Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
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.

Again . . . . why would the "many" and "The Man" go after all that was 1971 Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald to begin with? And why would this Grand Conspiracy continue for the next 35 years?:confused:

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
The story of Jeffrey and Colette ,up until the middle of the night on the 17th of February, was the all American dream story....Girl friends described being at the house...But how odd, Cappy. You somehow forgot to tell the posters here that one of those girl friends saw MacDonald hit Colette while they were dating. Why did you suppress that information?

Jeff the monster was "developed" after he was accused of murdering his family.That doesn't seem to be supported by the records in the case. Have you seen Silverman's psychological report?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/psychol_silverman1979aug16_p1.html

MacDonald's aim was to show the world how perfect he was and what a perfect family life he had, but of course we know now that it didn't seem to be as perfect as he wanted people to think. Not only were there reports of people detecting unhappiness between the two in the months before the murders, but MacDonald certainly was no stranger to violence. Even before he smashed Kimberly's and Colette's heads with a club and butchered them and Kristen with a knife and icepick, he'd already several times demonstrated his familiarity with animalistic violence out of control.

From the MMT, taken from the records in the case: During a fight with his brother, Jay, MacDonald had once "almost killed" Jay. During a sporting match it was reported that he flew into an uncontrollable violent rage against another player, and had to be physically pulled away by others because he kept beating the man even after he was down. During a visit with a female friend and her child in which they were boating, he became so enraged at the boy that he threatened to crush the child's skull against the dock, and ended up throwing him into the water. During his testimony at the 1970 Article 32 military hearing, MacDonald's lawyer Bernard Segal asked him how long the alleged struggle in the living room had lasted. MacDonald replied, "Well, that's a rough--my only experience would be in other fist fights, and the time seems like it's dragging and it hardly ever is..." He told Woerheide during his grand jury testimony that at the Shortstop bar, he initiated a fight with someone he believed to be selling drugs to his brother Jay. He told the grand jury that "...the words got a little heated and I pushed him and he pushed me and I hit him." MacDonald was obviously familiar with fighting behavior, since he asked Woerheide during the grand jury proceeding whether Woerheide wanted him to recount "every little fistfight." He also informed Woerheide that after such incidents, "You leave before the MP’s get there."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.Or was it all just a front? Did he illegally take all those drugs from the army so he could sell drugs to hippies and others? Was he an ampetamine abuser himself as the evidence says he might have been? Did he use marijuana or encourage Colette to use it? Certainly we know that he was giving drugs to family members and neighbors, which is something he could have lost his medical license for, since he was not permitted to give or prescribe drugs for people who were not his patients. So not only was MacDonald a liar about the murders themselves, he had a previous history of theft and giving drugs to others which was not permitted.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.Oh, yes, Cappy, that was it, all right...you've discovered what really happened! MPs got a call of domestic violence, and as soon as they walked into the scene, one of them took MacDonald's pajama top off and put it on Colette and stabbed her through it, and then all the medics and MPs and investigators hurriedly made hundreds of phone calls and wired out bribes to countless people so they'd testify against MacDonald, and then they went around the apartment and put a profusion of MacDonald's pajama fibers underneath Colette and in the bedclothing and on the murder weapon and under Kristen's fingernail. They searched the apartment until they found where Mac kept his latex gloves and scattered some latex fragments around, and then spent a few hours removing every hair and fiber and speck of blood from the sofa area where Mac said he'd fought with several intruders and been stabbed repeatedly, and then of course they put a few hundred thousand dollars into a Swiss bank account for MacDonald in exchange for his promise to demonstrate consciousness of his guilt in the crimes.

How good it is to know that after all these years, you've figured out what really happened! You ought to write to Mac and Kathryn and tell them to post your scenario on his website! And if they're not interested (but why wouldn't they be? It's much more believable than the scenarios they present there already!), maybe you can get Christina to post it on hers, under the heading "Comic Theories by Supporters of the Murderer."

:lol:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
I consider that from the horses mouth . . .

That's exactly how I look at macdonald's claim that Colette was screaming "WHY are THEY doing this Jeff??????"

I believe this quote will be the closest we'll ever get to Colette's last words:

"Why are YOU doing this Jeff?????":( :rose:

[audpaud]

Does anyone know the "mean" things a bus driver said . . . I was curious a few pages back and then forgot to ask.

Tx.:)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The source seems to be the CID notes of a discussion Colette had during her evening classes. We don't know for certain if this evening class conversation was actually said. The conversation doesn't seem to have been tape recorded. It may just be fabricated hearsay and gossip by the CID in order to put [the murderer] in a bad light.Poor, poor Artie. Did you forget to take your medications before you wrote this?

What seems to have actually happened is that when Kristen went to the master bedroom and then wet the main bed, it was...MacDonald who carried Kristen back to her own bedroom, and it was...MacDonald, not Colette who went to sleep on the couch.Ah, but Artie, you've forgotten your own admonishments to others here, to go by the evidence! This is just theory, without facts. MacDonald is a gossip. MacDonald is a thief. MacDonald is a liar. MacDonald is a murderer, and his own stories don't square with yours. The evidence proved that he was lying about what happened that night. Too bad you can't change that, isn't it?

MacDonald claimed that he discovered Kristen in the master bedroom, but also claimed he himself put her there. He claims that it was Kristen who wet the master bedroom bed, but the urine was Kimberly's. He said that Kristen had wet the master bedroom bed to such an extent that he didn't want to sleep there (the circle of urine on the bed was about 18" in diameter), but that she was barely wet and he didn't even change her diapers. He claimed that he carried Kristen from the wet master bedroom bed and put her back in her own bed, but no urine was found on his pajama top. He said Kristen's bedwetting was infrequent, but that it happened all the time.

Regarding the sofa, I'll also quote from the MMT which contains information from the factual records:

MacDonald claimed that he went to sleep on the living room couch. There is some doubt about who, if anyone, actually slept on the couch that night, since Colette had indicated to her child psychology class that MacDonald wanted her to sleep on the sofa while a child shared the master bedroom bed with him.

Per Kassab's notes: "Jeff normally slept with a pillow. Why did he not have one on the living room couch?"

MacDonald's response when questioned by Grebner on April 6 about where the attack had actually taken place was hesitant. He replied, "Right - right at the end - right at the, ah, foot of the couch."

Three times during the April 6, 1970, interview, MacDonald used the word "bed" when he apparently meant to say "couch."

Twice during the Article 32 hearing MacDonald had to correct himself after he said "bed" instead of "couch."

During the 1974 grand jury proceeding, Mildred Kassab testified that when MacDonald described the attack to her, he told her that "when he pitched forward off the end of the sofa, he referred to it as the bed through most of the time when he spoke of it..."

MacDonald says he may have used a leopard-print sofa pillow as a bed pillow. The sofa pillow was of the type that held impressions, but no impressions were found on it.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
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.Actually, I think you will find that it's the defense who most often has a reason to hide or suppress evidence, not the prosecution. Also, the defense has no fear of reversal because of course Not Guilty verdicts or acquittals aren't reversed, whereas the prosecution of course must be extra careful in order to avoid time-consuming and costly reversals of verdicts. It's precisely because they work for the government which represents the People that government prosecutors and witnesses are also extra careful in what they present to a jury.

Not to mention that it's ludicrous that you would think that anyone here is going to believe that Glisson and every single other prosecution witness were all in on a "conspiracy" to frame MacDonald, planting evidence at the crime scene to point to him, etc., and inducing him to show the consciousness of his guilt, all while allowing six or more "intruders" to roam free. The idea is laughable, and not supported whatsoever by the evidence.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by caphill



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.

I gave the source (Fatal Vision) in my post to you. Pruett and Kearns never wrote a book but were from the CID and thoroughly reinvestigated the case in 1971. You seem to know very little about the MacDonald case, which is why I suggest you make yourself familiar with the basic facts instead of posting mere allegations here.

The woman whose the statement I quoted in my post was not the woman Colette had driven to class with, but another member who attended the child psychology class with Colette.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by audpaud
Again . . . . why would the "many" and "The Man" go after all that was 1971 Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald to begin with? And why would this Grand Conspiracy continue for the next 35 years?:confused: Aud, as I think you're probably discovering by now, the few groupie supporters MacDonald has left have no idea how to answer this question or many others. Heck, we've been asking these kinds of questions for months and months, and the most that ever happens is that we are told that "vampires" committed the murders (again, I am not making this up...), that the synthetic fibers should have been DNA tested (!), that Mick Jagger was illustrative of how these crimes could have been committed (!?!), and many more similar "answers."

Isn't it funny how when one tries to imagine "intruders" committing the crimes, virtually nothing whatsoever fits the evidence and there are countless questions that can't be answered, but when one knows that MacDonald was the murderer, so much fits into place, and many questions are answered...

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I do have my own thoughts about Malone of the FBI lab. I think he’s an a**hole.

I don’t know anything about Malone’s recent cases. I was under the impression Malone had retired from the FBI. I believe the FBI forensic scientist Dr Whitehurst is on record as saying he thinks Malone ought to be prosecuted.

I think blame can be attached to Janice Glisson of the CID lab for Dr MacDonald’s wrongful conviction. Glisson confused Dr Thornton with her confusing marks and labels. Nobody seemed terribly sure at the time whether the strange blond synthetic hair was a hair or a fiber. Glisson said the foreign hairs under the fingernails of Dr MacDonald’s daughters would never be reported by her. That was unfair on Dr MacDonald. It’s simply not good enough for JTF to say those foreign hairs came from the little girls playing.

Malone tried to get the doll manufacturers to sign an affidavit that the blond saran fiber was manufactured by them. This they refused to do because it simply wasn’t true. 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. It was “strained logic” as other judges have remarked about the MacDonald case.


As I am sure you are aware, a Grand Jury listens to what is being presented and makes a decision on whether the case appears to have merit to indict and take to a trial. The jurors can ask questions of those testifing for clarification. As they say you can get a ham sandwich indicted.

Because it takes so little to get an indictment from the Grand Jury, I never took the time to read the transcripts, though I was surprised they even handed down an indictment.

I just read the transcripts today of Chamberlain and Glisson. I was blown away at the total deception of the lab. I don't know why Segal didn't use this testimony to totally impeach these two people in the trial. Possibly the Grand Jury was still sealed and the testimony was not available.

Chamberlain was just bumbling around and unable to answer most questions. He did say he was in charge of this case and Janice Glisson, though his senior worked for him on this case.(Contrary to trial testimony) He also said there was blood in living room but too small to be conclusive. He testified in the trial the spots in front of the sofa were not blood. Contradiction there.

Janice Glisson absolutely gave false testimony. Firstly, she also said that all testing was the crust method. She referred the finding the a blood factor . She blatently told the Grand Jury that she had indentified the urine stains. She said the urine in the master bedroom could come from a A or AB factor. She said it could not have come from an O factor. There was no way to identify urine in 1970. I could have peed in that bed and could not tell if it was mine or Colettes.

She gave false testimony about the blood factor or types to make the results fit the theory . If she need to get a AB result and she had just an A, she told the jury that it really was an AB but the B factor had deteriorated, so it showed up a an A. If she found anti A and anti B which would be O type(Kristen's) she would tell the jury was likely a mixed sample of A and O but likely an A. Totally scientific false testimony.

She gave tesimony about Jeff's pj top. She didn't want his blood to be on it. To fit the theory most of the blood needed to be Colette's. At least she disclose that she only tested the bloods on the back of the pj's. Any blood on the front was not tested according to her.

I sit here stunned to think this woman would falsify or hid evidence to help indict or get an conviction in any case. I can't rationalize why someone could or would do that. Did she think this gave her favor with CID? Was MacDonald was dehumanized to her that she could justify this to herself.

By the time this got to trial, she had cleaned up her testimony enough to pass muster. She sure didn't testify the same way in a public trial.

There is one thing she did disclose that was interesting. There were two "fresh" urine stains that were discussed One was in Colette bed that could be seen in a photo. One was in Kimberly bed right under the out line of her body. She had a photo of Kimberly's sheet that showed the wetness of it after Kim's body was removed.

Little Kim voided when she died and that is why her body was outlined in "fresh urine. Little Kris did not have fresh" urine stains in her bed.

If Krissy had just voided in her mother's bed her bladder would have empty when she was killed. Kimberly had a full bladder and voided in her bed as evidenced by the wet stain.

I don't recall Kimerbly's bed sheet with her urine being introduced into evidence in the trial. Did miss that and if I did who testified to her body being outlined in fresh urine?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by audpaud
Does anyone know the "mean" things a bus driver said . . . I was curious a few pages back and then forgot to ask. Tx.:) The bus driver was Russell E. Franklin. If I've gotten my notes correct, I think you will find references to him in the following links:

Page 10:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_10.html

Page 72:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_cid_1970feb17-1972apr10.html

Page 3:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_cid_witnesses-leads.html

Page 37:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/zip_us_1984july_redupree.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/defense-shaw_1970-07-05.html

Basically, he related that Kimberly had told him that her daddy was a "mean daddy," and that she wished Mr. Franklin was her father instead of MacDonald.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by audpaud
Does anyone know the "mean" things a bus driver said . . . I was curious a few pages back and then forgot to ask.

Tx.:)
Kim had told the school bus driver that she wished he was her daddy because her own daddy was "a mean daddy."
I'm a kindergarten teacher and know that if such a statement comes from a five-year old girl, it should raise a thousand red flags. A child that young doesn't utter such a thing without there being deep, deep trouble at home.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
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!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.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.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?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.


Janice Glisson didn't find any of Jeff's blood on the sheet according to her Grand Jury testimony. Not that her testimony is reliable any way.

Rather difficult to argue that unsourced synthetic hairs 22 and 24 inchs would a common thing to find in your house. There could be unsourced hair or fibers transferred from the lady standing next to you at the 7-11. There could be unsourced dog hairs tracked in from outside. No one is arguing that couldn't be a reasonable explanation. But to find a hair in the bloody hand of a murder victim who had been sleeping in their bed is difficult to explain away. The hair in her hand coupled with an unsourced fiber stuck in blood around her mouth is also hard to explain away. Having unsourced hair fragment hairs under the bloody nails of the children with defensive wounds on the hands is difficult to explain away.

Colette had broken arms and defensive wounds on her hands where she had tried to shield herself from the blows. These blows likely rended her unconsious almost immediately and she was stabbed after she was down. It would appear by the condition of her hands and the skin tissue that she likely clawed at her attacker.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by caphill



Janice Glisson didn't find any of Jeff's blood on the sheet The hair in her hand coupled with an unsourced fiber stuck in blood around her mouth is also hard to explain away. Having unsourced hair fragment hairs under the bloody nails of the children with defensive wounds on the hands is difficult to explain away.

Colette had broken arms and defensive wounds on her hands where she had tried to shield herself from the blows. These blows likely rended her unconsious almost immediately and she was stabbed after she was down. It would appear by the condition of her hands and the skin tissue that she likely clawed at her attacker.
Re the fibers: many items in the MacDonald househould had not been submitted for comparison purposes.
The unsourced hair in Colette's hand could very well be JMD's. It was a limb hair, and limb hairs can't be compared. So of course it wasn't 'sourced' because it couldn't be compared.
I too think Colette clawed at her attacker. And Mac was darn lucky that the piece of skin had been lost because if it hadn't he would have gone to jail much sooner and not have been able to enjoy all those years of freedom.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
As I am sure you are aware, a Grand Jury listens to what is being presented and makes a decision on whether the case appears to have merit to indict and take to a trial.And in this case, the grand jurors obviously found more than enough evidence to indict the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald. When he was brought to trial, it was again shown that he was the murderer. So what's your point?I don't know why Segal didn't use this testimony to totally impeach these two people in the trial. Possibly the Grand Jury was still sealed and the testimony was not available.Artie...oops, there I go again, I meant Caphill...Maybe Segal thought they were unimpeachable. Maybe he simply didn't want to impress damaging testimony any further into the minds of the jurors. But Segal certainly had access to grand jury testimony at the trial, since it can be seen in the trial transcripts that many witnesses were questioned about their grand jury testimonies.Chamberlain was just bumbling around and unable to answer most questions.Kind of reminds me of Segal during his closing arguments. LOL!He testified in the trial the spots in front of the sofa were not blood.I must have missed that. I know he testified about spots on the wall, but I don't recall reading about any spots in front of the sofa. Can you show that testimony to me?She said the urine in the master bedroom could come from a A or AB factor. She said it could not have come from an O factor. There was no way to identify urine in 1970.Gee, isn't that weird, then, that it appears she had been trained in how to do that. Very odd indeed!If Krissy had just voided in her mother's bed her bladder would have empty when she was killed.The evidence shows that it was Kimberly, not Kristen, who was in the master bed.I don't recall Kimerbly's bed sheet with her urine being introduced into evidence in the trial. Did miss that and if I did who testified to her body being outlined in fresh urine?There were lots of things the prosecution had against MacDonald that they didn't need to introduce, because they had so much against him already. I think it was said that they only used 60% of the evidence they had against him. If and when he ever got another trial, it'd be interesting to see all the rest of the evidence they could use to convict him again, including urine stains, Mrs. Kane's phone number on the club and many other things.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Rather difficult to argue that unsourced synthetic hairs 22 and 24 inchs would a common thing to find in your house.But not too difficult to argue that six or more drug-crazed, frenzied "intruders" slaughtered a pregnant woman and two little girls while leaving the man of the house, the biggest threat, unharmed, yet not one of these many "intruders" left any forensic evidence at all of themselves but somehow did manage to plant countless incriminating evidentiary items pointing to MacDonald as the murderer...? Mac Groupie reasoning at its finest.But to find a hair in the bloody hand of a murder victim who had been sleeping in their bed is difficult to explain away.And how about that fiber from MacDonald's pajamas, stuck under Kristen's fingernail, and his pajama fibers found under the victims and in the bedclothing and even on the murder weapon itself...! Difficult to explain away, for sure, but not too difficult when you realize that MacDonald was the murderer, is it?The hair in her hand coupled with an unsourced fiber stuck in blood around her mouth is also hard to explain away.Unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, and often aren't even reported. I thought you knew that already. Did you also know that evidence shows that after carrying Colette back to the master bedroom from Kristen's room, it seems most likely that MacDonald unrolled her from the bedding and her face ended up on the floor? As for the hair, the facts are that it was not tested against hairs from the children's heads nor against hairs from all parts of MacDonald's body; the unidentified hair was classified by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh as the distal portion or the tip of a limb hair, and limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there is no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair is Greg Mitchell's or any other "intruder's,"; this hair was known to the defense as early as the 1970 Article 32 hearing where it was reported; and of course despite MacDonald's wanting everyone to believe he was blonde (the hair was brown), he is described in official records as having brown hair.Having unsourced hair fragment hairs under the bloody nails of the children with defensive wounds on the hands is difficult to explain away.I repeat: Unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, and often aren't even reported. The hairs to which you refer 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. Also, the two hairs were hair fragments, which do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons. Therefore, as with the hair in Colette's hand, there is no forensic basis for claims of intruders being the source for those two hair fragments.It would appear by the condition of her hands and the skin tissue that she likely clawed at her attacker.Which many think fits in with the four scratch marks found on the murderer's upper chest/shoulder area. How horrible to contemplate...Colette seeing her husband come toward her and reaching out to claw him in self defense, ripping that pajama pocket off and tearing the top and scattering fibers and threads in a profusion, trying to save her children and ending up bludgeoned and butchered beyond belief...

[malvolio]

...I would say the egomaniacal baby-killer is GUILTY!

...justice is groovy...kill the appeals....

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
What the bus driver said isn’t evidence.Hmmm. I would have thought this could be described as circumstantial evidence. No?He may have been bribed to say that to the CID.But where is your evidence of that? Remember, you must go by the evidence, as you've so often said yourself! This is a theory without facts, which is something else you're fond of robotically repeating.I think Bunny is putting words into [the murderer's] mouth when she says he transported Kristen to the master bedroom. Has she any evidence of that at all to back up what she has said?He told the CID on February 17 that he put Kristen into the master bed with Colette when Colette retired at 11:30 p.m.

Now, a question for you: Have you any forensic evidence at all to back up anything you've ever claimed to be true about there being "intruders" who murdered Colette, Kim, and Kristen? I would love to see that, and I'll bet the defense would, too, since they've never found anything like that yet.With regard to my dispute with the CID about Kim not being in the master bedroom I noticed CID agent Shaw had this to say to Eisman in 1970...Was Shaw a lab technician? Did he type the blood and do the tests to determine that it was Kimberly's brain serum and blood in the master bedroom? I think you will find, when you begin to research the case, that Shaw was neither a lab technician nor a forensic chemist. Interesting that you had to resort to a pre-Article 32 (!) question-and-answer session in order to find something you could use, no matter how small, to cast doubt on what really occurred, and that you chose something which you knew had no cross-examination in it. Too bad for you that your tactics will never wash, since there is no dispute that Kimberly was indeed injured in the master bedroom and that she was put back into her bed in her own room and then bludgeoned and butchered by a single assailant, the only assailant who seems to have been in the house that night: Jeffrey MacDonald.

[Bunny2]

Hi, malvolio!

Originally posted by malvolio
...I would say the egomaniacal baby-killer is GUILTY!And you would be 100% correct, malvolio....justice is groovy...kill the appeals....:lol:

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
What the bus driver said isn’t evidence. It may be completely untrue. He may have been bribed to say that to the CID. Even if it is true it may only have been a little childish, funny conversation the little girl was having with the bus driver which had no hidden significance at all.

I have NEVER said that the blonde synthetic hair ought to be DNA tested and I do wish Bunny would stop repeating that. I admit I haven’t studied the MacDonald case for twenty years as some people seem to have done, and I may have made have made a few little wrong statements and errors in the past. It’s a complicated case.

I think Bunny is putting words into Dr MacDonald’s mouth when she says he transported Kristen to the master bedroom. Has she any evidence of that at all to back up what she has said?

With regard to my dispute with the CID about Kim not being in the master bedroom I noticed CID agent Shaw had this to say to Eisman in 1970 about Kim’s AB blood at the murder scene. It doesn’t sound very clear and convincing to me:

“Some of these spots, as you well know from having read the report are indicated AB blood, which the laboratory people tell me is one step short of proof that it is in fact AB blood; it could be something else. What is in fact AB blood and what is indicated could be confused in my rundown, in my mind, and I wouldn’t like to answer without researching the report.”

Janice Glisson had no problem telling the Grand Jury that some of the sample were mixed when is trying to get the blood types to match the theory of those pea brains at CID. I notice she never considered a possible mix of samples for Jeff and Colette. She said she used the crust method for indentification. That method locates antibodies and from the antibodies the type can be determined. All that AB type in the master bedroom could be a mixed sample of A and B.

Of course it known that urine could not be identified as to which
kid it belonged to. The evidence shows that Krissy's bed did not have any "fresh urine" When she died she did not void because her bladder was empty.

When Kimmy died her bladder was full and she voided in her bed. Her body was outlined in the urine stain. If Kimmy has just wet her parents'bed how was it physically possible for her bladder to fill up again for her have such a "fresh" urine stain under her body

[caphill]

Originally posted by rashomon


I gave the source (Fatal Vision) in my post to you. Pruett and Kearns never wrote a book but were from the CID and thoroughly reinvestigated the case in 1971. You seem to know very little about the MacDonald case, which is why I suggest you make yourself familiar with the basic facts instead of posting mere allegations here.

The woman whose the statement I quoted in my post was not the woman Colette had driven to class with, but another member who attended the child psychology class with Colette.


Sorry I thought it was Pruett and Kearns who had maybe written a book. Since it comes from Joe McGuinness, I am even more convinced it was garbage.

Why didn't this woman come forth, raise her right hand and take a seat on the stand in the public trial.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
But not too difficult to argue that six or more drug-crazed, frenzied "intruders" slaughtered a pregnant woman and two little girls while leaving the man of the house, the biggest threat, unharmed, yet not one of these many "intruders" left any forensic evidence at all of themselves but somehow did manage to plant countless incriminating evidentiary items pointing to MacDonald as the murderer...? Mac Groupie reasoning at its finest.And how about that fiber from MacDonald's pajamas, stuck under Kristen's fingernail, and his pajama fibers found under the victims and in the bedclothing and even on the murder weapon itself...! Difficult to explain away, for sure, but not too difficult when you realize that MacDonald was the murderer, is it?Unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, and often aren't even reported. I thought you knew that already. Did you also know that evidence shows that after carrying Colette back to the master bedroom from Kristen's room, it seems most likely that MacDonald unrolled her from the bedding and her face ended up on the floor? As for the hair, the facts are that it was not tested against hairs from the children's heads nor against hairs from all parts of MacDonald's body; the unidentified hair was classified by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh as the distal portion or the tip of a limb hair, and limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there is no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair is Greg Mitchell's or any other "intruder's,"; this hair was known to the defense as early as the 1970 Article 32 hearing where it was reported; and of course despite MacDonald's wanting everyone to believe he was blonde (the hair was brown), he is described in official records as having brown hair.I repeat: Unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, and often aren't even reported. The hairs to which you refer 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. Also, the two hairs were hair fragments, which do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons. Therefore, as with the hair in Colette's hand, there is no forensic basis for claims of intruders being the source for those two hair fragments.Which many think fits in with the four scratch marks found on the murderer's upper chest/shoulder area. How horrible to contemplate...Colette seeing her husband come toward her and reaching out to claw him in self defense, ripping that pajama pocket off and tearing the top and scattering fibers and threads in a profusion, trying to save her children and ending up bludgeoned and butchered beyond belief...


How do you explain away Kim peeing in her bed at death just a minute or two after she supposedy peed in her parents bed? How did her bladder fill back up in a minute or two?

How about Kri who didn't have fresh urine in her bed? Could it be her bladder was empty because she have just voided a short time earlier in the MB bed?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
When Kimmy died her bladder was full and she voided in her bed...how was it physically possible for her bladder to fill up again for her have such a "fresh" urine stain under her bodySo you don't believe it at all possible that a child can urinate more than once a night? Do you think if Kim had wet her own bed, say, a couple of hours earlier for example, that the stain would be dry two hours later?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
And in this case, the grand jurors obviously found more than enough evidence to indict the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald. When he was brought to trial, it was again shown that he was the murderer. So what's your point?Artie...oops, there I go again, I meant Caphill...Maybe Segal thought they were unimpeachable. Maybe he simply didn't want to impress damaging testimony any further into the minds of the jurors. But Segal certainly had access to grand jury testimony at the trial, since it can be seen in the trial transcripts that many witnesses were questioned about their grand jury testimonies.Kind of reminds me of Segal during his closing arguments. LOL!I must have missed that. I know he testified about spots on the wall, but I don't recall reading about any spots in front of the sofa. Can you show that testimony to me?Gee, isn't that weird, then, that it appears she had been trained in how to do that. Very odd indeed!The evidence shows that it was Kimberly, not Kristen, who was in the master bed.There were lots of things the prosecution had against MacDonald that they didn't need to introduce, because they had so much against him already. I think it was said that they only used 60% of the evidence they had against him. If and when he ever got another trial, it'd be interesting to see all the rest of the evidence they could use to convict him again, including urine stains, Mrs. Kane's phone number on the club and many other things.


Enlighten me, please. What kind of tests were available in 1970 to identify urine. There was no DNA.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Sorry I thought it was Pruett and Kearns who had maybe written a book. Since it comes from Joe McGuinness, I am even more convinced it was garbage.Spoken like a true MacGroupie, Cappy! What's the matter, are you jealous that McGinniss (whose name you can't even spell) wrote such a blockbuster best seller, and that we can now all see that what he wrote was true because we can compare it to the trial transcripts, CID reports, grand jury testimonies, etc.? Or are you really more upset at the fact that those same documents prove that Potter & Bost's book, Fatal Justice, had so many errors and deliberate misrepresentations in it that it will never even come close to comparing to McGinniss's work?

Why didn't this woman come forth, raise her right hand and take a seat on the stand in the public trial.Do you know for a fact that she didn't? I don't know one way or another, but I do know that not all the trial transcripts are online.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hi, malvolio!
And you would be 100% correct, malvolio
:seeya: Hey Bunny!

...Outside of the overwhelming physical evidence that points to BM (baby murderer or equally relevant moniker), I became convinced of his obvious guilt after reading the transcript of a call made to Freddy Kassab where he tells his father-in-law "I got one of them..."
(in an effort, he says, to put his in-laws mind at ease, whatta hero!)

...so I told them, I needed a doctor, that some people had been stabbed...

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by malvolio

:seeya: Hey Bunny!

...Outside of the overwhelming physical evidence that points to BM (baby murderer or equally relevant moniker), I became convinced of his obvious guilt after reading the transcript of a call made to Freddy Kassab where he tells his father-in-law "I got one of them..."
(in an effort, he says, to put his in-laws mind at ease, whatta hero!)

...so I told them, I needed a doctor, that some people had been stabbed...

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/
Yes, I remember the description of that call...Freddy said later that when he heard that, "it was the beginning of the end" for MacDonald.

Which somehow reminds me...did you catch the enormous blunder he made when he described the so-called assailants -- people with whom he claims to have fought! -- as "alleged" assailants? What a slip of the tongue that was! Whoever, having just been in a life-and-death struggle with three armed male intruders, would describe them as being "alleged"?

And that somehow reminds me of his story regarding the towel he said he put on Colette..."either the medic put it there or I put it there." Why didn't he include the possibility that "intruders" put it there?

Explanations for the above, and much more, can be put into four simple words: MacDonald murdered his family.

[imagine MacSatan graphic here]

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Enlighten me, please. What kind of tests were available in 1970 to identify urine. There was no DNA.Oh, were we talking about DNA? I didn't realize that. I thought we were talking about Glisson describing the urine as having come from a person with AB blood, and that the urine in the master bedroom didn't come from Kristen as MacDonald claimed. DNA testing wasn't used in this country until the early 1980s, so of course urine could not have been DNA tested in 1970.

Now I'm off to see how many, if any, of my previous questions you've been able to answer. Should be a fun read.

:D

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
How do you explain away Kim peeing in her bed at death just a minute or two after she supposedy peed in her parents bed? How did her bladder fill back up in a minute or two?Where did you read that the stains were made "a minute or two" apart?How about Kri who didn't have fresh urine in her bed? Could it be her bladder was empty because she have just voided a short time earlier in the MB bed?I don't think so, since tests showed that the MB stain wasn't Kristen's.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Oh, were we talking about DNA? I didn't realize that. I thought we were talking about Glisson describing the urine as having come from a person with AB blood, and that the urine in the master bedroom didn't come from Kristen as MacDonald claimed. DNA testing wasn't used in this country until the early 1980s, so of course urine could not have been DNA tested in 1970.

Now I'm off to see how many, if any, of my previous questions you've been able to answer. Should be a fun read.

:D

The question I asked was what kind of testing was available to ID urine 1970. There was no DNA testing in 1970. Excuse me. Is my question a little clearer.

How could Glisson tell what blood type was the donor of the urine.? If I need a blood transfusion, I can tell you the lab is not to test my urine to identify my blood type.

So blood typing can not identify urine, so how did Glisson ID the donor or did she just lie to the Grand Jury?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Where did you read that the stains were made "a minute or two" apart?I don't think so, since tests showed that the MB stain wasn't Kristen's.


Follow the dots.....If, according to CID, Kimberly wets the MB bed, got herself almost immediately killed over it, is put back in her, whacked in the head and she voides as she dies in her bed. The fresh urine stain outlined her body. So how long did it take to kill and put back in her bed? If she had just emptied her bladder in the MD bed how was she able to wet her bed.

Now little Krissy had no fresh stains in bed. Why didn't she void when she died? Why was her bladder empty? Maybe it was empty because she was the one that wet in her mommy's bed.

Janice Glisson had a photo of the sheet from Kim's bed that showed the "wettness"or fresh urine and she said the MB sheet also had a "fresh" stain. I think it was Ivory police report that the wet sheet under Kimberly was mentioned.

Kimberly wets the MB bed and hers too when she died.? How that anyone explain how she got a full bladder again right after she had just emptied it in her mother's bed?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
So you don't believe it at all possible that a child can urinate more than once a night? Do you think if Kim had wet her own bed, say, a couple of hours earlier for example, that the stain would be dry two hours later?


When Kim's body was found she was lying in her own urine. It was described as the urine stain that outlined her body.

When she was killed in her bed, she voided. If she had just voided right before she was killed in the MB bed why did she still a have a full bladder.

On the other hand Kris did not have fresh urine in her bed. Why was her bladder empty?

[basketball]

Guilty!! Let him stay where he is!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

Why didn't this woman come forth, raise her right hand and take a seat on the stand in the public trial.
why didn't all those ppl who supposedly saw persons matching macdoneit's description come forth at trial instead of telling their stories to bost (as reported in FJ)? the only one whose name i can recall at the moment is milne, the one who saw the group in white sheets.

anyway, it would make no difference if she had testified at trial...you wouldn't believe it anyway.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
What the bus driver said isn’t evidence.
then why do you keep bringing it up? and why the totally ridiculous speculation that he was bribed by the CID to make those comments if they wouldn't be considered as evidence?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Follow the dots.....If, according to CID, Kimberly wets the MB bed, got herself almost immediately killed over it, is put back in her, whacked in the head and she voides as she dies in her bed. The fresh urine stain outlined her body. So how long did it take to kill and put back in her bed? If she had just emptied her bladder in the MD bed how was she able to wet her bed.A sleeping Kim wets her own bed. X number of hours later, she wakes and goes into the MB. At some point after that she hears a knock at the back door and voids in fright. A vampire comes in, cracks her head open as she tries to flee the room, he smashes her so hard that her brain serum is found in the rug, carries her back to her bed and lays her on her first wet urine stain...what am I missing here? As I said earlier, you don't believe that a child can urinate twice or more in a night...? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something; I just don't see the logic or fact in the insistence that both stains were made within "a minute or two" of each other. How could anyone have determined that?Now little Krissy had no fresh stains in bed.Memory fails here, but didn't the murderer say he had given her a bottle when he put her to bed quite a few hours earlier at 7 p.m.? I'm childfree by choice, so I'm not really up to par on details involving the nocturnal urination habits of toddlers, but although we're not sure when each victim died, she apparently wasn't wet when MacDonald says he put her in the MB bed with Colette at 11:30 p.m. Is it common for a sleeping 2½-year-old to hold her water for four and a half hours and not wet herself or her own bed? Or is it possible that her bladder was mostly empty because she had no bottle at all until he got it from the refrigerator and put it next to her mouth while staging the scenes?Why didn't she void when she died? Why was her bladder empty?Why didn't Colette void when she died? Why was her bladder empty?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
When Kim's body was found she was lying in her own urine. It was described as the urine stain that outlined her body.

When she was killed in her bed, she voided. If she had just voided right before she was killed in the MB bed why did she still a have a full bladder.

On the other hand Kris did not have fresh urine in her bed. Why was her bladder empty?Why are you posting the same questions in both MacDonald threads here?

See the Poll thread; there's at least one reply to you there on this issue.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
why didn't all those ppl who supposedly saw persons matching macdoneit's description come forth at trial instead of telling their stories to bost (as reported in FJ)? the only one whose name i can recall at the moment is milne, the one who saw the group in white sheets.

anyway, it would make no difference if she had testified at trial...you wouldn't believe it anyway.
I forget now...didn't Milne say that he saw a female and two males? So what happened to the rest of the "intruders"? And didn't he say that all three of them were carrying lit candles, which would contradict Stoeckley's claim that she was the only one who had one? And didn't he say that the female had "beautiful hair," whereas MacDonald says his "female intruder" had unkempt, stringy hair? And wasn't there a neighbor who was outside unloading or loading a trailer at 3:00 a.m. or so, who saw and heard nothing unusual?

Also, I think the timeframe is off here, since Milne said he heard voices and saw these people at about 11:45 p.m., and Mac claims he didn't go to bed until 2:00 or so, so what were these people doing all that time, just walking around the neighborhood in their sheets (sheets that MacDonald never described) and carrying their lit candles in that cold, drizzly weather? Could this be one of the reasons MacDonald changed his story and chose to up his timeframe by several hours when he was on LKL in 2003?

Considering these issues and others, I think it's a wonder that the defense chose to have Milne testify at all. IMHO, it just goes to show how hard they were grasping at straws.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I believe the bus driver was simply bribed to say nasty things about...MacDonald.Originally posted by ArthurThorp
What the bus driver said isn’t evidence.Originally posted by stinkerbelle
then why do you keep bringing it up? and why the totally ridiculous speculation that he was bribed by the CID to make those comments if they wouldn't be considered as evidence?Oh, my...big, BIG score for stinkerbelle! Give me a high five, girl. That was a good one!

Rah rah rah!

:beer:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2

I forget now...didn't Milne say that he saw a female and two males? So what happened to the rest of the "intruders"? And didn't he say that all three of them were carrying lit candles, which would contradict Stoeckley's claim that she was the only one who had one? And didn't he say that the female had "beautiful hair," whereas MacDonald says his "female intruder" had unkempt, stringy hair? And wasn't there a neighbor who was outside unloading or loading a trailer at 3:00 a.m. or so, who saw and heard nothing unusual?

Also, I think the timeframe is off here, since Milne said he heard voices and saw these people at about 11:45 p.m., and Mac claims he didn't go to bed until 2:00 or so, so what were these people doing all that time, just walking around the neighborhood in their sheets (sheets that MacDonald never described) and carrying their lit candles in that cold, drizzly weather? Could this be one of the reasons MacDonald changed his story and chose to up his timeframe by several hours when he was on LKL in 2003?

Considering these issues and others, I think it's a wonder that the defense chose to have Milne testify at all. IMHO, it just goes to show how hard they were grasping at straws.
oops, my bad...milne did testify? so sorry, i should have checked before posting (ha, which was why i didn't include the reference to beautiful hair; i was too lazy to go check!) well anyway, my point was, there were plenty of ppl who did give interviews or info to the CID that didn't testify, but since some posters here seem to believe only what comes out of macdoneit's mouth and not official documents or transcripts, i guess it's a moot point anyway.

[JTF]

Caphill: I have a 6 year old daughter who goes to the bathroom at bedtime and then goes twice more over the course of the next 5 hours. Obviously, you don't have any children in your household. In terms of the 22 and 24 inch saran fibers, their source will always be unknown, and I can make the doll argument just as easily as you can make your wig argument.

1) The fibers differed in chemical composition indicating multiple sources.

2) The 24 inch fiber was matched to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

3) Kristen had 20 dolls in her collection.

4) Doll hair can be doubled-over in the rooting process, resulting in a removed hair doubling in length.

5) Paul Stombaugh stated in his 1974 notes, that the saran fibers resembled doll hair.

JTF.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Aud, as I think you're probably discovering by now, the few groupie supporters MacDonald has left have no idea how to answer this question or many others. Heck, we've been asking these kinds of questions for months and months, and the most that ever happens is that we are told that "vampires" committed the murders (again, I am not making this up...), that the synthetic fibers should have been DNA tested (!), that Mick Jagger was illustrative of how these crimes could have been committed (!?!), and many more similar "answers."

Isn't it funny how when one tries to imagine "intruders" committing the crimes, virtually nothing whatsoever fits the evidence and there are countless questions that can't be answered, but when one knows that MacDonald was the murderer, so much fits into place, and many questions are answered...

Tx for the heads up bunny2 . . . I thought I was just on iggie or something!

I have a sincere curiosity on how the supporters wrap their minds around this macdonald innocence/conspiracy thing . . . it obviously involves taking a big leap from the Logic Bridge and so far none will share how they got to that point.:confused:

Wishing the supporters would open up to me a little . . . I've shared my life experiences that led to my way of thinking (and in addition to my Mason Experiences~y'all can add that I've seen The Stones twice and Love Me Some Mick!!:tongue: ) . . . so see, it's not like we have nothing in common!?

The Beatles are to Manson Group as . . .
The Stones are to Stoekley Group?

That's my guess . . . is it really your Theory macdonald supporters?:confused:

Really?

[audpaud]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Even if it is true it may only have been a little childish, funny conversation the little girl was having with the bus driver which had no hidden significance at all.

Tx for the answer to my "mean" bus driver question bunny, rasho and arthurT!

IA that the conversation could have been insignificant . . . had of course 'Mean Daddy not murdered her at a later date!:flamemad:

Not even gonna comment on the Bribed Bus Driver Thing arthur . . . until you tell me WTH brought you to this point in your life that you are on Message Boards crusading for a sick, twisted murdering liar with absolutely no defense than crazy bribed bus driver arguments.

Tell me what happened to make you like this?

Really.

[audpaud]

Climbed up to "66" for Guilty . . .

Same 12 for "Not Guilty" . . .

Where are the other 10 supporters of mackieD?:confused:

[audpaud]

Thought this book~now available in paperback~may at least help explain why some women would be devoted to macdonald despite the evidence. Has anyone read?

"Women Who Love Men Who Kill"
by Sheila Isenberg.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal
Journalist Isenberg writes about the little-known and unexplored phenomenon of women who seek and fall in love with one of society's most abusive elements: murderers. Assembling information from interviews, magazine and newspaper articles, television appearances, etc., Isenberg attempts to explain how these women (who are themselves often victims of abuse) feel compassion and a sense of power over the killer as long as he is safely locked behind bars. Her highly readable investigation is geared more toward popular psychology and true crime fans than people looking for in-depth psychological and statistical research.


Village Voice Literary Supplement
"Shocking ... compelling ... like the best prison lit!" --

From Kirkus Reviews
Journalist Isenberg provides a fascinating look at women ``compelled to dance with the masters of death''--women so obsessed with convicted murderers that they marry them, giving up all else in their lives, including their children, to fulfill their deepest fantasies. To find out about these women, Isenberg interviewed dozens of them, plus prison officials, police, psychiatrists, and psychologists. The profile that emerges is a sad one: ``little girls lost, reared in dysfunctional families where they were the victims of abuse at the hands of harsh dictatorial fathers aided by passive mothers.'' Damaged by their painful childhoods, they live in a fantasy world, in love not with a real man but with an illusion based on denial. Marrying a convicted killer is a way of having a relationship without ever having to get too close, Isenberg says--and it's a way of being in control of a powerful man as well. Serial killers and mass murderers, such as David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Hillside Stranglers Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, offer a special bonus--the thrill of fame. Since many of these women have low self-esteem, the killer's notoriety provides a sense of worth: The bigger his crime, the more important she feels. Isenberg's skills in getting these women to reveal themselves, her ability to present them as sympathetic and understandable, and her synthesis of the material they provided make for an engrossing report.

From the Inside Flap
"They may be teachers, reporters, nurses, social workers, waitresses, office workers or housewives. They may have advanced college degrees or have never gotten past the sixth grade. They may live in a bustling big city or a quiet small town. On the surface, these women seem like ordinary people.
They aren't. They are the women who marry men who have killed -- and their numbers are growing ... For the first time, investigative journalist Sheila Isenberg examines this national phenomenon. Through extensive research and interviews with psychiatrists, social workers, prison officials and the women themselves, she sheds light on why these women are drawn into relationships with men who are the outcasts of society, men with whom they can never enjoy a 'normal relationship.'

Although some have been victims of abuse and violence, many of the women vulnerable to these relationships know exacly what they are getting into, but their capacity for denial and their need for a safe, idealized, romantic fantasy of love transcends intelligent judgement. These women are willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of a love without hope or promise, or consummation, and they welcome the sacrifice because it means that they and their feelings are worthy.

At once both disturbing and fascinating, Women Who Love Men Who Kill is an extraordinary, compelling look at relationships as we've never seen them before."

[rashomon]

Originally posted by audpaud


The Beatles are to Manson Group as . . .
The Stones are to Stoekley Group?

That's my guess . . . is it really your Theory macdonald supporters?:confused:

Really?
LOL, good one, audpaud!
Arthur's post over at the A&E forum were so crazy that it wouldn't have surprised me if he had placed the Stones into 544 Castle Drive too, lol!
Mick Jagger singing 'Acid is Groovy' together with Helena while Keith Richards is rummaging through the medicine cabinet in search of some dope...:D

[rashomon]

Originally posted by audpaud
Thought this book~now available in paperback~may at least help explain why some women would be devoted to macdonald despite the evidence. Has anyone read?

"Women Who Love Men Who Kill"
by Sheila Isenberg.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal
Journalist Isenberg writes about the little-known and unexplored phenomenon of women who seek and fall in love with one of society's most abusive elements: murderers. Assembling information from interviews, magazine and newspaper articles, television appearances, etc., Isenberg attempts to explain how these women (who are themselves often victims of abuse) feel compassion and a sense of power over the killer as long as he is safely locked behind bars. Her highly readable investigation is geared more toward popular psychology and true crime fans than people looking for in-depth psychological and statistical research.


Village Voice Literary Supplement
"Shocking ... compelling ... like the best prison lit!" --

From Kirkus Reviews
Journalist Isenberg provides a fascinating look at women ``compelled to dance with the masters of death''--women so obsessed with convicted murderers that they marry them, giving up all else in their lives, including their children, to fulfill their deepest fantasies. To find out about these women, Isenberg interviewed dozens of them, plus prison officials, police, psychiatrists, and psychologists. The profile that emerges is a sad one: ``little girls lost, reared in dysfunctional families where they were the victims of abuse at the hands of harsh dictatorial fathers aided by passive mothers.'' Damaged by their painful childhoods, they live in a fantasy world, in love not with a real man but with an illusion based on denial. Marrying a convicted killer is a way of having a relationship without ever having to get too close, Isenberg says--and it's a way of being in control of a powerful man as well. Serial killers and mass murderers, such as David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Hillside Stranglers Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, offer a special bonus--the thrill of fame. Since many of these women have low self-esteem, the killer's notoriety provides a sense of worth: The bigger his crime, the more important she feels. Isenberg's skills in getting these women to reveal themselves, her ability to present them as sympathetic and understandable, and her synthesis of the material they provided make for an engrossing report.

From the Inside Flap
"They may be teachers, reporters, nurses, social workers, waitresses, office workers or housewives. They may have advanced college degrees or have never gotten past the sixth grade. They may live in a bustling big city or a quiet small town. On the surface, these women seem like ordinary people.
They aren't. They are the women who marry men who have killed -- and their numbers are growing ... For the first time, investigative journalist Sheila Isenberg examines this national phenomenon. Through extensive research and interviews with psychiatrists, social workers, prison officials and the women themselves, she sheds light on why these women are drawn into relationships with men who are the outcasts of society, men with whom they can never enjoy a 'normal relationship.'

Although some have been victims of abuse and violence, many of the women vulnerable to these relationships know exacly what they are getting into, but their capacity for denial and their need for a safe, idealized, romantic fantasy of love transcends intelligent judgement. These women are willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of a love without hope or promise, or consummation, and they welcome the sacrifice because it means that they and their feelings are worthy.

At once both disturbing and fascinating, Women Who Love Men Who Kill is an extraordinary, compelling look at relationships as we've never seen them before."
We had a vivid discussion over at the C&J forum about that too: why women fall for felons, and Isenberg's book was mentioned there too.
This does indeed make sense: these women might marry convicts because they can't get out. So they can project all their fantasies into this relationship without reality ever performing a litmus test on it. They are in a permanent state of courtship, so to speak.
Makes me think of Kathryn too, who left her husband and two children for JMD.

[audpaud]

'Morning Roshomon!:)

I've read references to the "c&j" Board---where is it--I'd like to read along.

Tx!

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The law is that an average juror goes by the evidence, and sometimes a judge’s direction in a murder case, not by emotion, or whether you think he’s a monster, or whether you think he has mean lips, or whether he was supposed to have been rude to somebody’s little boy once. Even if he was a married man and may have been screwing around with other women, this doesn’t make him a murderer. If there is a reasonable doubt, based on reason and common sense, then that average juror ought to decide that man not guilty.

One way of judging a man’s possible guilt can be trying to finding out exactly what his friends think of him. Dr MacDonald’s friends have always had the highest opinion of him.


ITA with the part i put in red. funny then, how the jurors used their reason and common sense to find the prosecution had met their burder of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and found jeffrey macdonald guilty.

and i do hope you realize the second portion of your quote directly contradicts the first part. finding out exactly what a man's friends think of him has nothing to do with evidence or a judge's direction, but lies solely in emotion. make up your mind, hon.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is what the MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate had to say about appeals in the MacDonald case:

"Everytime an attack has been filed, the Justice Department has assigned the [MacDonald] case to the same prosecutors who have tried it and handled the appeal. These people have a very strong interest in preventing their own conduct from being examined."
perhaps the justice department feels it would be totally stupid to assign new lawyers who would have to fully research the case, thereby wasting precious time and resources. ;)

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
If the MacDonald dolls were of such forensic significance than the FBI ought to have kept those dolls as evidence. For Stombaugh and Malone, in a leisurely way, to say the saran blond fibers or hair "probably" came from dolls without even bothering to keep that evidence, is grossly incompetent. It wan't Dr MacDonald's fault.

Can JTF, or Malone, match that saran blond hair to MacDonald dolls. Of course they can't.
considering that the FBI lab really wasn't in the picture until the reinvestigation, and considering jeffrey macdonald was discharged from the army in december 1970, and considering macdonald was discharged before the reinvestigation began, and considering macdonald got rid of most of the contents of the apartment before the reinvestigation began, i'd say it was macdoneit's fault there were no dolls to test the saran fibers against.

can you or caphill match that saran blonde hair to helena's wig? of course you can't.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: I have a 6 year old daughter who goes to the bathroom at bedtime and then goes twice more over the course of the next 5 hours. Obviously, you don't have any children in your household. In terms of the 22 and 24 inch saran fibers, their source will always be unknown, and I can make the doll argument just as easily as you can make your wig argument.

1) The fibers differed in chemical composition indicating multiple sources.

2) The 24 inch fiber was matched to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

3) Kristen had 20 dolls in her collection.

4) Doll hair can be doubled-over in the rooting process, resulting in a removed hair doubling in length.

5) Paul Stombaugh stated in his 1974 notes, that the saran fibers resembled doll hair.

JTF.

From my many years of experience with children, I would think your 6 yr old daughter is unusual that she has to void 5 times within a 10 hours span. If she having to get up 3 or 4 times during the night and interupt her sleep, I would think that would concerning.

Was the 22 and 24 inch hair actually out into evidence at the trial in front of the jury? What dolls were made in 1970 that had hair that long? Even if the hairs were doubled over in the rooting process, what dolls with 11 and 12 inch hair were made in the late 60's?

24 inchs is 2 ft. What doll can you think of that had 2ft or even 1ft of hair length

I don't think you call a 24 inch hair a fiber. Was the 22 and 24 inch hair put into evidence in 1079 trial? Was that found later as something CID had hidden from the defense. IIRC that were found in a hair brush.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
A sleeping Kim wets her own bed. X number of hours later, she wakes and goes into the MB. At some point after that she hears a knock at the back door and voids in fright. A vampire comes in, cracks her head open as she tries to flee the room, he smashes her so hard that her brain serum is found in the rug, carries her back to her bed and lays her on her first wet urine stain...what am I missing here? As I said earlier, you don't believe that a child can urinate twice or more in a night...? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something; I just don't see the logic or fact in the insistence that both stains were made within "a minute or two" of each other. How could anyone have determined that?Memory fails here, but didn't the murderer say he had given her a bottle when he put her to bed quite a few hours earlier at 7 p.m.? I'm childfree by choice, so I'm not really up to par on details involving the nocturnal urination habits of toddlers, but although we're not sure when each victim died, she apparently wasn't wet when MacDonald says he put her in the MB bed with Colette at 11:30 p.m. Is it common for a sleeping 2½-year-old to hold her water for four and a half hours and not wet herself or her own bed? Or is it possible that her bladder was mostly empty because she had no bottle at all until he got it from the refrigerator and put it next to her mouth while staging the scenes?Why didn't Colette void when she died? Why was her bladder empty?


Janice Glisson's said the "fresh" stain in the MB bed came from Colette of Kim based on what magic she had in ID urine stains. She said the large "fresh" stain under Kim's body came from Kim.
So based on her testimony maybe it was Colette.

You still didn't answer a earlier question. What process was available to ID urine in 1970. Would Glisson's testimony be unreliable if she had no process to ID urine yet she made bold statements to Grand Jury of the indentity of each urine stain.

We are are talking about the wet stains. Shaw testified that Kim's sheet was still wet and he said she still had heat coming from her body. He testified that the blood footprint trace was "glistening" on the floor 3 hours after the murders. At the same time the footprint was not yet dry, the blood in Kim's bed was "tacky" I guess that means there was a different drying process going between Kim's bed and the door to her room.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

considering that the FBI lab really wasn't in the picture until the reinvestigation, and considering jeffrey macdonald was discharged from the army in december 1970, and considering macdonald was discharged before the reinvestigation began, and considering macdonald got rid of most of the contents of the apartment before the reinvestigation began, i'd say it was macdoneit's fault there were no dolls to test the saran fibers against.

can you or caphill match that saran blonde hair to helena's wig? of course you can't.


Of course the long hairs can not be matched to Helena's wig. She testified that she destroyed the wig right after the murders because she didn't want the murders linked to her. She also got rid of her boots.

Dr. MacDonald was in the hospital for 9 days after the murder. There were numerous investigators in and out collecting evidence during that time. When they were collecting the fibers and the hair, one would think they would have collected anything they thought was a source of forensics they collected.

Of course while room full of CID and MPs were standing there a medic or ambulance driver stole Dr. MacDonald wallet that lying in the floor right in front of their face. The crime scene was so corrupted from the get go, who knows who collected what. There were ao many different men going back and forth between bodies and blood who knows who was transferring the victims blood from one crime scene to other.

There was no blood reported on the bottoms of Jeff or Colette's bare feet so why was it assumed the footprints trace blood came from one or the other of them and not from one the many of the herd of men in the immediate crime scene.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I agree with caphill.

The MacDonald website says that Glisson discovered this blond saran fiber and described it as a wig hair. I must confess I haven't seen the exact reference to that, but it may be on the internet somewhere.

Then the purported experts from the FBI lab Stombaugh and Malone came along and in a leisurely way described that the synthetic hair resembled a doll's hair.

Part of the trouble is that Glisson deliberately confused everybody by her poor marks and labels and nobody realized the significance of the saran blond synthetic hair. I don't know if that was deliberate hiding of the evidence or plain incompetent by Glisson.

Glisson says she discovered some synthetic fibers which she put in a box and marked as synthetic fibers. There seems to have been a communication problem over whether these were hairs or fibers. That's because they came from Helena Stoeckley' wig hair.

Glisson explains this at :-

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_glisson_1991feb5-6.html


Justthefacts says that Blackburn didn't know anything about these synthetic hairs or fibers. This may be true. Frankly I do have my doubts, and very little confidence, in James Blackburn.

One thing is certain. Dr MacDonald and his lawyer Segal and competent forensic expert Dr Thornton knew nothing about those mystery hairs and fiber prior to, or during, the 1979 MacDonald trial.

This is what Dr Thornton said about it :-

"He recalled that during his examination of the evidence in the Marshal's cell he had total access to virtually everything in this cell; however he didn't know the significance of all the evidence contained in the cell."


Thanks for that link. She covered some what the asses of CID in 1970 when they charged McDonald for murder. Her statement that while she was inventory and analysis of the hair brushs she removed the long synthetic hairs from the hair brush found under Colette's arm. She was doing this on 3-19-71. She did address by she was doing this well over a year after they had been collected from the crime scene.

Her affidavit is written in response to a 1991 appeals motion for post conviction relief after the defense became aware of the hidden evidence. She had them listed as fibers. She excusesd herself for not mentioning these up 22 inch hair like "fibers" and not "reflecting" in her reports because Kearns only asked her to addresses other exhibits.

According to her, she did not examine these 2 hairbrushs until over a year after the murders. She certainly knew they were there for 4 years before he was indicted by the Grand Jury. She didn't mention finding these hairs to Grand Jury. She was too busy telling the Grand Jury whose urine belonged to whom.

BTW, this affidavit was done 2-5-91. My math tells me that was 21 years the synthetic hairs were kept a secret. Her testimony was pivotal in getting MacDonald indicted in 1975. She then testifies again in 1979 when the whole country is talking about Helena and her long blond wig and floppy hair and she still never mentions finding long blond synthetic hairs in a clear handled hair brush found under Colettes arm. If this haribrush was not put in evidence in 1970 how does anyone know whether that hairbrush belonged to anyone in the MacDonald house or was dropped there during the attack.

I guess that answers my guestion about a jury ever knowing about 2 long blond hairs found under the right arm of Colette. Freaking unbelievable!

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Janice Glisson's said the "fresh" stain in the MB bed came from Colette of Kim based on what magic she had in ID urine stains.But neither Glisson nor anyone else would have been able to determine if a wet urine stain in one bed was made within "a minute or two" of a wet stain in another bed, as you claim happened. If you have any evidence to back up your theory, I would be interested in seeing that.She said the large "fresh" stain under Kim's body came from Kim. So based on her testimony maybe it was Colette.I don't believe there was any evidence on Colette's pajamas that Colette had urinated.
You still didn't answer a earlier question.I'm waiting for you to answer the many earlier questions I've asked you.We are are talking about the wet stains. Shaw testified that...[Kim] still had heat coming from her body.Other testimony seems to raise doubt as to Shaw's recollection. Had heat still been coming from Kim, it would mean she had just been murdered a very short time earlier. But Paulk, who I believe was on the scene before Shaw, said that as he perused the master bedroom, he noted that blood on Colette's head and hair appeared to be dry, and that blood on MacDonald's legs was also dry. It appears from the evidence as though Mac had murdered Kim early on, not last, which makes it difficult to believe that she was "warm" when Shaw saw her.[Shaw] testified that the blood footprint trace was "glistening" on the floor 3 hours after the murders.Paulk said that he saw a bloody footprint in the hallway area, and that he recalls the print to be dry.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I agree with caphill.

The MacDonald website says that Glisson discovered this blond saran fiber and described it as a wig hair. I must confess I haven't seen the exact reference to that, but it may be on the internet somewhere.

Then the purported experts from the FBI lab Stombaugh and Malone came along and in a leisurely way described that the synthetic hair resembled a doll's hair.

Part of the trouble is that Glisson deliberately confused everybody by her poor marks and labels and nobody realized the significance of the saran blond synthetic hair. I don't know if that was deliberate hiding of the evidence or plain incompetent by Glisson.

Glisson says she discovered some synthetic fibers which she put in a box and marked as synthetic fibers. There seems to have been a communication problem over whether these were hairs or fibers. That's because they came from Helena Stoeckley' wig hair.

Glisson explains this at :-

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_glisson_1991feb5-6.html


Justthefacts says that Blackburn didn't know anything about these synthetic hairs or fibers. This may be true. Frankly I do have my doubts, and very little confidence, in James Blackburn.

One thing is certain. Dr MacDonald and his lawyer Segal and competent forensic expert Dr Thornton knew nothing about those mystery hairs and fiber prior to, or during, the 1979 MacDonald trial.

This is what Dr Thornton said about it :-

"He recalled that during his examination of the evidence in the Marshal's cell he had total access to virtually everything in this cell; however he didn't know the significance of all the evidence contained in the cell."

Maybe Blackburn and Murtagh can be given a pass that they didn't know there was 2 long blond hairs hidden in the CID evidence boxes that was turned over to them for their preparation in getting an indictment and subsequently a trial.

But how do give them pass knowing they found out in 1991 about the shenanigans of the CID lab and Janice Glisson. Why didn't they concede that pertinent evidence was hidden from them as well as the defense and allow the appeals court to rule for a retrial. Where was their personal moral and professional ethics in 1991. I will guess those morals and ethics were at the same place they in 1979 when they had Helena in their office with US Marshall Britt looking on.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
If Kim wet her own bed and, according to the CID and Glisson theory the main bedroom bed as as well, then she must have had a very weak bladder.If Kim wet her own bed while she was sleeping in it and then X number of hours later wet the master bed in fright at her father's murderous rage, then her bladder was probably just fine.I can't see any firm evidence at all that Kim was ever in the master bedroom.Take your blinders off and maybe you will. Of course she was there, Artie; that's where MacDonald clubbed her the first time. I don't believe even the defense disputed that she was there. Her blood and urine and brain serum was found there. Thank you, though, for helping the anti-Mac group prove how asinine some Mac supporters can be. :)...MacDonald said Kim stopped wetting the bed when she was about two. I believe him.Then you must believe him also when he told a nurse that 5-year-old Kim suffered from enuresis (bedwetting).I believe that saran blond synthetic hair "probably" came from Helena Stoeckley's wig.You might want to start researching the case, Artie, since anyone familiar with the facts can see that this "theory" of yours has no forensic evidentiary support whatsoever.Murtagh, and the FBI and CID, hid crucial forensic evidence from the MacDonald defense.Spoken like a newbie to the case. Sorry, Artie, but the courts determined that no evidence was wrongly suppressed. Moreover, the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald, has brought out every single bit of his "evidence" before the courts and the courts rejected his arguments.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is what...Dr Thornton had to say about it:A My recollection is that Mr. Stombaugh found that impression "A" was consistent with an impression of Dr. MacDonald's pajama top.
Q Do you agree or disagree with his conclusions?
A I agree.
Q And he also, I believe, made reference to Area "B" at the same time as being consistent with Dr. MacDonald's pajama top; do you agree or disagree with Mr. Stombaugh's conclusion in that regard?
A I agree.

Also, Segal wanted to show that few fibers fall in experiments when fabric is torn. Thornton comes across as agreeing with him for the most part (saying things like "no more than two" fibers fell), but then here is a telling and opposite statement:

Q As far as their falling from the result of gravity themselves from the tear, your finding was that that did not happen automatically--just because you tore the fabric didn't result in a profusion of fibers on your table automatically?
A Certainly there is a considerable number of fibers that are lost in the tearing process, but this type of experimentation does not really lend itself to any reasonable quantitative assessment of what might take place in it.

Wasn't Thornton was the one who used a ham in conducting his experiments, experiments which didn't match Mac's description of the fight, and wasn't he also the one who used new thread and new fabric in his experiments, instead of old, worn fabric/thread similar to what MacDonald was wearing...?

I see that you also didn't tell the posters here that Thornton indicated to the FBI (I believe in 1991) that "Mr. Segal and the defense team, including himself, felt that MacDonald would be acquitted, therefore, a complete and total examination of all of the physical evidence was not significant."

I think it was Madden who related: "When asked why Dr. Thornton looked at certain items of evidence in the jail cell and not others, he advised he had not realized how much work the government laboratories had done. Had he known the extent of the trace evidence available to the government, he would have encouraged the defense not to go to trial as the defense was not prepared to respond to the physical evidence of the government."

The court noted in 1991 that "MacDonald now argues that Thornton would have had no reason to look at the fiber evidence since its significance was hidden by the suppression of the lab notes and the fact that the box containing the blond synthetic fibers from the clear-handled hairbrush was labeled 'black, black & grey [illegible] synthetic hairs.' However, the fact remains that Thornton, for whatever reason, chose not to examine any of the fiber evidence, despite being given an opportunity to do so."

Interesting remark at trial:

THE COURT: Thornton is a pretty good lawyer as evidenced by some of the affidavits he signed.

MR. MURTAGH: And didn't read.

Here's another good one for you, Artie, from the defense itself: "Dr. Thornton, the record demonstrates, expressed full confidence in the FBI's ability and integrity in forensic matters..."
heehee

There's so much, much more I could show you in the records, Artie, but I think it's about time you did some more of your own research instead of just bringing up misleading and false statements and expecting posters to always show you the facts. But before I leave, there's one final bit I just can't resist: FBI agent Madden also related that in regard to unsourced items/trace material: "In [Thornton's] opinion, evidence of trace material would not necessarily mean that 'alleged intruders' were responsible for the MacDonald family murders... He readily conceded that all residences have unknown sources of hairs and/or fibers..."

LOL! Gotcha! :)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I get the feeling that Glisson was deliberately trying to confuse anybody who might try and investigate those synthetic hairs and /fibers. Of course, I may be wrong about that.I would say yes, of course you're wrong, since no evidence whatsoever supports that ludicrous assumption.

This is what the Court TV crime library thinks about the matter. I don't really know for certain how scientifically correct this report is.Sure you know. You've seen for yourself that the site contains information contradicted by the factual records, so why did you post this again?

I find it interesting background information anywayHere's some background information I'm sure you'll find much more interesting:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

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

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/

"This foreign fiber in Colette's hand...If it wasn't Jeff's hair, then whose hair was found in Colette's dead hand?" So they're trying to claim that a synthetic fiber was a human hair? LOL! No wonder the defense lost the case.

Gee, Artie, do you think you could write the actual facts down this time so you don't keep on repeating yourself needlessly and costing people so much wasted time? Here; I'll even emphasize it for you since you seem to have some sort of vision problem:Although this hair did not match MacDonald, it was not tested against hairs from the children's heads, nor was it tested against hairs from all parts of MacDonald's body. The unidentified hair was classified by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh as the distal portion or the tip of a limb hair. Limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there is no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair is Greg Mitchell's or any other intruder's. This hair was known to the defense as early as the 1970 Article 32 hearing where it was reported, so it certainly wasn't kept from the defense at trial. And of course despite the Mac camp's wanting so desperately for all of the MacDonald family members to have been blonde at the time (because the hair was brown), if memory serves, some brown, dyed hair of Colette's was found, and Kimberly was also described as having brown/auburn hair, and of course Jeffrey MacDonald himself was described as having brown hair in the Criminal Investigation Division report: "MacDonald: 12 Oct 43; Jamaica, NY; M; Cauc; 71 in; 175 lbs; brown hair; green eyes; medium build; discharged from US Army 4 Dec 70..."

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
But neither Glisson nor anyone else would have been able to determine if a wet urine stain in one bed was made within "a minute or two" of a wet stain in another bed, as you claim happened. If you have any evidence to back up your theory, I would be interested in seeing that.I don't believe there was any evidence on Colette's pajamas that Colette had urinated.
I'm waiting for you to answer the many earlier questions I've asked you.Other testimony seems to raise doubt as to Shaw's recollection. Had heat still been coming from Kim, it would mean she had just been murdered a very short time earlier. But Paulk, who I believe was on the scene before Shaw, said that as he perused the master bedroom, he noted that blood on Colette's head and hair appeared to be dry, and that blood on MacDonald's legs was also dry. It appears from the evidence as though Mac had murdered Kim early on, not last, which makes it difficult to believe that she was "warm" when Shaw saw her.Paulk said that he saw a bloody footprint in the hallway area, and that he recalls the print to be dry.


From all of our own life experiences we know what is reasoanble about the time for blood to dry. We know if we get trace blood on ourselves from touching a cut on our hand how quickly it drys. We know know if we bleed enough to have a drop of blood on the floor how quickly that drys. If we stepped in blood and tracked some on a floor or carpet we know it would dry very quickly. We were injured enough to have pools of blood the pools of blood would take awhile to get "tacky" It Shaw was correct the footprints he saw were glistening , then it was a footprint that someone at the house had just made. Why didn't Jeff have blood on the bottom of his feet if he had been walking in the blood.

The autopsy gave the time of death of Colette and the girls at being the same time. With the blood that was pooling around the bodies when the MPS first arrived I don't think there was any doubt they the three of them had just been killed shortly before they arrived.

It is without doubt that Kim was killed in her bed. That is evident by the blood splatters on the walls that she took a deadly blow to her head while lying in the bed. There were splinters from the club on her pillow. She had no defensive wounds on her hands.

Kristen had her little hands cut from where she had raised her hands when being stabbed.

Janice Glisson and anything that came out of her reports from her lab is questionable. She lied so much, who knows what part of what she reported was good evidence or what parts she manufactured to fit the theory that was given to her. Who knows the condition of the materials and how they were parkaged and handled. She had blood samples she admitted were mixed samples. She testified at the Grand Jury she only used the crust method for the blood anlaysis. That only gives antibodies. Antibodies can be used to determine blood type with a clean sample but if blood is mixed with more than one set of antibodies they is no way she could scientifically say which type it was.

There is no way she could say whose urine was in the beds. It is a logical conclusion that the urine under Kimberly's body that was still wet was from her. The urine in the MB bed is only speculation based on the circumstances.

If Glisson found some blood traces on the sheet in the MB bed
that is not the way to determine who was the donor of the urine.

Using the crust method to find antibodies for blood type, she analysis what she found to give the result that she wanted to fit the theory she was give by CID. If she anti A and Anti B antibodies in the blood MB that could not be Kim's because Kim would have no antibodies in her AB blood type. Kristen would have both anti A and Anti B in her O blood type. If Jeff and Colette had a mixed sample she would found anti A and anti B in the sample.

How Janice Glisson could put Kimberly in the MB from blood using the crust method would be her speculation only. It is a scientific fact that a AB blood type had no antibodies.

For Glisson to say that the urine either came from Colette or Kim has no scientific basis. If she thinks from the blood it could be Colette than means she found a B anitbodies. Thats means there is no way Kim could been a part of that blood sample if it a anti B.

Of course she mislead the jury to believe she could ID urine from a blood test. She does that after she tells the jury there was no blood stain on the urine spot. From her Grand Jury testimony using only the crust method there is no evidence that Kim of Krissy was in the MB.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I find [the Crime & Justice / Jeffrey MacDonald board] very biased against...[the murderer]. I’m fully convinced [the murderer] is innocent. That’s why I post on the MacDonald forums.Artie, you're hilarious. C&J is probably the oldest, biggest Mac board on the web, and anyone is welcome to post there. A&E is also a large, well-known board, where, until recently, you posted constantly under the alias "Albert Webb," almost never letting a single day go by without many posts, but suddenly after a lot of Advises had been sent to the moderators, who saw your r-a-c-i-s-t slurs and other things that violated the TOS, you abruptly disappeared, and claimed that they wouldn't accept your password anymore. It was also pointed out that despite C&J's being the biggest board out there, and despite the obvious conclusion that you're a die-hard and vary garrulous poster for Mac, for some strange reason you can't seem to post on C&J. No one here is going to believe that with your big mouth, you simply "chose" not to post on the biggest boards on the web, and instead came here to this tiny, relatively unknown board. Nope; it's virtually certain that you posted at C&J under an alias, that you were banned from there, so you went to A&E where you were also banned, so you ended up here.One way of judging a man’s possible guilt can be trying to finding out exactly what his friends think of him.Another, much, much better way of determining guilt is to look at the physical, circumstantial and negative evidence. In this case, that evidence proved the murderer's guilt conclusively and unanimously to a jury and in over two and a half decades since that time he has never even come even remotely close to overcoming it.The lawyer Proctor was a prime mover in trying to get MacDonald prosecuted.In addition to other facts that show that Proctor certainly wasn't an issue over which Dupree should have recused himself, how do you square this with the fact that Proctor resigned from the United States Attorney's Office on February 28, 1971 (about four months after the Article 32 dismissal), and that he didn't have any connection with the case after that?

As noted by the court: "Therefore, fully eight years before the trial was to begin, the defense camp was aware of both Proctor's peripheral involvement in the investigation of the MacDonald murders, and his relationship by marriage to Judge Dupree. Yet no motion was made at any time prior to or during the [hearing] to obtain Judge Dupree's disqualification."

And of course as Peter Kearns noted in his affidavit: "Further...at no time did Mr. Proctor ever exercise operational control over the investigation."

I also see in the records that "Mr. Proctor has definite opinions on the conduct of the Article 32 investigation, none of which are good. He can cite specific unethical possibly illegal practices that the defense counsel used in the Article 32 and gave us several examples of how the absence of a judge adversely affected the Article 32 against the Government. That had a judge been present many of the activities of Mr. Segal and Mr. Eisman would not have taken place because it would not have been tolerated."

And another interesting tidbit, which seems to fly in the face of MacDonald's claim that he wouldn't have wanted to return to the scene of the crime: "Mr. Proctor informed us that at one time, and we do not know exactly when, that MacDonald was very anxious to get back into his quarters. The reason given by MacDonald was 'for one last nostalgic look.' This prompted the Department of Justice's letter demanding that the scene and the scene and the evidence be preserved....

"There is no theory at present as to why MacDonald was anxious to get back into the quarters, whether there is something in there that we have overlooked or whether it was just to satisfy some fear that he might have had forgotten to do something in the house to back up his story or had said something that didn't go along with something that was in the house."

[Bunny2]

It's obvious to me that you've either misread the records or you haven't looked at some of them at all, or you simply ignored what you did see if it went against MacDonald in even the slightest way. Perhaps that's because you're a baiter, like your twin Artie.
Why didn't Jeff have blood on the bottom of his feet if he had been wlking in the blood.It is undisputed that the footprints exiting Kristen's room, made in Colette's blood, were made by Jeffrey MacDonald. It is one of the main things that convicted him, IMHO.The autopsy gave the time of death of Colette and the girls at the same time.I had always thought that no time of death could be determined. Among other things that support this idea, we are told in the summary of the autopsies that "...the time of death [of Kimberly] in relation to that of Colette MacDonald and Kristen MacDonald could have occurred before, in close proximity to, or later than either... emphasized that there is no specific data related to the murders at hand and that variable[s] influencing judgement of time of death are numerous and of considerable magnitude."
It is without doubt that Kim was killed in her bed. That is evident by the blood splatters on the walls that she took a deadly blow to her head while lying in the bed. There were splinters from the club on her pillow. She had no defensive wounds on her hands.The evidence shows that after clubbing Kim in the master bedroom so hard that her brain serum leaked into the rug, MacDonald carried her back to her own bed, tucked her in (getting his pajama fibers in the bedding in the process), and then bludgeoned her again and stabbed her. Freddy Kassab was of the opinion that had the jurors deliberated just a bit longer, they would have come in with three first-degree murder verdicts, since while it's doubtful that she could have lived very long after her brain serum leaked into the master bedroom rug, it's possible that she was still alive when MacDonald smashed her head in again and stabbed her after tucking her back into her own bed.

Same for Colette...he first hit her in the MB and may have caused her to lose consciousness for a time, but then she went to Kristen's room, where he really went beserk and did so much damage to her that she was likely near death or dead at that point, and of course then he carried her back to the MB, wrapped in the MB bedding and making those footprints in her blood as he exited Kristen's room, and he made the fatal mistake of putting his pajama top on her body (to account for her blood being on it), and stabbed her repeatedly through it, creatiing 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in the top which matched the 21 holes in Colette's chest. Were another trial to ever be held, it's my guess that this time ol' Jeffy would walk away with three 1st-degree convictions instead of just one.Kristen had her little hands cut from where she had raised her hands when being stabbed.And a fiber under her fingernail, which came from her father's pajamas as he murdered her.Janice Glisson and anything that came out of her reports from her lab is questionable. She lied so much, who knowswhat part of what she reported was good evidence or what parts she manufactured to fit the theory that was given to her.False, and without any evidentiary support whatsoever.There is way she could say whose urine was in the beds.It was determined that the urine was not Kristen's. It came from a person with either Type A (Colette) or Type AB (Kimberly) blood. Kristen had Type O blood. There is no evidence to support the notion that Colette urinated in the bed. There is no evidence to support the notion that any "intruder" urinated in the bed. But of course there [i]is evidence to support the notion that Kimberly urinated in the master bed, either in her sleep or from fright when she saw her father out of control in a murderous rage.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
...why was it assumed the footprints trace blood came from one or the other of them and not from one the many of the herd of men in the immediate crime scene.Are you trying to claim that MPs and/or medics and/or investigators were barefoot??? Well, uhhhh...gee, Cappy, I hardly know what to say except...

:lol:

There was no blood reported on the bottoms of Jeff or Colette's bare feet...I'd have to go back and reread the records to be sure, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that no one thought to check for blood on the bottoms of MacDonald's feet. But that aside, what would you say is on the bottom of Colette's left foot in this picture?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/crime062.html

[rashomon]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

I realize that in about 80% of real life homicides the culprits are self-evident. Those murders are open and shut cases. There are other murders which are difficult murders. Mistakes are sometimes made, and serious mistakes. In my opinion, the MacDonald case, the JonBenet Ramsey case, and even perhaps the Darlie Routier case fall into that category.

You think MacDonald is innocent, the Ramseys are innocent - just curious: do you think Darlie Routier is innocent too?

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I get the feeling that Glisson was deliberately trying to confuse anybody who might try and investigate those synthetic hairs and /fibers. Of course, I may be wrong about that.

The CID lab reports are highly technical. Most laymen /laywomen for that matter would have difficuty in making much sense of the reports. What I find interesting is that competent forensic experts also seemed to have difficulty in fully comprehending the significance of the CID lab Glisson reports.

It may just be me, but some of the scientific language used in the Glisson hair and fiber/hair reports seems to be biased in pointing at Dr MacDonald. The synthetic fibers are described in a way like brown/blond/gray which at first glance you would immediately assume the hairs were Dr MacDonald's, until you found out the hairs were synthetic.

It has been suggested that Murtagh described Glisson as a blood expert and not qualified as an expert in hairs and fibers. The suggestion is that Murtagh was then able to keep Glisson off the witness stand at the 1979 trial where she might be asked embarrassing quetions about those strange mystery hairs and fibers. She was only available to answer blood questions.

This is what the Court TV crime library thinks about the matter. I don't really know for certain how scientifically correct this report is. I find it interesting background information anyway

"For example, MacDonald's wife Colette held in her hands several strands of long blond synthetic fiber. The fiber was not the same short blond fiber that was used in the doll's hair of MacDonald's daughters, but was the type used in blond wigs. Helena Stoeckley admitted that she wore a blond wig, but had disposed of it shortly after the murders. Also, on Colette's hairbrush some of the blond synthetic fibers were found. Stoeckley admitted after the trial that she had used that hairbrush on her wig that night.

This foreign fiber in Colette's hand could have been the centerpiece of MacDonald's defense if Segal had been properly informed of it. "He had been led to believe that MacDonald's hair...had been tested against another hair in Colette's hand, a longer blond one determined to be her own." (Potter & Bost). As Segal pointed out years later when he discovered the truth, "If it wasn't Jeff's hair, then whose hair was found in Colette's dead hand?"


When forensics are sent to a lab, the techs should do their analysis and interpretation based on results of the testing only. When a tech has the dectectives there telling them the particulars of the crime scene and what they expect their results to be increases the possiblity of gettinh desired results rather than the whole picture. This problem has been surfacing for some years with findings of altered or false lab reports.

It is a proven fact from the lab work notes that surfaced and the affidavits written that Glisson was a part of hiding pertinent evidence in this case.

You are right that her testimony was designed to confuse the jury. Firstly a lot of pieces of evidence were presented at one time and given evidence number. The she is put on the stand and she starts referring to exhibit so and so had results of antigens and antibodies which means so and so. The jurors had to have their eyes rolling around trying to keep up with what she saying. They have to just trust that she is the expert and what she says is to be expected.

The blood typing is not that difficult to understand if presented properly. What jury of just regular folks has the opportunity to actullay sit down somewhere and study what the "expert" has just told them. A jury is not expected to do because they should be able to trust the info that is presented to them.

Because I can sit here read and study what she said I know she was blowing smoke up their back sides. I was shocked at what she told the Grand Jury in order for them to offer up an indictment. She blatenly lied to them. She told them she had IDed the urine. There was no process available to her at the time to be able to do this. She gave them false information about the blood "factors" I know this because some of what she told them can not be.

If she needed Kim blood type to be in the master room to fit the theory of CID she just explained away why the test showed A but it was really AB. Kim's blood type was AB. When she found A blood type, which was Collette, she explain that it really was an AB but the B had deteriorated. That is false info.
AB blood type is what is. The AB factor just doesn't fade away and become an A factor.

If someone tests my blood type because I need a transfusion and I tell them I think I am AB but the test shows I am an A does anyone think a responsible lab would say well maybe the B factor has deteriorated. If I am an A and the hospital gave me a transfusion of AB I would die. There is no guess work in blood typing. How many deaths do you hear where the hospital has used the wrong blood type? The lab never has to worry about a blood factor fading away and giving a false reading because it doesn't happen. Blood doesn't lie but the people handling it can.

When Glisson et al testified they presented a chart with the blood types they came up with. If lab work notes were not available there is no way to cross check and verify whether the types written on a chart are correct. If the lab wants to give the "desired" results to fit the theory all they have to do is type on the chart whatever they want to put on the chart.

Now I know why the State did just turn over the blood for DNA testing when the appeals court ordered them to do so in 1997. The State was then saying they would pick and chose which piece of blood they were willing to release. Wanna bet the blood in the MB that was said to be Kim's was a part of what the State refused to release. Out of 50 samples they only agreed to release 15 and then tried to find reasons why some of those couldn't released. What's to hide? Why not release all of them if there is nothing to hide?

The DNA was completed in Dec 2005 and the Army lab still hasn't released the results. If they have results from Dec what's the problem. Why haven't they released the results yet?

Anybody ever see al list of what pieces were finally released for testing?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
It's obvious to me that you've either misread the records or you haven't looked at some of them at all, or you simply ignored what you did see if it went against MacDonald in even the slightest way. Perhaps that's because you're a baiter, like your twin Artie.
It is undisputed that the footprints exiting Kristen's room, made in Colette's blood, were made by Jeffrey MacDonald. It is one of the main things that convicted him, IMHO.I had always thought that no time of death could be determined. Among other things that support this idea, we are told in the summary of the autopsies that "...the time of death [of Kimberly] in relation to that of Colette MacDonald and Kristen MacDonald could have occurred before, in close proximity to, or later than either... emphasized that there is no specific data related to the murders at hand and that variable[s] influencing judgement of time of death are numerous and of considerable magnitude."
The evidence shows that after clubbing Kim in the master bedroom so hard that her brain serum leaked into the rug, MacDonald carried her back to her own bed, tucked her in (getting his pajama fibers in the bedding in the process), and then bludgeoned her again and stabbed her. Freddy Kassab was of the opinion that had the jurors deliberated just a bit longer, they would have come in with three first-degree murder verdicts, since while it's doubtful that she could have lived very long after her brain serum leaked into the master bedroom rug, it's possible that she was still alive when MacDonald smashed her head in again and stabbed her after tucking her back into her own bed.

Same for Colette...he first hit her in the MB and may have caused her to lose consciousness for a time, but then she went to Kristen's room, where he really went beserk and did so much damage to her that she was likely near death or dead at that point, and of course then he carried her back to the MB, wrapped in the MB bedding and making those footprints in her blood as he exited Kristen's room, and he made the fatal mistake of putting his pajama top on her body (to account for her blood being on it), and stabbed her repeatedly through it, creatiing 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in the top which matched the 21 holes in Colette's chest. Were another trial to ever be held, it's my guess that this time ol' Jeffy would walk away with three 1st-degree convictions instead of just one.And a fiber under her fingernail, which came from her father's pajamas as he murdered her.False, and without any evidentiary support whatsoever.It was determined that the urine was not Kristen's. It came from a person with either Type A (Colette) or Type AB (Kimberly) blood. Kristen had Type O blood. There is no evidence to support the notion that Colette urinated in the bed. There is no evidence to support the notion that any "intruder" urinated in the bed. But of course there [i]is evidence to support the notion that Kimberly urinated in the master bed, either in her sleep or from fright when she saw her father out of control in a murderous rage.


Enlighten me. How did Glisson determined whose urine was in the MB bed? Even with advances today there is no known way to use urine for identity purposes.

Healthy individuals do not shed nucleated cells into urine, so even DNA can not idenitify. If someone was ill and had blood cells in their urine, DNA could possibly be extracted from the urine.

So it urine from a healthy person can not identify in today advances , how the haoy did Glisson get identity from urine in 1970?

There could not be evidence the urine in the MB bed was Kim's. Not scientifically possible. It was pure speculation on Glisson part.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Enlighten me. How did Glisson determined whose urine was in the MB bed?Do you honestly think I'm going to waste any more time showing you the facts in countless long posts, when you aren't even willing to do the research for yourself? You pretend to be knowledgable, but in fact you are so ignorant of the case that you thought MacDonald had just been granted a new trial, that Pruett & Kearns had "maybe" written a book, and that Chamberlain "wasn't able to get the blood spatter off the living room wall," spots that weren't blood at all!

If you want to know how Glisson made her findings, don't expect me to sit here and copy and paste her entire testimonies for you. You know where her testimonies are; go read them for yourself. And by the way, you probably should also read Chamberlain's, to set yourself straight on those facts as well, since you don't seem to be too familiar with what he said.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Bunny hasn't persuaded me at all.Bunny couldn't possibly care any less about "persuading" you, CapArtie, because Bunny believes you're a fraud. The facts are shown only so that new posters won't take your nonsense too seriously. I might also encourage anyone who's interested in seeing the ignorance of your knowledge of the case to visit A&E, where there anyone can see the ludicrousness of your pretended beliefs, such as "vampires" and "Masons" being involved in the murders. LOL! Bottom line is that I and others have long come to believe that you're a phony, posting under different names in order to try to bait people.The pajama top may have been used to wipe up stains from the military police cups of coffee for all we know.Thanks for proving my point above, Artie.To cut a long story short Dr Thornton only had three days to examine the forensics before the 1979 trial.To cut a long story short, Thornton wasn't interested in examining the fiber evidence even though he had a chance to do so. He and Segal and the defense team thought that Mac would be acquitted, so Thornton apparently didn't want to bother himself with examination of such things. "When asked why Dr. Thornton looked at certain items of evidence in the jail cell and not others, he advised he had not realized how much work the government laboratories had done. Had he known the extent of the trace evidence available to the government, he would have encouraged the defense not to go to trial as the defense was not prepared to respond to the physical evidence of the government."Dr Thornton has been quoted as saying he is quite emotional about this, and feels [the murderer] didn't get a fair trial.And some people revere Hitler and some people still believe OJ is out there looking for the "real killers," so what's your point? As Dupree noted when the defense tried to get him to recuse himself, "...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."I think Segal's attitude was that [the murderer] had been cleared at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970..."Cleared"? I hope you don't mean "cleared" as in "exonerated"? MacDonald was never exonerated at the Article 32; in fact, he was apparently quite unhappy about the outcome, since he wanted Rock to declare him "innocent" but Rock of course couldn't do that. As I understand it, had the hearing resulted in a finding that Mac should be court-martialed, he'd probably be a free man today since he couldn't have been tried again.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by rashomon
You think MacDonald is innocent, the Ramseys are innocent - just curious: do you think Darlie Routier is innocent too?Oh, Rash, it's a game, that's all. Artie likes to play games on the boards, posting as different people and pretending to support killers and/or take the unpopular view, with the sole purpose of trying to rile people up. He's been trapped in his own convoluted pretenses so many times by now that I've long lost count, but he still goes on repeating the same nonsense because that's his game. IMHO, he's as transparent as glass, just someone who enjoys baiting people because he's apparently got nothing better to do with his life.

BTW, loved how you exposed him over on A&E re: the British thing. I don't think he ever expected to have anyone "out" him the way you and Jednme did. Kassab would have gotten a laugh out of that.

:beer:

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The law is that an average juror goes by the evidence, and sometimes a judge’s direction in a murder case, not by emotion...

...One way of judging a man’s possible guilt can be trying to finding out exactly what his friends think of him. [The murderer's] friends have always had the highest opinion of him.
Originally posted by stinkerbelle
...i do hope you realize the second portion of your quote directly contradicts the first part. finding out exactly what a man's friends think of him has nothing to do with evidence or a judge's direction, but lies solely in emotion. make up your mind, hon.Another score for Stinker...keep 'em coming, you've got him on the run now. HA! :D

[realityaddict06]

Originally posted by rashomon

You think MacDonald is innocent, the Ramseys are innocent - just curious: do you think Darlie Routier is innocent too?


that his answer would be a resounding "yep"! ;)

[realityaddict06]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by audpaud
[B]

"I have a sincere curiosity on how the supporters wrap their minds around this macdonald innocence/conspiracy thing . . . it obviously involves taking a big leap from the Logic Bridge and so far none will share how they got to that point.:confused:"


Audpaud, I'm not sure either, but I suspect that a magic 8-ball is involved! :D

[JTF]

Arthur: I'm still waiting.

Caphill: Your definition of proof is far different than mine. Science requires that in order to match a fiber to its source, you have to actually have the source material available for comparison purposes. Quoting 1 of Helena Stoeckley's many wig stories as proof that the saran fibers came from a wig that she owned, is absurd. If the wig doesn't exist, it can't be used for comparison purposes. Next.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Arthur: I'm still waiting.

Caphill: Your definition of proof is far different than mine. Science requires that in order to match a fiber to its source, you have to actually have the source material available for comparison purposes. Quoting 1 of Helena Stoeckley's many wig stories as proof that the saran fibers came from a wig that she owned, is absurd. If the wig doesn't exist, it can't be used for comparison purposes. Next.

JTF.


Are confusing me with someone else. How do you know what is my definition of proof ? I never discussed proof of any fiber. As a matter of fact I believe fiber evidence is the weakest of all evidence for exactly the same reason you stated. How can anyone state with a scientific certainty any fiber is inclusive with even a suspected known source. It would safer to use fibers as exclusion from suspected known source.

If the State had presented the 22 inch saran hair strands to a jury it would have been strong circumstancial evidence that the strands likely came from the wig of someone who was reportedly seen in the house night. I would not catalogue 22 inch saran hair strand as fiber anyway unless I wanted to hide the strand in my written inventory records of fiber collected.

The only scientific proof I spoke of was blood typing. As a matter of fact if go you back and read my response regarding the saran 22 inch hair strands, I said of course they could not compared to Helena's wig because Helena, as admitted in testimony, had destroyed the wig and the bots because she didn't want them to link her to murder.

[caphill]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bunny2

snipped

I might also encourage anyone who's interested in seeing the ignorance of your knowledge of the case to visit A&E, where there anyone can see the ludicrousness of your pretended beliefs, such ......


Snipped


To cut a long story short, Thornton wasn't interested in examining the fiber evidence even though he had a chance to do so. He and Segal and the defense team thought that Mac would be acquitted, so Thornton apparently didn't want to bother himself with examination of such things. "When asked why Dr. Thornton looked at certain items of evidence in the jail cell and not others, he advised he had not realized how much work the government laboratories had done. Had he known the extent of the trace evidence available to the government, he would have encouraged the defense not to go to trial as the defense was not prepared to respond to the physical evidence of the government."


Your first quote is an oxymoron. Thanks for giggle.

As to the part of of your post, Blackburn and Murtagh wasn't interested in examing the "so called" fiber evidence that was in their possession for at least 4 years before the trial. They prosecuted a man for murder and never looked at their collection of th boxes of evidence. These two are guilty of one of two things. One is they were so incompetent to not be familiar with their State collected evidence that included lab work notes . If they were competent and were familiar with all the evidence, then are are guilty of suppressing the evidence.

Maybe that oxymoron above applies to Blackburn and Murtagh regarding the their collection of evidence.

That's the ticket.... "Your Honor, We, the prosecutors, did not knowingly suppress any evidence in all those boxes."

Judge could then say..." Are you telling the Court that it was the "ignorance of your knowledge" that kept you from sharing the lab work notes with the defense?"

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

I would not catalogue 22 inch saran hair strand as fiber anyway unless I wanted to hide the strand in my written inventory records of fiber collected.
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fiber) defines fiber as:

1. A slender, elongated, threadlike object or structure.
2. Botany. One of the elongated, thick-walled cells that give strength and support to plant tissue.
3. Anatomy.
a. Any of the filaments constituting the extracellular matrix of connective tissue.
b. Any of various elongated cells or threadlike structures, especially a muscle fiber or a nerve fiber.

4.
a. A natural or synthetic filament, as of cotton or nylon, capable of being spun into yarn.
b. Material made of such filaments.

5.
a. Something that provides substance or texture.
b. Essential character: “stirred the deeper fibers of my nature” (Oscar Wilde).
c. Basic strength or toughness; fortitude: lacking in moral fiber.
6. Coarse, indigestible plant matter, consisting primarily of polysaccharides such as cellulose, that when eaten stimulates intestinal peristalsis. Also called bulk, roughage.

this site (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric3.htm) defines fiber as:

A fiber is the smallest unit of a textile material that has a length many times greater than its diameter. Fibers can occur naturally as plant and animal fibers, but they can also be man-made. A fiber can be spun with other fibers to form a yarn that can be woven or knitted to form a fabric.
so what, pray tell, would you categorize them as? blood evidence? hair evidence? some other biological evidence?

[byn63]

Let's totally debunk the CONSPIRACY THEORY. Benjamin Franklin said "three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead". So, doesn't that counter the inane belief in a large scale conspiracy to railroad the insignificant Army Dr?

[cami]

Originally posted by caphill



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

Is it all possibly that you are capable of comprehending what you read? I said it's a well known fact that abused children sometimes urinate and sometimes defecate in their bed. I did not say anywhere that peeing the bed indicated the child was being molested. I peed my bed when I was a child and I can assure I have never been sexually molested.

I do not believe Freddy's theory that Kim was being molested by Mac The Knife. I stated it in my post. My belief is that Kim's wetting the bed that night STARTED THE INITIAL ARGUMENT between the Knife and Colette. The speed freak, tired, sleep deprived, pissed off, lost it. Probaby because Colette refused to obey him when he ordered her to change the sheets or ordered her to the chesterfield so he could have the dry side of the bed.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
If the State had presented the 22 inch saran hair strands to a jury it would have been strong circumstancial evidence that the strands likely came from the wig of someone who was reportedly seen in the house night.Even if the saran came from a human wig, which no one has ever proven, how in the world do you ever come to the conclusion that it would definitely have come from someone "who was reportedly seen in the house [that] night"? And how would this overcome the decisions by the courts to reject MacDonald's already-presented arguments about unsourced items?...I said of course they could not compared to Helena's wig because Helena, as admitted in testimony, had destroyed the wig and the bots because she didn't want them to link her to murder.So let's see...a murder is committed a block away from where you live, and people intimate that it was committed by someone wearing purple shoes. You own some purple shoes and have no alibi for the night of the murder, and people start implying that you had something to do with it. You may keep wearing the shoes, or you may decide to get rid of them exactly for one of the reasons Helena claimed to have gotten rid of her boots: because they were connecting you to the murder (and because they had a broken heel). So what's the point here; I'm not sure I get it.

Also, Stoeckley's claim about the boots contradicts MacDonald's claim, as the court noted: "This testimony contradicts MacDonald's claim in his motion to set aside convictions that the boots given by James Nance to CID agents belonged to Stoeckley and further undermines his argument that the government suppressed exculpatory evidence."

[margiej]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is what the MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate had to say about appeals in the MacDonald case:

"Everytime an attack has been filed, the Justice Department has assigned the [MacDonald] case to the same prosecutors who have tried it and handled the appeal. These people have a very strong interest in preventing their own conduct from being examined."

These people also have a huge interest in seeing justice done in the bludgeoning death of a 26 yrs. old mother and her two baby daughters. They know who committed the crime and their only goal is to keep him in prison the rest of his life. They lived and breathed this case for 25+ yrs. They are the best the gov. has to offer. Why shouldn't they be given this case to handle on appeals. Who better than the ones who brought it to trial in the first place?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
One is they were so incompetent to not be familiar with their State collected evidence that included lab work notes . If they were competent and were familiar with all the evidence, then are are guilty of suppressing the evidence.Sorry, Cap, but obviously Blackburn and Murtagh were far, far more "competent" than Segal and his team were, and anyone can see that just by looking at the case records. As for "suppressing the evidence," you know already that the courts determined that no evidence was wrongly suppressed, and you know that Mac has brought out every bit of his "new evidence" and it was all rejected by the courts, and you know that he already argued to the jury that unsourced items pointed to intruders, and neither the jury nor the appeals courts found merit in that argument.

So again, given all of the above, please tell us what item or items you feel existed in the so-called "suppressed" information that would have overcome all that incredible amount of evidence against MacDonald?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
During the trial CID investigator H.O. Medlin testified that the footprint found in the bedroom of the MacDonald residence was that of Dr MacDonald. However at least two other CID agents had previously questioned the validity of Medlin's opinion.
A transparency of MacDonald's foot matched the print, and MacDonald conceded that it was his footprint. So what's your point here?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Jimmy Britt is no longer willing to be told to keep his mouth shut by Kearns.Wherever do you come up with such ludicrous ideas, Artie? Show us the proof of this, please. Or can't you do that, because there isn't any?

As far as I know, Helena was the only one who confessed and provided information.Didn't you know? Her "confessions" to Gunderson and Beasley were found to be coerced, and she recanted them, and the negative evidence showed that she was never in the MacDonald apartment at all?

I think Cathy Perry may have confessed, and provided some information, but nobody believed her because she was in a mental institution at the time.That's not correct, Artie, but of course you knew that before you posted. If you read what she said, even you should be able to see that it was completely bizarre and didn't match the known evidence. She described going upstairs (the MacDonalds lived on a single floor); she described the children as boys, etc. There is so much more that refutes her story, but we really don't need to even get into it since she recanted after receiving treatment for her schizophrenia.

Bruce Fowler, Al Mazerolle Dwight Smith and Don Harris categorically denied any knowledge in relation to the MacDonald murders, but they would wouldn't they?Oh, dear, I guess you still have not begun to research the facts yet, even after having them given to you in black and white here on this board and on other boards for months and months and months. Please start doing your research, Artie, so that you can see why your contention that any of these people were there is false. I'll even get you started, with an excerpt from one of JTF's posts which should help put things into perspective for you:

1) Helena Stoeckley: No matching fingerprints or hair found at the crime scene. Passed a polygraph exam administered by Scott Mero in 1982.

2) Greg Mitchell: No matching fingerprints found at the crime scene. Passed a CID polygraph exam in 1971.

3) Bruce Fowler: No matching fingerprints found at the crime scene. Passed a CID polygraph exam in 1971.

4) Don Harris: No matching fingerprints found at the crime scene.

5) Cathy Perry: No matching fingerprints found at the crime scene. Hair sample compared to the unidentified brown hair found in Colette's hand and did not match.

6) Allen Mazzerolle: Incarcerated the night of the murders.

7) Dwight Smith: No fingerprints taken of Smith by the CID, but he was interviewed by the FBI in 1981 and cleared as a suspect.

You also can find much more information at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

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

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In reply to Bunny my point is that there do seem to have been doubts expressed by both the CID lab and by the MacDonald Californian lawyers O’Neill in 1984 that the bloody footprint actually was Dr MacDonald’s. To me that’s forensically significant.I guess you didn't read my post, even though you claim you're replying to it. A transparency of MacDonald's foot matched the print, and MacDonald conceded that it was his footprint.

Also, I do believe MacDonald told investigators that none of the "intruders" were barefoot, and certainly none of the MPs, medics or investigators themselves were barefoot and carrying something relatively heavy as they left Kristen's room, so again: What's your point here?

The interesting aspect of this to me is that Segal mentioned in his closing argument that Colette had blood on her feet and there were very real suggestions by the CID lab that the footprint could be Colette’s footprint.The transparency matched MacDonald's footprint in shape and size, Artie. Are you saying that Colette had feet as big as MacDonald's? Are you saying that she was beaten to death in Kristen's room or was near death but stepped in her own blood in there -- none of which was on the floor -- and made footprints as she exited the room, carrying something relatively heavy as she left that room? To say the least, the evidence doesn't even begin to support that notion, which you knew before you posted this.

I have just noticed an interesting thread on the Crime and Justice forum with regard to the MacDonald case blood evidence from 2004 has just been bumped. A poster called ‘Investigating’ seems to have spent some of his own money consulting experts and researching all this MacDonald case A and AB etc. blood evidence. He seems to have said exactly the same things, and more, about it as caphill and I have said.Yes, isn't that interesting, since some posters have theorized that you and ‘Investigating’ are one and the same person, and neither of you ever posts on C&J anymore. We also know Investigating was banned, and some think that the same thing happened to you there.

And oh, my, I certainly hope you're ready for an apology to JTF, since you yourself have made so many errors and deliberate misrepresentations in describing the case that the list is virtually endless. I have only a few of them in my notes, but even then, the list just goes on and on and on and on and on. 17 "intruders" in the apartment, "vampires" in the apartment, all of the CID being Masons, even your implication that Colette made the footprint which matched MacDonald's and which he said were his...I laugh just thinking about some of the highlights.

[margiej]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp


I was interested to notice that JTF said a photo of Helena Beasley had Detective Beasley walking behind Helena Stoeckley. The local paper captioned the photo by saying the man behind Helena Stoeckley was Jimmy Britt. Surely JTF can’t be wrong about this? JTF is never wrong, and never makes a mistake! JTF is infallible!

Well, we all make tiny, simple mistakes from time to time. Even you. Surely you know that Helena's last name is Stoeckley and not Beasley.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by margiej
Well, we all make tiny, simple mistakes from time to time. Even you. Surely you know that Helena's last name is Stoeckley and not Beasley.LOL! Given all his other past mistakes, including his combining the names of "intruders" over on A&E to come up with suspect's names we'd never heard of, I'm not at all sure about that, margie...!
:lol:

You're right, everyone makes mistakes and typos from time to time. The difference, IMHO, is that JTF's mistake was an honest one, while a lot of Artie's aren't.

[margiej]

Originally posted by Bunny2
JTF's mistake was an honest one, while a lot of Artie's aren't.

Hi Bunny. So true, so true.

[JTF]

My bad. I know what Beasley looks like and he resembles Britt. I was unaware that Federal Marshals dressed in that manner and since Beasley testified at the 1979 trial, I assumed that was Beasley in the photograph. Such is life.

JTF.

[JTF]

Arthur: Still quoting Silverglate, eh? The same Silverglate who no longer represents MacDonald. The same Silverglate who never even met MacDonald face to face. In regards to the Stoeckley Group, still claiming they all were involved, eh? Still sticking to your belief system despite the fact that all 7 of these individuals were investigated and cleared by separate CID/FBI investigations. Still claiming that these investigations were not thorough enough despite the fact that no fingerprints or head hairs from any of these individuals were found at the crime scene. Still harping on Greg Mitchell and Bruce Fowler despite the fact that they both passed polygraph exams and Fowler had an airtight alibi. Still accusing Allen Mazzerolle of being involved despite the documented fact that he was in jail on February 17, 1970. Keep believing, it's the only thing you have to hold on to.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

perhaps the justice department feels it would be totally stupid to assign new lawyers who would have to fully research the case, thereby wasting precious time and resources. ;)


You do realize don't you, that Brian Murtagh is at the Justice Department and is the attorney that doggedly stayed at the helm of blocking the attempts of the MacDonald efforts to have this case revisited.

Brian Murtagh is the one that is "wasting precious time and resources" to keep any information that would possibly bring to light his role for 36 yrs in this case.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Sorry, Cap, but obviously Blackburn and Murtagh were far, far more "competent" than Segal and his team were, and anyone can see that just by looking at the case records. As for "suppressing the evidence," you know already that the courts determined that no evidence was wrongly suppressed, and you know that Mac has brought out every bit of his "new evidence" and it was all rejected by the courts, and you know that he already argued to the jury that unsourced items pointed to intruders, and neither the jury nor the appeals courts found merit in that argument.

So again, given all of the above, please tell us what item or items you feel existed in the so-called "suppressed" information that would have overcome all that incredible amount of evidence against MacDonald?


Does that mean it was "rightfully" suppressed?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Does that mean it was "rightfully" suppressed?Interesting that you'd mention that. I was just rereading Thou Shalt Not Kill, about the John List case, and marked some passages near the end of the book, where defense attorney Elijah Miller is filing all his motions to suppress evidence (the motions were denied)...

As Segal said, "You just can't say that everything in the world can be given to the jury."

:D

[rashomon]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Jimmy Britt has decided to be a bit more frank and candid about what he knows about this. This is to his credit, and shows moral courage on his part.
Moral courage? LOL - priceless Arthur, isn't it?
Imagine you had to spend more than a quarter of a century in prison just because a despicable coward like Britt wanted to protect his measly career.
Use your common sense, Arthur: would you have said "Thank you, Mr. Britt, for your moral courage"? :D

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
You do realize don't you, that Brian Murtagh is at the Justice Department and is the attorney that doggedly stayed at the helm of blocking the attempts of the MacDonald efforts to have this case revisited.Of course she realizes it; she's been studying the case much longer than you have. And good for Murtagh that he's vowed to stay with the case as long as any part of it remains open. MacDonald's victims -- not only Colette and Kim and Kristen but also the Kassabs, Stevensons and others -- deserve no less.

Brian Murtagh is the one that is "wasting precious time and resources" to keep any information that would possibly bring to light his role for 36 yrs in this case.That doesn't even make sense, so no point in my answering it.

[rashomon]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rashomon

You think MacDonald is innocent, the Ramseys are innocent - just curious: do you think Darlie Routier is innocent too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rashomon, i'm willing to bet money
that his answer would be a resounding "yep"!
answer would be a resounding "yep"! ;)

LMBO,you were right on target, realityaddict (welcome over here, btw!). Arthur basically answered "yep" to the question in the MacDonald poll thread. Isn't that guy crazy. Or maybe he just enjoys playing games here, as Bunny pointed out. Definitely a possibility.

[caphill]

Originally posted by rashomon

Moral courage? LOL - priceless Arthur, isn't it?
Imagine you had to spend more than a quarter of a century in prison just because a despicable coward like Britt wanted to protect his measly career.
Use your common sense, Arthur: would you have said "Thank you, Mr. Britt, for your moral courage"? :D


Could it be argued that to find moral courage later rather than than never is commendable.

Do you defend anyone who testifies under oath to give false testimony?

Do you defend officers of the courts, employees of the government including military to have the rights to violate the terms of the Constitution?

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



You do realize don't you, that Brian Murtagh is at the Justice Department and is the attorney that doggedly stayed at the helm of blocking the attempts of the MacDonald efforts to have this case revisited.

Brian Murtagh is the one that is "wasting precious time and resources" to keep any information that would possibly bring to light his role for 36 yrs in this case.
gosh no, i had no idea who murtagh was!:rolleyes:

[caphill]

I have waiting, Arthur Thorpe, for the posters who have the academic and technical abilites to understand your post to respond.

I thought surely by now some posters would have responed to how this related to the prosecution in their judicial conduct in the MacDonald case.

Seems as if some of the regular posters have scattered away from any argument to the writings of the Supreme Court.

Does this mean there is no "rightfully" suppressd evidence from the prosecution and the Government has no legal rights to deny the defense access to the evidence they have in their possession?

[JTF]

Caphill: Brian Murtagh's job is keep the court system from revisiting this case again and again. He presented evidence of MacDonald's brutal acts in a 7 week trial and achieved a conviction in less than 7 hours. What is there to revisit? If it's the saran or woolen fiber evidence, it has already been presented to the appellate courts in 1992 & 1998. By the way, how does the saran and woolen fiber evidence alter the significance of the blood evidence? What does it have to do with the bedding/fabric impression evidence presented at trial? Actually, if anyone is revisiting old habits, it is Jeffrey MacDonald. MacDonald attacked the weakest human beings inside 544 Castle Drive and now he is attacking the most vunerable of member of the prosecution team. Typical cowardly behavior by MacDonald. You don't see him attacking Brian Murtagh, do you? Isn't it interesting how Jimmy Britt doesn't make Brian Murtagh the focal point of his fairy tale? Peter Kearns had the best quote about MacDonald when he stated on Court TV, "go to Sheridan and ask them about him. They know him. A con is a con, and he's a con artist."

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Brian Murtagh's job is keep the court system from revisiting this case again and again. He presented evidence of MacDonald's brutal acts in a 7 week trial and achieved a conviction in less than 7 hours. What is there to revisit? If it's the saran or woolen fiber evidence, it has already been presented to the appellate courts in 1992 & 1998. By the way, how does the saran and woolen fiber evidence alter the significance of the blood evidence? What does it have to do with the bedding/fabric impression evidence presented at trial? Actually, if anyone is revisiting old habits, it is Jeffrey MacDonald. MacDonald attacked the weakest human beings inside 544 Castle Drive and now he is attacking the most vunerable of member of the prosecution team. Typical cowardly behavior by MacDonald. You don't see him attacking Brian Murtagh, do you? Isn't it interesting how Jimmy Britt doesn't make Brian Murtagh the focal point of his fairy tale? Peter Kearns had the best quote about MacDonald when he stated on Court TV, "go to Sheridan and ask them about him. They know him. A con is a con, and he's a con artist."

JTF.


It is a very smart legal move to not accuse Brian Murtagh of actually being in the room when Blackburn threatened Helena. Britt says Murtagh was there but he can't recall if Murtagh had possibily stepped out the room at some time or the other.

Murtagh was one of the authors of the opposition to the motion. I noted he didn't accuse Britt of lying, he just questioned his ability to remember the conversation that day. If Murtagh would ever be questioned directly he will have admit he was there the entire time or admit he did step out the room at times. To admit he was there the entire time would leave him open to becoming a witness in a case that he trying to defend as an attorney. If that was the situation, he would have remove himself from as the attorney and be subjected to direct and cross examination. Since he didn't challenge anything but Britt's memory in the opposition motion, I think he is stuck with not being a witness to the entire conversation between Blackburn and Helena . He can't back up what Blackburn said or didn't say. That also gets him off the hook of being accused of witness tampering.

Britt's statements that Helena told him on the trip to the courthouse that she was at the MacDonald house the night of the murders will be in line with the testimony of 8 other people that she told the same thing that same day. The court record shows that Segal made a motion a number of times during Helena testimony to declare her a hostile witness so he could impeach on what she had just told him, Smith and 6 other witness that day. He could have introduced her signed statements for the jury to decide Helena credibilityIt will not be just Britt's statement but the supporting records that her statements changed from the time she left their meeting to the time she got on the stand.

I think Murtagh has his hands full in trying to debunk Britt's statements. Since it has already being proven that Blackburn is a thief, a liar and has already violated the trust and ethics reguired to ever practice law again. Murtagh may be facing his Waterloo.

[JTF]

Caphill: I wouldn't go by Murtagh's response to the 4th Circuit Motion as a basis for what he will do next. Murtagh was playing with kid gloves in that motion and if you think that, at minimum, he will not question Britt's credibility, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Britt and MacDonald's defense team know what is coming. Why do you think that Kathryn is now begging for donations to her husband's illustrious defense fund? Murtagh is going to bring in CID agent after CID agent to discredit Britt. Britt's supervisor at the 1979 trial told the Fayetteville Observer that he questions the validity of the information in Britt's affidavit. Murtagh is going to investigate every tiny detail of Britt's background, so MacDonald's pro bono lawyers need the resources to combat the claims that are going to come forth. If you want to mess with the bull, you're going to get the horns.

JTF.

[JTF]

Arthur: You can copy references to legal definitions until the cows come home, but none of that has anything to do with the MacDonald case. The appellate courts have already decided that no suppression took place in this case. Next.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
I thought surely by now some posters would have responed to how this related to the prosecution in their judicial conduct in the MacDonald case.No prosecution team has to give the defense wholesale access to everything they possess. The prosecution is under no obligation to build the defense's case for them.

Brady wasn't violated in the MacDonald case.

As JTF and the court documents have shown you, neither the prosecution nor the defense nor the judge committed error in the case.

Now, if you would be so kind, I would like to know your feelings on Eisman telling MacDonald to be sure and shave his arms, legs, chest, etc. before they took hair samples.

I would also be interested in your thoughts on the civil action apparently filed on June 11, 1970, wherein Segal tried to enjoin the Army from obtaining MacDonald's hair samples for comparison purposes. What do you think of that?

And what did you think of Segal's filing a pre-trial motion to SUPPRESS hair samples obtained at the exhumation of the victims' bodies?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't know where, or when, Bernie Segal ever made that statement about not telling a jury everything. I accept Bunny's word for it, although as I say I don't know the source.Ah, so you didn't read Stombaugh's trial testimony, or didn't read it too closely, I guess...I should imagine what Segal meant by that is that you don't go into details with the jury about your client's youthful indiscretions, or the time he forgot to pay his income tax on time.No, sorry, Segal wasn't talking about "youthful indiscretions" or income tax, Artie. He was referring to photographs. "When I suggest, Your Honor, that the photographs showed this as the picture he worked from, he created something like this. That can't be just given to them. You just can't say that everything in the world can be given to the jury. There are limits that the rules of evidence have placed even on the Government's theory of the case. I want to see those properly invoked by a voir dire."

Also, Segal himself took advantage of the legal rules involving suppression of evidence, since he filed at least one motion himself to suppress it (re: hair samples), a motion which was denied.

:):read:

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is some information about providing evidence to the defense which comes from an American Bar website. I hope it's not too academic, or technical, for the posters on this forumThere's also some information from the 4th Circuit about this case in particular. I hope it's not too academic or technical for you:

"The Government did not agree to furnish lab notes, methodology, nature and name of physical examinations, scientific tests and experiments made in connection with this case. When the results of the tests and the substance tested are offered to the defense, denial of discovery of detailed laboratory findings and records of testing procedures is not an abuse of discretion, on authority of United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 320-321 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915 (1974)."

Also: "The [Appellant's] requests, however, go far beyond the usual Brady doctrine in order to seek review of all evidence of any kind in the possession of the Government so that he may determine if any of the evidence is favorable to his cause. He is, in effect, seeking the Government's help in developing his case;..."

[caphill]

Firstly I doubt the Army CID is going to be brought in to investigation anybody in this civilian trial.

Murtagh may well investigate him, looking for something to discredit him.

Britt's 22 years as US Marshall speaks well to his credibility. Thats 22 years served in the nations most respected law enforcement agencies.

I just was reading that the Us Marshalls are the nations primary fugitive finding organization. They capture more federal fugitives than all other national law enforcement agencies combined.( Just an interesting note which has nothing to do with the subject here.)

Murtagh will also have to attack Wendy Rouder who has as affidavit that Helena told a day or so after her testimony that she had been in the house and she could name names of others there and that she had seen the rocking horse. When asked why she changed her testimony, she said she was afraid of the prosecutors and that they would fry her. Rouder is still working as a respected officer of the court.

Hugh Salter, who was Britt's superior states Britt is an reputable person. He just faults Britt for not coming forth immediately. Of course, most of us know what happended to whistle blowers in those days.

We know what happens to whistle blowers today for that matter. Britt now an old man living in quiet retirement has already been vilified right here on the message board.

Though Murtagh still has the great power that he has been using all these years with Justice Department, I still think he may have met his Waterloo this time around. He's already lost a major battle with a power higher than him.

He now has to get down in the gutter and pull Blackburn out. He has got try to restore that felon's credibility against a respected US Marshall and another respected officer of the court, Wendy Rouder .

[caphill]

One thing worthy of note is change in the legal motions and legal order. When the motion was filed for relief of conviction, it was filed as United States of American v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald. After the motion was granted and reviewed by the lower court a legal order was issued.

The order is Jeffrey R. MacDonald, Movant v. United States of American, Petitioner/Defendant.

United States of America is now the defendant. The USA now has to defend itself against not only the charges of Britt but all the attached exhiibits and the record of prior proceedings that were a part of the motion for relief. This has to done by March 30, 2006.

The exhibits, the records of prior proceedings include everything that was previously denied to the defense from the original trial through all the appeals. This will include the hidden lab work notes, the hidden 22 inch wig strands , the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and on the mouth of Collette, the post and prior conviction statements of Helena, the number affidavits from the numerous people of Greg Mitchell's confessions, the affidavits of Janice Glisson regarding the 22 inch strands and her labs notes prior to the trial about not reporting any exculpatory hair evidence, the affidavits of the numerous people who saw a woman with a floppy hat with 3 men in the neighbor prior and after the murders that fit the description of the intruders described by MacDonald. The list goes on and on.

The USA is now the defendant and will for the first time have to address the facts they had in their possession and the knowledge of evidence that was denied only to the defense but also to the jury. They will have to have evidence to debunk every statement and/or every affidavits that was filed prior and post conviction.

I look foreward to seeing the answers, any motions or other responses from the Justice Department. It is an awesome task facing the Justice Department in defending themselves.

[byn63]

JTF - ITA! The gloves are now off and Brian Murtaugh will do whatever he legally can to discredit the allegations made by Britt and the altered "memories" of Ms. Rouder. If this includes interviewing and/or deposing CID agents he will do it.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: I wouldn't go by Murtagh's response to the 4th Circuit Motion as a basis for what he will do next. Murtagh was playing with kid gloves in that motion and if you think that, at minimum, he will not question Britt's credibility, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Britt and MacDonald's defense team know what is coming. Why do you think that Kathryn is now begging for donations to her husband's illustrious defense fund? Murtagh is going to bring in CID agent after CID agent to discredit Britt. Britt's supervisor at the 1979 trial told the Fayetteville Observer that he questions the validity of the information in Britt's affidavit. Murtagh is going to investigate every tiny detail of Britt's background, so MacDonald's pro bono lawyers need the resources to combat the claims that are going to come forth. If you want to mess with the bull, you're going to get the horns.

JTF.

The bull is now the defense team and the USA is now the defendant who has to defend against the horns of the bull. That is, if the District Court does not vacate the sentence and allows this to go to a new trial. This will only be determined based on the response of the defendant.

Though Murtagh has said he will vigorously defend the Government against these charges, I predict it would serve him better if the conviction was vacated rather than facing a new trial with no holes barred this time around.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill
One thing worthy of note is change in the legal motions and legal order. When the motion was filed for relief of conviction, it was filed as United States of American v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald. After the motion was granted and reviewed by the lower court a legal order was issued.

The order is Jeffrey R. MacDonald, Movant v. United States of American, Petitioner/Defendant.

United States of America is now the defendant. The USA now has to defend itself against not only the charges of Britt but all the attached exhiibits and the record of prior proceedings that were a part of the motion for relief. This has to done by March 30, 2006.

The exhibits, the records of prior proceedings include everything that was previously denied to the defense from the original trial through all the appeals. This will include the hidden lab work notes, the hidden 22 inch wig strands , the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and on the mouth of Collette, the post and prior conviction statements of Helena, the number affidavits from the numerous people of Greg Mitchell's confessions, the affidavits of Janice Glisson regarding the 22 inch strands and her labs notes prior to the trial about not reporting any exculpatory hair evidence, the affidavits of the numerous people who saw a woman with a floppy hat with 3 men in the neighbor prior and after the murders that fit the description of the intruders described by MacDonald. The list goes on and on.

The USA is now the defendant and will for the first time have to address the facts they had in their possession and the knowledge of evidence that was denied only to the defense but also to the jury. They will have to have evidence to debunk every statement and/or every affidavits that was filed prior and post conviction.

I look foreward to seeing the answers, any motions or other responses from the Justice Department. It is an awesome task facing the Justice Department in defending themselves.

The case is about the prosecution and conviction of MacDonald as the murderer of his family - he is seeking relief of his conviction.

Most of what you're saying will now be introduced has been addressed in prior court decisions and revealed not to be exculpatopry evidence that shows MacDonald to be factually innocent. E.g., Janice Glisson was simply commenting that since her task was to make human hair comparisons, she would therefore would not be reporting on snythetic hair. Nothing nefarious about her comment. As you say, the list goes on and on....

[byn63]

the term that macalites need to become familiar with is:

res judicata - which means "the thing has been judged"

Inmate 00131-177 and his attorney's have attempted numerous times to bring the same "evidence" forward in various different wordings in an attempt to get a different decision. Res judicata basically means that in prior court preceedings, this information was presented, and judgement has been passed.

Of course, Mr. & Mrs. Inmate are still a long way from getting a hearing on the 2255 motion, despite their claims to the contrary. Not to mention, that the Government response isn't due until the end of March, which means the DNA results will be released before the Government responds to Inmate's habeas petition. I imagine that the reason they mostly put a positive spin on things is to try and ellicit donations to the bankrupt defense fund.

But, Mrs. Inmate has them on a precipice - so, maybe she already knows they are about to take a HUGE fall?:seeya:

[JTF]

Caphill: I'm an admitted legal novice, but even I understand that the only forum in which the fiber evidence can be brought forth is an evidentiary hearing. Judge Fox is only weighing the significance or lack thereof of the information contained in Britt's affidavit. Not surprisingly, you're following the lead of the MacDonald camp and attributing significance to legal decisions that are not even close to being made.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't know the full background...Then why don't you learn the background before cutting and pasting only the excerpts you want people to see, Artie?

Perhaps posters here would be interested in seeing an example of your cut-and-paste tactics, so that they can be forewarned that what you paste can not always be taken at face value.

Here's an original post from Artie, posting as "Albert Webb" on another board:

Posted: 27 Nov 2005 09:40 AM

The Terry Laber blood evidence testimony in 1979 proved nothing.

It was almost presented in court in passing while the rest of the lawyers were discussing field trips for the jury. Segal opposed Laber's testimony being presented but never cross-examined Laber for some reason.

This was probably an error by Segal. I think perhaps Segal considered the Laber testimony unimportant. In the minds of an average juror any mention of blood was bound to be emotional.

I'm not an admirer of Judge Dupree. I considered Dupree biased. I do agree with Dupree, however, about the Laber testimony. This is what Dupree said to Murtagh about the Laber testimony at the time :-

"I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance to me at all. I don't see why it would have to the jury.
I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous - at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead."


And here is Chandler's response (emphasis is Chandler's):
Posted: 27 Nov 2005 07:57 AM

I realize AW is not taken seriously by many here, but as a newcomer I decided to check out a few of his posts to decide for myself. He wrote:

> This is what Dupree said to
> Murtagh about the Laber testimony at the time :-
>
> "I see your point, but just sitting here completely
> disinterested in the thing, it had no significance to
> me at all. I don't see why it would have to the
> jury.
> I just miss the significance of it, but this thing
> here, I believe it is completely innocuous - at
> least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been
> paying attention. Go ahead."

A full reading of Laber's testimony at
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979-08-02_laber.html reveals that Dupree was not referring to Laber's testimony (the majority of which had not yet been presented) but to the presentation of a photograph, to which Segal had just objected. Dupree then overruled the objection.

Here is that portion of the testimony (AW omitted the boldfaced parts of Dupree's remarks). Dupree asks about the photograph:

THE COURT: Will he need this to illustrate his testimony?

MR. MURTAGH: I think he will, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: When he gets to that point, do it then.

MR. MURTAGH: He is doing it right now. He is right there.

THE COURT: I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance at all to me. I don't see why it would have any to the jury. Now, when he starts to talk about it if he is going to talk about it, it has got to be up there.

MR. SEGAL: I believe that is appropriate.

THE COURT: I will OVERRULE that OBJECTION at this time, but any time that you have something that you want to bring up, then don't hesitate to bring it up because a lot of times, I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous--at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead.

So AW quotes Dupree out of context, claims the quote is referring to Laber's testimony rather than to the presentation of a photograph, and attempts to change completely the real meaning of Dupree's comments.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
The bull is now the defense team and the USA is now the defendant who has to defend against the horns of the bull.I would think that it would be up to MacDonald to prove his charges by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than Blackburn having to prove his "innocence."

"The horns of the bull..." Does that mean Britt's allegations are "bull"?

:D

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...MacDonald really needs a first-class trial judge to take charge of the MacDonald caseI believe he has that in Judge Fox.
I think Murtagh and Judge Fox may attempt to use "the law's delay" as Shakespeare would say, in order to prevent the DNA evidence and the rest of the forensic evidence, hidden at the 1979 trial, from being presented to a court.Mac himself tried to suppress and hide evidence repeatedly. He didn't want anyone to know Kim was in the MB, he tried to enjoin the Army from taking hair samples, and even had his lawyers file motions to suppress evidence. As for the trial, the courts found that no evidence was wrongly suppressed, and no errors were committed by the prosecution or judge.This is what Alex Constantine wrote about the MacDonald case DNA situation as it applied in 2000. It sounds like delaying tactics by Murtagh and Fox to meAs you knew before you posted, the defense, not the prosecution, was responsible for the delay of the DNA testing Mac asked for so many years ago.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Since it has already being proven that Blackburn is a thief, a liar...Since it has already been proven that MacDonald is a thief, a repeated liar, and was convicted of bludgeoning and stabbing his family to death, that makes Blackburn a far, far better man than Mac will ever be.

[Bunny2]

Sorry for the duplication here, folks. The following appears in both Mac threads on this board, because I think it's something that should be known by anyone reading these threads.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps posters here would be interested in seeing an example of [Arthur Thorp's] cut-and-paste tactics, so that they can be forewarned that what [he pastes] can not always be taken at face value.

Here's an original post from Artie, posting as "Albert Webb" on another board:

Posted: 27 Nov 2005 09:40 AM

The Terry Laber blood evidence testimony in 1979 proved nothing.

It was almost presented in court in passing while the rest of the lawyers were discussing field trips for the jury. Segal opposed Laber's testimony being presented but never cross-examined Laber for some reason.

This was probably an error by Segal. I think perhaps Segal considered the Laber testimony unimportant. In the minds of an average juror any mention of blood was bound to be emotional.

I'm not an admirer of Judge Dupree. I considered Dupree biased. I do agree with Dupree, however, about the Laber testimony. This is what Dupree said to Murtagh about the Laber testimony at the time :-

"I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance to me at all. I don't see why it would have to the jury.
I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous - at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead."


And here is Chandler's response (emphasis is Chandler's):
Posted: 27 Nov 2005 07:57 AM

I realize AW is not taken seriously by many here, but as a newcomer I decided to check out a few of his posts to decide for myself. He wrote:

> This is what Dupree said to
> Murtagh about the Laber testimony at the time :-
>
> "I see your point, but just sitting here completely
> disinterested in the thing, it had no significance to
> me at all. I don't see why it would have to the
> jury.
> I just miss the significance of it, but this thing
> here, I believe it is completely innocuous - at
> least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been
> paying attention. Go ahead."

A full reading of Laber's testimony at
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase....8-02_laber.html reveals that Dupree was not referring to Laber's testimony (the majority of which had not yet been presented) but to the presentation of a photograph, to which Segal had just objected. Dupree then overruled the objection.

Here is that portion of the testimony (AW omitted the boldfaced parts of Dupree's remarks). Dupree asks about the photograph:

THE COURT: Will he need this to illustrate his testimony?

MR. MURTAGH: I think he will, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: When he gets to that point, do it then.

MR. MURTAGH: He is doing it right now. He is right there.

THE COURT: I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance at all to me. I don't see why it would have any to the jury. Now, when he starts to talk about it if he is going to talk about it, it has got to be up there.

MR. SEGAL: I believe that is appropriate.

THE COURT: I will OVERRULE that OBJECTION at this time, but any time that you have something that you want to bring up, then don't hesitate to bring it up because a lot of times, I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous--at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead.

So AW quotes Dupree out of context, claims the quote is referring to Laber's testimony rather than to the presentation of a photograph, and attempts to change completely the real meaning of Dupree's comments.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Sorry for the duplication here, folks. The following appears in both Mac threads on this board, because I think it's something that should be known by anyone reading these threads.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps posters here would be interested in seeing an example of [Arthur Thorp's] cut-and-paste tactics, so that they can be forewarned that what [he pastes] can not always be taken at face value.

Here's an original post from Artie, posting as "Albert Webb" on another board:

Posted: 27 Nov 2005 09:40 AM

The Terry Laber blood evidence testimony in 1979 proved nothing.

It was almost presented in court in passing while the rest of the lawyers were discussing field trips for the jury. Segal opposed Laber's testimony being presented but never cross-examined Laber for some reason.

This was probably an error by Segal. I think perhaps Segal considered the Laber testimony unimportant. In the minds of an average juror any mention of blood was bound to be emotional.

I'm not an admirer of Judge Dupree. I considered Dupree biased. I do agree with Dupree, however, about the Laber testimony. This is what Dupree said to Murtagh about the Laber testimony at the time :-

"I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance to me at all. I don't see why it would have to the jury.
I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous - at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead."


And here is Chandler's response (emphasis is Chandler's):
Posted: 27 Nov 2005 07:57 AM

I realize AW is not taken seriously by many here, but as a newcomer I decided to check out a few of his posts to decide for myself. He wrote:

> This is what Dupree said to
> Murtagh about the Laber testimony at the time :-
>
> "I see your point, but just sitting here completely
> disinterested in the thing, it had no significance to
> me at all. I don't see why it would have to the
> jury.
> I just miss the significance of it, but this thing
> here, I believe it is completely innocuous - at
> least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been
> paying attention. Go ahead."

A full reading of Laber's testimony at
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase....8-02_laber.html reveals that Dupree was not referring to Laber's testimony (the majority of which had not yet been presented) but to the presentation of a photograph, to which Segal had just objected. Dupree then overruled the objection.

Here is that portion of the testimony (AW omitted the boldfaced parts of Dupree's remarks). Dupree asks about the photograph:

THE COURT: Will he need this to illustrate his testimony?

MR. MURTAGH: I think he will, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: When he gets to that point, do it then.

MR. MURTAGH: He is doing it right now. He is right there.

THE COURT: I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance at all to me. I don't see why it would have any to the jury. Now, when he starts to talk about it if he is going to talk about it, it has got to be up there.

MR. SEGAL: I believe that is appropriate.

THE COURT: I will OVERRULE that OBJECTION at this time, but any time that you have something that you want to bring up, then don't hesitate to bring it up because a lot of times, I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous--at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead.

So AW quotes Dupree out of context, claims the quote is referring to Laber's testimony rather than to the presentation of a photograph, and attempts to change completely the real meaning of Dupree's comments.
Bunny, we should say 'thanks for the duplication' - this post can't be read enough by many people because it perfectly illustrates Albert/Arthur's sneakiness, dishonesty and conscious falsifying of witness testimony.
Somewhat ironic isn't it, that rabid Mac groupies like Arthur always accuse the prosecution of falsifying evidence, while in reality this is what they themselves are doing all the time.

That was very astute on Chandler's part to actually compare Arthur's cut-and-paste drivel to the original documents! :read:

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: I'm an admitted legal novice, but even I understand that the only forum in which the fiber evidence can be brought forth is an evidentiary hearing. Judge Fox is only weighing the significance or lack thereof of the information contained in Britt's affidavit. Not surprisingly, you're following the lead of the MacDonald camp and attributing significance to legal decisions that are not even close to being made.

JTF.


I am following what Senior United States District Judge James C Fox says in his order to the United State attorney. What he is ordering the US Attorney to do is to respond to the motion, the attached exhibits and the record of prior proceedings.

When the defense filed their motion with the 4th Circuit Court, the motion was not just Britt's affidavit. The motion included many exhibits, the prior proceedings of the appeal courts, the affidavits of numerous people to support Britt's statement.

The prior proceedings in the prior appeals courts had the info of the accusations against the government of suppressed evidence etc . The prior courts had ruled against the evidence being heard for legal technicalities.

The first motion for relief was based on the defense finding additional "new"evidence that was in the many boxes of evidence at the time of the trial. To simplify, the court ruled that it was not "new" evidence and the defense should have been able with due diligence to have found it. The Constitution says a defendant is entitled to a retrial is there is "new" evidence found that could change a verdict.

The second motion to the appeals court for relief was the discovery of evidence found through FOIA court order. Again to simplify, the appeals court ruled this information was not filed within a certain time frame and therefore did not constituted a retrial. Therefore the evidence presented in the appeals motions was never heard by court of law and the US Attorney never had to address or defend the accusations made in the motions that MacDonald's constitutional rights had been violated by the suppression of evidence . Their rulings were based on Constitutional definitions of "new" evidence and later on a Constitutional time limit on certain filings.

This latest motion was based on Britt's affidavit that was determined to be "new" evidence in accordance with Constitutional law. If Britt's new evidence is deemed credible then MacDonald's constitutional rights have been violated by evidence of witness intimidation and tampering. The motion with"new" evidence included showing the whole picture of what has transpired to give support to the credibility of Britt's statements. His statement is just a part of proving judicial misconduct. The lastest motion was 53 pages including exhibits of accusations of witness intimidation as well as the other accusations of suppression of evidence and false testimony. Britt's "new" evidence of judicial misconduct just opened the door for everything else to be heard.

The United States now becomes the defendant being accused by MacDonald of violating his civil rights to a fair trial. The US Attorney is therefore ordered to respond the motion, the exhibits and the prior proccedings.

If the evidence is deemed reliable of Helena's intimidation to change her testimony,then the supporting testimony of 6 other witnesses that she had told them similiar accounts of being there along with the suppressed evidence of 22 inch blond wig hairs, other fibers and hairs on the victims bodies that showed presence of others in the house would be allowed. If the jury had heard this testimony and had seen all the evidence then there would have been a different verdict.

Strong support of Britt's statement is the record in court as well as the affidavit of Wendy Rouder that Helena said she changed her testimony because she was afraid of the prosecutors sitting there. Wendy Rouder actually testified in front of Judge Dupree of what Helena told her the prior day. This court record supports her new affidavit of what happened when she went to hotel to see Helena after her testimony.

[caphill]

Originally posted by byn63
JTF - ITA! The gloves are now off and Brian Murtaugh will do whatever he legally can to discredit the allegations made by Britt and the altered "memories" of Ms. Rouder. If this includes interviewing and/or deposing CID agents he will do it.


If you read the testimony that is a matter court record you will find that Ms. Rouder told Judge Dupree the same thing on Aug 20, 1979 that she states in her recent affidavit.

That is the proof that Ms. Rouder had not "altered" her memories.

What would interviewing and deposing the Army CID agents that worked this case in 1970 have to do with US Marshall Britt's affidavit of what happened behind closed doors in 1979?

Britt had no dealing with the Army CID or any involvement with this case other than transporting Helena from SC to NC to stand trial. As a US Marshall, she was in his custody until the judge released her from jail after her testimony.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill



If you read the testimony that is a matter court record you will find that Ms. Rouder told Judge Dupree the same thing on Aug 20, 1979 that she states in her recent affidavit.

That is the proof that Ms. Rouder had not "altered" her memories.

What would interviewing and deposing the Army CID agents that worked this case in 1970 have to do with US Marshall Britt's affidavit of what happened behind closed doors in 1979?

Britt had no dealing with the Army CID or any involvement with this case other than transporting Helena from SC to NC to stand trial. As a US Marshall, she was in his custody until the judge released her from jail after her testimony.

In her recent affidavit, she says that Britt came to take Helena to the 2nd hotel - in her trial testimony she says nothing about Britt and says that she drove her to the 2nd hotel. Also, she thinks it's really significant and some type of indicator of nefarious goings-on that Judge Dupree called the first hotel and asked what was going on, when all that happened was that Helena had been calling Judge Dupree about the situation at the first hotel and he was calling to see what was going on.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Q Did he show anger?

A Not exactly anger. He was just put out by being -- the inconvenience
i should think that any innocent man, who has just lost his entire immediate family to murder, would not be "put out" or inconvenienced by giving hair samples that could aid in the solving of the crime.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
So AW quotes Dupree out of context, claims the quote is referring to Laber's testimony rather than to the presentation of a photograph, and attempts to change completely the real meaning of Dupree's comments.
lmbo! thanks for posting this bunny:D and great spot chandler! (is he over here too?)

[stinkerbelle]

*snort*

[rashomon]

Originally posted by caphill
Could it be argued that to find moral courage later rather than than never is commendable.
You and MacDonald may call it 'moral courage' that Britt didn't wait another 25 years, lol.
My idea of moral courage is a bit different than yours.

Do you defend anyone who testifies under oath to give false testimony?
Do you defend officers of the courts, employees of the government including military to have the rights to violate the terms of the Constitution?

Is it violating the terms of the Constitution to point out to a witness that she may be indicted for her statement? Wouldn't this even be the duty of a prosecutor to do that?

EXAMINATION RESULTS:

I asked Mr. Britt the following relevant questions on multiple tests during the in-test phase of his examination, and he gave the indicated answers:

-Did you hear Helena Stokely tell Jim Blackburn she had seen a broken hobby horse while she was inside the MacDonald home?

Answer: yes

-Did you hear Jim Blackburn tell Helena Stokely he would have her indicted for murder if she testified she had been inside the MacDonald home?

Answer: yes

Photos of the hobby horse had been in the newspaper, plus Bernie Segal had shown crime scene pictures to Helena.

And I can't detect any threat in what Blackburn told Stoeckley. Is pointing out the consequences of her actions to a witness a 'threat'?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

lmbo! thanks for posting this bunny:D and great spot chandler! (is he over here too?)

ITA stinkerbelle: that was very astute of Chandler to actually compare Arthur's cut-and-paste drivel to the original documents!
Thanks Bunny for posting it!

[rashomon]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

As caphill and I have been saying, as well as ‘Investigating’ on the Crime and Justice forum, there are very real doubts that the CID lab did get it right about that blood typing, particularly with regard to Kim and the master bedroom.

After all this objecting by the lawyers Judge Dupree said something was innocuous and allowed it all to continue. I admit I was a little confused at first myself about exactly what Dupree was deciding he thought was “innocuous.”

JTF keeps mentioning the Terry Laber (blood man) testimony as some kind of proof of Dr MacDonald’s guilt. Half way through Laber’s testimony Dupree started discussing parking arrangements for journalists, and a visit for the jury to the MacDonald apartment, and some other social engagements.

In fact there was nothing in the Laber testimony of any forensic significance except this description of the blood at the murder scene. Bernie Segal and Wade Smith never even bothered to cross-examine Laber just because of that. That was probably a mistake by the MacDonald defense as Laber also seemed to mention the highly controversial pajama pocket. I believe Laber ought to have been challenged about that pajama pocket, and his blood descriptions, and the MacDonald defense opinions about it impressed on the jury. The whole Laber terstimony just gave the impression that all the lawyers and the jury had been having a long and tedious day and they were thinking of their social engagements more than Dr MacDonald’s liberty.

The disastrous result to my mind is that the jury were given the impression that Terry Laber had testified some momentous information about the emotional subject of blood which “obviously” proved Dr MacDonald guilty. It was nothing of the sort.
Utter nonsense provided by you as usual, Arthur! LMBO!

[caphill]

Originally posted by rashomon

You and MacDonald may call it 'moral courage' that Britt didn't wait another 25 years, lol.
My idea of moral courage is a bit different than yours.



Is it violating the terms of the Constitution to point out to a witness that she may be indicted for her statement? Wouldn't this even be the duty of a prosecutor to do that?

EXAMINATION RESULTS:

I asked Mr. Britt the following relevant questions on multiple tests during the in-test phase of his examination, and he gave the indicated answers:

-Did you hear Helena Stokely tell Jim Blackburn she had seen a broken hobby horse while she was inside the MacDonald home?

Answer: yes

-Did you hear Jim Blackburn tell Helena Stokely he would have her indicted for murder if she testified she had been inside the MacDonald home?

Answer: yes

Photos of the hobby horse had been in the newspaper, plus Bernie Segal had shown crime scene pictures to Helena.

And I can't detect any threat in what Blackburn told Stoeckley. Is pointing out the consequences of her actions to a witness a 'threat'?


He tells her he will indict her for murder if she testifies to something that may favor the person he has already indicted for murder. There is the appeals courts that "detects" something like that is witness intimidation.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill
He tells her he will indict her for murder if she testifies to something that may favor the person he has already indicted for murder. There is the appeals courts that "detects" something like that is witness intimidation.
imagine that! a prosecutor telling someone who admits to being part of a murder that he will indict them for said murder! scandalous!

the second part of your quote...i have no idea what you're saying. did you leave out some words?

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Eisman was murdered in about 1992. I’m not saying for a fact that Eisman was murdered by the Army CID.

:lol: :lol: :lol: omg

[byn63]

artie/bertie aka ramblin rose has posted another of his less than accurate accounts in re: the DNA testing.

The hair exhibit that his post claimed was not going to be tested - WAS TESTED; due to advances in the DNA technology less material needed to do the tests.

His claim that no witnesses were to be allowed to watch the testing is also patently false. Judge Fox's order specifically states that EACH SIDE could have an expert witness at AFIP during any testing. The order did state that the witness attending "costs" would be born by the team sending him and NOT the government.

Once the DNA testing had been approved Brian Murtaugh and the prosecution team made every effort to have the samples prepared and sent to AFIP. The delays in the testing were:

9/11 and Inmate 00131-177 motions

The preparing and packing of the samples was videotaped with a complete narration and transcript; the defense and the court each received a copy.

[caphill]

What they are saying seems apparent to me and I would think even to a causal observer. What has always been so intriguing to me is the question of why.

What was and who was the driving force that lead this case to the final conclusion.

Right from the onset there were problems with the handling of the bodies and the collection of evidence. There was no evidence or forensics where there should have been . It was known that Jeff used the phone to call the MP's , it was known the phone was used by a number of CID people that there in house. It was not known at that time that Helena had supposedly answered the phone. There should have been a number of fingerprints on the phone. No prints. No prints or blood found on the knife in the bedroom There should have been Jeff's prints if he pulled the knife out of Colette chest. There should have been her blood on that knife.

Who wiped down these items and why. Even the ice pick and the knife found outside had no blood on the blade or the shaft of ice pick. That makes no sense. What was going on in the initial stages of the collection of evidence. Why was there never road blocks called in in the first hours. Why wasn't Helena and her friends pulled in for at least an interrogation? The first early days there was no lab reports back to try to trial from blood which rooms the victims had been in. There was 4 weapons found at the scene. The stab knife wounds made with a different force than the ice pick which were are superficial wounds, though the ice pick was very sharp. These things alone would indicate more than one person inflicting these injuries. These were things know almost immediately.

Fast forward from CID dropping charges and recommending, in writing, an investigation of Helena et al. Never done. The pursuit of Jeff to the Grand Jury and to the trial 9 years later. Judge Dupree asking to be the judge and Brian Murtagh leaving the military to be able to be a prosecutor in this case. Riddle me this?

There was so much deliberation involved in keeping Helena and her testimony out of public records. I have the impression it was not Helena anyone wanted to protect and I don't thing she personally knew of anyone of great importance other than just the local street peddlers of drugs. There is something hinky about the lack of any real investigation of the "hippie gang". It seems as if somebody for some reason didn't want to really know who were Helena friends. Greg Mitchell's name keep surfacing and when he was finally interviewed ,not interrogated, that was done with soft shoe. No real questions to him about his friends or associations when he was still on the base. Who was the friend of Helena that worked somewhere at some "medical holding" place on the base. What does "medical holding" mean?

This seems to be a case that some how worked its way from the top down rather than from the bottom up, as in most murder cases.

Legal scholars have watched this case in amazement. Crime sleuths have scratched their heads in amazement. Even when Judge Fox has made orders to the State to produce DNA, as an example, these orders from a higher court have virtually been ignored. 81/2 yrs later there has been to date no DNA results produced. What is going here? Some of the best lawyers in the land have been working pro bono for years because they see the abuse of law in the judical handling of this case.

After the Army CID dissmissed charges for lack of evidence that Jeff killed his family, the CID continued to investigate until they could wrangle a Grand Jury indictment in the civilian courts. A militaty JAG officer is discharged for the sole purpose of being able to be involved in the civilian court for this case.

This IMO is much bigger than Jeffrey MacDonald. It was the CID that continued to visit Freddy and Colette's mother to work on their grief and poison Jeff to them. It was Freddy that was giving the CID heart burn with his continued attacks on them and demands they investigate Helena et al. He needed to be converted to shut him up. Once he was converted, he was then used unofficially as an agent to help the CID get this to a Grand Jury. This was been a concentrated Fort Bragg military effort from the first hour of the murders in 1970.

Wanna bet, if the District Court vacates this verdict, the Governement starts trying to figure out a way to appeal it to the highest court in the land. This case has such wide spread judicial misconduct that goes all the up the ladder in the Justice Department. Imagine the implications to many people in CID, Army and FBI labs, the lawyers involved and some judges if this case fully broke wide open. This is my studied opinion.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I can only assume that there had been some legal dispute about the forensic evidence which the public isn’t aware of, and... MacDonald got caught in the middle of that dispute. It wasn’t...MacDonald’s fault.Oh, I don't think you need to rely on outlandish speculation here, Artie. IMHO, I think it's reasonably clear that the reason he was told to shave himself before hair samples were taken, and the reason Segal tried to stop the Army from getting his hair samples, and the reason Segal filed his motion to suppress evidence re: the samples taken at the exhumation, was because the defense simply didn't want anyone to have those. I think Segal and MacDonald had no interest in doing anything that would help determine who the "real murderer" was, for reasons that are obvious.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

imagine that! a prosecutor telling someone who admits to being part of a murder that he will indict them for said murder! scandalous!

the second part of your quote...i have no idea what you're saying. did you leave out some words?


What is scandalous is Helena and her hippie clique were never investigated. Helena's story of being a witnesses to these murders was not a new story that just surfaced that day. If Blackburn thought he could indict for murder based on the same story she had telling for years, why didn't he indict her years ago.

MacDonald tells the story he was asleep in the middle of the night and is awaken by the attacks of a group of men and a glimpse of a woman with long blond hair and a floppy hair. Two 22 inch long blond wig hairs are found in the house. He proclaims his innocence.

His description fits Helena and the friends she was known to
hang with. She tells for years before this trial that she believes she is guilty of being that woman with the long blond hair. She admits she was drug induced and only remembered bits and pieces of being in the house. She is willing to name names and had asked for immunity. She never proclaimed innocence of knowing details of this murder and who committed them. Her freedom was only guaranteed if she kept her mouth shut.

Blackburn tells her he will indict her for murder if she testifies to being a witness to horrible crimes against a woman and two little children. Her testimony would have destroyed his case against a man who proclaims his innocence.

What is wrong with this picture.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Unfortunately it’s one of those zip files and is more complicated to read than usual...You follow the instructions. A box appears which asks if you want to open it and you click on yes. After about half a minute a series of boxes appear and you click on to a box for a page of the report. To get rid of the page you right click the mark at the bottom of the page, and then close the page on the screen with a left click. It doesn’t seem to do any harm to computers.ZIP files abound throughout the Internet; they've been used on BBSs and the web for almost three decades. You can simply download the file and save it to your hard drive, then you unzip it with WinZip or another unzipper, just as the "How to Unzip a file" instructions tell you. Easy as pie.

“Had Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might have testified, the injury to the government’s case would have been incalculably great.” United States v MacDonald 632F. 2d 258, 264 (4th Circ. 1980)" To paraphrase what Bisceglie was saying, Murtagh, Blackburn and Dupree and Fox maintained that because of all the hidden forensic evidence, there was no forensic evidence of intruders, and Stoeckley and her Stoeckley witnesses were “untrustworthy.”Whoa. Quite a leap you made there, Artie, to say that the Stoeckley witnesses testified on voir dire but not in front of the jury because of "hidden forensic evidence"! LOL! (Thanks, though, for yet another excellent entry for my Silly Artie Statements notes...) I'd outline the reasons why your conclusion is wrong, but I don't think I really need to do that, since you know why already.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_1991-07-08_02.html

"Contrary to MacDonald's assertion, the Fourth Circuit has never stated that these hearsay witnesses would have destroyed the government's case."

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Right from the onset there were problems with the handling of the bodies and the collection of evidence. There was no evidence or forensics where there should have been .Photos were taken before the bodies were moved. As for the collection of evidence, a flower pot set upright, Paulsen's stealing Mac's wallet, failing to stop people from using the toilet, the garbage being emptied, etc. in no way compromised the profusion of MacDonald's pajama threads and fibers being found in so many incriminating places, and not found where they should have been. No MP, medic or investigator put holes in MacDonald's pajama top which matched holes in Colette's chest; none of those people put his pajama fibers on the murder club and under Kristen's fingernail and under Colette and in the bedclothing, etc. In fact, none of them had anything to do with the vast majority of evidence which convicted MacDonald, and of course none of those people forced MacDonald to demonstrate the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes.Who wiped down these items and why. Even the ice pick and the knife found outside had no blood on the blade or the shaft of ice pick. It appears that MacDonald himself did it, for reasons that are obvious.There was 4 weapons found at the scene. The stab knife wounds made with a different force than the ice pick which were are superficial wounds, though the ice pick was very sharp. These things alone would indicate more than one person inflicting these injuries.Or, as the evidence proved, MacDonald used these different weapons in an attempt to support his story of "intruders," yet another indication of the consciousness of his guilt.There was so much deliberation involved in keeping Helena and her testimony out of public records. Although it appears that the defense didn't want to call her to the stand, Stoeckley of course testified at trial, and the so-called "Stoeckley witnesses" testified on voir dire. I do remember that Gunderson tried to prevent the court from seeing everything Stoeckley said, but who else tried to keep the Stoeckley statements "out of public records"?No real questions to [Mitchell] about his friends or associations when he was still on the base.There were hundreds of people interviewed; are you saying that for each and every one of them, the CID/FBI should have continued ad nauseam to "investigate" all those many, many people (even presumably continuing that process today), even though the negative evidence at the crime scene showed there were no "intruders" and the evidence that was there showed that MacDonald had committed the crimes?Even when Judge Fox has made orders to the State to produce DNA, as an example, these orders from a higher court have virtually been ignored. 81/2 yrs later there has been to date no DNA results produced. What is going here?What was going on is that MacDonald continually delayed the testing by having his lawyers file motions which had to be addressed before the testing could continue.Some of the best lawyers in the land have been working pro bono for years because they see the abuse of law in the judical handling of this case.Or because they see a chance for some free publicity. And none of them, of course, has ever been able to overcome the vast amount of incriminating evidence against MacDonald.This IMO is much bigger than Jeffrey MacDonald. It was the CID that continued to visit Freddy and Colette's mother to work on their grief and poison Jeff to them. It was Freddy that was giving the CID heart burn with his continued attacks on them and demands they investigate Helena et al. He needed to be converted to shut him up. Once he was converted, he was then used unofficially as an agent to help the CID get this to a Grand Jury. This was been a concentrated Fort Bragg military effort from the first hour of the murders in 1970.Too ridiculous and unsupported to even reply to.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I think it’s a pity that Dr MacDonald’s lawyer Eisman wasn’t with him at the 1979 MacDonald trial.

I don’t exactly know the reasons for that. From what I can gather Eisman was Segal’s former partner. I presume that partnership must have split and Eisman went to work somewhere else.

Eisman was a brilliant lawyer who knew about the art of cross-examination. I don’t know for certain how good he was at closing arguments. Frankly, I think an Eisman closing argument would have impressed a jury more than a Segal, or Wade Smith closing argument.

At the Article 32 investigation in 1970 Eisman asked witnesses some very relevant questions about the blood evidence, and the pajama pocket with regard to the MacDonald case. To my mind, the replies from those witnesses were not at all satisfactory. I believe that if Eisman had cross-examined Terry Laber, the blood man, at the 1979 trial then the jury might not have been so impressed by Laber’s testimony.

Eisman was murdered in about 1992. I’m not saying for a fact that Eisman was murdered by the Army CID.

The report about the MacDonald case from the lawyer Anthony P. Bisceglie which is on the internet, quotes him as saying:

“Brian Murtagh deliberately painted a counterfeit picture of the forensic evidence. He did more than merely suppress exculpatory evidence; he let the prosecution capitalize on the suppression.”

I must admit I don’t fully comprehend that hair incident in June 1970. It seems to me that the MacDonald lawyers and the Army CID were having difficulty maintaining even the appearance of friendly relations at the time. There had been trouble about the CID refusing to release lab reports about the candle wax samples. I can only assume that there had been some legal dispute about the forensic evidence which the public isn’t aware of, and Dr MacDonald got caught in the middle of that dispute. It wasn’t Dr MacDonald’s fault.

In the JonBenet Ramsey case the innocent John Ramsey willingly provided hair samples, I think on the same day as the murder, and definitely the innocent Patsy Ramsey went to the local hospital a few days after the murder in order to provide forensic samples.

I just feel the MacDonald case is a case of lawyers and journalists who know nothing about strategy or political aims, as well as nutter politicians. Helena Stoeckley said she was willing to provide the identities of the people involved in the MacDonald murders if the Army granted her immunity. If Murtagh, Blackburn and Anderson had granted Helena Stoeckley immunity, instead of just trying to advance their own careers, an innocent man, Dr MacDonald, would never have gone to prison for 25 years.

The MacDonald trial was a fraud.


Dennis Eisman murder was believed to involve his representation of Riconosciuto and his connections to Inslaw Octopus Piracy. Now that is strange involved story and many people involved in that ended up dead. I was amused at the descriptions of some of the deaths of people that had connections to Inslaw Octopus story.

There were deaths ruled as accidential or suicide. One man had an accidential death from falling off the top of the high rise Lincoln
Building or Towers. One man's death was ruled suicide from a gun shot to the back of the head. One man died from falling alseep on the railroad track . LOL.

Anyway, no reason to believe Eisman's murder had any link to Fort Bragg.

[rashomon]

There was 4 weapons found at the scene. The stab knife wounds made with a different force than the ice pick which were are superficial wounds, though the ice pick was very sharp. These things alone would indicate more than one person inflicting these injuries.
Caphill, your misinformation re the basic facts of the case shows once again: Colette's icepick wounds were not superficial at all.
FV, p. 37:
"She had also been stabbed twenty-one times in the chest with an icepick. The thrusts had been so powerful that that the blade of the icepick had been driven into her chest up to the hilt."

The victim with the shallow icepick wounds was Kristen.
Not surprising because we know that Kristen had been MacDonald's favorite child and that killing her was the hardest part for him.
Whereas the icepick wounds inflicted to Colette with such a force show once more how boundless his hatred against Colette must have been.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill



What is scandalous is Helena and her hippie clique were never investigated. Helena's story of being a witnesses to these murders was not a new story that just surfaced that day. If Blackburn thought he could indict for murder based on the same story she had telling for years, why didn't he indict her years ago.
it's been pointed out a zillion times that the "hippie clique" were investigated so i'm not even going there. what i find interesting is that the defense really did no "investigation" into helena and her friends until after the trial. during the article 32 they had posey pointing the finger at helena; why not bring in helena, mitchell, fowler, et. al. at that point? the defense's history in this case shows they were only interested in helena when mac had run out of other options.

Blackburn tells her he will indict her for murder if she testifies to being a witness to horrible crimes against a woman and two little children. Her testimony would have destroyed his case against a man who proclaims his innocence.

What is wrong with this picture.
what's wrong with that picture is that blackburn was new to the whole mac affair. he had not been fighting for years to bring this man to justice. he had no personal stake in who was prosecuted. it was his first murder trial and i doubt it's unheard of that a prosecutor might lose his first time in the ring. and again, if she had been there, she deserved to be indicted and prosecuted for it. i don't understand why this is a hard concept for you and your alter ego to grasp.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Two 22 inch long blond wig hairs are found in the house.
Glisson's notes state:

K numerous blond varies in length up to 15" - curly Synthetic (?) up to 22"

Questions for you:

1. Can you show us where in her notes she claims that two 22" fibers were found?

2. Can you show us where she wrote that they came from a wig?

3. The defense claimed that Glisson finding blond synthetic hair-like fibers were "perhaps the most significant laboratory findings." I believe there is a 1992 letter from the Dept. of Justice to the defense wherein it is stated that prosecution argued that doll hair is doubled or looped when placed in the skull of a doll, and that a 22-inch fiber is, therefore, consistent with an 11" hair strand on a doll. Can you tell us why MacDonald as of 1992 had never attempted to rebut this explanation?

4. If the unsourced saran fibers (which as I understand it were all of different compositions) were thought by the defense to be the "perhaps the most significant laboratory findings," and if MacDonald had already argued to the jury that unsourced items pointed to intruders and the jury rejected that argument, then what about these fibers leads you to a conclusion today that they are so significant?

5. Can you provide any support for the notion that any of Helena's several wigs/falls were curly?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
snipped


"Contrary to MacDonald's assertion, the Fourth Circuit has never stated that these hearsay witnesses would have destroyed the government's case."


Arthur's posting of writing from the 4th Circuit was made as a reference to the significance of the the Britt affidavit regarding the threat to Helena to change her testimony from she was expected to make based on what she had told the defense as well as 6 other witnesses.

The 4th Circuit was ,in their opinion at that time, saying if there was error to be found with the State's "handling" of evidence of blond wig hairs and black wool fibers etc it would be harmless error without any foundation of "trustworthy" testimony of Helena being in the house. That is paraphrasing to simplify their denial of a reversal based on suppression of evidence and court error in not allowing the the witnesses testimony as to what Helena had told them previously.

The important point being made was how it relates to Britt's statement that Helena changed her testimony from saying she had been in the house. Britt said he told him and she told Blackburn she was going to testify that she had been there and had seen the rocking horse.

Arthur quoted what the 4th Circuit said.

"Had Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might have testified, the injury to the governments case would have been incalculably great."

Had she have given the testimony that was expected from her from her statements to the defense , the 6 other witnesses would have been allowed and their hearsay testimony would have foundation for admission. Also if she had testified as expected the suppression of the blond hairs and the fibers would not have been considered "harmless" error.

If Britt's sworn statements are deemed credible that he heard Helena say she was going to testify she believed she had in the house, there should be a reversal of the verdict based on what the circuit court had already determined as far as injury to governments case. This "error" of witness intimidation by the prosecution would not be considered harmless error this time around.

What the defense had in their motion to support the credibiity of Britt's statements was the current affidavit from Rouder as well as the court record of her testimony that Helena said she changed her testimony because she was afraid of the damn prosecutors sitting there. Helena also mentioned the prosecutors would fry her if she had testified to what she remembered.

I found it interesting in reading Murtagh's defense of having the exculpatory lab notes that lead to the finding of the suppressed hairs strands. He couldn't deny he had them so he just said he never read them. Didn't know there was any exculpatory evidence in those boxes. He prosecutes a man for three murders and he never read the evidence the State complied against him. I think there was something I read recently that Blackburn also stated he had never read and didn't know about the lab only reporting a part of their findings. GMAFB

[JTF]

Stinkerbelle: When Caphill states that the Stoeckley group was never investigated, he or she is just following the MacDonald groupie code. This code involves making wild accusations without a shred of accompanying documentation.

1) Greg Mitchell was interviewed by the CID in 1971 and the FBI in 1981. He provided head hair/fingerprint samples to the CID in 1971 and passed a polygraph exam administered by Robert Brisentine.

2) Bruce Fowler was interviewed by the CID in 1971 and the FBI in 1981. He provided head hair/fingerprint samples to the CID in 1971 and passed a polygraph exam administered by Robert Brisentine. Stoeckley roomate Kathy Smith, also provided Fowler with an alibi for she told the CID in 1971, that she spent the night at Fowlers's trailer on Febrary 17, 1970. Fowler drove Smith home around 7:30 a.m. and roomate Diane Cazares, told the CID that Smith did indeed, arrive home at that time.

3) Don Harris was interviewed by the FBI in 1982 and none of his fingerprints were found at the crime scene.

4) Dwight Smith does not match the description of the black male intruder provided by MacDonald in 1970 and 1979. Smith was interviewed and cleared as a suspect by the FBI in 1982.

5) Allen Mazzerolle was in jail on February 17, 1970 as a result of possessing 539 doses of LSD. None of Mazzerolle's fingerprints were found at the crime scene.

6) Cathy Perry's head hairs and fingerprints were not found at the crime scene. Perry was interviewed by the CID in 1971, made a bizarre confession to the FBI in 1984, but then recanted several months later after receiving Thorazine treatments for her mental illness.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Arthur's posting of writing from the 4th Circuit was made as a reference to the significance of the the Britt affidavit regarding the threat to Helena to change her testimony from she was expected to make based on what she had told the defense as well as 6 other witnesses.Hmmm. Interesting that you're speaking for Artie...but I digress...

I believe Helena's story was that she didn't know where she was, isn't that true...? And despite Segal's badgering her to "confess" to something she didn't do, didn't she tell Segal that she wasn't there? I believe even the government's response to the Britt issue said the same thing, quoting Wade Smith to the effect that he admitted that Stoeckley had told the defense the same thing she told the prosecution.That is paraphrasing to simplify their denial of a reversal based on suppression of evidence and court error in not allowing the the witnesses testimony as to what Helena had told them previously.What "court error"? I was under the impression that the courts found no errors in this trial, either by the judge or any lawyer in the case.The important point being made was how it relates to Britt's statement that Helena changed her testimony from saying she had been in the house.I believe her testimony was pretty consistent with what she told both the defense and prosecution, that she didn't know where she was that night. I seem to recall that Segal spent quite a bit of time with her, trying to badger her into "confessing," but got nowhere.Arthur quoted what the 4th Circuit said. "Had Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might have testified, the injury to the governments case would have been incalculably great."I don't believe the 4th Circuit as a whole said that, did they...? Memory fails here, it's been a long time since I read that, but wasn't that only the opinion of a single judge, and didn't he end up agreeing with his "brothers," regardless?

I seem to recall that when he wrote the passage we're talking about here, there were some other things he also wrote that people might find interesting. Can you show the rest of what that judge also wrote, or point people to the link for it?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
He prosecutes a man for three murders and he never read the evidence the State complied against him.What did you think of all those times the defense failed to exercise due diligence and simply passed over information available to them, either out of laziness or carelessness or overconfidence?

[audpaud]

Hi All!::)

Working mega O.T. so a bit behind on my reading of this fascinating Thread . . . can anyone update me if any macdonald supporters answered my question on why the CID would choose to go after the successful Green Beret :patriot: physician than say . . . the floppy hatted low life groovy group of murdering hippies?:confused:

Tx in advance and I'll be catching up ASAP!

[audpaud]

Hi All!:)

Pardon the duplicate Posts . . . just want to ask b4 I try catching up on the two macdonald Threads . . . but has any supporter/Not Guilty Voter replied to my question on why the CID would choose to go after the successful Green Beret :patriot: physician rather than the acid groovin' wig floppy hippie murderers?:confused:

Tx in advance . . . I'll be catching up as I can!

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is an interesting report about the MacDonald case by the lawyer Anthony P. Bisceglie on the internet written in 1989. Unfortunately it’s one of those zip files and is more complicated to read than usual.

You follow the instructions. A box appears which asks if you want to open it and you click on yes. After about half a minute a series of boxes appear and you click on to a box for a page of the report. To get rid of the page you right click the mark at the bottom of the page, and then close the page on the screen with a left click. It doesn’t seem to do any harm to computers.

To anybody who’s interested in reading it it’s at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/def_1990-10-19.html

There are some interesting quotes which are relevant to the present Jimmy Britt legal case:

“Stoeckley on the stand professed a lack of memory covering the very hours which the murders were committed. The government, however objected on the grounds that the statements were not trustworthy under the provisions of the Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (b) (3)

While agreeing, “albeit not without substantial misgiving,” with the result. Circuit Judge Murnaghan lamented that the jury had been deprived of obviously crucial evidence.

“Had Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might have testified, the injury to the government’s case would have been incalculably great.” United States v MacDonald 632F. 2d 258, 264 (4th Circ. 1980)

To paraphrase what Bisceglie was saying, Murtagh, Blackburn and Dupree and Fox maintained that because of all the hidden forensic evidence, there was no forensic evidence of intruders, and Stoeckley and her Stoeckley witnesses were “untrustworthy.”



The link you listed is the defense's arguement to the appeals court regarding suppression of evidence. It was interesting read in chronicle description of Murtagh and his manipulation of the evidence and the witnessess. It gives reason of thought that Blackburn possibly did not know of the shenanigans of Murtagh.

I agree with your summation of meaning of the statements made ragarding the motions and appeals. There needs a clarification of "untrustworthy" It doesn't mean that Stoeckley and her 6 witnessess were untrustworthy. It means without "collaborating" evidence( any forensic evidence that Helena was inside the house) the statements could be considered untrustworhty.

Of the 6 witnesses, two of them were police officers. This means that the 6 and including Helena are not being doubted as to what she told them. But without any evidence that her story was true, such as forensics found that could indicate her presence in the house, the denial of the 6 witnesses testimony was not reversal error on the Dupree discretion to disallow their testimony.

The judges made undebated statements that they were troubled, had substantial misgivings and great discomfort that Durpree in his "wide discretion" did not allow the witnesses testimony. With that said, still didn't want to go so far as to rule abuse of discretion by Durpree.

All these opinions were based on the assumption that Dupree's ruling was absent of any knowledge of the "suppressed forensics would have been have strong circumstantial evidence of Helena being in the house whether she remembered it fully or not.

If the long blond wig hairs had been in evidence it would not have mattered much about Helena foggy memory. Those hairs, her sharing bits and pieces of knowledge of the inside house and the numerous people that testified they saw someone fitting her description in the immediate neighborhood right before and right after the murders would have have exculpatory for MacDonald..

By Murtagh concerted efforts to keep the forensics evidence of these hairs and the fibers from the defense, he took the heart out the defense. Then his and Blackburn entire arguement was based on the lack of any forensics to establish anyone had been in the house other than Jeff. He made bold statements that if there was anyone else in a struggle with Colette or Jeff there should have been foreign hairs or fibers around or on the bodies. He argued that only blue fibers on the club showed that Jeff was the only one that handled that club. The hidden evidence of black wool fibers on the club, on Colette mouth and I think under her body, the hiddened hairs and fibers found on the children or their bed was devastating to the defense.

[JTF]

Caphill: All of us on this board would be fascinated to hear how hairs that are microscopically uncomparable would have helped the defense? The limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5 certainly didn't help the defense. In terms of the saran fibers, the defense had access at trial to their existence via Paul Stombaugh's notes, and they received Glisson's notes in 1983. It took 6 years, however, before the defense team "realized" the "significance" of the fibers. The defense team then did their usual forensic equation of 2+2=5 by arguing that the fibers came from Stoeckley's wig. The defense, however, failed to express to the appellate courts which wig was the source of these fibers. Was it the wig that Bost and Potter surmised was culled from a Fayetteville dumpster? Was it Kathy Smith's ear length wig? Was it Maggie Mauney's fall? As usual, the defense team avoided those pesky little details and proceded to cry for the next 17 years about the government not pointing things out to them at trial. Personally, I'm outraged that Brian Murtagh did not sit down with Bernie Segal before the trial, and offer his advise on how Segal should craft his case.

JTF.

[JTF]

Audpaud: The MacDonald camp has never been willing or able to answer a number of salient questions:

1) Why would drug-crazed intruders ignore drugs and hypodermic needles that were located in the hallway closet?

2) Why would drug-crazed intruders slaughter a pregnant woman and 2 small children, yet leave the focus of their home invasion very much alive?

3) Why would drug-crazed intruders transport Kimberly and Colette back to their rooms?

4) How did drug-crazed intruders avoid leaving any fingerprints and/or head hairs inside that small apartment?

5) How did drug-crazed intruders avoid leaving any bloody footprints?

6) Why doesn't Jeff have any defensive wounds on his hands or forearms?

7) Why isn't there any pajama fiber evidence in the living room?

8) Why isn't there any of Jeff's Type B blood in the living room?

9) Why didn't drug-crazed intruders bring their own weapons?

10) Why did drug-crazed intruders dispose of a pair of surgeon's gloves, yet leave the weapons at the crime scene?

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
1) There were no controlled drugs in the MacDonald apartment.Among other things, MacDonald's stash included speed, syringes and Thorazine. Interesting to note that Stoeckley told Beaber that at one time she had been shooting Thorazine. Regardless, it would be very odd for intruders who came seeking drugs to (1) try to get them from someone who claimed to be anti-drug and (2) not take any of the drugs in MacDonald's stash.2) Helena Stoeckley thought...MacDonald was dead.Actually, that's another contradiction in this case, since it was claimed that the "intruders" slaughtered Colette, Kim and Kristen but left Mac alive to punish him (!), yet according to FJ, they were "frightened" when they learned he was still alive.
3) There is no hard, or firm evidence, that Kim or Colette were transported anywhere. Colette had blood on her feet. To my mind Kim wasn’t transported anywhere.This comes from your ignorance of the case. Evidence showed that MacDonald wrapped Colette in the master bedroom sheet and carried her from Kristen's room to the master bedroom, where he then posed her face up on the floor in an attempt to stage the scene. Evidence also clearly shows that Kim was carried from the master bedroom and put back into her own bed, and even the defense did not contend this.4) Drug-crazed intruders don’t leave fingerprints... There may have been some Stoeckley gang fingerprints at the crime scene...You contradict yourself, not only by claiming that no fingerprints would have been left but that fingerprints were left, but also by ignoring (as usual) the fact that the murderer did indeed leave much evidence showing that he committed these brutal crimes.5) Drug-crazed intruders only leave bloody footprints if they get careless. There weren’t great pools of blood there anyway. It was mostly spots of blood.Obviously you haven't even glanced at the crime scene photos yet. That aside, how fascinating that you would even attempt to make people believe that six or more "intruders" in a drug-crazed frenzy would be able to murder three people in different rooms and leave not a single trace of themselves whatsoever. The actual murderer, of course, did leave evidence, a great deal of it, including the very incriminating evidence of his own bare footprints in Colette's blood exiting Kristen's room.6) Jeff had all sorts of nasty wounds and injuries...Pure and total fabrication. MacDonald was barely scratched, and required not so much as a single stitch for his injuries. He himself claimed that "there wasn't even a cut or anything." Later, he claimed his wounds were "little" and "small" and even "small, small" ones. The most serious of his wounds was the chest wound he self-inflicted, which was treated by placing a Vaseline gauze bandage over it and which later resulted in a chest tube being inserted. The murderer spent only a single day in the ICU, and remained in the hospital after the chest tube was removed only because the investigation was continuing and he had "no real home to go to."
7) There was pajama fiber evidence in the hallway, which was at one end of the couch and where the half minute struggle with the Stoeckley killers took place.Taking into account the incredible number of evidentiary items which showed MacDonald was the murderer, no doubt the fiber Shaw claimed to have seen was dropped as Mac went about the apartment staging the scenes. Not a single fiber or thread from his pajamas (nor any of his blood) was found at the sofa area where he claimed his pajama top was ripped and where he claims to have been stabbed repeatedly.8) Because Craig Chamberlain on his first crime scene investigation said that red spots found in the living room weren’t blood spots.Is this some silly attempt on your part to recover from your statement while posting as Caphill that there were blood spots found on the living room wall, spots that weren't blood at all?9) It has never been proven that the ice picks were MacDonald ice picks.You know already that aside from others who saw the icepick in the MacDonald apartment before the murders, even the murderer's best friend, Ron Harrison, described MacDonald himself going to look for the icepick.10) Why not ask the Stoeckley gang? Helena said the murder gang took the murder scissors away with them.No evidence showed that any of the family's wounds were made by scissors. The answer to JTF's question ("Why did drug-crazed intruders dispose of a pair of surgeon's gloves, yet leave the weapons at the crime scene?") is simple: MacDonald murdered his family, and his stories of "intruders" were a fabrication designed to suppress and hide the evidence of his guilt.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is how thoroughly and professionally the CID investigated Helena Stoeckley of the MacDonald murders gang.These are just a few examples of the large and small contradictions in MacDonald's stories; there are so many that to print them all is an impossibility, but since Artie is so very fond of pasting things (and often the same things repeatedly), perhaps he will find some benefit in this:

MacDonald provided a tape to Joe McGinniss in which he "talked at considerable length and in extraordinary detail about how the night before his wedding he'd had to drive one of the bridesmaids home to New Jersey, but she could not remember where she lived and they had become lost for several hours and as a result he had arrived extremely late for his own bachelor party." Contrary to his story on the tape, on the night before his wedding he had actually been back in Patchogue, putting a red-and-black negligee on the front seat of Carol Larson's (aka Penny Wells's) car.

During his Army physical examination MacDonald claimed there were no problems with his back. During the Article 32 hearing in 1970, MacDonald said, "I had had a herniated lumbar disk, playing football, and I told less than the truth on my Army physical."

At trial in 1979, MacDonald was asked about a weekend he had spent in San Antonio in December 1969 as part of a Special Forces group: Q During that weekend, did you meet a woman you spent any time with or had any sexual relations with? A We spent some time. We did not have any sexual relations." Judith DeWitt, the WAC with whom MacDonald had "spent some time," told investigators that she and MacDonald had been nude together and fondled one another.

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

On Feb. 17, 1970, MacDonald told CID investigators that he saw a single black male, two white males and one white female. MacDonald told other people that there were two black males, not just one.

During the 1974 grand jury proceeding, MacDonald testified that "I never said I saw hippies. I never said that." MacDonald told numerous people that the intruders were "hippies."

MacDonald claimed that with his pajama top wrapped around his wrists, he used the top as a shield, repeatedly thrusting it outwards in attempts to deflect the stabbings. A cut was found in the webbing of one hand. MacDonald testified at his 1979 trial that he had no other wounds on his hands, wrists or forearms. Also, MacDonald claimed that upon awakening in the hallway, he made his way to the master bedroom where Colette lay, removing the pajama top from his wrists as he entered the master bedroom. He says that at some point afterwards, he put the pajama top on Colette to keep her warm. When found, the left sleeve of the pajama top was not on Colette's body, but was trailing off to one side. The sleeve had no ice pick holes in it. Also, the holes in the pajama top were perfectly round, with no tearing at the edges, indicating that the holes were made while the top was stationary.

Evidence shows that Colette may have scratched MacDonald as she tried to fight him off. But Jeffrey MacDonald's website (quote copied June 9, 2004) claims: "There were no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald." MP Kenneth Mica and others testified that they did see scratches on MacDonald's chest. During the Pruett and Kearns interview, MacDonald told Pruett, "There was a scratch on my left upper chest." Pruett then asked, "The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?" Macdonald replied, "Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple." Kearns asked MacDonald, "Were these wounds bleeding?" MacDonald replied, "My left hand was, but not--it was a scratch really. It wasn't--it didn't require sutures." During the Article 32 military hearing, Captain Somers asked MacDonald to describe his injuries. Among other things, MacDonald said, "There were several, what appeared to me to be small, small puncture wounds, on the left of the chest and some scratches..." He also said, "I had a scratch on my right arm." During the same hearing, MacDonald's lawyer Bernie Segal asked: "Now, did you have any others? Just describe each one as you recall discovering or finding on your body now." MacDonald replied, "Yes, sir. I had some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest..." On August 16, 1974, during the grand jury proceeding, MacDonald said, "I had--there was a scratch somewhere on my right shoulder."

MacDonald claims that unidentified female hairs found in Kimberly's and Kristen's hands prove the existence of outside assailants. 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. Also, the two hairs were hair fragments. Hair fragments do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons. Therefore, there is no forensic basis for claims of intruders being the source for those two hair fragments.

MacDonald claimed he was not wearing his pajama top when he went to Kimberly's room to check her. Kimberly's blood was found on the pajama top. Also, a fiber from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas was found underneath one of Kimberly's bed pillows; a 20½" fiber from his pajamas was found on top of the same pillow; and 14 of his pajama fibers were found underneath her bed covers.

Denies wrapping Colette in the master bedroom sheet and carrying her back to the master bedroom. Claims that he never touched the master bedroom sheet at all during or after the murders. Bloody imprints from Colette's and MacDonald's pajamas were found on the sheet, as well as bloody handprints, a chin imprint and the bloody imprint of what appeared to be a bare left shoulder. This indicates that these stains were placed on the sheet at the same time and that Colette was wrapped in the sheet by someone who was wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's bloody pajama top. The defense’s expert witness, Dr. Thornton, agreed with the prosecution that the imprints of MacDonald’s bloody pajama cuffs were on the sheet. Also, in the wadded-up master bedroom bedspread a blue seam thread matched to Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas was found entwined around a bloody hair of Colette's.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I does seem ridiculous that the FBI and CID would go after a first-class man, and first-class American, like...MacDonald and fail to professionally and thoroughly investigate the real culprits in the Stoeckley murder gang.Artie, can you read?? JTF has posted repeatedly to you about the investigation and reinvestigation (which was incredibly thorough). PLEASE pay attention so you don't keep wasting your time and the time of others here. If you cannot remember the facts about the thoroughness of the reinvestigation please visit CM's website again and make notes this time, or go find all of those many, many posts people have written to you which also show the facts.

As I have said before there were some strange goings on at Fort Bragg at that time in 1970 invoving drug smuggling from Vietnam, and drug peddling with the Mafia.Which had nothing whatsoever to do with MacDonald's murdering his family. You are unable to support your "theory without facts," because the facts show that the issues you raise were not supported by the evidence. Just for starters, I don't believe people in the "Mafia" go around murdering pregnant woman and little girls, do they?

To give the CID and FBI the benefit of the doubt it could be that they honestly thought...MacDonald [the murderer] was guilty on the first day, even though they had no real evidence to back up that theory without facts.As we know now, the suspicions of Grebner, Ivory and Shaw proved to be correct.

This is what [the murderer] himself said about the matter on the Larry King Live TV show in, I think, 2004The interview to which you refer took place in October 2003, not 2004. Regardless, we have been able to see for ourselves that MacDonald is a repeated liar, that he has no problems whatsoever lying whenever it suits his needs, and that he continues to lie today. But thanks anyway for mentioning the King interview; it's wonderful fodder for comparison with his other statements, and ended up putting him deeper into the hole he'd already dug for himself.

2003 Larry King Live interview in full:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/24/lkl.00.html

Compare to the facts at:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

[byn63]

Originally posted by JTF
....... The defense team then did their usual forensic equation of 2+2=5 by arguing that the fibers came from Stoeckley's wig. The defense, however, failed to express to the appellate courts which wig was the source of these fibers. Was it the wig that Bost and Potter surmised was culled from a Fayetteville dumpster? Was it Kathy Smith's ear length wig? Was it Maggie Mauney's fall? As usual, the defense team avoided those pesky little details and proceded to cry for the next 17 years about the government not pointing things out to them at trial. Personally, I'm outraged that Brian Murtagh did not sit down with Bernie Segal before the trial, and offer his advise on how Segal should craft his case.

JTF.

Hey JTF - seriously, how in the world do you keep from laughing and biting your own tongue when you type things like this? What is really sad is that statements like this wouldn't be so funny if they weren't so TRUE!

HS and her pals were investigated, no evidence was suppressed, and now if the DNA results would just be released we'd at least finally see a new dance from the macalites. Shall we name it in advance? How about the "I never said that shuffle"?
{the chicken dance is already taken}:chicken:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
Personally, I'm outraged that Brian Murtagh did not sit down with Bernie Segal before the trial, and offer his advise on how Segal should craft his case.

LOL, JTF - good one! ROFL!!! :biggrin:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
1) There were no controlled drugs in the MacDonald apartment. The Stoeckley thugs weren’t interested in Dr MacDonald’s mother-in law pills.
by my count, according to the inventory of medical supplies removed from the macdonald apartment, there were 35 syringes, 4 boxes/packages containing an unknown # of syringes and one intravenous injection kit. since helena herself admitted to shooting heroin daily, i would think at least she would have been interested in these. i would also think that amphetamines, muscle relaxants, pain killers, epileptic seizure medicine and anti-psychotics would be of some interest to drug addicts. but that's just me. inventory (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/macmedsupplies_1984-06-04_p01.html)

6) Jeff had all sorts of nasty wounds and injuries which were never photographed by the FBI or CID.
let's pretend for a moment that macdoneit did have injuries not noted by any of the physicians or other hospital personnel. not one of these supposed injuries required treatment of any kind, including stitches, medication or even a bandaid. i don't care if he had 500 icepick wounds (so shallow they did not even scar, according to an FBI report made when pictures of macdoneit's wounds were taken during the grand jury proceeding) and 35 bumps on the head that no one recorded; the bottom line is that he had only one injury, and a non-life threatening one at that, that required any medical attention whatsoever.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is a rather similar case to the MacDonald case in the UK at the moment involving a former teacher Sion Jenkins. He was supposed to have murdered his foster daughter Billie-Jo Jenkins.

Sion Jenkins has just been released form prison after nine years, much to the chagrin and lack of humor of the Murdoch Press and journalists who are probably receiving subsidies from the Chinese government.

I don't really want to have a definite opinion about this Jenkins case. I don't know the full facts of the evidence, or forensic evidence, or if somebody else could have done it. The case has said to have cost many millions, and involved many judges, lawyers, and jurors.

Jenkins remarried a quite wealthy woman when, I think, he was still in prison and now lives in an expensive house. In a way it reminds me of Dr MacDonald and his wife, although in the MacDonald case I'm firmly convinced Dr MacDonald is innocent...

What's your point? He's married to a woman and that makes his case similar to MacDonald's? I'm married to man - I suppose that makes me similar to Queen Elizabeth. Whatever.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
...MacDonald's reply seems perfectly reasonable, frank, candid and open to me.

Didn't you know, Artie? MacDonald is a liar. He loves to lie. He lives and breathes lies. It's virtually the only thing he is really good at, other than cleaning latrines and murdering people.

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

And of course we know that MacDonald was providing drugs not only to his in-laws and their relatives, but also he wanted to be "Johnny on the spot" and provide drugs to the neighborhood people also. All of which could have caused him to lose his license. Some doctor, eh? He does things he was sworn not to do, steals from the Army, lies so much that you can't believe a word he says most of the time, and apparently didn't have a clue about how to give mouth-to-mouth respiration to children or that he shouldn't pull a knife from a wound.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't have any wide or practical experience of drug peddling. I wouldn't have thought anybody would ever murder a woman and her two daughters just because that MacDonald apartment contained medical syringes.

Dr MacDonald was questioned about his medical supplies at the April 1970 hostile interrogation with CID agents Grebner, Shaw and Ivory. There were no controlled drugs there which would interest Helena Stoeckley and her gang of murderers.

Dr MacDonald's reply seems perfectly reasonable, frank, candid and open to me. it wasn't a "drugs stash" as is implied on the MacDonald internet forums by the anti-mac brigade:

Dr MacDonald from the April 1970 hostile interrogation with Grebner, Shaw and Ivory :-

Q Captain, you have a lot of--a lot of drugs in your house.
A I know.
Q Why? Why do you have a lot of drugs there?
A Oh, I just got something or everything in case anyone ever asks me and--Johnny-on-the-spot. You know, very often I'd suture people; and I took care of half the neighborhood, you know, and--nothing there was controlled.
I was careful about that, you know. I didn't have any controlled drugs or anything like that. Everything was stuff there wouldn't be any problem with and no one should be after for any reason.
And I just had--like, for instance, if we were going on a camping trip, I was all ready to make up a nice little M3A kit with that--you know, all the possibilities involved; but that was the only reason.
All this came about when the third disbanded, and they had boxes and boxes of stuff they were just going to burn. And I thought that was stupid, so I just took a couple bottles of everything and was going to make up my own aid kit, you know, for my car and camping and stuff.
But I know, it looked a little--a little excessive, I'm sure.
Q It looked more than a little excessive. It looked real excessive, frankly. I'm being more than frank with you as you're being frank with me, I hope.
A Yeah, well-
Q And we understand that you were sending these things to people, too.
A Right, to my in-laws.
Q Okay, were you sending anything to anybody around here that would suggest--
A Huh-uh (No).
Q --To someone that--
A The only people I--the only people I did that for was my mother--my grandmother and Mildred Kassab, my mother-in-law, and her sister Helen--Helen Madison.
Q What kind of drugs were you sending?
A Oh, thyroid medicine, diuretics--to make them lose fluid. Quinamine--it's a heart pill. My grandmother has Parkinson's. She was taking Parkinson's pills. And high blood pressure pills.
My--my moth--my mother-in-law was on diet pills, but that's controlled in the Army so I haven't got many through the Army for her.
Q What kind of pills was--
A Amphetamine sulphate, 15 milligrams. But, you know, you got to sign your life away in the Army so I--she's had to get her own since I got in the Army.
Let's see, high blood pressure, Parkinson's--that's it basically. A couple different types of high blood pressure. My aunt takes one type. My aunt--Colette's aunt, Helen Madison, takes one type; and Mildred takes another type. My grandmother takes another type, so it involved a lot. And my mother-in-law takes a hormone, Estrogen.
Q Most of the pill heads I know--
A What's that?
Q --pill heads--take anything. I had one guy tell me, "if I don't know what it is, I take eight and I get something out of it, either an upper or a downer." That's the way he thinks. (In-audible)--How I met the gentleman.
A Uh-huh (Yes).
Q (Inaudible) Ornaids, as I recall. He got a reaction. I don't know what it did for him, but he was happy
A Pretty hard from Ornaids. It makes you a little sleepy.
Q So, again, this--this points back to these people being in the house, perhaps with--
A Ulterior motive.
Q (Inaudible)
A Yeah. Not many people knew I had that. Only a couple. People knew that--you know, that I had a--so far as my neighbors, knew that--whenever she needed pills, I gave them to her.
But I--I don't think she knew that I had them in the house. She probably thought I got them out of the dispensary at the time--stuff like that.
But I can't think of anyone, except one guy who's in Vietnam that--he brought his girl-friend over one time, and I went through the drug collection trying to find something for her psoriasis.

My immediate family includes a Dr and two nurses and a current med student. From close personal experience, Dr. MacDonald explanation for having a conglomeration of medical supplies and non controlled drugs is not uncommon. My family's "in house" Dr. patchs up the neigborhood kids. The family gets non controlled medications /drugs. An occaisonal precription for sinus inflection or that type of thing. There is a stash of stuff for a "Johnny on the spot" emgerency .

What will not be found the shelf is Thorazine. Who in the hay would even want it. I never heard of drug addict seeking out Thorazine for a recreational drug. For anyone who knows anything about Thoraine would find it laughable that someone would want to shoot up Thorazine.

Thorazine is a neuroleptic drug. It physically paralyzes the body and the mind. It is commonly referred to as a chemical lobotomy and a chemical straightjacket. I think it still used in mental institutions as a drug to subdue people.

There is so much rumor and innuendo regurgitated from forum to forum and posted as factual information. I was amused to take a look at some of the rumormonger forums and find a clique of posters that are posting the exact same thing from forum to forum. Many of the quotes you see here are coming from the opinions of people like Christina Masewicz and similiar anti MacDonald sites.

Take anything and everything with a grain of salt and consider the sources. What difference does it make that MacDonald supposedly said he did something 44 years ago and that is proof he is a liar because it really couldn't have happened that year. Or some unnamed person remembers 45 or 47 years ago seeing Jeff slap Colette. GMAFB. That is sophomoric tabloid babble designed to fan the flames of defamation and defilement to Dr. MacDonald.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Is stinkerbelle, or the FBI and CID, qualified as doctors to say whether Dr MacDonald's wounds and injuries were serious or not?The doctors were qualified, Artie, and there's no question that he was barely hurt at all. Colette and little Kristen fought so much harder than he did, because they really were in a life-and-death struggle while he, of course, was not.The FBI did photograph some injuries...but by that time most of...MacDonald's wounds had healed.Actually, the very few and minor scratches he suffered at the hands of Colette and/or self-inflicted healed long, long before that. His wounds were so minor, in fact, that he didn't even need a single stitch, and spent only a single day in the ICU.The problem for [the murderer] is that he had not lawyered up when he was in hospital and so his lawyers were not seizing the situation like men at that time.No, the problem for the murderer is that he slaughtered his family and got caught. Plain and simple.To me, as a layman, ...MacDonald's injuries were nasty injuries. Concussion, and collapsed lungs, and deep shock are serious, even if they don't disturb the minds of doctors and nurses in hospitals.Artie, what makes you lie so much and so often and to tell the same lies repeatedly even in the face of factual evidence which contradicts you? You are totally and completely aware that MacDonald didn't have collapsed "lungs," that no doctor ever declared he had had a "concussion," and that he himself says he was never in shock, much less "deep" shock. Do you think that by continuing to lie about this, you are going to change the medical records? LOL!There is an interesting article on the internet about forensic pathology which has a reference to the MacDonald caseThere are also some interesting factual documents online which show why the jury unanimously found MacDonald to be triply guilty of the horrendous murders of his family. You can find those at:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

Also interesting is that when you read Noguchi's chapter about Mac in his book (the name of the book escapes me now), you can see that he got several facts wrong, which for me tainted the whole chapter.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
My immediate family includes a Dr and two nurses and a current med student. From close personal experience...MacDonald explanation for having a conglomeration of medical supplies and non controlled drugs is not uncommon...What will not be found the shelf is Thorazine. Who in the hay would even want it.Somehow I don't believe it's "common" for a doctor to have on hand the incredible amount of Thorazine that Mac had stashed away. Also many, many syringes, etc., as well as speed and other drugs. All that, just to patch up neighborhood kids? I don't think so! The odd thing, of course, is that the reason given for the "intruders" supposedly being in the apartment in the first place was to obtain drugs, yet they took nothing.My family's "in house" Dr. patchs up the neigborhood kids...An occaisonal precription for sinus inflection or that type of thing.As I understand it, a doctor can lose his/her license for prescribing any medication to anyone unless that person is a patient.I never heard of drug addict seeking out Thorazine for a recreational drug. For anyone who knows anything about Thoraine would find it laughable that someone would want to shoot up Thorazine.Stoeckley told Rex Beaber that at one time she had been shooting Thorazine. Perhaps this was just another of the many bizarre statements she made which were found to be untrue.Thorazine is a neuroleptic drug. It physically paralyzes the body and the mind. It is commonly referred to as a chemical lobotomy and a chemical straightjacket. I think it still used in mental institutions as a drug to subdue people.And yet you claim that Thorazine was not a controlled drug in 1970? That you could just walk into any drugstore and buy some Thorazine over the counter? Somehow I doubt this.There is so much rumor and innuendo regurgitated from forum to forum and posted as factual information.I know, I know. We've been trying to get Artie to quit doing that for months now, but he still persists, despite our best efforts.What difference does it make that MacDonald supposedly said he did something 44 years ago and that is proof he is a liar because it really couldn't have happened that year. Or some unnamed person remembers 45 or 47 years ago seeing Jeff slap Colette. GMAFB. That is sophomoric tabloid babble designed to fan the flames of defamation and defilement to...MacDonald.One singular incident may not be weighty in itself, but as time goes on and one sees that there are many, many such statements and descriptions which show that MacDonald lied over and over and yet over again and that he had shown violent behavior in the past, it piles up upon itself, driving home more and more deeply that MacDonald's character was not all he claimed it to be. Add these things to the huge, overwhelming weight of the physical and negative evidence at 544 Castle Drive, and it's easy to see why the jury returned the verdicts it did, and why all of the murderer's appeals have been rejected.

[Bunny2]

Arthur quoted what the 4th Circuit said. "Had Stoeckley testified as it was reasonable to expect she might have testified, the injury to the governments case would have been incalculably great."Hey, Artie, I'm still waiting for you to post the rest of what that judge wrote, since I think there were some other things said that the posters here might find interesting. Why haven't you been able to post that yet or point people to the link where it appears?

[byn63]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, Artie, I'm still waiting for you to post the rest of what that judge wrote, since I think there were some other things said that the posters here might find interesting. Why haven't you been able to post that yet or point people to the link where it appears?

bunny - I hope you aren't holding your breath!

artie - why do you continue to post things from FJ? You've been told numerous times that book is NOT a very accurate accounting of TRUTHFUL case information. Not only that, but Ted Gunderson is a crazy person, who used coercion to get poor drug addled Helena to make confessions that could be "edited" to try and make them plausible. In court they found numerous instances where he had only transcribed portions of taped "confessions" in efforts to make it sound as if she said something which she did not say. Really, isn't it time to start looking at HONEST evidence rather than the cut and paste revisionist history in the macalite bible?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
Somehow I don't believe it's "common" for a doctor to have on hand the incredible amount of Thorazine that Mac had stashed away. Also many, many syringes, etc., as well as speed and other drugs. All that, just to patch up neighborhood kids? I don't think so! The odd thing, of course, is that the reason given for the "intruders" supposedly being in the apartment in the first place was to obtain drugs, yet they took nothing.As I understand it, a doctor can lose his/her license for prescribing any medication to anyone unless that person is a patient.Stoeckley told Rex Beaber that at one time she had been shooting Thorazine. Perhaps this was just another of the many bizarre statements she made which were found to be untrue.And yet you claim that Thorazine was not a controlled drug in 1970? That you could just walk into any drugstore and buy some Thorazine over the counter? Somehow I doubt this.I know, I know. We've been trying to get Artie to quit doing that for months now, but he still persists, despite our best efforts.One singular incident may not be weighty in itself, but as time goes on and one sees that there are many, many such statements and descriptions which show that MacDonald lied over and over and yet over again and that he had shown violent behavior in the past, it piles up upon itself, driving home more and more deeply that MacDonald's character was not all he claimed it to be. Add these things to the huge, overwhelming weight of the physical and negative evidence at 544 Castle Drive, and it's easy to see why the jury returned the verdicts it did, and why all of the murderer's appeals have been rejected.


Why do you take on the role as the attack dog and try to change and spin everything that anybody posts that is not in your clique.

Don't take my posts out of context to infer any nefarious problem with my "in house" doctor having medical supplies and medications at home. I never said the ourDr. wrote precriptions for the neighborhood. I said occaisonally our Dr. might write a prescription for something for a sinus infection of somthing of tha that nature for the family. I don't appreaciate your inference that our Dr. does anything that involves in any way the illegal distribution of drugs to anybody at any time. What is your deal of making your attacks personal and ugly?

I clearly stated that Thorazine with not be something found on the shelf. I don't recall seeing Thorazine listed in the items taken out Dr. MacDonald's house either. I don't believed for a second that Helena told anybody she was "shooting up" Thorazine. I believe thats another one the many stories made up to infer that had Helena really been in the house she would have stolen the the Thorazine on the shelf. Bull patties. Helena knew enough about drugs, she would know she would not want to "shoot up" Thorazine.

Whoever wrote that story I suspect is quite ignorant about Thorazine and why it would not be the drug of choice for recreational drug use.

[audpaud]

Always thought it was tres weird for ole macdonald to have Thorazine at home!:confused:

Does anyone think that he KNEW he had a mental problem and was trying (sadly, unsuccessfully.:( ) to "heal thyself?"

Do you think he had had murderous impulses b4? Thoughts of butchering his wife and cold heartedly stabbing the girls over and over but was able to inject himself with Thorazine b4 he acted?

Maybe on the night of the murder he mistakenly injected himself with more amphetamine instead of the paralyctic drug on hand and then couldn't stop the evil?

Thorazine is definitely not the drug of choice for any recreational drug user, I'd say.

The reason this Dr.--or any other--would have it in their household is mysterious---as well as nefarious--in my book.

[audpaud]

Still "12" for Not Guilty----think its climbing for GUILTY @ "68" now!

[audpaud]

I sometimes wonder what macdonald (and actually any other murderous wretch in prison for life) are doing on an ordinary day like today?:confused:

Do you think he ever actually acknowledges to himself, at least, the evil he has committed? I know I've read that he doesn't believe in God so may not be worried about his immortal soul---BUT even agnostics/atheists can feel regret/remose, correct?

There would be soooooo much time in all these years to contemplate what happened in 1970---day in and day out/night after night after night after night . . . Or do y'all just think his regret and remorse focusses on himself and what his acts did to his own life, like I do?

I wonder this about OJ as well---not that he's in prison---but do you think these murderers ever acknowledge to themselves at least that they are GUILTY? and feel bad for their deeds?:confused:

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
I said occaisonally our Dr. might write a prescription for something for a sinus infection of somthing of tha that nature for the family. I don't appreaciate your inference that our Dr. does anything that involves in any way the illegal distribution of drugs to anybody at any time. What is your deal of making your attacks personal and ugly?I think you must have been reading someone else's post on some other board, Cappy. All I said was that I believe a doctor can lose his license if he prescribes for someone who is not his patient. Why do you take on the role of attack dog and try to attack anyone who thinks the murderer was very rightly proven guilty?I clearly stated that Thorazine with not be something found on the shelf.So which is it, then: Was/is Thorazine a controlled drug, or was it not?I don't believed for a second that Helena told anybody she was "shooting up" Thorazine. I believe thats another one the many stories made up to infer that had Helena really been in the house she would have stolen the the Thorazine on the shelf... Whoever wrote that story I suspect is quite ignorant about Thorazine and why it would not be the drug of choice for recreational drug use.It wasn't a "story," Cappy. It was transcribed from Beaber's taped interview with Stoeckley. So I guess you believe Stoeckley was lying, and/or that her statement wasn't trustworthy?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by audpaud
Always thought it was tres weird for ole macdonald to have Thorazine at home!:confused: Does anyone think that he KNEW he had a mental problem and was trying (sadly, unsuccessfully.:( ) to "heal thyself?"Personally, I think ol' Mac enjoyed the feeling of "speed" more than he would have liked the dulled-sensation effect of Thorazine, but he may have also had it so that he could give it to his brother, Jay. Which again would be a cause for him to lose his medical license, if what CM told me is correct.Maybe on the night of the murder he mistakenly injected himself with more amphetamine instead of the paralyctic drug on hand and then couldn't stop the evil?
I'm glad you brought that up, aud...it makes me think of those two tiny liquid-filled bottles that were found in the bathroom sink trap. The liquid was never tested (sad face here), but apparently the bottles had blood on them.

Christina tells me that these were the sort of tiny bottles used with syringes. It's been theorized that MacDonald, recognizing that he had had suffered from an amphetamine psychosis, may have gotten something from his stash (resulting in his blood being found on the linen closet door), and injected himself with it to try and counteract the effect before the medics arrived.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I believe Ted Gunderson was a good and astute detective.Gee, I wonder why a "good and astute detective" would fail to keep interview logs when interviewing Stoeckley? I wonder why he would try to pull the wool over the court's eyes with regard to his "transcriptions" which didn't match what the actual tapes said? I wonder why he told "June" not to transcribe anymore until he'd fixed his mistakes? I wonder why he didn't bother to try finding any of the other "intruders" whose names Stoeckley had given him? (And please, no silly responses about "not enough money"; I don't believe money was an issue here; I think Gunderson knew plain and simple that any investigation on his part would be worthless, since he knew no "intruders" ever existed.) I also wonder why so very, very many people have described him as weird and bizarre and a conspiracy freak and a "fruitcake." Generally, people with good reputations aren't thought of as "fruitcakes," are they?

I also wonder why this "good and astute detective" apparently didn't even bother to check MacDonald's accounts of the murders when he tried to coerce Stoeckley to "confess." He didn't realize that by being so careless, he was going to end up having her show by her own mouth that her statements didn't match MacDonald's. Heck, even Gunderson himself didn't seem to even have a good grip on the facts about when the murders even ocurred, since he said "Helena, these murders, the MacDonald murders occurred the early morning hours of February 18, 1970," and (Wrong, Gundy!) And another statement to Helena: "You're talking about the night before the murders, which would have been February 17th." LOL!

As the court noted in regard to Gunderson's interviews of Stoeckley: "At this point the tape recorder was turned off, and if any further statements of Stoeckley were tape recorded during her stay in California, they have not been filed with the Court. This strikes the court as suspicious, given Gunderson's testimony that he recorded Stoeckley every time she let him. The court can not help but wonder whether Stoeckley statements during the next few days were so contradictory that transcription would have been counter productive to Mr. Gunderson's goal."

As the DoJ noted in 1984 (emphasis added): "The defense could have investigated Stoeckley in 1970; by 1975 they had the statements of Mitchell, Fowler, Stoeckley; and by 1979 Beasley, who knew Stoeckley's associates, was in the defense camp. In point of fact, nothing that Gunderson and Beasley later coerced Stoeckley into saying, could not have been gotten from her before trial."I believe he was one of the most senior FBI agents in Los Angeles when he was working for the FBI.Can you tell us why, then, did the FBI take such a hard, close look at Gunderson and want to check his motives? Apparently they did four separate investigations on him! Wow! Gunderson must have given them reason to want to do this, otherwise it makes no sense.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In reply to Bunny the reference for that court quote about Helena Stoeckeley came from the Bisceglie zip file...You find the quote about Helena Stoeckley you go to the 28th page or the 4th box down on the right.How interesting that for so much else, you have no problem at all typing out huge, long, lengthy transcripts and statements, yet for this you decide to post a link. It would be nice if you could do that more often instead of doing your regular copy-and-paste routine, especially since we've seen proof that you purposely cut out parts of things in order to present a false impression.

As for the quote, all I was interested in was seeing if you would tell readers here that even Judge Murnaghan, who stated that he would have admitted the Stoeckley hearsay witnesses at trial had he been the trial judge, recognized that "if such evidence was not persuasive, the jury, with very great probability, would not have been misled by it." (Emphasis added.)

[JTF]

Bunny: Terrific response to Arthur's fawning over Gunderson. Very impressive. Your post provides answers to any questions regarding the credibility or lack thereof of Gunderson.

JTF.

[JTF]

MacDonald culled most of the medication found in his hallway closet from his workplace at Fort Bragg. He simply scooped up anything and everything he could get his hands on and later made the excuse that he wanted to keep the drugs away from the junkie crowd. Please. What MacDonald did was illegal, pure and simple. The fact that the drugs were going to be thrown out did not give MacDonald the authority to keep the items for himself.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Bunny2
The doctors were qualified, Artie, and there's no question that he was barely hurt at all. Colette and little Kristen fought so much harder than he did, because they really were in a life-and-death struggle while he, of course, was not.Actually, the very few and minor scratches he suffered at the hands of Colette and/or self-inflicted healed long, long before that. His wounds were so minor, in fact, that he didn't even need a single stitch, and spent only a single day in the ICU.No, the problem for the murderer is that he slaughtered his family and got caught. Plain and simple.Artie, what makes you lie so much and so often and to tell the same lies repeatedly even in the face of factual evidence which contradicts you? You are totally and completely aware that MacDonald didn't have collapsed "lungs," that no doctor ever declared he had had a "concussion," and that he himself says he was never in shock, much less "deep" shock. Do you think that by continuing to lie about this, you are going to change the medical records? LOL!There are also some interesting factual documents online which show why the jury unanimously found MacDonald to be triply guilty of the horrendous murders of his family. You can find those at:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

Also interesting is that when you read Noguchi's chapter about Mac in his book (the name of the book escapes me now), you can see that he got several facts wrong, which for me tainted the whole chapter.



That link you posted certainly answered some guestions about you and your views on how this case was handled . It seems that you have an involvment wth Peter Kearns in helping him develope a web site? Does that mean you are getting a lot of your info from him.

Mr. Kearns, retired from CID was one and the same man who remained in the investigation after charges were dropped by CID. In a email to Christina he brags that Jeff was lying about the reason the Kassabs turned on him. Jeff says it was because he moved away to get his life back and the Kassabs wanted him to stay near them and the graves of his family. (paraphrasing)

Kearns says he went to visit the Kassabs to give them an update on the investigations. While another gentleman was talking with Freddy, Kearns talks with Mildred. After convincing her that he knew that Jeffrey had sexual encounters with a woman while he was staying at BOQ, Mildred statement was "Well, I knew this day would come and I have prepared for it, when I was shown proof that MacDonald was the murdered of my daughter and my granddaughter."

Kearns, in his own writings, admits the convincing evidence that Jeff was a murderer was his telling Mildred Kassabs that he had proof Jeffrey MacDonald had sex a few months after the death of Colette.

I guess this same Peter Kearns didn't tell Mildred he was also was aware the CID has submitted to the lab long blond 22 inch synthetic hairs and other hairs and fibers. Did he tell her that when the written reports came back from the lab these items "just happened" to be omitted. Did he ever tell her that he was aware the existence of these item were not made known to the defense or the jury? Did he ever tell her that never did he ever disclose the knowledge of the items through all the years of McDonald's appeals. Did he explain why he thought Jeffrey having sex a few months after his wife's death was proof that he killed his wife. Did he ever explain why the 22 inch blond wig hairs and many other hairs and fibers found on the bodies that did not match the MacDonald family was considered by him insignificant. Did he ever tell her why he thought the "insignificant" forensics was significant enough to made sure the defense was never aware of this evidence.

Makes understand why Kearns is so angry that Britt came forth and caused this case to be opened up again. Not a great legacy to CID, the CID labs, the courts, the investigators, the prosecutors to have a counterfeit case exposed. What a slap in face to all Americans who have tried to have faith in law enforcement, the court system and the Constitution.

Did he think he had done Mildred and Freddy Kassabs a great honor to let them go to their graves obsessed with the hate and pain of thinking their beloved daughter and grandchildren had been murdered by their father and husband. Did he not think the pain of losing Colette and the girls was exacerbated by thinking that ,not drug induced berserk strangers, but Jeffrey had killed them. Don't you think it drove them crazy thinking Colette and the kids last thought was the person they loved was clubbing them to death?

Did Kearns ever think of this as he was sleeping in Colette's bed and going through her things. Did he get caught up in the emotions of this that he was blinded enough to justify to himself being a part of manipulation of the evidence that was vital to Jeffrey getting a fair trial?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
That link you posted certainly answered some guestions about you and your views on how this case was handled . It seems that you have an involvment wth Peter Kearns in helping him develope a web site? Does that mean you are getting a lot of your info from him.LOL! How in the world did you come to that absurd conclusion?Mr. Kearns, retired from CID was one and the same man who remained in the investigation after charges were dropped by CID. In a email to Christina he brags that Jeff was lying about the reason the Kassabs turned on him. Jeff says it was because he moved away to get his life back and the Kassabs wanted him to stay near them and the graves of his family. (paraphrasing)Kearns seems to have been right about that, since Kassab said that when Mac told him that he'd killed one of the "intruders," "that was the beginning of the end for him."

[JTF]

Caphill: Peter Kearns is a Harvard educated man who authored the 3,000 page CID reinvestigation report. The report consisted of interviews with 699 people covering 48 states. Kearns and Pruett were able to convince the FB to take a look at some of the evidence found at the crime scene and most of the individuals who were thought to be viable suspects in this case, were tracked down and investigated. These investigation included obtaining hair samples, fingerprint samples, and in some cases, administering polygraph exams. The exams were administered by the CID's best polygraph expert, Robert Brisentine. Kearns had 2 lengthy interviews with MacDonald and he narrated/produced a film on this case which was later shown to the Justice Department. Those are Kearns' qualifications for making a case for MacDonald's guilt. What exactly are your qualifications? You certainly couldn't base your credibility on the documented record, for you refuse to adhere to it. So, you ignore documented fact and common sense, and you haven't communicated with anyone that has direct involvement with this case. Kearns vs. Caphill. The ultimate mismatch.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Did he tell her...Did he ever tell her...Did he ever tell her... ...Did he explain why he thought Jeffrey having sex a few months after his wife's death was proof that he killed his wife....Did he ever tell her...Did he think he had done Mildred and Freddy Kassabs a great honor... Did he not think the pain of losing Colette and the girls was exacerbated...Did Kearns ever think of this as he was sleeping in Colette's bed...Did he get caught up in the emotions...It's good that you're asking questions, Cappy! It's a good way to try and learn about the case. McGinniss's exellent account of the case as related in Fatal Vision will give you a pretty good idea of Kearns's feelings in the case. We're also lucky that we have the online records now so that we can get a sense of what he said and did, as well as what other people thought and did. Makes for some very good reading indeed, especially all the parts where the discrepancies and contradictions in MacDonald's stories are shown. :)

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

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

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
Kearns says he went to visit the Kassabs to give them an update on the investigations. While another gentleman was talking with Freddy, Kearns talks with Mildred. After convincing her that he knew that Jeffrey had sexual encounters with a woman while he was staying at BOQ, Mildred statement was "Well, I knew this day would come and I have prepared for it, when I was shown proof that MacDonald was the murdered of my daughter and my granddaughter."Oh, Cappy, for shame, for shame... :no: _To me, your quote reads as though Mildred came to realize MacDonald's guilt upon learning of his infidelities from Kearns. But that isn't quite what was said, is it? Here's what Kearns actually wrote in that e-mail:

"When Mildred heard the details of MacDonald's activities with the woman on Ft Bragg she asked several pointed questions of MacDonald's relationship with the woman. Once satisfied that I was being truthful and that we (CID) had positively confirmed the matter thru an interview with the woman, Mildred looked at me and said 'well, I knew this day would come and I have prepared for it. When I was shown proof that MacDonald was the murderer of my daughter and my grandchildren (we had made her privy to much more of the evidence, real and circumstantial, thru briefings we had with Freddy) I intended to initiate a plan of retribution.'"

[JTF]

Bunny: A MacDonald groupie cutting and pasting the documented record? A truly shocking revelation, LOL!!

JTF.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by audpaud
I sometimes wonder what macdonald (and actually any other murderous wretch in prison for life) are doing on an ordinary day like today?:confused:

Do you think he ever actually acknowledges to himself, at least, the evil he has committed? I know I've read that he doesn't believe in God so may not be worried about his immortal soul---BUT even agnostics/atheists can feel regret/remose, correct?

There would be soooooo much time in all these years to contemplate what happened in 1970---day in and day out/night after night after night after night . . . Or do y'all just think his regret and remorse focusses on himself and what his acts did to his own life, like I do?

I wonder this about OJ as well---not that he's in prison---but do you think these murderers ever acknowledge to themselves at least that they are GUILTY? and feel bad for their deeds?:confused:

aud, i know a lot of ppl think mac has blocked out what happened or has convinced himself he is innocent, but i think he knows damn good and well what he did. as for remorse, if he feels any, i think it's only in terms of himself and his life. i don't for one second believe he has ever grieved or felt guilty for killing his wife and children and i also believe that if he does happen to think about what he did, he blames colette &/or kimmy for it.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Is stinkerbelle, or the FBI and CID, qualified as doctors to say whether Dr MacDonald's wounds and injuries were serious or not?
uh hello mcfly...he did not die from his injuries, even those you claim went unrecorded and untreated. he received only treatment for the pneumothorax. i think anyone who can read is plenty qualified to say that injuries that (a) cause an individual no medical problems and (b) require no medical treatment are not serious injuries.

Part of the trouble, as I see it, is that the doctors at the local hospital were not qualified forensic pathologists.

part of the trouble with this idea, as i see it, is that macdonald did not see any forensic pathologists because, as you see, he did not die.
Forensic pathology is the legal branch of pathology concerned with:

Determining cause of death (such as bullet wound to head, exsanguiation, strangulation, etc.) and manner of death (including murder, accident, natural, or suicide).

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill
What will not be found the shelf is Thorazine. Who in the hay would even want it. I never heard of drug addict seeking out Thorazine for a recreational drug. For anyone who knows anything about Thoraine would find it laughable that someone would want to shoot up Thorazine.

Thorazine is a neuroleptic drug. It physically paralyzes the body and the mind. It is commonly referred to as a chemical lobotomy and a chemical straightjacket. I think it still used in mental institutions as a drug to subdue people.

i'll actually let one of artie's posts speak for me here for a sec:

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Q Most of the pill heads I know--
A What's that?
Q --pill heads--take anything. I had one guy tell me, "if I don't know what it is, I take eight and I get something out of it, either an upper or a downer." That's the way he thinks. (In-audible)--How I met the gentleman.
A Uh-huh (Yes).


do you think a drug addict who finds some thorazine would take the time to go look it up in a PDR? per your own definition, thorazine is a mind-altering drug. why the hell else do ppl take drugs?

Take anything and everything with a grain of salt and consider the sources. What difference does it make that MacDonald supposedly said he did something 44 years ago and that is proof he is a liar because it really couldn't have happened that year. Or some unnamed person remembers 45 or 47 years ago seeing Jeff slap Colette. GMAFB. That is sophomoric tabloid babble designed to fan the flames of defamation and defilement to Dr. MacDonald.
lmao, you've done it again, tff! what difference does it make that macdonald supposedly said he didn't do something 36 years ago and that is proof he is telling the truth? take anything and everything with a grain of salt and consider the sources.:tongue:

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill
That link you posted certainly answered some guestions about you and your views on how this case was handled . It seems that you have an involvment wth Peter Kearns in helping him develope a web site? Does that mean you are getting a lot of your info from him.

omg dying laughing here!! i've seen some major leaps in logic from you but this has to take the cake! (psst, bunny is not christina, but that'll be our little secret, ok?) and here i thought this was going to be a boring friday night!:biggrin:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


aud, i know a lot of ppl think mac has blocked out what happened or has convinced himself he is innocent, but i think he knows damn good and well what he did. as for remorse, if he feels any, i think it's only in terms of himself and his life. i don't for one second believe he has ever grieved or felt guilty for killing his wife and children and i also believe that if he does happen to think about what he did, he blames colette &/or kimmy for it.


I can't remember why I think this . . . (blame the 70's acid trips ROTF!:rolleyes: ) . . . but I think he may have felt bad about the cold, calculated, monstrous murder of Baby Kristy?:confused:

Did he EVER ask for those baby books back yet?:flamemad:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by audpaud
/night after night after night after night . . .

Am I allowed to quote myself?:biggrin:

But speaking of night after night . . . I need to share yet another life experience. My former BIL (same mac age--same marriage/two daughters time frame) had (we found out YEARS later reading his Army discharge papers) . . . repressed latent homosexual tendencies. He exhibited many of the same machismo traits as mac . . . BIL was Golden Glove Boxer and one of his hobbies was "rolling queers" in the park. He was also a serial cheater. I've often Thanked God that he never drank alcohol or consumed drugs of ANY kind (prescription or otherwise) cause I think this sucker could/would have snapped just like mac ~~had he and my sis not gotten the d-i-v-o-r-c-e option that many use as a substitute for murder . . . anyhooooo . . .

FF to 2006 . . . BIL is resting in peace . . . dead from AIDS . . . seems he was doing more than boxing/robbing in the park!:eek:

Back to night after night after night . . . Is there any word on whether macdonald has ever acted on his homosexual tendencies either in prison or while he was out for 10 years? Has he ever commented that he's been attacked/raped as some baby killers are reported to be tortured by cell mates? :confused:

[JTF]

Arthur: Yawn. Peter Kearn's education is a matter of public record. The length of the CID Reinvestigation Report is 3,000 pages, not 1,000 pages. The scope of the investigation is detailed within the report itself and the investigation into the Stoeckley group was the epitome of thorough. I challenge you to present a salient argument as to why the investigation of the Stoeckley group was not thorough. In my book, obtaining hair samples, fingerprint samples, administering polygraph exams, and tracking down any person who might have been involved in this case is a thorough investigative process.

JTF.

[JTF]

Audpaud: The incarcerated MacDonald has kept to himself, has only a few acquaintances, and even admitted in a number of interviews that it is hard to have any true friends in the prison system. He stays within his own little world, within his own ever dwindling inner circle.

JTF.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by audpaud



I can't remember why I think this . . . (blame the 70's acid trips ROTF!:rolleyes: ) . . . but I think he may have felt bad about the cold, calculated, monstrous murder of Baby Kristy?:confused:

Did he EVER ask for those baby books back yet?:flamemad:
i think what he feels regarding kris is shame, rather than grief, but of course that's JMO.

[JTF]

Arthur: Wow. Please, take your medications. As usual, you didn't answer my question and resorted to "proving" the credibility of MacDonald's story by quoting the most reliable source possible, a fellow convict. Incredible. You made me see the light, Arthur. Peter Kearns vs. the "wiry guy" who knew MacDonald in prison. Kearns doesn't stand a chance.

JTF.

[JTF]

Audpaud: Nope. MacDonald never asked for the baby books back and as Christina pointed out on her website, Peter Kearns has visited the family gravesites more times than MacDonald.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
Whatever JTF says I can see no evidence at all that Helena Stoeckley was ever thoroughly investigated with thoroughness by the CID, or FBI.More silly statements of pretense by the Great Pretender, Artie Thorpe. Don't you ever get tired of being fraudulent, Artie?Mahon of the CID had a chat with Helena in Nashville in 1971 but nobody seems to be terribly sure if Mahon managed to obtain her fingerprints or hair samples at the time.Medlin at the grand jury: "Yes, sir, in laboratory report number, Repeat 19, or R-19, which was dated 19 February, 1971, there was record fingerprints of a Helena Stoeckley, S-t-o-e-c-k-l-e-y, that was compared with the latent prints and there was no matching impressions reported or noted." If you somehow failed to read and understand all the many posts to you about the fingerprints, and the records themselves, I guess you can be forgiven for that since as the government noted, the defense itself "never availed themselves of the opportunity to copy any of the lab notes or photographs of fingerprints used by Hilyard Medlin, despite their availability at trial."

McNamara's memo (emphasis added) also sums things up pretty well: "MacDonald will claim that there are thirty unidentified latent fingerprints in the house. However, there are no prints on any piece of evidence which are unidentified."

I am in disagreement with Kearns about this Kim in the master bedroom theory...LOL!! Even the defense didn't contend this, Artie, so why do you pretend to? As Freddy Kassab would say: "Faker."

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I don't know about Kearns' 1000 page report and 699 odd interviews. I just wish Kearns had investigated the Stoeckley murderers with thoroughness, that's all...Wonderful, Artie! Thank you for yet another classic Artie Absurdity. You wish he had investigated with thoroughness, but you're not familiar with his work in the case...LOL!!!

Heading off to put this one in my notes along with all the rest...geez, my notes on your contradictions and deliberate misrepresentations and outright lies has grown so much over the last few months I may need to buy another hard drive to store it all...

:lol:

[Bunny2]

IMHO, I do believe that Artie employs repetition because he's a fraud who enjoys playing games and baiting people, or because he has some sort of condition which renders him unable to retain information and facts given to him.

Just to show how long Artie has been singing the same old tune, doing the same old dance (thanks for that phrasing, JTF) regarding the thoroughness of the investigation, here's just one of many posts written to him about this exact same subject, many moons ago (JTF, I hope you won't mind my posting this). This was written on July 28, 2005, in response to Artie (aka Albert Webb) and his endless repetition about the investigation and reinvestigation. Again, this is just one of countless posts, but I guess Artie still doesn't get it (or pretends not to), even after all this time:

AW: What exactly is your definition of a complete investigation? The CID interviewed all the individuals mentioned by Stoeckley as possible suspects in 1971, gave polygraph exams to 3 of these individuals, all 3 passed their polygraphs, they checked and cross-checked the stories of all these individuals, obtained fingerprint samples of many of these individuals, obtained hair samples from Stoeckley and Perry, neither Stoeckley or Perry's hair matched any hair found inside 544 Castle Drive, and then 10 years later, the FBI re-interviewed a majority of these same individuals. All of these individuals, INCLUDING STOECKLEY, stated to the FBI that they were not involved in these brutal murders in any way, shape, or form.

In 1983, Fayetteville Observer reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, tracked down many of these individuals who echoed what they told the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1981 and 1982. Don Harris called Stoeckley's claims, "the ravings of a madwoman," and Allen Mazzerolle stated her claims were "ridiculous." Speaking of Pat Reese, Reese spoke to Stoeckley 2 days after the murders, and Stoeckley told him she could not remember where she was after midnight on February 17, 1970 due to her excessive drug consumption the prior evening. Reese knew of Stoeckley and her group, and he told Peter Kearns during the CID reinvestigation that Stoeckley's subsequent claims of knowing who was involved in the murders was another example of Stoeckley's need for attention.

Justthefacts.

Not only was the reinvestigation very thorough indeed, but here we have yet another instance of Stoeckley, only two days after the murders, telling people she didn't know where she was, the same thing she told the defense and prosecution before trial, and the same thing she testified to. I may end up being surprised at how things turn out, but at this point, IMHO, Mac is toast with regard to the Britt issue.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Audpaud: Nope. MacDonald never asked for the baby books back and as Christina pointed out on her website, Peter Kearns has visited the family gravesites more times than MacDonald.

JTF.


This MacDonald case and the unsubstantiated hate and obsession resembles the Leo Frank murder story in Marrietta Ga. To flame the fires of hate and passion to the mob mentality the rumor that Leo Frank was a "child prevert" was floated to the mob and they took it and ran with it all the way to the lynching tree.

There is a clique of Kearns fan club posting here and on other forums. There is the back and forth cut and paste of the same quote and opinions from other Kassab and Kearns support forums.

Contrary to any thing known or testified there is not one iota of evidence that Jeff or Colette were anything but loving parents.

To come on public message board and find a group of people perpetuating that Colette took a passive role to move to the sofa to sleep while her husband was sexually molesting her daughter is the height of insult to Colette, her memory and her dignity.

What authority and moral reasoning did Kearns have when he released for posting dead nude pictures of Colette and her nude dead children to the internet. What dignity was afforded to Colette to exhumed her and the children's bodies to pluck hairs for the purpose of CID and the likes of Peter Kearns to fill in the sloppy holes of their investigation and evidence taking a few years prior.

Does Kearns argue he has more love and respect for Colette and the children that MacDoanld because he was a part of knowing and not disclosing the 22 inch long blond wig hairs found at the crime scene. Does he show more love and respect by having in his personal files crime scene photos and autopsy photos(why or how he has this file is another story) by releasing them to put on the internet.

What dignity did he afford this dead woman and her dead children when he made a decision to post their nude mutilated photos on the internet. Does anyone think if Colette could have made the decision she would have allowed her bare breasts and her face set in a gruesome death along with the nude mutilated bodies to be exploited in this way.

Did Kearns use the same moral and professional authority to "keep" his personal file of crime photos, to 'keep" the secret of 22 inch blond wig hairs? Was this the same moral authority and professional authority he used when he sent the photos to Christina's site for the sole purpose of having them put on the internet.

Was that his way of diginifying this dead woman and the dead children.

A traffic cop shows more dignity to stranger along side the road in a traffic accident. The police will at least cover them with a sheet so the rubber neckers can't see them.

Dale Earnhardt's wife sued to stop her husband's autopsy pictures from being exploited by the media. Should we not expect that dignity be offered to us and our loved ones. Is there anyone that reads here that would like to think that their dead nude bodies or their children nude bodie mltilated would be made public for millions of people to gape over.

This love fest and expressed appreciation to Peter Kearns for his known involvement in the CID collection, managment and manipulation of the evidence is difficult to understand. But to exalt his care and concern for Colette and her children is a lie.

His care and concern for the dignity of this dead woman and her dead children is applauding while she and the children are dug up out of resting place and hairs pluckedd from their bodies to fill in the holes of CID messed investigation and to try to cover up they how screwed up from day one.

His care and concern is to applaud the changing the names of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen on the tombstones to rob them of their true legal identity.

Who are this people that take possession of the dead that can not defend themselves and change their names and post their dead nude bodies on the internet.

This is not done in the name of love , respect or dignity to the dead. It is done in hate, obsession and an attempt to take possession of the story. Kearns is defended in his tactics as having 35 years involvement in the case. With all his involvement and 3000 written pages of his investigation why wasn't he a primary witness in collection and managment of the CID investigation. Did the prosecution want to keep him as far away from the defense as possible. Could it be they didn't want anyone to have a chance to cross examination him and risk the "hidden" 22 inch blond wig hairs being discovered?

It is no wonder Mr. Kearns and his fan club fights tooth and nail to keep the focus off of these part of the discussion of hidden evidence and witness intimidatation. It is not in the best interest of Mr. Kearns, Mr Murtagh, the CID lab for this case to ever be reopened. Careers were made from this case and careers will be sullied.

Let's ask Mr. Kearns on what authority he had to take or keep a personal file of crime scene and autopsy photos after he retired from CID? And the big quesiton is on who's authority did he have to exploit the autopsy nude photos of this woman and her children?

[JTF]

Arthur: According to your delusional thinking, we should accept everything that Stoeckley said as gospel, yet question Pat Reese's recollection of what Stoeckley told him 2 days after the murders. That makes sense. You also fail to mention that Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine Terry Laber at the 1979 trial. I wonder why that is? Cut and paste. Duck and dodge. Innuendo and flame baiting. The life of a MacDonald groupie.

JTF.

[JTF]

Caphill: You finished? To quote a famous college football coach, "You don't know what you don't know, so therefore, you don't know." Tough to find anything in your post that it part of the documented record, but I'll comment just the same:

1) Janice Glisson pointed out in her 1991 affidavit that Kearns requested analysis of HUMAN hair samples, not synthetic hair samples.

2) Kearns does not endorse Freddy Kassab's theory that MacDonald molested his older daughter. Kearns feels that Colette found out about Jeff's numerous sexual conquests and confronted him. Kearns feels that this led to the physical confrontation which occurred in the master bedroom.

3) The posting of the autopsy photographs is a response to the MacDonald camp's propoganda regarding the severity or lack thereof of Jeff's injuries. Seeing is believing and there is no way that a rational person could look at those photographs and buy Jeff's story.

4) Kearns is entitled to keep any MacDonald case document that he wants, just as Jeff is entitled to keep his case diary which mentions his ingestion of Eskatrol.

JTF.

[margiej]

The 22" blond wig hair is nothing more than a red herring. Nada. It will never free MacD. It will never exonerate him. It will never convict anyone other than him. It will never put Helena or anyone else in that house that night EXCEPT MacD. Red Herring!! That's all.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: You finished? To quote a famous college football coach, "You don't know what you don't know, so therefore, you don't know." Tough to find anything in your post that it part of the documented record, but I'll comment just the same:

1) Janice Glisson pointed out in her 1991 affidavit that Kearns requested analysis of HUMAN hair samples, not synthetic hair samples.

2) Kearns does not endorse Freddy Kassab's theory that MacDonald molested his older daughter. Kearns feels that Colette found out about Jeff's numerous sexual conquests and confronted him. Kearns feels that this led to the physical confrontation which occurred in the master bedroom.

3) The posting of the autopsy photographs is a response to the MacDonald camp's propoganda regarding the severity or lack thereof of Jeff's injuries. Seeing is believing and there is no way that a rational person could look at those photographs and buy Jeff's story.

4) Kearns is entitled to keep any MacDonald case document that he wants, just as Jeff is entitled to keep his case diary which mentions his ingestion of Eskatrol.

JTF.

I don't know a lot of things. The things I don't know and ask questions are the things that I will also try to establish the validity of the answers I get. I don't you and you don't me. You project in your response to know what Kearns feels and why he has exploited the autopsy nude bodies of the deceased.

In response to your comments where you serve as the spokesperson for Kearns...........

1. You hit it on the head. I am aware that Glisson affidavit excuses her actions in omitting the evidence on the final lab report is because she was was requested to respond to certain items. She was just following instructions from Kearns on what he wanted on the report in his job as reinvestigating the evidence.

Thats brings us right back to my previous comments. Kearns knew about the hairs in the hair brushs. He knew there was clear handle brush on the side table in the dining room. He knew about the white handled hairbrush found under Colette's right arm and the blue handled hair brush found on the dresser. He knew about unsourced hair found on Colette and Kimberly. Most importantly he knew there were long blond synthetic hairs up to 22 inches long. Why did he only ask the lab tech to only list certain items on the lab report that was to be used as final report in the murder trial. Why did he omit the info about the "wig" hairs and also omit anything about the hairbrushs from Glisson's report? We know he knew about the hairbrush. We can see in the photos he released to Christina the white brush in the bedroom and clear handled brush on the sidetable in the dining room.

2. Didn't I read from his report posted on Christina site that he had been investigating where Jeff might have been dipping his wick and he stated he had no evidence that Colette was ever aware of any indiscretions? Since you seem to know what Kearns feels, maybe you can give insight as why Kearns would believe Jeff would arm himself with four different weapons to attack his wife when they got into an arguement about his sexual past indiscretions at 3 am in the morning. Does he think Colette found out something in child psych classes that triggered her to come home and start a fight that night at 3am?

3. He releases a picture of Jeff's scars 4 years after the murders to compare with what Colette and the kids fresh wounds looked like on 2-28-70 as justification for the indignities of posting nude autopsy photos of Colette and the kids. I guess that does give some insight as to how Kearns thinks. Any means to justify the end results of trying to defiled MacDonald. The argument that Jeff's small scars from a stab wounds doesn't hold water anyway as to severity of the wound from four years prior. Look at pictures that are posted of Colette stab wounds. Each one is not that large but IIRC it was only two stab wounds that were fatal. She could have survived her all her stab wounds with the exception of one in the neck and one in the chest. IMO, there is no good excuse for Kearns exploitation the nude autopsy pics. To me it shows that Colette and those little kids got lost as real human beings deserving of the respect and dignity that would be afforded a stranger lying on the side of the road from the prying eyes of strangers passing by. A street cop is trained to respect the dead enough to cover them. Jeffrey was sitting in jail, the trial long over and the medical reports and statements long ago taken about the injuries of Jeff. To say that Kearns had those sensitive pics put on the internet to stop Jeff's propoganda is Kearns propoganda to continue to spread his message and fulfill his agenda.

4. I admit I don't know what an investigators entitlements are to have possession of crime scene photos and autopsy pics. I would think they were the possession of the State or CID who collected the photos as part of the murder investigation. I only know when I left my places of employment I was never allowed to take home and keep business files from my employer. One question of have of you. How do you know of what MacDonald had in his case diary that you say he was able to retain. Is this diary a public report? If so, where is it published? Can you explain why the toxicology reports say that MacDonald's blood only showed a small amount of alcohol that was consistant with his report that he and Colette had a liquor before she went to bed. There were no drugs found in his system, so why is it reported over and over again on these forums that he had an uncontrolable rage from the effects of amphetamines. Since there is no reasonable explanation for a man with no history of violence to suddenly go beserk and round up 4 weapons and start clubbing and stabbing his family, it is said it must be a drug induced psychotic breakdown. Good answer except there was no evidence of drugs in the blood of MacDonald. This blood was taken within an hour of the murders.

Do you deny that the toxicology of the blood of MacDonald is documented? Do you deny the date the pic of MacDonald was 4 years after the murders. Do you deny that Kearns has a posted report that he had no evidence that Colette every knew of any indiscretions that Jeffrey may have had? Do you deny that the autopsy pics came from Kearns and sent to Christina to post on the internet for millions to gape over? Or is all of those things a part of the many things that I don't know.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill
3. He releases a picture of Jeff's scars 4 years after the murders to compare with what Colette and the kids fresh wounds looked like on 2-28-70 as justification for the indignities of posting nude autopsy photos of Colette and the kids...The argument that Jeff's small scars from a stab wounds doesn't hold water anyway as to severity of the wound from four years prior...IMO, there is no good excuse for Kearns exploitation the nude autopsy pics...To say that Kearns had those sensitive pics put on the internet to stop Jeff's propoganda is Kearns propoganda to continue to spread his message and fulfill his agenda.


for me, the autopsy photos helped me understand the various injuries better than just reading about them (their locations, etc. i'm a very visual person). i don't believe they've been posted to make your precious jeffrey macdonald look bad. if you are offended about nude autopsy photos (and i'm sorry, but where have you ever seen clothed autopsy photos? i'm thinking the Y incision is easier to make on a nude body, yes? your use of the word "nude" is a little redundant here), then by all means don't look at them. i personally don't see the photos as "exploitive" and if bob stevenson did, i'm quite sure he'd let CM know and she'd take them down out of respect for him. oh, and the autopsies were done on 2-17-70, not 2-28-70.

as for the pics of murdermac, well aren't they the only pics available? why shouldn't they be posted? if the defense was so worried about not having pics of his wounds, bernie should have had some of his own taken the first time he met mac. even six weeks after the murders, there should have been some scabs or something; at the very least the scars would have been more fresh. since bernie didn't take it upon himself to do this, don't blame kearns or anyone else for the poor photos.

kearns propaganda lol! you have made for some great entertainment lately, remind me to thank you sometime.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

"Pat Reese (he's dead now) in the late 60's and early 70' knew ten times more about the drug business in Fayetteville than Beasley or anyone on the drug squads. He himself had been heavy into drugs and most importantly knew all about Stoeckley and her so called group."
and what was reese's opinion on helena being one of the "intruders" involved?

[caphill]

Originally posted by margiej
The 22" blond wig hair is nothing more than a red herring. Nada. It will never free MacD. It will never exonerate him. It will never convict anyone other than him. It will never put Helena or anyone else in that house that night EXCEPT MacD. Red Herring!! That's all.



In your studied opinion, where do you think those 22 inch "wig" hairs came from . Are you aware two dolls were taken from the home and it was determined these hairs did not come from the dolls? Do you think the jury would have been interested in hearing about these "wig"hairs that were almost 2 feet long being found at the crime scene. Might this have been of interest considering Dr. MacDonald claimed he had a glimpse of a woman with long blond hair. One of the first MP's on the scene sees a woman at 3am standing less than 1/2 mile in the rain with long hair and a floppy hair. A woman who is known to wear a long blond wig, who has no an alibi for 4 hours, admits to destroying a wig and boots because she doesn't want to be linked to the murders. Would you call that behavior a conscientiousness of guilt?

All I know is, if I heard a report on the news of a horrible crime and a description that the perp was wearing light colored boots and had long blond hair, I wouldn't be in my closet burning my boots and wig if I knew I had nothing to do with the crime. LOL

MacDonald says he saw a woman with long blond hair and 2 white guys and a black guy wearing a field jacket with military stripes. The killing and injuries were described by the pathologist as looking like berserk stabbings. There were 4 different weapons used. This same woman who burned her wig and boots is also known to hang out with 2 white guys and a black guy who wore a military field jacket. This same group of people were seen around the area before and after the killing by 40 different people. This group of people were known to be heavy drug users.

It seem to me that whether or not they had anything to do with murders, a reasonable and responsible police investigation would have rounded up all these people immediately and verified alibis, checked their shoes and clothes for blood etc. Some of this group were not questioned until years later. Of course they said they had nothing to do with the murders. What would one think they would say?

30-40 sets of fingerprints could not be sourced and did not match any family, neighbors or friends known to have been in the house. The known MP's and investigators in the house that night were excluded for the unknown prints. There was a bloodly palm print that could not be matched. There were many fibers around and on the victims that could not be matched to any thing in that house.

I have lived in my current house for 9 nine years. I have had a plumber and an electrician twice. Other than that I have the same repeat friends or family in my home. You would not find 30-40 unknown fingerprints in my home. The MacDonalds had only lived in the house 6 months. Don't you think they could account for almost everyone that had come to visit them over that 6 months time. Even people who visit are usually not roaming all over your house. There are usually entertained in the living room and maybe a visit to the powder room.

[JTF]

Caphill: Peter Kearns has always spoken quite well for himself. He's not going to respond to you on this board, so I'll provide information taken directly from the written record.

1) Janice Glisson states in her 1991 affidavit that she didn't find any of the synthetic fiber evidence to be forensically significant, so why should Kearns? Kearns didn't find the black or platinum synthetic fibers to be significant either, yet I don't hear you screaming about Kearns covering up that information. The fibers were matched in 1990 to Mildred Kassab's wig and Colette's fall. You're following 1 of the MacDonald camp mantra's which is to create controversy where none exists.

2) The comment from Kearns that you refer to was from the CID reinvestigation report. Pep Stevenson, however, did not tell Kearns that she had several phone conversations with Colette where Colette admitted to knowing about Jeff's affairs. Pep divulged the content of those conversations after Kearns had completed the 3,000 page report. Kearns stated on LKL that he believed the impetus behind the fight in the master bedroom was Colette knowing about Jeff's sexual conquests.

3) You and I obviously have a difference of opinion in regards to the significance and impact of the autopsy photographs. It's important to note that Bob Stevenson has no problem with the photographs being on Christina's website and his opinion on the subject, is the only opinion that really matters.

4) Referring to the toxicology report in regards to the Eskatrol issue is akin to debating about the existence of a bloody syringe. The issue was resolved 19 years ago at the MacDonald vs. McGinniss civil trial when testimony indicated that MacDonald would have had to have ingested a lethal dose of amphetamines in order for it to have shown up in a Womack drug screening. It will never be known how much Eskatrol was in MacDonald's system on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

[JTF]

Caphill: Kristen had 20 dolls in her collection and Jeff discarded every single one of them after the Article 32 hearing. In terms of the unidentified fingerprints, there were exactly 30 of them, but prints were not obtained from Kimberly or Kristen. The prints obtained from Colette were of poor quality, so the source of most of those prints was probably Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen. I also noticed that you failed to mention that not 1 of the 30 prints matched the prints of a member of the Stoeckley Seven or New York Four.

JTF.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill
I have lived in my current house for 9 nine years. I have had a plumber and an electrician twice. Other than that I have the same repeat friends or family in my home. You would not find 30-40 unknown fingerprints in my home. The MacDonalds had only lived in the house 6 months. Don't you think they could account for almost everyone that had come to visit them over that 6 months time. Even people who visit are usually not roaming all over your house. There are usually entertained in the living room and maybe a visit to the powder room.
this argument might make sense and pertain to the macdonald case IF they had built their home from scratch (and even then, i'm sure there would be some prints of all the workers). however, an apartment on an army base with previous occupants sounds like the pefect place to find unidentified fingerprints to me. and again, to quote the mcnamara memo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/memo_mcnamara_1973-06-26.html):

MacDonald will claim that there are thirty unidentified latent fingerprints in the house. However, there are no prints on any piece of evidence which are unidentified.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle


for me, the autopsy photos helped me understand the various injuries better than just reading about them (their locations, etc. i'm a very visual person). i don't believe they've been posted to make your precious jeffrey macdonald look bad. if you are offended about nude autopsy photos (and i'm sorry, but where have you ever seen clothed autopsy photos? i'm thinking the Y incision is easier to make on a nude body, yes? your use of the word "nude" is a little redundant here), then by all means don't look at them. i personally don't see the photos as "exploitive" and if bob stevenson did, i'm quite sure he'd let CM know and she'd take them down out of respect for him. oh, and the autopsies were done on 2-17-70, not 2-28-70.

as for the pics of murdermac, well aren't they the only pics available? why shouldn't they be posted? if the defense was so worried about not having pics of his wounds, bernie should have had some of his own taken the first time he met mac. even six weeks after the murders, there should have been some scabs or something; at the very least the scars would have been more fresh. since bernie didn't take it upon himself to do this, don't blame kearns or anyone else for the poor photos.

kearns propaganda lol! you have made for some great entertainment lately, remind me to thank you sometime.


Excuse me for the typo of the date. You seemed to have missed the point about about what I consider dignity and respect of privacy of the dead. It serves no purpose to have these autopsy pics of these people on the web.

Now you twist and spin and make fun of the fact that of course bodies are delivered nude for an autopsy. Where does that justify someone who happens to be in a position of taking photos of crime victims being able to assume possession and take authority over them to expose them on the internet?

These photos did not come from the pathologist office. These phots did not come from CID. These photo came from a private person who had had access from 35 years ago to these photos. They serve no purpose to be on the internet. They prove no guilt or innocence of anyone.

I am sure Colette would not want her nude pics on the internet in life so why think it is not an indignity and disrepectful to post them in death. The dead don't have any legal rights but there are privacy rights of the victims family to not have graphic photos publicly displayed.

The rather recent Supreme Court ruling the of Favish decision increases the risk for publication of death photos. This was decision that against some top lawyers in the country trying to get access to death photos of Vince Foster as he lay dead on the ground. They wanted shoulder, arm and head photos. Supreme Court said no.

I can say I have never seen death nude photos of a private person except on Christina's site. I have never seen the Social Security numbers of people put on the internet except in Christina's site. These nude death pictures of Colette's face and bare breasts as well as the childrens faces and little nude bodies is the height of insensitivity and disrespect.

As the Supreme Court has said in studying other cases, there is the first question of who had legal rights to death crime scene pictures. It has been stated that death photos in possession of the government are not freely available to the public and are intended for or as restricted use of a particular person or group or class of people.

Is it safe to assume these death photos were at one time the possession of the government? Did the government relinquish their rights to them to what is now a private individual? If so, what then gives the private individual the rights to display them on the internet? I don't the CID has ever or will ever take nude death photos out of their crime files and post to web site for the sensational viewing of the public.

Have the same liberties been taken by Kearns to distribute these
graphic and partially nude death pictures as the liberties taken in not displaying a full and accurate picture of the evidence that was known to have been found at the crime scene. Is there no shame and sense of decency to the victims of this murder case.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
Dale Earnhardt's wife sued to stop her husband's autopsy pictures from being exploited by the media. Should we not expect that dignity be offered to us and our loved ones. Is there anyone that reads here that would like to think that their dead nude bodies or their children nude bodie mltilated would be made public for millions of people to gape over . . .

May I point out that Dale Earnhardt died in an undisputed accident?

As for your question:

No, I would not like to think of me or my children's autopsy pics being viewed/gaped at . . . (don't even want to think of me and my children being dead period--nude or otherwise LOL!:D ) . . . but if seeing the pics help even one person see the ridiculous difference between me and my girls wounds and the lying murderer that would be my husband (:mad: :( ) . . . I have no problem with Posting Pics. Dead is dead--the souls have moved on.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
Does he think Colette found out something in child psych classes that triggered her to come home and start a fight that night at 3am? . . .

Not sure about anybody else . . . but my life experiences have taught me that although 3am may not be the best time to discuss marital infidelities, these wee hours are mostly when these "discussions" end up taking place!

[audpaud]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Kristen had 20 dolls in her collection and Jeff discarded every single one of them after the Article 32 hearing.

:(

[audpaud]

Originally posted by JTF
Audpaud: Nope. MacDonald never asked for the baby books back . . .

:flamemad: . . .

tx for the response JTF. I'm hoping that Colette's brother has them now?

[audpaud]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by caphill . . .
I am sure Colette would not want her nude pics on the internet in life so why think it is not an indignity and disrepectful to post them in death. The dead don't have any legal rights but there are privacy rights of the victims family to not have graphic photos publicly displayed.

. . . These nude death pictures of Colette's face and bare breasts as well as the childrens faces and little nude bodies is the height of insensitivity and disrespect.
QUOTE]

Just as I am sure that Colette would not want her and her girls to be murdered by macdonald~that activity is the "height of insensitivity and disrespect," caphill.:flamemad:

I would implicity trust my Mom and Dad--and in their absence my brother--:rose: to make any and all decisions after my death at the hands of my husband.

Why is none of your wrath directed at the perpetrator caphill? All this venom for the victims family does not help your macdonald innocence argument . . . altho' I will concede you don't have much to work with on that score.:rolleyes:

[audpaud]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
"Pat Reese (he's dead now) in the late 60's and early 70' knew ten times more about the drug business in Fayetteville than Beasley or anyone on the drug squads. He himself had been heavy into drugs and most importantly knew all about Stoeckley and her so called group."


Do you really think Stoekley and her "drug group" would/could murder a pregnant woman and two little girls while high on acid to threaten Dr. Macdonald?

Really?

Special Forces Hit maybe . . . Stoekley Group: no way!!!! You need a new theory Arthur . . . or to at least experiment with a few recreational hallucinogens to realize the simple fact that no hippies would ever utter "acid is groovy" while butchering Colette and the girls leaving macdonald unscathed.

Just didn't happen.:seeya:

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

this argument might make sense and pertain to the macdonald case IF they had built their home from scratch (and even then, i'm sure there would be some prints of all the workers). however, an apartment on an army base with previous occupants sounds like the pefect place to find unidentified fingerprints to me. and again, to quote the mcnamara memo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/memo_mcnamara_1973-06-26.html):



My house is registerd as a historical house and was built 116 years ago. Though I have only lived 9 years I have and do clean on a regular basis. There were people in my house a few days ago that used my bathroom and sat on my furniture and drank out of glasses. I will can guarentee you would be hard pressed to find their fingerprints anywhere in my house. My dishes have been washed a number of times, my bathroom cleaned and once a week my cleaning lady wipes down or dusts my baseboards, my doors and window sills.

In the old days when the children were small and I didn't have a cleaning lady, I was always wiping doors, furniture and walls from their little stickey fingers every day. If I didn't do that the doors and walls would have looked like the entry to a butterbutter and jelly food fair. The young mothers know what I am talking about

There eighty something prints found in the MacDonald house. I am sure many of those were matched to the investigators who having a coffee party in the kitchen. I do understand why CID was so defensive about securing the crime scene. If you want a giggle look at the kitchen photos put on Christina site. You see the original kitchen scenewith washed dishes in drain on one side of sink and the coffee pot on the other . Then you see the scene after the investigators were making their coffee with the creamer and moving the pans around coffee cups arounds. This was done before the finger print guys get there. After the guys have messed up the kitchen, you will te next scene with all the powder and circles and markings from the collection team. There must have been numerous fingerprints in that kitchen alone before the fingerprint collection and blood collection.

I was looking at the list of things that had blood on them. It was reported that unopened package of gloves was found under the sink back behind cleaning stuff. This was dug out by the evidence collectors. This unopened package ends up on the list of things that had blood on it. How much blood was transferred by the investigators from one room to the other. You can't tell me these guys were changing gloves everytime they touched anything. How many people were actually touching and moving the bodies before they were removed. If you look at the blood list you see numerous O blood in the master bedroom. Now all the traces of O blood in the master are not really mentioned in testimony. The only blood discussed in the trial is Colettes and Kimberly's in the master bedroom. Kimberly is reported as an A with the B deteriorated. That is scientific hoax to say it AB but the B is missing. That iss why the blood evidence can't be trusted. Who knows what was being transferred from victim to other.

It clear that the investigators wiped some things down. The bedroom phone and kitchen phone had been wiped down after Jeff was taken to the hospital. It was reported the knife in the bedroom had blood on it and should have had Jeff's fingerprints. It had been wiped clean.

So with proof of many guys milling around, making coffee, touching things, rearranging the scene, I can agree with you that 30 unmatched fingerprints might not be unusual in that house with all that confusion and herd of people. There was even men there in the middle of that scene that nobody could identify.I have read that police crime scene training classes uses the investigation crime scene of my house as an example of what not to do. LOl.

[caphill]

Originally posted by audpaud


May I point out that Dale Earnhardt died in an undisputed accident?

As for your question:

No, I would not like to think of me or my children's autopsy pics being viewed/gaped at . . . (don't even want to think of me and my children being dead period--nude or otherwise LOL!:D ) . . . but if seeing the pics help even one person see the ridiculous difference between me and my girls wounds and the lying murderer that would be my husband (:mad: :( ) . . . I have no problem with Posting Pics. Dead is dead--the souls have moved on.


Colette and the girls were undisputedly murdered. Two were clubbed and stabbed with two different kinds of weapons. Little Kristen was stabbed with two different kinds of weapons and a ligature wounds on her neck. That is all discussed in the autopsy reports.

Those death pictures serve no purpose being put on the internet 35 years after the murders. Those pictures give no clue as to whether MacDonald made those injuries or whether Helena and gang or aliens from out space made those wounds.

Those pictures serve no purpose other than for the sensational curiosity of the viewer. You know that. That are being used to push an agenda of whipping up horror. It is Jerrry Springer kind of tasteless tabloid tactics. It is demeaning to the memory of the deceased. It is a tacky and defenseless cheap shot. It shows less an honorable and respectful look at those who purport to speak for the victims of this murder. Even if I thought my husband killed my children, I would not want their nude death pictures splayed all over the internet. I would still respect their dignity in death regardless of who killed them. Is nothing sacred to some people?

Even the people who got a hold of Nicole Simpson death pictures had the common decency to just post her body from the neck up. Even the jurors didn't see nude pictures of her, just her injuries. I know Mark Furman, supposedly gave a little tour of his buddies into the autopsy room to take a look at Nicole new boob job. That kind of stuff sickens me.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by caphill

In the old days when the children were small and I didn't have a cleaning lady, I was always wiping doors, furniture and walls from their little stickey fingers every day. If I didn't do that the doors and walls would have looked like the entry to a butterbutter and jelly food fair. The young mothers know what I am talking about

But there are as many young mothers who don't wipe doors constantly (I for example was one of them), and I think Colette was also the type who didn't run around with a dustcloth all day.
Therefore I would not find it surprising at all that unidentified fingerprints were found in the MacDonald home.

[caphill]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

this argument might make sense and pertain to the macdonald case IF they had built their home from scratch (and even then, i'm sure there would be some prints of all the workers). however, an apartment on an army base with previous occupants sounds like the pefect place to find unidentified fingerprints to me. and again, to quote the mcnamara memo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/memo_mcnamara_1973-06-26.html):



That McNamara memo link is very good link for understanding this case and how it emerged. I found I could not disagree with the assessments McNamara made at that time.

His assessments were made based on the case "facts" as had been presented to him by those who wanted to prosecute MacDonald for murder. If I had received that letter and trusted the information submitted at that time I would have had a similiar response.

This assessment was written without knowing about the many hairs and fibers on and around the bodies that could not be sourced to the MacDonald family, no information about the 22 inch blond wig hairs in the brush and no mention of Helena etal. This was also based on false information given to him. There was no urine analysis testing done in 1970 and even today there is no way to identify a donor of urine. A healthy person's urine can not be identified by the advanced technology of DNA in today's world. Urine has no nucleated cells and can not be used for identify of donor. So to the strong points of the urine being identified as Kimberly's was a blatent lie told to McNamara. In listing the strong points for a conviction, he mentions the "absence of physical evidence where evidence in all liklihood would have existed" showed to him that MacDonald was probably lying about the "intruders". Keeping in mind he was not told there were foreign fibers and hairs. He was told all hairs in the hairbrushs were sourced to the family.

When he lists the strong points of MacDonald case, there was some revealing things I don't recall hearing before. He addresses the fact that the defense can show a corrupted crime scene with possibly of blood transfer. He made a strong point of the pj top being placed on Colette and then she is stabbed but there is no fibers in her wounds. He points out a MP Sergeant observed the bureau drawers pulled open when he arrived. The crime scene photos taken later show they have been pushed closed. He lists the strong point of the jewelry box having blood stains and the two rings missing.

He believed the lack of motive, lack of any drugs in Jeff's system, the likilhood Jeff going insane for a few minutes and then regaining sanity was the big hurdle to over come. He mentions some areas of unmatched fingerprints being a strong argument for the defense.

He sums it up with believing MacDonald killed his family based on what was presented to him. Though he believed with evidence the CID had and the arguments the defense would present this case would not likely get a conviction. He believed there would at best be a hung jury. He was not interested in his office prosecuting the case.

I thought it was very intelligent analysis. Of course it was based on the report of no physical evidence of any foreign trace fibers/hairs. He did acknowledge the "staged" living room theory of the CID. He also noted from the photos the possibly of the herd of investigators distrubing the scene and it was possibly not the same as at the time of the murders. He noted from the description from the first responders the difference in the positions of the girls bodies in their beds to what the later photos showed.

I didn't know the first responders has testified the bureau drawers were opened. There is earth shaking to me that someone would close those drawers in a murder scene where Jeffrey has said there were intruders. I also don't recall the inside of the jewelry box having blood stains. Learn something new everytime I read something else about this case. IIRC this memo was written in 1973.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JTF
[B]l: "Peter Kearns is a Harvard educated man who authored the 3,000 page CID reinvestigation report. The report consisted of interviews with 699 people covering 48 states."

I'm not disputing JTF's infalliblility when he writes about the qualifications of former CID agent Peter Kearns. It's just that I would be interested in seeing the hard documentary evidence that Kearns is "Harvard educated" as JTF keeps mentioning.

I presume JTF's source is something like the Joe McGinniss book Fatal Vision which I don't regard as a book of scientific certainty.

All I know about Kearns is that he came from Washington for the MacDonald case investigation, and that he joined Kassab, and Kassab's lawyer, to persuade Judge Butler in North Carolina to arrange a Grand Jury against Dr MacDonald in about 1974. I don't know about Kearns' 1000 page report and 699 odd interviews. I just wish Kearns had investigated the Stoeckley murderers with thoroughness, that's all, instead of letting the FBI give the impression that they had asked the Stoeckley killers more than a few superficial questions.

I was interested to read on the MacDonald website that Judge Fox has allowed this recent Jimmy Britt case to proceed. Judge Fox is far too pro-prosecution for my liking. There is a brief mention that Judge Fox would allow the government to reply in more than 50 pages which must be some legal technicality reason.


Well that was an understatement. You know Fox must be hating life that he has to open up this thing. The United States of American is now the defendant. It was a convoluted sentence structure. I think haven't understood his Grant to the government to exceed the page limitation for its response up to a total of 50 pages.

Also he tells the government that have to March 30th to file an answer, motion, or other response.

What motion could he entertain. Could the government make a motion to appeal the 4th Circurit decision before they answer or response to the order? The government in this case has a habit of not hopping to Judge Fox's orders in the past. Judge Fox was a close friend of Dupree. Other than ordering DNA testing back in 1997, he has carried the water for Dupree since his death.

I need to talk to my legal beagle friends and ask a few questions about what possible tricks Murtagh could pull out of his sleeve. Since the government, if my understanding is correct, will have to address the record of prior proceedings and these prior proceeding are accusatory to Murtagh of suppression of evidence and now accusing Blackburn of witness intimidation, can Murtagh act as the defending US Attorney to this order.

Anderson has made a statement that he might have been there. Could that be the strategy? Anderson and Blackburn's word against Britt? Offset the bad lawyer with the good lawyer. Murtagh is not going to take this lying down. He has covered his arse for 35 years. This will another legal chess match.

[JTF]

Audpaud: It looks like Bob Stevenson provided Christina with some of the baby book material for her website. Did you notice how Caphill ignored my prior 2 posts? Typical duck and dodge tactics from the dwindling MacDonald groupie clan.

JTF.

[JTF]

Caphill: When you have truth on your side, you don't need legal tricks to state your case. Why do you think that the MacDonald defense team lost the 1985, 1990, 1992, and 1998 appeals? Why do you think that MacDonald got his butt kicked by Murtagh at the 2005 parole hearing? Tim Junkin's strategies have been the same as MacDonald's 19 other lawyers. Mix a "new" argument in with the same evidentiary items which have been turned away by appellate court after appellate court. When the DNA test results come back in a few weeks, Murtagh will simply have more clay to add to his evidentiary statue.

JTF.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill
Even the people who got a hold of Nicole Simpson death pictures had the common decency to just post her body from the neck up. Even the jurors didn't see nude pictures of her, just her injuries.

since colette had many many wounds on her chest, i'm not sure how one could show her various injuries without showing her breasts. if edited photos were up on CM's site, you and your homeboy artie would be claiming that was a conspiracy too:rolleyes:

colette, kim and kristen are dead. they have had no dignity since their husband/father killed them, leaving their dead bodies to be photographed and poked and prodded and cut open and seen by countless investigators, medical personnel, lawyers, judges, juries and most horribly, their mother/grandmothers (mildred and perry). you wanna be pissy, you be pissy about your hero jeffy. if he hadn't killed them, there'd be no autopsy pics.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by caphill

My house is registerd as a historical house and was built 116 years ago. Though I have only lived 9 years I have and do clean on a regular basis. There were people in my house a few days ago that used my bathroom and sat on my furniture and drank out of glasses. I will can guarentee you would be hard pressed to find their fingerprints anywhere in my house. My dishes have been washed a number of times, my bathroom cleaned and once a week my cleaning lady wipes down or dusts my baseboards, my doors and window sills.
oh geez, as you so eloquently like to say, GMAFB. we're talking about fingerprints found in base housing, housing which is probably never empty long between occupants, and specifically an apartment occupied by a young mother not known for her housecleaning abilities. if you're so obtuse you can't see the difference there, well then i don't know what to say except i pity you.
In the old days when the children were small and I didn't have a cleaning lady, I was always wiping doors, furniture and walls from their little stickey fingers every day. If I didn't do that the doors and walls would have looked like the entry to a butterbutter and jelly food fair. The young mothers know what I am talking about
i happen to BE a young mother, thanks. rather than walking around after them with cleaning supplies, i prefer to wash their hands so they aren't sticky and then get down on the floor with them and help them make messes.
I have read that police crime scene training classes uses the investigation crime scene of my house as an example of what not to do. LOl.
lmao, sorry your wonderful showcase home is only showcased in crime scene training classes!

[rashomon]

Originally posted by caphill

Those pictures serve no purpose other than for the sensational curiosity of the viewer. You know that. That are being used to push an agenda of whipping up horror. It is Jerrry Springer kind of tasteless tabloid tactics. It is demeaning to the memory of the deceased. It is a tacky and defenseless cheap shot. It shows less an honorable and respectful look at those who purport to speak for the victims of this murder.
It was Christina who published the pictures, and if anyone speaks for the victims, it's her. Your comparison is absurd.
Remember also that some family members of the Manson victims said they want these pictures published because I case any of the Manson gang should ask for parole, just one look at the pictures will show the general public the atrocity of the crimes.
I think this is also the reason why Bob Stevenson did not object to the pictures being published.
Sure they are heartbreaking to look at, but if you post on a true crime forum, autopsy reports and photos will be part of the discussion.

[rashomon]

[/QUOTE] I have read that police crime scene training classes uses the investigation crime scene of my house as an example of what not to do. LOl. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by stinkerbelle

lmao, sorry your wonderful showcase home is only showcased in crime scene training classes! [/B]
LMBO, stinkerbelle -- too funny!! I love your posts!
Nice little typo by caphill, eh? :D

[audpaud]

Originally posted by JTF

4) Referring to the toxicology report in regards to the Eskatrol issue is akin to debating about the existence of a bloody syringe. The issue was resolved 19 years ago at the MacDonald vs. McGinniss civil trial when testimony indicated that MacDonald would have had to have ingested a lethal dose of amphetamines in order for it to have shown up in a Womack drug screening. It will never be known how much Eskatrol was in MacDonald's system on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

Yes, JTF . . . it was glaringly obvious to even the casual reader of this Thread that your cogent responses are ignored. Your ignored response here really caught my attention. What is a "Womack" drug screening?:confused:

Would just like to quickly add that I have no idea if macdonald had amphetmanine induced psychosis . . . which is why I enjoy the discussion of just what may have happened the night he killed his family. I think it is charitable to give him the amphetamine "out" and one he would surely claim were he ever to have to come clean about the night of the murder.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by caphill
Those pictures serve no purpose other than for the sensational curiosity of the viewer. You know that.

:confused:

Anyway.

I know that those awful autopsy pics bring Colette, Kimmy and Kristy to life for anyone with eyes to see. They are no longer some abstract "murder victims" from long ago 1970 once the actual handiwork of macdonald is viewed and contrasted with his lack of any injury is perused. :(

You know that caphill, and I think you should spend more time looking at them and less time lamely attempting to defend the murderer.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by rashomon
I have read that police crime scene training classes uses the investigation crime scene of my house as an example of what not to do. LOl. [/QUOTE]

LMBO, stinkerbelle -- too funny!! I love your posts!
Nice little typo by caphill, eh? :D [/QUOTE]


Was it a typo?:confused:

Does macdonald possibly have some kind of computer access?:eek:

[audpaud]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I can't find any hard evidence that any of the bodies were transported either, as the austere and unsmiling New York psychiatrists Dr Brussel and Silverman suggested.
QUOTE]

Translation needed please.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by audpaud


Yes, JTF . . . it was glaringly obvious to even the casual reader of this Thread that your cogent responses are ignored. Your ignored response here really caught my attention. What is a "Womack" drug screening?:confused:

Would just like to quickly add that I have no idea if macdonald had amphetmanine induced psychosis . . . which is why I enjoy the discussion of just what may have happened the night he killed his family. I think it is charitable to give him the amphetamine "out" and one he would surely claim were he ever to have to come clean about the night of the murder.
Audpaud, Womack is the hospital MacDonald had been transported to, and JTF meant that back then in 1970, the equipment available at hospitals like Womack would not have enabled to test for amphetamines. Not even the CID lab was sufficiently equipped for that. (see, Fatal Vision, 1984 paperb, p. 605).
Would MacDonald have snapped and lost it if he hadn't taken amphetamines? I think it is possible. He was a walking time-bomb with all his pent-up anger. He had a mere six-and a half-hours of sleep from Feb 14 to Feb 17 (plus some sleep he got on the emergency room cot), so he was totally sleep-deprived.
He had worked a 24 hour shift on Sunday Feb 16, and then put in a full day at the office on Monday Feb 16.
Colette herself had told her friend with whom she drove to class that Jeff was totally exhausted.
JMD's whole life had been one incessant period of stress, he was constantly on the fast track without respite. The social climber from a modest background seeking room at the top.
He was also a person who could not stand criticism, and someone who easily felt provoked.
Plus, things had been brewing in that marriage for a long time.
All this can be a pretty explosive cocktail.

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill




In your studied opinion, where do you think those 22 inch "wig" hairs came from . Are you aware two dolls were taken from the home and it was determined these hairs did not come from the dolls? Do you think the jury would have been interested in hearing about these "wig"hairs that were almost 2 feet long being found at the crime scene. Might this have been of interest considering Dr. MacDonald claimed he had a glimpse of a woman with long blond hair. One of the first MP's on the scene sees a woman at 3am standing less than 1/2 mile in the rain with long hair and a floppy hair. A woman who is known to wear a long blond wig, who has no an alibi for 4 hours, admits to destroying a wig and boots because she doesn't want to be linked to the murders. Would you call that behavior a conscientiousness of guilt?

All I know is, if I heard a report on the news of a horrible crime and a description that the perp was wearing light colored boots and had long blond hair, I wouldn't be in my closet burning my boots and wig if I knew I had nothing to do with the crime. LOL

MacDonald says he saw a woman with long blond hair and 2 white guys and a black guy wearing a field jacket with military stripes. The killing and injuries were described by the pathologist as looking like berserk stabbings. There were 4 different weapons used. This same woman who burned her wig and boots is also known to hang out with 2 white guys and a black guy who wore a military field jacket. This same group of people were seen around the area before and after the killing by 40 different people. This group of people were known to be heavy drug users.

It seem to me that whether or not they had anything to do with murders, a reasonable and responsible police investigation would have rounded up all these people immediately and verified alibis, checked their shoes and clothes for blood etc. Some of this group were not questioned until years later. Of course they said they had nothing to do with the murders. What would one think they would say?

30-40 sets of fingerprints could not be sourced and did not match any family, neighbors or friends known to have been in the house. The known MP's and investigators in the house that night were excluded for the unknown prints. There was a bloodly palm print that could not be matched. There were many fibers around and on the victims that could not be matched to any thing in that house.

I have lived in my current house for 9 nine years. I have had a plumber and an electrician twice. Other than that I have the same repeat friends or family in my home. You would not find 30-40 unknown fingerprints in my home. The MacDonalds had only lived in the house 6 months. Don't you think they could account for almost everyone that had come to visit them over that 6 months time. Even people who visit are usually not roaming all over your house. There are usually entertained in the living room and maybe a visit to the powder room.

My studied opinion is that YOU are putting a lot of stock in a wig hair that is irrelevant. That was my point. Why keep mentioning that wig hair? You seemed to be clinging to something that has no basis or meaning. Just because a 22" wig hair was found in that apartment does not change WHO was in that apartment and WHO did the murders. That wig hair is a straw you are grasping at. It won't keep your leaky boat afloat.

[margiej]

Originally posted by caphill




I need to talk to my legal beagle friends and ask a few questions about what possible tricks Murtagh could pull out of his sleeve. Since the government, if my understanding is correct, will have to address the record of prior proceedings and these prior proceeding are accusatory to Murtagh of suppression of evidence and now accusing Blackburn of witness intimidation, can Murtagh act as the defending US Attorney to this order.

Anderson has made a statement that he might have been there. Could that be the strategy? Anderson and Blackburn's word against Britt? Offset the bad lawyer with the good lawyer. Murtagh is not going to take this lying down. He has covered his arse for 35 years. This will another legal chess match.

I think this is "old hat" to Murtagh. He has been down that road before and back again. Knows it all by heart. MacD had better fasten his seat belt.

[JTF]

Arthur: I sincerely hope that you continue to enjoy your travels to mythical lands where innuendo, rumor, and falsehoods reign supreme.

JTF.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[quote]I can't find any hard evidence that any of the bodies were transported either...There was more than enough evidence to show the jury that Colette was wrapped in the master bedroom sheet while it was in Kristen's room, and that she was then carried by Jeffrey MacDonald into the master bedroom and stabbed as she lay on the floor covered with MacDonald's torn and bloody pajama top. It is beyond question that Kim was bludgeoned in the master bedroom and then was moved back to her bed and bludgeoned and stabbed again; I don't believe even the defense contended it.

You were exposed as a fraud on another message board; it's been shown that in order to present a false picture of events you've altered testimony when copying and pasting; and in my opinion your ostensible insistence that Kim was not moved despite the proof by the evidence that she was, and your endless repetition of other statements you know to be false, is only a pretense designed to bolster the game you play here of pretending to support a triple convicted murderer.I agree with caphill.Of course you do, since IMHO you're one and the same person.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp



To cut a long story short the reason MacDonald lost the 1985 appeal was because Judge Dupree was biased and pro-prosecution. Dupree also didn't fully comprehend the forensics of the MacDonald case. Dupree thought all the blood had dried when in fact a lot of it was oozing and moist and contaminating things like a sheet, Esquire magazine, and eye glasses. Judge Dupree also seemed to think that Helena Soeckley was courting on a bridge with Greg Mitchell on the night of the MacDonald murders. What nonsense!

The 1990 and 1992 appeals seemed to be lost because Malone of the FBI lab managed to con the judges into thinking that the blond synthetic hair-like fiber came from MacDonald dolls and not Helena's wig, and Murtagh was able to con the judges that foreign hairs and fibers on the bodies, and in the mouths and under the fingernails of the murder victims "probably" came from MacDonald clothes.

The 1998 appeal was lost because the judges in their wisdom decided that Malone of the FBI lab wasn't a fraud even though Dr Whitehurst of the FBI lab thought Malone ought to be prosecuted.

Personally I'm not too hopeful about the DNA results. Murtagh and Judge Fox control the forensics in the MacDonald case and only a few items have been tested. I'm not saying Murtagh or the CID lab would use forensic fraud in order to cheat Dr MacDonald. It's just that I wouldn't put it past them.

I don't fully comprehend why the report from the AFIP lab saying there was nothing in the forensics that implicated Dr MacDonald in any crimes or murders at Fort Bragg has never seemed to have been presented to any court that I know about. Perhaps it's more of the MacDonald case hidden forensic evidence?


The motion that was granted by the 4th Circuit states the results of DNA are not a part of the motion, to put it in simple laymen terms.

[JTF]

Margiej: Hanging on by a saran fiber or a pajama thread is what the MacDonald camp does and will continue to do. They really don't have much at their disposal to demonstrate that MacDonald is innocent of these horrible crimes, so they do the selective evidentiary dance. Fortunately, the DNA test results will remove the limb hair in CID Exhibit E-5 and hair fragments #7 and #8 from Glisson Lab Note R-11 from their limited evidentiary selection.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp



To cut a long story short the reason MacDonald lost the 1985 appeal was because Judge Dupree was biased and pro-prosecution. Dupree also didn't fully comprehend the forensics of the MacDonald case. Dupree thought all the blood had dried when in fact a lot of it was oozing and moist and contaminating things like a sheet, Esquire magazine, and eye glasses. Judge Dupree also seemed to think that Helena Soeckley was courting on a bridge with Greg Mitchell on the night of the MacDonald murders. What nonsense!

The 1990 and 1992 appeals seemed to be lost because Malone of the FBI lab managed to con the judges into thinking that the blond synthetic hair-like fiber came from MacDonald dolls and not Helena's wig, and Murtagh was able to con the judges that foreign hairs and fibers on the bodies, and in the mouths and under the fingernails of the murder victims "probably" came from MacDonald clothes.

The 1998 appeal was lost because the judges in their wisdom decided that Malone of the FBI lab wasn't a fraud even though Dr Whitehurst of the FBI lab thought Malone ought to be prosecuted.

Personally I'm not too hopeful about the DNA results. Murtagh and Judge Fox control the forensics in the MacDonald case and only a few items have been tested. I'm not saying Murtagh or the CID lab would use forensic fraud in order to cheat Dr MacDonald. It's just that I wouldn't put it past them.

I don't fully comprehend why the report from the AFIP lab saying there was nothing in the forensics that implicated Dr MacDonald in any crimes or murders at Fort Bragg has never seemed to have been presented to any court that I know about. Perhaps it's more of the MacDonald case hidden forensic evidence?


I don't what that lab report means either. I wonder if Murtagh ever stipulated that there was no exculpatory information in the lab work notes.

I got a help from my friends in understanding the strange wording in the Order from Judge Fox. It appears that Murtagh filed a sua sponte dismissal motion which basically says MacDonald's motion is without foundation. The order is in response where Judge Fox disagreed with Murtagh's motion and found merit with MacDonald's motion. Now Murtagh will have to respond to everything in MacDonald's motion.

I am looking forward to the governments response. I thinking the DNA might be a bigger problem for the government than you do.

Why hasn't the lab released the results. If it had favorable results to the government don't you think it would have been released for Murtagh to gloat. These tests could help MacDonald but can't really hurt him. It would be expected to have the victims blood at many places. The hairs will either be sourced to the family or will be foreign. Its that simple.

[Bunny2]

JTF, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that nowhere in Glisson's notes did she describe these fibers as "wig" fibers?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by caphill
I don't what that lab report means either. I wonder if Murtagh ever stipulated that there was no exculpatory information in the lab work notes.Seems to be rather a moot point to me, since the defense long ago saw all the information in the notes, already argued those issues to the court, and the jury and appeals courts rejected not only Mac's "new evidence" but also his arguments that unsourced items pointed to "intruders."I am looking forward to the governments response.So are a lot of people. The government has demolished the defense's arguments at virtually every turn in the last 26 years, and my guess is that the next response will probably be done in the same well-thought-out way.I thinking the DNA might be a bigger problem for the government than you do.??? You think something is actually going to match Helena or Mitchell's DNA, then? Now that would be interesting, and would raise countless questions, just the least of which would be: Why then did MacDonald lie about being alone when he committed the murders?Why hasn't the lab released the results.Hard to say, but based on knowledge of the past, for example the defense delaying the tests themselves for years and years, it wouldn't be a bad guess to assume that perhaps they're again trying some delaying tactics, who knows. The question I'd like an answer to is one JTF brought up when we last talked on the phone: What happened to all those other "intruders" Stoeckley talked about? The defense only mentions Stoeckley and Mitchell now, and seems to have dropped any pretense of concentrating on anyone else. I wonder why.These tests could help MacDonald but can't really hurt him...The hairs will either be sourced to the family or will be foreign. Its that simple."These tests...can't really hurt him..." Of course, that's why Mac opted for DNA testing to begin with IMHO. If we go by the negative evidence which tends to show that there were no intruders, the results would either show that the DNA is his or it will be inconclusive, with no positive match made to anyone. Either way, he would have lost nothing even though he would remain in prison, but he has gained several years of $ flowing in from people who are under the false illusion that he would never have asked for DNA at all if he were guilty.

On the other hand, should the DNA be matched to Mitchell or Stoeckley, then again as I said above, Mac will have raised far more questions than are answered, and even so, it would not begin to negate all those many, many evidentiary issues which proved his guilt to a jury. As I think Judge Fox said, it would only mean that he wasn't alone when he committed the murders.

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by Bunny2
The question I'd like an answer to is one JTF brought up when we last talked on the phone: What happened to all those other "intruders" Stoeckley talked about? The defense only mentions Stoeckley and Mitchell now, and seems to have dropped any pretense of concentrating on anyone else. I wonder why.
i'd like an official answer (which we all know isn't going to come) but you know what i think, that it's because those two are dead and can't fight back.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I can't find any hard evidence that any of the bodies were transported either, as the austere and unsmiling New York psychiatrists Dr Brussel and Silverman suggested.



ok, I'll just come right and ask: WTH does "austere and unsmiling" have to do with anything?:confused:

[JTF]

Bunny: Correct. Glisson never uses the word "wig" in any of her notes. From 1983-1989, the MacDonald defense team did a little connect the dots drill in order to come up with their scenario that the saran fibers were not only from a cosmetic wig, but a wig owned by Helena Stoeckley. What the MacDonald camp refuses to acknowledge is that nobody, and I mean nobody, placed ANY significance on ANY of the synthetic fibers found in the 3 hairbrushes. Glisson, Kearns, Pruett, Stombaugh, Murtagh, Segal, Smith, Thornton, and O'Neil all had the SAME REACTION to the black, platinum, and blond fibers.

JTF.

[JTF]

MacDonald advocates are fooling themselves if they believe that the DNA tests cannot hurt MacDonald's case. If the limb hair found in Colette's left hand turns out to be Jeff's, he's toast, plain and simple. Similar to the entangled rug/pajama fibers found near Colette's feet, the head hair from Colette entwined around a pajama seam thread, the bloodstains on the front of the pajama top/pajama top pocket, and the bloody fabric impression evidence on the blue bedsheet, a DNA match for CID Exhibit E-5 will further cement the fact that Jeff came in direct contact with Colette.

JTF.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
MacDonald advocates are fooling themselves if they believe that the DNA tests cannot hurt MacDonald's case. If the limb hair found in Colette's left hand turns out to be Jeff's, he's toast, plain and simple. Similar to the entangled rug/pajama fibers found near Colette's feet, the head hair from Colette entwined around a pajama seam thread, the bloodstains on the front of the pajama top/pajama top pocket, and the bloody fabric impression evidence on the blue bedsheet, a DNA match for CID Exhibit E-5 will further cement the fact that Jeff came in direct contact with Colette.

JTF.

To verify there was hair on the bodies, in the beds or any hundreds of place in the house that belonged to Jeff, Collete or the girls would not damage Jeff. He lived in the house, for Christ's sakes.

Since you infer you have absolute knowledge of the forensics could you share exactly what pieces of forensics are currently being tested? There 50 that the defense wanted tested and they got approval to test only 15. Out of those 15, they was there disputes on which of those would be tested? Which were the pieces or pieces that Murtagh pulled out and had tested with the results never given. Which pieces showed up as empty vial and became a part of the growing list of lost items

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Bunny: Correct. Glisson never uses the word "wig" in any of her notes. From 1983-1989, the MacDonald defense team did a little connect the dots drill in order to come up with their scenario that the saran fibers were not only from a cosmetic wig, but a wig owned by Helena Stoeckley. What the MacDonald camp refuses to acknowledge is that nobody, and I mean nobody, placed ANY significance on ANY of the synthetic fibers found in the 3 hairbrushes. Glisson, Kearns, Pruett, Stombaugh, Murtagh, Segal, Smith, Thornton, and O'Neil all had the SAME REACTION to the black, platinum, and blond fibers.

JTF.

That is the point and that is what the fuss is all about! LOL

It was not Glisson or any lab tech's job to decide the significance of any items presented to them. Their job was to properly label what came in, test it, report the results and let the chips fall where they may.

We now know that didn't happen. The lab tech were taking the instructions from CID. CID was picking and chosing what parts on the evidence they wanted on the final report from the labs.

It appears that Kearns and others found for some reason certain "insignificant' items were significant enough to be omitted from the report. To avoid addressing these "insignificant" items the hairbrushs were deemed "insignificant" also. They were significant enough to take pictures of them in the house. The white handled hair brush was found under Colette's arm. That white handled brush likely had blood and maybe fingerprints. The clear handled brush was sitting next to Colette purse on the side table. Was that brush ever checked for finger prints.

What was with the lab notes that mentioned Stoeckely's hair brush and comparison hairs from that brush. Was that hairbrush put into evidence in the trial. Where did the Stoeckely brush come from?

[JTF]

Caphill: You must have information that Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett did not have in 1971. Please point out in the documented record where the clear-handled hairbrush was identified as being Helena Stoeckleys. Please point out which of the rambling, Gunderson led "confessions" which includes a Stoeckley reference to bringing a hairbrush to 544 Castle Drive. Good luck. You're going to need it.

JTF.

[JTF]

Caphill: In 1970, the CID labeled 19 hairs found at the crime scene as unidentified. All were body/limb hairs and hair fragments. There was not a single head hair found at the crime scene that did not match head hairs from Colette, Mildred, Kimberly, Kristen, and Jeff. Three of the 19 hairs were found to be animal hairs in 1974, and a pubic hair found under Colette's body was matched to Jeffrey MacDonald in 1990. That left 15 unsourced hairs which encompass the entire DNA exhibits list. The 35 other requested exhibits were blood exhibits, but there was a limited amount of blood left from the original autopsies which resulted in Judge Fox focusing on the hair exhibits for DNA testing. Claims on MacDonald's website pertaining to exhibits no longer existing and the government delaying DNA testing are flat-out false.

JTF.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill

To verify there was hair on the bodies, in the beds or any hundreds of place in the house that belonged to Jeff, Collete or the girls would not damage Jeff. He lived in the house, for Christ's sakes...


If the hairs being DNA tested are matched to the MacDonald family, then clearly the hairs are not the physical evidence of intruders that he's been trumpeting it as for years. It would damage him - badly. He needs exculpatory evidence.

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: In 1970, the CID labeled 19 hairs found at the crime scene as unidentified. All were body/limb hairs and hair fragments. There was not a single head hair found at the crime scene that did not match head hairs from Colette, Mildred, Kimberly, Kristen, and Jeff. Three of the 19 hairs were found to be animal hairs in 1974, and a pubic hair found under Colette's body was matched to Jeffrey MacDonald in 1990. That left 15 unsourced hairs which encompass the entire DNA exhibits list. The 35 other requested exhibits were blood exhibits, but there was a limited amount of blood left from the original autopsies which resulted in Judge Fox focusing on the hair exhibits for DNA testing. Claims on MacDonald's website pertaining to exhibits no longer existing and the government delaying DNA testing are flat-out false.

JTF.


There were no blood samples sent for testing? Why the fight over mtDNA and nuclear DNA. Unless there is a hair root there can only be mtDNA. It too CID labs 4 years to determine the difference between himan and horse hair? It took 20 years to determine a pubic hair belonged to Jeff. How was that determined? There was no DNA testing done in 1990 and I am sure the mtDNA was being at time at all. Wasn't the hair found in Colette's hand a 3-4 inch hair that was reported to not be Jeff's. I thought at one time is was said to be Colette's There is such confusion on the labels and what exhibit is what? Intended to be confusing.

Did Mautagh figft to only release the evidence that was presented at the trial for testing? I thought a part of the fuss over the testing was concerns over blood being consumed by the testing?

What was the deal with the Stoeckely hairbrush and hair? When was a hair brush collected from Helena. Did the defense know about this hair brush?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Deb B


If the hairs being DNA tested are matched to the MacDonald family, then clearly the hairs are not the physical evidence of intruders that he's been trumpeting it as for years. It would damage him - badly. He needs exculpatory evidence.


It has already been reported the hairs in Colette's hand did not match MacDonad back prior to 1974. (See McNamara memo)

It is now known that that black wool, green and white wool fibers and the synthetic hair were not reported. These were fibers found on the club, under Collete body and stuck on Colette's mouth.

The "hidden" items discovered are now out the bag and no longer can be denied.

The 22long blond wig hairs taken in totality of the testimony of Stoeckley and the testimony of the 6 or more witnesses as to what she told them, along with 40 witnesses that saw a women and 3 men meeting the description given by MacDonald in the neighborhood right prior to and right after the murders, is very convincing and strong circumstantial evidence.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: You must have information that Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett did not have in 1971. Please point out in the documented record where the clear-handled hairbrush was identified as being Helena Stoeckleys. Please point out which of the rambling, Gunderson led "confessions" which includes a Stoeckley reference to bringing a hairbrush to 544 Castle Drive. Good luck. You're going to need it.

LOL, and Caphill didn't even know who Pruett and Kearns are. She thought they were book authors - priceless! Ignorance at its finest, which also shows in all that blather about "suppressed evidence"!

[caphill]

Originally posted by JTF
MacDonald advocates are fooling themselves if they believe that the DNA tests cannot hurt MacDonald's case. If the limb hair found in Colette's left hand turns out to be Jeff's, he's toast, plain and simple. Similar to the entangled rug/pajama fibers found near Colette's feet, the head hair from Colette entwined around a pajama seam thread, the bloodstains on the front of the pajama top/pajama top pocket, and the bloody fabric impression evidence on the blue bedsheet, a DNA match for CID Exhibit E-5 will further cement the fact that Jeff came in direct contact with Colette.

JTF.

He was found lying on the floor next to Colette with his head on her shoulder. He had blood around his mouth where he tried mouth to mouth. He lived with the woman, sat and a drink with her. They laid in floor watching TV before she went to bed.

I didn't know there any questions whatsoever that Jeffrey had direct contract with his wife that night or any night for quite a few years.

Why wasn't there any minute fibers found in the wounds on Colette chest if he had been repeating stabbing her through his pj top. McNamara stated in 1974 he thought that was a very strong defense argument.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill


He was found lying on the floor next to Colette with his head on her shoulder. He had blood around his mouth where he tried mouth to mouth. He lived with the woman, sat and a drink with her. They laid in floor watching TV before she went to bed.

I didn't know there any questions whatsoever that Jeffrey had direct contract with his wife that night or any night for quite a few years.

Why wasn't there any minute fibers found in the wounds on Colette chest if he had been repeating stabbing her through his pj top. McNamara stated in 1974 he thought that was a very strong defense argument.

She was stabbed with sharp objects. Testimony at trial that with sharp objects stabbing, you don't see fibers in the wounds.

[Deb B]

Originally posted by caphill


He was found lying on the floor next to Colette with his head on her shoulder. He had blood around his mouth where he tried mouth to mouth. He lived with the woman, sat and a drink with her. They laid in floor watching TV before she went to bed.

I didn't know there any questions whatsoever that Jeffrey had direct contract with his wife that night or any night for quite a few years.



There aren't such questions, at least I don't have them. Perhaps a DNA match of the unsourced hairs to him doesn't implicate him as the murderer, but it certainly doesn't indicate intruders. Because it doesn't indicate intruders - that hurts him - he's been claiming intruders, but no evidence of intruders. That hurts him.