onto them, that would not have been there if she had been in her bed in the position in which she was found. No matter how much you want to believe in the murderer as an idol and hero, your continuing to make nonsensical statements is not going to change the facts.

bunny did not make up anything about Kimmie being in the masterbedroom. She has provided solid factual forensic data. The only person who cannot be shown to have been in the masterbedroom was Kristen. Each family member having a different blood type makes for an easy read of the evidence. Kimmie was struck a devastating blow in the masterbedroom. When Inmate transported her back to her room she was most probably already in an unrecoverable coma.

audpaud

01-29-2006, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Some people also think that he didn't want anyone to know she was there because he may have been molesting her. Although MacDonald is the only one who knows for sure, some people have conjectured that he may have told Colette to sleep on the sofa that night (she told her child psychology class that he did want her to sleep on the sofa while one of the children slept in the master bed with him), that she did go to sleep on the sofa, and woke because she heard something going on in the master bedroom. She enters the room, and the rest is history. No one will ever know for sure, though, because certainly MacDonald would never tell.Audpaud, MacDonald seemed to enjoy currying the favors of the wives of officers, among other women. It's speculated that he may have had some sort of intimate relationship with Mrs. Kane, who was the wife of his former commanding officer, and that he may have, in a moment of panic or fright, called her after committing the crimes. He also could have been wanting to speak to her husband; we don't know for sure.

I don't know if you caught this in previous posts or not, but Mrs. Kane said later that she thought MacDonald's lawyers used legal trickery and deception in defending him. Draw your own conclusions...was she a woman scorned? Or did she say this because he said things during that phone call which indicated to her that he had murdered his family and she turned against him then? I don't know, but Christina is pretty sure that sometime, somewhere, she will run across exhibit "F-6" which as I recall is the number assigned to the written statement she is supposed to have executed, "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." I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she will find this, since my guess is it would make for some interesting reading.

Sorry~but can't figure out how to separate what I'm quoting yet.:o ~In regard to the Kimberly Molestation Theory: That surely would explain why macdonald steadfastly refused/refuses to admit its Kim's-NOT Kristen's- urine/brain serum in the Master Bedroom despite the clear evidence!! As a Dr.-even in 1970-he'd surely know bedwetting is one of the signals of molestation present. Thinking he may have even got furious if Colette mentioned that she had discussed this (and his request that she sleep on the sofa BS) with the Psychology class!!!

Mrs. Kane: No, I didn't catch the implication of her comment about "defense trickery . . . "--went right over my head. I'd like to think that macdonald didn't implicate himself to her in the wee hours . . . how could she POSSIBLY live with that monstrous knowledge and not testify?*shaking head* If theirs was a "love affair"~perhaps he dialed the # out of habit? Or perhaps in the frenzied rationale of a speed freak who just butchered his family Doc thought he'd announce he was "free" now over the phone?

I'll be crossing my fingers as well for Christine and the F-6~and as always~saying a prayer for Colette, Kimmie and Kristy.:rose:

Tx for the great replies and also enjoying bryn's Posts now.:)

audpaud

01-29-2006, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by JTF
. . .
2) The two hair fragments found under the girl's fingernails are part of the DNA exhibit's list, so any discussion of their origins is fruitless until the results are announced by the AFIP next month.

Are these DNA tests related to yet another appeal?

I'll be looking forward to this info.

JTF

01-29-2006, 09:40 PM

Audpaud: DNA testing of MacDonald case evidence was allowed by the appellate courts in 1997. After 2 years of legal haggling between the government and the defense, Judge Fox created a DNA testing protocol. DNA testing of 15 hair exhibits has been delayed since 1999, due to the fact that the AFIP lab has been involved with 9/11 and war identifications via DNA. The MacDonald defense team has also filed several motions which have further delayed the DNA testing process. DNA tests on all 15 hair exhibits is complete and a full report will be made public sometime in February.

JTF.

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 10:03 PM

Hi, audpaud. When you click Quote to reply, you can hold down your left mouse button starting with the part of the quote you want to remove, then keep it down as you select what you want to cut. Then let go of the mouse and right-click and Cut.

You can also alter/cut the beginning and ending parts of the code as needed, or select everything and cut it all out. I can't print the codes here because the system will think I want it to execute the commands instead of just printing them on the screen, but if you take out the dashes in the codes I've put below, you should be able to figure out how to bold/italic/quote whatever you want. And it doesn't matter whether you use upper or lower case in the commands; either one will work:

[-B] and [/-B] make Bold print; removing these two codes will make the text non-bolded.

[-i] and [/-i] make the text Italic; you can add/remove these codes at the start and end of the text to get the effect you want.

[-quote] and [-/quote] at the beginning and end of text makes the "quote" designation appear.

Don't forget to remove the dashes if you use these codes in your reply. Preview before posting to see if it came out the way you want it to. Hope this helps.

Almost forgot to say that to avoid unnecessary blank lines between someone's quote and your reply, just start typing your reply immediately after the ending [-/quote] bracket.

stinkerbelle

01-29-2006, 10:24 PM

just wanted to say you can start the party cuz mz. stinky is in da house now :D

Bunny2

01-29-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
just wanted to say you can start the party cuz mz. stinky is in da house now :D
Stinker! You read my mind...I was gearing up to send you a PM on C&J about coming over here, and here you are.

Let the party begin!:beer:

stinkerbelle

01-29-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Stinker! You read my mind...I was gearing up to send you a PM on C&J about coming over here, and here you are.

teehee, you never know where i'll turn up! now i gotta go back and read all of this thread so i can catch up.

2L8 4A D8

01-30-2006, 12:47 AM

Hi Everyone! Does anyone know where I can find the sequence of events for the day and night of the murders? Is it over on Christina's site? Where? I would appreciate any help. Thanks!

:seeya:

audpaud

01-30-2006, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Audpaud: DNA testing of MacDonald case evidence was allowed by the appellate courts in 1997.on all 15 hair exhibits is complete and a full report will be made public sometime in February.

JTF.

I think it worked bunny2 . . Tx for the quote tips!!!:)

Which 15 hairs got selected and by who?

(Does macdonald think 9/11 was some kind of conspiracy to delay HIS tests???:rolleyes: :D )

caphill

01-30-2006, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by audpaud

I think it worked bunny2 . . Tx for the quote tips!!!:)

Which 15 hairs got selected and by who?

(Does macdonald think 9/11 was some kind of conspiracy to delay HIS tests???:rolleyes: :D )

Dr MacDonald wanted all 50 pieces of hair and fibers tested. That was fought by Brian Murtagh. The State only agreed to 15 pieces. Out of the selected pieces by the State there were some that were "lost" by the time they got to lab in 2000. Some vials arrived empty.

The 4th Circuit Court ordered the State to release these materials for testing in 1997. The State wanted a lab of their choice. The Armed Forces DNA lab was chosen by the State as the independent lab. Ha.

The lab received the forensics in 2000 . They finished the testing at the end of Dec 2005. The results have been delayed until the end of Feb 2006.

The question should be asked what the State is so afraid of that they fight tooth and nail to keep MacDonald away from having this evidence tested and presented. If this evidence is worthless to his claims then bring it forth and put this case to rest. What is Brian Murtagh so afraid of? Let a jury see the hidden lab reports from the first trial. Let jury see know about the 50 pieces of hair and fiber that the first jury didn't know about. Let a jury decided whether 22 and 24 inch synthetic hairs found at the scene are important or not.

Whether or not Dr. MacDonald is a liked person or a killer or not he is still entitled to his rights under the Constitution to fair trial and access to the materials he needs to defend himself. Again let a jury decide whether this evidence has merit.

Why do you think Dr. MacDonald has a battery of the top lawyers in the country working pro bono for him. It is not about his guilt or innocence. It is about the biggest case of judicial abuse of an American citizens rights under the Constitution to have access to the examine the evidence against him and the right to present evidence that may exnonerate him.

caphill

01-30-2006, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by audpaud

I think it worked bunny2 . . Tx for the quote tips!!!:)

Which 15 hairs got selected and by who?

(Does macdonald think 9/11 was some kind of conspiracy to delay HIS tests???:rolleyes: :D )

What do you think, audpaud? Do you think 8 years from the time a 4th Circuit Court ordered the State to release forensic materials is a reasonable time for the State to obey a Federal order.

It was 5 years before Sept 11th. that the State and the lab found reasons to delay testing.

Why do you think the State has fought all these year to keep forensics never seen by a jury under their wraps? Why would the State not want this evidence seen? If it means nothing why spend tax dollars for over 30 years to keep it suppressed?

Whos career was made by this case and who's career can suffer from this case?

caphill

01-30-2006, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
I couldn't agree more. Not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever supported MacDonald's ludicrous stories of "intruders," and the evidence that did exist showed that MacDonald himself committed the brutal and horrific murders of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

The courts supported the jury's verdict, none of MacDonald's appeals was ever granted, and as the court 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."

Rather than being misleading why don't you show credit for who made that statement and the context of why it was made.

Judge Dupree made those comments in defending his decision to find error in the trial in which he originally presided. Ethically he should have recused himself from sitting in judgement of his own court and his own decisions. Did anyone expect him to find himself in reversal error.

Dr. MacDonald appeals to the higher courts is putting on judicial record motions for reversal because he believes his rights to a fair trial under the Constitution were violated by suppression of evidence and his rights to access of evidence to defend himself.

Thats what the fuss has been about all these years

byn63

01-30-2006, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Stinker! You read my mind...I was gearing up to send you a PM on C&J about coming over here, and here you are.

Let the party begin!:beer:

Ain't it GRAND! The whole firebrigade is in da haus! Hurray! Welcome Stinker! Welcome JTF! Bunny - are we ready to party now?

cami

01-30-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Rather than being misleading why don't you show credit for who made that statement and the context of why it was made.

Judge Dupree made those comments in defending his decision to find error in the trial in which he originally presided. Ethically he should have recused himself from sitting in judgement of his own court and his own decisions. Did anyone expect him to find himself in reversal error.

Dr. MacDonald appeals to the higher courts is putting on judicial record motions for reversal because he believes his rights to a fair trial under the Constitution were violated by suppression of evidence and his rights to access of evidence to defend himself.

Thats what the fuss has been about all these years

Yes, well he failed in his attempts to prove suppression of evidence. His own appellate attornies have backed off on most of the alleged suppression of evidence. Or do you not read the Appeals? Just going on emotion are you?

You insult the name of all the good doctors in North America when you call the Ice Pick Baby Killer a doctor. He no longer even deserves the honorary title. He's a quadruple murderer nothing more.

Deneece

01-30-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by caphill

snipped>

Judge Dupree made those comments in defending his decision to find error in the trial in which he originally presided. Ethically he should have recused himself from sitting in judgement of his own court and his own decisions. Did anyone expect him to find himself in reversal error.

< snipped I will admit that (ethically speaking) Judge Dupree should have recused himself from this case. That is one point in McD’s favor; however, there have been many attempts at appealing this case, even so far as to the Supreme Court (as far as I know, there has never been a Supreme Court Justice named Dupree). Therefore, I don’t see how this matter seems to have become such a huge deal…other courts and justices have not found favor with the defense, not just Dupree’s court…nor do they seem to find error in the original case. Am I missing something other than those facts? And, frankly, the whole issue falls flat when analyzing how many other courts have had the opportunity to review the case.

Of course, this is JM (humble :o , yet brilliant:D ) O

JTF

01-30-2006, 11:08 AM

Audpaud: Caphill is merely repeating MacDonald camp propoganda in regards to the events leading up to the February AFIP announcement. Here are the facts:

1) Judge Fox ordered 15 hair exhibits for DNA testing because there were only 15 unidentified hairs found at the crime scene. All 15 hairs are limb/body hairs or hair fragments. Head and pubic hairs are the only hairs that can be compared under a microscope.

2) Most of the blood samples were used up at the 1970 autopsy for comparison purposes, so that is why all the exhibits are hair exhibits. The defense team accepted that fact in 1999, but MacDonald's website mentions the defense team's original request for 50 exhibits in order to intimate that the government had something to hide.

3) Once the AFIP received the 15 exhibits in 1999, the government has not filed 1 motion to delay DNA testing. It would be interesting to see posters like Caphill, provide this board with a specific example of a motion filed by the government since 1999. As a matter of fact, every single motion filed since 1999, has been by the defense. In essence, it has been a combination of 9/11 and the MacDonald defense team, that has resulted in a delay in the completion of the DNA tests.

JTF.

byn63

01-30-2006, 11:49 AM

Inmate 00131-177 ATTEMPTED to explain what happened per his VERSION of Faery Tales both at the Grand Jury and 1979 Trial. If you really want to check out his story, you should read the booklet that was prepared for the jury in 1979. It outlines all of Inmate's statements and especially how they changed in his attempts to explain away the evidence.

Of course, he could not explain it away because he was GUILTY. btw - once again, bertie, Inmate 00131-177 is not entitled to be addressed by the honorific you insist on using. He is Inmate 00131-177 at FCI Cumberland and he cleans toilets as his occupation.

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
It's not about presenting an emotional case full of manufactured evidence in a courtroom.You must be referring to some other case, Artie, because in this case the prosecutors certainly didn't present an "emotional case full of manufactured evidence."
...MacDonald said Kristen wet the bed when she was in the main bed with Colette, and...MacDonald.MacDonald has never said that Kristen was in the bed with Colette and MacDonald. He said that he "found" her there when he was ready to go to bed, but of course he also said he put her there himself when Colette went to bed at about 11:30 p.m. The urine in the master bedroom was shown to be Kimberly's, not Kristen's.
...MacDonald had suggested to Colette that Kristen was not given a liquid bottle late in the evening.At trial, MacDonald said, "...Kristie had awakened and I had given her another bottle." He was asked, "You mean sometime between midnight and 2:15; is that what you are saying?" He replied, "Right."It wasn’t some huge issue that could lead to a violent argument, or murderous rage.Along with other things such as stress, overwork and his lack of sleep, possible resentment of Colette for wanting to better herself, his feeling of being "trapped" in marriage, Colette's possible indication to him that night that she wanted to leave, his possible abuse of amphetamines leading to amphetamine psychosis, and his psychopathic makeup in general, certainly the bedwetting could have been a trigger that set him into a murderous rage.
...MacDonald carried Kristen to her own bedroom, because of the wet bedActually, he claimed that Kristen had wet the master bedroom bed to such an extent that he didn't want to sleep there, but apparently he'd forgotten that he said that, because later he said that Kristen was not that wet, that there was just a small amount of urine on her pants. The wet spot on the bed was roughly 18" in diameter. No urine was found on his pajama top.When the Stoeckley killer thugs arrived at the MacDonald’s apartment...Not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence has ever surfaced to support MacDonald's ludicrous stories of "intruders." The evidence that did exist pointed directly to Jeffrey MacDonald as the murderer.My “hypothetical scenario” would be that the one of the little girls was attacked first, perhaps by Mitchell.MacDonald claims Mitchell was in the living room, attacking him at the time, and other evidence which you already know about shows that this "hypothetical scenario" carries no weight at all.

By the way, Artie, why is it that you insist that everyone must always go by the evidence and not speculation, but almost everything you say is pure speculation?Whether Colette was carried back into the master bedroom by the murderers when she was dead, or whether she staggered there after she had been stabbed, we simply don’t know.The evidence showed that MacDonald wrapped Colette in the sheet from the master bed and carried her from Kristen's room back to the master bedroom.There were black wool fibers found on Colette’s biceps...MacDonald wasn’t wearing black wool that night.Other unsourced fibers were also found, but since unsourced and unmatched items such as this are found in every household and are forensically insignificant, MacDonald's argument that unmatched items pointed to "intruders" was rejected by both the jury and the appeals courts.I suppose Kim may have attempted to escape from her bedroom and go into the master bedroom along with Colette during the desperate fight.So you think that while she was sleeping on her left side, she was stabbed in the neck and trachea and bludgeoned on the right side of the head hard enough to recess her right eye and fracture her nose, pushing it to the right, yet after this she got up and went with Colette to the master bedroom, where she was then clubbed on the left side of the head hard enough to cause her brain serum to leak into the rug? Artie, for someone who's been posting for what, eight months or so, you certainly have a LOT of basic research left to do, not to mention that you contradict yourself in your own stories. The head injuries and the stabbings Kim suffered at the hands of her father were enough to cause death, and no evidence ever surfaced to show that Colette went into Kimberly's room at all while the murders were taking place. Also, it's ludicrous to suggest that six or more "intruders" bent on murder would stand there and allow Colette to move from room to room. And of course by this latest speculation of yours contradicts your recent assertion that Kimberly never left her bed, not to mention that in this latest scenario of yours Kimberly would still have to have been moved back to her bed where she was found. Silly, silly, Artie...can't keep your stories straight from day to day, can you? Just like MacDonald: one lie leads to another, and before you know it, you're lost in your own web of deceit.All we know for certain is that Kim was stabbed in the back.Kimberly was not stabbed in the back.I accept the footprint evidence may be from...MacDonald. So what?...[the murderer] never denied that he made a couple of visits to the bedrooms in a desperate attempt to revive his wife and daughters. Artie, you should really try to familiarize yourself with the basic facts of the case instead of just pretending that you're familiar with them. I think you brought this up for the fiftieth time just a few days ago, and you were told that the facts are that MacDonald made the prints in Colette's blood, but there was none of her blood on the floor in Kristen's room. He brought the master bedroom bedding into Kristen's room after brutalizing Colette in there, put Colette on the sheet and during that time either stepped on the blood welling in the spread or he stepped directly onto Colette's body, and left his bloody footprints as he exited the room carrying Colette. None of his footprints were found entering the room.The CID theories were absurd. Some of the CID thought Colette murdered the two little girls, which I find is beyond belief.The jury found that MacDonald's absurd stories of "intruders" were beyond belief, and that MacDonald had repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes.They were all very inexperiencedFalse. Do your research and then we'll be waiting for your apology.

Deneece

01-30-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

snipped>
The CID were not qualified detectives. They were mostly burly military policemen who usually dealt with affrays at Fort Bragg. They were all very inexperienced and had never dealt with a difficult murder before. That includes the lab technicians at the CID lab at Fort Gordon as well. I could not argue your other points as well as the posters on this board have managed to do…but I just “HAD” to comment on this one…So you are now saying these CID were inexperienced and incompetent…yet, I recall that quite a few times you stated that evidence was ‘planted’, or disposed of to frame McD…HOW? I would think that untrained, inexperienced personnel would have no idea what was important and what isn’t…

I’m just trying to grasp what you are saying…in fact…I do not understand how you can completely disregard evidence as ‘meaningless’, yet claim that evidence of the exact nature but unknown origin are important. It does not follow a logical pattern.

It also makes no sense to quote portions of testimony, leaving off rebuttal testimony, or even leaving off the continuation (or precursor to the questions) of the same testimony. You MUST know that everyone here has access to the same transcripts and can easily follow up with damaging quotes but in completed form…???

I must apologize for addressing you, personally, and not the case per say, but I am finding your complete one-sided impression of evidence, logic and testimony very odd. In fact, I am quite baffled, yet interested in people such as your self. They make very interesting subject matters (IMO). I have had the wonderful opportunity to study your comments on some of the other threads and there is an ongoing theme (mantra, if you will) that states emphatically, “ they were framed by the <insert; cop, CID, FBI, government, prosecution, etc…>. I would like you to answer just ONE question, if at all possible…it is very important to me because I will look closely into it…here it is…Can you name ONE person in prison, convicted of a crime that they swear heart and soul that they did not ‘do it’ whom you believe guilty? *note; it must be one that I can look into closely, and one in which the person has support for claim* Call it a challenge, or even a quest.

audpaud

01-30-2006, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by caphill

What do you think, audpaud? Do you think 8 years from the time a 4th Circuit Court ordered the State to release forensic materials is a reasonable time for the State to obey a Federal order.

It was 5 years before Sept 11th. that the State and the lab found reasons to delay testing.

Why do you think the State has fought all these year to keep forensics never seen by a jury under their wraps? Why would the State not want this evidence seen? If it means nothing why spend tax dollars for over 30 years to keep it suppressed?

Whos career was made by this case and who's career can suffer from this case?

I'd have to be better versed on the State and the lab b4 forming an opinion on whether they "found reasons to delay testing." Same can be said about the State fighting to "suppress" forensics for "over 30 years."

I must tell you that from someone who is just generally interested in this case (in addition to many other "true crimes") macdonald appears to have had more than his fair share of venues to decry his conviction (say, compared to the average lifer) and appeals. To this casual observer, the evidence is overwhelming and indicates he is indeed the murderer. The very things that you mention to bolster your opinion~'careers made/careers suffering' . . . are exactly why I DON'T believe that forensic evidence was/is suppressed! Why would anyone take that chance on this high profile WASP murder case?

audpaud

01-30-2006, 02:02 PM

Deneece

01-30-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Audpaud: Caphill is merely repeating MacDonald camp propoganda in regards to the events leading up to the February AFIP announcement. Here are the facts:

1) Judge Fox ordered 15 hair exhibits for DNA testing because there were only 15 unidentified hairs found at the crime scene. All 15 hairs are limb/body hairs or hair fragments. Head and pubic hairs are the only hairs that can be compared under a microscope.

2) Most of the blood samples were used up at the 1970 autopsy for comparison purposes, so that is why all the exhibits are hair exhibits. The defense team accepted that fact in 1999, but MacDonald's website mentions the defense team's original request for 50 exhibits in order to intimate that the government had something to hide.

3) Once the AFIP received the 15 exhibits in 1999, the government has not filed 1 motion to delay DNA testing. It would be interesting to see posters like Caphill, provide this board with a specific example of a motion filed by the government since 1999. As a matter of fact, every single motion filed since 1999, has been by the defense. In essence, it has been a combination of 9/11 and the MacDonald defense team, that has resulted in a delay in the completion of the DNA tests.

JTF. Question; there has been much ‘to do’ about mitochondrial DNA which is not a guaranteed 99% match, however is very technical because it is passed only through the mother. Soooo…can’t that hair contain enough mitochondrial DNA for a close match? I mean, it seems that the McD side says two hairs, which could be ‘body’ hair, is their ‘get out of jail free card. Were those analyzed for mitochondrial DNA (which only requires a very minute sample) and found to match anyone in the family then it would be a big deal…however, I don’t see why (IMO). Frankly, were it to match McD then they would say “oh because he tucked them in at night and were getting hugs, etc…” you know how easily items are explained away that should be there in the first place.

Frankly, the fiber and hair stuff is easily excused for various reasons…I can see how it culminates with harder evidence, but am not so sure it is not easy to excuse. Let me give you an example. Say the story of drug crazed hippies were true…hypothetically…the pj fibers have been washed with all the laundry (along with the pj’s) minute fibers are always transferred, as well as lint (believe me, I know! Dang lint balls anyway…) and when we undress, many of us (you know who you are) toss our clothes on the floor. It’s logical for fibers to be transferred for various reasons, the same as those ‘un-sourced’ fibers were probably transferred from various guests in the house. It’s easy to explain away…as well as hair, because we shed skin and hair at an alarming rate, as well as hair “breaking off” (believe me, I should know just from the continuous battle with split ends). Even his hair on a corpse can be explained when he tried to ‘revive’ them.

Ultimately, IMO, I think the blood trail is the most damning as well as the various versions of the story McD himself told (mainly because the blood trail tells a different story). Thus far, the evidence points to his guilt because the other version of events makes no sense (based on human behavior, euphoric drug behavior, as well as lack of concrete evidence…and I don’t buy into the idea that drug crazed lunatics wore latex gloves…any more than I believe that a group that size left not one fingerprint or that detectives managed to eradicate every print).

Anyway, <as I journey back from my verbose rambling> I was just wondering because it seems to me that, in the interest of minimizing the complaints and speculation, they should at least test for mito-DNA.

Deneece

01-30-2006, 04:14 PM

I want to get back to the info on the ‘club’ and the phone call…it is just sticking in my mind because I would like to have a look at it…I would also suggest handwriting analysis. I also want to know about the unknown phone call purportedly made from McD’s residence. How do we know that the call came from McD’s residence? Were there phone records to verify this because back then there was no ‘caller ID’…in fact, I recall various areas of this country that had ‘party lines’ (for those too young to know it was a nightmare of communities hooked on one line and nosey busy bodies could listen in on the neighbors conversations…but I didn’t do it all the time). Sooooo….again, I wonder how we know that a call was made from that particular phone to the number on the club at that time on that night (back then, unless it was a long distance charge, weren’t calls more difficult to trace…they didn’t even have *69). I am also anxiously awaiting the documentation on what was said. There is something about this part of the deal that keeps niggling at me and might explain a couple of things.

Another thing…(another one of my rambles) when I was a kid, my parents fought quite a bit. Sometimes I could hear them yelling and occasionally I’d hear a smack…being a little kid, I didn’t know better so I’d run into my parents room, screaming and kicking my father, yelling “Don’t you hit my mommy”…strange, but mom would pull me away and send me to my room. I never could understand and years later I asked her why she sent me away when I was trying to protect her and she said it was because my father would sometimes get so mad that he’d punch her and she didn’t want him to do that to me. Because I was so young, I had never understood that there was no way I’d be able to ever stop my dad, but I thought I could. (Happy to report that these events were infrequent and only when dad drank and happier to report that he quit hitting her when I was about nine).

I mention this because it may explain a little piece of how a fight explodes into violence that could end up with children getting in the middle of it. My mother was very sure that, given my fathers temper at the time, he would have hit me as hard as he had hit her. I doubt a little child would not be seriously hurt.

On the side of the defense, same senario but stranger attacking mommy...a child may rush to the aid of 'mommy'.....

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The more I looked into the matter I could find no remote possibility that...MacDonald did it.As your posts show, you appear to have a reading/comprehension problem which prevents you from understanding and/or evaluating any evidence against the murderer, so it's not that surprising that you don't understand why he was convicted of the brutal triple murders of his wife, Colette, and her two small daughters, Kimberly and Kristen.In my opinion the entire Stoeckley group ought to have been rounded up years ago for the MacDonald murders, and closely questioned.These and other suspects were investigated and were found to be uninvolved with the murders in any way.The local real detective Beasley thought the Stoeckley homicidal maniacs did it.Beasley, who worked with Ted Gunderson in coercing confessions from Stoeckley and who was found to have mental problems and to be confabulating, was also apparently threatened by Fred Bost, and wrote a letter to Kassab in 1991 referring to Ted Gunderson's "smoke screen."In reply to audpaud I would say that any MacDonald evidence that is technically possible to be DNA tested ought to have been tested years ago.DNA testing wasn't used in this country until the early 1980s. The DNA testing would have been completed long ago if MacDonald's lawyers hadn't continually delayed it.In reply to Bunny I would say that as far as I know Kim was stabbed in the neck and hit on the head with a blunt instrument.That isn't what you claimed before. I'm glad you're starting to become a little more familiar with the evidence now.What does Bunny think about CID agent’s Shaw’s theory that Colette murdered the two little girls?I think it's probably the only theory they had which isn't supported by the evidence; other than that, they seem to have been right on the mark right from the start, when they looked at the crime scene and thought that things couldn't have taken place as MacDonald said they had. MacDonald subsequently changed his stories over and over again, as he thought of the lies he had told and as he learned more and more about the evidence that had been found (and the negative evidence). And, as it turned out, the investigators were correct in their belief that MacDonald himself was the murderer.

JTF

01-30-2006, 04:24 PM

Audpaud: The 35+ exhibits requested by the defense were blood exhibits. There was only enough blood samples in existence for a handful of DNA exhibits, so Judge Fox decided that only hair exhibits would be DNA tested.

Deneece: Mito DNA was going to be used by the AFIP to test 3 of the 15 hair exhibits. Nuclear DNA was going to be used on the remaining 12 hair exhibits.

JTF.

Deneece

01-30-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Audpaud: The 35+ exhibits requested by the defense were blood exhibits. There was only enough blood samples in existence for a handful of DNA exhibits, so Judge Fox decided that only hair exhibits would be DNA tested.

Deneece: Mito DNA was going to be used by the AFIP to test 3 of the 15 hair exhibits. Nuclear DNA was going to be used on the remaining 12 hair exhibits.

JTF. Thanx, very informative…as always….

Deb B

01-30-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
What does Bunny think about CID agent’s Shaw’s theory that Colette murdered the two little girls? Personally, I think its more CID baloney.

I'm not Bunny, but if I could comment - I think a good investigators consider all possibilities - no matter how ridiculous or that someone else considers it "baloney" - I think that's what they were doing.

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
Frankly, the fiber and hair stuff is easily excused for various reasons…I can see how it culminates with harder evidence, but am not so sure it is not easy to excuse. Let me give you an example. Say the story of drug crazed hippies were true…hypothetically…the pj fibers have been washed with all the laundry (along with the pj’s) minute fibers are always transferred, as well as lint (believe me, I know! Dang lint balls anyway…) and when we undress, many of us (you know who you are) toss our clothes on the floor. It’s logical for fibers to be transferred for various reasons, the same as those ‘un-sourced’ fibers were probably transferred from various guests in the house. It’s easy to explain away…Hi, Deneece -

What's not so easy to explain away is that many, many of the threads and fibers from MacDonald's torn pajamas were found in the three rooms in which the victims were attacked, including (but not limited to) scattered throughout the master bedroom in a profusion, under the headboard where the word "PIG" had been written in Colette's blood, 22 of those fibers were found on top of the master bedroom bed, fibers were found at the foot of the bed, under the victims' bodies and in their bedclothing, under Kristen's fingernail, entwined with a bloody hair of Colette's, and on the club used in the murders.

MacDonald, of course, claims that the pajama top never left his body until he took it off in the master bedroom, and the club would have already been outside at that time and the intruders gone, yet two of his pajama fibers were found on that club. Also, Colette's blood was on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn, and Kimberly's blood was there also. I think it would be pretty coincidental for MacDonald's pajamas to have been shedding since their last washing, yet they only end up in incriminating places and none at all where MacDonald claims to have been attacked and stabbed on the sofa.It’s easy to explain away…as well as hair, because we shed skin and hair at an alarming rate, as well as hair “breaking off” (believe me, I should know just from the continuous battle with split ends).Harder to explain are bloody crushed hairs in incriminating places.

Deneece

01-30-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
snipped>
DNA testing wasn't used in this country until the early 1980s. The DNA testing would have been completed long ago if MacDonald's lawyers hadn't continually delayed it.
<snipped. What I don’t understand is, once this form of testing became available, why wouldn’t the state take it upon themselves to do the testing. Granted, maybe not in all cases, but in supposedly high profile cases like this one, why not say “lets shut this guy up once and for all and show his followers and celebrity supporters all the evidence available and confirm it with our testing”. Sure, doing such a thing is costly as well as time-consuming, but if it were me and I had the opportunity to prove my case, I’d be pushing for it harder than the McD camp.

I am probably ideological and naive, but whatever evidence proves one way or another, it would just feel right to reinvestigate and open all the scenarios and evidence for review. Were you to set an innocent man free…it’d be right…if you’d prove once again that your case was right, you’d win again. I guess I’m just not the “win at all costs” kind of gal…but more of a (admittedly verbose version) “I did the right thing and can always hold my head up in connection with this and all cases, my ethics and justice intact” kind of gal….

byn63

01-30-2006, 04:51 PM

bunny - wasn't bloody and forcibly removed a description of Colette's hair that was entwined with a thread from Inmate's pj top? Q96/Govt 107? I was just looking through my notes on Paul Stombaugh's trial testimony, I can't put my finger on that notation, but I am fairly certain that it is true.

Deneece

01-30-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hi, Deneece -

What's not so easy to explain away is that many, many of the threads and fibers from MacDonald's torn pajamas were found in the three rooms in which the victims were attacked, including (but not limited to) scattered throughout the master bedroom in a profusion, under the headboard where the word "PIG" had been written in Colette's blood, 22 of those fibers were found on top of the master bedroom bed, fibers were found at the foot of the bed, under the victims' bodies and in their bedclothing, under Kristen's fingernail, entwined with a bloody hair of Colette's, and on the club used in the murders.

MacDonald, of course, claims that the pajama top never left his body until he took it off in the master bedroom, and the club would have already been outside at that time and the intruders gone, yet two of his pajama fibers were found on that club. Also, Colette's blood was on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn, and Kimberly's blood was there also. I think it would be pretty coincidental for MacDonald's pajamas to have been shedding since their last washing, yet they only end up in incriminating places and none at all where MacDonald claims to have been attacked and stabbed on the sofa.Harder to explain are bloody crushed hairs in incriminating places.
I agree…it is compelling…however…he was being attacked at the same time (by his account) with the very same weapons being used to attack the family members (???) (and I repeat ???)…anyhooooo…..I believe the case is argued that it was the attackers who transferred those fibers about the house…being careful not to leave them in the hall or on the couch, but destructively attacking him and the family carrying the fiber/hair evidence with them from the attack perpetrated against McD….

Would be plausible but for the whole being attacked simultaneously in different rooms with same weapons thing…oh and the lack of evidence on couch and in hall…but I digress….

JTF

01-30-2006, 05:57 PM

Byn: I don't have Stombaugh's lab notes in front of me, but he did mention that Colette's head hair in Q96 was forcibly removed, "probably" from a blow to the head. I can't remember whether he reiterated that particular opinion at trial.

Deneece: The MacDonald camp has never really pushed for the Transfer Theory of Locard to explain the profusion of pajama fibers. Why? Well, they know that using such an argument would be an admission that Kimberly and Colette were transported, and all the fabric impression evidence indicates that someone wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top transported Kimberly/Colette back to their rooms.

JTF.

caphill

01-30-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
I will admit that (ethically speaking) Judge Dupree should have recused himself from this case. That is one point in McD’s favor; however, there have been many attempts at appealing this case, even so far as to the Supreme Court (as far as I know, there has never been a Supreme Court Justice named Dupree). Therefore, I don’t see how this matter seems to have become such a huge deal…other courts and justices have not found favor with the defense, not just Dupree’s court…nor do they seem to find error in the original case. Am I missing something other than those facts? And, frankly, the whole issue falls flat when analyzing how many other courts have had the opportunity to review the case.

Of course, this is JM (humble :o , yet brilliant:D ) O

I think what is missing here is the understanding of appeals courts and trial court. Dr. MacDonald has only had one trial court in front of a jury, the trier of facts. The jury trial and the conviction was based on the evidence and the interpretation that was presented. The State presented their evidence and Judge made decisions on what he would allow the defense to present. During the trial Dupree ruled against the every defense evidentiary motion. (IIRC 28 motions) The defense was even denied access to review the States evidence which included such things as lab work notes etc. The jury was allowed to see only what the State based on Dupree's ruling allowed them to see. The evidence that Dr. MacDonald claims is exonerating has never been presented to a trial court.

There is a misunderstanding by many on what these many appeals including the Supreme court was all about. The appeals court are ruling on technicalities and interpretations of Constitutional law . As an example, Dr. MacDonald appeals to the Supreme Court were his claim that trying him in a civil trial was double jeopardy. He had been charged by the a military court and after an investigation it was ruled there was not evidence to convict him and the charges were dismissed. The Supreme Court had to make their intrepretation of the Constitution as to whether the double jeopardy protection applied in Dr. MacDonald case. The second Supreme Court decision involved a defendent's rights to a speedy trial. Lower courts had ruled in favor of Dr. MacDonald and he was released from prison. The State challenged the lower courts decision and took it to the Supreme Court. Dr. MacDonald argument was the murders happened in 1970 and he was not brought to trial until 1979. After debate of the Courts interpretation of the Constitution regarding a right to a speedly trial the lower appeals court decision was reversed.

The other appeals that been brought over time have involved Dr. MacDonald struggle to get a reversal based on his claims of having new exonerating never heard in trial court. This is where Judge Depree played a role in denying that motion. With a lot of legal mumbo jumbo the judge says it was not new evidence. It was there in States discovery and the burden was on the defense to have found it during the trial. I guess Judge Dupree forgot his prior ruling that denied the defense access the State discovery. A catch 22 for the defense. Therefore Dr. MacDonald was denied a retrial and an opportunity for a jury to hear his evidence. After years through FOIA court order "new" evidence was found and another appeal was made. This time around Judge Dupree with a legal mumbo jumbo denied the motion based on a time technically. He was aware it took years to fight the State and get a FOIA court order to uncover the new evidence. Basically the appeal court said the defense took too long to uncover the evidence and therefore MacDonald was denied again a retrial for a jury to hear his evidence.

The appeal courts have never opined on the merits of the actual evidence MacDonald wants heard. There decisions were made on their determination of whether the original trial court erred in allowing defense evidence to be presented or was suppressed'.

Many of the arguments posted here are debating the known evidence as it was presented in the trial court 26 years ago by the state. Whatever evidence Dr. MacDonald believes is exonerating has never been heard in a court of law with a jury to determine it evidentiary value. Would a jury find a 22 and 24 inch synthetic hair found at the crime scene evidence that someone with a long wig had been in the house? If there is no evidence that a doll was ever made or found to have a 24 inch hair might that give a jury reason to conclude these hairs came from a human wig? Might the evidence from lab work notes that certain fibers or hairs found at the crime scene were not going to be listed on the report that the jury saw in 1979 have any sway with a new jury. Those questions can only be answered by a jury who a chance to hear this evidence and weight it against the States evidence. Only having the States' evidence heard and not allowing the defense evidence to be heard goes against the undebatable protections of the Constitution that every defendant is entitled to a fair trial. Thats what the fuss is about.

stinkerbelle

01-30-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by byn63

Ain't it GRAND! The whole firebrigade is in da haus! Hurray! Welcome Stinker! Welcome JTF! Bunny - are we ready to party now?

aww thanks byn:) i've got the margaritas!:beer:

stinkerbelle

01-30-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Deb B

I'm not Bunny, but if I could comment - I think a good investigators consider all possibilities - no matter how ridiculous or that someone else considers it "baloney" - I think that's what they were doing.

ITA deb. if the CID had considered no other possible scenarios or theories, the mac camp would be complaining that they rushed to judgement against this man without considering any other possibilities. uh, which they do anyway lol...but i agree they were just doing their job, trying to look at the case in different ways and not leave any stones unturned.

caphill

01-30-2006, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Byn: I don't have Stombaugh's lab notes in front of me, but he did mention that Colette's head hair in Q96 was forcibly removed, "probably" from a blow to the head. I can't remember whether he reiterated that particular opinion at trial.

Deneece: The MacDonald camp has never really pushed for the Transfer Theory of Locard to explain the profusion of pajama fibers. Why? Well, they know that using such an argument would be an admission that Kimberly and Colette were transported, and all the fabric impression evidence indicates that someone wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top transported Kimberly/Colette back to their rooms.

JTF.

Since Dr. MacDonald was wearing pj bottoms that were ripped from the crotch down and a pj top that he supposedly was using to ward off blows, wouldn't one expect there to be broken fibers all over the crime scene. The pj fibers on the club would be expected as he was also whacked with the club.

Any crime investigator will tell you that three diiferent weapons used to kill one victim is indictative of more than one perperator.
Collette was attacked with a knife, an icepick and a wooden club.

Dr. MacDonald had injuries from a club, and IIRC, an ice pick and a knife.

How did the prosecution explain that to the jury. How did they explain the the blow to Collete coming from a left handed person. Isn't it difficult for a person that has two hands to be alternating three weapons in the frenzy of an attack. Even more incredible to turn around and stab themselves while whacking themselves in the head with a wooden club.

stinkerbelle

01-30-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Let’s be clear about this. A wise man or woman would say “I’m not sure exactly what happened at the MacDonald murders.” They would not be as definite, or credulous about it as some of the posters on this forum.

oh i don't know....people say they "know" there is a "god"....seems to me there's more real evidence to support macdoneit being guilty than there is to support that. (and no, i'm in no way trying to start some ridiculous religious debate so let's not even go there ppl) anyway, seems to me that you, artful dodger, are pretty definite that he didn't do it so the same applies to you.

It wasn’t some huge issue that could lead to a violent argument, or murderous rage.
i personally would not kill someone because they were snoring or because they said my mama was fat or because they wore the wrong color on the wrong side of town, but people have killed for such things. apparently they were "huge issues" to the person doing the killing. just because you feel that bedwetting would not lead to a violent argument or murderous rage does not mean it didn't happen.

When the Stoeckley killer thugs arrived at the MacDonald’s apartment they knocked Dr MacDonald unconscious inside about half a minute. Dr MacDonald recalls one of the little girls screaming “Daddy, Daddy, Daddy” and Colette screaming something as well. Dr MacDonald doesn’t know what happened then. He was unconscious at the time.
except he claimed that he was awoken by the screams of his wife and daughter, not that he heard them during the "attack" on himself.

All we know for certain is that Kim was stabbed in the back.
except of course that kimmy was stabbed in the neck. the FRONT of her neck. you can't claim "semantics" here dearie. she was stabbed in the throat, slicing her trachea from the front, not the back.

They were mostly burly military policemen who usually dealt with affrays at Fort Bragg. They were all very inexperienced and had never dealt with a difficult murder before. That includes the lab technicians at the CID lab at Fort Gordon as well.
of course! we all know that the macdonald murders were the absolute only "difficult" murders in the history of ft. bragg and that each and every investigator and lab tech were on the first day of their respective jobs!:rolleyes:

stinkerbelle

01-30-2006, 07:25 PM

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by caphill
I think what is missing here is the understanding of appeals courts and trial court.Weren't you the poster who declared as fact that MacDonald had recently been granted a new trial, when actually all he'd been granted was the right to file his motion...?

Only having the States' evidence heard and not allowing the defense evidence to be heard goes against the undebatable protections of the Constitution that every defendant is entitled to a fair trial.Sorry, but I don't believe our system automatically grants new trials to every defendant who claims "new evidence." Procedures must be followed, and they were followed in Mac's case as in others. No error was found in the trial procedure or in the actions of the lawyers. The jury and appeals courts gave little or no weight at all to MacDonald's claims that unmatched evidence was proof of "intruders," and were MacDonald to bring forth his "synthetic fiber" and "black wool" fiber arguments to a jury, the prosecution would again be able to show the flimsiness of those arguments just as they did during trial. That said, I'll ask you what I asked another poster recently on another board: What item or items do you feel exist now that would have overcome all that vast amount of evidence against him (not to mention the other 40% of the evidence against him that the government didn't use)?

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Judge Dupree made those comments in defending his decision to find error in the trial in which he originally presided.Can we see links to factual documents showing that Dupree lied when he wrote that at least one of MacDonald's attorneys had said more than once that the trial was fairly conducted?

Ethically he should have recused himself from sitting in judgement of his own court and his own decisions.Certainly you're entitled to your opinion, but the appeals processes were followed according to procedure and no error seems to have surfaced in those procedures.

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by caphill
With a lot of legal mumbo jumbo the judge says it was not new evidence....This time around Judge Dupree with a legal mumbo jumbo denied the motion..."Mumbo jumbo"? Well, I guess that's one way of avoiding confronting the reasons for the decisions that went against the murderer. LOL!Would a jury find a 22 and 24 inch synthetic hair found at the crime scene evidence that someone with a long wig had been in the house?IMHO, not likely, in the face of the negative evidence re: "intruders" and considering all that overwhelming evidence against the murderer. Not to mention that the jury had already rejected his arguments that unsourced items pointed to "intruders."

caphill

01-30-2006, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

so why weren't there any in the living room where he was supposedly attacked by both the club and some sort of blade?

uh, apparently it has not occurred to you that he could have used them one at a time? perhaps even laying one down at some point? it's not like mac was jackie chan, warding off blows from his family as they stood around him in a circle, stabbing one then clubbing one then stabbing the next.:rolleyes:

Now back to the question. How did the proescution explain their theory of the same person using 3 different weapons and applying that blow to his wife with his left hand when he was right handed?

Which rendered MacDonald unconscious? The puncture of his lung or the contusion to his head.?

Pardon me, if I looking for their explanation rather than yours.

stinkerbelle

01-30-2006, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Now back to the question. How did the proescution explain their theory of the same person using 3 different weapons and applying that blow to his wife with his left hand when he was right handed?

Which rendered MacDonald unconscious? The puncture of his lung or the contusion to his head.?

Pardon me, if I looking for their explanation rather than yours.

mac claims it was the blow to his head that knocked him out. he remembers receiving the puncture to his lung during the attack (the infamous "he throws a hell of a punch" thing) before falling off the couch.

kassab said mac was ambidextrous. one of the medical ppl (help me out here JTF) commented on the left hand/right hand issue. i believe the prosecution's theory was that the dull knife and the club were in the MB and that at some point mac went to get the sharper knife (i can never remember which was which...geneva forge or old hickory) and the ice pick to stage the crime like it was committed by more than one person. the club and dull knife were used before the sharper knife and ice pick, so they were not all used at the same time. i know i'm being vague and i'm not doing it on purpose lol...just old age here. check out the trial transcripts for more info or wait for someone with better recall to post :) trial transcripts (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1979_trial_transcripts.html)

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Now back to the question. How did the proescution explain their theory of the same person using 3 different weapons...By the physical and negative evidence which seems to have shown the jury that MacDonald committed the murders and that no forensic evidence supported his stories of "intruders." You can read the details in the trial transcripts at http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com.How did the proescution explain...applying that blow to his wife with his left hand when he was right handed?Memory fails as to whether or not the right-handed/left-handed issue arose at trial, but I do know that even as late as December 2005, MacDonald’s website was still misleading its readers in showing only one part of what Dr. Wright stated, which might be where your confusion on this issue comes from. The murderer's website says that "Dr. Ronald Wright of Broward County, Florida, researched the fatal blows suffered by Colette and concluded that they were inflicted by a left-handed person." MacDonald, of course, claims to be right-handed; Kassab said he was ambidextrous.

What the murderer's website doesn't show, naturally, is that in Dr. Wright’s 1984 declaration 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."

If I recall correctly, I think these issues were raised during an appeal and MacDonald's argument about left-handedness went nowhere.Which rendered MacDonald unconscious?The evidence itself refutes MacDonald's claim of being "unconscious." Among other things, I think Byn did some research on this at medical sites and found that if MacDonald had been knocked unconscious, he would have little to no memory of the events preceding the blow that rendered him unconscious. Also, depending upon long he was unconscious, his memory of events afterward would also be impaired. And of course since the negative evidence indicated there were no "intruders," and since it's not likely Colette hit him hard enough to knock him out, it leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he was never unconscious at all.The puncture of his lung or the contusion to his head.?I believe it was surmised that the forehead abrasion, which MacDonald described as a "little bump," may have resulted from Colette hitting him with the hairbrush or "kissing" him with the club in her attempts to ward him off. As for the lung puncture, the jury seems to have believed that the evidence supported the theory that it was self-inflicted.

caphill

01-30-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Weren't you the poster who declared as fact that MacDonald had recently been granted a new trial, when actually all he'd been granted was the right to file his motion...?

Sorry, but I don't believe our system automatically grants new trials to every defendant who claims "new evidence." Procedures must be followed, and they were followed in Mac's case as in others. No error was found in the trial procedure or in the actions of the lawyers. The jury and appeals courts gave little or no weight at all to MacDonald's claims that unmatched evidence was proof of "intruders," and were MacDonald to bring forth his "synthetic fiber" and "black wool" fiber arguments to a jury, the prosecution would again be able to show the flimsiness of those arguments just as they did during trial. That said, I'll ask you what I asked another poster recently on another board: What item or items do you feel exist now that would have overcome all that vast amount of evidence against him (not to mention the other 40% of the evidence against him that the government didn't use)?

You have a problem with twisting other peoples words to fit your agenda. For anyone who has reading comprehension I clearly stated it is undebatable that the Constitution protects the rights of every defendent to have a fair trial.

The 4th Circuit Court received Jeffrey R MacDonald's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. sections 2244 and 2255 for an Order Authorizing the District Court to Consider the Motion 2255 to Vacate the Sentence of Jeffrey R MacDonald Based on Newly Discovered Evidence.

This Motion was granted and sent to the District Court in Raleigh NC for a hearing. This lower court can not refuse the higher 4th Circuit Court ruling. This means for the first time MacDonald can present his new evidence as well as all the other evidence amassed since his first trial. The court has to hear it and can not refuse to hear it as they have done in the past. The new evidence the Distict Court will hear is that a US Marshall's sworn affidavit that he heard Blackburn intimidated and threatened the defense's primary witness into changing her testimony. Her testimony was Judge Durpree basis for not allowing 5-6 witness to testify as to what that witness that told them It was the heart of the defenses case. If the jury had been allowed to hear these witnesses the outcome of the verdict could have been very different.

Lets see how that can be twisted and denied.

caphill

01-30-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
"Mumbo jumbo"? Well, I guess that's one way of avoiding confronting the reasons for the decisions that went against the murderer. LOL!IMHO, not likely, in the face of the negative evidence re: "intruders" and considering all that overwhelming evidence against the murderer. Not to mention that the jury had already rejected his arguments that unsourced items pointed to "intruders."

The fuss has been the jury was not allowed to hear about the unsourced hairs and fibers. They heard what the State wanted them to hear so how could they reject what was never introduced in the trial. They never heard about unsourced hairs under the kids bloody fingernails for example. They never heard about the black wool unsourced fibers on the bloody club. They only heard about pj fibers.

A jury can only render a verdict on what they hear and who knows what the verdict might have been if all the crime scene
forensics had been allowed.

How can anyone defend a trial and a prosecution that hides any evidence and call that a fair trial. A prosecution that will do any thing it takes to win is a violation to everything the Constitution stands for.

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Weren't you the poster who declared as fact that MacDonald had recently been granted a new trial, when actually all he'd been granted was the right to file his motion...?Originally posted by caphill
You have a problem with twisting other peoples words to fit your agenda.I don't think so. On January 18 in the "Jeffrey MacDonald - Fatal Vision Killer" thread, you wrote: "The 4th CC has just granted his motion for retrail and sent to a Raleigh NC federal court." Which of course is not the case. No one knows at this point whether or not another trial will be held, since there has yet to even be a hearing on the Britt issue which is the only thing before the court as of this time. On January 12 the court permitted the defense to file its motion, and the defense did so on Jan. 17. That has yet to be made public; or at least I haven't seen it yet.

Lets see how that can be twisted and denied.

JTF

01-30-2006, 11:31 PM

Caphill: The autopsy report indicates that the stab wounds to Kimberly's neck were inflicted by a right-handed person, the word PIG was written on the headboard by a right-handed person, and Colette was hit on the left temple with the club causing spatter on the bottom sheet of the bed in the master bedroom. Considering that Colette was hit multiple times while on Kristen's bed with overhand swings from the club, it is safe to assume that Jeff was swinging the club with both hands.

In terms of the pajama fiber distribution at the crime scene, transfer from intruder(s) would not explain the fibers found under Colette's body, under a rug by Colette's feet, under Kimberly's bedcovers, under Kristen's bedcovers, and under Kristen's fingernail. In addition, if 6 intruders were inside this cramped crime scene, how did they avoid tracking fibers into the dining room, living room, and/or kitchen? They would have to be the most careful drug-crazed intruders in the history of crime.

JTF.

Bunny2

01-30-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by caphill
The fuss has been the jury was not allowed to hear about the unsourced hairs and fibers.MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that unsourced items pointed to "intruders," but the jury rejected that argument.How can anyone defend a trial and a prosecution that hides any evidence and call that a fair trial.The courts found that no evidence in this case was wrongly suppressed. As for all evidence coming before a jury, I'm not sure that's ever happened in any murder case, but regardless, as Segal said, "You just can't say that everything in the world can be given to the jury."

caphill

01-30-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
By the physical and negative evidence which seems to have shown the jury that MacDonald committed the murders and that no forensic evidence supported his stories of "intruders." You can read the details in the trial transcripts at http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com.Memory fails as to whether or not the right-handed/left-handed issue arose at trial, but I do know that even as late as December 2005, MacDonald’s website was still misleading its readers in showing only one part of what Dr. Wright stated, which might be where your confusion on this issue comes from. The murderer's website says that "Dr. Ronald Wright of Broward County, Florida, researched the fatal blows suffered by Colette and concluded that they were inflicted by a left-handed person." MacDonald, of course, claims to be right-handed; Kassab said he was ambidextrous.

What the murderer's website doesn't show, naturally, is that in Dr. Wright’s 1984 declaration 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."

If I recall correctly, I think these issues were raised during an appeal and MacDonald's argument about left-handedness went nowhere.The evidence itself refutes MacDonald's claim of being "unconscious." Among other things, I think Byn did some research on this at medical sites and found that if MacDonald had been knocked unconscious, he would have little to no memory of the events preceding the blow that rendered him unconscious. Also, depending upon long he was unconscious, his memory of events afterward would also be impaired. And of course since the negative evidence indicated there were no "intruders," and since it's not likely Colette hit him hard enough to knock him out, it leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he was never unconscious at all.I believe it was surmised that the forehead abrasion, which MacDonald described as a "little bump," may have resulted from Colette hitting him with the hairbrush or "kissing" him with the club in her attempts to ward him off. As for the lung puncture, the jury seems to have believed that the evidence supported the theory that it was self-inflicted.

Dr. Wright's declaration was written in 1984, fourteen years after the murders and he says someone intoxicated with psychomimetic drugs can not be presumed to strike with their handed side. What kind of garbage is that. There was no evidence that MacDonald had psychomimetic or any other drugs in his system. He had a little alcohol as did Collette.

Since no one can reasonably come up with an explanation why Dr. MacDonald would attack his family in the middle of the night a motive is invented. He went nuts over his daughter wetting the bed and had drug induced meltdown and went into a killing frenzy swinging a club in his left hand and stabbing with a ice pick and a knife with his right. Ignore the fact that there were no drugs in his system.

Now the person who had confessed to a number of people admittedly had a whole cocktail of drugs that night but because she was so drug induced she surely couldn't have been a part of that slaughter. She admittedly was wearing long blonde wig that night and two synthetic hairs 22 and 24 inches long are found in the house. But that means nothing, that could have come from anywhere. GMAFB

stinkerbelle

01-31-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Since no one can reasonably come up with an explanation why Dr. MacDonald would attack his family in the middle of the night a motive is invented. He went nuts over his daughter wetting the bed and had drug induced meltdown and went into a killing frenzy swinging a club in his left hand and stabbing with a ice pick and a knife with his right. Ignore the fact that there were no drugs in his system.
it was an unreasonable crime, so why should there be a reasonable motive? the motive need only be reasonable to the perpetrator.

i don't believe anyone has stated that macdoneit was swinging a club in his left hand and stabbing with an ice pick and a knife in his right. it is only the opinion of the medical examiner that colette was hit by a lefty, not a documented fact. it's not something that macdoneit can use to prove he himself did not do it. if someone were holding the weapon with both hands, think like a tennis racket, it would not be hard to swing from either direction.

She admittedly was wearing long blonde wig that night and two synthetic hairs 22 and 24 inches long are found in the house. But that means nothing, that could have come from anywhere. GMAFB
actually, if you read her trial testimony, she said she was not wearing the wig because greg mitchell did not like it. you can find it here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979-08-17_stoeckley.html) during her cross-examination by blackburn. not to mention yet again, of course, that the 3 saran strands were all different colors and were all of different composition.

JTF

01-31-2006, 12:34 AM

Caphill: Stoeckley confessed and recanted so many times that her claims are utterly worthless. In terms of wigs worn by Stoeckley, which wig are we talking about here? Stoeckley's own personal wig which Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter surmised she got out of a dumpster? Kathy Smith's ear length wig? Maggie Mauney's fall? Finding a salient fact within the inane ramblings of a pathetic drug snitch is akin to discovering talent at a Who's The Boss reunion.

JTF.

audpaud

01-31-2006, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

As a matter of fact, I think the reasonable inference that you might draw is that the woman seen in this case did not have a weapon--the woman talking about acid--LSD--and that in one of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments removed from the crime scene something of value--not because she went there with a purpose of stealing it and not because the men went there to steal--their purposes are different--but that would be a reasonable inference.

Do you think she had on the surgical gloves at this point?

audpaud

01-31-2006, 04:11 AM

I'm starting to worry that this "Colette did it" thing will give macdonald ideas . . . do you reckon when he finally confesses (in order to admit guilt/show remorse to the parole board) that it'll go like this---

"Yes, I was using amphetamines and evidently had a psychomimetic episode when I awoke to find my wife murdering both our daughters . . . I must admit that after she broke both of her own arms--I killed her."

"In self defense."

"But I tried to save our unborn child."

"Cause I'm a doctor, you know."

"But she DID have a wig on!"

Serious Question: Are the victims buried with the name "MacDonald?" If so, has the REAL family thought of changing to "Kassab?":rose:

stinkerbelle

01-31-2006, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by audpaud

Serious Question: Are the victims buried with the name "MacDonald?" If so, has the REAL family thought of changing to "Kassab?":rose:

colette, kim and kris were buried with the name macdonald but later the stones were changed to read "stevenson" (colette's maiden name). you can see photos of both the original grave markers and the changed ones here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photomacdonald-02.html); scroll down a bit.

byn63

01-31-2006, 07:24 AM

capy - nice try skipping right over the fact that Dr. Wright stated a person on psychomimmetic drugs or enraged by his wife; but he did say OR! Dr. Wright's statement being taken 14 years after the murders does not lesson his credibility. That is a classic macalite tactic.

There were no threads or yarns from the pjs found in the living room, dining room or kitchen. If his britches were shedding they would have shed EVERYWHERE. The logical inference in a scenario such as this is that the largest profusion of "fibers" would be located where the tearing of the fabric took place. Therefore, we can determine that the pj top was in the master bedroom (with Inmate inside) when he and Colette had a fight. Her blood on the pj top prior to the tears also strengthens this argument. Add to that the forcibly removed head hair of Colette entwined with a sewing thread from the pjs being found, and all those fibers found UNDER Colette.

caphill

01-31-2006, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by byn63
capy - nice try skipping right over the fact that Dr. Wright stated a person on psychomimmetic drugs or enraged by his wife; but he did say OR! Dr. Wright's statement being taken 14 years after the murders does not lesson his credibility. That is a classic macalite tactic.

There were no threads or yarns from the pjs found in the living room, dining room or kitchen. If his britches were shedding they would have shed EVERYWHERE. The logical inference in a scenario such as this is that the largest profusion of "fibers" would be located where the tearing of the fabric took place. Therefore, we can determine that the pj top was in the master bedroom (with Inmate inside) when he and Colette had a fight. Her blood on the pj top prior to the tears also strengthens this argument. Add to that the forcibly removed head hair of Colette entwined with a sewing thread from the pjs being found, and all those fibers found UNDER Colette.

Oh excuse me. Dr Wright also thinks a man enraged by his wife can not be presumed to use his handed side. That's even funnier. Wonder how many studies he did to get that info.

OK, ladies think back to times you really made your husband mad. Did you notice they switched from their handed side to the other hand. Now that is where I would to see a link of any studies that says rage can change a righted hand person into left handed person. Wonder what studies he read that showed psychomimetic drugs can make right handed people in left handed people.

Me thinks maybe Dr. Wright just wanted to his name in print.

Just because that man has a Dr. in front of his name doesn't make whatever declaration he writes credibile.

Deb B

01-31-2006, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...This is what Segal said about the missing jewelry in the closing argument at the 1979 MacDonald trial:

"This was not a ransacking of the house, but that was a jewelry box sitting on top. It was obvious and in an obvious location. One didn't have to do anything.

As a matter of fact, I think the reasonable inference that you might draw is that the woman seen in this case did not have a weapon--the woman talking about acid--LSD--and that in one of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments removed from the crime scene something of value--not because she went there with a purpose of stealing it and not because the men went there to steal--their purposes are different--but that would be a reasonable inference.

Otherwise, why would the Government in having gone through the efforts that the prosecutor had gone to prove the opposite that there were no intruders and then concede, "We have to pay you for the rings because they are not there"?

There was one ring that couldn't be found. Maybe Colette lost it. Maybe they were thinking, "Just pay the guy and get rid of this issue." He was making repeated claims for jewelry - one for a ring that had been previously released to him and another for a valuable brooch that was found and turned out to be not so valuable.

As you indicated so helpfully in your post, Segal presented this to the jury - I guess they didn't agree with your "reasonable inference".

Did any of the jewelry ever turn up in Helena's possession? She never mentions anything about taking jewelry at all in her detailed 1980 confession, or in any of her "confessions" from what I've read.

caphill

01-31-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that unsourced items pointed to "intruders," but the jury rejected that argument.The courts found that no evidence in this case was wrongly suppressed. As for all evidence coming before a jury, I'm not sure that's ever happened in any murder case, but regardless, as Segal said, "You just can't say that everything in the world can be given to the jury."

Did the appeal court rule that the parts of forensics the State sent to the labs but then didn't put in their evidence reports for discovery for the defense or the jury to see was rightly suppressed?

Do you think it was OK for the Ga army lab to come and testify and not mention there was other forensics that was sent to them and didn't put in on the report of their lab results. Do you think it was OK hairs found on the murdered victims were determined to not be MacDonald was not reported for the eyes of the jury? It was reported in the lab work notes to the prosecution. Brian Murtagh and Blackburn had those lab work note. The heart of their of their case and argued to the jury was there was no trace evidence to show anyone other than MacDonald was in that house that night.

We know Blackburn has credibility issues and has been accused of tampering with a witness. What happens to Brian Murtagh credibility now the hidden lab work notes can be on longer be denied. You bet Brian Murtagh worked very hard to oppose the Motion to the 4th CC. He is going to have a very difficult time if he has to explain why he had those lab work notes and knew there was trace evidence trace that he hid from the defense. He should be praying the federal District Court vacates the verdict and this is not opened up for new trial.

caphill

01-31-2006, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Deb B

There was one ring that couldn't be found. Maybe Colette lost it. Maybe they were thinking, "Just pay the guy and get rid of this issue." He was making repeated claims for jewelry - one for a ring that had been previously released to him and another for a valuable brooch that was found and turned out to be not so valuable.

As you indicated so helpfully in your post, Segal presented this to the jury - I guess they didn't agree with your "reasonable inference".

Did any of the jewelry ever turn up in Helena's possession? She never mentions anything about taking jewelry at all in her detailed 1980 confession, or in any of her "confessions" from what I've read.

I don't recal if Helena mentioned taking a ring but she did describe the jewelry box as well as the rocking horse.

stinkerbelle

01-31-2006, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Just because that man has a Dr. in front of his name doesn't make whatever declaration he writes credibile.

lmfao...that's pretty much the understatement of the year regarding this case!! i realize you're referring to wecht (whom i personally think is a quack) here and not jeffrey macdonald but oh my...thanks for the laugh this morning!;)

JTF

01-31-2006, 10:03 AM

Arthur: You can't seem to place things/quotes in their proper context, can you? Freddy Kassab was being sarcastic when he stated that Stoeckley had, "Quite a memory." Stoeckley's ability to mix and match detail one minute, and then have no memory of what she did on February 17, 1970, is the product of an attention seeking, drug ravaged mind. Any discussion regarding the validity of a single Stoeckley claim is laughable. Every person who crossed paths with Stoeckley, experienced Stoeckley's propensity for fabrication. Stoeckley's own mother said it best when she told Bernie Segal in 1979 that, "she'll always talk, but I'm telling you, she's gonna talk all kinds of nonsense."

JTF.

Deb B

01-31-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In reply to Deb B about the matter of Helena Stoeckley and the missing MacDonald jewelry, Fred Kassab mentions the matter in one of his handwritten notes which are in the depths of Christina's MacDonald information website somewhere.

I can't quote you an exact reference where Helena is supposed to have said this. I presume Kassab must have read it somewhere:

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

That's in her confession. The thing is that she gives detail about seeing the jewelry box, but says nada about taking anything from it, like, "I saw the jewelry box - I saw something pretty in it - I took it." Segal thought this was logical - during his closing, he says something was taken.

IMO, no mention is made of taking jewelry in her carefully contrived 1980 confession because then questions would be raised ("What did you take?" "Do you have what you took?" "What happened to what you took?" "Did you ever show what you took to anyone?") and there would be corroboration issues.

byn63

01-31-2006, 11:28 AM

dear dear deluded capy - someone being enraged by their spouse could indeed kill and could indeed use either hand. There is nothing at all laughable about what Inmate 00131-177 did to Colette, Kimberly or Kristen (not to mention the unborn son) and I think you actually KNOW the truth but derive some sort of sick delight in attempting to claim the contrary. However, that is really irrelevant. The salient issues are the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest intruders and the forensic evidence points directly to Inmate 00131-177 as the only criminal actor. Many guilty people in prison insist on declaring their innocence - a recent Virginia case is a prime example. Like Inmate 00131-177 this con was vocal in declaring that he was innocent of the rape and murder for which he'd been convicted, he drew in family and groupie's who believed his story - even though he was executed they still fought for DNA testing of the biological evidence. The test results came back recently and sure enough the evidence was a match to the con - on the order of 1 in a quadrillion chance that someone other then the executee had done the deed. Being louder and vocal doesn't mean the proclamations are more true - often they are the least true imo.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and at this point Inmate 00131-177 has a lot more to lose than to gain if he just shuts up.

Bunny2

01-31-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by caphill
I don't recal if Helena mentioned taking a ring but she did describe the jewelry box as well as the rocking horse.Before she testified at trial in 1979, Segal showed Stoeckley crime scene photos of the master bedroom, including one showing the rocking horse. It was also said that she could have seen the hobby horse in a newspaper photo, which if I'm recalling correctly was published the morning or afternoon after the murders.

On February 17, 1970, the fabric-covered jewelry box found on the dresser in 544 Castle Dr. was examined by US Army CI Lab chemist Craig Chamberlain. A stain found on the inside surface of the box lid was tested at the crime scene on that date by Chamberlain and found not to contain human blood.

On April 6, 1970, MacDonald agreed with CID investigators that nothing had been stolen from his apartment.

Helena told the FBI that in approximately early December, 1980, Gunderson and Beasley took her out to various stores looking at jewelry boxes, and that she eventually recalled signing another statement for Gunderson which was very similar to the first, but was more specific regarding the description of a jewelry box.

No forensic evidence of "intruders" has ever surfaced.

audpaud

01-31-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

colette, kim and kris were buried with the name macdonald but later the stones were changed to read "stevenson" (colette's maiden name). you can see photos of both the original grave markers and the changed ones here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photomacdonald-02.html); scroll down a bit.

Tx for the info and link stinkerbelle. I've been enjoying your Posts and lovin' your u/n!:)

I'd forgotten that Freddie Kassab was technically Colettes step dad. I also think I've been to this link b4 but had forgotten.

How fitting that the graves are not marked with the name of the murderer! Often wondered if Nicole Browns family ever removed "Simpson."

stinkerbelle

01-31-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
Tx for the info and link stinkerbelle. I've been enjoying your Posts and lovin' your u/n!:)
yqw and thx:)

audpaud

01-31-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OK, ladies think back to times you really made your husband mad. Did you notice they switched from their handed side to the other hand.

On our farm, I've seen my Hub become ambidextrous in the face of danger period---nothing to do with being mad! Hub is extremely right handed but has wrassled charging animals with either side/hand in the face of danger.

Colette fought the brave fight on the last night of her life--as her injuries attest. :rose:

macdonald had BOTH hands full with this Mother Lioness.

audpaud

01-31-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
As a matter of fact, I think the reasonable inference that you might draw is that the woman seen in this case did not have a weapon--the woman talking about acid--LSD--and that in one of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments removed from the crime scene something of value--not because she went there with a purpose of stealing it and not because the men went there to steal--their purposes are different--but that would be a reasonable inference.

Again . . . do you think its a "reasonable inference" that "in one of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments" Stoekley (or whoevah) paused to put on surgical gloves b4 touching the jewelry box?

stinkerbelle

01-31-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
Again . . . do you think its a "reasonable inference" that "in one of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments" Stoekley (or whoevah) paused to put on surgical gloves b4 touching the jewelry box?
i think it's about as reasonable as 4+ intruders using freaking oven mitts to kill a pregnant woman and 2 harmless children:rolleyes:

rashomon

01-31-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Any crime investigator will tell you that three diiferent weapons used to kill one victim is indictative of more than one perperator.
Collette was attacked with a knife, an icepick and a wooden club.

Just imagine: this is exactly what MacDonald had on his mind when staging the scene - he wanted to make it look like that of course, lol!

How did they explain the blow to Collete coming from a left handed person. Isn't it difficult for a person that has two hands to be alternating three weapons in the frenzy of an attack.

MacD used the weapons consecutively of course, and not simultaneously. First the club, then the Old Hickory knife and then the icepick.
And it is probable that he grabbed the club with both hands to strike particularly forceful blows, swinging alternately from the left and from the right side at Colette with equal force.

barskin&co.

01-31-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

Again . . . do you think its a "reasonable inference" that "in one of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments" Stoekley (or whoevah) paused to put on surgical gloves b4 touching the jewelry box?

:D "One of those strange and whimsical and unthinking moments." Oh, Arthur does have a flair for such vivid prose, doesn't he? Now, if he could just work on his logic...

cami

01-31-2006, 03:07 PM

(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.

Just shows how that ice pick baby killer had no clue about drug addicts. If those druggies had ingested five different drugs, they would have been comatose, unable to move. They certainly would not have been at 544 Castle Drive commiting murder.

Yes the fingerprints were compared. None were found. JTF is the print man, he knows them like the back of his hand. It's just not logical to believe is it Dennice that the only prints destroyed at the murder scene belonged to alleged intruders.

Add the photographer to the conspiracy I guess. The list grows and grows. All these professionals protecting a gang of scruffy drug addicts. Sure.......lobotomies anyone???

cami

01-31-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

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

You can find a photo of said club on Christina's website in her photo collection. Don' t think you will ever find a close up of the writing however.

byn63

01-31-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by cami

Just shows how that ice pick baby killer had no clue about drug addicts. If those druggies had ingested five different drugs, they would have been comatose, unable to move. They certainly would not have been at 544 Castle Drive commiting murder.

ahaa haa haa cami! Remember the reporter said that 4 people on LSD could not have organized a trip to the bathroom let alone the murder of 3 people. I've said this before (plant tongue in cheek) see, they were so bad at organizing the trip to the bathroom that they ended up inside 544 Castle Drive

Add the photographer to the conspiracy I guess. The list grows and grows. All these professionals protecting a gang of scruffy drug addicts. Sure.......lobotomies anyone???

cami you crack me up! We know that Inmate 00131-177 aka the icepick baby killer did it! However, I guess we could play around with that theory about the shaving powder................

audpaud

01-31-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

Mahon of the CID came flying in from Washington in early 1971 and went with Detective Beasley to Nashville, where Helena was living at the time, and asked Helena a few superficial questions in order to make it appear that the CID had investigated Helena Stoeckley.

Is it a reasonable inference that anyone would put their career in jeopardy for the likes of this Stoekley person?

Deneece

01-31-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Oh excuse me. Dr Wright also thinks a man enraged by his wife can not be presumed to use his handed side. That's even funnier. Wonder how many studies he did to get that info.

OK, ladies think back to times you really made your husband mad. Did you notice they switched from their handed side to the other hand. Now that is where I would to see a link of any studies that says rage can change a righted hand person into left handed person. Wonder what studies he read that showed psychomimetic drugs can make right handed people in left handed people.

Me thinks maybe Dr. Wright just wanted to his name in print.

Just because that man has a Dr. in front of his name doesn't make whatever declaration he writes credibile. I’m sorry…haven’t finished reading all the updated threads but must comment on this issue. I happen to be left-handed…I write and eat primarily with my left hand (thank goodness I wasn’t born yet or maybe I’d get the blame here)…however; I do most sports right-handed (I have a brother who does opposite, right-handed but primarily does lefty in sporting events).

I am sorry to admit that in my wilder days, I had quite a few fights and performed well in beating the **** out of individuals BOTH right and left-handed (as does my brother, who also kick boxes equally left and right stance). This is probably one of the easiest issues to argue about because there are MANY of us around…you might wish to show support by latching onto a more solid argument. There is a study out there (I read it in Readers Digest at one point) of people like my brother, and me but I am frankly too lazy to look up the info…so I’m giving my personal knowledge on the issue. Oh…and one more point…(don’t I always have at least one more?)…when I used to lift weights, my right hand was solidly stronger than my left.

rashomon

01-31-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by barskin&co.
Is the Pope german?

Good one, barskin! And indeed, in view of the overwhelming evidence which convicted JMD, asking if he is guilty is akin to asking if the current Pope is German, lol!

audpaud

01-31-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Just because that man has a Dr. in front of his name doesn't make whatever declaration he writes credibile.

I'm with stinkyb on this one----lost a 1/2 cup of coffee (all over the monitor unfortunately!) when I read this caphill quote this morning!:no: :lol: "Just because," indeed!!!

(Along with JTF's "Who's The Boss" Talent Search! ROTF!!!:D )

Deneece

01-31-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

On our farm, I've seen my Hub become ambidextrous in the face of danger period---nothing to do with being mad! Hub is extremely right handed but has wrassled charging animals with either side/hand in the face of danger.

Colette fought the brave fight on the last night of her life--as her injuries attest. :rose:

macdonald had BOTH hands full with this Mother Lioness. This is my earlier point…it happens quite a bit…and in the case of my brother and myself, we are sort of selectively ambidextrous. I don’t see that this is the big issue to latch onto, and because it was claimed McD was ambidextrous, I am assuming he was seen using left handed techniques and he may just be right-hand preference.

Deneece

01-31-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

I'm with stinkyb on this one----lost a 1/2 cup of coffee (all over the monitor unfortunately!) when I read this caphill quote this morning!<snip> "Just because," indeed!!!

(Along with JTF's "Who's The Boss" Talent Search! ROTF!!!:D ) It was humerous…but I will take offense at the “Who’s the Boss comment”:mad:

OK…did I say that with a straight face?:biggrin:

Deneece

01-31-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by caphill

I think what is missing here is the understanding of appeals courts and trial court. Dr. MacDonald has only had one trial court in front of a jury, the trier of facts. The jury trial and the conviction was based on the evidence and the interpretation that was presented. The State presented their evidence and Judge made decisions on what he would allow the defense to present. During the trial Dupree ruled against the every defense evidentiary motion. (IIRC 28 motions) The defense was even denied access to review the States evidence which included such things as lab work notes etc. The jury was allowed to see only what the State based on Dupree's ruling allowed them to see. The evidence that Dr. MacDonald claims is exonerating has never been presented to a trial court.

There is a misunderstanding by many >snipped because WE GET IT!…being insulting and purposefully misinterpreting what everyone has been saying does not aid the argument. As far as I can tell most of the posters here are well versed in this case as well as the appeals process. I don’t recall anyone saying he had been retried etc… We said the case had been reviewed for the defenses claims and their issues appeared to have little legal standing with the other courts…NOT just Dupree’s court…

Now, as you later stated to another poster about having difficulty with reading comprehension (there are classes you can take for that)…but if I said something to that effect, it would be considered inflammatory and insulting…and it is a week debate strategy to use such tactics…(and there are classes for that as well);)

Deneece

01-31-2006, 04:51 PM

Dang it…I forgot…but while going over the information and McD’s statements…I noticed something…he said “see, I work out with boxing gloves sometimes”…HELLO!!!! Does anyone know that boxers who work out will work both hands and take both left and right training? Most of the boxers I know who had a strong preference would often work their weaker side until they are virtually ambidextrous….just a thought here folks…

Deneece

01-31-2006, 05:01 PM

Deneece

01-31-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
snipped>I don't really know what the hard documentary evidence is that Dr MacDonald is ambidextrous. What Kassab, or the bus driver, or even the boxing coach are supposed to have said isn't evidence. Presumably this theory wiithout facts has been medically tested, and there is a medical report about it somewhere?
>snipped
I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear about who said it…it was a statement made by McD, not his coach or anything…and as for my earlier statements about the ambidextrous issue, I was telling my personal experience with it, as was audpod in response to caphil bringing the issue up as a major issue that proves McD’s innocence because there was an indication that one of the attacks was a left-handed one and he is right-handed. The fact is, many people (as testimony was given and re-quoted several times that someone on amphetamines or enraged with his wife) can attack with their less dominant hand. This is not a very firm issue to use for proclaiming innocence because it can and does happen, especially someone who trains (such as boxers) to use either hand.

Deneece

01-31-2006, 06:02 PM

OK… I seem to be the only one blabbering to myself here…but could someone indicate to me if they know anything about the black male McD talks about…someone here said HS was known to run with a black male in cami’s. My question is…does anyone here know if that person (the one HS ran with) wore stripes on his cam’s? Just thinking out loud here, but McD said he wore the stripes of an E6.

Bunny2

01-31-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Anybody who is using their common sense knows when jewelry has been stolen from their apartment.Which is just one of the reasons Stoeckley's claim that she had previously entered the apartment and stolen a bracelet wasn't believed....MacDonald thinks jewelry had been stolen.He seems to have "thought" that only after realizing it looked bad for him that nothing had been taken.Colonel Rock said one or more rings was stolen.There was no proof to support that notion....MacDonald was compensated for those stolen rings.Nothing was stolen, but MacDonald was also compensated for items he knew the CID had already given back to him.I don't know what real proof Bunny has that Helena was shown MacDonald crime scene photos of the rocking horse, by Segal, before the MacDonald trial.McGinniss was apparently in the room when it happened. He reported it in his book, and I don't believe Segal ever denied it. Do you have something to show that Segal did not do what McGinniss claimed he did?My attitude is that if MacDonald has to spend the rest of his life in prison in a dispute over whether the rocking horse had a broken spring, or not, then that rocking horse ought to have been thoroughly examined and kept as forensic evidence.The murderer wasn't convicted over a hobby horse, Artie. He was convicted because, per the words of the government, "the physical evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the only possible criminal agent, and because the physical evidence when coupled with his conflicting account of intruders and his attempts to disassociate himself from the instrumentalities and other trace evidence of the crime, was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury's verdict."

Bunny2

01-31-2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't really know what the hard documentary evidence is that [the murderer] is ambidextrous. What Kassab, or the bus driver, or even the boxing coach are supposed to have said isn't evidence.Wherever did you find documentation that said that the bus driver or the boxing coach said MacDonald was ambidextrous?

Bunny2

01-31-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
OK… I seem to be the only one blabbering to myself here…but could someone indicate to me if they know anything about the black male McD talks about…someone here said HS was known to run with a black male in cami’s. My question is…does anyone here know if that person (the one HS ran with) wore stripes on his cam’s? Just thinking out loud here, but McD said he wore the stripes of an E6.Deneece, you're thinking of Dwight Smith, aka Zig-Zag. I'll leave it to JTF and others to give you more detail, but in the meantime here are just a few excerpts from my notes, grabbed at random:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip-court1984dec.html

p. 59: On March 1, 1971, Beasley gave the CID a lengthy statement in which he detailed what Stoeckley had recently told him in Nashville, Tennessee, during the period February 27 through March 1, 1970; Beasley also included in this document his recollections of events involving Stoeckley in February 1970. Concerning this statement Beasley would testify at trial that "...I wrote down everything that I could get." Nowhere in his March 1, 1971 statement does Beasley say anything about seeing Stoeckley in her blonde wig and floppy hat, on the night of February 16, 1970, while riding in a blue Mustang, accompanied by a black male, wearing an Army fatigue jacket with E-6 [Staff Sergeant] stripes, as he would in a later statement to Gunderson on December 11, 1980. FOOTNOTE: Beasley did not testify at trial to seeing Stoeckley in the evening of February 16, 1970. At the evidentiary hearing he explained "...I have some trouble remembering things..."

p. 64: Beasley also repudiated his trial testimony that Mazerolle was in Stoeckley's company on the morning of February 18, 1970...Further he could not recall Don Harris being present, contrary to his December 27, 1981 statement. Beasley further testified that the black male in Stoeckley's presence on February 18, 1970 was not Dwight Smith. When asked whether Stoeckley hadn't identified composite DX-91 to Gunderson as being Dwight Smith, Beasley replied "...I don't recall, I really don't. But this does not resemble Dwight Smith (indicating composite drawing)."

Dwight Smith was 6' 2" tall and weighed 150 lbs., which didn't match MacDonald's description. Also, his account was uncontradicted that he was at home.

From JTF: The FBI questioned Dwight Smith in 1982 and he was cleared as a suspect. Smith did not match the physical descriptions of the black male intruder provided by Jeffrey MacDonald in 1970 and 1979.

From JTF: Dwight Smith/Allen Mazzerolle: Smith and Mazzerolle were late entries in the Helena Stoeckley confession train. Fatal Justice co-author Fred Bost has admitted that both Smith and Mazzerolle could not have been present at 544 Castle Drive the morning of the murders. Smith doesn't even come close to matching the descriptions of the black male intruder given by MacDonald and Mazzerolle was in jail due to selling 539 doses of LSD. The main snitch in the arrest of Mazzerolle was none other than Helena Stoeckley. Smith and Mazzerolle were also interviewed and cleared as suspects by the FBI in 1982.

From the letter Fred Bost wrote in 1997:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/ltr_bost_1997may11_1.html

"[Dwight Smith's] physical characteristics become a major problem, even if you choose to ignore nice things said about him by those who knew him."

Bunny2

01-31-2006, 09:35 PM

JTF

01-31-2006, 11:32 PM

Cami: Thanks for the compliment regarding the fingerprints. One of the few positives about Melinda Stephen's book, I Accuse, is that she lists the exact locations of 29 of the 30 unidentified prints found at the crime scene. The prints of Helena Stoeckley, Cathy Perry, Greg Mitchell, Don Harris, Bruce Fowler, and Allen Mazerolle were obtained by the CID and/or FBI. Not 1 of the 30 prints matched the prints of any of these individuals. The odds of these 6 people taking part in a triple homicide and not leaving a single print inside that cramped apartment, are astronomical.

Deneece: Dwight Smith's prints were not obtained by the CID or FBI, but there is no evidence of any kind that links Smith to the crime scene. Smith doesn't come close to matching the descriptions of the black male intruder provided by MacDonald, no head hairs from Smith were found at the crime scene, and Smith was interviewed and cleared by the FBI in 1982. In February of 1970, he lived in the same apartment complex as Pat Reese. Reese was a Fayetteville newspaper reporter who covered the case from its inception, he was the first reporter to speak to Helena Stoeckley, and he knew the entire Stoeckley group as a result of his counseling work with drug addicts. Reese didn't believe for 1 minute that Smith was involved in these murders, he interviewed Smith for a Fayetteville Observer article in 1983, and he was a firm believer in MacDonald's guilt.

JTF.

audpaud

02-01-2006, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Deneece
OK… I seem to be the only one blabbering to myself here…

Just popping by to tell you (and all) how I enjoy reading this Thread after getting off the night shift . . . don't think you were "blabbering" at all Deneece! Your point about boxing is very observant, well made and well taken~so far no responses from the supporters on your common sense logic!

Must tell you that you really had me going with the "Who's The Boss" outrage though!! ROTF!:D

Also appreciate bunny2's links and JTF's fingerprint fun facts . . . I simply think macdonald (or "mcdoneit" as stinkerbelle says---took me a couple of looks to get that one!:) ) can't have it both ways--on one hand a troupe of drug crazed hippies murder the family but on the other hand the same whacked out group are careful planners and clever in the crime. (No fingerprints.)

Walks like a duck . . . . . . . :tongue:

stinkerbelle

02-01-2006, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
If the murderers at the MacDonald murders were wearing latex gloves it's most unlikely that any fingerprints at the murder scene would be detected.

then why all the fuss about unidentified prints?

Dwight Smith and Don Harris and Bruce Fowler and Greg Mitchell were only interviewed in the most superficial way by the FBI. Where are the background information reports or the THOROUGHNESS in their investigation of these people?

perhaps the FBI's investigation was only "superficial" because they realized early on in their investigations that these people were all dead ends/red herrings.

I agree there is confusion about Al Mazerolle. Helena suggested Mazerolle was at the MacDonald murders along with Greg Mitchell and "Wizard" who nobody is terribly sure about his identity. I agree Mazerolle was 'officially' in jail at the time. Helena was never granted immunity so that she could be more frank and candid about all this.

who is it that's confused on this issue?

I just feel the FBI might have made more of a great effort to find out if Mazerolle might have been 'unofficially' out of jail on the night of the MacDonald murders.

oh puh-lease! :rolleyes:

Judges Marshall, Brennan and Blackmun were in disagreement with the majority of judges who put Dr MacDonald in prison at the US Supreme Court, argued December 7 1981, decided March 31 1982. I hope this is not too academic fror this forum. I find it interesting background information. This is my edited version:

why would it be too academic? i think people would appreciate your hard efforts in trying to sway others to the dark side more if you'd just provide a link, rather than your own "edited version."

byn63

02-01-2006, 07:32 AM

I'm with Stinkerbelle on this Artie - don't provide cut and paste revisionist history that we all know is exactly that - post a link to the WHOLE document and we will read it ourselves.

I was wondering if anyone besides me had noted the fact that boxers USE BOTH HANDS and the fact that Inmate had trained as boxer STRENGTHENS the argument that he COULD and DID inflict all the blows upon his family. Great point made! My brother is also a lefty for writing yet he does almost everything else right handed. It is actually more common than many people realize.

Allen Mazzerole was in jail Artie - no two ways about it. You know that, so why do you keep trying to deepen the conspiracy in your mind? To have AM be "secretly or unofficially" out of jail then you'd have to add more policemen, guards, bondsman and court workers into the conspiracy. That just doesn't jibe with the facts. Can anyone say Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead? A conspiracy can only work if it is a tightly contained entity - by my calculations you now have well over 100 people involved

My BS meter is going off! :no: :no:

audpaud

02-01-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Deneece
[B…and it is a week debate strategy to use such tactics…(and there are classes for that as well);) [/B]

But it's a debate strategy nonetheless deneece!:) IA that caphill came across as floundering for a point on that particular post.

I'm wondering if caphill got the "new trial" information from www.crimelibrary.com.? I was reading there over the weekend and was amazed at the Pro-macdonald slant to the article and especially the "Update."!:confused:

audpaud

02-01-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I always understood that most burglars, and all professional burglars, wore gloves in order to avoid fingerprint detection. Why would intruders at the MacDonald murders be any different?

Again . . . which is it? Whacked out on "5 different drug" hippie group OR clever professionals chanting: "Acid AND Latex Gloves are groovy!!!!!":lol:

Logic says one or the other! :cool:

audpaud

02-01-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I hope this is not too academic fror this forum. I find it interesting background information. This is my edited version:

Nope, wasn't too academic fror me. Tx fror your concern though!:)

Deneece

02-01-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
snip>

(POINT #1)Dr MacDonald always said he only got a fleeting glimpse of the negro at the MacDonald murders. It was for that reason Dr MacDonald was unwilling to help a police artist compose a picture of the negro. Eventually Dr MacDonald agreed to help a police artist, on the understanding that the final picture could well be inaccurate.

This is what may be causing a lot of the confusion with Fred Bost, who can't match Dwight Smith to any of his mug photo list.

(POINT #2)Call me pig ignorant if you like but I always understood that most burglars, and all professional burglars, wore gloves in order to avoid fingerprint detection. Why would intruders at the MacDonald murders be any different?

It sounds as though one of the murderer's latex gloves may have been damaged in the MacDonald murders and that was the cause of the latex glove fragments at the murder scene. Whether that resulted in any interesting fingerprints which were never detected I simply don't know.

(POINT #3)The link to the 1981/2 Supreme Court verdict which put Dr MacDonald in prison is at:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=431612

It seems that at least three Supreme Court judges had their doubts about putting Dr MacDonald in prison in 1981/2. (POINT #1)…I’m sorry…that is completely untrue (and here I am, just a novice to the case) he was very descriptive…AND the issue about the cami’s was HIS issue as he stated that there were the E-6 stripes and was strangely adamant about focusing on them.

(POINT #2) …burglars do not go in large groups…besides…wasn’t this suppose to be drug crazed hippies?…OK…all you old hippies out there…do you ever remember dropping acid, and saying…”let’s go kick some ***” and while we’re at it, we’ll take four more kinds of drugs and smoke a joint on the way…and everyone…DO NOT forget to put on your latex surgical gloves….” < --- I’m sorry, I just have this ‘groovy’ image running through my head, because then they would have said --- > “and Helena, DON’T forget to bring a candle and some matches, I KNOW it’s raining! Who gives a ****…just make sure you bring one”…

(POINT #3) it did not “put him in jail” as you put it and the dissenting remarks were in regard to the right to a “speedy trial”, which is completely different from evidentiary findings and different to McD’s supporters of a vast conspiracy and suppression of evidence. It’s the time honored argument of murder cases that took a long time to find justice, right to a “speedy trial” is often the issue brought up. I understand the dissenting remarks in regard to this, but the Supreme Court did not put him in jail…

JTF

02-01-2006, 11:04 AM

Arthur: Yawn. Do you really think that any poster outside of Caphill takes your blatherings seriously? MacDonald groupies walking hand in hand. In regards to your claim that Mitchell and Fowler were not thoroughly investigated.

Greg Mitchell: Mitchell was interviewed by the CID in 1971, he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by Robert Brisentine. No fingerprints or head hairs from Mitchell were found at the crime scene. Mitchell was subsequently interviewed and cleared as a suspect by the FBI in 1981.

Bruce Fowler: Fowler was also interviewed by the CID in 1971, he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by Robert Brisentine. No fingerprints or head hairs from Fowler were found a the the crime scene. Helena Stoeckley's roomate, Kathy Smith, also provided Fowler with an alibi. Smith told the CID in 1971 that she spent the night with Fowler at his trailer and that Fowler dropped her off at her apartment around 7:30 a.m. Stoeckley's other roomate, Diane Cazares, verified Smith's story.

JTF.

Deneece

02-01-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Arthur: Yawn. Do you really think that any poster outside of Caphill takes your blatherings seriously? MacDonald groupies walking hand in hand. In regards to your claim that Mitchell and Fowler were not thoroughly investigated.

Greg Mitchell: Mitchell was interviewed by the CID in 1971, he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by Robert Brisentine. No fingerprints or head hairs from Mitchell were found at the crime scene. Mitchell was subsequently interviewed and cleared as a suspect by the FBI in 1981.

Bruce Fowler: Fowler was also interviewed by the CID in 1971, he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by Robert Brisentine. No fingerprints or head hairs from Fowler were found a the the crime scene. Helena Stoeckley's roomate, Kathy Smith, also provided Fowler with an alibi. Smith told the CID in 1971 that she spent the night with Fowler at his trailer and that Fowler dropped her off at her apartment around 7:30 a.m. Stoeckley's other roomate, Diane Cazares, verified Smith's story.

JTF. OK…but taking statements, polygraph tests, fingerprints and hair samples, and checking out alibi’s and whereabouts of suspects doesn’t make for a ‘thorough investigation’ :mad:

< ---- gotcha!…..:biggrin:

Deneece

02-01-2006, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by audpaud

But it's a debate strategy nonetheless deneece!:) IA that caphill came across as floundering for a point on that particular post.

I'm wondering if caphill got the "new trial" information from www.crimelibrary.com.? I was reading there over the weekend and was amazed at the Pro-macdonald slant to the article and especially the "Update."!:confused: It is actually a weak debate strategy called “argumentum ad hominem” …it throws debate away from the issue at hand and attacks the other debater, thereby creating a back and forth discussion (accusations and defending oneself, etc…) and the issue at debate becomes secondary to the attack/defense… and considering that we are discussing it, it IS somewhat effective…which is why I pointed it out because it becomes less effective when we can recognize it.

audpaud

02-01-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Deneece

(POINT #2) …OK…all you old hippies out there…do you ever remember dropping acid, and saying…”let’s go kick some ***”

*raising hand*

Anyone who has ever done acid knew macdonalds story was a lie from the get go! If I ever would have actually got the latex glove onto my hand~know that I would have spent the next few hours marvelling at it!!!!:tongue: Truly GROOVY!

macdonald's story only proved his ignorance (and played upon the ignorance of other folks unfamiliar) of the affects of hallucinogens.

byn63

02-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by audpaud

Nope, wasn't too academic fror me. Tx fror your concern though!:)

warnt to akademik fer me neether!:biggrin:

Deb B

02-01-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

I know nothing ... that's relevant to the MacDonald case. I have no idea.

I suppose you could... call me pig ignorant.

It sounds as though... I simply don't know.

Here's an "edited version" of something. :D

cami

02-01-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Deneece
(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?

HI Dennice:

Once you learn the fibre evidence, I think you will agree that the pajama fibres found in all three bedrooms are very incriminating to MacDonald. They are not just ordinary household fibres shed during daily activities. A 22 inch (or was it 17 in, oh my memory) pajama fibre was found under Kim's covers along with 10 sewing threads from the pajama top. Under her covers that were tucked up around her body. Surely her mother wouldn't have made her bed that way? Also, the pajama fibres were scattered all over the master bedroom, on the bed and under the headboard where the word pig was written. Mac wouldn't have worn a torn pajama top to bed that night would he? Would Colette have made up the master bed that day with his pajama fibres all over the bottom sheet?

Colette's blood soaked the pajama top in four places prior to it's being torn that night. When the investigators put the top back together they saw the contigious whole stains of blood. As well, the pocket of the pajama top was lying whole at Colette's feet.

Stains on the jacket torn through in Colette's blood.

Left shoulder
left sleeve near cuff
left cuff
left side seam between the front left panel and the left side of the back panel.

The rest of the fibres in the bedroom yes obviously came from ordinary household use. They didn't come from blood thirsty hippies that's for sure.

BTW, I am enjoying your posts. Very well thought out and intelligent.

:seeya:

cami

02-01-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

*raising hand*

Anyone who has ever done acid knew macdonalds story was a lie from the get go! If I ever would have actually got the latex glove onto my hand~know that I would have spent the next few hours marvelling at it!!!!:tongue: Truly GROOVY!

macdonald's story only proved his ignorance (and played upon the ignorance of other folks unfamiliar) of the affects of hallucinogens.

another hand raised. nothing but a laugh fest right Aud? Purple haze was in my brain.

barskin&co.

02-01-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Deb B

Here's an "edited version" of something. :D

Good going, Deb. I think you boiled Arthur's post down to the essence! :D

rashomon

02-01-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

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: :(
So true, audpaud. In a life-and-death struggle, people don't ask "Why" questions anymore. This was one of the big blunders MacD made when he concocted his story. In all probability he, like many liars, wove into his story something which had actually happened on that night: Colette telling him "Why are you doing this to me?" in the initial stage of the struggle, maybe when he began pushing and shoving her.

And wow, Darlie told the operator that she had picked up the knife? Speaks volumes in terms of "guilt sines through", doesn't it?
And guess what was among the first things MacDonald told the MPs at the crime scene: to tell the investigators that he had taken the knife out of his wife's chest.
For the knife was still lying on the master bedroom floor and he realized he had forgotten to throw it out with the other weapons. Plus, he had wrestled it from his wife's hands and was afraid that his fingerprints might stilll be on he handle, although he had wiped it. "Better safe than sorry" obviously was on his mind here.

rashomon

02-01-2006, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by byn63

Ain't it GRAND! The whole firebrigade is in da haus! Hurray! Welcome Stinker! Welcome JTF! Bunny - are we ready to party now?
Welcome from me too, stinkerbelle and JTF!

Bunny, so great you put Sorryladynow's most interesting posts from A&E over here too! Interesting also Arthur's reaction to it: none whatsoever, which is of course quite revealing. Instead of replying, he quickly posted on a completely different topic, a strategy he also used on the A&E board.

Same as usual: Arthur in Wonderland, refusing to have his bubble bursted! :)

Bunny2

02-01-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Many of the FBI so-called interviews with the Stoeckley group are on the internet, on Christina's website. If that's thoroughness by the FBI then I'm a Dutch uncle.Artie, why not say what you really mean? What you really mean is that you would have liked them and other agencies to continue to investigate these people and countless others, and to keep on going ad infinitum, even today, until someone's hair or some fiber from clothing or object matched a hair or fiber in the MacDonald apartment. Which, judging by all we know at the moment (35 years after the crimes), would be never.

You thought the NY Four should have been more "thoroughly investigated." You thought Jay MacDonald should have been more thoroughly investigated, as well as quite a few other people whose names I've now forgotten. During the past eight or so months you've described being suspicious, in fact, of just about everyone in this case who ever spoke a bad word about the murderer or who was involved in any way in collecting evidence or testifying about it, a list that must by now be running into the hundreds. In fact, the only one you see who did no wrong whatsoever was the murderer himself, the only one who left any forensic evidence of the crimes he committed. Interesting, to say the least.

cami

02-01-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

So true, audpaud. In a life-and-death struggle, people don't ask "Why" questions anymore. This was one of the big blunders MacD made when he concocted his story. In all probability he, like many liars, wove into his story something which had actually happened on that night: Colette telling him "Why are you doing this to me?" in the initial stage of the struggle, maybe when he began pushing and shoving her.

And wow, Darlie told the operator that she had picked up the knife? Speaks volumes in terms of "guilt sines through", doesn't it?
And guess what was among the first things MacDonald told the MPs at the crime scene: to tell the investigators that he had taken the knife out of his wife's chest.
For the knife was still lying on the master bedroom floor and he realized he had forgotten to throw it out with the other weapons. Plus, he had wrestled it from his wife's hands and was afraid that his fingerprints might stilll be on he handle, although he had wiped it. "Better safe than sorry" obviously was on his mind here.

Oh yes Rash dear, even as her sons lay dead and dying in front her Darlie's telling the operator "we could have gotten the prints maybe" She's letting them know the only prints they are going to find are hers. Little did she know the knife was not conducive of prints. The murdering cow.

JTF

02-01-2006, 08:19 PM

Arthur: The most entertaining thing about your posts is that you make claims that even the MacDonald camp has not endorsed. Helena using the club, eh? That's priceless, LOL! Have you noticed that Don Harris is never mentioned by the MacDonald camp anymore. Come to think of it, the only Stoeckley group members that are still talked about within the MacDonald camp are Stoeckley, Mitchell, and Perry. What happened to Smith being the black male intruder or Fowler driving the group to 544 Castle Drive in his blue car? The mind boggles.

JTF.

cami

02-01-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is what the competent forensic expert Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's surmise about a bare shoulder impression on the sheet:

Q Dealing first of all with the statement that Area "E" has the appearance of a bare left shoulder, do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
A I disagree.
Q What is the basis of your own opinion in this regard?
A I am unable to replicate an impression that has the appearance of "E" on that item by using a shoulder, neck, or clavicle region of a human being. I can replicate it to some extent by folding the fabric over an area of bloody cloth.
Q Let me go back over what you just told us. First of all, is it your opinion that it is not in any reasonable fashion a bare--it is not an impression made by a bare left shoulder as far as you can ascertain?
A That is correct. I don't think there is any credible possibility that it could be a bare left shoulder.

Why does he post this? Bertie or Artie as you are now, you going doo lalley? That's a British term btw.

You know that Thornton agreed with Stombaugh about the bloody pajama cuff transfer stains so why do you bother trying to make this point?

The cut and paste show continues. So typically deceptive of that ice pick baby killer and his groupies. Your integrity is way out.

cami

02-01-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

All the evidence in the MacDonald case suggests that Kim was fast asleep in her bed when she was murdered and that she moved nowhere.

This crazy theory without facts by so-called CID agent Kearns, and Kassab and Bob Stevenson, that Kim was in bed in the master bedroom and that it was Kim who wet the bed in the master bedroom is just a wild, and plain wrong, speculation. It's just like Kearns' absurd theories about Dr MacDonald marrying young and wanting out of his marriage in order to womanize. There is no basis in evidence for that theory at all.

It's true that Kearns and Murtagh did try to prove the theory that Kim wet the bed in the master bedroom. The first urine test done was "inconclusive." The second test was ordered by Kearns after he took charge of the case when the urine stain was 80 weeks old. That was ludicrous.

Those urine tests in the 1970s were inconclusive and inaccurate before 4 weeks in the 1970s. Murtagh was told by the FBI that those urine tests were considered unreliable by the FBI lab, in the 1970s. That's the reason those urine stains were never mentioned by Murtagh and Blackburn at the 1979 trial.

Dr MacDonald said Kristen was in the master bedroom and it was Kristen who wet the bed. Dr MacDonald then carried Kristen back to he own bedroom and then went to sleep on the couch in the living room. It was no big deal that led to any murderous rage, or violent argument.

It may be possible to DNA test urine stains now. I don't know whether it's technically possible to urine test DNA on the MacDonald evidence. I certainly don't think Judge Fox and Murtagh should be allowed to get away with refusing DNA urine tests, if it's technically possible.

This is what Dr Lander, professor in Department of Biology at MIT and the Director of the MIT Center for Genome Research had to say about DNA testing of urine:

PCR is a marvelous technology to amplify DNA. It allows you to take a specific region of DNA on the chromosome, and by using little black primers here and copying back and forth, back and forth, just the particular region you want to copy, making two, then four, then eight, then sixteen, up to millions of copies of a particular region, and so in principle it is possible to start from the DNA of a single cell and get enough DNA to analyze it.

That makes it possible not just to analyze blood stains of the sort that were seen before in which you could get one microgram, one millionth of a microgram of DNA, or semen swabs from a rape, some of which give you enough to analyze by standard techniques, but in fact even shed hair has enough DNA at its root.

A urine sample, saliva sample, will have enough DNA in most cases. It's possible that by licking an envelope you deposit enough DNA to trace from the seal of the envelope."

All what evidence? Which murder case are you quoting here? Certainly not the MacDonald case. As you well know Kim's blood was found in large quantities soaking the carpet in the master bedroom. As you well know Kim's brains were all over the door jam in the MB. These are evidentiary facts in the MacDonald case. Why are you posting lies to the good people here?

One evidentiary fact of the Ice Pick Baby Killer's case is a large urine stain found on the bottom sheet in the master bed. The ABO typing showed this stain as coming from either an person with type AB or type A blood. Kim MacDonald had type AB and her mother Colette, type A. Unless Colette wet the bed that night and there's no urine on her pajamas to indicate same, the evidence proves Kim Macdonald wet the bed shortly before she was murdered in the MB at 544 Castle Drive.

"dr. Macdonald" is a damn liar, Kristen did not wet the master bed, Kim did.

cami

02-01-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
I appreciate the rundown list of evidentiary items as well. I'm also interested in the theories about the how/why's of this savage crime MacDonald committed.

Any thoughts on why Jeffie is so brain blocked on the OLDEST daughter Kimberly being the bed wetter? He's adapted his story so many times to fit the "facts"~why not admit that it was Kimberly with the bed wetting instead of Kristy? After all these years why would which daughter was the bed wetter be such a sticking point?

One of the reasons I think, is that having the older daughter be the bed wetter never fit in with his idea of being "Dr. Perfect" with the perfect family.

I'm also still interested in the phone # on the bed slat--I have no real theories about that or why the phone call was made. This is substantiated by phone records isn't it? Truly weird!:confused:

Jack and I both think that because MacDonald has continued to lie about Kim wetting the mb in the face of all the evidence that puts her there that it was this that started the argument that night, the government's theory. Of course Mac is going to deny, deny, deny it but he did tell one of those nurses he was boffing in Texas that his elder daughter had eneursis (bed wetting) and we know that Colette was thinking of writing, or may have, Dear Abby about Kim's bed wetting.

I don't buy the molestation theory simple because he was alone with the children that evening. He had plenty of time to molest Kim before Colette returned home from night school.

cami

02-01-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
just wanted to say you can start the party cuz mz. stinky is in da house now :D

Stinker's here.... let the party begin. Got your pm babe. :beer:

cami

02-01-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Since Dr. MacDonald was wearing pj bottoms that were ripped from the crotch down and a pj top that he supposedly was using to ward off blows, wouldn't one expect there to be broken fibers all over the crime scene. The pj fibers on the club would be expected as he was also whacked with the club.

Any crime investigator will tell you that three diiferent weapons used to kill one victim is indictative of more than one perperator.
Collette was attacked with a knife, an icepick and a wooden club.

Dr. MacDonald had injuries from a club, and IIRC, an ice pick and a knife.

How did the prosecution explain that to the jury. How did they explain the the blow to Collete coming from a left handed person. Isn't it difficult for a person that has two hands to be alternating three weapons in the frenzy of an attack. Even more incredible to turn around and stab themselves while whacking themselves in the head with a wooden club.

Actually, he claims he was whacked with a baseball bat not the murder club. The club was back in the MB attacking Colette at the same time IPBK was being attacked by the hallucination...er... blood thirsty hippies. Then it was outside the backdoor prior to IPBK's entering the MB to throw it on his wife's dead body.....according to his story that is.

Yes we would expect to find broken fibres all over the living room floor, the chesterfield and the hallway steps had he really been attacked in the living room.

LOl, which CS investigator has made that statement? Can you provide a link please? Yes, she was attacked consectively with those weapons, not simulataneously. All of the cuts went straight in indicating she offered no resistance, no tears, no slashes, no cuts anywhere on her back... all to the front....indicating she was in a prone position when attacked with knife and icepick.

Inmate MacDonald had two bumps on the head given to him by his wife Colette as she fought him for her life. He had one stab wound, most likely made with a scalpel, self-inflicted to make it appear as if he was attacked. He did not have any ice pick wounds except for maybe those ones on his arm/shoulder he gave himself to make it appear as if he was attacked as well.

You actually believe he was using all three weapons at once? Not logical and needs no explanation to a jury. Use your common sense. Mac used two hands to brutally swing that club at his wife and daughter. The left-handed argument is ridiculous but of course the mac groupies hold onto it like flotsam at sea.

cami

02-01-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

it was an unreasonable crime, so why should there be a reasonable motive? the motive need only be reasonable to the perpetrator.

i don't believe anyone has stated that macdoneit was swinging a club in his left hand and stabbing with an ice pick and a knife in his right. it is only the opinion of the medical examiner that colette was hit by a lefty, not a documented fact. it's not something that macdoneit can use to prove he himself did not do it. if someone were holding the weapon with both hands, think like a tennis racket, it would not be hard to swing from either direction.

actually, if you read her trial testimony, she said she was not wearing the wig because greg mitchell did not like it. you can find it here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979-08-17_stoeckley.html) during her cross-examination by blackburn. not to mention yet again, of course, that the 3 saran strands were all different colors and were all of different composition.

The wig she owned was chin length as well, It couldn't have left 22 inch saran fibres. Of course we know those fibres were matched to Colette's and Mildred's falls/hair pieces. Maybe Cappy should read the lab notes and compare them to his bible Fatal Justice, the cut and paste show.

cami

02-01-2006, 09:56 PM

Just because that man has a Dr. in front of his name doesn't make whatever declaration he writes credibile.

How right you are Cappy. LOL, yet you believe everything from that ice pick baby killer's mouth. Could it be because he had "dr" in front of his name. You're busted Cappy.

cami

02-01-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I'm not a great admirer of Dr Wecht, not just because of his present legal tangles, but because of the nonsense he wrote about the JonBenet Ramsey case in one of his books.

However, I agree with what Dr Wecht said about the MacDonald case on a Larry King Live TV show. Wecht may not be a qualified detective, but he is a qualified forensic pathologist:

DR. CYRIL WECHT, FORENSIC EXPERT, ALLEGHENY COUNTY CORONER:

" I like to deal with some facts. You know, the first thing that homicide detectives look for are motives -- what's the motive here? And let's look at these brutal killings. Kristen, the 2-year-old was stabbed 17 times and speared 15 times with an ice pick. Kimberly, the 5-year- old, was stabbed multiple times and struck on the head with some kind of a club, an instrument, by the way, which nobody to my understanding has ever found. And Colette was speared 17 -- 21 times with an ice pick and brutally beaten on the head, producing a fractured skull.

Jeffrey MacDonald had multiple stab wounds, a couple in the abdomen, the forearm, one into the chest that did produce a pneumothorax. He was in the hospital for seven days. To say that because he was a doctor, he can calculate exactly the depth of the penetrating wound and be sure that he will survive that, that is absurd. No doctor, including a thoracic surgeon, is going to undertake that kind of a situation. This is a man that did not have that kind of a brutal past."

Oh please, Dr. Wecht's opinions are for sale to the highest bidder. His performance on the LKL show proves he knows nothing about the Macdonald case but what he was told by the defense.

JTF

02-02-2006, 01:20 AM

When it comes to discussing case facts in the MacDonald murders, Dr. Wecht is your basic uniformed media *****.

Wecht Claim : The weapon that caused the blunt force trauma wounds on Colette and Kimberly was never found.

Case Fact: That particular weapon was found right outside the back door of 544 Castle Drive the morning of February 17, 1970 in the form of a 31 inch wooden club.

Wecht Claim: There was blood spattered throughout the living room.

Case Fact: There were 3 traces of blood found in the living room. There was a drop of Type O blood on Jeffrey MacDonald's glasses, traces of blood which could not be typed due to stain paucity were found on the floor next to MacDonald's glasses, and a blood smear in the configuration of a finger was found on the leading edge of an Esquire magazine.

Wecht Claim: MacDonald had a stab wound on his forearm and he was struck in the head with a club or baseball bat.

Case Fact: MacDonald had no stab wounds to his forearms and there is no medical evidence of blunt force trauma above his hairline.

Wecht Claim: Intruders appeared to have broken in through the front door.

Case Fact: There are no signs of forced entry and it appears that both the front and back doors were unlocked.

Peter Kearns correctly pointed out on LKL that Wecht has never visited the crime scene, that Wecht's brother did all of the MacDonald case research, and that Wecht's brother relied heavily on MacDonald's lawyers for case information.

JTF.

rashomon

02-02-2006, 10:02 AM

Hi Albie, I see you have found a new shelter here on Courttv, and have a new name. You are one of the few stray MacD supporters left, and we were so hoping that finally you would leave your former shelter on A&E because you were getting on everyone's nerves there, barking your nonsense.
But I see you have become a little smarter over here because you are leaving out your raci*t comments, which in all probability contributed to your being kicked out of A&E.

Artie, I've brought some food to swallow for you: you know that three of the infamous 'bloody gloves' found in the kitchen were oven mitts. Now this is what a poster on C&J wrote:
The hippies were preheating the oven because they were also cannibals.:D
Now Artie - a startling new theory!! You should do some serious research here! Check out possible cannibalism connections of the Stoeckley group for us, ok?
Oh, and take your time, Artie ... ! :tongue:

byn63

02-02-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

I'm sorry but I'll never accept that Kim wet the bed in the master bedroom unless somebody comes up with some conclusive evidence to prove it.

What more conclusive evidence do you want? The urine tests were often unreliable in th 70's but, only to the point that they could only tell us that the stain was made by someone with EITHER TYPE A OR TYPE AB blood. No matter what you wish to believe it is scientifically impossible for KRISTEN who had TYPE O blood to have made that stain. Once again, each blood type has certain factors:

International Blood Group or ABO:
Type A - antigen A and anti-B antibody
Type B - antigen B and anti-A antibody
Type AB - antigen A and antigen B; no antibodies
Type O - antigen H & anti-A and anti-B antibodies

The testing found Antigen A - so it is impossible for Inmate or Kristen to have made that stain. PERIOD. THAT IS A FACT! FACE IT!

There were NEVER large quantities of Kim's type blood found in the master bedroom as Cami says. Personally, I have my doubts, and very little confidence, in the CID lab blood typing abilities anyway. The CID lab has definitely made mistakes about this blood typing business in the past, and it was CID lab blood man Craig Chamberlain's first crime scene investigation.

The pool of Kimberly's blood was approximately 6" in diameter bertie boy! Plus it was a soaking stain from direct bleeding and it had gone THROUGH THE CARPET AND PADDING to the floor. Your own quote of Ivory confirms it:

IVORY: Quite large enough to say somebody bled there

[/B]

Your reading comprehension problems are showing. Ivory states that the stain was "quite large enough to say somebody bled there. His statement also says that it was too much to have been placed there by someone with blood on their handsl. It was a contact or DIRECT BLEEDING stain. That is also a FACT. IT IS TIME YOU FACED THE FACTS. Inmate 00131-177 is a liar and KIMBERLY WAS IN THE MASTERBEDROOM AND WAS INJURED IN THAT ROOM FATALLY!

JTF

02-02-2006, 11:38 AM

Arthur: The only thing that is clear from your posts is that it really doesn't matter what the documented record states. Nobody on this board can really have a salient discussion with you about the forensics in this case when you don't believe in the collection and processing of the evidence found at the crime scene. Similar to discussing the Theory of Evolution with a religious fanatic, it quickly becomes a useless endeavour. As Bob Stevenson said to Kathryn MacDonald, you can continue to figure out how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. I'll stick to the science in this case.

JTF.

audpaud

02-02-2006, 01:05 PM

So cami & I are the only ones raising our hands :seeya: --on "doing" acid? (or acid "doing" me, to be more descriptive!:D ) Ahhh yes, purple haze from purple micro-dot! I remember once a group of us did manage to "organize" a trip to a local amusement park . . . (with the help of several "straight" friends along) . . . managed to go on very few rides though---kept getting distracted by the hilarity of EVERYTHING---not to mention most of us only managed to sit near the fountain for HOURS!

So here's the point . . . there have been several Posts in this Thread from Posters who have asked common sense questions based on their life experience, right? As a Poster pointed out (sorry no time to backtrack)---the Topic is then changed by the Supporters. Wasn't picking up on that earlier---tx for the heads up.

I would like to see some responses to those common sense posts . . . for instance:

"acid is groovy . . . kill the pigs."
Can caphill or athorpt really say with a straight face that anyone would talk like this? Yes, even in 1971.
Why would Collette, Kim and Kristy be "the pigs" anyway?
Was it a band of whacked out hippies or clever intruders with gloves on? I again say that you can't have it both ways!
Link please to info on "acid addicts" . . . no such animal. Link please to info on violent crimes committed by criminals proven to have LSD in their system . . . again, no such animal. Too bad macdonald didn't think "angel dust"---now that I could have believed!

so you got your acid (and 4 other drugs) . . . you got your 5-6 trippin' murderin' buds with you . . . you got your basic lit candle collection . . . you got your wig on . . . you got your rainstorm going and you got your chant down
The largest and most dangerous occupant of the household (your target) is in the living room . . . Target is barely injured there (compared to the gross overkill of the helpless children) and the only evidence of you being there is wig strands?

ambidexterity during distress
macdonald as a boxer . . . no responses.

"WHY Jeff . . . are THEY?????"
what does common sense tell you about this assertation? Truly tell you? I can imagine screaming "HEY JEFF----WAKE THE FLOCK UP--HELP ME IN HERE!!!" . . . "why" and "they" is preposterous!

why would CID or anyone else connected to this case put their careers on the line to protect the groovy band of murderers?
Seriously. Manson was still so fresh. Common sense dictates "The Establishment" would go with Dr. WASP.

rashomon

02-02-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Similar to discussing the Theory of Evolution with a religious fanatic, it quickly becomes a useless endeavour.
JTF.
That comparison hits the nail on the head, JTF! LOL!
A while ago, I was just trying do exactly this on another forum: discuss the Theory of Evolution with a religious fanatic - forget it! Blind belief seems to be immune to any kind of factual discussion, and these people cling to their belief with a ferocity that it is simply incredible. It's amazing how many people voluntarily choose to run through life with blinders on, and Arthur here on this forum is a prime example of that state of mind.

audpaud

02-02-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by cami

Jack and I both think that because MacDonald has continued to lie about Kim wetting the mb in the face of all the evidence that puts her there that it was this that started the argument that night, the government's theory. Of course Mac is going to deny, deny, deny it but he did tell one of those nurses he was boffing in Texas that his elder daughter had eneursis (bed wetting) and we know that Colette was thinking of writing, or may have, Dear Abby about Kim's bed wetting.

I don't buy the molestation theory simple because he was alone with the children that evening. He had plenty of time to molest Kim before Colette returned home from night school.

I'm still on the fence. Just feel like there is some reason that macdonald is so committed to this obvious lie about Kim vs Kristy as the bed wetter. He changed his story so many times as the evidence rolled in . . . why not change on this otherwise "harmless" point of who wet the bed?

I remember that bed wetting was still "shameful" then---especially to someone of macdonalds generation. I also suspect he knew as a doctor, even in those times, that bed wetting heralded sexual abuse.

The molestation of Kimberly theory floored me and I'm still considering. Yes, he did have the opportunity to molest Kim all evening . . . but remember: Molestation (similar to rape) isn't just about the acts . . . it's also about "power." macdonald seems to be an egomaniac to the n'th degree and part of his "thrill" may have been the power he had over the household--dictating that Colette sleep on the couch while the daughter shared his bed?

There is some reason he lied and continues to lie (flying in the face of reason) about the bed wetting, I think.

audpaud

02-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[B]

I'm sorry but I'll never accept that Kim wet the bed in the master bedroom unless somebody comes up with some conclusive evidence to prove it.

Say it is proven to your satisfaction that Kim was indeed the bed wetter and that macdonald lied. What will you think then? Will you think that since he lied on this point that its reasonable to infer that he's lying about the rest of his story.

Seriously.

audpaud

02-02-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by JTF
As Bob Stevenson said to Kathryn MacDonald, you can continue to figure out how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. I'll stick to the science in this case.

JTF.

WOW!:rose:

caphill

02-02-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

I'm still on the fence. Just feel like there is some reason that macdonald is so committed to this obvious lie about Kim vs Kristy as the bed wetter. He changed his story so many times as the evidence rolled in . . . why not change on this otherwise "harmless" point of who wet the bed?

I remember that bed wetting was still "shameful" then---especially to someone of macdonalds generation. I also suspect he knew as a doctor, even in those times, that bed wetting heralded sexual abuse.

The molestation of Kimberly theory floored me and I'm still considering. Yes, he did have the opportunity to molest Kim all evening . . . but remember: Molestation (similar to rape) isn't just about the acts . . . it's also about "power." macdonald seems to be an egomaniac to the n'th degree and part of his "thrill" may have been the power he had over the household--dictating that Colette sleep on the couch while the daughter shared his bed?

There is some reason he lied and continues to lie (flying in the face of reason) about the bed wetting, I think.

How old are you. Bed wetting was a shame back then? to someone of MacDonald's generation? What are talking about? If bedwetting heralded sexual abuse, then about every family in world with small children needs to be in jail. You surely have never had small children have you?

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[The murderer] never changed his story.Of course he did, countless times, as he realized the mistakes he'd made while lying to investigators and as he learned of more and more of the evidence. It's known as consciousness of guilt, Artie, which was demonstrated to the jury and helped to result in MacDonald's conviction.

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

I still maintain Kim was in her own bedroom. There is no hard evidence that Kim was injured in the master bedroom as the CID said. It's a theory without facts.Sorry, Artie, you can't change the facts. Kim was certainly injured in the master bedroom and there is no dispute about that, not even from the defense.The theory that no doctor would remove a knife from a stab victim is not correct either. Yes, it is.[The murderer] was an experienced casualty doctor.Who supposedly forgot all of his training, even the most basic training such as not pulling a knife from a wound, not giving mouth-to-mouth respiration on a soft surface, yelling or screaming for help, etc. Did his training tell him to walk around the apartment checking himself for injuries, looking out the back door, etc., while knowing (as he admits) that no help at all was on the way for his injured family?The CID have no real evidence against [the murderer]Of course they did. There was so much evidence against him that a jury convicted him in only six hours and to date not a single one of his many, many attorneys has ever managed to make a single dent in it.I believe Ivory, Grebner, Shaw, Kearns and Stombaugh were complete “plonkers” as we say in this part of the world."Plonkers"? Gee, I've never heard that used in the USA before. Are you still trying to make people think you're British, Artie, even though you were "outed" on A&E and shown not to be British at all? LOL!As I have said before the only doubts I have had about [the murderer] in the past was the way he said he was knocked unconscious for about an hour.You can put your doubts to rest; the evidence supports the indication that he was never unconscious at all that night.

caphill

02-02-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
So cami & I are the only ones raising our hands :seeya: --on "doing" acid? (or acid "doing" me, to be more descriptive!:D ) Ahhh yes, purple haze from purple micro-dot! I remember once a group of us did manage to "organize" a trip to a local amusement park . . . (with the help of several "straight" friends along) . . . managed to go on very few rides though---kept getting distracted by the hilarity of EVERYTHING---not to mention most of us only managed to sit near the fountain for HOURS!

So here's the point . . . there have been several Posts in this Thread from Posters who have asked common sense questions based on their life experience, right? As a Poster pointed out (sorry no time to backtrack)---the Topic is then changed by the Supporters. Wasn't picking up on that earlier---tx for the heads up.

I would like to see some responses to those common sense posts . . . for instance:

"acid is groovy . . . kill the pigs."
Can caphill or athorpt really say with a straight face that anyone would talk like this? Yes, even in 1971.
Why would Collette, Kim and Kristy be "the pigs" anyway?
Was it a band of whacked out hippies or clever intruders with gloves on? I again say that you can't have it both ways!
Link please to info on "acid addicts" . . . no such animal. Link please to info on violent crimes committed by criminals proven to have LSD in their system . . . again, no such animal. Too bad macdonald didn't think "angel dust"---now that I could have believed!

so you got your acid (and 4 other drugs) . . . you got your 5-6 trippin' murderin' buds with you . . . you got your basic lit candle collection . . . you got your wig on . . . you got your rainstorm going and you got your chant down
The largest and most dangerous occupant of the household (your target) is in the living room . . . Target is barely injured there (compared to the gross overkill of the helpless children) and the only evidence of you being there is wig strands?

ambidexterity during distress
macdonald as a boxer . . . no responses.

"WHY Jeff . . . are THEY?????"
what does common sense tell you about this assertation? Truly tell you? I can imagine screaming "HEY JEFF----WAKE THE FLOCK UP--HELP ME IN HERE!!!" . . . "why" and "they" is preposterous!

why would CID or anyone else connected to this case put their careers on the line to protect the groovy band of murderers?
Seriously. Manson was still so fresh. Common sense dictates "The Establishment" would go with Dr. WASP.

Pigs was a common word used. Pig was establishment, police. Groovy was also a common word used meaning good, cool. If you have any doubts read the transcripts of Helena testimony or read her letters where she refers to the "pigs".

Luckily, I can't speak to what would be considered the proper phaseology if I were suddenly awaken from a deep sleep by strangers whacking me and my children. In the confusion of waking up to that I would likely be saying what?Why? OMG . The kind of whacks Colette received, she didn't have time to say much.

caphill

02-02-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by cami

Jack and I both think that because MacDonald has continued to lie about Kim wetting the mb in the face of all the evidence that puts her there that it was this that started the argument that night, the government's theory. Of course Mac is going to deny, deny, deny it but he did tell one of those nurses he was boffing in Texas that his elder daughter had eneursis (bed wetting) and we know that Colette was thinking of writing, or may have, Dear Abby about Kim's bed wetting.

I don't buy the molestation theory simple because he was alone with the children that evening. He had plenty of time to molest Kim before Colette returned home from night school.

We know Colette was thinking of writing Dear Abby? Who was the expert mind reader that testified to knowing what Colette was thinking.

Colette is married to a Dr. and she was to write Dear Abby for professional advice because her small children sometimes wet the bed?

Dear Abby's advice would likely have been what most mothers of small children have doing for years and years and years. If your child gets in your bed and wets in the middle of the night, you roll over to the dry spot and wash the sheets in the morning.

ROTFLMAO

margiej

02-02-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by caphill

How old are you. Bed wetting was a shame back then? to someone of MacDonald's generation? What are talking about? If bedwetting heralded sexual abuse, then about every family in world with small children needs to be in jail. You surely have never had small children have you?

Kimberly was not a small child. She was a kindergartner and would have been 6 yrs. old in less than two months. The nurse in San Antonio who was told by MacD that his daughter had bedwetting problems had no reason to lie about his comment. The question is why would MacD lie so vigorously about this incident. Because the bedwetting figured in prominently with the starting of the fight that night. At least that is my opinion.

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Luckily, I can't speak to what would be considered the proper phaseology if I were suddenly awaken from a deep sleep by strangers whacking me and my children. In the confusion of waking up to that I would likely be saying what?Why? OMG . The kind of whacks Colette received, she didn't have time to say much.Which is kind of strange, isn't it. In the "confusion of waking up to that," "that" being the fact of supposedly being stabbed and beaten and an easy target, Mac is not able to fight back (per his own admissions) because he just couldn't get that thin, worn old pajama top off his wrists and couldn't manage to kick that lightweight afghan off his feet, and he's chatting away (or thinks he might have said things) to the intruders, asking them why they're there, etc., yet Colette and two children who were also supposedly awakened from sleep and beaten and stabbed suffered several defensive wounds, "overkill" and a trip to the morgue. What a story.

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Groovy was also a common word used meaning good, cool.No, it wasn't. "Groovy" was a very short-lived bit of slang that had long gone out of common usage by 1970.If you have any doubts read the transcripts of Helena testimony or read her letters where she refers to the "pigs".Can you show us where she used the word "groovy"?

caphill

02-02-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by margiej

Kimberly was not a small child. She was a kindergartner and would have been 6 yrs. old in less than two months. The nurse in San Antonio who was told by MacD that his daughter had bedwetting problems had no reason to lie about his comment. The question is why would MacD lie so vigorously about this incident. Because the bedwetting figured in prominently with the starting of the fight that night. At least that is my opinion.

This is why I think Capt Murtagh or whichever idiot in CID that came up the bedwetting motive for slaughtering ones family had never had small children. Whoever came up with the statements that bedwetting was an indication of sexual abuse was obviously trying to start another rumor to further poison the name of MacDonald.

Bedwetting is an issue that millions of families face every night. It is extremely common among kids who are under the age of 6, and it can last into the preteen years.

Doctors don't know for sure what causes bedwetting or why it stops. But it is considered a natural part of development, and kids eventually grow out of it. Most of the time bedwetting is not a sign of any deeper medical or emotional issues.

All the same, bedwetting can be very stressful for families. Kids can feel embarrassed and guilty about wetting the bed and anxious about spending the night at a friend's house or at camp. Parents often feel helpless to stop it.

There may not be any way for you to cure your child's bedwetting, but the emotional support and reassurance you provide can help your child feel better until the bedwetting goes away on its own.

How Common Is Bedwetting?
Primary enuresis, the medical name for bedwetting, typically starts when kids are toddlers. It is very common among kids who are 6 years old or younger. About 15% of 6-year-olds wet the bed. And about 5% of 10-year-olds wet the bed.

Bedwetting often runs in families: Most kids who wet the bed have a relative that did it, too. If both parents wet the bed when they were young, it's very likely that their child will as well.

Coping With Bedwetting
Bedwetting usually goes away on its own. But until it does, it can be embarrassing and uncomfortable for your child. So it's important that you provide support and positive reinforcement during this process.

It's a good idea to reassure your child that bedwetting is a normal part of growing up and that it's not going to last forever. It may comfort your child to hear about other family members who also struggled with it when they were young.

You may want to remind your child to go to the bathroom one final time before bedtime. Some parents try waking their kids in the middle of the night, but most of the time, that doesn't end the bedwetting.

When your child wakes with wet sheets, have your child help you change the sheets. Explain that this isn't punishment, but it is a part of the process. It may even help your child feel better knowing that he or she helped out.

When to Talk With Your Child's Doctor
In rare cases, when bedwetting begins abruptly and is accompanied by other symptoms, it can be a sign of another medical condition, and you may want to talk with your child's doctor.

The doctor may check for signs of a urinary tract infection, constipation, bladder problems, diabetes, or severe stress.

It's a good idea to call your doctor if your child suddenly starts wetting the bed after being consistently dry for at least 6 months. You may also want to call the doctor if your child begins to wet his or her pants during the day, starts misbehaving at school or at home, or if your child complains of a burning sensation when he or she goes to the bathroom.

In the meantime, your support and patience can go a long way in helping your child feel better about the bedwetting. Remember that the long-term outlook is excellent, and in almost all cases, dry days are just ahead.

Updated and reviewed by: Barbara P. Homeier, MD
Date reviewed: April 2005
Originally reviewed by: Sandra G. Hassink, MD, and Steven Dowshen, MD

audpaud

02-02-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[B]I’m not looking at the MacDonald case with blinkers on. I sometimes wonder if some of the posters on this forum are still on acid the way they talk about the MacDonald case.

I've got my turn signals off when looking at the case as well! I'm proud of my life experiences and think that, especially in this case, these experiences allow me to look at macdonald's story vs the evidence against him objectively. You'll notice my Posts aren't filled with: irrational denial, skipping over questions, editing, and/or changing the subject.

If you feel that my long ago use of LSD has skewed my view/Posts, what life experiences have you had that allows you to practice all of the above when defending The Good Doctor?

Curious.

rashomon

02-02-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Dear Abby's advice would likely have been what most mothers of small children have doing for years and years and years. If your child gets in your bed and wets in the middle of the night, you roll over to the dry spot and wash the sheets in the morning.
ROTFLMAO
Now let's remain with that scenario: MacDonald discovers the wet spot on his side, but the dry side Dear Abbie suggests rolling over to is already occupied because Colette is sleeping in it.
MacDonald (who btw was a neat freak, and neat freaks can get pretty angry when their side of the bed has been peed onto, believe me). It was MacDonald's opinion that Colette should not allow the children to come into their bedroom (see his April 6th interview). But now Kim is in there again, and not only that - she has wet the bed. He gets angry at Colette, shakes her awake and tells her to change that sheet at once. Colette, furious at his ruthless behavior, waking up a pregnant woman in the middle of the night, spits back. An argument starts which finally gets out of hand. A very likely scenario imo.

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by caphill
How old are you. Bed wetting was a shame back then? to someone of MacDonald's generation? What are talking about?Reading this leads me to wonder, if he felt no shame at all about his almost-6-year-old daughter wetting the bed, why did he repeatedly deny that Kim had any problem with bedwetting (even though he had told a confidante that she did suffer from enuresis), and her urine was found in the master bed and in her own bed? Do you think he just didn't know about it and only Colette ever knew that Kim wet the bed? Maybe he wasn't paying that much attention, after all, to the things she discussed in class, and wasn't paying much attention to what went on at home either? How could Colette have kept this a secret from him for all those years, and why would she do so anyway? What other reasons can you think of for why MacDonald would continue to deny that Kim had a bedwetting problem? We know that Colette had told her class that MacDonald wanted her to sleep on the sofa while the child shared the master bed with him. Could it be that he had other reasons for not wanting anyone to believe Kim was in the master bed?

Sigh. So many questions, and only one answer: MacDonald is a murderer whom some people believe may also have been molesting his daughter.If bedwetting heralded sexual abuse, then about every family in world with small children needs to be in jail.Hmmm. I must've missed that, since I haven't noticed anyone saying that bedwetting "heralded sexual abuse." I think what was said is that children sometimes urinate in the bed in an attempt to ward off molestation.

audpaud

02-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by caphill

How old are you. Bed wetting was a shame back then? to someone of MacDonald's generation? What are talking about? If bedwetting heralded sexual abuse, then about every family in world with small children needs to be in jail. You surely have never had small children have you?

I've always been "old enough" not to be taken in by a 2nd rate con artist.

I'm talking about bed wetting still being taboo in 1971 and actually throughout much of the 70's and actually somewhat to this very day---especially when it involves a six year girl who's Daddy insists she sleeps with him, I'd guess?

No, not every family in the world would go to jail in bedwetting cases . . . just the Daddy's who lose control and murder their family over it, I'd guess? Or the just the Daddy's who lie about the urine for no obvious reason for 35 years, I'd guess?

audpaud

02-02-2006, 04:29 PM

*foot tapping*

*glancing at wristwatch*

Will there be any responses that touch on common sense and logic regarding themacdonaldcase???

Life experiences that explain why you have the irrational need to defend the indefensible?

Still Curious.

caphill

02-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
No, it wasn't. "Groovy" was a very short-lived bit of slang that had long gone out of common usage by 1970.Can you show us where she used the word "groovy"?

Read the transcripts of her testimony.

Check out this for a listing of slang for the 70's. Can you dig it.

http://www.inthe70s.com/generated/terms.shtml

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Read the transcripts of her testimony.Ah, so you do believe her testimony, then. Good. Because of course among other things, she testified that she was not in the MacDonald apartment on the night of the murders.

caphill

02-02-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Reading this leads me to wonder, if he felt no shame at all about his almost-6-year-old daughter wetting the bed, why did he repeatedly deny that Kim had any problem with bedwetting (even though he had told a confidante that she did suffer from enuresis), and her urine was found in the master bed and in her own bed? Do you think he just didn't know about it and only Colette ever knew that Kim wet the bed? Maybe he wasn't paying that much attention, after all, to the things she discussed in class, and wasn't paying much attention to what went on at home either? How could Colette have kept this a secret from him for all those years, and why would she do so anyway? What other reasons can you think of for why MacDonald would continue to deny that Kim had a bedwetting problem? We know that Colette had told her class that MacDonald wanted her to sleep on the sofa while the child shared the master bed with him. Could it be that he had other reasons for not wanting anyone to believe Kim was in the master bed?

Sigh. So many questions, and only one answer: MacDonald is a murderer whom some people believe may also have been molesting his daughter.Hmmm. I must've missed that, since I haven't noticed anyone saying that bedwetting "heralded sexual abuse." I think what was said is that children sometimes urinate in the bed in an attempt to ward off molestation.

That was a quote from cami, a few posts back.

byn63

02-02-2006, 05:00 PM

bedwetting was indeed a "shameful problem" in that timeframe to many many people. I was fortunate that my pediatrian recognized that there are logical reasons for it and prescribed medication to help. This was a long long long time before products such as "good nights" were made.

Groovy was "out" as a slang term in 1970; only totally uncool people still used it in conversation.

FACTS ARE FACTS - Kimberly wet the bed in the masterbedroom PERIOD. FACTS ARE FACTS - Kimberly suffered a severe blow to the head in the masterbedroom and lay on the floor bleeding heavily long enough to leave a pool of blood SIX INCHES in diameter. FACTS ARE FACTS - anyone with even the most basic medical training KNOWS that you do not remove an impaled object from a victim in the field. It could be acting as a plug and removing it MAY BE CATASTROPHIC! FACTS ARE FACTS - that knife was not the one used to make any of the wounds that Colette suffered.

FACTS ARE FACTS - Inmate 00131-177 is a liar. He bruatally butchered his pregnant wife and two beautiful little girls and he showed the white feather then and continues to do so today by lying about the facts. He is a COWARD.

caphill

02-02-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Ah, so you do believe her testimony, then. Good. Because of course among other things, she testified that she was not in the MacDonald apartment on the night of the murders.

No, she never said she was not there. After her meeting with Blackburn, she got on the stand and had memory lapse of everything she did from the time she left her house until she arrived back at around 430am.

There were on trial record 6 witnesses who remembered very well what she had told them as well as what she said in her meeting with Segal.

These 6 witnesses were not allowed to testify in front of the jury.

When did "I was drunk or I was doing drugs and don't remember everything I did" become a good defense to exclude one from possible guilt in a criminal trial. If they worked for everyone, then if ever are accused of a crime or witnessing a crime just plead drunk or stoned and see if that gets you off the hook.

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by rashomon
Now let's remain with that scenario: MacDonald discovers the wet spot on his side, but the dry side Dear Abbie suggests rolling over to is already occupied because Colette is sleeping in it.
MacDonald (who btw was a neat freak, and neat freaks can get pretty angry when their side of the bed has been peed onto, believe me). It was MacDonald's opinion that Colette should not allow the children to come into their bedroom (see his April 6th interview). But now Kim is in there again, and not only that - she has wet the bed. He gets angry at Colette, shakes her awake and tells her to change that sheet at once. Colette, furious at his ruthless behavior, waking up a pregnant woman in the middle of the night, spits back. An argument starts which finally gets out of hand. A very likely scenario imo.Could very well be, Rash. I've never come to any firm conclusion about what that final trigger was that sent him into such an exposion of uncontrollable rage, but I tend to think that given all the variables (the stress he was under, the overwork and lack of sleep, the long-standing inner rage against women, feeling trapped in his marriage, his psychotic personality makeup and many other factors), anything could have caused the spark that ignited that rage. Was it due to an amphetamine psychosis? Or was it perhaps triggered by Colette's telling him she wanted to leave, or a possible refusal of his sexual advances, or that she may have discovered him abusing Kim, or the bedwetting or even just some comment Colette might have made without realizing she'd said something that would infuriate him, or some combination of all of these things? Unless MacDonald decides to confess and tell the truth of what happened, I don't think anyone will ever know for sure.

JTF

02-02-2006, 05:11 PM

Arthur: Your thought process is muddled, but consistent in how you present your arguments. You basically call this nurse a liar in regards to her claim that Jeff told her that Kimberly had a bed wetting problem, yet conveniently ignore the fact that MacDonald corroborates her claim that he attempted to have sex with her. In terms of the urine stain on the bed in the master bedroom, it has simply been thought of as a possible trigger to the eventual physical confrontation between Jeff and Colette. Nothing more, nothing less.

JTF.

JTF

02-02-2006, 05:16 PM

Caphill: Sorry to burst your bubble, but Helena Stoeckley mentioned to several people that she was not inside 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. She wrote letters to Jim Gaddis and Prince Beasley stating, "Please believe me, I was not in that house!!"

JTF.

caphill

02-02-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Sorry to burst your bubble, but Helena Stoeckley mentioned to several people that she was not inside 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. She wrote letters to Jim Gaddis and Prince Beasley stating, "Please believe me, I was not in that house!!"

JTF.

I am aware that Helena had made statements she wasn't there when she got frightened that she was going to be charged. I also do not have selective reading of only what I want to hear. She also has signed statements where she said she was there and talked of the things she did remember in the house. I am aware she had changed some the details from time to time. I am aware she told of the phone ringing and her memory of answering it. I have read the statment from the gentlemen who got a "wrong" number when he was trying to reach a another Dr. MacDonald . I am aware MP Mica saw a girl matching Helens description standing on a corner a few blocks away as he was rushing to the emergency call at the MacDonald house. I am aware Helena asked for immunity for years and was a tormented soulI until the day she died.

Thanks for your concern, but my bubble is fine.

Deneece

02-02-2006, 06:29 PM

OMG…I am soooooo embarrassed…I am caught…while keeping separate windows open on two different threads (plus about six windows of research on the cases), I tried to post different messages….here’s the portion of the Jon Benet thread that belongs here….see…I always knew I wasn’t coordinated to carry on two different conversations at once and this just proves it….

I coppied it from that JB thread because it was meant to be here

________________________________________________

Sometimes, I think irony is the thread of life, woven so tightly into its makeup that it takes a closer look to even see it. As I have been going over the numerous posts, I had the opportunity to review my own posts. I was stunned to learn that I had answered my own question…the one of the many that I asked when first coming to this board…I wanted to know how individuals were so steadfast in their defense of McD in the face of overwhelming evidence and with the ludicrous claims by McD (even if he were not guilty, and the “drugged hippies” were responsible, some of his assertions have been beyond logic)…and there it was, on a completely different thread (the Jon Benet thread), I had the answer….

After re-reading my own post about Susan Smith, I realized that I had answered the question…these people (like myself) could not fathom such actions by a parent (in my case, a mother). Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I could not believe…I even, at first, thought her confession was forced or coerced…but within a few minutes, I realized, “NO! That ***** DID do it!” I was quite shocked, and with realization, came the questions “why?”, if she did not want them, why not give them to their father or someone else…and “how could a mother do such a thing…all for a man?” My kids will always come before anyone else and cannot comprehend a woman like this.

It answered my question about undying support for someone like McD. Even to the point of grasping at straws or trying to make sense of the illogical…

This case is only fascinating to me because of the depth of knowledge the people have here, of both the pro and anti McDonald posters. It is also fascinating to see the way peoples minds work on both sides of the issues. The psychological aspects are revealing as well. The case, itself is frankly, very difficult to understand, no matter what side you are on because it wrenches at your stomach to study the evidence. More to the point, whether he did it or not, the man is not the picture of someone who lost people, for he barely speaks of them as the wife and children with personalities…they are secondary to him…for the interviews I have read and the statements he makes, it’s always all about him. (***just a noteworthy observation to be interpreted as you like)

I will be doing more research on this case and my books are in now so I am going to be quite busy in my reading and will probably not be here as often as I have in the past couple of weeks. I will, of course check in from time to time, especially if there is a question or point to make…(btw; in his statement in which he states he took boxing lessons, does anyone else realize that he never indicates that he struck/punched anyone else, just that he “struggled” with them…odd…don’t boxers instinctively, you know, box?…and there has never been any indications of abrasions on the fists so either he lied about being a boxer or he lied about someone attacking him because a boxer would fight out of instinct) And allow those of you with your vast knowledge continue to debate these issues…I can only hope to be as good at it and as knowledgeable as some of you are…

I am humbled as well as being impressed…good luck until next time…d…:seeya:

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by caphill
These 6 witnesses were not allowed to testify in front of the jury.But of course they did testify on voir dire. Funny that you wouldn't mention that, Artie. Ooops, excuse me, I meant Caphill...
Originally posted by caphill
I am aware that Helena had made statements...Then, among other things, you probably know she said she was there and saw MacDonald committing the murders. And you would know that her stories didn't match the evidence and didn't match MacDonald's accounts; that she admitted that her story of being with Mitchell was false; that Mica's description of the woman he allegedly saw on the street corner matched MacDonald's only in the fact that the woman was a female; that the court found Beasley to be befuddled and confabulating; that Gunderson had coerced her "confessions" from her; that MacDonald didn't recognize Stoeckley as being one of the intruders and indeed said he never really saw the female "intruder" at all; that Stoeckley recanted her "confessions" and that not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to support the idea that she was there at all.

JTF

02-02-2006, 07:44 PM

Caphill: The claim that Helena Stoeckley matched the description of the woman on the corner is simply a regurgitation of MacDonald camp propoganda. The only person who saw the woman on the corner was Ken Mica and if you read his testimony at the Article 32 hearing, you'll discover that he offers little in the way of a matching description. Did you know that from 1970-1982, Stoeckley implicated 11 people as being invovled in these murders? You intimate that Stoeckley only lied when she felt pressured, so would the freshest recollection of her whereabouts on February 17th be the most credible? Fayetteville newspaper reporter Pat Reese, spoke to Helena on February 18th. Reese knew Stoeckley well, he had drug counseled many in the Stoeckley group, and she felt at ease with him. Stoeckley told Reese that she had no recall of her movements from 11 p.m. on February 16th to the early morning hours of February 17th. Stoeckley admitted to Reese that she did a number of drugs that night and probably blacked out. Sounds pretty similar to what she testified to in court during the 1979 trial.

JTF.

Bunny2

02-02-2006, 08:31 PM

Caphill: The claim that Helena Stoeckley matched the description of the woman on the corner is simply a regurgitation of MacDonald camp propoganda.Good post, JTF. I'm always amazed at how the Mac camp can take something insignificant and attempt to blow it up into monumental proportions, as though the factual records didn't exist at all. Poor ol' MurderMac...he never dreamed that one day, people would be able to see Mica's testimony and much more. I'll bet he's still trying to recover from the shock. :)
Originally posted by caphill
After her meeting with Blackburn, she got on the stand and had memory lapse...Cap, if memory serves, I think that Stoeckley talked with the defense before she talked with the prosecution, and that she told Segal the same thing she told Dupree. I also gather that the defense wasn't overly anxious to call her to the stand; in fact, they seemed to be downright reluctant, didn't they?:

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

MR. SMITH: Maybe the Government would like to call her.

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. SMITH: At least at this moment, we do not.

THE COURT: Well, now, listen, enough of the thing is enough, Wade. If you are going to ever call her, you call her right now or I am going to release her from her subpoena.

MR. SMITH: Judge, I understand what you are saying. Let me just say this: that woman made the most outrageous statements to a lady at the hospital when she got her nose fixed that you have ever heard.

THE COURT: They could not be any more outrageous than the ones she has made.

MR. SMITH: They are. They are more outrageous. They are more incriminating, and, Judge, we don't know what she is going to do. We don't know what she is going to say.

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

JTF

02-02-2006, 09:49 PM

Caphill: The evidence "hidden" in the lab notes argument is 25 years old and growing mold. There is nothing "new" about the evidence that "proves" the existence of "intruders." All of the evidence, all of it, has already been argued in court. Presentations were made in 1985, 1990, 1992, 1997, and 1998. The conclusions drawn from these proceedings are quite simple.

1) The FBI's re-examination of the fiber evidence found at the crime scene was found to be non-exculpatory by the appellate courts in 1992 and 1998. Shortly after the completion of the Article 32 hearing, Jeffrey MacDonald discarded or sold most of the items inside 544 Castle Drive. This included clothing, Kristen's doll collection, hats, and sleeping bags. The exact source of the 5 woolen fibers and assorted acrylic fibers will never be known.

2) The MacDonald defense team was aware of the 3 saran fibers found in the clear-handled hairbrush at trial. Paul Stombaugh's notes listed the 3 fibers as coming from a doll or material used to make Halloween costumes. Brian O'Neil and his staff received Glisson's lab notes in 1983, but did not realize the alleged significance of the fibers until 1989. Part of that process probably had to do with the fact that other synthetic fibers were catalogued in those same lab notes. They had not been sourced by Glisson, but like the saran fibers, Glisson did not find them forensically significant.

In 1990, Michael Malone attempted to source these fibers and found that the black fibers were from Mildred Kassab's wig and the platinum-colored fibers were from Colette's fall. Malone received the wig and the fall from Freddy Kassab for comparison purposes. Malone stated that the blond saran fibers "most likely came from a doll," but since he didn't have Kristen's dolls for comparison purposes, he couldn't state definitively that the fibers came from a doll. The MacDonald defense team, however, had no problem stating that the source of the saran fibers was a wig. Not just any wig, mind you, but a wig owned by Helena Stoeckley. The appellate courts in 1992 and 1998 disagreed, calling the fibers non-exculpatory.

3) There was not a single head hair found at 544 Castle Drive that wasn't sourced. There were 15 limb, body, and hair fragments found at the crime scene. Head and pubic hairs are the only hairs that can be identified under a microscope, so even with the lab notes in hand, the defense team has never been able to prove the source of those hairs. The appellate courts agreed with the government's contention that all domiciles contain unsourced hairs and fibers. A 1997 appellate court decision cleared the way for DNA testing of unsourced hairs found at the crime scene, testing was completed in late October, and the results will be announced in a few weeks. Due to advances in technology, this has become a non-issue.

JTF.

JTF

02-02-2006, 09:56 PM

Bunny: Perfect example of why Stoeckley's credibility was non-existent. MacDonald groupies are groovy, kill common sense.

JTF.

caphill

02-03-2006, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Good post, JTF. I'm always amazed at how the Mac camp can take something insignificant and attempt to blow it up into monumental proportions, as though the factual records didn't exist at all. Poor ol' MurderMac...he never dreamed that one day, people would be able to see Mica's testimony and much more. I'll bet he's still trying to recover from the shock. :)
Cap, if memory serves, I think that Stoeckley talked with the defense before she talked with the prosecution, and that she told Segal the same thing she told Dupree. I also gather that the defense wasn't overly anxious to call her to the stand; in fact, they seemed to be downright reluctant, didn't they?:

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

MR. SMITH: Maybe the Government would like to call her.

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. SMITH: At least at this moment, we do not.

THE COURT: Well, now, listen, enough of the thing is enough, Wade. If you are going to ever call her, you call her right now or I am going to release her from her subpoena.

MR. SMITH: Judge, I understand what you are saying. Let me just say this: that woman made the most outrageous statements to a lady at the hospital when she got her nose fixed that you have ever heard.

THE COURT: They could not be any more outrageous than the ones she has made.

MR. SMITH: They are. They are more outrageous. They are more incriminating, and, Judge, we don't know what she is going to do. We don't know what she is going to say.

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

This so called "regurgitation of MacDonald camp propoganda" was from the "under oath" testimony of MP Ken Mica who was a government witness. He saw her 5 blocks away as he was responding to the emergency call. While giving Mac mouth to mouth, he turned and told his superior about seeing her and suggested a road block or blockade of the area.

Helena testified I believe Aug 17th. She had spend the day with the defense in preparation. Before she got on the stand the prosecution had the now "infamous" talk with Marshall Britt in the room. The testimony and her sudden loss of memory after her little chat with Blackburn though Segal into a tizzy. Her testimony changed so drastically from what she had said in prep, that Segal called a number of bench conferences asking to declared her a surprise and hostile witness. 2 or 3 times Segal went to bench for the surprise and hostile arguing he wanted to also cross examine her to impeach her. He had the other 6 witnesses in the wings that could alos impeach her. Dupree wouldn't not allow it.

It was during one the bench conferences that Blackburn said he asked her if she had told the defense the same thing in her preperation that she was telling him and according to him, she said yes. Again, Dupree ruled in favor of backing Blackburn. To seal it, Dupree decides he will ask her the same question in court. Of course she said yes. If Dupree had allowed the defense to declare her a hostile witness and allowed the testimony of the 6 witnesses, she would have been impeached. During Segal's direct, Blackburn was on his feet objecting to any questions that might get an answer that would impeach. Dupree substained the objections. What's crazy is Dupree let the 6 witnesses in closed session tell him what Helena had told them the day before and what she had told previous about her involvement. He then ruled these witnesses could only have limited testimony that excluded certain references to Helena. Dupree knew Helena impeached herself but he damn well was not going to let the jury hear it.

As to your statements that the defense didn't want her on the stand, is a misunderstanding. Marshall Britt picked her up and brought to court as the defense's primary witness.

Back to what you posted above. What day and whose testimony was that bench conference taking place with Smith? Where they arguing for the right to have the time for trial preparation for Helena before they put her on the stand? They spend some hours with her and then Blackburn got a hold of her.

caphill

02-03-2006, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
But of course they did testify on voir dire. Funny that you wouldn't mention that, Artie. Ooops, excuse me, I meant Caphill...
Then, among other things, you probably know she said she was there and saw MacDonald committing the murders. And you would know that her stories didn't match the evidence and didn't match MacDonald's accounts; that she admitted that her story of being with Mitchell was false; that Mica's description of the woman he allegedly saw on the street corner matched MacDonald's only in the fact that the woman was a female; that the court found Beasley to be befuddled and confabulating; that Gunderson had coerced her "confessions" from her; that MacDonald didn't recognize Stoeckley as being one of the intruders and indeed said he never really saw the female "intruder" at all; that Stoeckley recanted her "confessions" and that not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to support the idea that she was there at all.

What court ruled on the things you mentioned above. The appeals court never allowed MacDonald to present any of that to a jury for a jury to decide . Can you tell who's testimony introduced the 22 and 24 inch blond wig hair to the jury? Also I challenge you to show anywhere MacDonald said he never saw a female intruder.

caphill

02-03-2006, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: The claim that Helena Stoeckley matched the description of the woman on the corner is simply a regurgitation of MacDonald camp propoganda. The only person who saw the woman on the corner was Ken Mica and if you read his testimony at the Article 32 hearing, you'll discover that he offers little in the way of a matching description. Did you know that from 1970-1982, Stoeckley implicated 11 people as being invovled in these murders? You intimate that Stoeckley only lied when she felt pressured, so would the freshest recollection of her whereabouts on February 17th be the most credible? Fayetteville newspaper reporter Pat Reese, spoke to Helena on February 18th. Reese knew Stoeckley well, he had drug counseled many in the Stoeckley group, and she felt at ease with him. Stoeckley told Reese that she had no recall of her movements from 11 p.m. on February 16th to the early morning hours of February 17th. Stoeckley admitted to Reese that she did a number of drugs that night and probably blacked out. Sounds pretty similar to what she testified to in court during the 1979 trial.

JTF.

I think it was one of the Supreme Court Justices that agreed that Helena et al should have being investigated in 1970 when there was fresh evidence and nine years less time for Helena tocontinue frying her brain. It was a part of his remarks that he believed the rights to a speedy trial under the Constitution had been denied.

The Article 32 hearing with 56 witnesses and the "so called" evidence is what got the charges dismissed against MacDonald. It was ruled that there was no evidence to show that MacDonald killed his family. Remember that part? It was the very ambitious JAG officer, Capt Murtagh that continued to investigate and work to bring charges again through a civil court. He got a discharge from the military so he could be a co prosecutor in a civilian court.
What about Mica's testimony in the actual trial?

Wonder how this is going to play out since the 4th Circuit Court has granted the motion for the District court to hear the appeal based on prosecutional misconduct and witness tampering when he was one of the prosecutors. This is a one of kind case.

audpaud

02-03-2006, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by caphill
This is a one of kind case.

Is this what attracts you to mcdonald? Seriously.

Does it make you feel special somehow to take up for "the underdog?"

I have to just keep guessing at what possesses you (and arthurthorpe) to defend the indefensible since you refuse to answer.

Could you really possibly not know how ridiculous your arguments are?

It's like a bad car accident . . . I can't keep from looking! If it weren't for your lame attempts at snarkiness, I would even feel sorry for you both! I kinda do anyway.:(

caphill

02-03-2006, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I have just noticed I made a typo when transcribing Dr MacDonald's testimony at the Grand Jury with regard to the little bedwetting problem.

When asked when Kim stopped wetting the bed Dr MacDonald's answer should read:

A "When she was about two, I suppose" (not five as I wrote)

Whats the fuss all about anyway on who's urine was in the bed. There was no way to identify urine at that time so it all conjecture.

The way that crime scene filled up with people. Evidence being picked up and moved around. With lab's handling of the evidence and 4 different types of blood in a small area with 3 lab techs handling the same samples, to not have transference of blood would have been a miracle.

Chamberlain had never been on a crimescene before in his life. He wasn't able to get the blood spatter off the living room wall. He broke up the section of floor and messed up the footprint. And thats just a few of what was known. Shutter to think what he was doing with all those bloody linens, rugs. Colette's body is moved while Mica was reviving Jeff and on and on.

audpaud

02-03-2006, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Deneece
I will be doing more research on this case and my books are in now so I am going to be quite busy in my reading and will probably not be here as often as I have in the past couple of weeks. I will, of course check in from time to time, especially if there is a question or point to make…(btw; in his statement in which he states he took boxing lessons, does anyone else realize that he never indicates that he struck/punched anyone else, just that he “struggled” with them…odd…don’t boxers instinctively, you know, box?…and there has never been any indications of abrasions on the fists so either he lied about being a boxer or he lied about someone attacking him because a boxer would fight out of instinct) And allow those of you with your vast knowledge continue to debate these issues…I can only hope to be as good at it and as knowledgeable as some of you are…

I am humbled as well as being impressed…good luck until next time…d…:seeya:

Doesn't look like the common sense boxing observation you made will ever be addressed (re: ambidextrous boxing training/a boxer not punching when awakened/threatened)--think its "change the subject" time so you picked a good time to take a break!

I've enjoyed your Posts and look forward to seeing you again! Happy Reading deneece!:) :seeya:

audpaud

02-03-2006, 05:14 AM

We've been at "12" that macdonald didn't commit the murders since I've been here. I've seen caphill and arthurthorpe . . . are there any other macdonald supporters who post here? Ready to read something that changes my mind about macdonalds obvious guilt.

Would also love to know what makes these mcdonald defenders tick? What is it about this guy that makes you believe what is to most, irrefutable fact, logic and common sense to see his sickening guilt?

Are there any former supporters who saw the light? Love to know what initially attracted you to the case and what changed your mind?

Has anyone who ever thought this dog turd was guilty convinced now of his innocence?

:confused:

audpaud

02-03-2006, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Whats the fuss all about anyway on who's urine was in the bed.

As I've posted approximately 14.7 times now . . . the fuss for me is that I find it fascinating to think of why mcdonald would so steadfastly lie about which daughter wet the bed. Makes no sense . . . just as it doesn't make sense to argue that the urine was not identified by blood type.

Do you really not realize how you come across when making these ludicrous assertations?

Are you macdonalds new bride/wishing you were or what?

There's just GOT to be a reason not evident for this misplaced, pathetic and blind devotion to such a sickening POS like this murderer!

C'mon . . . tell auddie!

byn63

02-03-2006, 07:21 AM

The urine WAS identified in 1970. Antigen A was found in the stain. Therefore, only persons with either Type A or Type AB blood could have made the stain. Hence, we know that it was either Kimberly or Colette that made that stain. Further, there was no signs that Colette had urinated but there was urine on Kimberly's nightgown. By process of elimination and LOGICAL deduction we can say that Kimberly made that stain.

The big deal of course is if it wasn't significant, then why has Inmate 00131-177 lied about which daughter was in that bed? For over 30 years now, he has insisted it was Kristen even though there is physical scientific evidence showing that Kristen, who had Type O blood, could not possibly have made that stain. PERIOD. IT IS A FACT. DEAL WITH IT.

TYPE O blood contains Antigen H and AntiA and AntiB antibodies.
TYPE AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B; no antibodies.

Ken Mica testified that he saw a woman wearing a raincoat and rain hat, he had no recollection of her wearing boots and commented that he thought she had nice legs. At no time has he EVER said it WAS Helena Stoeckley. The lone woman that Mica saw enroute to 544 Castle Drive HAS NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED. That is also A FACT. DEAL WITH IT!

Deb B

02-03-2006, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by caphill

...Helena testified I believe Aug 17th. She had spend the day with the defense in preparation. Before she got on the stand the prosecution had the now "infamous" talk with Marshall Britt in the room. The testimony and her sudden loss of memory after her little chat with Blackburn though Segal into a tizzy. Her testimony changed so drastically from what she had said in prep, that Segal called a number of bench conferences asking to declared her a surprise and hostile witness. 2 or 3 times Segal went to bench for the surprise and hostile arguing he wanted to also cross examine her to impeach her. He had the other 6 witnesses in the wings that could alos impeach her. Dupree wouldn't not allow it.

It was during one the bench conferences that Blackburn said he asked her if she had told the defense the same thing in her preperation that she was telling him and according to him, she said yes. Again, Dupree ruled in favor of backing Blackburn. To seal it, Dupree decides he will ask her the same question in court. Of course she said yes. If Dupree had allowed the defense to declare her a hostile witness and allowed the testimony of the 6 witnesses, she would have been impeached. During Segal's direct, Blackburn was on his feet objecting to any questions that might get an answer that would impeach. Dupree substained the objections. What's crazy is Dupree let the 6 witnesses in closed session tell him what Helena had told them the day before and what she had told previous about her involvement. He then ruled these witnesses could only have limited testimony that excluded certain references to Helena. Dupree knew Helena impeached herself but he damn well was not going to let the jury hear it.

As to your statements that the defense didn't want her on the stand, is a misunderstanding. Marshall Britt picked her up and brought to court as the defense's primary witness.

Back to what you posted above. What day and whose testimony was that bench conference taking place with Smith? Where they arguing for the right to have the time for trial preparation for Helena before they put her on the stand? They spend some hours with her and then Blackburn got a hold of her.

Helena Stoeckley was not called as a defense witness - she was brought to court under a material witness warrent, under which both the defense and prosecution interviewed her. Any thoughts on why the defense didn't just call her as their witness? That would have precluded any pre-testimony questioning by the prosecution. Gee, maybe she wasn't very cooperative with team MacDonald prior to Blackburn supposedly threatening her.

cami

02-03-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by caphill

We know Colette was thinking of writing Dear Abby? Who was the expert mind reader that testified to knowing what Colette was thinking.

Colette is married to a Dr. and she was to write Dear Abby for professional advice because her small children sometimes wet the bed?

Dear Abby's advice would likely have been what most mothers of small children have doing for years and years and years. If your child gets in your bed and wets in the middle of the night, you roll over to the dry spot and wash the sheets in the morning.

ROTFLMAO

LOL, read the transcripts and the scans on Christina's website and you'll find many many interesting things. Like Colette's notes to Dear Abby.......

Why do you find this so funny.......Why would inmate 131 mention to his one-night stand in Texas that his elder daughter, five year old Kim still wet the bed if he and Colette didn't consider it a problem?

What could a doctor, interested in surgery, do about a bed-wetting problem, regardless of whether or not he was the father and husband pray tell? Did Mac have the magic cure to stop Kim from wetting the bed? ROFLMAO

cami

02-03-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by caphill

How old are you. Bed wetting was a shame back then? to someone of MacDonald's generation? What are talking about? If bedwetting heralded sexual abuse, then about every family in world with small children needs to be in jail. You surely have never had small children have you?

Oh grow up will you. Perhaps you should do some research on child molestation. It's a well known fact that a child who is being sexually abused MAY not only wet his/her bed but also defecate in the bed (JonBenet Ramsey).....why.......to keep her abuser away from her.

Here's a link for you.....http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

caphill

02-03-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by byn63
The urine WAS identified in 1970. Antigen A was found in the stain. Therefore, only persons with either Type A or Type AB blood could have made the stain. Hence, we know that it was either Kimberly or Colette that made that stain. Further, there was no signs that Colette had urinated but there was urine on Kimberly's nightgown. By process of elimination and LOGICAL deduction we can say that Kimberly made that stain.

The big deal of course is if it wasn't significant, then why has Inmate 00131-177 lied about which daughter was in that bed? For over 30 years now, he has insisted it was Kristen even though there is physical scientific evidence showing that Kristen, who had Type O blood, could not possibly have made that stain. PERIOD. IT IS A FACT. DEAL WITH IT.

TYPE O blood contains Antigen H and AntiA and AntiB antibodies.
TYPE AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B; no antibodies.

Ken Mica testified that he saw a woman wearing a raincoat and rain hat, he had no recollection of her wearing boots and commented that he thought she had nice legs. At no time has he EVER said it WAS Helena Stoeckley. The lone woman that Mica saw enroute to 544 Castle Drive HAS NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED. That is also A FACT. DEAL WITH IT!

Here's a fact for you . Type O contains no antigens.

In the testimony of Mica in 1979 he did not notice whether the woman was wearing boots or not. I can tell you for a fact he did not comment on Helena having nice legs in his testimony Those like of flip comments are not normally made on the witness stand.

Urine stains could not be identified at that time.

byn63

02-03-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Here's a fact for you . Type O contains no antigens.

In the testimony of Mica in 1979 he did not notice whether the woman was wearing boots or not. I can tell you for a fact he did not comment on Helena having nice legs in his testimony Those like of flip comments are not normally made on the witness stand.

Urine stains could not be identified at that time.

capy you are DEAD WRONG.

Type O blood CONTAINS ANTIGEN H and anti A antibodies and antiB antibodies.

:patriot:

byn63

02-03-2006, 11:12 AM

from the testimony of chemists Dr. Craig Chamberlain, Terry Laber, and Flynn:

Tests to determine Blood/Blood Typing[

Benzidine - possible blood - does not determine species.
Anti-Human Precipitin test - determines if stain is of human origin
Crust Lattes test - locates antibodies present in blood stain
elution test - locates antigens present in blood stain

Antigens are found on the surface of the red blood cell and remain even in *hemalized* cells of dried blood stains. Antibodies are found in the liquid portion of blood, but they also remain in the dried blood stains.

International Blood Group or ABO:
Type A - antigen A and anti-B antibody
Type B - antigen B and anti-A antibody
Type AB - antigen A and antigen B; no antibodies
Type O - antigen H & anti-A and anti-B antibodies

*Hemalized* - means the cells have collapsed and deformed during the drying process. (lack of water)

:read:

caphill

02-03-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Would Byn please provide the hard documentary evidence that Antigen A was found in the urine stain in 1970?

I agree some sort of a test was done on that urine stain in 1970, but Glisson of the CID lab always seemed to be a bit cagey/cagy about how many weeks after the MacDonald murders that test was done. The official result of that test was "inconclusive."

Another test on that urine stain was ordered by CID agent Kearns after the stain was 80 weeks old. As I have said before the FBI lab told Murtagh and Blackburn that those urine stain tests were considered unreliable in the 1970s before 4 weeks. Those tests were inaccurate after 4 weeks, and totally inaccurate after 80 weeks. That was why the stain was never mentioned by Murtagh and Blackburn at the 1979 trial.

In my opinion the Antigen A was discovered after the 80 week test, which I call manufactured and fabricated evidence.

In reply to Caphill, the significance of this is that the CID and FBI were trying to find any evidence to back up their absurd theory that Kim was in the bed with Dr MacDonald, that there may have been child molestation, and that an enraged Colette then injured and murdered Kim in the master bedroom.

There may have been about half a dozen of Kim's blood spots in the master bedroom, assuming the CID lab blood typing was correct. MacDonald's lawyer Eisman suggested those Kim's blood spots could have been caused by the wooden murder weapon dripping in blood as it was carried from one room to another. That seems a plausible explanation to me.

As far as I'm concerned Kim was fast asleep in her own bedroom, and was murdered in her own bed. The CID and FBI theory is wrong.

Colette's brother, and Kassab's son Bob Stevenson, explained this FBI and CID absurd theory in a radio interview about last May 2005. To me it's nonsense:

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

STEVENSON: Exactly. Now...

MATTHEWS: And the way it didn't square was the sequence of events or how...

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

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

MATTHEWS: Right.

His defense was-his theory, I guess, was that a bunch of-quote -

· "hippies"-close quote-had come into his house and killed his family.

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

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

I am aware that Stevenson started floating the molestation theory. This was not and could not be floated in the trial without foundation. Of course there was no foundation. There were autopsies done and if there was any evidence of molestation you can bet it would have been introduced.

Did you notice how Stevenson carefully establishes Freddy is the one that comes up with the story. I guess a dead man can't be sued for libel..

The urine story got its legs as proof of Mac was lying because of mixed blood "proved" Kim had been in the bedroom. Colette was in the bed by herself. When Mac started to bed the little one was taken out of the bed, given a bottle and put in her bed. Mac threw the bed covers back for the bed to dry. When the MP arrived on the scene that is what they saw according to their testimony.

Stevenson picked up the banner after Freddy died and he is quoted over and over as if his words are the real evidence.

caphill

02-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Deb B

Helena Stoeckley was not called as a defense witness - she was brought to court under a material witness warrent, under which both the defense and prosecution interviewed her. Any thoughts on why the defense didn't just call her as their witness? That would have precluded any pre-testimony questioning by the prosecution. Gee, maybe she wasn't very cooperative with team MacDonald prior to Blackburn supposedly threatening her. .

Any attorney worth their salt will prepare their witnesses. It is SOP. She was brought in and the defense by legal rights had to be given time to talk to her. The trial was delayed for a day because that was the only time the defense had to see her. She had to found and brought in by the US Marshall.

Yes, she was a defense witness. The defense was doing a direct examination. That is why Segal was asking Dupree to declare her a hostile witness so he could also do a cross exam to impeach her.

Deb B

02-03-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by caphill

I am aware that Stevenson started floating the molestation theory. This was not and could not be floated in the trial without foundation. Of course there was no foundation. There were autopsies done and if there was any evidence of molestation you can bet it would have been introduced.

Did you notice how Stevenson carefully establishes Freddy is the one that comes up with the story. I guess a dead man can't be sued for libel..

The urine story got its legs as proof of Mac was lying because of mixed blood "proved" Kim had been in the bedroom. Colette was in the bed by herself. When Mac started to bed the little one was taken out of the bed, given a bottle and put in her bed. Mac threw the bed covers back for the bed to dry. When the MP arrived on the scene that is what they saw according to their testimony.

Stevenson picked up the banner after Freddy died and he is quoted over and over as if his words are the real evidence.

Although I'm not one that thinks MacDonald was molesting Kim, something that's always given me pause to consider the possibility is the discussion Colette initiated in her class that night - that the kids would come into their bed at night and crowd Colette out and MacDonald's way of dealing with it was to tell Colette to sleep on the couch. Maybe it was just MacDonald being a jerk to Colette.

Deb B

02-03-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by caphill
.

Any attorney worth their salt will prepare their witnesses. It is SOP. She was brought in and the defense by legal rights had to be given time to talk to her. The trial was delayed for a day because that was the only time the defense had to see her. She had to found and brought in by the US Marshall.

Yes, she was a defense witness. The defense was doing a direct examination. That is why Segal was asking Dupree to declare her a hostile witness so he could also do a cross exam to impeach her.

She was brought in under a material witness warrent - she was arrested under that, brought to the trial by Federal marshalls and put in jail. Segal was mighty worried she would run off. All that reluctance before Jim Blackburn ever talked to her.

A material witness warrent is different than if she had simply been subpeonaed and appeared as a defense witness. If that had been the case, there would not have been that pre-testimony interview by the government. "Hey, defense attorney, you don't mind if I interview your witness?" LOL.

She was reluctant and it had nothing to do with Jim Blackburn - she was muttering, attention craving drug addict who had nothing to do with the murders.

JTF

02-03-2006, 12:46 PM

Audpaud: There's your answer. Did you notice how Arthur ignored my entire post? That's how MacDonald groupies tick. They are not concerned about discussing the forensic evidence in this case in a constructive manner. They simply throw out the same MacDonald camp propoganda over and over again in the hope that some poor first timer on a MacDonald Case discussion board will buy into their tale of fiction. The tale is entitled:

Jeffrey MacDonald: The Tortured Innocent.

You can find the tale by Googling: Comedy and Mass Murderers.

JTF.

audpaud

02-03-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In reply to Caphill, the significance of this is that the CID and FBI were trying to find any evidence to back up their absurd theory that Kim was in the bed with Dr MacDonald, that there may have been child molestation, and that an enraged Colette then injured and murdered Kim in the master bedroom.

As far as I'm concerned Kim was fast asleep in her own bedroom, and was murdered in her own bed. The CID and FBI theory is wrong.

Again . . . why would the CID and FBI try to find any evidence to back up their "absurd theory?"

Wouldn't it be infinitely easier to just lock up the Groovy Hippies vs go after the well respected Daddy Doctor?

Was the "absurd theory" really that Kim was being molested? I don't remember ever hearing that before coming to this Board . . . was it in Fatal Vision?:confused:

bandit's mom

02-03-2006, 12:53 PM

I'm new to these boards and I just wanted to say I'm
so impressed with the knowledge of the various cases
that so many of you have. I'm not going to profess to have
anywhere near the level of knowledge, but, like most
American, that doesn't stop me from having opinions! lol.

I've always been interested in true crime and this case
in particular has always stood out to me. I grew up in
Long Beach, Ca., where I'm sure most of you already
know, JM practiced in the 70's. In the early 80's I dated
an Arson Investigator with the Long Beach Fire Dept. who
was a really strong supporter of JM. You also probably already
know how he played up to the Long Beach PD, which of course
as an investigator my friend had strong ties to. His argument
consisted mainly of "he wouldn't do something like that".
At any rate, we eventually agreed to disagree.

Personally, although as I freely admit, I'm not nearly as
versed as you all are, I did read "Fatal Vision" and, in spite
of any bias on the part of the writer, I fail to see how
the facts could possibly be switched aroung to prove
anything other than guilt.

One of the main issues for me, in a lot of these cases, comes
down to common sense. Are we really to believe that no
matter how drugged out they may be, a bunch of hippies still
can't figure out that the grown, healthy young man is a lot
more threat to them than 2 tiny children and a woman?
They are going to leave him virtually alone while they overkill
the kids and then he ends up with minor wounds? It's just
too absurd for words. This isn't the only notorious case
with that kind of nonsense being pushed, and I always
find it just ridiculous.

What I really don't understand is all the publicity recently
"pointing" to his innocence. I recently watched a 48 hours
episode where they covered this story and, of course,
interviewed the good Doctor who whined on about his
unfair conviction. I felt there was a definite slant toward
his being unfairly convicted. Where is this nonsene coming from?
I understand that's what he's going to continue to say, because
it's the only chance he has of ever getting out, but why are
basically reputable shows offering him this forum?

I know he was turned down for parole and I can only hope
that he never see the light of day again. Whatever it
was that actually happened in that house to cause this
bloodbath, we can all only speculate, of course. I somehow
doubt that JM is ever going to come clean and give us the
real story. So what's the theory of all of you that have
obviously studied this case extensively. Sociopath or
just "snapped"?

audpaud

02-03-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Did you notice how Stevenson carefully establishes Freddy is the one that comes up with the story. I guess a dead man can't be sued for libel..

Stevenson picked up the banner after Freddy died and he is quoted over and over as if his words are the real evidence. [/B]

Again . . . do you have any idea how Posts like this come across to those of us generally interested in true crime?

Do you actually begrudge a Father and Grandfather his right to have a theory on how/why his Daughter and Grandaughter were battered and butchered? Do you actually think this Brother and Uncle is actually concerned about a libel lawsuit?

margiej

02-03-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom
I'm new to these boards and I just wanted to say I'm
so impressed with the knowledge of the various cases
that so many of you have. I'm not going to profess to have
anywhere near the level of knowledge, but, like most
American, that doesn't stop me from having opinions! lol.

I've always been interested in true crime and this case
in particular has always stood out to me. I grew up in
Long Beach, Ca., where I'm sure most of you already
know, JM practiced in the 70's. In the early 80's I dated
an Arson Investigator with the Long Beach Fire Dept. who
was a really strong supporter of JM. You also probably already
know how he played up to the Long Beach PD, which of course
as an investigator my friend had strong ties to. His argument
consisted mainly of "he wouldn't do something like that".
At any rate, we eventually agreed to disagree.

Personally, although as I freely admit, I'm not nearly as
versed as you all are, I did read "Fatal Vision" and, in spite
of any bias on the part of the writer, I fail to see how
the facts could possibly be switched aroung to prove
anything other than guilt.

One of the main issues for me, in a lot of these cases, comes
down to common sense. Are we really to believe that no
matter how drugged out they may be, a bunch of hippies still
can't figure out that the grown, healthy young man is a lot
more threat to them than 2 tiny children and a woman?
They are going to leave him virtually alone while they overkill
the kids and then he ends up with minor wounds? It's just
too absurd for words. This isn't the only notorious case
with that kind of nonsense being pushed, and I always
find it just ridiculous.

What I really don't understand is all the publicity recently
"pointing" to his innocence. I recently watched a 48 hours
episode where they covered this story and, of course,
interviewed the good Doctor who whined on about his
unfair conviction. I felt there was a definite slant toward
his being unfairly convicted. Where is this nonsene coming from?
I understand that's what he's going to continue to say, because
it's the only chance he has of ever getting out, but why are
basically reputable shows offering him this forum?

I know he was turned down for parole and I can only hope
that he never see the light of day again. Whatever it
was that actually happened in that house to cause this
bloodbath, we can all only speculate, of course. I somehow
doubt that JM is ever going to come clean and give us the
real story. So what's the theory of all of you that have
obviously studied this case extensively. Sociopath or
just "snapped"?

Welcome. My vote is "sociopath". And I loved your comment about using common sense. Anyone with an ounce of common sense, good judgment, whatever, would have to admit MacD certainly looks guilty on paper and probably is guilty. It's only a small jump from there to believeing he is guilty. Which I do. There is too much evidence against him to ignore. Like Freddy Kassab used to say, if you cannot see that he is guilty then you are burying your head in the sand like an ostrich.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by caphill
It was during one the bench conferences that Blackburn said he asked her if she had told the defense the same thing in her preperation that she was telling him and according to him, she said yes. Again, Dupree ruled in favor of backing Blackburn.Maybe that's because defense attorney Wade Smith backed Blackburn up on that, Cappy.As to your statements that the defense didn't want her on the stand, is a misunderstanding...What day and whose testimony was that bench conference taking place with Smith?No misunderstanding, Cap. What I posted is what happened. Read it for yourself in Mac's trial testimony on August 24.The appeals court never allowed MacDonald to present any of that to a jury for a jury to decide .Are you saying that you are so unfamiliar with U.S. court processes that you don't realize that defendants are not automatically granted new jury trials for every bit of "new evidence" they claim? Wow, I'm surprised, although I guess I shouldn't be, since you're the same person who claimed that MacDonald had just been granted a new trial when nothing could be further from the truth.Also I challenge you to show anywhere MacDonald said he never saw a female intruder.Read MacDonald's grand jury testimony. He was trying to impress upon the jurors that he had virtually no idea at all of what she looked like: "It was in the midst of a dark room and over a period of ten to twenty to thirty seconds, and I never really saw her." In other statements, he's claimed he only saw her for a couple of seconds, and of course he didn't recognize Stoeckley when shown her photo either in 1970 or 1971, but strangely enough claimed to recognize her ("the voice as much as the face") nine years later at trial, even though she was much heavier and had black hair, etc.I think it was one of the Supreme Court Justices that agreed that Helena et al should have being investigated in 1970 when there was fresh evidence and nine years less time for Helena tocontinue frying her brain.I think Mac has been in front of the Supreme Court several times and a majority of the Justices agreed that his arguments came to nothing.The Article 32 hearing with 56 witnesses and the "so called" evidence is what got the charges dismissed against MacDonald. It was ruled that there was no evidence to show that MacDonald killed his family. Remember that part?Remember the part about Col. Rock applying an illegal standard of proof? Remember the part about not all the evidence being known at that time? Remember the part about MacDonald not being too happy with the outcome, since he wanted to be declared "innocent" but Col. Rock couldn't make that finding?Wonder how this is going to play out since the 4th Circuit Court has granted the motion for the District court to hear the appeal based on prosecutional misconduct and witness tampering when he was one of the prosecutors.The Jan. 12 order only granted MacDonald the right to file his 2255 motion. On Jan. 13, Mac's website proclaimed that a hearing had been granted, which isn't what the order said. According to what I have been able to determine about 2255 motions, "Section 2255 motions are first presented to the judge who presided over the defendant's trial and sentencing if that judge is available. The judge examines the motion and attached exhibits, as well as the rest of the case record (including transcripts and correspondence in the file). The court then either dismisses the motion or orders the government to file an answer. Dismissal is required where the court concludes that the claims raised in the motion, even if true, would not provide a ground for §2255 relief, or where the claims are conclusively refuted by the files and records of the case." On Jan. 17, the defense filed its motion as granted by the court on Jan. 12.Evidence being picked up and moved around.Sorry, Cap, as much as you'd like it to be true, 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 removed fibers, hairs or blood from the sofa area where they should have been if MacDonald's story were true; no medic, MP or investigator put MacDonald's pajama fibers on the club and threw it outside; no one put MacDonald's blood in front of the kitchen sink where the surgical gloves were kept; none of those people put MacDonald's bloody footprint in Colette's blood exiting (but not entering) Kristen's room; none of them put one of his pajama fibers underneath Kristen's fingernail; none of them tucked Kim in with the left side of her head bashed in; none of them posed Colette face up on the master bedroom floor after putting evidence in Kristen's room that Colette had been attacked in there, and so on and so on for hundreds of other bits of evidence. And of course no one forced MacDonald to lie and to repeatedly demonstrate the consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes.

I guess you also missed Segal's comment at trial, with regard to the first MPs on the scene. It was Segal's opinion that "They acted, I think, as sensibly as they could."Colette's body is moved while Mica was reviving Jeff and on and on.Your propensity to post false information is becoming suspicious. Or did you forget you were posting as Caphill and not Artie? Perhaps I just missed this somewhere in the records: Wherever did you read that Colette was moved while Mica was reviving the murderer?Colette was in the bed by herself. When Mac started to bed the little one was taken out of the bed, given a bottle and put in her bed.Sorry, but Mac contradicts you (as well as himself, but we're used to that...). He said he put Kristen in the bed with Colette when Colette retired. Gotcha. :)

audpaud

02-03-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom
Sociopath or
just "snapped"?

Hi banditsmom!:) I'm new as well and also enjoy the thorough research others have done on this case. I base my opinions on these facts and also life experiences. (Walks like a duck . . . quacks like a duck . . . LOL!:D )

I believe that macdonald was both . . . a sociopath who snapped. I find the "why's" fascinating. Having already admitted to dabbling in LSD in the 70's, I must also confess to experimenting with amphetamines*oh the horror*--These experiences lead me to believe the basic theory outlined in Fatal Vision.

caphill

02-03-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by byn63

capy you are DEAD WRONG.

Type O blood CONTAINS ANTIGEN H and anti A antibodies and antiB antibodies.

:patriot:

Check another source other Janice Gisson testimony or just keep reading as she will get it right a little further on in her testimony.

O has no antigens. Now there is a very rare O type Oh that called Bombay

Thats why O type blood can be transfused to a A, B, AB. But an O type can't take a transfusion from A,B, or AB that produces antigens.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by caphill
[Chamberlain] wasn't able to get the blood spatter off the living room wall.What are you talking about? What blood spatter off the living room wall? Did you read Chamberlain's testimony?? Did you see that the spots were NOT blood?

I hate posting long parts of trial transcripts, but to make it easy for you, here you go. Emphasis added:

Q What about the three that you indicated near the sofa?
A Those were not blood, sir.
Q I am sorry--what were they?
A I don't know what they were, sir. They were not blood.
Q I see. Did you attempt to identify it as dried blood stains?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, you collected them because you suspected they were dried blood stains?
A Yes, sir; that is correct.
Q But you were unable to make a definitive decision on that because they were inadequate. There wasn't enough of them there to make a determination?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: That is absolutely incorrect, sir.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Tell us why you were not able to determine what they were?
A I determined that they were not blood, sir.
Q What did you determine that they were?
A I did not determine that, they were anything, sir, except that they were not blood.

LATER:
Q Now, you have stated this morning, in regard to the three spots on the wall near the sofa, that there was no blood on the wall; do you recall saying this this morning?
A Sir, I believe I said that I found the presence of no blood.
Q And the reason you concluded that was because you put a spot of benzidine on that--on those three spots; is that right?
A No, sir; that's incorrect.
Q Did you put benzidine on those three spots?
A No, sir; I did not.
Q What did you do to test specifically for blood on the wall?
A I performed the benzidine test for those three spots, sir.
Q And did you remove them from the wall to do that?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q And when you did the benzidine test, what was the specific finding you came up with?
A The test was negative for the presence of blood.
Q You mean it was negative because there was no blood present or because the sample, the amount you took up, was not large enough to function as a source or indication of blood, using only the benzidine test?
A Assuming the stain was entirely blood, sir--that is, it was red--approximately red-brown--there certainly would have been enough there to give a positive benzidine test had it been blood.
Q In other words, it was too small to prove it?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will SUSTAIN the objection. I think he answered the question.

MR. SEGAL: All right, sir.

JTF

02-03-2006, 01:12 PM

Byn: You've always been the Kick Butt Queen in terms of systematically breaking down the blood evidence. The information has been invaluable for me in understanding how the blood evidence was analyzed. MacDonald groupies, however, are never going to acknowledge the facts you present for obvious reasons. How many times have we heard, "he didn't say that" in response to court testimony in this case? Welcome to the duck and dodge, cut and paste, ignore and insult world of MacDonald groupies. MacDonald groupies are groovy, kill common sense.

JTF.

margiej

02-03-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by caphill
.

Any attorney worth their salt will prepare their witnesses. It is SOP. She was brought in and the defense by legal rights had to be given time to talk to her. The trial was delayed for a day because that was the only time the defense had to see her. She had to found and brought in by the US Marshall.

Yes, she was a defense witness. The defense was doing a direct examination. That is why Segal was asking Dupree to declare her a hostile witness so he could also do a cross exam to impeach her.

How does one "prepare" Helena Stoeckley? That is akin to "driving a herd of cats to Montana". Good luck. I am proud that Judge Dupree made Smith and Segal decide whether to recall her. They had held her over for several days after she first testified and Judge Dupree told them to call her or set her free to go home. I also agree with Judge Dupree's ruling not to allow Bernie to "impeach" her testimony.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom
I fail to see how the facts could possibly be switched aroung to prove anything other than guilt...One of the main issues for me, in a lot of these cases, comes down to common sense. Hi, bandit's mom - Welcome to the board!

What you wrote above is exactly what many other newcomers have found, and of course the oldtimers who have studied the case for years also agree with you. It all comes down to the fact that not a single iota of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to support the murderer's claims of "intruders," the evidence that did exist pointed directly to him, and every time he lies and tries to make his stories match the known evidence, he shows again the consciousness of his guilt. He's presented every bit of his "evidence" before the courts for the past 26 years and all of it was rejected. The current Britt issue is just another in a series of attempts to present "new evidence," and although no one knows at this point how things will turn out, it's the belief of many that this issue will go the way of the other issues and will not result in Mac's release as he thinks it will.What I really don't understand is all the publicity recently
"pointing" to his innocence...I felt there was a definite slant toward his being unfairly convicted. Where is this nonsene coming from?IMHO, it's just one good way to get viewers to tune in. :)So what's the theory of all of you that have obviously studied this case extensively. Sociopath or just "snapped"?Probably a combination of both, perhaps fueled by an amphetamine psychosis, which can bring on violent behavior and auditory and visual hallucinations. At this point, it's highly doubtful that anyone would ever know for sure, since as you indicated, the murderer himself would never tell us.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by margiej
How does one "prepare" Helena Stoeckley? That is akin to "driving a herd of cats to Montana". Good luck. I am proud that Judge Dupree made Smith and Segal decide whether to recall her. They had held her over for several days after she first testified and Judge Dupree told them to call her or set her free to go home. I also agree with Judge Dupree's ruling not to allow Bernie to "impeach" her testimony.Hey, Margie - just wanted to say "hi" and welcome, if I didn't already do that. I'm enjoying your posts...keep 'em coming!

audpaud

02-03-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Audpaud: There's your answer. Did you notice how Arthur ignored my entire post? That's how MacDonald groupies tick. They are not concerned about discussing the forensic evidence in this case in a constructive manner. They simply throw out the same MacDonald camp propoganda over and over again in the hope that some poor first timer on a MacDonald Case discussion board will buy into their tale of fiction. The tale is entitled:

Jeffrey MacDonald: The Tortured Innocent.

You can find the tale by Googling: Comedy and Mass Murderers.

JTF.

Know what JTF?. . . I didn't notice until you pointed it out!!:eek:

I truly cannot fathom the reasoning involved in supporting macdonald and haven't had any responses to explain the reasoning (so far!LOL!:tongue: ) . . .

So far, I'm just guessing that for these supporters 'Da Nile really isn't just a river in Egypt?:confused:

PS: The poll just moved up to "61" for guilty.

audpaud

02-03-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by margiej

How does one "prepare" Helena Stoeckley? That is akin to "driving a herd of cats to Montana"

ROTF margie!!!!:D

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don’t really want to have a big argument about all this. I do think you need to have an abstract sense of justice about it."Abstract"? What does that mean? Aren't you the same poster who's been insisting that one must go by the evidence and not abstractions and speculations and suppositions?If the CID and FBI suddenly accused you of murder, for some reason or other, your first reaction would probably be “don’t be ridiculous.” Your next reaction would probably be where is your proof?Yes, Artie, so where is your forensic evidence that erases all of that mountain of evidence against MacDonald? Where is your forensic evidence that any "intruder" was ever in the Mac apartment? You have none, not a shred, not an iota, and it's not likely that you ever will.This idea that there was "probably" a...amphetamine psychosis on the night of the MacDonald murders was disproved during the MacDonald v McGinniss court case in about 1987.No, it wasn't.There is no real evidence against [the murderer]...It’s all theories without facts.LOL! Sorry for laughing, Artie, but it's just so funny that you keep saying the exact same thing like a robot, even though everyone can see that you're known for not telling the truth and that you have only a passing acquaintance with the evidence. You post under different aliases, you were "outed" on A&E as a fraud, were apparently banned from the biggest MacDonald message boards on the Internet, and so you came here to spout your nonsense. Too bad for you that the factual documents are online for everyone to see, isn't it? I'll bet you're as livid about it as Mac is. heehee

audpaud

02-03-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don’t really want to have a big argument about all this. I do think you need to have an abstract sense of justice about it.

If the CID and FBI suddenly accused you of murder, for some reason or other, your first reaction would probably be “don’t be ridiculous.” Your next reaction would probably be where is your proof?

If the CID and FBI then concocted some ridiculous pajama folding experiment, and it impressed a jury, and the CID and FBI didn’t even bother to thoroughly investigate the real culprits, you could find yourself in prison for the rest of your life.

This idea that there was "probably" a Dr MacDonald amphetamine psychosis on the night of the MacDonald murders was disproved during the MacDonald v McGinniss court case in about 1987.

There is no real evidence against Dr MacDonald. It’s all theories without facts. Dr MacDonald knows he’s innocent, even if the posters on this forum don’t know it. As three judges of the United States Supreme Court said in disagreement with the majority judicial verdict in 1982, the MacDonald case is a case of “strained logic and judicial illusion.”

If this Post is in reply to my question on how do you justify supporting macdonald . . . thank you. I'm not trying to get in a "big argument" but have a genuine curiousity about your rationalizations.

I am no stranger to "abstract" thinking . . . (as my previous confessions attest!LOL!:biggrin: ) . . . and I also believe that innocent folks are convicted--some even on Death Row. For this very reason, I am ambivalent on the Death Penalty.

Must tell you though, that those innocents are mainly undereducated, poverty stricken black men . . . not affluent, intelligent white male doctors in my estimation.

I am still interested on why you think that the various authorities were so intent on going after macdonald and not the groovy hippies.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
I am still interested on why you think that the various authorities were so intent on going after macdonald and not the groovy hippies.Didn't you know, Aud? Artie's theory is that all of the CID investigators were Masons, and that's why they were protecting Stoeckley. I am not making this up; it's in the threads on A&E, where he used to post as "Albert Webb" until they wouldn't let him post there anymore.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Getting into a highly technical discussion with JTF about the forensics in the MacDonald case is rather like having a turgid discussion about Swiss bank socialism in Africa, or a debate about whether Britain and America should give up making American and British made products.Actually, I think your getting into a debate with JTF is rather like pitting a kindergartner against a Supreme Court Justice and having them debate a case. We've all seen your propensity to post false statements and ludicrous theories ("vampires" committed the murders; the CID were all Masons and that's why they were protecting Stoeckley; and much more that I won't repeat here to save you from further embarrassment). JTF provides the facts, and you provide the comic relief, that's all.Murtagh has some explaining to do about the forensics in the MacDonald case which he hid from the MacDonald lawyers and forensic experts at the 1979 MacDonald trial.Are you sure you're referring to the Mac case and not some other one? In this case, the courts determined that no evidence was wrongly suppressed.This is part of what MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate had to say about some of those hidden forensicsAs you knew before you posted, unsourced items aren't forensically significant, and often aren't even reported. You also knew that MacDonald has presented all of his "new evidence" before the court, every single bit of it, and it was determined that his arguments had no weight with the courts. So what's your point?

Since despite the fact that unsourced items aren't forensically significant you still believe they are, can you tell me which murderer dropped those unsourced hairs and fibers in your own home, and can you tell us which "intruder" brought his dog with him to 544 Castle Drive on the night of the murders?

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Malones's work on the MacDonald case is highly suspect.Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be correct. If it was, why is it then that you were never able to answer JTF's post to you on another board? "Malone's hair analysis mirrored the analysis of Glisson, Browning, and Stombaugh. His fiber analysis mirrored the analysis of Frier and Bond. Sans the saran fibers, name me 1, just 1 piece of forensic evidence that Malone lied about or misrepresented in his 1991 affidavit. I'll await your answer with breathless anticipation."

As far as I know, we're still waiting.
I hope OmegaMan doesn't mind me quoting him...OmegaMan? Are you talking about the same OM who has yet to show even the slightest bit of familiarity with the case and whose sole purpose is only to flamebait? Word has it that several of his posts were removed, and my guess is that it won't be long before he finds himself banned from the board just as you apparently were.

byn63

02-03-2006, 02:58 PM

capy I don't know what testimony you are reading, because the testimony of Janice Glisson that I've read states quite clearly that TYPE O blood contains AntiA and AntiB antibodies and H antigen. From the August 2, 1979 testimony of Janice Glisson:

Q. Mrs. Glisson, are you familiar and were you familiar in February 1970 with the typing of dried blood stains in the ABO system using the crust and elution methods?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are those tests, to your knowledge, still in use today?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are they a valid methodology?

A. Yes, sir.

then later in discussing Government Exhibit 648 which regarded Government Exhibit 358 Green Throw Rug

Q. All right, and what about the green throw rug, number 358?

A. That gave the same results. I had anti-A, anti-B and H and in combination it types it as TYPE O which is Kristen's blood--the same as Kristen.

There are multiple other instances in her testimony where she states the same FACTS. TYPE O blood contains Antigen H as well as anti-A and anti-B antibodies.

JTF thanks for the compliment! I expended a bit of effort to learn and understand the blood typing since the family was a statistical anomaly the blood trail is important to understand imho.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by caphill
I can tell you for a fact he did not comment on Helena having nice legs in his testimony Those like of flip comments are not normally made on the witness stand.But of course you wouldn't tell the posters here that they were made on the witness stand, by Mica, at the Article 32. How odd that you would suppress that information.

Q You don’t really know what kind of shape this woman was in, do you?
A Well, the only way I could judge, you know, is comparison to other people I’ve seen wearing raincoats. She had pretty nice legs.
Q From her knees down?
A Yes.

Mica at trial:
Q Can you describe this girl that you saw for us?
A To the best of my recollection, she had on a dark-colored raincoat and what appeared to be a type of a dark-colored rain hat, and I believe I could see part of her legs below the raincoat.

Mica at trial:
Q What, if anything, did the girl that you saw have on her legs?
A I don't recall seeing boots.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 03:19 PM

LOL! Well, that's what I get for having two new kittens in the house who are just now discovering my keyboard! Sorry about that, folks, my last post got cut off at the end:

Q What, if anything, did the girl that you saw have on her legs?
A I don't recall seeing boots.
Q You didn't see any muddy boots?
A I don't recall them, no, sir.

JTF

02-03-2006, 04:26 PM

Arthur: Regarding your last few posts.

I didn't say that the source of the 5 woolen fibers and the assorted acrylic fibers "may" never be known, I said they "will" never be known. There were multiple MacDonald family items which could have been the source of all the unsourced fibers whereas the MacDonald camp only has one alleged source, Helena Stoeckley. Which scenario do you think sounds more feasible?

1) There were 5 woolen fibers found at the crime scene, with 3 of the 5 fibers differing in chemical composition. This indicates multiple sources and the MacDonald family once had 2 sleeping bags, wool hats, and sweaters.

or

2) Despite the fact that Stoeckley claims she never got close to Colette's body in the master bedroom and that she did not wear woolen clothing on February 17th, she was the source of the multiple fibers because she did have a history of wearing black clothing.

In terms of Michael Malone's work IN THE MACDONALD CASE, I'll ask again.

Sans the saran fiber analysis, which portions of Malone's trace evidence analysis IN THE MACDONALD CASE, could be construed as false?

JTF.

audpaud

02-03-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Getting into a highly technical discussion with JTF about the forensics in the MacDonald case is rather like having a turgid discussion about Swiss bank socialism in Africa, or a debate about whether Britain and America should give up making American and British made products.

Although I don't know JTF any more than I know you, I'd say from JTF's post that were the facts in macdonald's favor, this Poster would be Posting those facts as well.

I appreciate your point on the difficulty of debating JTF on something you and I are not experts at. That's why I've shared my life experiences as a background on how I've formed my opinion about macdonald/his version and have asked you (and all defenders of him) what you are basing your seemingly irrational defense of-- and devotion to--him on?:confused:

So far you and caphill come across as not being able to debate the forensic evidence . . . use editing and debate trickery to further your baseless positions that there is this ridiculous Grand Conspiracy that supposedly has existed from the beginning/now 35 years later~ against macdonald?

Again . . . why do you think The Establishment Pigs would not take the easy way out and go with "The Stoekley Group?" Has your life experiences taught you that The Establishment will go after the most difficult and unlikely suspect that was 1971 Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald? Has your life experiences taught you that if you dropped acid with a bunch of friends you would be able to break into the home of a Green Beret Special Forces Dr.? (OMG--ROTF at the thought of planning that on acid!!!! :D ) Not ROTF at the thought of Ice-Picking Baby Kristy on acid--Dear Sweet Lord!:( Do you have someone near and dear wrongly convicted of murder?

There has got to be some kind of reason in your life that you take this untenable position on mcdonald . . . let's discover what it is together?

JTF

02-03-2006, 04:36 PM

Arthur: You do know that claims of witness coaching are not examples of documented fact, don't you? You do know that with every post that relies on innuendo, you bolster the perception that you're nothing more than a MacDonald groupie? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't think for one minute that serious MacDonald case researchers are going to let you pass off speculation for fact.

JTF.

caphill

02-03-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Deb B

Although I'm not one that thinks MacDonald was molesting Kim, something that's always given me pause to consider the possibility is the discussion Colette initiated in her class that night - that the kids would come into their bed at night and crowd Colette out and MacDonald's way of dealing with it was to tell Colette to sleep on the couch. Maybe it was just MacDonald being a jerk to Colette.

Here is a direct quote from a friend that was taking a child psychology class with Colette. They rode home together the last night Colette was alive. This was the lady answer to the question about what Colette said about the baby sleeping with them.

A. "Well, they were concerned because the younger child, Kristen came into their bed with them at times. She wanted to crawl next to her daddy and push her mommy out---this sort of thing."

Sounds more like a typical young family situation that goes on in millions of homes every night rather than something that would cause someone to fly into a rage grab a knife, ice pick and a stick and start Kung Fuing his family to death.

There where some girl friends of Colette's that testified and gave a picture of MacDonald as husband and father that is much different than the mean spirited things you read on a message board from people who have never met the man.

audpaud

02-03-2006, 04:43 PM

arthurthorpe and caphill: Do you find that you are attracted to macdonald's "underdog" status or just attracted to him as a man in general?

Combination?

Did you always believe him to be innocent? If so, why?

Do you find yourself always taking the opposite end of an argument IRL? Or just on message boards? Is it the actual debate what you like or could you possibly really believe this monsters lies?

Curious.

JTF

02-03-2006, 05:18 PM

Audpaud: Excellent point about the rationale behind the establishment wanting to railroad the Golden Boy. Yeah, the CID's first thought was to frame the best and the brightest, while allowing a group of drug-crazed losers to walk free after slaughtering 2 small children. Makes perfect sense.

JTF.

Bunny2

02-03-2006, 05:27 PM

Deb B

02-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Here is a direct quote from a friend that was taking a child psychology class with Colette. They rode home together the last night Colette was alive. This was the lady answer to the question about what Colette said about the baby sleeping with them.

A. "Well, they were concerned because the younger child, Kristen came into their bed with them at times. She wanted to crawl next to her daddy and push her mommy out---this sort of thing."

Sounds more like a typical young family situation that goes on in millions of homes every night rather than something that would cause someone to fly into a rage grab a knife, ice pick and a stick and start Kung Fuing his family to death.

...and MacDonald would tell Colette to go sleep on the couch. That's the part that bugs me. Is this why he killed them? I think they had an arguement about something that spiraled out of control - he lost it and killed them.

stinkerbelle

02-03-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by byn63
from the testimony of chemists Dr. Craig Chamberlain, Terry Laber, and Flynn:

Tests to determine Blood/Blood Typing[

Benzidine - possible blood - does not determine species.
Anti-Human Precipitin test - determines if stain is of human origin
Crust Lattes test - locates antibodies present in blood stain
elution test - locates antigens present in blood stain

Antigens are found on the surface of the red blood cell and remain even in *hemalized* cells of dried blood stains. Antibodies are found in the liquid portion of blood, but they also remain in the dried blood stains.

International Blood Group or ABO:
Type A - antigen A and anti-B antibody
Type B - antigen B and anti-A antibody
Type AB - antigen A and antigen B; no antibodies
Type O - antigen H & anti-A and anti-B antibodies

*Hemalized* - means the cells have collapsed and deformed during the drying process. (lack of water)

:read:

a little more info
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type)...

Humans have the following blood types along with their respective antigens and antibodies:

*Individuals with type A blood have red blood cells with antigen A on their surface and produce antibodies against antigen B in their blood serum. Therefore an A-negative person can only receive blood from another A-negative person or from an O-negative person.
*Individuals with type B blood have the opposite arrangement, antigen B on their cells and produce antibodies against antigen A in their serum. Therefore, a B-negative person can only receive blood from another B-negative person or from an O-negative person.
*Individuals with type AB blood have red blood cells with both antigens A and B and do not produce antibodies against either antigen in their serum. Therefore, a person with type AB-positive blood can safely receive any ABO type blood and is called a "universal receiver". However an AB-positive person cannot donate blood except to another AB-positive person.

*Individuals with type O blood have red blood cells with neither antigen but produce antibodies against both types of antigens. Therefore, a person with type O-negative blood can safely donate to a person with any ABO blood type and is called a "universal donor". However an O-negative person can only receive blood from another O-negative person.

The H antigen
The A & B antigens are derived from a common precursor known as the H antigen. The H antigen is a glycosphingolipid (sphingolipid with carbohydrates bonded to the ceramide moiety) which is modified to produce the A and B antigens. In type O blood, it remains unchanged and consists of a chain of galactose, N-acetylglucsamine, galactose, fucose attached to the ceramide. Since it lacks N-acetylneuraminic acid (sialic acid) it is referred to as a globoside, not a ganglioside. Type A has an extra N-acetyl galactosamine bonded to the galactose near the end, while type B has a third galactose bonded to that near-end galactose.

stinkerbelle

02-03-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I get the feeling that the military policeman Ken Mica was coached in his testimony at the 1979 trial, in the same way as the babysitter Kalin was coached to change her testimony at the Grand Jury, and 1979 trial, and the boxing coach was coached to deny what he said abiout a boxing trip to Russia.

I believe the bus driver was simply bribed to say nasty things about Dr MacDonald.
lmfao! as if this "i didn't do it, everyone against me is lying" strategy was coined by mac. how many defendants have you heard of who have said "nope, no one lied or manufactured evidence in my case. but i'm still innocent." ??

what is it with you pro-macs that makes you think jeffrey macdonald was so damned important that he would be framed like this? seriously, i'd like to know.

macdonald had been in the army all of seven months when the murders occurred. had he discovered that the army was responsible for the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK jr.? had he discovered the army was keeping a band of aliens in one of their airplane hangars? had he discovered that the army was actually a front for organized crime? what was it that captain jeffrey macdonald had on the army?

*why would every single investigator or lab technician lie about their findings?
*why would investigators take the time to bribe a freaking bus driver, who never even testified, into saying "nasty" things about jeffrey macdonald?
*if indeed there was a trip planned to russia by the boxing team, how could the CID possibly expect to coerce the entire team, plus coaches, and any other staff, into keeping it a secret but lying and saying there was no trip simply to make jeffrey macdonald look bad?
*why would mica bring the matter of the woman on the corner to perry's/defense's attention, on his own volition, and then allow himself to be coached? his testimony at trial is no different in substance than at the article 32.
*if the govt was so intent on framing and convicting this wonderful, golden, innocent man, why then did it take 5 years to get an indictment against him and another 4 years to get a trial?
*why did the govt use an inexperienced prosecutor to get their revenge on the almighty jeffrey macdonald?

good grief, for the love of all that is holy, please stop posting such drivel.

What one policeman says is probably true, what two policemen say may be true but what three policemen say is never true.

oh my, that little statement is surely bound for train-wreck status. i've got popcorn, who wants to come sit by me and watch?

stinkerbelle

02-03-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Sounds more like a typical young family situation that goes on in millions of homes every night rather than something that would cause someone to fly into a rage grab a knife, ice pick and a stick and start Kung Fuing his family to death.

hey, no fair trying to pass off my jackie chan reference as your own!:no: and you're right....bedwetting a reason to kill? sounds preposterous! however, it was just a possible theory the government had as to what may have caused an argument between macdoneit and colette, ultimately resulting in the deaths of colette, kim and kristy. i mean really, do you honestly think that those of us who think mac is guilty think that at some point mac said to kimberly, "the next time you pee in my bed, i'm gonna kill you!" and that she did indeed pee in his bed and he did indeed kill her? as i said before, any motive need only be reasonable to the perpetrator.

Duncan

02-03-2006, 07:55 PM

I haven't read a lot on this case but have read the last few pages of this thread. Is there a reason why the urine stain could not be Collette's urine? If she'd had an accident at some time, she would hardly have told her husband.

JTF

02-03-2006, 08:18 PM

Duncan: Not a trace of urine on Colette's pajamas, so Kimberly is the prime source for that urine stain on the bed in the master bedroom. Interesting that Jeff claims he picked up Kristen after realizing that she had wet the bed and that he carried her back to her room. The problem with that claim is that there is not a trace of urine on his pajama top.

JTF.

stinkerbelle

02-03-2006, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Duncan
I haven't read a lot on this case but have read the last few pages of this thread. Is there a reason why the urine stain could not be Collette's urine? If she'd had an accident at some time, she would hardly have told her husband.

hi duncan! the urine stain was fresh and, i believe, still damp. certainly colette could have urinated, as our bladders/sphincters often void upon death, but as JTF stated, colette had no urine on her pajamas.

JTF

02-04-2006, 01:50 AM

Stinkerbelle: I find it interesting that one of the main philosophies of the MacDonald camp is to attack the credibility of anyone who believes that their messiah is guilty. Murtagh is a liar, Malone is liar, Blackburn is a liar, Kassab is a liar, Stombaugh is a liar, McGinniss is a liar, etc., etc., etc., The irony of such a position is that Jeffrey MacDonald is a serial liar. The late Allard Lowenstein said it best when he told Freddy Kassab that MacDonald, "will say anything to anybody."

JTF.

caphill

02-04-2006, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Deb B

...and MacDonald would tell Colette to go sleep on the couch. That's the part that bugs me. Is this why he killed them? I think they had an arguement about something that spiraled out of control - he lost it and killed them.

Consider your source. Was this the testimony of lady who actually rode to school with Colette the night of the 16th of Feb 1970 or was the quote of someone on a message board?

That is not a difficult guestion to answer. Read the the testimony of the witnesses and you will find it has no semblance to what you read posted on a message board.

The story of Jeffrey and Colette ,up until the middle of the night on the 17th of February, was the all American dream story. They were childhood sweet hearts. They married while still in college and struggled together through his med schooling . They had no history of drugs use or alcohol abuse. Friends described them as a couple who were best friends, communicated well together and were devoted parents. Jeff was described by some as the "softie" of the two with the children. Colette was described as patient but firm and was admired by her girls friend on how she managed her children. Girl friends described being at the house when Jeff would come home and little girls would get all excited running to the door and yelling Daddy is home Dabby is home. A friend described witnessing a scene when Jeff asked Kim to help Mommy keep a promise to him. That promise was that Colette was to take some time to sit down during the day and put her feet up. He wanted Kim to remind Mommy she needed to do that.

Jeff the monster was "developed" after he was accused of murdering his family. In a world that had kinda gone crazy with drugs and anti establishment sentiments, Jeff and Colette had stayed out of that fray and focused on education, the military as step in their plan for a future career in orthopedic surgery.(IIRC it was orthopedic).

It was established Jeff had little tolerance for the military druggies at Fort Bragg. Was he arrogant? Maybe. Did he hold himself in higher esteem than that "element" of trash and druggies at Fort Bragg? Likely.

Was it true the bodies of Viet Nam soldiers coming back to Fort Bragg had their body cavities stuffed with drugs? Was there fear that someone like Helena, who lived in the under belly of the drug world and was a drug informant might know things that would cause the walls to come tumbling down. Was the murders of the MacDonald just something that got in the way of a much bigger picture? Was this more about keeping a real investigation away from Helena and some of the people in her world? Was Jeffrey MacDonald just a fly on the elephants back in the big story of what was going at Fort Bragg?

audpaud

02-04-2006, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Consider your source. Was this the testimony of lady who actually rode to school with Colette the night of the 16th of Feb 1970 or was the quote of someone on a message board?

That is not a difficult guestion to answer. Read the the testimony of the witnesses and you will find it has no semblance to what you read posted on a message board.

The story of Jeffrey and Colette ,up until the middle of the night on the 17th of February, was the all American dream story. They were childhood sweet hearts. They married while still in college and struggled together through his med schooling . They had no history of drugs use or alcohol abuse. Friends described them as a couple who were best friends, communicated well together and were devoted parents. Jeff was described by some as the "softie" of the two with the children. Colette was described as patient but firm and was admired by her girls friend on how she managed her children. Girl friends described being at the house when Jeff would come home and little girls would get all excited running to the door and yelling Daddy is home Dabby is home. A friend described witnessing a scene when Jeff asked Kim to help Mommy keep a promise to him. That promise was that Colette was to take some time to sit down during the day and put her feet up. He wanted Kim to remind Mommy she needed to do that.

Jeff the monster was "developed" after he was accused of murdering his family. In a world that had kinda gone crazy with drugs and anti establishment sentiments, Jeff and Colette had stayed out of that fray and focused on education, the military as step in their plan for a future career in orthopedic surgery.(IIRC it was orthopedic).

It was established Jeff had little tolerance for the military druggies at Fort Bragg. Was he arrogant? Maybe. Did he hold himself in higher esteem than that "element" of trash and druggies at Fort Bragg? Likely.

Was it true the bodies of Viet Nam soldiers coming back to Fort Bragg had their body cavities stuffed with drugs? Was there fear that someone like Helena, who lived in the under belly of the drug world and was a drug informant might know things that would cause the walls to come tumbling down. Was the murders of the MacDonald just something that got in the way of a much bigger picture? Was this more about keeping a real investigation away from Helena and some of the people in her world? Was Jeffrey MacDonald just a fly on the elephants back in the big story of what was going at Fort Bragg?

I put in bold the words "drug use" because I think this is precisely how mackieD snapped. No, he wasn't a drug user but was too stupid to realize that playing around with his prescription speed WAS like using drugs! I said a few Posts ago that it reminds me of Elvis Presley going to the White House to become an Honorary Drug Agent (or whatever) never realizing he was a major drug user~fooled because the drugs were prescribed by a "doctor!" . . . Sadly Elvis died from this ignorance . . . too bad for Colette, Kim and Kristy that macdonald didn't do the same before his sociopath personality snapped while speeding!!:flamemad:

In answer to your other questions . . . ummmm, I gotta go with "no" . . . and must ask you again: Do you even realize what you come across like? Seriously. Read your Post like you've never seen it before, k?

Did you read it?

Ready?

ok good. Do you agree that you sound like someone grasping at any kind of straw and your theories border on ravings?

Really.

Let me help you. Repeat part of your post with me here:

"Jeff the monster was "developed" after he was accused of murdering his family. In a world that had kinda gone crazy with drugs and anti establishment sentiments, Jeff and Colette had stayed out of that fray and focused on education, the military as step in their plan for a future career in orthopedic surgery.(IIRC it was orthopedic)."

WHY did the Army "develop" the Jeff The Monster Murderer Theory?

Were you the underdog in junior high? Were you falsely accused of something and no one took up for you?

Something is making you Post like this . . . let's uncover it together?

audpaud

02-04-2006, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

hi duncan! the urine stain was fresh and, i believe, still damp. certainly colette could have urinated, as our bladders/sphincters often void upon death, but as JTF stated, colette had no urine on her pajamas.

I can't remember, but didn't Kim have urine in her pj's too?

audpaud

02-04-2006, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Didn't you know, Aud? Artie's theory is that all of the CID investigators were Masons, and that's why they were protecting Stoeckley. I am not making this up; it's in the threads on A&E, where he used to post as "Albert Webb" until they wouldn't let him post there anymore.

WOW!!! I've got something in common with arthruthorpe!!! I totally believe in Mason Conspiracy Theories!!! My career in a Union BrotherHood has taught me this--secret rings--secret handshakes abound! (They also get all the good jobs y'all!) I also believe the White House is filled with Masons at the moment.

That being said . . . these beliefs and experiences make me MORE sure than ever that macdonald is GUILTY. No how--now way would any self-respecting Mason allow the "Stoekley Group" to get away with these heinous murders . . . and as a matter of fact, I believe that Mason CID investigators would have FRAMED the so called "Stoekley Group" to save the good doctor were this Mason CID schlock to be true!

audpaud

02-04-2006, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by caphill
that is much different than the mean spirited things you read on a message board from people who have never met the man.

Have you met him?

If not . . . would you like to?

Why or why not.

caphill

02-04-2006, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

a little more info
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type)...

Lets break that down so most of us lay people can understand.

We are talking about identifying blood types. There are many antigens and antibodies that are in the blood that have have nothing to do with the typing of blood.

An antigen is anthing capable of inducing an immune reaction. The H antigen is the precursor to A and B antigen. O types lacks the enzymes to convert H antigen to a A or B antigen. Therefore, it is fact that O type blood has no blood typing antigens.

Blood types are determined by ABO blood grouping, which is based on only two (20 inherited antigens called A and B.

These blood groups consist of only four types. A, AB, B, and O. So to type which blood type is which, the lab looks in the blood cell membrane for the proteins/antigens of A or B . There are only oft 2 of these for typing. IF are no antigens found in the cell membrane that means it is an O type.

Blood contains anitboides against anitgens your blood does not manufacturer. That is why an A type could only get a blood tansfusion from another A type or an O type which has no antigens.

An AB type(universal receiver) could get a transfusion from any of the 4 types. The B type can only get a transfusion from another B type or O type. The O type (universal donor)can only get a transfusion from another O type.

Janice Glisson's as a witness left a lot to be desired. She took a subject that she needed to "dummy down" for the jury to understand and made it very convoluted. Any jury member that wasn't a chemist would have been focusing on avoiding a headache from trying to follow what she was saying. Therefore, it easy to get a jury to just accept and hope she is the expert and whatever she says is correct.

Thats a good lawyer tactic. Keep her talking about blood, antigens and antibodies as the blood expert and never disclose that she examined more than blood. She is the very person at the lab that didn't put on her report ,for the jury eyes, the hair analysis of the hairs found on the bodies that she determined did not belong to Jeffrey MacDonald. She was very aware of who paid her salary.

To defend this woman and argue for her crediblity, when it is now a known fact she worked with the prosecution to suppress evidence from the jury.

Is there no personal and professional morals and ethics expected from her because she worked for the government and was loyal to her paycheck. What have we come to as a society and a people that condones or justifies deception when a person raise their hand and swears to an oath of truth in a court of law. Its a mockery of everything on which this country was founded.

What is scary is she is not one of few but of many that work "for the Man" and will give whatever desired result they think is wanted.

rashomon

02-04-2006, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Deb B

...and MacDonald would tell Colette to go sleep on the couch. That's the part that bugs me.

That's the part which bugs me too. When our daughter was small, she crawled into our bed countless times too. I often went into her bed then because it was too crowded for me in the mb bed. But I would have found it very strange if my husband had told me to leave the bed. He never did; it was always my own decision.

rashomon

02-04-2006, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Thanks for your concern, but my bubble is fine.
Ah, I see. "Don't give me the facts, my mind is made up." That's how you operate. You seem to be just another Mac groupie refusing to have their bubble bursted.
Amazing how many people JMD has lured into his fabricated "I'm innocent" universe, where they float around blind to the truth.
I would really like to study the manipulative techniques this psychopath uses.
Sorryladynow's posts which Bunny put here give some insights into that, as well as Lucia Bartoli's e-mails to Christina.
Have you read the posts, caphill? Very interesting, aren't they?

caphill

02-04-2006, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

That's the part which bugs me too. When our daughter was small, she crawled into our bed countless times too. I often went into her bed then because it was too crowded for me in the mb bed. But I would have found it very strange if my husband had told me to leave the bed. He never did; it was always my own decision.

Rashomon, what is your source that Jeff told Colette to leave the bed.?

rashomon

02-04-2006, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Rashomon, what is your source that Jeff told Colette to leave the bed.?
A woman who attended the child psychology class with Colette told Pruett and Kearns (who thoroughly reinvestigated the MacDonald case in 1971) (FV, 1984 paperb, p. 261):

"The instructor then asked what she did about the child. Mrs. MacDonald told him that she had to go to sleep on the couch.
The instructor asked Mrs MacDonald what her husband thought of her sleeping on the couch. She replied that it was her husband's decision that the child stay in their bed and that she sleep on the couch."

JTF

02-04-2006, 09:40 AM

Arthur: Don't you have any of your own thoughts regarding Michael Malone? Could you possibly reference any recent Malone case material? Silverglate's not even in the picture anymore, the WSJ article was written in 1997, and you still haven't directly answered my question regarding Malone's trace evidence analysis. By the way, the fibers from Mildred Kassab's black wig and the 3 woolen fibers found on Colette's body, 2 separate issues. The mere fact that you tried to link these fibers as a means to discredit Malone's work demonstrates how little credibility you have in this case discussion.

JTF.

caphill

02-04-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

A woman who attended the child psychology class with Colette told Pruett and Kearns (who thoroughly reinvestigated the MacDonald case in 1971) (FV, 1984 paperb, p. 261):

"The instructor then asked what she did about the child. Mrs. MacDonald told him that she had to go to sleep on the couch.
The instructor asked Mrs MacDonald what her husband thought of her sleeping on the couch. She replied that it was her husband's decision that the child stay in their bed and that she sleep on the couch."

Am I understanding this from was a book this guys wrote? My source was from the woman who testified that was in the child pyschology class and also rode home with Colette the night Colette died. I consider that from the horses mouth than than a book written in 1984 by Pruett and Kearns.

Bunny2

02-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I do have my own thoughts about Malone of the FBI lab. I think he’s an a**hole.Artie, you're so transparent it's laughable. You've simply made a list of anyone and everyone who ever said or did anything against the murderer or who had anything at all to do with the evidence that showed his guilt, from lab technicians to MacDonald's own family members, and you regularly trot out your different names, claiming they're all idiots or gossips or liars or inexperienced or just plain wrong. Had Malone been at trial and testified for the defense, you'd be singing his praises and telling everyone "This is what Malone said, and I believe him." LOL!I think blame can be attached to Janice Glisson of the CID lab for [the murderer's] wrongful conviction.Sorry, but there was no wrongful conviction in this case. Not only did the physical, circumstantial and negative evidence prove his guilt, but he himself has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of that guilt. If you're not happy with that, you should probably write to him and tell him to stop doing that.Glisson confused Dr Thornton with her confusing marks and labels.Apparently the jury wasn't confused, since they unanimously convicted the murderer. And the defense expert Dr. Thornton didn't seem to be too confused when he agreed with the prosecution that the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet.Glisson said the foreign hairs under the fingernails of [the murderer's] daughters would never be reported by her.Why do you deliberately continue to post information that you know is misleading, Artie? You knew before you wrote this that you had taken Glisson's words out of context, and that study of her FBI note R-11 shows that it actually says, "...did not label all the vials containing fibers and hairs (#1, #7, #8), but gave #'s and slide comparisons to these #'s, since they will not be reported by me." This is because she was not assigned to do those comparisons; Browning was. Are you trying to suppress information here?For judges in 1998 to say that even if the saran fiber did come from a wig it didn’t prove intruders were involved in the MacDonald murders is to me utmost folly, and defies common sense.Gee, I could have sworn that a few hundred times now you've been shown the facts, that unsourced items are so common to every household that they're forensically insignificant; so insignificant, in fact, that they're often not reported at all.

How fascinating to know that you think that every single unsourced hair and fiber in your house points to murderers. I'm sure everyone here would be very interested in reading about these countless murderers who have been in your house. Can you tell us about that? And can you tell us which of the MacDonald "intruders" brought his dog with him to the murder scene? I keep searching for that info but can't find it anywhere.