Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty? [Archive] - Page 9 - Crime Library Message Boards

Bunny2

03-05-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I'm a bit surprised that Christina is able to put those private MacDonald letters on the internet. I don't know what the law is about that in America. There seems to be a lack of dates and identities on the letters which could easily give false impressions.
Well, the law in America (where you most likely live) is that it allows for reproduction/publishing of things like this with permission from the owner, which CM has.

I'm a bit surprised that the murderer's website shows no date on Christina's letter that she wrote years ago. I suppose Mac's lack of morals and sense of ethics meets with Kathryn's approval, so Kathryn posted the letter in order to give people a false impression.I would have thought that seeing as [the murderer] wrote the letters he would have the copyright. I would need an American lawyer's opinion about that.Why do you keep saying "America" and "American," since this is where you almost certainly live? At least if nothing else, we know you're not British like you're always trying to imply; you were already "outed" on that quite some time ago, remember?Those documents just confirm for me what a terrible miscarriage of justice the MacDonald case has been.Funny how you and your various aliases are the only ones who seem to think that. heehee Except for the occasional Mac-supporter-straggler who happens on by (and usually disappears rather quickly once he/she sees the facts in the case), you seem to be one of just a very small handful of die-hard supporters still posting regularly. And even that is suspect, since quite a few people believe you're only playing games here and aren't a real supporter at all.American cops seem to be worse than British cops...Why would anyone care about British cops in the MacDonald case? Mac wasn't British, none of the case proceedings took place there, and you're not British, so why the reference to this?I haven't studied any of [the murderer's] letters yet but I did notice in one of them that he thought the lab test for Kim's blood and urine in the master bedroom should have been negative. That could have been DNA tested years ago if Judge Fox had pulled his socks up.Actually, DNA testing wasn't even used in this country until the early 1980s, and it doesn't seem that the defense was too interested in getting this "DNA tested," so you might want to write to Mac and complain about this. While you're at it, maybe he can tell you why the defense delayed the testing for all those years....[the murderer] also seemed to imply that fibers had been planted at the crime scene by the CID. That would come as no surprise to me.Me, either. As we all know, Mac loves to lie, and would say anything to anyone if he thought it would help him at all. Too bad that it looks like nothing ever will. Ah, if only he had been able to control himself on that fateful night and not smash in the heads of his wife and daughter and not go around afterwards, staging the scenes and stabbing the bodies...oh, well, nothing can be done about it now except to enjoy knowing that the murderer was caught and convicted, and that most likely the only way he will ever leave prison is in a pine box.

Bunny2

03-05-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

lmbo, pot meet kettle! (my own italics added)

why don't you just post the link to the new uploads (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/new_uploads.html) page so everyone can read all the fun things uploaded? especially the disgusting letters in which your dear mac refers to sexual encounters in the attorney's room :no: There was also a bit in one of those letters where Mac's telling the woman that all her expenses will be taken care of, etc. I wonder if that's where some of the defense money has been going.

Bunny2

03-05-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Maybe I should clarify for you, just a bit futher. ALL of the evidence (including what was hidden from the defense) should have been presented IN FRONT OF A JURY. THE Jury.

Oh, and this would include everything the prosecution hid.
Uhhhh....I guess you didn't realize that the courts determined that nothing was wrongly suppressed or hidden in this case? Yep, it's a fact. You can see the records for yourself at TJMIS.

Anyway, how interesting. You would like to see the evidence about Mac being a narcissistic psychopath put before a jury? And for them to hear about how Mac possibly molested his daughter(s)? Hmmm...somehow I don't think Mac would agree with you that ALL of the evidence is supposed to be put to a jury, especially since he himself tried to suppress some of it.

I guess the bottom line here is that you can't really name any evidence that would have exculpated Mac and which hasn't already been before the courts. I'm not surprised, but thanks for the effort of the reply anyway.

rashomon

03-05-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Maybe you ought to have checked the dictionary before you got your knickers* in a wad.

* Knickers is an English and American English word for undies, panties)

I'm no native speaker of English, but I think 'knickers' for panties is British really.
I recall one post where a Brit told an American 'not to get her knickers in a twist', and the American poster thought the Brit was talking about 'knickerbockers', which is somethng else, lol.

rashomon

03-05-2006, 03:32 PM

[Edited to modify my previous post]

I'm no native speaker of English, but I think 'knickers' for panties is mostly used by British speakers.
And although the expression 'don't get your knickers in a twist' seems to be known in the US too, I recall one post where a Brit told an American 'not to get her knickers in a twist', and the American poster thought the Brit was talking about 'knickerbockers', which is of course something else.

rashomon

03-05-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I'm a bit surprised that Christina is able to put those private MacDonald letters on the internet. I don't know what the law is about that in America.
I suppose a letter received is property of the person who received it, and that person can decide what to do with the letter. So if the owner of the letters agreed to having them posted publicly, MacDonald probably can't do anything about it.

rashomon

03-05-2006, 04:36 PM

stinkerbelle

03-05-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by rashomon
[Edited to modify my previous post]

I'm no native speaker of English, but I think 'knickers' for panties is mostly used by British speakers.
And although the expression 'don't get your knickers in a twist' seems to be known in the US too, I recall one post where a Brit told an American 'not to get her knickers in a twist', and the American poster thought the Brit was talking about 'knickerbockers', which is of course something else.
knickers is more of a british term...but now i'm curious to know what knickerbockers are lol! other than being the real last name of "lew lewiston" i haven't really heard that word (although i can make a good guess as to what you're referring).

caphill

03-05-2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

knickers is more of a british term...but now i'm curious to know what knickerbockers are lol! other than being the real last name of "lew lewiston" i haven't really heard that word (although i can make a good guess as to what you're referring).

Your understanding of the proper use of "ought to" is right in line with your understanding of the origin of knickers or knickerbockers.

The orgin of knickerbockers was from Dutch settlers in what is now the New York area in the 1600's. Knickerbockers are pants rolled up just below the knees.

In 1846 the first game resembling baseball was played between the New York Knicker Bockers and the New York Nine. This sports team taking the name knicker bockers from the knee high pants worn at that time.

I guess it fair to say that knicker bockers is about as American as baseball and apple pie. (My apologies to the Dutch)

You taking the word knickers that I used as some hidden clue I was a Brit is amusing. You can't get any more native American than I am. A part of my family lineage goes back before the Santa Maria, Nina, Pinta and the Mayflower ever touched shores in the New World.

In reality an older American English word commonly used for panties was bloomers for the ladies and skivies or briefs for men.

Now we have gone through the diversion from the incorrect scolding given to the Brit for using "ought to" as improper use of the English lanaguage. In your opinion it was an example of reason to question his credibility. The inane use of "ought to" has proven to a lot less inane as your understanding of knicker bockers being of English origin.

Enough of this. I am going to move on and post something rather astonishing that Cathy Perry had to say about the the body of Kristin.

stinkerbelle

03-05-2006, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Your understanding of the proper use of "ought to" is right in line with your understanding of the origin of knickers or knickerbockers.
i stand by what i said regarding "ought to" and i'm sure all my jr. high, high school and college english teachers would be proud of me for actually remembering their teachings. however, you are free to post whatever poor grammar, sentence structure and spelling you choose. :)

reading is fundamental, and for the record, i did not ask for the origin of the words knickers or knickerbockers, as i am perfectly capable of looking things up myself if i have questions. people in the US do not commonly use the word "knickers" to mean underpants, hence my stating that knickers was more a british term.

You taking the word knickers that I used as some hidden clue I was a Brit is amusing.
was anyone talking to you? did i quote you in any way regarding the word knickerbocker? i must have missed it. i was asking rash what the american gal thought the brit meant when he said knickers and she thought he was referring to her knickerbockers. i don't believe i insinuated anywhere that you are british, especially since i was not talking to you. are you getting your personalities mixed up again? you "ought to" remember, when you are being caphill you have lots of typos and grammar issues.

Now we have gone through the diversion from the incorrect scolding given to the Brit for using "ought to" as improper use of the English lanaguage. In your opinion it was an example of reason to question his credibility. The inane use of "ought to" has proven to a lot less inane as your understanding of knicker bockers being of English origin.
in the first place, he HAS no credibility, posting as we are on a public message board; unless he's saying he's a lawyer on mac's team or something like that, he's just another joe like the rest of us. secondly, i merely stated that a person's posts will be better received if they are well-written. thirdly, i admitted it was a catty remark that had no place on this thread. once again, i wasn't quoting one of your posts or talking to you, so what the hell do you care?
Enough of this. I am going to move on and post something rather astonishing that Cathy Perry had to say about the the body of Kristin.
lmao, yeah, like she said kristen and kimberly were both boys. be sure and also post how she recanted her "confession" after being treated for schizophrenia.

JTF

03-06-2006, 12:26 AM

The handwritten letters by Jeffrey MacDonald are hardly new or private. Robert Sam Anson wrote about those very same letters in his 1998 Vanity Fair article. I wonder if Kathryn asked Christina for permission to post her letter on MacDonald's website? The chances of that are slim and Slim left town. The real issue, however, involves the significance of the evidence collected at the crime scene. The simple fact of the matter is that MacDonald gave his story, it didn't come close to squaring with the story that the physical evidence told, and that huge disparity resulted in a North Carolina jury convicting MacDonald in less than 7 hours.

JTF.

caphill

03-06-2006, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

i stand by what i said regarding "ought to" and i'm sure all my jr. high, high school and college english teachers would be proud of me for actually remembering their teachings. however, you are free to post whatever poor grammar, sentence structure and spelling you choose. :)

reading is fundamental, and for the record, i did not ask for the origin of the words knickers or knickerbockers, as i am perfectly capable of looking things up myself if i have questions. people in the US do not commonly use the word "knickers" to mean underpants, hence my stating that knickers was more a british term.

was anyone talking to you? did i quote you in any way regarding the word knickerbocker? i must have missed it. i was asking rash what the american gal thought the brit meant when he said knickers and she thought he was referring to her knickerbockers. i don't believe i insinuated anywhere that you are british, especially since i was not talking to you. are you getting your personalities mixed up again? you "ought to" remember, when you are being caphill you have lots of typos and grammar issues.

in the first place, he HAS no credibility, posting as we are on a public message board; unless he's saying he's a lawyer on mac's team or something like that, he's just another joe like the rest of us. secondly, i merely stated that a person's posts will be better received if they are well-written. thirdly, i admitted it was a catty remark that had no place on this thread. once again, i wasn't quoting one of your posts or talking to you, so what the hell do you care?

lmao, yeah, like she said kristen and kimberly were both boys. be sure and also post how she recanted her "confession" after being treated for schizophrenia.

In the 70's it was difficult to tell little girls and little boys apart since many little boys had long hair like their daddy's. Cathy Perry statements might well be questioned since she was known as a druggie who was also schizophrenic. Who knows what she would say or do in her madness. It is known that she had no problems when riled with taking a knife and stabbing away. She stabbed her boyfriend in his sleep and she repeating stabbed her puppy to pulp.

Since Murtagh is not a known schizophrenic or a druggie how can we explain away his statements that he presents as facts in his briefs to the appellate courts that are out right false or a figment of his imagination.

He uses Helena Stoeckely's statements that one of the assailants craved a "S" pattern in the chest of Kristen as an example of her inconsistency with the physical evidence. The appellate court gave him more credit for truth than he should have been given. Did he knowingly lie to the Court or had he never read the autopsy from the pathologist.

The autopsy clearly states that the penertrating lesions were in an elongated "S" pattern on Kristin's chest.

How in the h*ell did Helena know there was a "S" pattern on Kristen's chest?

caphill

03-06-2006, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by JTF
The handwritten letters by Jeffrey MacDonald are hardly new or private. Robert Sam Anson wrote about those very same letters in his 1998 Vanity Fair article. I wonder if Kathryn asked Christina for permission to post her letter on MacDonald's website? The chances of that are slim and Slim left town. The real issue, however, involves the significance of the evidence collected at the crime scene. The simple fact of the matter is that MacDonald gave his story, it didn't come close to squaring with the story that the physical evidence told, and that huge disparity resulted in a North Carolina jury convicting MacDonald in less than 7 hours.

JTF.

Where can the lab analysis on the beige boots given to Kearns and Ivory be found. Nance and Ms Garcia recalled seeing a brown stain. Kearna and Ivory say no stains linked to the murder scene.

Nance and Ms. Garcia said they gave boots and stained clothes. Kearns and Ivory said boots only . Is that another lab analysis report that has been forever lost?

Lab reports missing, fingerprints lost and photos thrown away, skin under Colette's fingernail lost, 22-24 inch synthetic blond strands not reported, numerous fibers not reported, hair brushs omitted from reports, false bood testimony, beige boots given back with no report of the analysis. That is just what has been uncovered. How much is there that can not be found or proven to have existed? CID having coffee parties in the kitchen before the finger print and blood arrived.

There is not enough singing to the choir on this thread to ever excuse or defend likely the most inept crime scene investigation ever known.

The more I read the more I consider beyond base ineptitude was a deliberate concerted attempt to avoid a real investigation of the drug culture at Ft. Bragg.

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Since Murtagh is not a known schizophrenic or a druggie how can we explain away his statements that he presents as facts in his briefs to the appellate courts that are out right false or a figment of his imagination.

He uses Helena Stoeckely's statements that one of the assailants craved a "S" pattern in the chest of Kristen as an example of her inconsistency with the physical evidence.Where did Murtagh claim that this pattern did not exist?

And why did the defense at trial not question Hancock in depth on this, if it was so important, Cappy?

Even at the Article 32, the defense didn't seem to think this was any big issue. Here's the sum total of the defense questioning on this:

Q All five were superficial? Then you described twelve additional circular wounds. Were they also superficial?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you said that they were in, what you described as an S pattern on the right chest?
A That’s correct.

MR. EISMAN: I have no further questions.

How in the h*ell did Helena know there was a "S" pattern on Kristen's chest?On what date did Helena say this? Was it before or after trial?

And how in the h*ell did MacDonald ever think he'd get away with those silly stories about "intruders" when hundreds of evidentiary items pointed directly to him and not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to point to "intruders"??

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Where can the lab analysis on the beige boots given to Kearns and Ivory be found.You might try looking on the murderer's website. Since Mac claims the boots picked up blood from the crimes, he should have some kind of factual document there which proves what he's saying. Good luck in finding that.
Nance and Ms. Garcia said they gave boots and stained clothes. Kearns and Ivory said boots only .My goodness, Cappy, your reading and/or comprehension skills seem to be deteriorating. In your review of the records, didn't you see that Mac's own lawyer signed off on the receipt and that no clothing is listed?Lab reports missing, fingerprints lost and photos thrown away, skin...blond strands...numerous fibers...That is just what has been uncovered.A fiber from Mac's pajamas under his baby daughter's fingernail, more fibers under the victims' bodies and in the bedclothing, fibers from his pajamas on the murder weapon, holes in his pajama top which match holes in Colette's chest, no fibers or blood found where he claims his top was torn and he was stabbed; his bloody footprint in Colette's blood exiting (but not entering) Kristen's room...oh, my, so many MANY pieces of evidence, somewhere around 1100 evidentiary items produced at trial and that was only 60% of what the government had against Mac. That is just what has been uncovered. I'm sure we'll learn even more as time goes by and more trial transcripts and other documents are posted.

Of course, when it becomes apparent, as it did to the jury, that Mac himself repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his own guilt, that sure helps to wrap things up pretty neatly, doesn't it. No wonder the jury convicted him in such a short time and that in all these many years since he was convicted not one of his many lawyers has even come close to overturning those verdicts.

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
The only evidentiary item that points to...MacDonald is that he was in the apartment on the night of the MacDonald murders.LOL! Oh, Bertie. You just get sillier and sillier with every post.

The evidence against MacDonald was so incredibly voluminous and overwhelming that it's amazing that the jury took even six hours to convict him.

You really ought to begin telling the truth, Bertie, since you're only making things worse for yourself by lying so much.

He was knocked unconscious while he was asleep, on a couch, by intruders, with what appeared to be baseball bats and ice picks.No, he wasn't. It was shown that his absurd stories about this were pure and outright lies, and that he lied about many, many other things as well. How nice to know that the jury saw through his ludicrous stories and that he remains in prison to this day for the horrendous and brutal crimes he committed.Why the American public and CID and FBI seem unable to understand this I do not know.Most likely it's because it's not true.There was a blue acrylic fiber found in Colette's hand that even Murtagh was unable to match to the pajama top.I guess you've forgotten again, Bertie...unsourced items are common to every household, in fact they're so common that they're often not even reported. I guess you've also forgotten that Mac did argue to the jury that unsourced items pointed to the intruders, but the jury didn't buy it. Too bad for you, eh?

stinkerbelle

03-06-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

A judge, or Congressional inquiry, needs to act drastically against the corruption scandals and inefficiency at the CID and FBI.
be sure and drop your congressman a line; i'm sure they'll get right on that.

There are professional policemen, not just eccentric journalists and lawyers, who believe the Stoeckley witchcraft gang, and not Dr MacDonald, did the MacDonald murders.

what "professional policemen" would those be? names please.

caphill

03-06-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Where did Murtagh claim that this pattern did not exist?

And why did the defense at trial not question Hancock in depth on this, if it was so important, Cappy?

Even at the Article 32, the defense didn't seem to think this was any big issue. Here's the sum total of the defense questioning on this:

Q All five were superficial? Then you described twelve additional circular wounds. Were they also superficial?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you said that they were in, what you described as an S pattern on the right chest?
A That’s correct.

MR. EISMAN: I have no further questions.

On what date did Helena say this? Was it before or after trial?

And how in the h*ell did MacDonald ever think he'd get away with those silly stories about "intruders" when hundreds of evidentiary items pointed directly to him and not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to point to "intruders"??

Without going back to research I can't give you the date Stoeckley added that bit info. I know is was after the trial and I think it was one of visits to SC in the spring before she died.

I can understand little of no significance being placed on the original disclosure of the "S" pattern on Kristen's chest. Therefore, it was not something discussed in the papers or at the trial.

When Stocekley mentions 11-12 years later that one of the assailants craved a "S' pattern on Kristin's chest it then became signigicant.

Murtagh argument in his brief against Stoeckely's credibility uses that statement of what she said as being in contrast to the known physical evidence . That is false. The autopsy report for Kristen clearly stated the lesions were in an elongated "S" pattern. Stocekely gave new info in years after the fact that had never been publicly disclosed or discussed .

Stoeckely would not have known about the "S" pattern unless she put the pattern there or one of the assailants told her they punched out a "S" on Kristen's chest. Kristin was found in her bed, in her pj's, soaked in blood. The original investigators, the medics and all others who saw Kristen before the autopsy would not have seen this pattern. Only the pathologist who undressed her and cleaned her up would have been able to see the pattern.

caphill

03-06-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
LOL! Oh, Bertie. You just get sillier and sillier with every post.

The evidence against MacDonald was so incredibly voluminous and overwhelming that it's amazing that the jury took even six hours to convict him.

You really ought to begin telling the truth, Bertie, since you're only making things worse for yourself by lying so much.

No, he wasn't. It was shown that his absurd stories about this were pure and outright lies, and that he lied about many, many other things as well. How nice to know that the jury saw through his ludicrous stories and that he remains in prison to this day for the horrendous and brutal crimes he committed.Most likely it's because it's not true.I guess you've forgotten again, Bertie...unsourced items are common to every household, in fact they're so common that they're often not even reported. I guess you've also forgotten that Mac did argue to the jury that unsourced items pointed to the intruders, but the jury didn't buy it. Too bad for you, eh?

I don' think think too many Americans or anyone else would think a 22-24 inch blond synthetic hair strands were common items likely found in any household. I don't think any reasonable juror, policman, attorney, judge or anyone else would find unsourced fibers on the murder weapon and on the mouth of the deceased as unimportant. Unsourced hair or fibers on the body and in the hand of a murdered victim is not normally disregarded as insignificant in a murder investiagtion. Just in this "one" case.

The jury found MacDonald guilty of murdering his family because the prosecution argued if there had been intruders there should have been some forensics traces .e. hairs, fibers etc.

It took years, but now we know there was foreign fibers, hairs on and around the bodies and on one of the murder weapons. So much for that argument of negative evidence of intruders. This "negative evidence" that has surfaced over the years is proof positive that Murtagh has some "splaining" to do

caphill

03-06-2006, 06:14 PM

JTF

03-06-2006, 07:11 PM

Caphill: Stoeckley did not bring forth personal knowledge of the S-shaped pattern found on Kristen's chest, she was asked about that pattern by Ted Gunderson, and she told Gunderson that the pattern was a symbol for Satan. The utter ridiculousness of that scenario demonstrates the lengths that you're willing to go to in advocating for Jeffie Boy. You blather on and on about the lack of thoroughness by the CID and the FBI, yet you have no problem with the dubious information contained in Gunderson's report on Stoeckley. In regards to the physical evidence collected at the crime scene, it told a specific story, yet you say otherwise. What specific story does the evidence tell you? In relation to the physical evidence, what were some of the movements of the 5, 6, or is it 7 intruder suspects? I've posed this question to many a groupie over the last 2 years, and not 1 of them has even made a cursory attempt to answer that very simple question. I know you won't answer it, but I always enjoy throwing it out there.

JTF.

spurs01

03-06-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by caphill

The great disparity between what was collected at the crime scene and what was shown to the jury resulted in a guilty verdict.

That is a simple matter of fact.

Thank you for putting into such simple words what I've tried (and obviously failed) to convey about my feelings regarding this case and, in particular, the evidence revealed at trial.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I know what the appellate courts said. And I still disagree. I guess the burden shifts on appeal, eh? And I bet Judge Dupree knew just that.

I'm not comfortable with the case, specifically with regard to the evidence that wasn't disclosed during the discovery process.

I'm out for a few days. Personal family issues to deal with. Will be back when I can. Thanks for the conversation, and (mostly) non-offensive, non-condescending debate.

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
I'm not comfortable with the case, specifically with regard to the evidence that wasn't disclosed during the discovery process.But I asked a couple of times what is this specific evidence that you claim was not disclosed and which you think is so important that it makes you "uncomfortable" about the case, and you didn't name anything specific. But you still use the phrase "specifically with regard to the evidence that wasn't disclosed..." So I'm confused. Are we going 'round in circles here...? What specific evidence makes you uncomfortable?

Perhaps we'll see an answer when you return from your hiatus.

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Stoeckley did not bring forth personal knowledge of the S-shaped pattern found on Kristen's chest, she was asked about that pattern by Ted GundersonHey, JTF, refresh my memory, please: Was that in 1980 or 1982 or...?

JTF

03-06-2006, 08:18 PM

Spurs: You don't have to be a master mathematician to understand that there is no great disparity between the evidence presented at trial and the evidence obtained via FOIA. There were over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the government at the 1979 trial and, according to Brian Murtagh, that was about 60 percent of what the government has in the FBI's evidentiary lock-up. Compare that to the number of evidentiary items that the defense could have presented at trial. Twelve body/limb
hairs, 5 dark woolen fibers, 3 saran fibers, 2 hair fragments found under the girl's fingernails, and a blue acrylic fiber. That is it. If you believe that these 22 evidentiary items would have resulted in Jeffrey MacDonald being found innocent at trial, I've got a bridge I could sell you. Unlike most of the government's evidentiary items, all 22 items can be explained away in about 30 seconds.

1) Body/limb hairs and hair fragments cannot be compared under a microscope.

2) Jeffrey MacDonald discarded most of the clothing items inside 544 Castle Drive shortly after the Article 32 hearing. MacDonald acknowledged this during his 1971 interview with Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett.

3) Jeffrey MacDonald also got rid of his daughter's doll collections and the saran fibers differed in chemical composition indicating multiple sources. Helena Stoeckley would then have ended any significance one could attribute to these saran fibers when she testified at trial that she wasn't wearing her wig on February 17, 1970.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by caphill
The great disparity between what was collected at the crime scene and what was shown to the jury resulted in a guilty verdict.

That is a simple matter of fact.Sorry, but it isn't.

As the government wrote: "[MacDonald] was convicted because the physical evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the only possible criminal agent, and because the physical evidence when coupled with his conflicting account of intruders and his attempts to disassociate himself from the instrumentalities and other trace evidence of the crime, was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury's verdict."

JTF

03-06-2006, 08:28 PM

Bunny: It's obvious that I'm not a master mathematician because the final evidentiary count should be 23, not 22. Yikes! Stoeckley's response to Gunderson's inquiry about the wound pattern in Kristen's chest was in 1981 or 1982. In 1980, Stoeckley hadn't hit her stride in terms of the satanic cult nonsense, but with Gunderson's help, she took off in 1981. I don't have Fatal Justice in front of me, but if memory serves, I believe Bost/Potter make reference to when Stoeckley made her claim that the S-shaped pattern stood for Satan.

JTF.

stinkerbelle

03-06-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
But I asked a couple of times what is this specific evidence that you claim was not disclosed and which you think is so important that it makes you "uncomfortable" about the case, and you didn't name anything specific. But you still use the phrase "specifically with regard to the evidence that wasn't disclosed..." So I'm confused. Are we going 'round in circles here...? What specific evidence makes you uncomfortable?

Perhaps we'll see an answer when you return from your hiatus.
don't feel bad, bunny. i asked the same question and got zip too.

spurs01

03-06-2006, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

don't feel bad, bunny. i asked the same question and got zip too.

Feel free to "bump" this post.

You know, the "hiatus" remark was uncalled for. My Dad (66 y.o.) is in a nursing home after a stroke and not doing well. So my hiatus, or however you spell it, is well deserved, thanks very much.

You don't think ALL of the fiber evidence should have been disclosed? You don't the fact that the MP's messed up and contaminated the crime scene should have been disclosed ? You don't think the skin under Colette's fingernail (suspicioucly lost) should have been disclosed at TRIAL??? (and I'm ex-US Army; know well how inept MP's can be). And I mean, at TRIAL, not on appeal. You're comfortable with that? Then, again, I hope YOU are never in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope if you are ever a victim of mistaken identity (any of you, and I truly hope you are not) YOUR attorney would push for the most LIBERAL of discovery. In other words.. hidden evidence is not allowed. I work for a defense firm (civil). I know the drill. But we do NOT hide things. We produce (hospital records), call bell records, nurses' notes, etc. We disclose everything except privileged documents. How are fibers privileged. We also do products liability defense. We disclose the truth in what we have that is not privileged.

Some of you seem to think that it's "okay" to hide evidence. Yes, OJ got acquitted... and it was all disclosed there. And I think he was guilty. Difference in this case? It wasn't disclosed. You know it, and you want to nit-pick me to death about it, when you know exactly what I am talking about.

I don't frankly think I should have to get into specifics here, because the anti-Macs have their theory, which a jury agreed with. I will say this: I have reasonable doubt. And I'm willing to entertain that others also may have doubt. Ya'll are not, it seems. Thought this was a forum for fair debate, differing opinions, but it's a rehash of the same stuff. He was there, he lived, he must've done it.

Now, I DO have to go. My vacation won't be long, and won't be much of a vacation. My Dad is very sick. So, your little snide remarks about a "hiaitus" (again, spelling is suspect), will slide by me for now.

So much for civility, and keep up with your smug little ways. I thought this would be a fair debate, but it's nothing but "Oh, I'm so right" because the gov't said so.

I'm off to deal with paperwork regarding a sick father. Peace and my best to you all.

JTF

03-06-2006, 11:05 PM

Spurs: I've heard your argument all too often the past 2 years. I'll give you this, at least you stated that you don't have to, "get into specifics," which is better than completely ignoring the question. Shouldn't there come a time, however, when the rubber meets the road in this case? When you claim that if the jury had known that 5 woolen fibers were found at 544 Castle Drive, the 1979 trial would have been greatly effected, doesn't such a claim require an explanation? I don't think it is unfair for people on this board to ask you how this evidence applies to an intruder timeline or why the jury would have ignored the mountain of evidence that pointed directly towards MacDonald as the lone killer of his family.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-06-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
You know, the "hiatus" remark was uncalled for.??? What?? A hiatus is simply a gap, an interruption in time; time away from whatever you were doing. Why do you read that I meant something sinister by it?You don't think ALL of the fiber evidence should have been disclosed?Of course not. Who wants to spend hours or days listening to repeated rundowns of unsourced items that are so common to every household that they're not forensically significant?? And even disregarding that, MacD did argue to the jury that unsourced items pointed to intruders, but the jury rejected his arguments. Not to mention the fact that there is not a single unsourced item which would have eradicated all that incredibly overwhelming evidence that showed conclusively that MacD was the murderer.

It is the sourced items that are forensically significant, not unsourced ones, and the jury understood that the sourced items (as well as much other evidence) was enough to erase any reasonable doubt that anyone but Mac committed the crimes.You don't the fact that the MP's messed up and contaminated the crime scene should have been disclosed ? Haven't you read the Art. 32 and trial transcripts? No medic, MP or investigator was responsible for making Mac step in his wife's blood in Kristen's room and leave his bloody footprints exiting that room; no medic, MP or investigator put 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in Mac's pj top which matched the holes in Colette's chest; no medic, MP or investigator put Mac's pajama fibers on the murder weapon or entwined with his wife's bloody hair or in the bedclothing or under his baby daughter's fingernail, and not one of those people forced the murderer to demonstrate consciousness of his guilt in these crimes.You don't think the skin under Colette's fingernail (suspicioucly lost) should have been disclosed...???First of all, you don't know whether it was skin or not, do you? And secondly, as the court noted, if it had been skin and had not been lost, the evidence shows that most likely would have been shown to be Mac's own skin, from where Colette dug her nails into him as she tried to prevent him from murdering her.I hope if you are ever a victim of mistaken identity (any of you, and I truly hope you are not) YOUR attorney would push for the most LIBERAL of discovery. In other words.. hidden evidence is not allowed. I work for a defense firm (civil). I know the drill. But we do NOT hide things. We produce (hospital records), call bell records, nurses' notes, etc. We disclose everything except privileged documents. How are fibers privileged. We also do products liability defense. We disclose the truth in what we have that is not privileged.Gee, maybe you should contact Bernie and give him some lawyer lessons. I guess he didn't know any of that when he filed his motions to suppress evidence.I don't frankly think I should have to get into specifics here, because the anti-Macs have their theory, which a jury agreed with.I frankly think that you won't get into specifics because you can't, since nothing that has been learned since the trial would likely have made one whit of difference in the outcome.He was there, he lived, he must've done it.Of course there was much, much more to it than that. Mac left so much evidence of his brutal deeds, and there was no forensic evidence to support his stories of "intruders," that the jury simply had no choice but to come to the correct conclusion that he indeed was the murderer of his family.

JTF

03-07-2006, 12:15 AM

Bunny: Excellent post. I feel fortunate that at this point in the game, I don't get frustrated when MacDonald advocates refuse to provide an intruder timeline based on the evidence collected at the crime scene. Two years ago, I would shake my head in disgust, but now I accept the fact that you can't answer the unanswerable. Differences in chemical composition of all the vital evidentiary items presented by the MacDonald camp, is the first of many logistical hurdles one has to jump over before a psuedo-coherent intruder timeline can be debated.

JTF.

stinkerbelle

03-07-2006, 01:01 AM

just curious, regarding the "skin" found under colette's fingernail...since technically it did not exist at trial, could it be introduced into evidence? if not, perhaps this is why the prosecution did not mention it at trial. did bernie bring it up?

i remember in the movie presumed innocent (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100404/) there was a similar scenario....a glass with the defendant's prints was found at the crime scene but since the police had lost the glass, the judge wouldn't allow any mention of it at trial. i realize this is just a movie, but the book the movie was based on was written by a lawyer, so i was just wondering if that scenario was realistic or not.

and i'm sorry, i had to laugh at the idea the "skin" was "suspicioucly [sic] lost". we keep reading here that the lab techs were just a bunch of under-trained bungling fools, so why should it seem suspicious that they might lose something?

spurs, i hope all goes well with your father :)

caphill

03-07-2006, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hey, JTF, refresh my memory, please: Was that in 1980 or 1982 or...?

Read the New Uploads on Christina's site. Brian Murtagh's 51 page brief.

He gives date as May 1982 that Helena embellished her previous statements to include the statement that someone craved a "S'" pattern on Kristen's chest.

I guess Brian never read the autopsy report or he would not have put up such a fuss that nothing Helena said was trustworthy and matched any physical evidence from the crime scene.

It will be interesting to read the government's defense of the allegations in MacDonald's Dec 2005 motion.

audpaud

03-07-2006, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by JTF
In regards to the physical evidence collected at the crime scene, it told a specific story, yet you say otherwise. What specific story does the evidence tell you? In relation to the physical evidence, what were some of the movements of the 5, 6, or is it 7 intruder suspects? I've posed this question to many a groupie over the last 2 years, and not 1 of them has even made a cursory attempt to answer that very simple question. I know you won't answer it, but I always enjoy throwing it out there.

JTF.

Now THAT question is what I'm talking about!!!:beer:

How 'bout it supporters . . . any takers on this most excellent question?:read:

I'd also like to know if any of the supporters took a quick peak at the autopsy pics on Christina's site? If so, is there ANY question that ole macdonald would/should have been waaaaaay more injured by the 4 thru 8 intruders????:shrug:

Bunny2

03-07-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Frankly, I regard it as a silly question by JTF to ask posters on this forum about the movements of the Stoeckley killer gang on the night of the MacDonald murders. It's not our job.Their movements are well documented, and the evidence of their movements was never presented at the 1979 MacDonald trial.There was no forensic evidence whatosever to support Mac's stories of "intruders," and no "Stoeckley killer gang" ever existed.It wasn't...MacDonald's fault that he only suffered from a collapsed lung and concussion.
Mac didn't have a concussion. And his little pneumothorax was caused by him stabbing himself with a scalpel.I blame Murtagh for the wrongful imprisonment of [the murderer].There was no wrongful imprisonment. Thank goodness Murtagh was so dedicated to this case and that he did such a good job in helping to bring the murderer to justice.Murtagh hid the exculpatory forensic evidence, which is illegal under the Brady law.False. Brady was not violated in this case, as you knew before you posted this again.I also blame the FBI.The FBI didn't have a thing to do with MacD leaving his pajama fibers under his baby daughter's fingernail when he murdered her. Nor did they have anything to do with his leaving his bloody footprints in Colette's blood as he exited Kristen's room, carrying Colette in the sheet. Nor did they have anything to do with any of the rest of the overwhelming evidence which showed MacDonald's guilt. Read the records.The judge in the MacDonald case was biased. He didn't give the appearance of impartiality. The prosecutors were dishonest, and the jury was prejudiced.False. The courts found that MacD thought he got a fair trial, and also found that Dupree conducted the case without error, and that no errors were made by the prosecution. Read the records.The problem now for [the murderer], as I see it, is that Murtagh now holds a senior position in the Justice Department., It needs somebody "muscular" to put him in his place and tell him that he simply can't go on like this.Actually, the real problem is MacD himself. He left so much incriminating evidence of his crimes, and in the months and years that followed repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his guilt in those crimes, and he simply cannot keep his big mouth shut. He needs somebody "muscular" to put him in his place and tell him he simply can't go on like this. He needs to tell the truth about the night he murdered his family, and stop telling so many lies about the innocent Helena Stoeckley and her friends.

Bunny2

03-07-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by caphill
He gives date as May 1982 that Helena embellished her previous statements to include the statement that someone craved a "S'" pattern on Kristen's chest.So I guess your question to the effect of "how in the h*ll did Stoeckley know about this...?" has been answered for you. It was brought up at the Art. 32 and at trial and of course Mac had the autopsy reports to give to Gunderson long before Helena ever made mention of this.

audpaud

03-07-2006, 01:18 PM

audpaud

03-07-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
. . . He left so much incriminating evidence of his crimes, and in the months and years that followed repeatedly demonstrated consciousness of his guilt in those crimes, and he simply cannot keep his big mouth shut . . .

. . . He needs somebody "muscular" to put him in his place and tell him he simply can't go on like this. He needs to tell the truth about the night he murdered his family, and stop telling so many lies about the innocent Helena Stoeckley and her friends. [/B]

Hi bunny2! It's been awhile since I went on the magical macdonald mystery tour . . . could you post the link again or go thru some of macdonalds conciousness of guilt statements? I remember macdonald repeatedly saying "bed," when his lying ***** meant to say "couch!" Are there many others?:confused:

BTW . . . AMEN to macdonald needing somebody "muscular"!!!! I've often prayed that someone of that description visited him daily in his cell/shower etc!!!

:D

audpaud

03-07-2006, 02:21 PM

OK . . . I'll try to match the evidence . . . how 'bout when Helena got too tired to walk . . . (Thinking "Footprints In The Sand" here!!) macdonald carried her AND Colette from Kimmie's room, thereby leaving his exiting only footprint??????

Yeah, I know a dead Colette and a live Helena would be very heavy . . . but hey . . . it matches the evidence and no weight is too great for your hero, right???:seeya:

JTF

03-07-2006, 02:59 PM

Audpaud: Nice, very nice. Don't you love the statement about the movements of the Stoeckley group being, "well documented." That must be news to Fred Bost because he provides no such timeline in Fatal Justice. In addition, since Stoeckley testified at trial that she has no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970 and that she wasn't wearing her blond wig that night, concocting an intruder timeline is virtually impossible. Chemical composition issues involving many of their evidentiary arguments also can't be explained by MacDonald groupies. Differences in chemical composition with the candle wax, saran fibers, and woolen fibers translates into multiple sources, yet the MacDonald camp has attributed all 3 evidentiary items to only one person. Even MacDonald groupies know how laughable it would be to claim that Helena Stoeckley carried 3 candles, wore 3 wigs, and wore 4 pieces of woolen clothing.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-07-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Christina's website is littered with statements and affidavits by different witnesses who suspected the Stoeckley murderers of involvement in the MacDonald murders.It's also filled with court transcripts and affidavits and declarations and statements which combined with the other evidence showed a jury and appeals courts that Mac himself was the murderer.None of those witnesses presented evidence to the court at the 1979 trial because biased Judge Dupree deemed Helena Stoeckley to be "untrustworthy" and MacDonald North Carolina lawyer Wade Smith lacked the mental skill of aggressive litigation with regard to the Stoeckley matter.Stoeckley testified and so did her friends. Read the records.Judge Dupree and Murtagh described the MacDonald 1979 trial as a fair trial. They would wouldn't they?[quote]Mac's own lawyer said he got a fair trial, and no errors were found to have been made by Judge Dupree or the prosecution (or the defense, for that matter). Read the records.[quote]Three judges of the United States Supreme Court in 1982 described the MacDonald case as one of "strained logic and judicial illusion."Are these three of the same judges who denied Mac's appeal?Dupree must have had zilch knowledge about forensics.Actually, in reading your posts the past few months, I think it's apparent that you're the one who knows zilch about forensics. Are you perhaps projecting onto Dupree for your lack of knowledge and lack of comprehension skills?Stombaugh of the FBI lab was never one of the foremost forensic experts in America.Funny, then, that Thornton agreed with him.There is an interesting letter about so-called forensic experts...There is much more interesting information on CM's website which includes the prosecution's expert forensic witnesses and which shows why the jury came to the correct conclusion that MacD was the murderer of his family.

Bunny2

03-07-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
[The murderer] says he didn't carry the bodies anywhere and there is no evidence that he did carry, or move, any of the bodies from room to room.The murderer was shown to have been lying, and the evidence was more than enough to show a jury that he did indeed move the bodies of Colette and Kim.I still maintain that there is no real evidence that Kim was ever in the master bedroom.That's because for some reason you seem to enjoy pretending ignorance of the fact that her brain serum and blood was found there, and that quite a bit of other evidence shows that MacDonald bludgeoned her there and then carried her back to her bed and smashed her head in again and stabbed her repeatedly. Read the records.[The murderer] never denied that the bloody footprint could be his.And oh, my, how that one bit of evidence helped to seal his fate, since of course it showed that contrary to his stories of being asleep on the sofa, he was actually bludgeoning Colette in Kristen's room and then made the fateful mistake of leaving his bloody footprints in Colette's blood as he carried Colette from the room. The only doubts about the matter come from posters who haven't bothered to read the records, or who pretend to ignore them.

Bunny2

03-07-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
Hi bunny2! It's been awhile since I went on the magical macdonald mystery tour . . . could you post the link again or go thru some of macdonalds conciousness of guilt statements?Sure, aud - here you go:

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

BTW . . . AMEN to macdonald needing somebody "muscular"!!!! I've often prayed that someone of that description visited him daily in his cell/shower etc!!! :D
LOL! Good one, aud! heehee

But you know, seriously now, I've often wondered if this is one of the reasons Mac supposedly is withdrawn and stays mostly to himself in prison. I've read that even cons detest men who kill women and children, and I'll bet there is more than one con there who wouldn't mind making a name for himself by trying to knock off MacD. I wonder if Mac has any big burly bodyguard-boyfriends in there to protect him...if so, does he pay them out of defense fund money, or does he pay them in...uhhh....other ways...?

Whooeee, I'd better stop. The mental pictures now forming in my head are not pretty. Ugh.

Bunny2

03-07-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Differences in chemical composition with the candle wax, saran fibers, and woolen fibers translates into multiple sources, yet the MacDonald camp has attributed all 3 evidentiary items to only one person. Even MacDonald groupies know how laughable it would be to claim that Helena Stoeckley carried 3 candles, wore 3 wigs, and wore 4 pieces of woolen clothing.Well, at least most of them do, JTF! Obviously Bertie believes this, but at least most other supporters seem to have brains enough not to.

Good posts from you and aud and others here...I'm definitely enjoying the read. :)

stinkerbelle

03-07-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

But you know, seriously now, I've often wondered if this is one of the reasons Mac supposedly is withdrawn and stays mostly to himself in prison. I've read that even cons detest men who kill women and children, and I'll bet there is more than one con there who wouldn't mind making a name for himself by trying to knock off MacD. I wonder if Mac has any big burly bodyguard-boyfriends in there to protect him...if so, does he pay them out of defense fund money, or does he pay them in...uhhh....other ways...?

Whooeee, I'd better stop. The mental pictures now forming in my head are not pretty. Ugh.
uh yeah, with those nasty letters he wrote, i don't need anymore nasty pictures in my head lol!

i think he probably stays to himself more because he feels he is so much better than the average inmate. i also think he plays up to the guards because they are the ones who can do things for him, not the other inmates. that in itself might make the other inmates avoid him, rather than it being the other way around.

stinkerbelle

03-07-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

All these witnesses noticed suspicious activities by the Stoeckley thugs, and madwomen,...

omg stop, my room's too small for me to roll around laughing!

stinkerbelle

03-07-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

Murtagh was pompous, arrogant, and dour Irishman.
holy crap, i bet he was a mason too! i'm guessing we'll add the irish to your list of racial attacks.

cami

03-07-2006, 06:54 PM

cami

03-07-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Someone in this thread once asked me (and I paraphrase) "Why don't you start your own website?"

Well, I don't have a website (yet), but I do have a discussion board on another thread.

However, it's pay to play, and the community there isn't really too interested in this case.

So, I did a few weeks ago what someone suggested.

I admire your fervor with regard to this case. I still believe the courts were wrong. You can say "Oh, I'm not a murderer; that'd never happen to me."

Well, it's happened. Innocent folks in jail. DNA proof.

I believe the evidence supression was great. And I am astounded that, in this country, it was allowed. I remain amazed that, upon review, the courts did not allow the evidence in. That's the part I'll never understand. I think he's not guilty of these crimes! My "opinion." However, my main point is this: unless ALL of the evidence is heard, shown, disclosed and given the opportunity of rebuttal, how fair of a system is it that we have? THAT'S what I meant by "It could be you." Because it could be.

I will tell ya'll this... if the DNA under anyone's fingernails is proven to be Dr. Mac's? I will eat my own keyboard (I have a chocolate one, actually, a gift from my Mom). However, I am more interested in the Britt Affidavit, and what credence that tidbit may be given.

I showed it one of my bosses (a defense lawyer I've worked for in excess of 20 years). He is not a litigator but used to clerk for a federal judge (years later, his boss, the Judge was assasinated -- no connection, just a comment). I showed it to the other lawyer (a med-mal defense litigator). They both said the Britt thing could be explosive.

Even years later. I will watch how this plays out. Let me tell you one other thing. I have seen the autopsy pictures, read much of this, and whoever did this is a monster. Many of us will disagree s to who did this horrific crime.

But I think of the victims, a lot. No one deserves such an end.

Peace.

When if ever are you going to state what evidence was "greatly suppressed" We are all waiting to take you seriously on this. What do you do with the overwhelming evidence proving his guilt? Just throw it out? If you've read the appeals, court decisions every time, you would learn that the suppression of evidence question has been asked and answered many times. The courts found none. Why do you think you know more than the appeals courts or the SC justices? Are you on the bench?
What legal reason would you have for granting an appeal?

The Britt affidavit explosive??? Well any defence attorney will say the same thing wouldn't they? They could care less if their clients are guilty as long as their rights are protected.

cami

03-07-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

lmbo, pot meet kettle! (my own italics added)

why don't you just post the link to the new uploads (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/new_uploads.html) page so everyone can read all the fun things uploaded? especially the disgusting letters in which your dear mac refers to sexual encounters in the attorney's room :no:

hahahah those links were a riot. So the man who ended up being a juror had an opinion prior to the trial. I bet most of america did. So what? Presumption of innocence attaches only at trial, not in the court of public opinion.

cami

03-07-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by caphill

I don' think think too many Americans or anyone else would think a 22-24 inch blond synthetic hair strands were common items likely found in any household. I don't think any reasonable juror, policman, attorney, judge or anyone else would find unsourced fibers on the murder weapon and on the mouth of the deceased as unimportant. Unsourced hair or fibers on the body and in the hand of a murdered victim is not normally disregarded as insignificant in a murder investiagtion. Just in this "one" case

Even though it's quite clear that Colette MacDonald is wearing "falls" in some of the photos taken of her. Falls or hair pieces of the 1960's/70's made of saran, you don't think too many American homes contained them? Think again. Many American women, in fact women all over the world wore falls and wigs in the 60's and '70's. I know I did.

Why weren't Helena's fingerprints found on those hairbrushes if she was there brushing her wig? Oh I know she was wearing gloves right?

Unsourced hairs and fibres are found at most murder scenes. They are ordinary household debris. We all transfer hair daily. The club was wet with blood and on the carpet, it picked up fibres and hair. The same goes for Colette, she was placed face down in a bloody condition on the MB shag carpet. she didn't sanitize her home that day. It would have been more suspicious had she not picked up hair and fibre don't you think?

The jury found MacDonald guilty of murdering his family because the prosecution argued if there had been intruders there should have been some forensics traces .e. hairs, fibers etc.

The jury found MacDonald guilty on the factual evidence of his guilt, which was overwhelming, presented at trial and nothing more.

It took years, but now we know there was foreign fibers, hairs on and around the bodies and on one of the murder weapons. So much for that argument of negative evidence of intruders. This "negative evidence" that has surfaced over the years is proof positive that Murtagh has some "splaining" to do

I think you need to take a basic forensics course. Murtagh has nothing to explain. He presented the evidentiary items at trial that prove MacDonald is guilty as sin. A few unsourced hairs do not intruders make. Any CSI will tell you the same thing. Do some research instead of stating unequivically there was suppressed or negative evidence. The courts have answered, seven times. Murtagh 7, MacDonald 0

cami

03-07-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

In a way I think the Queen of London and the London Olympics could have done more to put matters right. I don't think Prince Charles would be much help because he probably still thinks Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a damn fine chap. The UK government and political intelligence officers seem to be too busy covering up their own cancer of corruption at the moment, and the electronic eavesdropping public scandals, to be bothered about the MacDonald case. [/B]

"the Queen of London" aaaaahahahahahaha

Jeez I almost wet myself laughing.... Only goes to show you are no more British than I am and I'm one quarter. Queen Elizabeth II is queen of the UK and the Commonwealth countries. That means she's mine, Canada's queen. Do you even know what the UK is?

So what if PC thinks Mugabee is a fine chap? Prince Charles is nothing but a prince of the realm. He has no government affiliation and is not involved in the government of the country or politics.

And why should the UK give a rat's ***** about MacDonald. He's nothing to them, he's an American. The UK has it's own killers to worry about. He's just an insignificant, ordinary, brutal American killer. They're a dime a dozen in the US.

cami

03-07-2006, 08:23 PM

caphill

03-07-2006, 08:57 PM

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979-07-31_argument.html

There is a number of very interesting things in that Agrument to Motions that are a matter of court record.

Firstly, it shows the Government introduced the subject of Helena
Stoeckely's and her fingerprints that were IDed by Medlin.

Murtagh argues that were introduced to show Helena was not at the scene. These court records of the discussion goes on to establish........The Government has said to Medlin "Have you checked for the fingerprints of Helena Stoeckely to see whether you find any. He said "No".

Murtagh brings forth the info that were fingerprints of Helena with the inference that is evidence that Helena was not in the MacDoanld house. When Medlin is questioned if he checked the fingerprints at the house to see if any were Helena's his answer is "no." Guess that answers the guestion of whether the fingerprints of Helena were ever checked against the fingerprints
at the crime scene.

There is anothre statement by Murtagh that could pose a real problem for him in his defense against the allegations of Brit that Helena charged her testimony about her memory of being in the house. These words out of Murtagh's mouth in the court record shows he knew previous to Helena testimony that she believed she had been there.

Murtagh: "I would represent to the court that I have spoken to Helena Stoeckely in years past and-----you know--- you say "Well, why do you think you were there". And she says "Because I think I was there." You know you go around in circles on that one.

Murtagh admits he personally had spoken to Helena and admits she told him she believes she was there. Helena has a surprised loss of memory after her meeting with Blackburn. Britt has been vilified for coming forth to say he heard Helena tell Blackburn she remembered parts of things she saw in the house. If she freely told Murtagh that info earlier what makes one think she didn't tell Blacksburn the same story.

Were there notes or tapes of the interview from Murtagh. If not why not?

If I were convinced Helena was lying about her bits and pieces of memory of that night, I would have welcomed her to the stand and then proceeded to tear her testimony to ribbons. Murtagh fought tooth and nail to keep her and her testimony away from the jury. He fought most of his battles for years, but it is now a new day. Can't wait to see how he defends the against these newest set of accusations of supression and intiminated.

stinkerbelle

03-07-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Can't wait to see how he defends the against these newest set of accusations of supression and intiminated.
what newest set of accusations of supression [sic]? the only motion on the table is the britt thing, which is his contention that blackburn threatened helena. i have no idea what "intiminated" is so can't comment on that one.

stinkerbelle

03-07-2006, 09:11 PM

caphill

03-08-2006, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

what newest set of accusations of supression [sic]? the only motion on the table is the britt thing, which is his contention that blackburn threatened helena. i have no idea what "intiminated" is so can't comment on that one.

From the motion that was granted by the 4th Circuit and filed in the District Court......

Such a determination requires a court to perform a complete review of the entire panopy of evidence, even that which was previously excluded from the trial. Schlup, supra 867

The habeas court must make its determination concerning the prisoner's innocence in light of all the evidence including that ... tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after trial.

It is more that just Britt's affidavit with his attached polygraph. It opens the door to have the supressed hair, fibers 22-24 inch blond synthetic hair strands, Stoeckely prior statements, the 6 witnesses statements and Mitchell's witness statements of their confessions.

Britt's affivadit is a hard nut to crack. He was a US Marshall retired in good standing, he has passed a polyygraph, there are numerous signed statements from Stoeckely, there are 6 witnesses that she told a similiar story and Murtagh has a court record of his statements that she told him she believe she was a witness at the crime scene, there are a number of affidavits from people to whom Mitchell confessed. All of that is considered in its totality.

audpaud

03-08-2006, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by caphill
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt_1979-07-31_argument.html

There is a number of very interesting things in that Agrument to Motions that are a matter of court record.

Firstly, it shows the Government introduced the subject of Helena
Stoeckely's and her fingerprints that were IDed by Medlin.

Murtagh argues that were introduced to show Helena was not at the scene. These court records of the discussion goes on to establish........The Government has said to Medlin "Have you checked for the fingerprints of Helena Stoeckely to see whether you find any. He said "No".

Murtagh brings forth the info that were fingerprints of Helena with the inference that is evidence that Helena was not in the MacDoanld house. When Medlin is questioned if he checked the fingerprints at the house to see if any were Helena's his answer is "no." Guess that answers the guestion of whether the fingerprints of Helena were ever checked against the fingerprints
at the crime scene.

There is anothre statement by Murtagh that could pose a real problem for him in his defense against the allegations of Brit that Helena charged her testimony about her memory of being in the house. These words out of Murtagh's mouth in the court record shows he knew previous to Helena testimony that she believed she had been there.

Murtagh: "I would represent to the court that I have spoken to Helena Stoeckely in years past and-----you know--- you say "Well, why do you think you were there". And she says "Because I think I was there." You know you go around in circles on that one.

Murtagh admits he personally had spoken to Helena and admits she told him she believes she was there. Helena has a surprised loss of memory after her meeting with Blackburn. Britt has been vilified for coming forth to say he heard Helena tell Blackburn she remembered parts of things she saw in the house. If she freely told Murtagh that info earlier what makes one think she didn't tell Blacksburn the same story.

Were there notes or tapes of the interview from Murtagh. If not why not?

If I were convinced Helena was lying about her bits and pieces of memory of that night, I would have welcomed her to the stand and then proceeded to tear her testimony to ribbons. Murtagh fought tooth and nail to keep her and her testimony away from the jury. He fought most of his battles for years, but it is now a new day. Can't wait to see how he defends the against these newest set of accusations of supression and intiminated.

* . . . strolling onto the board . . . guitar in hand . . . strumming:*

"You know that life is short and talk is cheap
Don't make promises that you can't keep
If you don't like the song I'm singing, just grin and bear it
All I can say is if the shoe fits wear it
If you must keep talking please can you make it rhyme?
Cause your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime!
Cause your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime!
Cause your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime!"

Tx for the reminder of a Great Tune, Ray!:beer:

stinkerbelle

03-08-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by caphill

From the motion that was granted by the 4th Circuit and filed in the District Court......

Such a determination requires a court to perform a complete review of the entire panopy of evidence, even that which was previously excluded from the trial. Schlup, supra 867

The habeas court must make its determination concerning the prisoner's innocence in light of all the evidence including that ... tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after trial.

It is more that just Britt's affidavit with his attached polygraph. It opens the door to have the supressed hair, fibers 22-24 inch blond synthetic hair strands, Stoeckely prior statements, the 6 witnesses statements and Mitchell's witness statements of their confessions.

Britt's affivadit is a hard nut to crack. He was a US Marshall retired in good standing, he has passed a polyygraph, there are numerous signed statements from Stoeckely, there are 6 witnesses that she told a similiar story and Murtagh has a court record of his statements that she told him she believe she was a witness at the crime scene, there are a number of affidavits from people to whom Mitchell confessed. All of that is considered in its totality.
well now, no big shockaroo, but what that portion of mac's brief actually says:

Our Supreme Court has opined that credible claims of constitutional error that have caused the conviction of an innocent person are rare, but that when they are substantiated
by new evidence not presented at trial, that is, when the evidence taken as a whole demonstrates that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a petitioner should be granted relief from his conviction.

Such a determination requires a court to perform a complete review of the entire panoply of evidence, even that which was previously excluded from the trial. As the Court stated in Schlup, supra at 867:

[T]he habeas court must make its determination concerning the prisoner’s innocence in light of all the evidence, including that … tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after trial.

An analysis of innocence under AEDPA also requires that all of the evidence be considered in a successive habeas claim. As set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2244, any analysis of new evidence and innocence must occur in the light of the evidence as a whole. Importantly, Jeff MacDonald has never had the entire panoply of evidence supporting his innocence evaluated as a whole before. Indeed, in light of the new evidence revealed by Jim Britt, this now must be done, and if it is fairly done, will lead to
only one conclusion, i.e. that no reasonable juror could find Jeff MacDonald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

in the first place, quoting something mac says in this case will get you nowhere, as he is the defendant and his opinion does not count. secondly, aren't you jumping the gun a wee bit yet again? your idea that all this evidence suppression will have to be answered by murtagh is made under the assumption the new habeas petition will be granted. the only thing granted so far is mac's ability to file such a petition. :read:

stinkerbelle

03-08-2006, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Dr MacDonald wasn't wearing black wool that night.

jeffrey macdonald was not wearing black wool when the MPs got to his apartment that night, but that does not mean he never wore an item of wool clothing that night or any other night. your only source on this matter is jeffrey macdonald, a proven liar in many facets of this case.

caphill

03-08-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

jeffrey macdonald was not wearing black wool when the MPs got to his apartment that night, but that does not mean he never wore an item of wool clothing that night or any other night. your only source on this matter is jeffrey macdonald, a proven liar in many facets of this case.

That makes a lot of sense, Sherlock. Since MacDonald was using 5 different weapons in his murdering spree, he could well have been changing clothes as he was changing weapons. He could have been swinging with left hand as he was putting on a long blond wig with his right hand.

That was probably him in drag, standing on the corner when Mica drove by. He is so quick at staging a murder scene, he could have sprinted home, threw himself on the floor next to Colette and Mica was never the wiser.

I am assuming he did all of that before he stabbed himself in the lung, slashed himself in the abdomen, and bopped himself in the head with a big stick.

Where's that laughing icon.

JTF

03-08-2006, 11:05 AM

Bert: You agree that Allen Mazzerolle was a mystery? With whom exactly? Yourself? He certainly wasn't a mystery to anyone on the MacDonald defense team, especially when it was confirmed that he was in jail on February 17, 1970. Think about the logic or lack thereof of this scenario: Helena Stoeckley fingers Mazzerolle to narcotics agents, yet he has no problem going with her to partake in a triple homicide of people he doesn't even know. Does that make any sense to you? Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong person/people.

Caphill: There were 5 dark woolen fibers found at the crime scene, 3 on Colette's body, and 2 on the club. Four of the 5 woolen fibers differed in chemical compostion, indicating 4 sources for 5 fibers. Stoeckley did not mention to Ted Gunderson that she wore woolen clothing of any kind on February 17, 1970. She also described to Gunderson in 1981, what others in the group were wearing and again, no mention of woolen clothing.

JTF.

byn63

03-08-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Sure, aud - here you go:

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

LOL! Good one, aud! heehee

But you know, seriously now, I've often wondered if this is one of the reasons Mac supposedly is withdrawn and stays mostly to himself in prison. I've read that even cons detest men who kill women and children, and I'll bet there is more than one con there who wouldn't mind making a name for himself by trying to knock off MacD. I wonder if Mac has any big burly bodyguard-boyfriends in there to protect him...if so, does he pay them out of defense fund money, or does he pay them in...uhhh....other ways...?

Whooeee, I'd better stop. The mental pictures now forming in my head are not pretty. Ugh.

ahaa haa haa haa haa ha haa ha haa haa! I'm with ya on this!:lol:

byn63

03-08-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Bert: You agree that Allen Mazzerolle was a mystery? With whom exactly? Yourself? He certainly wasn't a mystery to anyone on the MacDonald defense team, especially when it was confirmed that he was in jail on February 17, 1970. Think about the logic or lack thereof of this scenario: Helena Stoeckley fingers Mazzerolle to narcotics agents, yet he has no problem going with her to partake in a triple homicide of people he doesn't even know. Does that make any sense to you? Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong person/people.

Caphill: There were 5 dark woolen fibers found at the crime scene, 3 on Colette's body, and 2 on the club. Four of the 5 woolen fibers differed in chemical compostion, indicating 4 sources for 5 fibers. Stoeckley did not mention to Ted Gunderson that she wore woolen clothing of any kind on February 17, 1970. She also described to Gunderson in 1981, what others in the group were wearing and again, no mention of woolen clothing.

JTF.

Another great post JTF! I keep noticing that the promacs love to point out how the CID contaminated the scene. Isn't it convenient that they ALL seem to forget that SOP (standard operating procedures) was to provide assistance to the living even at the expense of the crime scene? Not to mention that Inmate's own special gymnastics with Ken Mica that imho was designed in part to further disturb any evidence in the vicinity of Colette and himself.

Specifically, isn't it most logical to believe that Inmate himself shifted the blue pj top on Colette's body when he began moving and moaning? Tevere clearly states that upon entering the MB Inmate was laying w/his head on Colette's chest and had his arm draped across her. Isn't it also illogical to believe that IF Inmate had truly passed out, he would have landed in the stretched out position in which he was found?:shrug:

caphill

03-08-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Bert: You agree that Allen Mazzerolle was a mystery? With whom exactly? Yourself? He certainly wasn't a mystery to anyone on the MacDonald defense team, especially when it was confirmed that he was in jail on February 17, 1970. Think about the logic or lack thereof of this scenario: Helena Stoeckley fingers Mazzerolle to narcotics agents, yet he has no problem going with her to partake in a triple homicide of people he doesn't even know. Does that make any sense to you? Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong person/people.

Caphill: There were 5 dark woolen fibers found at the crime scene, 3 on Colette's body, and 2 on the club. Four of the 5 woolen fibers differed in chemical compostion, indicating 4 sources for 5 fibers. Stoeckley did not mention to Ted Gunderson that she wore woolen clothing of any kind on February 17, 1970. She also described to Gunderson in 1981, what others in the group were wearing and again, no mention of woolen clothing.

JTF.

The evidence of any dark wool fibers was never put into evidence in the trial court.

Stoeckely never said she killed anyone. She did say Greg Mitchell killed Colette. I have never heard what Stoeckely was wearing except a floppy hat and boots. She said she burned wig so she would not be linked to the murders. Who knows about the boots. The boots collected from Cathy were given back and there is a lab report somewhere that there was nothing on the boots to tie into the murders. Which lab did the exam of the boots. Is that a Kearns an Ivory secret?

Where is the lab report that shows there was no trace evidence
on these boots. Ivory and Kearns were handling the boots, right?

Bunny2

03-08-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by RayC
One crazy thread this. I'm unable to read anything by one loquacious poster here without thinking of an old Mose Allison tune:

You're quoting figures, you're dropping names
You're telling stories, you're playing games ...
If talk was criminal, you'd lead a life of crime
Cause your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime.

This poster can't be serious. I suspect he's just a tiresome troll intent on disrupting any serious discussion here.

But I could be wrong.

Ray Hi, Ray - welcome to the board!

As Cami said, no, you're not wrong. Bertie's been posting under several different names on various boards for months now, and if you go back to last summer's old threads on A&E, you'll see him there as "Albert Webb," posting the same repetitious nonsense that he puts here, with additional references to things like vampires committing the murders, Mick Jagger being involved, "black wool wig fibers" being found in the living room, etc. And be aware: take his "quotes" with a grain of salt, since it was proven in the past that he's misrepresented what was actually said. He's a fraud, no doubt about it, and no one here seems to take him seriously except his other aliases. :)

Bunny2

03-08-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Murtagh fought tooth and nail to keep her and her testimony away from the jury.Oh, really? Why is it that you've conveniently forgotten the exchange that was pointed out to you, several times I believe, showing that the defense didn't want to call her to the stand?

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

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

THE COURT: You do not?

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

Bunny2

03-08-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by caphill
The evidence of any dark wool fibers was never put into evidence in the trial court.It really didn't need to be, since (1) unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, and (2) Mac was permitted to argue to the jury that unsourced items pointed to intruders but the jury rejected that argument. Please write this down if you can't remember it from day to day.Stoeckely never said she killed anyone. She did say Greg Mitchell killed Colette.She also said MacDonald committed the murders. Funny that you pay no attention to that, isn't it.I have never heard what Stoeckely was wearing except a floppy hat and boots. She said she burned wig so she would not be linked to the murders. Who knows about the boots.We do, because Mac himself has told us about them. He claims that the boots were burned, but he claims they were not burned. He claims that the boots were white, but they were also dark brown or black. He says they were darker red and not lighter red. He that they were "light-colored." He also claims that the boots weren't bloody.

So there you have it from his own mouth. Have you written to him to tell him he's lying about all this? If not, why not? If so, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would love to see his reply, if you care to post it.

Bunny2

03-08-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by caphill
That makes a lot of sense, Sherlock. Since MacDonald was using 5 different weapons in his murdering spree, he could well have been changing clothes as he was changing weapons. He could have been swinging with left hand as he was putting on a long blond wig with his right hand.Oh, no, that's not likely at all. What is likely, and what was proven to a jury at trial, is that Mac used a club to bludgeon Colette and Kimberly in the master bedroom, and that he attacked Colette again in Kristen's room, and that he carried Colette back to the master bedroom and also at some point carried Kim back to her bed, where he again smashed her head open and stabbed her. At some point he made the decision to stab Kristen to death and also used the icepick and knife on Kim and Colette in order to make it appear as though multiple weapons meant multiple intruders. He also showed the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes many times, so if you believe there were "intruders" helping him kill his family, please tell us why he has kept this a secret for so long?

Bunny2

03-08-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
In her last interview with Ted Gunderson in 1982, Stoeckley stated that she arrived at 544 Castle Drive wearing a skirt, pants, and a black vest...And the evidence showed that Mac was wearing a pair of old, thin pajamas which became torn in a fight between himself and Colette and that threads and fibers matched to his pajamas were found in many incriminating places. In contrast, not a single thread or fiber from any "intruder's" clothing ever surfaced in the Mac apartment.Eddie McDaniels then lawyered up with a lawyer called James Nance Jr who decided to send the bloody clothes and boots to the Army CID. The CID agents were uninterested in this evidence...False. Agents who are "uninterested" in evidence certainly don't have it tested, do they?This is what the Californian lawyers O'Neill said...But how funny that you deliberately left out what Nance himself said, when he told CID Agents Ivory and Kearns that while there was no apparent connection with the MacDonald murders, and that he was only trying to humor Mrs. Garcia.Murtagh disputes all this by saying none of the clothes and boots were bloody.No clothing was listed on the receipt signed by Mac's own lawyer, as you knew before you posted. That aside, Mac himself said the boots weren't bloody, Bertie. Did you forget about that again?I have never said that black wool fibers were found in the living room...Sure you did. I saw the post and others did too, although we need to be accurate here: what you referred to was "black wool wig fibers" being found in the living room. So I guess according to you, Stoeckley was not only wearing three wigs, but one of them was made of black wool. A new twist in the case.I still don't think it was good defense strategy by North Carolina lawyer Wade Smith to turn his nose up at Helena Stoeckley at the 1979 trial. Helena had terrific information which was exculpatory for...MacDonald..Stoeckley didn't have any "terrific information which was exculpatory" for the murderer; didn't you read her testimony?? What she did have was the statement that she didn't know where she was on the night of the murders. If you were alive on Feb. 17, 1970, I'll bet you don't know where you were that night either, so following your logic, I guess that makes you an "intruder." The case is solved, Bertie did it while wearing his black wool wig, and we can all go home now.

caphill

03-08-2006, 10:24 PM

As an example of the wild goose chases of the CID and the obsessive and emotional wacky turn the Kassabs took after they turned on MacDonald.

Mr. Kassab wrote a letter to the US attorney in Raleigh NC. he said he had "developed" info that a girl had been seen kissing macDonald at a train station in late 69'. She was crying and she moved to Calif 3 days after the murders. Kassab said she fits the description of the female seen on the corner the night of the murders by Mica.

This female was IDe by CID as a Miss Lawson, a former girlfriend of MacDonald before his marriage to Colette. Mrs. Kassab weighted in with her opinion that Colette had at one time thought this old girlfriend was her rival.

What is so crazy about this story is the fact that CID spent time and resources investigating this female. The CID went so far as verify she had been on her job in NY on the days immediately before and after the murders. They checked flight logs and determined she had not taken a flight to NC. The investigation didn't stop there. CID then determined she had been employed with Chairol from 3-69 thru 11-70. (proves she didnt move to Ca 3 days after murders). Did the brilliant minds at CID stop there?

No. They investigated her in Calif and determined she surrendered her NY lic and got a Calif lic in 12-70. They continured to investigate her and determined through "discreet inquiry" that there was no evidence that Miss Lawson had any contact with MacDonald.

If this kind of investigation had been done on the known druggie cult suspects at Ft. Bragg maybe the CID wouldn't be the blunt of the Keystone Cops laughter and jokes today.

The CID aka Keystone Cops were also spending time and resources to investigate Jeffrey MacDonald's brother's friends from NY to link them the "intruders" at Ft Bragg.

Are these investigations of the NY Four and Miss Lawson a part of the 3000 pages written by Kearns?

Looks like Kearns and the Kassabs were drinking the same Koolaid.

There is no known record of the lab report of results of the "stains" on the beige boots taken from Cathy Perry possessions but there is a written report on the investigation of a Miss Lawson and her whereabouts while living and working in NY and her move to Calif in late 1970.

My, my the things the CID made priority for investigation is an example the malicious pursuit of MacDonald . Miss Lawson was a regular citizen with no history of any criminal activity or intend. She is investigated through her empoyment, through the airlines from NY to Calif for involvement in the murders of a woman and two children. The CID has earned the scorn they received for the aberrate pursuit of private citizens to divert attention away from who might have been the killers of MacDonald's family.

JTF

03-09-2006, 02:40 AM

Bert, I mean Caphill, the last name of Jeff's ex-girlfriend was Larsen, not Lawson. In terms of the Kearns-authored CID reinvestigation report, yes, it had everything in it. In other words, unlike your posts, it was meticulously researched and left nothing to chance. Everyone from Greg Mitchell to Joseph Lee was scrutinized during this investigation, the FBI analyzed a number of evidentiary items, and MacDonald continued to put his foot in his own mouth during this whole process. Verbal goodies abound when the psychopath opens the big hole beneath his nose.

JTF.

audpaud

03-09-2006, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by caphill
. . . and the obsessive and emotional wacky turn the Kassabs took after they turned on MacDonald . . .

Looks like Kearns and the Kassabs were drinking the same Koolaid . . .

May God have mercy on your soul.:( :rose:

audpaud

03-09-2006, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Oh, no, that's not likely at all. What is likely, and what was proven to a jury at trial, is that Mac used a club to bludgeon Colette and Kimberly in the master bedroom, and that he attacked Colette again in Kristen's room, and that he carried Colette back to the master bedroom and also at some point carried Kim back to her bed, where he again smashed her head open and stabbed her. At some point he made the decision to stab Kristen to death and also used the icepick and knife on Kim and Colette in order to make it appear as though multiple weapons meant multiple intruders. He also showed the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes many times, so if you believe there were "intruders" helping him kill his family, please tell us why he has kept this a secret for so long?

As sick as it is, I've always been able to wrap my mind around the macdonald overkill of Colette/spouse/argument . . . Are there any thoughts on why Poor Kimmie was battered as badly by her Monster Dad?:( :confused:

stinkerbelle

03-09-2006, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by audpaud

As sick as it is, I've always been able to wrap my mind around the macdonald overkill of Colette/spouse/argument . . . Are there any thoughts on why Poor Kimmie was battered as badly by her Monster Dad?:( :confused:
well kimmie was the reason he "had" to get married. kimmie was timid and fragile and feminine, unlike his little toughie kristen.

i understand where you're coming from aud...it's one thing to kill a spouse, especially in the throes of rage, because really, they are just another person in the world. but to destroy your own flesh and blood...:(

lucielle

03-09-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

The evidence that Kim was in the master bedroom is very weak evidence. Kim was murdered in her own bedroom by the Stoeckley killers. Dr MacDonald murdered nobody in that apartment and he didn't carry any dead bodies from room to room either.

What? WHat? How did so much of blood get into the master bedroom, then? Remember it was not drops or specks of blood--it was a POOL of blood.

:rolleyes:

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
How on earth would Mac know if the boots were bloody or not? He was unconscious at the time of the MacDonald murders.Ah! So if he was unconscious and didn't see any boots, then his statements about the wetness of them, and the various colors, etc., were lies, and he didn't see any girl at all or any other "intruder."...MacDonald, or his lawyer Bernie Segal, were never told about those Stoeckley gang boots and clothes from Mrs Garcia, prior to the MacDonald trial.Sorry, Bertie, but I'm not sure that is correct. From the MMT, taken from the case records: "In 1985 the court found that MacDonald, through two of his former attorneys, knew that the CID once had possession of the boots. The court also found that the boots were properly returned to the woman who gave them to the CID because they did not match MacDonald's description of those worn by the female assailant and a laboratory analysis of the boots yielded no evidence connecting the boots to the crimes."In a way it was unfortunate for...MacDonald that Mrs Garcia, or the lawyer Nance, never sent those clothes and boots to Bernie Segal or Eisman.No, actually it was unfortunate for Colette that she married someone who would later smash her head in and stab her repeatedly and also murder her babies. But aside from that, I guess again you've forgotten (or pretend to, which is much more likely) that no clothing was listed on the receipt. Read the records.This is what Douthat said about the matter in 1984: "...At first I did not recall the evidence...LOL! So there you have it, Bertie-boy. So much for your supposedly oh-so-important "evidence," eh? It was so important that Douthat claims he didn't even recall it. LOL!The evidence that Kim was in the master bedroom is very weak evidence. Kim was murdered in her own bedroom by the Stoeckley killers.Why do you deliberately lie so much, Bertie? There is no doubt -- none whatsoever -- that of course Kim was in the master bedroom, and you knew that before you posted this again. Are you just plain ignorant, or stupid, or off your medications, or is it just that you get extreme pleasure out of writing fraudulent things here?...MacDonald murdered nobody in that apartment and he didn't carry any dead bodies from room to room either. The evidence showed without question that MacD bludgeoned and stabbed his wife and his two little daughters to death, and that he staged the scenes afterwards (part of which included carrying the bodies of Kim and Colette), and he has proven it repeatedly by his constant and never-ending demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt in those horrific crimes.

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by lucielle
What? WHat? How did so much of blood get into the master bedroom, then? Remember it was not drops or specks of blood--it was a POOL of blood. :rolleyes:
Hi, lucielle - a warm welcome to you!

I'm laughing at Bertie and your answer to him. Poor Bertie. No one -- not even Mac supporters or the defense -- ever claimed Kim wasn't hurt badly in the master bedroom, because the evidence so clearly proves that she was.

Bertie was outed as a fraud on another board, and even a quick glance through his past posts shows that his writings shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who really wants to learn about the case. All indications are that he was first banned from Crime & Justice, so he went over to A&E where he was again banned, so now he posts here. If you need further proof of how repetitious and ridiculous he can be, check out the old posts he wrote as "Albert Webb" on the A&E (Mac) board. Hilarious.

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by caphill
What is so crazy about this story is the fact that CID spent time and resources investigating this female.No, what's actually crazy is you posting under different names and coming up with such silly posts that contradict your own previous statements. You claim that the CID didn't investigate people, then you give us a long drawn-out account of deep investigations. No wonder you're not taken seriously here, Bertie...ooops, I meant Caphill...but I guess it doesn't matter what we call you since you're posting under both names.

audpaud

03-09-2006, 01:43 PM

The "silly" repetitious posts by macdonald supporter(s) are one thing, but the attacks on the Kassabs are another thing for me entirely!

Let's just say for the moment that macdonald is innocent ok? EVEN THEN I would find the Posts about Colette's Dad being "a drunk" . . . or Colette's Parents being "obsessive" completely insulting AND offensive!:flamemad:

The Kassab's were responding to the loss of their daughter and grandchildren at the heinous hands of a murderer(s) in a NORMAL manner~WHEREVER the evidence led them! Parents have no time frame for "moving on" with their lives . . . as a Parent/Daddy that suffered an incredible loss himself--why couldn't/can't macdonald and his ilk accept that simple fact and have compassion for the grief stricken Kassab's vs blind hatred and anger toward them?:confused:

I submit it's because sociopath macdonald has ice water running thru his veins and is incapable of normal empathy/emotions. What's wrong with his supporter(s) remains a mystery to me.:shrug:

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Where is lucielle's source, or exact reference, that there was a pool of Kim's blood in the master bedroom?Oh, Bertie, please stop. I'm dying of laughter here. Why don't you quit trying to falsify information, admit you're a fraud, and try to begin having a real life?Murtagh in his recent government opposition to [the murderer's] Jimmy Britt motion makes a point, in a footnote, that there was supposed to be Kim's AB blood on a rug in the master bedroom. This has never been verified by a competent forensic expert, or DNA tested, to my knowledge.It's so funny how you keep pretending not to know the facts, and how you love trying to twist the facts you do know about, because they point directly and to none other than ol' MacD as having been responsible for the brutal slayings of Colette, Kimberly and little Kristen. As you can see by the many comments from others on the board, you just make yourself look more and more ignorant with every post you write.I do have my doubts about that.Of course you don't have any doubts about that; it's just part of your fraudlent act to say so.
Segal pressed Chamberlain...The CID lab was never independently tested or checked...The forensic expert Walter Rowe...MacDonald lawyer Eisman...Blah, blah, blah. The facts as shown by the evidence are that Kim was severely injured by her father in the master bedroom, and was carried back to her bed by him, where Mac then decided to again smash her head in and stab her repeatedly. He got caught, was convicted long, long ago and nothing any of his many lawyers has ever done in all the 27 or so years since has even begun to make the slightest dent in the jury's verdicts. Better get used to it, Bertie-boy, your pretense of supporting Mac is going nowhere and never will no matter how much silliness you post.Caphill on this forum made the perfectly sensible comment...LOL! I love watching you talk to yourself, Bertie. How funny.

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
The "silly" repetitious posts by macdonald supporter(s) are one thing, but the attacks on the Kassabs are another thing for me entirely!Really shows how truly sick Bertie is, doesn't it, Aud? In fact, some people here are speculating through private messages that he may be dialing in from a mental institution or psychiatric hospital of some kind. Seriously.

audpaud

03-09-2006, 03:35 PM

Speaking of attacking parents' of victims . . . I've read quite a bit about Ted Bundy and there seems to be two schools of thought about his upbringing:

1) Ted had a normal childhood and his genesis into a serial killing monster was some kind of fluke.

2) Ted had an abusive childhood featuring confusion over his Mother/Sister and molestation/abuse by a grandfather.

The misdirected and irrational attacks on Colettes' parents (!!!!!!!???????:flamemad: ) have got me wondering . . . has there ever been any kind of in depth look at The MacDonald Family and what may or may not have happened in his childhood that resulted in his tragic actions as an adult sociopathic, homicidal butcher?

I understand that society alone could be responsible for his repression of his homosexual tendencies . . . but just wondering if Elder MacDonald was perhaps "a drunk" or something that molested Lil Mac . . . or if perhaps Mrs. Mom MacDonald was some kind of "obsessive" personality that somehow damaged Lil Macs psyche?????:confused:

audpaud

03-09-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Really shows how truly sick Bertie is, doesn't it, Aud? In fact, some people here are speculating through private messages that he may be dialing in from a mental institution or psychiatric hospital of some kind. Seriously.

Do you think that a patient would have access to 17 other computers to vote "macdonald is innocent?":confused:

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I don't know for certain if the Kassabs were heavy drinkers, or alcoholics, as has been implied.You are the only poster who "implied" it, Bertie, and only did it to try to inflame people. How transparent you are.I believe Mildred Kassab deliberately lied at the 1979 trial about ice picks being in the MacDonald apartment. Even Wade Smith seemed to think that Pam Kalin was lying about ice picks when he cross-examined her at the 1979 trial. Lying in a murder trial is very wrong and was very unfair on the innocent Dr MacDonald.I believe MacDonald deliberately lied about never owning an icepick. Even Wade Smith seemed to think that Helena Stoeckley wasn't a very good witness. Lying in a murder trial is very wrong and is very unfair to the innocent victims who were murdered at the hands of Jeffrey MacDonald.Fred Kassab's and CID agent Kearns' child molestation theory was a lunatic theory. They never had any real proof to back it up and there was certainly no evidence of it at the autopsies.Your theories about vampires, Mick Jagger, the "Queen of London" and Masons are lunatic theories. You never had any real proof to back it up and there is certainly no evidence of it in the case records.I'm not a pathological liar like Bunny either.Anyone here can read the factual case records for themselves to determine who's the liar.Sentimentality with regard to the Kassabs is not good enough. If they lied in court they ought to have been threatened with legal action. All this unpleasantness could have been avoided if CID agents were qualified homicide detectives and had performed as homicide detectives.Sentimentality with regard to your beloved convicted triple murderer is not good enough. He lied in court, and legal actions were taken to see that he was put away for not one or two but three consecutive life sentences. All this unpleasantness could have been avoided if only he hadn't murdered his family.

Bunny2

03-09-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
. . . has there ever been any kind of in depth look at The MacDonald Family and what may or may not have happened in his childhood that resulted in his tragic actions as an adult sociopathic, homicidal butcher?Aud, aside from the things on Christina's website and what was written in Fatal Vision, I don't remember anything like that offhand. Maybe JTF or one of the others here who have some of the books/magazines I don't have will know more.

caphill

03-09-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

Where is lucielle's source, or exact reference, that there was a pool of Kim's blood in the master bedroom?

CID agent Shaw said at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970 that there were supposed to be about half a dozen of Kim's AB blood spots in the master bedroom. Shaw didn't seem to be terribly sure about that at the time and made some comment that he needed to check his reports.

Murtagh in his recent government opposition to Dr MacDonald's Jimmy Britt motion makes a point, in a footnote, that there was supposed to be Kim's AB blood on a rug in the master bedroom. This has never been verified by a competent forensic expert, or DNA tested, to my knowledge.

Chamberlain and Laber, who did the blood testing at the MacDonald murders crime scene, and in the CID lab, were very inexperienced at the time. They insisted at the 1979 trial they were qualified to do blood testing. I do have my doubts about that.

Segal pressed Chamberlain at the 1979 MacDonald trial about how many errors he had made in blood testing. The CID lab was never independently tested or checked for lab errors, as far as I can tell. The forensic expert Walter Rowe is on record as saying the FBI lab obtained different results to the CID lab in other blood type testing criminal cases.

MacDonald lawyer Eisman made the plausible point, to my mind, in 1970 that any of Kim's blood found in the master bedroom could have come from the dripping murder weapon when it was carried by the Stoeckley murderers, after killing Kim, into the master bedroom.

Caphill on this forum made the perfectly sensible comment that any AB blood might have been a contaminated mixture of Colette's and Dr MacDonald's blood. It was a bloody scene. Dr MacDonald may have dripped blood without realizing it as well.

By the way I'm not caphill. I think caphill is one of the voices of sanity on this forum.

Thanks for the vote of confidence to my sanity. I know that I am crazy enough to sometimes have typos and the spelling typo police on the thread are after me. Also there has been a evaluation and determination of a duel personality disorder that I am you and you are me. I guess that better that having a borderline personality disorder.

I have never bothered to respond to those that attack the messenger if they don't like the message. It is just an amusing example of the reasoning, inductive deductive abilities of the
the posters.

I assume you are a man and according to your posts you live in the UK. I am know that I am a female and live in Washington DC. I will go out on a limb and guess that I am prettier than you.

Those three things alone convinces me that I am not you and you are not me. I do know my gender and that has never changed since the day I was born. I do know where I live and have been told I aint bad lookin. That is some proof that I am not totally illusioned and a multiple personality. That as far as I will go to defend myself against the claims and analysis of the juvenile rantings of those who claim any opposing views are those from "one" person living in a mental institution.

I will admit I have mental weakness in computer skills and don't know how to get a LMAO icon to post here.

rashomon

03-09-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

The evidence that Kim was in the master bedroom is very weak evidence. Kim was murdered in her own bedroom by the Stoeckley killers. Dr MacDonald murdered nobody in that apartment and he didn't carry any dead bodies from room to room either.
And how, you little brainwashed robot (for that's what you have sounded like ever since your first posts on A&E) would you explain Kimberly's brain serum and blood on the master bedrom floor?

stinkerbelle

03-09-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by caphill

I will admit I have mental weakness in computer skills and don't know how to get a LMAO icon to post here.
when you open up a reply box, to your left is a box labeled "smilies" and you merely click on whichever one you'd like to appear in your post. easy peasy:seeya:

caphill

03-10-2006, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

Where is lucielle's source, or exact reference, that there was a pool of Kim's blood in the master bedroom?

CID agent Shaw said at the Article 32 Investigation in 1970 that there were supposed to be about half a dozen of Kim's AB blood spots in the master bedroom. Shaw didn't seem to be terribly sure about that at the time and made some comment that he needed to check his reports.

Murtagh in his recent government opposition to Dr MacDonald's Jimmy Britt motion makes a point, in a footnote, that there was supposed to be Kim's AB blood on a rug in the master bedroom. This has never been verified by a competent forensic expert, or DNA tested, to my knowledge.

Chamberlain and Laber, who did the blood testing at the MacDonald murders crime scene, and in the CID lab, were very inexperienced at the time. They insisted at the 1979 trial they were qualified to do blood testing. I do have my doubts about that.

Segal pressed Chamberlain at the 1979 MacDonald trial about how many errors he had made in blood testing. The CID lab was never independently tested or checked for lab errors, as far as I can tell. The forensic expert Walter Rowe is on record as saying the FBI lab obtained different results to the CID lab in other blood type testing criminal cases.

MacDonald lawyer Eisman made the plausible point, to my mind, in 1970 that any of Kim's blood found in the master bedroom could have come from the dripping murder weapon when it was carried by the Stoeckley murderers, after killing Kim, into the master bedroom.

Caphill on this forum made the perfectly sensible comment that any AB blood might have been a contaminated mixture of Colette's and Dr MacDonald's blood. It was a bloody scene. Dr MacDonald may have dripped blood without realizing it as well.

By the way I'm not caphill. I think caphill is one of the voices of sanity on this forum.

The autopsy reports are the best and most credible source of where the victims where when the incapacitating and fatal injuries were made.

Colette's severe injuries to her head and the defensive injuries to her broken arms shows she was struck in the master bedroom. There was blood splattering on the ceiling from these blows. The autopsy shows she went down in the bedroom and after she was down the stabbings were made while she was in a prone position. She was still alive when the stabbings were done and it was the stabs to her chest that was the cause of death. The blow to her head was so violent and so incapacitating she could not have possibly gotten up from the floor and been running around to the girls bedrooms.

Kimberly suffer her blow to the head while she was lying in her bed. That is evident by the blood splatter on her walls and the pictures on her walls. The autopsy shows the stabbings to her neck were made after the violent the blow to ther head. She had no defensive wounds to her arms or hands The autopsy states the blow to her head likely rendered her comatose immediately and the fatal stabs to her neck were made after she suffered the blunt force strike to her head.

Little Kristen showed evidence that she had throw up her arms to defend against the stabbing to her body. She had ligament injuries to her neck and soft force bruises to her body.

If the same club was used to strike both Colette and Kim there should be blood splattering from the weapon as it was carried from one room to next room. Since the autopsy and the blood splattering showed Kim was struck in her room and Colette was struck in the master bedroom, then it is a question of who was struck first. If Kim was struck first there would be her blood on the club and if the club was carried into the master bedroom and was being swung to strike Colette then Kim's blood could also be splattered in the master bedroom.

Common sense dictates that murder weapons that are being used on 3 people in close proximity would have transfer of blood from one victim to the other and transfers to the clothes and bed covers. As these weapons are being wielded the blood transfers of one victim or the other would be expected.

There is no evidence that bodies were transferred simply because the blood was found in different locations than the actual murder scene. That is simlpy evidence of blood being transferred . Whoever was stabbing these 3 victims would most certainly had blood on their hands and on the weapons. If the assailants had on gloves there could be a fistful of blood dripping from victim to the other.

Bunny2

03-10-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by caphill
The autopsy shows she went down in the [master] bedroom and after she was down the stabbings were made while she was in a prone position. She was still alive when the stabbings were done and it was the stabs to her chest that was the cause of death. The blow to her head was so violent and so incapacitating she could not have possibly gotten up from the floor and been running around to the girls bedrooms.Then how in the world did so much of her blood end up in Kristen's room? It's great that you're starting to learn about the case, but I think you have some more research to do.Kimberly suffer her blow to the head while she was lying in her bed.Yes, this is when MacDonald clubbed her again on the right side of the head, after he'd already struck her hard enough on the left side of her head in the master bedroom to leave her brain serum and blood in the doorway. Blood dripped from her body as he carried her back down the hallway to her own bedroom. After tucking her into bed he then clubbed her again on the right side of the head and stabbed her. Among other things, I'm sure you caught the bit in the records about the blood mark on her wrist that was a clear demarcation showing that her wrist was covered with the bedclothing when she was struck.If Kim was struck first there would be her blood on the club and if the club was carried into the master bedroom...Kim and Colette were both hit with the club in the master bedroom. Kim was carried from there and put back in her bed by MacD, where he beat her again and stabbed her. After being struck in the master bedroom, Colette may have been stunned or unconscious for a short time, but then she made her way to Kristen's room where MacD caught up with her and really "let her have it" as FV says. After that, Colette could no longer walk or talk. He then wrapped Colette in the master bedroom bedding and carried her back to the master bedroom, unrolled her (her face apparently touching the floor at some time), put his pajama top on her and stabbed her through it repeatedly, creating 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in his pajama top which matched 21 holes in Colette's chest.Common sense dictates that murder weapons that are being used on 3 people in close proximity would have transfer of blood from one victim to the other and transfers to the clothes and bed covers.Yes, there was indication of that, for example with Colette's blood being found high up on the walls in Kristen's room, and Kim's blood found there also (I believe from the club being set down on the bed). Evidence shows that Kristen never left her bed, but some of her blood got on MacDonald's glasses as he was murdering her, and the glasses ended up in the living room where he tossed them after the murders as part of his staging of the scenes.There is no evidence that bodies were transferred simply because the blood was found in different locations than the actual murder scene.The bedding and blood evidence shows that after injuring her most severely in Kristen's room, MacD then carried Colette, wrapped in the master bedroom bedding, from Kristen's room back to the master bedroom and posed her face up on the floor in an attempt to make it appear as though she had been hit and died right there. The evidence also shows that Kim was struck in the MB, carried to her bed (she could not have walked after the horrible injuries he inflicted on her in the MB), where she was struck again and stabbed.

byn63

03-10-2006, 11:11 AM

bunny - really good posts! Luceille welcome to the discussions. Bertie and cappy - really, lets get serious now.

What part of a 6" pool of AB blood and brain serum was found on the carpet INSIDE the master bedroom are you having trouble understanding? That is a very easy to understand item of evidence, it also is described as having saturated the carpet and therefore is an indication of DIRECT BLEEDING. In other words, Kimmie was laying on the master bedroom floor bleeding heavily and long enough to create a 6" full saturation stain on the carpet.

Since when does an AUTOPSY show WHERE a person was killed? or EVEN BE THE BEST PLACE TO DETERMINE THAT? cappy you must be off your meds! Lets get real here - the autopsy shows the mechanism of death NOT THE WHERE. It is really that simple.

And bertie, you really must have elephantine b@!!z to post some of the nonsense you post here. However, you really need to stop attacking the posters - calling bunny a liar of any type is really beyond the pale. bunny has had more patience with you than anyone, and has provided you with DOCUMENTED evidence - you are the one that keeps posting distorted, misrepresented comments and OUTRIGHT LIES. Grow up!

rashomon

03-10-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by caphill

I assume you are a man and according to your posts you live in the UK. I am know that I am a female and live in Washington DC. I will go out on a limb and guess that I am prettier than you.
Sweetie, just curious: What do your looks have to do with the MacDonald case? LOL, you sound like a jealous teenager!

audpaud

03-10-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Aud, aside from the things on Christina's website and what was written in Fatal Vision, I don't remember anything like that offhand. Maybe JTF or one of the others here who have some of the books/magazines I don't have will know more.

I did a little "research" (Google, that is!:D ) and couldn't come up with much about macMonsters' childhood. Christina's site was the most informative but didn't go thru all of it. Mainly the transcripts of what macM. told the psychiatrist HIMSELF . . . so obviously slanted. There was made mention of MacFather being a "charismatic" man and also a drinker/possibly a heavy one. macM. was the middle child of 3 kids - all 18 months apart! The brother appears to have a very troubled history--and so macMom was so very proud of her Sociopathic Achieving son. It was an interesting read . . . especially eerie that macdonalds brother had some kind of mental meltdown the day of the murder and had to be hospitalized!!! Wondering if mac had confided in him at some point of a plan to get out of the marriage---but the brother was so unbalanced he didn't knw what to do with the info/no one would have believed him anyway???:confused:

I remain fascinated at all the hows and why of how a Maniac like macdonald comes to be . . . if anyone has any other info on the MacDonald Family Dynamics, would love to read more. Tx!:)

byn63

03-10-2006, 01:33 PM

The DNA report is finished and is being filed with the COURT today. Finally! Are we all ready to find out what we've long suspected? No exoneration in that report would be my guess!:lol: :patriot:

Bunny2

03-10-2006, 03:36 PM

It's coming in bits and pieces...

Hair in Colette's right hand matched to Jeffrey MacDonald

Hair in bed matched to Colette

Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell RULED OUT

MacDonald has been aware of the results since 10 am today.

I swore I wasn't going to do this, but I'm sorry, I just can't help myself - HAHAHAHAHA! Told you so, Cappy/Bertie! Told you so, told you so, told you so. HA!!! Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!!!!

We now return to my regular mature mode...More to be posted as I learn it...

rashomon

03-10-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

I did a little "research" (Google, that is!:D ) and couldn't come up with much about macMonsters' childhood. Christina's site was the most informative but didn't go thru all of it. Mainly the transcripts of what macM. told the psychiatrist HIMSELF . . . so obviously slanted. There was made mention of MacFather being a "charismatic" man and also a drinker/possibly a heavy one. macM. was the middle child of 3 kids - all 18 months apart! The brother appears to have a very troubled history--and so macMom was so very proud of her Sociopathic Achieving son. It was an interesting read . . . especially eerie that macdonalds brother had some kind of mental meltdown the day of the murder and had to be hospitalized!!! Wondering if mac had confided in him at some point of a plan to get out of the marriage---but the brother was so unbalanced he didn't knw what to do with the info/no one would have believed him anyway???:confused:

I remain fascinated at all the hows and why of how a Maniac like macdonald comes to be . . . if anyone has any other info on the MacDonald Family Dynamics, would love to read more. Tx!:)
Audpaud, this is a topic which interests me very much too: why do some people become sociopaths? 'Nature' or 'nurture'? Or a combination of both? Are there warning signs that a child might become a sociopath later in life (I work with children; there definitely are warning signs!). Can anything be done in the sense of prevention? According to my experience - definitely yes, but only if many people join forces: teachers, parents etc. But it is often exactly the parents who are disturbed and lack insight.

Or, why do some people with obviously horrendous childhoods not become sociopaths, while others whose childhoods seem to have been normal at the surface end up as murderers?

BTW, I have never read about Mac's father being a heavy drinker - is this on Christina's site?
I can imagine his father having a couple of beers or whiskeys after coming home from work and then start ranting and having his temper tantrums, but not as the type who e. g. would get so drunk that he couldn't go to work next day.
Just my speculation, but I don't think Jeffrey MacDonald would have idolized his father so much if he had been a full-blown alcoholic.

A while back, I wrote this on A&E about the MacDonald family life and what might have shaped JMD's character:

"The question why MacDonald ended up a murderer is certainly more difficult, if not impossible to answer than e. g. the question why someone like Charles Manson became a murderer. Take Mansons's childhood, for example (unwanted as a child, neglected, abused, pushed around in foster homes etc) - it would have been a wonder if Manson had not ended up as a criminal of some sort.

But Jeffrey MacDonald? An apparently normal childhood in a small American town. Dad an old-fashioned patriarch (a type of father which wasn't exactly an exception in the 1940s/1950s), but who did not abuse his wife or children.
Mom a school nurse and apparently content with her role of providing well-being for the family.
But the weight in that family lay heavy on the 'male' side. "Dad was the family", MacD once said.
His father was a charismatic and admired person in the family, but very dissatisfied with his own life. He had always wanted to become an engineer but lacked the academic training, and had a grudge against all the academic engineers he had to work with in his job as a draftsman. He also ranted that women had taken over the world. He ranted a lot in general and was given to temper tantrums, but was not a physical abuser.
Jeff said that his father could not show his children that he loved them. He never hugged or kissed them. All this was considered to be 'unmanly' by him. Maybe this was also a reason why MacD always found it difficult to show his feelings to Colette: his father had ben a detrimental role model for him in that respect.
Jeff's father obviously preferred his older brother Jay because he was first-born. Jay testified that there was a lot of sibling rivalry between them. While sibling rivalry is something perfectly normal, some parents deal with such a rivalry in a very damaging way. Who knows if Jeff's father didn't fuel that rivalry in some way, letting JMD know how much he valued Jay, etc. I know adults who to this day carry around with them mental scars from a vicious sibling rivalry dated back in their childhood years.
As a kindergarten teacher, I'm always amazed at the profound influence an older sibling of the same gender has on the younger brother or sister.
We also tend to pick up certin roles in our family, or get a role assigned.
So if Jay occupied the role of the spoiled crown prince, what options were there left for the younger brother Jeff? He chose the role of the 'dutiful son'. The one who brought home the straight A's. The one who later outshone Jay academically because he, as opposed to Jay, was a striving and ambitious person. MacD's extreme ambition and competitiveness certainly have their root in his deep wish to get appreciation from his family and friends.
When he was fifteen, he got in such a vicious fight with his brother Jay that his family sent him away to Texas to live with friends of theirs for some months.
So there was violence manifest in Jeff.
His own sister told investigators she thought it possible that "Jeff could kill if he were provoked".
When Jay later got involved with drugs and his role changed from that of 'crown prince' to 'black sheep', Jeff was the one left to fill the high expectations, and he struggled hard. Much too hard.
For all his striving with gritted teeth took its toll, and over the years he seems to have built up the same kind of anger his father had built up, only for slightly different reasons.
In addition, JMD may very well have been born with an innate psychological imbalance which could have run in the family. Jay suffers from paranoid schizophrenic psychosis, and the boundless rage MacD flew into on that fatal night would probably be called 'psychotic' by lay people.
JMD's life had been one incessant period of stress. And as it's often the case with people like him, they are in denial over their factual stress load. They don't even realize fully how stressed they are. They just go on and on until something happens to them. Often it's a heart attack or a nervous breakdown, and in MacD's case, it was this tragedy.
Overworked and sleep-deprived (incredible: he had a mere six and a half hours of sleep between Feb 14 and Feb 17!), plus the few he got in the emergency room cot), a compulsive type who couldn't stand criticism, sensitive when his 'masculinity' was questioned,
who had ingested amphetamines, a person with pent-up anger harbored in him over the years, Jeffrey MacDonald was in fact a walking time bomb.
All that it took was a trigger for that time bomb to explode.
After the initial attack on Colette and Kim, reasoning set in. Seeing everything he had struggled for in the past years go down the drain - his reputation, his career - was an intolerable thought for Jeff, who had always put his own needs first whe it came to achieving his goals.
He who said about himself that he had always been a fighter, but who had turned out to be a measly coward because he could not turn himself in to the police for what he'd done, started 'fighting' to save his sorry hide. 'Fighting' by sacrificing the lives of his whole family.
His 'fight' has lasted up to the present day. He has never kept quiet in his prison cell, for keeping quiet would allow the demons inside himself rise to the surface and overwhelm him.
Denial is a powerful force, as poster Surefinewhatever said it so well. MacDonald will die in that state of denial and never accept his guilt.
The one-time boy next door who shoveled the Kassabs' driveway and mowed their lawn. Who married his highschool sweetheart and ended up killing his whole family.
Chilling.

Joe McGinniss took the quote "Fatal Vision" from Macbeth, to emphasize the gravity and magnitude of JMD's crime.
But even a Shakespearean drama pales in comparison to this real-life tragedy."

Bunny2

03-10-2006, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I congratulate the Stoeckley group...I congratulate Murtagh...Sounds suspicious to me.LOL!!

Say whatever you want to, Bertie-boy, makes no difference whatsoever. You know as well as everyone else that Mac struck out when he murdered his family, and now his ball game is over.

I love it.

:D

byn63

03-10-2006, 05:13 PM

OMG - Bertie - get serious. Now, we are all supposed to think it suspicious that no evidence of Helena or Greg was found? I think maybe it is time that you check into a mental health facility - you are beyond LOSING IT to OUT THERE! The hair that the Inmate and his supporters have long proclaimed MUST HAVE COME FROM THE ASSAILANT(S) has been tested and proven to be Inmate's own. It was a limb hair.

Finally, we can all say Mac told the truth about that particular item. The hair was his, no ifs and or buts and he was the lone criminal actor. He slaughtered his family and has since continued to show the white feather by proclaiming innocence. :chicken:
He is a base coward, a narcissist, a sociopath and a MURDERER. That is a plain and simple fact. Kid yourself no more! Get over it and find some NEW idol for worship!

:lol: :beer:

spurs01

03-10-2006, 07:52 PM

Well, as much as I didn't believe it was Mac that did it, I am now convinced.

My apologies to the family of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, and my apologies to ya'll as well.

I got the DNA report from my Pacer account, and have it saved as a PDF file if anyone needs it and doesn't have it already.

Again, this is a hit & run post (still dealing with family issues), but wanted to at least acknowledge my error. Maybe it's that I didn't *want* to believe it; I don't know. The evidence troubled me. With the DNA results, however, even the Britt Affidavit can't save Mac. And, unless something TRULY explosive comes along (like this DNA isn't enough), I don't think it should.

As for the unsourced hair? Piffle. Not enough to raise a reasonable doubt for me, and I had many doubts.

I no longer do. I hope ya'll will accept my apologies.

caphill

03-10-2006, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Well, as much as I didn't believe it was Mac that did it, I am now convinced.

My apologies to the family of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, and my apologies to ya'll as well.

I got the DNA report from my Pacer account, and have it saved as a PDF file if anyone needs it and doesn't have it already.

Again, this is a hit & run post (still dealing with family issues), but wanted to at least acknowledge my error. Maybe it's that I didn't *want* to believe it; I don't know. The evidence troubled me. With the DNA results, however, even the Britt Affidavit can't save Mac. And, unless something TRULY explosive comes along (like this DNA isn't enough), I don't think it should.

As for the unsourced hair? Piffle. Not enough to raise a reasonable doubt for me, and I had many doubts.

I no longer do. I hope ya'll will accept my apologies.

I would like to see the file with the results. The only information I have read is that only 15 hairs were tested. According to someone posting at Crime and Justice, there is no comparison hair that available from Greg Mitchell. The comparsion hair from Stoeckely was from her natural hair. If she was wearing a wig, you would not expect her to be dropping her own hair.

One unsourced hair was found under Kristen's bloodly fingernail and one in her bedding. One unscourced hair was found on Colette's body. Some from the family members and some yielded insufficient data for testing.

I look forward to being able to view the file ,if possible. Thank you for offering to share your file.

Bunny2

03-10-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by caphill
One unsourced hair was found under Kristen's bloodly fingernail and one in her bedding. One unscourced hair was found on Colette's body.And since they're just as unsourced as they ever were, and all Mac's arguments about unsourced items pointing to intruders have long since failed (and always will IMHO) and since no "intruder's" DNA was found in any exhibit...that pretty much wraps it up for ol' Mac and his mythical "intruders." We'll probably still hear a few last gasping whines and some moaning from him now and then before he finally draws his last breath, but nothing he could ever do or say will erase what those DNA results show, and he knows it.

Here's what everyone is talking about - a GREAT day for Colette, Kim and Kristen, and one of the worst for their murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dna-results_2006-03-10.html

caphill

03-11-2006, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
And since they're just as unsourced as they ever were, and all Mac's arguments about unsourced items pointing to intruders have long since failed (and always will IMHO) and since no "intruder's" DNA was found in any exhibit...that pretty much wraps it up for ol' Mac and his mythical "intruders." We'll probably still hear a few last gasping whines and some moaning from him now and then before he finally draws his last breath, but nothing he could ever do or say will erase what those DNA results show, and he knows it.

Here's what everyone is talking about - a GREAT day for Colette, Kim and Kristen, and one of the worst for their murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dna-results_2006-03-10.html

SInce I haven't seen the DNA results and doubt the actual tests are publicly diplayed at this point, the only source of any info is coming from a Justice Dept attorney that is doing what they have always done. He dismisses any DNA that points away from MacDonald and only addresses the DNA that shows the hairs that belong to MacDonald or other family members.

On the other hand there is Mrs. MacDonald updated letter today that is positive and encouraged because the hairs found under Kristen's bloody fingernails are not Dr. MacDonald. One hair found in Kristen's bed is not Dr. MacDonald or any known source. One hair on Colette' body is not Dr. MacDonald's or any known source.

With the the defensive wounds on Kristen's hands it is a fair assumption she threw her hands to defend herself. Have hiar fragments under her nails is not to be take lightly and considered of no importance.

I thought the DNA material turned over by the Government was hairs only. Am I misinformed to think there was no blood DNA testing done?

Was there ever any hair samples collected from Mitchell? To find many hairs in that house, in the bed or even on the bodies are Dr. MacDonald is not earth shattering. It is proof of nothing other that he lived in the house and had been in close contact with Colette and the girls that night before and after they died. If the hairs under Kristen bloody fingernails had have been Dr. Mac's , then there would be something to talk about.

The results of the DNA are not included in the motions and the consideration to vacate the verdict based on accusations of suppression of evidence and witness intimidation. If there is a retrial then the DNA can be brought and argued as new evidence. It is very strong evidence that hairs under Kristen's nails likely came from the assailant as she was being stabbed and was clawing at the arm or hand.

Stoeckely has always said she was a witness but did not participate in the actual killings. The mtDNA or nuclear DNA profile can determine gender of the donor.

JTF

03-11-2006, 02:01 AM

Cappy, Cappy, Cappy. You still don't get it, do you? Don't let Kathryn's spin or Junkin's lawyerspeak fool you. The MacDonald camp knows that the only LEGALLY meaningful DNA test results would have included a DNA profile match between a KNOWN INTRUDER SUSPECT and at least 1 of the 15 exhibits. The fact that not a single exhibit matched the DNA profiles culled from the hair exemplars of Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, Helena Stoeckley, and Cathy Perry, eliminates the MacDonald camp intruder list once and for all. No hairs from Mitchell, Fowler, Perry, and Stoeckley were found at the crime scene. No fingerprints of all 7 members of the Stoeckley group were found at the crime scene. If you add the fact that Jeff's arm hair is stuck in the palm of Colette's left hand, his chances of freedom are slim and Slim left town.

JTF.

audpaud

03-11-2006, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
Well, as much as I didn't believe it was Mac that did it, I am now convinced.

My apologies to the family of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, and my apologies to ya'll as well . . .

Totally AWESOME and classy Post, spurs01!:D

Hope you'll stick around for more discussion of what makes someone like macdonald a murderer of his family.

audpaud

03-11-2006, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Audpaud, this is a topic which interests me very much too: why do some people become sociopaths? 'Nature' or 'nurture'? Or a combination of both? Are there warning signs that a child might become a sociopath later in life (I work with children; there definitely are warning signs!). Can anything be done in the sense of prevention? According to my experience - definitely yes, but only if many people join forces: teachers, parents etc. But it is often exactly the parents who are disturbed and lack insight.

Or, why do some people with obviously horrendous childhoods not become sociopaths, while others whose childhoods seem to have been normal at the surface end up as murderers?

BTW, I have never read about Mac's father being a heavy drinker - is this on Christina's site?
I can imagine his father having a couple of beers or whiskeys after coming home from work and then start ranting and having his temper tantrums, but not as the type who e. g. would get so drunk that he couldn't go to work next day.
Just my speculation, but I don't think Jeffrey MacDonald would have idolized his father so much if he had been a full-blown alcoholic.

A while back, I wrote this on A&E about the MacDonald family life and what might have shaped JMD's character:

"The question why MacDonald ended up a murderer is certainly more difficult, if not impossible to answer than e. g. the question why someone like Charles Manson became a murderer. Take Mansons's childhood, for example (unwanted as a child, neglected, abused, pushed around in foster homes etc) - it would have been a wonder if Manson had not ended up as a criminal of some sort.

But Jeffrey MacDonald? An apparently normal childhood in a small American town. Dad an old-fashioned patriarch (a type of father which wasn't exactly an exception in the 1940s/1950s), but who did not abuse his wife or children.
Mom a school nurse and apparently content with her role of providing well-being for the family.
But the weight in that family lay heavy on the 'male' side. "Dad was the family", MacD once said.
His father was a charismatic and admired person in the family, but very dissatisfied with his own life. He had always wanted to become an engineer but lacked the academic training, and had a grudge against all the academic engineers he had to work with in his job as a draftsman. He also ranted that women had taken over the world. He ranted a lot in general and was given to temper tantrums, but was not a physical abuser.
Jeff said that his father could not show his children that he loved them. He never hugged or kissed them. All this was considered to be 'unmanly' by him. Maybe this was also a reason why MacD always found it difficult to show his feelings to Colette: his father had ben a detrimental role model for him in that respect.
Jeff's father obviously preferred his older brother Jay because he was first-born. Jay testified that there was a lot of sibling rivalry between them. While sibling rivalry is something perfectly normal, some parents deal with such a rivalry in a very damaging way. Who knows if Jeff's father didn't fuel that rivalry in some way, letting JMD know how much he valued Jay, etc. I know adults who to this day carry around with them mental scars from a vicious sibling rivalry dated back in their childhood years.
As a kindergarten teacher, I'm always amazed at the profound influence an older sibling of the same gender has on the younger brother or sister.
We also tend to pick up certin roles in our family, or get a role assigned.
So if Jay occupied the role of the spoiled crown prince, what options were there left for the younger brother Jeff? He chose the role of the 'dutiful son'. The one who brought home the straight A's. The one who later outshone Jay academically because he, as opposed to Jay, was a striving and ambitious person. MacD's extreme ambition and competitiveness certainly have their root in his deep wish to get appreciation from his family and friends.
When he was fifteen, he got in such a vicious fight with his brother Jay that his family sent him away to Texas to live with friends of theirs for some months.
So there was violence manifest in Jeff.
His own sister told investigators she thought it possible that "Jeff could kill if he were provoked".
When Jay later got involved with drugs and his role changed from that of 'crown prince' to 'black sheep', Jeff was the one left to fill the high expectations, and he struggled hard. Much too hard.
For all his striving with gritted teeth took its toll, and over the years he seems to have built up the same kind of anger his father had built up, only for slightly different reasons.
In addition, JMD may very well have been born with an innate psychological imbalance which could have run in the family. Jay suffers from paranoid schizophrenic psychosis, and the boundless rage MacD flew into on that fatal night would probably be called 'psychotic' by lay people.
JMD's life had been one incessant period of stress. And as it's often the case with people like him, they are in denial over their factual stress load. They don't even realize fully how stressed they are. They just go on and on until something happens to them. Often it's a heart attack or a nervous breakdown, and in MacD's case, it was this tragedy.
Overworked and sleep-deprived (incredible: he had a mere six and a half hours of sleep between Feb 14 and Feb 17!), plus the few he got in the emergency room cot), a compulsive type who couldn't stand criticism, sensitive when his 'masculinity' was questioned,
who had ingested amphetamines, a person with pent-up anger harbored in him over the years, Jeffrey MacDonald was in fact a walking time bomb.
All that it took was a trigger for that time bomb to explode.
After the initial attack on Colette and Kim, reasoning set in. Seeing everything he had struggled for in the past years go down the drain - his reputation, his career - was an intolerable thought for Jeff, who had always put his own needs first whe it came to achieving his goals.
He who said about himself that he had always been a fighter, but who had turned out to be a measly coward because he could not turn himself in to the police for what he'd done, started 'fighting' to save his sorry hide. 'Fighting' by sacrificing the lives of his whole family.
His 'fight' has lasted up to the present day. He has never kept quiet in his prison cell, for keeping quiet would allow the demons inside himself rise to the surface and overwhelm him.
Denial is a powerful force, as poster Surefinewhatever said it so well. MacDonald will die in that state of denial and never accept his guilt.
The one-time boy next door who shoveled the Kassabs' driveway and mowed their lawn. Who married his highschool sweetheart and ended up killing his whole family.
Chilling.

Joe McGinniss took the quote "Fatal Vision" from Macbeth, to emphasize the gravity and magnitude of JMD's crime.
But even a Shakespearean drama pales in comparison to this real-life tragedy."

Hi rashomon!:D Tx for the fascinating response . . . I'm thinking I MUST re-read Fatal Vision 'cause I DO vaguely recall the fight the brothers' had now . . . Yes, on Christina's site--under "Transcripts" is a file called "Report on MacDonald: Historical Data (Attachment to Mack Testimony December 11, 1974") . . . (sorry I can't do linx:o ) . . . the text refers to MacDad as "a heavy drinker in his later years."

Do his brother and sister acknowledge his guilt?:confused:

I'm just off work and sooo tired . . . want to go over your post with coffee in the a.m. when I can discuss!

audpaud

03-11-2006, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by caphill
SInce I haven't seen the DNA results and doubt the actual tests are publicly diplayed at this point, the only source of any info is coming from a Justice Dept attorney that is doing what they have always done. He dismisses any DNA that points away from MacDonald and only addresses the DNA that shows the hairs that belong to MacDonald or other family members.

On the other hand there is Mrs. MacDonald updated letter today that is positive and encouraged because the hairs found under Kristen's bloody fingernails are not Dr. MacDonald. One hair found in Kristen's bed is not Dr. MacDonald or any known source. One hair on Colette' body is not Dr. MacDonald's or any known source.

With the the defensive wounds on Kristen's hands it is a fair assumption she threw her hands to defend herself. Have hiar fragments under her nails is not to be take lightly and considered of no importance.

I thought the DNA material turned over by the Government was hairs only. Am I misinformed to think there was no blood DNA testing done?

Was there ever any hair samples collected from Mitchell? To find many hairs in that house, in the bed or even on the bodies are Dr. MacDonald is not earth shattering. It is proof of nothing other that he lived in the house and had been in close contact with Colette and the girls that night before and after they died. If the hairs under Kristen bloody fingernails had have been Dr. Mac's , then there would be something to talk about.

The results of the DNA are not included in the motions and the consideration to vacate the verdict based on accusations of suppression of evidence and witness intimidation. If there is a retrial then the DNA can be brought and argued as new evidence. It is very strong evidence that hairs under Kristen's nails likely came from the assailant as she was being stabbed and was clawing at the arm or hand.

Stoeckely has always said she was a witness but did not participate in the actual killings. The mtDNA or nuclear DNA profile can determine gender of the donor.

YO, cappy! Try to buy a clue from spurs01 and realize that DE'NIAL ain't just a River in Egypt!

I've been so worried about what this news would do to you macdonald supporter(s)! Are you ok? Would you NOW like to discuss what has brought you to this point in your life? Would you like to join in discussing what may or may not have made macdonald MurderMac? You would be very welcomed I'm sure . . . but PLEEEEZ . . . for your sake dear, . . . PLEEEZ quit doing this to yourself. It's painful to watch.:(

PS: Hungry enough to eat my keyboard . . . but sooo glad I don't have to!:D

'Night All . . . remembering Colette, Kimmie, Kris and son tonight!:rose:

caphill

03-11-2006, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Cappy, Cappy, Cappy. You still don't get it, do you? Don't let Kathryn's spin or Junkin's lawyerspeak fool you. The MacDonald camp knows that the only LEGALLY meaningful DNA test results would have included a DNA profile match between a KNOWN INTRUDER SUSPECT and at least 1 of the 15 exhibits. The fact that not a single exhibit matched the DNA profiles culled from the hair exemplars of Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, Helena Stoeckley, and Cathy Perry, eliminates the MacDonald camp intruder list once and for all. No hairs from Mitchell, Fowler, Perry, and Stoeckley were found at the crime scene. No fingerprints of all 7 members of the Stoeckley group were found at the crime scene. If you add the fact that Jeff's arm hair is stuck in the palm of Colette's left hand, his chances of freedom are slim and Slim left town.

JTF.

Bullchit

caphill

03-11-2006, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I don't think spurs01 needs to be sparrow brained about all this DNA stuff, and then suddenly change her mind.

I was never terribly optimistic that any DNA results would suddenly prove Greg Mitchell or Helena Stoeckley did it. In a way I'm glad some DNA results have been made public after all these years. It helps clear the air, and clear people's minds about the forensic evidence.

The hair in Colette's hand has always been a mystery hair whatever JTF says. The matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. A witness said that a human hair had been discivered in Colette's hand but it had never been identified. It never has been identified until now.

Dr MacDonald had no idea it was his hair. In all the chaos and confusion of trying to revive Colette it must have got there somehow, unless it was planted which to give the CID credit I doubt.

I would still like to see all the items which could be DNA tested made public as well. Not just a few which Murtagh thinks may point to Dr MacDonald.

There still seems to be a mystery hair found underneath Kristen's fingernail. I don't believe that's conclusive exculpatory evidence either. It's interesting just the same.

I have always been more interested in the unexplained fibers in the forensic evidence. The black wool fibers found on Colette's mouth and biceps, and on the murder weapon have never been explained by Murtagh apart from him saying once that they "probably" came from MacDonald clothes. Which clothes exactly has never been explained by Murtagh or Blackburn. There was a blue acrylic fiber in Colette's hand, which even Murtagh admits didn't come from the pajama top.

I still believe Kim was never injured in the master bedroom, or carried from room to room by Dr MacDonald. There is no real evidence that she was.

Dr MacDonald's problem now is that he needs to provide clear and convincing evidence of his innocence. This is difficult for him becuse it looks as though the Stoeckley murder gang left no forensics apart from a few fibers which were never mentioned at the 1979 trial.

If the FBI got off their butts and did some real investigating of the Stoeckley group, and shone a few lights in their eyes, this would help Dr MacDonald.

I disagree with you on the importance of the hairs found under Kristen's fingernails. The unsourced hairs found in bedding or on the body of Colette is argument that someone else besides Dr. Mac dropped or transferred hairs. That could have from any number of the army of people trooping around the house and being in close proximity of the bodies.

To find unsourced hair under the bloody fingernails of Kristen is exculpatory evidence. Dr. Mac was found guilty of 1st degree murder of Kristen. He was found guilty of 2nd degree of Colette and Kimberly.

Kristen had many defensive wounds on her hand that showed she had thrown her arms and hand up to defend against the knife and pick blows to chest. Hairs under the blood of fingernails showed she was clawing with her hands as she was being stabbed. These hairs show it was not her father she was clawing.

Dr. MacDonald or any other defendant does not to find and offer proof of the indentity of the donor of the hairs under the nails. Unless there is a data bank of DNA profiles that includes the same profile as the profile of the hairs under the nails, the likelihood of indentifying the donor is small to none.

What is important is the DNA of those hairs excludes Mac as the donor and is strongest evidence possible that he was not the one stabbing Kristen. It is the strongest of proof that someone other that Mac was having their arm or hand clawed while stabbing the little girl.

The wrongfully convicted that are being released based on DNA testing is the DNA is showing they were not the donor of the hair, blood, semem etc found in or on exculpatory places on the victim. It doesn't prove who did it, it just proves who didn't do it.

If Stoeckely, who claims she did not kill anyone, was wearing and a hat and a wig, the likelihood of her dropping any natural head hair is understandable. These hairs found are so small that are from body hair or hair fuzz.

Stoeckely, at one time said there 7 people of her cult in the house that night. No one knows who those 7 were. Stoeckely never pointed a finger at Cathy Perry as being one of those 7. Dwight Smith has never really been identified by Stoeckely. She claimed she only knew him by ZigZag. The black dude has always remained a mystery man. Since Stoeckely was admittedly in a drug haze it is not difficult to accept she had memory of just bits and pieces of who was there and what happened. She claims she saw Mitchell struggling with Colette in the master bedroom and that he killed Colette. Her memories or flash backs are of seeing Kristen in her bed and she was already dead and bloody. She says from the door she saw a little doll in the floor and she wanted to go pick it up. She also said a number of things that appear to be made up memories or impressions of the murder scene. To rely on the memories of anyone that is totally drunk or flying high on drugs as being total accurate and a 100% credible would be foolish.

The only parts of what she said that should be considered reliable would be things she likely would not know unless she was there. She knew about the little doll on the floor next to Kristen's bed. she knew of the "S" pattern craved in Kristen's chest, she knew the wheel or spring on the rocking horse was broken. She admittedly worn a long blond wig and a 22-24 inch long blond wig strand was found in the house. Someone matching her description and the description of the three men assailants was seen in the immediate neighborhood before and right after the murders. That is very strong circumstantial that
she was there. There is no evidence that she killed anyone.

There is now hard direct evidence that Dr. Mac lived in the house with his family and there are good explanations as to why there would be hair evidence from him all over the house and on the bodies of the his family. There is now hard direct evidence that someone other that Dr. Mac was in the bedroom with Kristen in close enough proximity to have her clawing fingers rake hair off their body. That is not to be lightly dismissed and does in deed exclude Mac as the donor. Those hairs under the nails are exculpatory and all the others are just interesting for discussion.

The purpose of the DNA was to exclude Dr. Mac and were not done to prove any particular other person was the murderer. The trial was about Dr. Mac, the sole defendant and the judge would not allowed the testimony of many people who wanted to testify that Stoeckely said she was a witness to many people being at the house that fateful night. Who those people were is still speculation and none of those named has ever been subjected to a direct and cross examination.

We do know that one from Stoeckely's circle of friends confessed to being one of the murderers. We do know she was a mental case. We also know when she got agitated, she liked to pick up a knife and start stabbing away. She tried to stab her boyfriend in his sleep and she stabbed and flattened her own little dog over a hundred times. The pathologist described the stabbing of Mac's family as berserk. Was Cathy Perry hanging with Stoeckely et al that night. Not many people unless they are crazy can pick up a knife and stab away at a sleeping child. We know Cathy in her crazed state had the stomach to do this kind of gruesome thing.

Regardless, it is not Dr. Mac responsibilty to prove who stabbed and clubbed his family. He is just trying to prove it was not him.

caphill

03-11-2006, 10:06 AM

DNA, though a great tool in forensic evidence is mostly used to exclude someone as being a donor of incriminating evidence. It is not an end all of solving or identifying a perp.

America is glued to the TV over the horrific murder of Imette St Guillen. The police have a suspect in custody, Darrel Littlejohn.

The DNA found on Miss St. Guillen's body is, so far, excluding Littlejohn. There happens to be a DNA profile of Littlejohn in a data base and the DNA found on the body does not match his known DNA.

Somebody who left DNA evidence on the body is an unknown person. The legal significance of the unknown DNA will prevent the NYPD from charging Littlejohn with this crime unless they can find something else to link him. They can hold him in jail for a parole violation for not informing his parole officer he was working as a bouncer at a bar but to date havenot been to arrest or charge him for murder.

So for those that say unsourced DNA is not legally important and can not exnonerate needs to take another look at reality.

byn63

03-11-2006, 10:46 AM

oh get a grip cappy and bertie boy! join the rest of us in the REAL world.

There is nothing significant in an unsourced hair fragment found under Kristen's fingernails. WHY? It is very simple - so pay attention:

Kristen was an active 2 year old who among other things had played outside during the 16 of February AND had visited with a neighbor. Other items found UNDER her fingernail included material that was either grass or hay. She had been put to bed without a bath that night.

Reasonable explanation for an unsourced hair? A playing active 2 year old picked it up during her daily activities, and without having a bath she was put to bed with the hair and grassy material under her fingernails. No matter the "positive spin" of MacFantasyland - these DNA results are a death knell. Plain and simple. Judge Fox's order made it very plain to Inmate and his attorney's that the only POSITIVE result would be a match to a KNOWN suspect (ie the Stoeckley 7) and EVEN THAT would not exonerate him. All a match would have done is show Inmate was not alone. However, all of the STOEKLEY 7 have been excluded. The "Mystery Hair" that the defense has proclaimed all these years had to have come from the murder MATCHED Jeffrey Robert MacDonald aka Federal Correctional Institue Inmate 00131-177 aka the IcePick Baby Killer aka Murder Mac. What do you know, he's actually been telling the truth about that for years! Now if he would just drop his white feather and confess.:chicken:

Now the truth is out and Inmate should just give it a rest. Bertie and Cappy - you should come over to the side of the REAL world. There is no DOUBT with these results - reasonable or otherwise!

Finally Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen can rest in peace!:rose:

Carlotta

03-11-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by spurs01

I got the DNA report from my Pacer account, and have it saved as a PDF file if anyone needs it and doesn't have it already.

I would love to read the entire report if you don't mind sending it to me. My email is sherrog@aol.com. Thank you very much for offering to do this amidst having problems of your own to deal with. It is greatly appreciated.
Carlotta
:rose:

Bunny2

03-11-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by caphill
BullchitI guess you forgot you were posting as Caphill when you wrote this, didn't you, Bertie? LOL!! Don't you ever get tired of talking to yourself?I disagree with you on the importance of the hairs found under Kristen's fingernails. The unsourced hairs found in bedding or on the body of Colette...To find unsourced hair under the bloody fingernails of Kristen is exculpatory evidence.
No, it isn't. How amazing that even after all this time, you still don't understand that unsourced items are NOT FORENSICALLY SIGNIFICANT, Cappy. What part of that don't you understand?
These hairs show it was not her father she was clawing.No, they don't. The hair - singular - could have come from children with whom she played earlier, something she grabbed while playing in the house that night or any one of countless other places. If we're going to use your own argument, then you would agree that the hair in Colette's hand could only have come from her murderer -- as Mac has been telling us all these years -- and that murderer is Mac himself.What is important is the DNA of those hairs excludes Mac as the donor and is strongest evidence possible that he was not the one stabbing Kristen.LOL! You're hilarious, Bertie/Cappy. Poor ol' Mac groupie, the signs of your denial are everywhere. The bottom line on the DNA results is that they were horribly devastating to Mac, since they confirm that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's nor any other "intruder" was in the house that night, and that the all-important hair in Colette's hand belonged to none other than MacD. He'll never, ever recover from that, and you and he both know it.Stoeckely, at one time said there 7 people of her cult in the house that night. No one knows who those 7 were.Read the records. Stoeckley named quite a few people, changed her stories here and there, and admitted that her stories were lies. In fact, she was never there at all. The evidence against MacD was overwhelming, nothing in more than two decades has ever managed to overcome it. The DNA results are just the last nail in Mac's coffin, IMHO.

Bunny2

03-11-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by byn63
There is nothing significant in an unsourced hair fragment found under Kristen's fingernails. WHY? It is very simple - so pay attention: ...

Now the truth is out and Inmate should just give it a rest. Bertie and Cappy - you should come over to the side of the REAL world. There is no DOUBT with these results - reasonable or otherwise!

Finally Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen can rest in peace!:rose:
Good post, Byn!

How funny, watching the few remaining Mac groupies (all of which seem to be the same person here) spin and twist in the wind. Bertie/Cappy knows as well as anyone else that the game is now over for Mac, but it's funny watching him try to find some wiggle room, isn't it.

:lol:

Bunny2

03-11-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I agree with caphill.Of course you do, since you and Cappy are the same person.
The recent DNA results haven't changed my mind in the slightest.LOL!! Oh yeah, right, Bertie. I'm laughing out loud here, watching you wander through your MacFantasyLand, still claiming that "intruders" committed the murders even in the face of the DNA evidence that proves no "intruders" were ever in the apartment. What a laugh. Absolutely hilarious.

spurs01

03-11-2006, 02:30 PM

Sparrow brain? Is that what I was called?

That sounds suspiciously close to an attack on my intelligence.

I'll let it slide, this time.

Back to my flagstone... 3,000 pounds later and I still have housework to do.

Sparrow brain indeed. Heh, dream on.

audpaud

03-11-2006, 05:51 PM

Now that the DNA results are in . . . how 'bout having a Contest to see who can guess the Title of the Tell-All Book Kathryn MacDonald is sure to write next??? Can'tcha just see KM on Oprah or Larry King pimping her book already??? I'm thinking maybe:

The Killer Who Had An RSVP On My Heart~~'Til The DNA Results Came In!
Throwing Away My Family~For A Man Who Murdered His!
The Kathryn MacDonald Story

caphill

03-11-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

snipped

I still believe Kim was never injured in the master bedroom, or carried from room to room by Dr MacDonald. There is no real evidence that she was.

Dr MacDonald's problem now is that he needs to provide clear and convincing evidence of his innocence. This is difficult for him becuse it looks as though the Stoeckley murder gang left no forensics apart from a few fibers which were never mentioned at the 1979 trial.

If the FBI got off their butts and did some real investigating of the Stoeckley group, and shone a few lights in their eyes, this would help Dr MacDonald. [/B]

I am responding to a number issues you raised in this post as well as your previous post.

Firstly from your previous post, there is not much evidence in any crime scene that would be considered conclusively exculpatory. Other than a video of the actual crime the evidence in any case is 99% circumstantial. How strong the circumstantances are surrounding the case is what any thinking juror should weigh when deciding guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I am arrested standing on the street with a gun in my hand and a dead body at my feet with a bullet hole in his chest, that is circumstanial evidence. Unless I can prove otherwise, my arse will go to jail because any juror can and would find that circumstantial evidence, though not conclusive, strong enough to find me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I claim I didn't shoot this man who just happens to be my exhusband who stole all my family money and life savings. .A juror might think there a minute chance of that but beyond a reasonable doubt find me guilty and sent my arse off to jail

The only evidence that will save me if my story is true, is if someone comes and says they witnessed the tall man who lives in the same building shoot my ex husband, wipe the gun clean and run into his apartment. This tall neighbor is found to have gun residue on his clothes,hands, blood splatter on his clothes and the camera at the apartment door time dates and films him running in the door. That direct evidence from the eye witness supported by the the circumstantial evidence from the camera, the circumstantial evidence from the gun residue, blood splatter a will save me from the slammer. The only direct evidence is the eye witness report that was backed by the camera and the other pieces of evidence.

The point being a murder case without a eyewitness or a confession is mostly circumstantial case. The only conclusive exulpatory evidence in that scenario was the eyewitness who lead the search to the real killer.

That kind of scenario would be extremely rare since most murders don't have eyewitness or cameras at the crime scene.

MacDonald case is anomaly in every aspect. He witnessed 4 assailants and Stoeckely says she was a witness to the crime. There were 3 confessions to be parties to the crime

Now that is a strong circumstantial, direct eye witness evidence and confessions of assailants in favor of Dr. MacDonald. In favor also for Dr. MacDonald was his non violent history, his lack of drug and alcohol abuse history and his exemplar academic, work, milatary and deciplined life history.

His side of the case had his strong circumstantial evidence, direct eyewitness evidence from himself and Stoeckely, confessions from the three people from the known cult of friends, and later there is evidence of hairs, fibers, wig strands and hairs under the fingernails of the baby, and hair on the body of Coletter that indicated presence of someone other that Dr. Mac that night.

The Governments case on the other hand is speculation that Dr. MacDonald lied about which child peed the bed as cover for an unexplained rage in the middle of the night that cause him to strike Kimberly , carry her body from one room to the next, kill his wife and then kill his sleeping 2 yr baby beause he needed to stage a multiple intruder scene. The only evidence the Government presented was hair, fiber and blood of the people that lived in the house and were the victms of the murder. Any evidence that could be considered by the jury as being from intruders was suppressed, destroyed or lost. With torn old pj's worn by Mac, pj's worn by Colette and girls there should be fibers from those clothes ,hairs from all the family, cat hair and horse hair found all around the house and on the victims themselves. There should have been fingerprints on both phones from Colette and Mac. There should have been fingerprints on the knife found in the bedroom. The only evidence of a staged scene was the CID moving the contents of the living room around. This is a proven fact by the pictures that were taken after Mac was rolled out of the house. Look at the pictures on Christina's site if there is any doubt someone was moving and rearranging items. Wallet went from floor to desk, to the pocket of someone, then discarded along side of the road. Who was the person that stole that wallet. Why were they not charged with theft and why wasnt the jewelry box checked for fingerprints and the blood stain checked for type of blood considering that Mac reported the theft of two rings. Were any suspects' homes searched for the rings? Were any pawn shops checked to see if anyone sold the rings?

Urine has no nucleated cells. DNA comes only from nucleated cells. A healthy person has no DNA in their urine. Janice Glisson balantly lied to the grand Jury when she identified Kimerbly's urine in the bed. There was no scientific means to identify urine from a healthy person in 1970 and there is no way to identify urine from a healthy person today in the age of DNA. She lied to bolster the CID speculated and ridicuous theory that Kim was the bed wetter that started the circle of the maniacal killings. She also gave false testimony about some of the AB blood in the master bedroom. We now know that the lab was working with CID and Murtagh to hid the evidence of foreign hairs, fibers and 22-24 inch blond wig strands. We now know from the affidavits of two neighbors, one a chaplain, that Colette's body was covered by a sheet after Mac was taken out and before the medics picked up the bodies. We know from the testimony and statements of CID and Murtagh that they arguedthe blood on the sheet was from Mac rolling Colette up and moving her body from room to room.

I can't even say the prosecution had a circumstantail case. There was lot of blood from multiple blunt force skull crashing blows, close to hundred bleeding stab wounds, blood on the walls, the doors, the ceiling, blood on Mac as he is running from one body to other, checking pulses, attempting mouth to mouth, touching and moving all three of the victims. There is, as anyone can see with their own eyes, blood saturated in the carpet all around Colette body. The CID investigators build their case on Mac and only Mac could be the perp because blood was all over him and his pj's top that he placed on Colette's chest. Duh, I would think he would have blood all over him. If he killed Kim he should have her blood and brains serum splattered over his shirt. Bashing in Colette head would have blood and serum splatter on his pj's. The CID theories that after killing his family he then put his pj's on Colette to stab her multiple times as part of the staging a scene tolook like multiple killers and was using his left hand to strike her in the head to make it look like a left handed intruder.

Were the jurors so in awe of the military authority that they believed this chit just because that was what they told they should believe. Someone running back and forth between 3 bedrooms carrying an assortment of weapons with near a hundred stab wounds and repeated skull bashing would not likely be dropping and throwing the victims blood all over the place was never a consideration of the jury. No the jury chose to believe that MacDonald was hauling bodies around and that was why the blood was in different rooms. That jury didn't even deliberate. There was no thinking or discussion or weighing of the evidence. The jury put blind faith in the CID and the government to tell them the truth and their vote of guilty was a vote of confidence for their hometown boy Blackburn. Blackburn's Bible thumping should never been allowed in his closing arguments. He had that jury thinking it was their Christain moral obligation to find MacDonald guilty and to h*ll with common sense and reasonable logic. Their entire case from indictment to verdict was based on lies from the their lab, hidden evidence, cover up of the ineptitude of the CID investigation and emotion driven manipulation of the emotionally unstable Kassabs. The verdict was a shocker for the defense because they knew there was no evidence other than the interpretation of an already proven inept CID investigation. The photos alone was proof the CID hadtheir way with the murder scene and who could trust the evidence after those Keystone Cops finished lounging around the crime scene having a Katch a Kup Of Koffee.

The living room is full of police standing and sitting around and Dr. MacDonald's wallet is moved from place to place until it ends on the ground empty of money a few miles away. What kind of people were living and working on that Army base. The Army paid MacDonald for the missing rings. Wanta bet they paid up because they knew those were stolen by one of their own and not by the perps of the murder. Mabe that is why there was never a search of the other suspects homes or the pawn shops for stolen jewelry.

audpaud

03-12-2006, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by audpaud
Do his brother and sister acknowledge his guilt?:confused:

:confused:

Bunny2

03-12-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by caphill
I am responding to a number issues you raised in this post as well as your previous post.heehee...Still talking to yourself, Bertie/Cappy? How funny.

He witnessed 4 assailants and Stoeckely says she was a witness to the crime. There were 3 confessions to be parties to the crime...Any evidence that could be considered by the jury as being from intruders was suppressed, destroyed or lost.My goodness, now I really am surprised. I guess judging by this, you've never even delved into the factual case records much, nor, apparently, were you aware that the DNA results are known now.

The long-awaited DNA results which Mac claimed would exonerate him showed that the hair in Colette's hand which he always claimed came from her murderer was his own, and neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA was found in any exhibit. That wraps it up for ol' Mac, Cappy. Better get used to it.

caphill

03-12-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
I guess you forgot you were posting as Caphill when you wrote this, didn't you, Bertie? LOL!! Don't you ever get tired of talking to yourself?
No, it isn't. How amazing that even after all this time, you still don't understand that unsourced items are NOT FORENSICALLY SIGNIFICANT, Cappy. What part of that don't you understand?

Snipped

You are factually wrong. Unsourced DNA items found in specific places on a murdered body can be and has been exnonerating to a number of wrongfully convicted people.

Unsourced hairs in Kristen's bedding, stuck on on the exterior of her body or in many places around the house would not be necessary exnonerating. It could be argued it was was evidence of intruders. Unsourced hairs , fibers and 22-24 inch wig strands taken in totality would be strong evidence that there were others in the house. DNA found in hairs found under the bloody fingernails of Kristen who had numerous defensive wounds on her hands that showed she was grabbing and clawing at the hands of the the person wielding the knife, excludes Dr. MacDonald.

DNA is used more for exclusion than in IDing a criminial. How would any reasonable thinking person believe that the responsibility of a person excluded from being a donor would have to know or find the donor out of a possible 300,000,000 million people living in this country or someone long dead and buried. I don't believe that even you are backward enough to believe DNA is only forensically significant if the donor is identified. No defendant is expected legally or by common sense to have to produce and prove the identiity of the unknown perps.

Why do you think the police investigators, who know what they are doing, bag a murder victim's hands at the crime scene? They do that to preserve any trace forensics that might be on or under the victims nails. That forensic evidence is vital in including or excluding a suspect. The piece of skin that Colette had under her nails was a most vital piece of evidence. Too bad that was one of many things that was "lost" by the CID in the early days of the crime.

In 1993 the first person released from jail and pardoned from unsourced DNA found on the victim's clothes was Kirk Bloodsworth.

Mr. Bloodsworth served more than 10years in jail and a part of that on death row. The unsourced DNA excluded him as the donor and freed him from jail.

Read the current news of the grisly student murder in NY.
The DNA found on the murdered body of Imette St Guillen excludes the only suspect, Littlejohn as the donor. The police have no idea at this time who the donor is of the DNA on the dead student. The police have not charged Littlejohn with this murder because the unsourced DNA excludes him.

You can preach to your choir here and disregard anything that doesn't support your incorrect message. You under estimate the
many people that may come to this forum to read. Many will read and not post because they don't want to be subjected to your rudeness, your accusations, your insults, your condescending remarks.

It is evident that you and the choir are here to sing and preach to each other a defense of the CID and the prosecution of 36 years ago. You repeat over and over the one sided view of the investigation of the CID and the words of Brain Murtagh. It is has beenknown for 26 years what evidence was chosen to present at trial. There is nothing new uncovered by the CID or prosecution to further valid the verdict. To offset the new evidence brought forth by MacDonald , this forum is being used to sprend vicious, malicious and slanderous rumors of child molestation that has absolutely no basis. Catty, sophomoric, venomous remarks are made about Dr. MacDonald's wife. Anyone thick skinned enough to post here is ridiculed, reported to be living in a mental institution suffering from multiple personalities. This kind of vicious remarks and personal attacks says more about the messenger than the message.

It is a new day in this case. Though it took almost 20 years to uncover, it is now known that CID and the prosecution hid evidence collected from the crime scene. Your arguments that the hidden evidence is not important. The only real truth is what the same deceitful CID investigators, lab techs and prosecution presented more than 30 years ago according to your message.

Let a court of law decide if the known suppressed evidence, the accusation of witness intimidation, the unsourced DNA found under the fingernails and in the bedding of Kristen and on the body of Collete, unsourced fibers on the murder weapon and mouth of Colette, other unsourced fibers found around the bodies, the 22-24 inch blond wig strands, have any evidentiary value.

Let the appeals court decide if the motion for relief based on suppressed evidence and witness intimidation has merit. The eyes are on Judge Fox to see if thinks Dr. MacDonald rights under the Constitution to a fair trail were violated.

The old days of the appellate courts denying Dr. MacDonald the right to be heard is history. Judge Fox has reviewed the brief and has ordered the US Government, defendant to respond to Dr. MacDonald, Movant..

The Motion filed clearly states the results of the DNA, that was still outstanding at the time, are not a part the on going legal process currently in play. This whupping it up about the DNA results effect on the District Courts decision is another piece of misinformation spewed about on this forum.

caphill

03-12-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Dr MacDonald was perfectly entitled to think that the human hair in Colette's hand may have come from one of the murderers. It had never been sourced to anybody, until now. Dr MacDonald must have hairy arms which he may have used when he was trying to revive Colette.

It's a pity DNA evidence wasn't available in 1970. That hair in the hand could have been DNA identified way back in 1990, in my opinion.

It's interesting to me that there is still a mystery hair underneath Kristen's fingernail. It's forensically well known that murder victims can violently resist, and that fingernail scrapings can provide forensic clues, like skin, hairs, and blood. There may even be geological evidence if the murder took place in a distinctive geological area, like red earth, or if the murderer was wearing a flower in his jacket.

There was a suggestion at one stage that hairs were also found under Colette's and Kim's fingernails. There doesn't seem to be any mention of that in the recent DNA results, or I haven't seen any mention of it . There is some talk on MacDonald's website at the moment with regard to the DNA results about a possible mystery hair on Colette's body. Perhaps Murtagh only allowed DNA testing of Kristen's fingernails because he thought that evidence would point to Dr MacDonald.

I don't really know how thoroughly this AFIP lab have DNA tested the fingernail scrapings of all the MacDonald murder victims. CID agent Bill Ivory is on record as saying he saw what looked like human skin in a microscope at the CID lab in 1970, under Colette's fingernail.

I think it's a tragedy that that skin was lost and will never be DNA tested. It's very unfair on Dr MacDonald for internet posters to say that this skin "probably" belonged to Dr MacDonald. There is no evidence of that at all.

The defense wanted 50 pieces of trace evidence and blood tested. Only 15 pieces were allowed and were tested. Maybe it was only Kristen's fingernail scraping that was submitted. I don't know which samples were actually tested and where these samples where located. If I recall correctly it was only hair that was presented by the government.

One hair in Colette hand was determined by the CID lab to be hers. The DNA confirms the lab got that one right. The other limp was too small for the CID to make a comparison at that time .The limp hair was determined to be Mac's hair. Wonder which hairor hairs had root ball.

I could stand corrected but I thought there was an unsourced brown hair about 6 inches long found in Colette hand. Did this hair get sent for testing or what it another one of the lost items. Which hair was it that Janice Glisson said did not match Mac but it would not be reported by her?

Our of the 15 samples tested, there are three that do not match Mac or any other family member. Out of the 15 there were matches to other family members and there are samples that yielded no results. There is no way to know what the other 35 samples that were not allowed might have yielded. There is documentation that shows there were hairs from Stoeckely. I read somewhere there was no hair samples from Mitchell.

Without seeing the actual report there is no way to know if at least 5 hairs profiled were from the 4 known family members and one known hair from Helena to be used as a comparison. If so that means the 7 remaining hairs were either family member or inconclusive.

Without question, it would be expected there would be hair and hair fragments found on the bedding and bodies from the family members from daily living in the house. I don't how I keep such a thick head of hair as much as I drop head hair all over my house. Any body hair on my arms is so small I can't see them but they are likely in my bed or on my clothes.

I might occasionly carry a hair or fiber in from brushing up against someone or from a seat somewhere. I will have to swear that I have never a 22-24 inch synthetic wig strand of hair stick on my clothes and transfer to my hairbrush.

If my ex husband had ever come home with 22-24 inch blond hair stuck on his body or clothes, he would not have lived long enough to tell me that he must have brushed up against a doll in the toy store.

Bunny2

03-12-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by caphill
You are factually wrong.LOL!!! How hilarious that you're now arguing with yourself in an attempt to make people think you and Bertie aren't the same person. Nice try, but no cigar.

:lol:

Bunny2

03-12-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
It's a pity DNA evidence wasn't available in 1970. That hair in the hand could have been DNA identified way back in 1990, in my opinion.I wonder why Mac didn't demand it, then.It's interesting to me that there is still a mystery hair underneath Kristen's fingernail.Is it also interesting to you that other unsourced items such as grass, etc. were also found? You ought to tell Mac to do some investigation on that, Bertie, to determine exactly, precisely which front or back yard or horse stable or public park or vacant lot or country club or golf course that grass came from.There is some talk on MacDonald's website...Yep, same old lies and misrepresentations that have always been told there, plus the new, pathetically desperate which deliberately fails to tell the whole truth about the DNA results.CID agent Bill Ivory is on record as saying he saw what looked like human skin in a microscope at the CID lab in 1970, under Colette's fingernail.The same Bill Ivory is on record as saying that he saw bits of latex gloves which looked like skin, and that when the lab actually examined what was in that vial, they found no skin particles. Most interesting of all, of course, is that the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald, had scratches on his upper chest from where Colette had dug her nails into him.

I think it's a lucky break for MacDonald that the "skin" (if it was skin at all) was lost, because certainly it would have been shown to be his own skin and certainly not Mitchell's or Stoeckley's or any other mythical "intruder's."

Of course, now with the DNA results confirming that no "intruder's" DNA matched any exhibit, the Intruder Myth is dead, so it's moot point now whether or not any "skin" ever existed.

Bunny2

03-12-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Who was the person that stole that wallet...why wasnt the jewelry box checked for fingerprints and the blood stain checked for type of blood considering that Mac reported the theft of two rings.Hey, Cappy, since you claim to have been at CM's website, how is it that you missed the background on these things?

Paulsen stole the wallet. Chamberlain tested the stain on the jewelry box on February 17, the day of the murders, and it was not blood. Mac was given back jewelry that he implied had been stolen, and provided no evidence that any missing jewelry had not been lost or misplaced before the murders.

And of course like so many other Stoeckley issues now, the whole MacFantasy which had Helena Stoeckley reaching into the jewelry box is over with. She was never there.

Janice Glisson balantly lied to the grand Jury...She also gave false testimony about some of the AB blood in the master bedroom. No, she didn't.

Your statements about "wig strands" are false; no wig strands were ever found in the apartment.

Your statements about the sheet with which Colette was covered are also wrong; it was a white gurney sheet, not the blue MB sheet.
We now know that the lab was working with CID and Murtagh to hid the evidence...False. The courts found no such thing, and neither did you.I can't even say the prosecution had a circumstantail case.The case was entirely circumstantial. The forensic evidence proved long ago that MacDonald had bludgeoned and butchered his family to death, and the DNA results recently released, which show that a hair in Colette's hand (forcibly removed) was MacDonald's own and that no "intruder's" DNA was found, put the final nail in his coffin.

Bunny2

03-12-2006, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Which hair was it that Janice Glisson said did not match Mac but it would not be reported by her?I know it's been pointed out to you before, several times I believe, that what Glisson's note (R-11) actually said was "...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 Janice Glisson was not assigned to do those comparisons. So why did you post this again?There is documentation that shows there were hairs from Stoeckely. I read somewhere there was no hair samples from Mitchell.The DNA results show that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, so I'm not sure what your point is here.I will have to swear that I have never a 22-24 inch synthetic wig strand of hair stick on my clothes and transfer to my hairbrush.Ummmm....again, I'm not sure what the point is, since no wig hairs in any brush were found in the Mac apartment. Regardless, at least we know that no synthetic fiber came from Stoeckley or any other "intruder."

rashomon

03-12-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Sparrow brain? Is that what I was called?

That sounds suspiciously close to an attack on my intelligence.

I'll let it slide, this time.

Back to my flagstone... 3,000 pounds later and I still have housework to do.

Sparrow brain indeed. Heh, dream on.
Spurs, don't take Bertie's silly remark seriously.
He is simply angry that you drew your conclusions re the DNA test results and changed your mind.
Whereas he probably would still believe in Mac's innocence even if eyewitnesses had seen him commit the crime.
So it is in fact Bertie who has a sparrow brain when it comes to MacDonald, not you.

caphill

03-12-2006, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
I know it's been pointed out to you before, several times I believe, that what Glisson's note (R-11) actually said was "...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 Janice Glisson was not assigned to do those comparisons. So why did you post this again?The DNA results show that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, so I'm not sure what your point is here.Ummmm....again, I'm not sure what the point is, since no wig hairs in any brush were found in the Mac apartment. Regardless, at least we know that no synthetic fiber came from Stoeckley or any other "intruder."

From Janice Glisson lab notes. Hair #1 was a long bloody head hair found on Colette's mouth. Hairs #7 & 8 were the other two hairs that Janice dicided to she was not going to report. They were light brown with hair roots found on Kimberly.

Why did Janice not report these 3 hairs. I stand by my earlier statment that Janice Glisson of the CID lab blatently lied when she told the Grand Jury an anyone else that she identified the urine in the bed as Kimberly and not Kristen's urine.

I challenge you to make a liar of me and tell me what kind of test was availabe in 1970 to make an ID of the donor of urine. I challenge you to tell me how urine from a healthy donor can be IDed in todays advanced world. Did Janice have a big old chrystal in back of the lab or was she just giving false testimony that was expected of her from the investigators.

I stated that I had read somewhere that the CID has a hair sample for Helena. I also read on Crime and Justice that the CID did not have a hair sample from Greg Mitchell.

If there was not hair sample for the DNA lab to work up a DNA profile then there is no way to determined if any of the evidence matched or didn't match Mitchell.

What would you call that 22-24 inch blond strand of Saran found in one the hairbrushs at the crime scene?

Bunny2

03-12-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Why did Janice not report these 3 hairs.I thought that was covered already. She wrote that she didn't label all the vials because they she wasn't assigned to do those comparisons; I believe it was Browning who was supposed to do that.

As for the urine, it was not from someone with Kristen's blood type. It was Kimberly's, Colette's, or an intruder's. I challenge you to show me any court or jury's decision showing that Colette or an intruder wet the bed. And what's your problem with the urine issue anyway, Bertie/Cappy, since Mac wasn't tried on whether or not Kim's urine was in the bed?Did Janice have a big old chrystal in back of the lab or was she just giving false testimony that was expected of her from the investigators.I don't think the jury thought she was lying, nor do I remember Bernie introducing any evidence of crystals, so I guess neither one applies.I also read on Crime and Justice that the CID did not have a hair sample from Greg Mitchell.The CID apparantly did obtain head hair samples from Greg Mitchell (and Bruce Fowler) in 1971.If there was not hair sample for the DNA lab to work up a DNA profile then there is no way to determined if any of the evidence matched or didn't match Mitchell.Since you visit C&J (why don't you post there, hmmmm....? could it be because you were - gasp! - banned??)...be sure to catch Jednme's good group of posts on p. 7 of the "Dna The Bottom Line" thread:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=120

What would you call that 22-24 inch blond strand of Saran found in one the hairbrushs at the crime scene?Forensically worthless.

stinkerbelle

03-12-2006, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by caphill

What would you call that 22-24 inch blond strand of Saran found in one the hairbrushs at the crime scene?
i'd call it circumstantial evidence :tongue: we have no eyewitness testimony from either mac or helena to back it up.

stinkerbelle

03-12-2006, 10:54 PM

bert, in at least one of your recent posts you questioned why certain exhibits were chosen for testing. (i'm too lazy to go back and find the post/posts and quote) in the link bunny provided, i found the following that might be helpful to you:

In 1997, based upon the newly available mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) technology, MacDonald’s attorney Philip G. Cormier filed an affidavit, based upon his interpretation of FBI and CID laboratory bench notes, specifically identifying hairs and suspected blood stains found in “critical locations” on the victims and in their bedding, which the government had never been able to identify.

so it looks like all the exhibits were chosen by cormier on behalf of macdonald. i know the original number was much higher than 15, but i believe JTF has posted that no blood exhibits could be tested because they were used up in other forms of testing. anyway, hope that answers your question as to who selected what was to be tested and why. :)

just_beesy

03-12-2006, 11:54 PM

Don't know if everybody has seen the DNA results or not. In the article, Mac's people mention an unidentified hair found under the girls' nails. Yet, the actual report does not mention that specific hair or hairs. So what is that all about?
http://www.wral.com/news/7887201/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=news

just_beesy

03-13-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by caphill
[QUOTE][B]From Janice Glisson lab notes. Hair #1 was a long bloody head hair found on Colette's mouth. Hairs #7 & 8 were the other two hairs that Janice dicided to she was not going to report. They were light brown with hair roots found on Kimberly.
I'm confused, if this hair wasn't reported then how do you know about it? So she recorded these hairs in her notes, but then lied on the stand or what are you saying? If she put them in her notes, isn't that reporting them?

caphill

03-13-2006, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy

I'm confused, if this hair wasn't reported then how do you know about it? So she recorded these hairs in her notes, but then lied on the stand or what are you saying? If she put them in her notes, isn't that reporting them?

Many items of forensics were listed on the hand written lab notes of Janice Glisson. It is her hand written notes that those 3 particular items were given #'s and put on slides and vials and would not be reported by her. These items were not put on the lab's final report that was available to the defense and to the jury.

Murtagh would not turn over the lab work notes to the defense. The defense asked for them and made a motion for access to them. A FOIA order allowed the defense years later to have access to the thousands of documents that had been denied them before the trial The defense motions for relief or new trial was based on finding out later these different fibers and hairs that stuck on the murder weapon and on the mouth of Colette existed. The defense didn't know the CID was holding close to their chest the 22-24 inch blond wig strands an many other pieces of evidence until they forced by FOIA court their way into these closed files.

That was what some of the appeals were all about. The defense cried foul when they had proof there was many potential exnonerating items of forensic evidence existed andthe CID and Murtagh had hidden them from the defense and the jury.

Anyone that claims the long brown hairs found on Colette's mouth, the brown hairs found on Kimerbly's body, the foreign fibers on Colette's mouth and murder weapon were of no signficance is just whistling Dixie. These items hidden from the defense were significant enough for Murtagh and the CID to spend years trying to keep them under cover.

This case was won by the prosecution based on their argument to the jury that there was no evidence of intruders in the house . They stressed to the jury the lack of any foreign hairs, fibers etc was the proof that only MacDonald was in the house that night.

What would the jury have done in this very weak case against MacDonald it they had known about the 22-24 blond Saran hair strands. What would they have done it they had known the murder weapon and the mouth of Colette had black wool fibers that matched nothing that could be found in the house. There were many more unidentified fibers and hairs found but to find unidentified hairs and fibers on the murder victims bodies and under their fingernails and on the murder weapons was evidence somebody else had been up close and personal with the murder victims that night.

BTW the link you posted doesn't work. It looks like that link might be a news article and not the actual test results. I would doubt that the District Court would be releasing the actual DNA tests and results to the internet at this point. The preliminary reports were just released to the District Court on Friday. The entitled interested parties in this case haven't even had the time to review and analyze the results. The tests were ordered by a District Court in 1997. I doubt Judge Fox and the other panel of judges were rushing on Friday afternoon to get copies of the results to the news media ,the bloggers and message boards before they have had a chance to review them. These results of the DNA tests is not a part of or to be included in the Motions and Order to respond legal process now in play. The new evidence of Britts affidavit and the affidavits about Greg Mitchelll's confessions are not effected by these tests one way or the other.

The

stinkerbelle

03-13-2006, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy
Don't know if everybody has seen the DNA results or not. In the article, Mac's people mention an unidentified hair found under the girls' nails. Yet, the actual report does not mention that specific hair or hairs. So what is that all about?
http://www.wral.com/news/7887201/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=news
thanks for the link beesy! (and cappy, it works just fine if you copy and paste into your browser)

the report does mention unsourced hairs, but does not state where they were found. since mac has claimed for years and years that the hair found in colette's left hand MUST HAVE come from an intruder and since that hair turned out to be his own, i think that might be why the report was written as it was. JMO of course.

rashomon

03-13-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by caphill
In favor also for Dr. MacDonald was his non violent history, his lack of drug and alcohol abuse history and his exemplar academic, work, milatary and deciplined life history.

Ever heard of the phrase 'too good to be true', caphill?
That's how MacDonald appeared on the surface, and many 'too good to be true guys' turn out to be not so peachy-keen at all once you get to know them better. That's why I have always been a bit suspicious of types like that, lol.

We know that MacD had shown violent behavior before, and in all probability abused amphetamines.
And in terms of discipline: he certainly wasn't disciplined at all when it came to controlling his hormonal urges: he obviously made passes at every female whom he found sexually attractive, not giving a damn about Colette's feelings re such a behavior.

just_beesy

03-13-2006, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by caphill

Many items of forensics were listed on the hand written lab notes of Janice Glisson. It is her hand written notes that those 3 particular items were given #'s and put on slides and vials and would not be reported by her. These items were not put on the lab's final report that was available to the defense and to the jury.

Murtagh would not turn over the lab work notes to the defense. The defense asked for them and made a motion for access to them. A FOIA order allowed the defense years later to have access to the thousands of documents that had been denied them before the trial The defense motions for relief or new trial was based on finding out later these different fibers and hairs that stuck on the murder weapon and on the mouth of Colette existed. The defense didn't know the CID was holding close to their chest the 22-24 inch blond wig strands an many other pieces of evidence until they forced by FOIA court their way into these closed files.

That was what some of the appeals were all about. The defense cried foul when they had proof there was many potential exnonerating items of forensic evidence existed andthe CID and Murtagh had hidden them from the defense and the jury.

Anyone that claims the long brown hairs found on Colette's mouth, the brown hairs found on Kimerbly's body, the foreign fibers on Colette's mouth and murder weapon were of no signficance is just whistling Dixie. These items hidden from the defense were significant enough for Murtagh and the CID to spend years trying to keep them under cover.

This case was won by the prosecution based on their argument to the jury that there was no evidence of intruders in the house . They stressed to the jury the lack of any foreign hairs, fibers etc was the proof that only MacDonald was in the house that night.

What would the jury have done in this very weak case against MacDonald it they had known about the 22-24 blond Saran hair strands. What would they have done it they had known the murder weapon and the mouth of Colette had black wool fibers that matched nothing that could be found in the house. There were many more unidentified fibers and hairs found but to find unidentified hairs and fibers on the murder victims bodies and under their fingernails and on the murder weapons was evidence somebody else had been up close and personal with the murder victims that night.

BTW the link you posted doesn't work. It looks like that link might be a news article and not the actual test results. I would doubt that the District Court would be releasing the actual DNA tests and results to the internet at this point. The preliminary reports were just released to the District Court on Friday. The entitled interested parties in this case haven't even had the time to review and analyze the results. The tests were ordered by a District Court in 1997. I doubt Judge Fox and the other panel of judges were rushing on Friday afternoon to get copies of the results to the news media ,the bloggers and message boards before they have had a chance to review them. These results of the DNA tests is not a part of or to be included in the Motions and Order to respond legal process now in play. The new evidence of Britts affidavit and the affidavits about Greg Mitchelll's confessions are not effected by these tests one way or the other.The

Ok, so like I thought, smoke and mirrors from him and his supporters. I'm not a newbie to Mac so you can't get me on this BS. He has had many chances for a new trial and he hasn't been granted one. But, of course there's a conspiracy against him bigger than the JFK assassination. You didn't mention the different colored wax that was found. Of course Helena would have had to bring a supply of candles for all of the different colors to have come from her

just_beesy

03-13-2006, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

thanks for the link beesy! (and cappy, it works just fine if you copy and paste into your browser)

the report does mention unsourced hairs, but does not state where they were found. since mac has claimed for years and years that the hair found in colette's left hand MUST HAVE come from an intruder and since that hair turned out to be his own, i think that might be why the report was written as it was. JMO of course.
Thank you. Yes, that's what I thought. More blah blah blah from the Maccies. The hair in her left hand theory has been shot down so they move on to the next one. I think what is more important is that the hairs did NOT match any of the 3 people he has for years claimed were the killers.

just_beesy

03-13-2006, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Ever heard of the phrase 'too good to be true', caphill?
That's how MacDonald appeared on the surface, and many 'too good to be true guys' turn out to be not so peachy-keen at all once you get to know them better. That's why I have always been a bit suspicious of types like that, lol.

We know that MacD had shown violent behavior before, and in all probability abused amphetamines.
And in terms of discipline: he certainly wasn't disciplined at all when it came to controlling his hormonal urges: he obviously made passes at every female whom he found sexually attractive, not giving a damn about Colette's feelings re such a behavior.
The Boogie Man doesn't always look like the Boogie Man

JTF

03-13-2006, 08:55 AM

Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile matched 3 of the hairs found at the crime scene.

CID Exhibit E-5: Light brown limb hair found in Colette MacDonald's left palm.

CID Exhibit E-52NB: Body hair found on Kristen MacDonald's bed.

CID Exhibit D-229: One of many body hairs found in the multi-colored bedspread.

In 1999, Judge Fox stated that the only significant DNA results would involve the DNA profile of a KNOWN SUSPECT matching 1 or more of the hair exhibits. Obviously, the results don't even come close to matching Fox's criteria. What must be a crushing blow to the defense team is that the results add to the mountain of evidence that convicted their client in less than 7 hours in 1979. MacDonald has no chance of even obtaining an evidentiary hearing, much less a new trial. The Jimmy Britt situation is just a brief stop on the road to death in prison for Jeffrey MacDonald.

JTF.

cami

03-13-2006, 09:01 AM

cami

03-13-2006, 10:07 AM

caphill

03-13-2006, 12:18 PM

This is off topic but goes to subject that the Justice Dept and some of their prosecutors have feet of clay and some will do anything to get the verdict they desire.

The breaking news is the Federal Judge in the Moussaoui, admitted al Qaeda terrorist, trial has recessed the dealth penalty trial for prosecutorial misconduct.

The Judge discovered the government prosecutors had been tampering and coaching witnesses.

WTH has these DOJ lawyers come to in this country. Do they think because they are part of the government that they are beyond the rules of law? The Constitution and the rights of any defendant to a fair trial doesn't apply to them and their cases.

The Moussaoui case is one of the most high profile cases in the world today and these government legal buffoons coach their witnesses!

This is another case of personal ambition to get a desired verdict supersedes personal and legal integrity.

This kind of abuse of our legal system , the Constitution, and the rules of law this country was built on, is a national and world embarrassment and shame.

I am going to predict that there will be other buffoons that will come forth to defend the indefensible antics of these government lawyers. When the government legal beagles and law enforcement gets caught red handed with misconduct, false testimony etc they are usually not held accountable. No accountability keeps the door wide open for legal abuse in this country. If the government or state prosecutors can get away it, it just boosts their career. If they get caught with misconduct it many times will boost their career also.

There will be some who will still pat these prosecutors on the back for their passion in wanting to convict and excuse the violations to Constitution and the corruption that goes to the very heart of this country being built on a rule of law.

A few cowboys in the Justice Dept has given the USA another black eye.

Isn't Murtagh in the terrorist division at the Justice Dept? Maybe he shared a few tips within the division on how to win at all costs. After all he knows how to further a career.

cami

03-13-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by just_beesy

I'm confused, if this hair wasn't reported then how do you know about it? So she recorded these hairs in her notes, but then lied on the stand or what are you saying? If she put them in her notes, isn't that reporting them?

No she didn't Beese. Typical MacDonald groupie smoke and mirrors started by Fatal Justice and continued by Cappy/Bertie/Artie.

Here's is what R-11 says and what Glisson wrote (http://www.fataljustice.com/hairtech.jpg)

As you can clearly see, Fatal Justice took that notation and cut off where they wanted to make it appear as Army/prosecutor malfeasance. Of course Cappy knows this but it is much more fun for him to pretend ignorance.

Bunny2

03-13-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
...Everybody had the highest opinion of him, apart that is from the bus driver who used to drive Kim to school.False. "Everybody" did not have the highest opinion of him, as you knew before you posted.You must remember that North Carolina lawyers are "Southern bigots"...No, actually you're the bigot, which is no doubt one of the reasons you were banned from C&J and A&E.The North Carolina lawyers at the 1979 trial deliberately withheld from the jury, and MacDonald lawyers, exculpatory forensic evidence which would hve cleared Dr MacDonald.No, they didn't. Read the records.He must produce clear and convincing proof of his innocence. This is very difficult for [the murderer] because the CID and FBI have never actively investigated the real culprits, or actively investigated the intruder theory.Actually, the real facts are that a very thorough investigation was done, and Mac can't produce clear and convicing proof of his innocence because he's not innocent.I agree with caphillOf course you do, since you and Cappy are the same person....MacDonald wasn't wearing black wool that night and Murtagh and Blackburn have never sourced that black wool either.And until you do source it to a known assailant and provide other corroborating evidence that that assailant helped Mac commit the murders, it's forensically worthless and means nothing at all, as you knew before you posted.I still don't know the full facts about the MacDonald case DNA evidence, or how much DNA evidence is still being covered up.[ If there is now a DNA profile for that hair under Kristen's fingernail then an attempt to match it to a member of the Stoeckley group should be made as a matter of urgency.You're making yourself look ludicrous again, Bertie, but of course that's no surprise; it's what you've been doing since your very first posts on A&E last summer, before you were banned. The DNA results proved that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, and the all-important "mystery hair" in Colette's hand that Mac insisted could only have come from her murderer was proven to be his own. The only coverup is the one taking place on the murderer's website.

byn63

03-13-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
False. "Everybody" did not have the highest opinion of him, as you knew before you posted.No, actually you're the bigot, which is no doubt one of the reasons you were banned from C&J and A&E.No, they didn't. Read the records.Actually, the real facts are that a very thorough investigation was done, and Mac can't produce clear and convicing proof of his innocence because he's not innocent.Of course you do, since you and Cappy are the same person.And until you do source it to a known assailant and provide other corroborating evidence that that assailant helped Mac commit the murders, it's forensically worthless and means nothing at all, as you knew before you posted.You're making yourself look ludicrous again, Bertie, but of course that's no surprise; it's what you've been doing since your very first posts on A&E last summer, before you were banned. The DNA results proved that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, and the all-important "mystery hair" in Colette's hand that Mac insisted could only have come from her murderer was proven to be his own. The only coverup is the one taking place on the murderer's website.

Hey bunny - don't you want to add:

"this is a recording..............beep!"?????????????????

seems to me, I've read bertie/albie/artie/cappy posts over and over still stating the same old nonsense. AND, I find it highly insulting that "they" all insist on using the honorific to which Inmate 00131-177 is no longer entitled. Actually, even his number is too good for him, imho!:cuss:

caphill

03-13-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Dr MacDonald is a first-class man, Princeton educated, brilliant doctor. Everybody had the highest opinion of him, apart that is from the bus driver who used to drive Kim to school

snipped

You must remember that North Carolina lawyers are "Southern bigots" as Dr MacDonald described them. They are only interested in convicting innocent people in order to further their own careers. They aren't concerned about justice, in the same way as Colonel Rock was concerned about justice at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970.

snipped

The North Carolina lawyers at the 1979 trial deliberately withheld from the jury, and MacDonald lawyers, exculpatory forensic evidence which would hve cleared Dr MacDonald.

Unfortunately once an innocent man has been convicted and sentenced, his chances of eventual exoneration are poor. He must produce clear and convincing proof of his innocence. This is very difficult for Dr MacDonald because the CID and FBI have never actively investigated the real culprits, or actively investigated the intruder theory.
snipped

I agree with caphill that Glisson of the CID lab, and the FBI lab, covered up the evidence of the mystery hair under Kristen's fingernail, and the black wool fibers on the mouth and biceps of Colette, and on the murder weapon. The jury were never impressed with this evidence because the MacDonald lawyers and forensic experts were never informed about that exculpatory forensic evidence by Murtagh prior to, or during the 1979 trial.

snipped

I still don't know the full facts about the MacDonald case DNA evidence, or how much DNA evidence is still being covered up. If there is now a DNA profile for that hair under Kristen's fingernail then an attempt to match it to a member of the Stoeckley group should be made as a matter of urgency.

The fire brigade as the clique here calls themselves, were quick to report the bus driver said Kimberly wished he was her father because her daddy was mean. They didn't further report that the bus driver said he had also heard about Colette's infidelities.

This bus driver may not have even had a high school education and may not have even had all his teeth. He decides to insert himself in this case and make absolutely ridiculous statements. It was despicable that he wanted to spread lies that Colette was cheating on MacDonald. It was even more despicable that CID would lower themselves to take his statements and try to use them to taint Macdonald as a mean father and their mother as a *****.

Dr. MacDonald had joined the Army immediatey after he finished his residency at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. He earned his doctorate at Northwestern. He attended Princeton for 3 years. He was offered scholarships to Colgate and Princeton.

He excelled in shorts and academics through high school, under grad and grad school. He was from a middle class family and earned his place in Ivy League school because of his academic abilities and not family standing or money.

The venomous comments that MacDonald suffered jealousy of his colleagues because of his education is a hoot. It is indicative to me that the poster is ignorant about schools of higher education.
I doubt many of Dr. MacDonald's colleagues had such an impressive academic background and attended such prestigious schools of higher learning.

I don't usually respond to such absurd and ignorant comments. One can chose as to how they interpret whatever information they have on the murder case. When someone resorts to malicious lies, gossip, innuendo with no basis of fact it shows their inability to have a intelligent discuss or debate about the actual issues of the case.

This forum has unfortunately become the Jerry Springer style of rudeness, viciousness, personal attacks, malicious lies, and manipulation of the facts. When one lacks the ability to have civilized, dignified or polite discussions there will be this kind of verjuice.

Who are these people that have such a dog in this hunt to so vehemently defend the actions of Ivory, Kearns, Murtagh regarding any misconduct or suppression of evidence. Are they the relatives or close friends of the people in question?

The writing style and quotes echoes from one poster to the other and from one forum to the other. Is there an original thought or opinion amongst the "fire brigade" as they proudly call themselves? It looks like a Kearns brigade and love fest, with Kearns leading the pack. Kearns has presented himself as the person with ownership of the truth, knowledge of this case . He brags he was the most important person in the case who led the Kassabs, the Grand Jury, the court trial to its conclusion. He makes sure he gets the credit for many of the documents and pictures on Christina's site that he took from the CID files. He may be proud he has access to the nude autopsy pics of the children and Colette and releases them to be put on the internet. He appears to care more of his image and ego than the dignity of the dead family members of MacDonald. Wonder what his reaction would be if someone took possession of nude dead pics of his wife, his mother or his children and put them on the internet?

Deb B

03-13-2006, 02:57 PM

rashomon

03-13-2006, 03:03 PM

Bunny2

03-13-2006, 03:08 PM

They didn't further report that the bus driver said he had also heard about Colette's infidelities.Why do you deliberately lie and misrepresent things so much, Bertie? Why don't you tell people that what the bus driver actually said was that he had heard "unsupported rumors" about that, and that not a single shred of any kind of evidence ever surfaced to show that Colette was ever unfaithful? Why would you even bring up such a silly thing? Was it just because you're so very angry that Mac cheated on Colette all the time, virtually with no letup at all? What are you so afraid of when it comes to telling the truth?

And why in the world are you so fixated on the bus driver anyway, Bertie? Maybe Mac tried to get the bus driver to have sex with him, and the bus driver was offended at MacDonald's advances towards him. Maybe Mac paid the bus driver to say that he'd heard "unsupported rumors" about Colette. This ought to be investigated!! Or, maybe the bus driver actually is a pretty inconsequential part of the case, whaddya think?...impressive academic background...attended such...excelled...Isn't it sad that Mac threw all that away the moment he decided to murder his family. Sad for him and his victims, which are numerous.When someone resorts to malicious lies, gossip, innuendo with no basis of fact it shows their inability to have a intelligent discuss or debate about the actual issues of the case.So why do you resort to such things so often, then?It looks like a Kearns brigade and love fest...Nah, that's just you, trying to bait people again. Don't you ever get tired of doing that?

caphill

03-13-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by cami

No she didn't Beese. Typical MacDonald groupie smoke and mirrors started by Fatal Justice and continued by Cappy/Bertie/Artie.

Here's is what R-11 says and what Glisson wrote (http://www.fataljustice.com/hairtech.jpg)

As you can clearly see, Fatal Justice took that notation and cut off where they wanted to make it appear as Army/prosecutor malfeasance. Of course Cappy knows this but it is much more fun for him to pretend ignorance.

#1 was a long hair found on Colette's mouth. #7 and #8 were hairs taken from Kimberly's body. These 3 hairs were not put on the final lab report that was presented as the report of the crime scene evidence. The jury never knew of these hairs and the defense never knew of these hairs.

A FOIA court order years later is what uncovered these and other pieces of evidence that were hidden from MacDonald and his attorneys.

If the Army CID and prosecutor instructed their lab to omit pieces of evidence they didn't want the defense or a jury to know about, would that be called malfeasance, suppression of evidence. What would you call it?

The lab work notes from Glisson clears shows the hairs #1#7and #8 are being given other #s and are not going to be reported by her. To give them other #s and then not report them seems to me to be a deliberate effort to exclude them from the final lab report. These lab work notes were given to the CID and Murtagh. That is proof that the CID and Murtagh knew these hairs were being omitted and not for the eyes of the defense of the jury. MacDonald attorney filed a legal Motion to get the lab work notes. Murtagh put up a fuss and he was denied the Motion to see the work notes. It was the legal obligation for the prosecution to turn over these notes as a part of the discovery. Shows the power of the State to make up their rules of law if they have a biased Judge ruling in their favor.

After the hairs were discovered, IIRC, the long hair found on Colette's mouth disappeared.

Bunny2

03-13-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by byn63
Hey bunny - don't you want to add:

"this is a recording..............beep!"?????????????????

seems to me, I've read bertie/albie/artie/cappy posts over and over still stating the same old nonsense.Oh, yeah, in fact I've been suspecting for the last few weeks that all Bertie is doing is going over to A&E and copying his old posts and pasting them (or excerpts from them) here. Either that, or my first thoughts long ago that he was actually a robot Mac bought with some of the defense fund money are true. :D

Bunny2

03-13-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by caphill
#1 was a long hair found on Colette's mouth. #7 and #8 were hairs taken from Kimberly's body....A FOIA court order years later is what uncovered these and other pieces of evidence that were hidden from MacDonald and his attorneys.It's res judica, Cappy, long, long ago in fact. Blather on all you want to, but it won't make one whit of difference in the fact that the court found NO WRONGFUL SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE AND THAT MAC WAS THE MURDERER OF HIS FAMILY. Write it down if you can't remember it, please.

Betcha wish now that Mac had never asked for those DNA tests, don't you? Poor Cappy/Bertie, you're just in a total tizzy now, aren't you, working SO hard to try to keep the MacMyths alive, but neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to breathe enough life into his case to raise it from the dead where it now resides. heeheeThe lab work notes from Glisson clears shows the hairs #1#7and #8 are being given other #s and are not going to be reported by her.Go back and read the records and the posts put up to you, even as recently as today or yesterday. Why do you lie and misrepresent things so much, Cappy? Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?After the hairs were discovered, IIRC, the long hair found on Colette's mouth disappeared.Hmmm...isn't it funny that in all these years of studying this case, I don't remember ever hearing or seeing anything at all about this. Point to a link, please?

rashomon

03-13-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

Hi rashomon!:D Tx for the fascinating response . . . I'm thinking I MUST re-read Fatal Vision 'cause I DO vaguely recall the fight the brothers' had now . . . Yes, on Christina's site--under "Transcripts" is a file called "Report on MacDonald: Historical Data (Attachment to Mack Testimony December 11, 1974") . . . (sorry I can't do linx:o ) . . . the text refers to MacDad as "a heavy drinker in his later years."

Do his brother and sister acknowledge his guilt?:confused:

Thanks for directing me to the source on CM's site, Audpaud.
So if Old Mac became a heavy drinker in his later years, that would have been when Jeff had already moved out.
For it would have suprprised me if JMD would have idolized his father so much if he had been a full-blown alcoholic when Jeff and his siblings still lived at home. But if it was in his later years, that is of course another story. He also died comparatively young (I think at forty-seven years) and his alcohol abuse may have been a contributing factor.
On another forum I read that JMD's sister seems to have severe alcohol problems too.
I always had the impression that his sister was the lowest on the MacDonald family totem pole, and who knows if low self-esteem didn't contribute to her current problems.
On the surface, the MacDonalds seem to have been a very popular family: gregarious, with tons of people over at their house every day, Old Mac the 'big rapper' the charismatic center of all etc.
But underneath that surface I think there was an incredible tension in that family. A father dissatisfied with his own life, who couldn't really show affection toward his children, who demanded absolute obedience and that the children excel in everything, who despised women - not ecaxtly an environment in which a child can thrive emotionally, quite the contrary, it is an emotionally crippling environment.

You asked if JMD's siblings ever acknowledged his guilt. Difficult question.
Although his sister told investigators that she thought it possible Jeff could kill if he were provoked, in her later Grand Jury testimony she stated that she could not imagine this.
And as for Jay, he too in his Grand Jury testimony said he did not believe his brother killed his family.
But years later, he sent Jeff a letter in which he asked him point-blank if he had killed his family. Jeff's comment about that letter was that it just showed once more how mentally disturbed his brother was.
But through the years, both Jay and Judy seem to have supported their brother. Just my speculation, but I think that this is some sort of defense mechanism which sets in because it is just too horrible to face the fact that one of your close family members is a killer. Therefore people simply decide not to look into the matter further, to be spared the shock of finding out for themselves what they fear to find out.

margiej

03-13-2006, 04:28 PM

Hi, Rash. I agree with your summation of old man MacD. Young MacD had not graduated from med school when the old man died. So this seemed to be a disappointment to Jeff MacD that he did not get to prove to his father that the money invested in his education paid off. I got the impression, from things I have read, not from personal knowledge, that Old Man MacD was like a lightbulb. He turned on when he had people around him. He basked in the limelight. But when people went home and only his family was there, he was left with his life disappointments of a lesser job than his coworkers and lacked the education to change it. Sort of like MacD at Fort Bragg when he was demoted to hygiene physician from group surgeon. He was going no where and disliked being a "lowly" person. This may have contributed in an indirect way to his treatment of Colette. No matter how low he was on the pecking order, he was certainly (in his estimation) higher than Colette.

Sorry, Rash. When I started this post I had a point I wanted to make. Somewhere I lost it. How embarrassing!!! :shrug:

realityaddict06

03-13-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I agree with caphill.

I think the MacDonald case is a terrible case and an absolute tragedy for Dr MacDonald. After the devastating blow of finding his wife and daughters murdered by intruders, Dr MacDonald desperately needed some of the best homicide guys in America on the case. Instead he found inept and incompetent army investigators just decided he did it on the first day, and from then on it was case closed as far as they were concerned.

I'm not all that happy about the way these recent DNA results seem to be being reported in the American media. The reports seem to feed the violent prejudice the American public has against the innocent Dr MacDonald, and makes persuading in the court of public opinion and any judge or jury of his innocence, even more difficult.

I believe Murtagh coached Pam Kalin at the Grand Jury and Mildred Kassab at the 1979 trial to say that they saw ice picks in the MacDonald apartment. There was never any real evidence to back that ice pick business up. Murtagh must be up to his old witness coaching tricks in this recent terrorist case. I think Murtagh is now some kind of Deputy Chief in a terrorism and violent crime unit at the Justice Department. This could make life even more difficult for Dr MacDonald unless some first-class trial judges keep a check on Murtagh, and weigh up the evidence.

In my opinion the main problem Dr MacDonald had from the start was the grossly incompetent investigation by the FBI and CID. The local police seemed to be on the right track at the beginning but they were told it wasn't their jurisdiction.

Whatever anybody says on this forum the Stoeckley group were never professionally and thoroughly investigated. They were asked a few cursory questions by the FBI, but that was just for appearance sake so that MacDonald lawyers couldn't say that the investigation was only focused on Dr MacDonald. There was never any thoroughness in the investigation of the Stoeckley group.

MacDonald private investigators Ted Gunderson and Ray Shedlick did attemt to investigate the Stoeckley group in the 1980s and had some success. They were lacking in money and resources. The Stoeckley group should have been properly investigated by the FBI and CID and the regular police.

Whatever Bunny says about the ridiculous child molestation allegations and the Kearns MacDonald sex life allegations never being mentioned at the Macdonald 1979 trial, it is that sort of false gossip and hearsay that persuaded the court of public opinion to put the innocent Dr MacDonald in prison in he first place, and may keep him in prison.

The thought occurred to me that if CID agent Shaw ludicrously and honestly thought Colette murdered the two little girls then perhaps Dr MacDoanld's defense strategy could have been to say that Colette committed suicide! That might have kept Dr MacDonald out of prison even though it was completely untrue, and the Stoeckley brutal murderers would still have gone scot free.

While reading this post, in particular the last paragraph, I have to ask, did you write this with an absolutely straight face????

bandit's mom

03-13-2006, 06:09 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bert Tansill
[.

You must remember that North Carolina lawyers are "Southern bigots" as Dr MacDonald described them. They are only interested in convicting innocent people in order to further their own careers.

Wow, just in case the rest of your insane rantings weren't enough, this one proves beyond any doubt who the bigot
is. Tell me, does this enlightened view apply to all Southern
Lawyers, or is it confined to those who practice in North
Carolina?

margiej

03-13-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I agree with caphill.

I believe Murtagh coached Pam Kalin at the Grand Jury and Mildred Kassab at the 1979 trial to say that they saw ice picks in the MacDonald apartment. There was never any real evidence to back that ice pick business up. Murtagh must be up to his old witness coaching tricks in this recent terrorist case. I think Murtagh is now some kind of Deputy Chief in a terrorism and violent crime unit at the Justice Department. This could make life even more difficult for Dr MacDonald unless some first-class trial judges keep a check on Murtagh, and weigh up the evidence.

Oh, my. :no: No offense, but I think you must be delusional to make the above statement. There is not one shread of foundation to make such a bald face accusation. Did you pull that out of thin air, or what? Murtagh had no reason to tamper with evidence or coach witnesses. It was the evidence against MacD INSIDE 544 Castle Drive that convicted MacD, not Murtagh. Do you honestly think MacD would have walked free had Pam Kalin and Mildred Kassab not mentioned the ice pick at all? I don't. Whether or not there was an ice pick inside the apartment did not detract from the mountain of blood, fiber and footprints evidence that did convict MacD. The defense had an uphill battle from the get-go. MacD was the prosecutions star witness. His own words helped convict him. That is his legacy. His own words. His own words. His own words. He cannot escape them. He put himself in prison. All Murtagh did was cheer him on."Go, MacD, Go. Tell us some more lies that don't match with the known and provable evidence." This is just my opinion, of course.

JTF

03-13-2006, 06:51 PM

Margiej: Caphill and his ilk are merely MacDonald groupies who don't know what to do with themselves since the DNA test results further demonstrated their leader's guilt. Not only did the tests provide ANOTHER piece of trace evidence linking Jeff to the murders of his family (i.e., his limb hair in Colette's left palm), but the REAL significance in the results can be found in what WAS NOT found at the crime scene. The fact that the DNA profiles of Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley did not match any of the 15 hair exhibits ends the MacDonald-created intruder farce. The MacDonald camp has no defense for the absurd notion that Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley, Bruce Fowler, Don Harris, Dwight Smith, Allen Mazzerolle, and Cathy Perry went on a murderous rampage at 544 Castle Drive, but didn't leave any trace of their existence. Ballgame over for Jeffie Boy.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-13-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by margiej
Oh, my. :no: No offense, but I think you must be delusional to make the above statement. There is not one shread of foundation to make such a bald face accusation. Did you pull that out of thin air, or what? Murtagh had no reason to tamper with evidence or coach witnesses. It was the evidence against MacD INSIDE 544 Castle Drive that convicted MacD, not Murtagh. LOL! Margie, Bertie/Caphill has been pulling things like this out of magical hats for ages. I'm laughing just thinking back on some of them. Some of my favorites were the ones about the vampires and the Mafia and the Masons and Mick Jagger and the black wool wigs that the 17 intruders were wearing, but the one where he deliberately misrepresented a court transcript is also a favorite, as are the "enormous widespread conspiracy carefully and cleverly orchestrated by the inept and incompetent CID" ones. And oh! - Let us not ever forget the fantastic, recent bit he came up with about Kim not being injured in the MB! That one definitely ranks up there as one of my all-time favorites.

It didn't take me long to figure out Bertie's/Caphill's new game. He knows his old game is now over with because Mac's charade (and his own) was blown to bits by the DNA results. But he's a diehard flamebaiter...no way was he going to give up his baiting, regardless of any DNA results. So, after spending some time trying to decide how to keep his charade going, he decided "Simple! All I have to do is keep bringing up the same old issues I've always brought up! Nothing's changed! I can still bait people by robotically posting the same old things about Glisson or the synthetic fibers or the vampires or Mick Jagger -- not forgetting to include 'I agree with Caphill' in every post I write! -- and I can keep my game going forever!"

Silly person. I get a laugh out of him every day, usually more than once, depending on how many names he's posting under that day. :)

Bunny2

03-13-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Margiej: Caphill and his ilk are merely MacDonald groupies who don't know what to do with themselves since the DNA test results further demonstrated their leader's guilt. Not only did the tests provide ANOTHER piece of trace evidence linking Jeff to the murders of his family (i.e., his limb hair in Colette's left palm), but the REAL significance in the results can be found in what WAS NOT found at the crime scene. The fact that the DNA profiles of Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley did not match any of the 15 hair exhibits ends the MacDonald-created intruder farce. The MacDonald camp has no defense for the absurd notion that Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley, Bruce Fowler, Don Harris, Dwight Smith, Allen Mazzerolle, and Cathy Perry went on a murderous rampage at 544 Castle Drive, but didn't leave any trace of their existence. Ballgame over for Jeffie Boy.

JTF
Absolutely, JTF! Bertie/Cappy can keep deliberately repeating the same old lies and misinformation ad infinitum, but not a single thing he could ever write will put the shattered pieces of Mac's charade back together again.

Good post.

stinkerbelle

03-13-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill

I'm not all that happy about the way these recent DNA results seem to be being reported in the American media. The reports seem to feed the violent prejudice the American public has against the innocent Dr MacDonald, and makes persuading in the court of public opinion and any judge or jury of his innocence, even more difficult.
honey, you're unhappy about the DNA results period. just admit it, you'll be happier! but if you prefer to think the media is in on the vast conspiracy against ole mac, you go right ahead. cry a little if it will make you feel better.

There was never any real evidence to back that ice pick business up.
not even mac's best friend ron harrison's story of mac hunting for the icepick? i suppose that might not be "real evidence" but then again, it's just as much evidence as any of helena's many confessions and recantations.

Whatever Bunny says about the ridiculous child molestation allegations and the Kearns MacDonald sex life allegations never being mentioned at the Macdonald 1979 trial, it is that sort of false gossip and hearsay that persuaded the court of public opinion to put the innocent Dr MacDonald in prison in he first place, and may keep him in prison.
since when did public opinion put macdonald in prison? did the court do a telephone poll? how did i miss that one?!

The thought occurred to me that if CID agent Shaw ludicrously and honestly thought Colette murdered the two little girls then perhaps Dr MacDoanld's defense strategy could have been to say that Colette committed suicide! That might have kept Dr MacDonald out of prison even though it was completely untrue, and the Stoeckley brutal murderers would still have gone scot free.
you are just as stuck on shaw's short-lived theory as you are on kearns and his investigation into mac's extra-marital affairs. what is it about these two things that upset you so?

just_beesy

03-14-2006, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
[B][QUOTE]"I'm not all that happy about the way these recent DNA results seem to be being reported in the American media. The reports seem to feed the violent prejudice the American public has against the innocent Dr MacDonald, and makes persuading in the court of public opinion and any judge or jury of his innocence, even more difficult."
I posted a link which had the actual DNA report. It wasn't just an article. I think the articles are leaning more towards him anyway. Bringing up the hair under Kris' nail has nothing to do with the current results. It is not mentioned in the report
"I believe Murtagh coached Pam Kalin at the Grand Jury and Mildred Kassab at the 1979 trial to say that they saw ice picks in the MacDonald apartment.
For some reason that doesn't surprise me
Whatever anybody says on this forum the Stoeckley group were never professionally and thoroughly investigated. They were asked a few cursory questions by the FBI, but that was just for appearance sake so that MacDonald lawyers couldn't say that the investigation was only focused on Dr MacDonald. There was never any thoroughness in the investigation of the Stoeckley group.
They already had their killer. No need for further investigation
Whatever Bunny says about the ridiculous child molestation allegations and the Kearns MacDonald sex life allegations never being mentioned at the Macdonald 1979 trial, it is that sort of false gossip and hearsay that persuaded the court of public opinion to put the innocent Dr MacDonald in prison in he first place, and may keep him in prison.
That is a theory which can be backed with evidence. You're right, there is no way to prove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen and it doesn't mean we can't talk about it. The last time I checked what people say on a forum has nothing to do with keeping someone in prison. You are giving us alot of power when you say that. The court of public opinion. To that I say :cuss:

just_beesy

03-14-2006, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
[QUOTE]since when did public opinion put macdonald in prison? did the court do a telephone poll? how did i miss that one?!
You didn't know? It was all phone-in. Just like on American Idol!

stinkerbelle

03-14-2006, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy

You didn't know? It was all phone-in. Just like on American Idol!
teehee!!:D

caphill

03-14-2006, 08:48 AM

Tonight Larry King Live will have Mrs. MacDonald as a guest. She will be discussing the DNA results.

LKL is the highest rated show on CNN around the world. The viewing audience in the millions and millions nightly.

This little message board thread has a viewing audience of how many?

To quote some posters here that have said if the results were favorable to MacDonald they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

Shouting on prime time CNN is shouting it out to roofs of millions of people around the world.

That medium to get that message out makes this thread less than a flea's knees on the back of an elephant's arse in comparison.

All this self importance of the "fire brigade" thinking they are hosing down and countering any new information coming forth on this 36 yr old case is laughable.

All those bitter old women who have rattled MacDonald bars and grasped at the shirt tails of MacDonald's prison uniform and cried foul when he married the pretty, thin younger woman can watch and wept tonight.

byn63

03-14-2006, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by caphill
All this self importance of the "fire brigade" thinking they are hosing down and countering any new information coming forth on this 36 yr old case is laughable.

bertie/capy/albie/artie/ramblin' rosie - we members of the FIRE BRIGADE are proud of our accomplishments. However, we are not "self-important" in the manner you wish to portray us. You are just incensed that we've put out all your "flamebaiting" attempts at starting a fire. No matter how many appearances on LKL Mrs. Inmate makes, it is NOT going to lessen the importance of the DNA testing linking E-5 to Inmate. We finally know that Inmate is in fact capable of speaking truth, although he does it rarely.

also, your lame attempts to attach importance to the unsourced hair found under Kristen's fingernails are getting old. You have been told AD NAUSEUM that unsourced items are forensically insignificant. Just because Mrs. Inmate refuses to see the truth does not mean that she makes any sense in her ramblings either. You should feel sorry for her and knock off this posting to yourself etc.

cami

03-14-2006, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by caphill

The venomous comments that MacDonald suffered jealousy of his colleagues because of his education is a hoot. It is indicative to me that the poster is ignorant about schools of higher education.
I doubt many of Dr. MacDonald's colleagues had such an impressive academic background and attended such prestigious schools of higher learning.

I don't usually respond to such absurd and ignorant comments. One can chose as to how they interpret whatever information they have on the murder case. When someone resorts to malicious lies, gossip, innuendo with no basis of fact it shows their inability to have a intelligent discuss or debate about the actual issues of the case.

aaaaahahahahaha I am certainly not ignorant of schools of higher education you dolt. Obviously you failed reading comprehension....

Furthermore, you are the poster who has inundated this board with malicious lies and inneundo and gossip about everyone involved in this case except your pathetic hero...the ice pick baby killer. Why you support a man who brutally murdered his two year old baby girl as she fought him for her life is just beyond me. You need psychiatric counselling.

cami

03-14-2006, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by caphill

#1 was a long hair found on Colette's mouth. #7 and #8 were hairs taken from Kimberly's body. These 3 hairs were not put on the final lab report that was presented as the report of the crime scene evidence. The jury never knew of these hairs and the defense never knew of these hairs.

A FOIA court order years later is what uncovered these and other pieces of evidence that were hidden from MacDonald and his attorneys.

If the Army CID and prosecutor instructed their lab to omit pieces of evidence they didn't want the defense or a jury to know about, would that be called malfeasance, suppression of evidence. What would you call it?

The lab work notes from Glisson clears shows the hairs #1#7and #8 are being given other #s and are not going to be reported by her. To give them other #s and then not report them seems to me to be a deliberate effort to exclude them from the final lab report. These lab work notes were given to the CID and Murtagh. That is proof that the CID and Murtagh knew these hairs were being omitted and not for the eyes of the defense of the jury. MacDonald attorney filed a legal Motion to get the lab work notes. Murtagh put up a fuss and he was denied the Motion to see the work notes. It was the legal obligation for the prosecution to turn over these notes as a part of the discovery. Shows the power of the State to make up their rules of law if they have a biased Judge ruling in their favor.

After the hairs were discovered, IIRC, the long hair found on Colette's mouth disappeared.

There's your lack or reading comprehension again. but you know perfectly well that Glisson wrote SINCE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE REPORTED BY ME. IOW, someone else was making the report.

cami

03-14-2006, 10:16 AM

Larry has the lovely Katherine MacDonald as his guest his evening. Of course we know she will spin the unidentified hair found under Kris's nail as the smoking gun of exculpatory evidence.

Tune in at 9:00 Eastern.

caphill

03-14-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by cami

There's your lack or reading comprehension again. but you know perfectly well that Glisson wrote SINCE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE REPORTED BY ME. IOW, someone else was making the report.

The focus doesn't need to be my reading comprehension or lack of comprehension.

The focus should be on whether the 3 hairs found in a critical location on the mouth of Celette and the body of Kristen was ever revealed on a final lab report that was presented to the defense or the jury. Splitting hairs over who actually wrote the final report that was for the eyes of jury is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that CID had collected numerous pieces of trace evidence on the bodies or around the bodies and on the murder weapon that were not disclosed to the defense or to the jury. Now that is a known fact.

You can argue till doomsday on all the reasons why you think this undisclosed trace evidence was signficant or not signficant. You and the "fire brigade" can offer all the excuses you want as to why the CID did not request the lab to disclose all trace evidence collected at the crime scene, as was their duty and obligation.

If their excuse is that didn't know that "all" they collected was not reported, then that is just another exampe of ineptitude at the investigators level. You will never be able to convince anyone, that has more than tunnel vision, that when the prosecution primary argument to the jury was the lack of foreign trace evidence, the CID's silence was not proof of their complicity in deliberately omitting evidence. The jury was told that "negative evidence" was the basis they should use for a guilty verdict. The CID investigators and their lab employees sat quietly.

Where was the conscience of the evidence collectors or the people of the lab when they knew there were many pieces of fibers and hairs that the jury never heard about. I can tell you that the fear of consequences to be a whistle blower out weighed any pangs of guilt over their silence.

Britt is vilified for coming out at this midnight hour with his story
of witnessing prosecution misconduct. This kind of personal attack on him is an example why other people are cowards to come forth with any knowledge on what happened or why certain pieces of evidence was omitted. It is not difficult to understand the fears employees have of biting the hand that feeds them.

Whistle blowers have a long history of stopping their careers and suffering vilification if they report misdeeds of their employment.

Your defense and excuses for the CID and Prosecution for their misdeeds as being insignficant is a signficant snapshot of your moral and personal conscience and views. You pick your heros based on your own moral guides. That is your personal right and decision. Just keep on toking and smoking that same old CID pipe that has been passed around the circle for 36 years.

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 11:33 AM

#7 and #8 were hairs taken from Kimberly's body.The focus should be on whether the 3 hairs found in a critical location on the mouth of Celette and the body of Kristen...Gee, you can't even make up your mind whether #7 and #8 were taken from Kim or Kristen (even though Glisson's notes show where they came from), so how can anyone take anything you say seriously when it's obvious you don't even know what the records actually said?

#7 was taken from Kristen, and #8 from Kimberly.

What is relevent is that CID had collected numerous pieces of trace evidence on the bodies or around the bodies and on the murder weapon that were not disclosed to the defense or to the jury. Now that is a known fact.It's also a known fact that Bernie tried to suppress evidence, that unsourced items are forensically insignificant, that the jury rejected Mac's arguments that unsourced items pointed only to assailants, that Mac left an incredible amount of incriminating evidence behind when he slaughtered his family and staged the scenes, that he's repeated demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes, and he's long since had his days in front of a jury and the appeals courts and gotten nowhere at all. And now with the DNA results in, the final nail in his coffin has been hammered in.You can argue till doomsday on all the reasons why you think this...trace evidence was signficant or not signficant. You can argue till doomsday on all the reasons you think that unsourced items found in every household point only to assailants, but of course your arguments will go nowhere with anyone who has any brain cells at all.

Since you think unsourced items are so very, very significant and point only to intruders, please tell us: What assailants have been in your home, Cappy? Why can't you answer that?

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Your defense and excuses for the CID and Prosecution for their misdeeds as being insignficant is a signficant snapshot of your moral and personal conscience and views.Your defense and excuses for canonizing a convicted triple murderer whose guilt has been confirmed many times over is a significant snapshot of your moral and personal conscience and views. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but as long as you deliberately continue to try and spread lies and purposely misrepresent information about the case, you will find that all you accomplish is to score points for the anti-Mac group and make yourself look bad.

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by cami
Larry has the lovely Katherine MacDonald as his guest his evening. Of course we know she will spin the unidentified hair found under Kris's nail as the smoking gun of exculpatory evidence.

Tune in at 9:00 Eastern.Oh, yeah, just like Mac, she seems to have no problem at all not telling the whole truth. Maybe that's because she doesn't know the whole truth, seeing as how she apparently hasn't even begun to study the records in the case and doesn't know how to evaluate the evidence she does know about. Reminds me a lot of a poster here, now that I think about it. :)

How's your "mum," by the way? Hope all is well...my thoughts are with you both.

caphill

03-14-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Gee, you can't even make up your mind whether #7 and #8 were taken from Kim or Kristen (even though Glisson's notes show where they came from), so how can anyone take anything you say seriously when it's obvious you don't even know what the records actually said?

#7 was taken from Kristen, and #8 from Kimberly.

It's also a known fact that Bernie tried to suppress evidence, that unsourced items are forensically insignificant, that the jury rejected Mac's arguments that unsourced items pointed only to assailants, that Mac left an incredible amount of incriminating evidence behind when he slaughtered his family and staged the scenes, that he's repeated demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes, and he's long since had his days in front of a jury and the appeals courts and gotten nowhere at all. And now with the DNA results in, the final nail in his coffin has been hammered in.You can argue till doomsday on all the reasons you think that unsourced items found in every household point only to assailants, but of course your arguments will go nowhere with anyone who has any brain cells at all.

Since you think unsourced items are so very, very significant and point only to intruders, please tell us: What assailants have been in your home, Cappy? Why can't you answer that?

My bad. #7 and #8 were from Kimberly. #!1 was from Colette's mouth. Now that my error in naming which child 7 and 8 came from has been corrected, can be get back to the original question.

Why were these hairs renumbered and not put on the final evidence lab report for the defense and the jury to decide if they had any signficance. What about those 3 hairs they were selected to be omitted from trial evidence. If they appeared to be MacDonald if would have strengthened their case that a hairs on the victims body and mouth came from MacDonald. IIRC all the hairs were brown and the long hair on Colette's mouth was a head hair.

Since you and the"fire brigade" lay claim to all truth and knowledge in this case, can you tell the ill informed what happened to those hairs. Were they tested or compared to a known sample? Who was the donor of the long hair smashed into Colette's mouth?

In your wisdom do you think the limp body hair belonging to MacDonald found in Colette's hand is more significant that the 3 hairs with root balls found on Kimberly and Colette's bodies?

It should not be up to me or you to decide what is signficant and has forensic value. That should be up to the trier of fact, the jury.

Oops, I forgot. The jury couldn't make that decision because they never knew or ever suspected that they did not have a full picture of what was collected at the crime scene. Mr. Kearns knew there there many items collected and not reported on the final report for the jury. What does he say about his complicity in not informing the defense the trial lab report was not complete?

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by caphill
My bad. #7 and #8 were from Kimberly...Now that my error in naming which child 7 and 8 came from has been corrected, can be get back to the original question.Excuse me, but you first said they both came from Kim. Then you said they both came from Kristen. Neither statement appears to be correct.

Glisson's notes say that #7 is "fingernail scrapings left hand smaller female MacDonald." This was Kristen.

Glisson's notes then say that #8 was "fingernail scrapings left hand larger MacDonald female child." This was Kimberly.

Why were these hairs renumbered and not put on the final evidence lab report for the defense and the jury to decide if they had any signficance.Why is it that you want to imply that this is some kind of "new issue"? It's not a new issue, Cappy; if it were, we'd be seeing new motions about it, wouldn't we? It's been dealt with and was over with long ago. It wouldn't have mattered one whit at trial, since Mac's arguments that unsourced items pointed to intruders were rejected by the jury, and the evidence against him was so overwhelming that the jury had no other choice but to quite rightly find him guilty. No unsourced hair is ever going to overcome the incredibly voluminous amount of evidence that exists against Mac. No unsourced hair is going to overcome the fact that he left his bloody footprints exiting Kristen's room, or that he put 48 holes in his pajama top while stabbing Colette that matched 21 holes in her chest, or the fact that the "mystery hair" which he has always claimed could only have come from Colette's murderer was his own, or that he has many, many times demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these horrific crimes. And now that we know that exhibits didn't match Stoeckley's or Mitchell's DNA as Mac had always claimed they would, and that another hair that he said came from an "intruder" was his own, Mac's ballgame (and yours) is over too, and you know it.Since you and the"fire brigade" lay claim to all truth and knowledge in this caseB.S. This is just more baiting from you, that's all....can you tell the ill informed what happened to those hairs. Were they tested or compared to a known sample?Well, now, I'm sure JTF or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought these were submitted for DNA testing.Who was the donor of the long hair smashed into Colette's mouth?Who knows, could have been anyone. Traveling salesman, one of the kids' friends, someone whose hair was dropped in a restaurant and then transferred elsewhere by someone else and then transferred elsewhere by someone else, ending up in the Mac apartment along with many other unsourced items, and ending up on Colette when Mac unrolled her from the bedding and her face was on the floor. The main thing that we know for certain is that it didn't come from any "intruder."That should be up to the trier of fact, the jury.Any jury rehearing this case would have either decided the same as the first jury did, or more likely, in view of the DNA results and so much more, Mac would end up with four first-degree murder convictions.Oops, I forgot. The jury couldn't make that decision because they never knew or ever suspected that they did not have a full picture of what was collected at the crime scene.Sorry, Cappy, but the issue is res judica. What part of that don't you understand?

cami

03-14-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Your defense and excuses for the CID and Prosecution for their misdeeds as being insignficant is a signficant snapshot of your moral and personal conscience and views. You pick your heros based on your own moral guides. That is your personal right and decision. Just keep on toking and smoking that same old CID pipe that has been passed around the circle for 36 years.

And your support of a quadruple murderer in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt is quite a significant snapshot of your moral and personal conscience. My conscience is just fine. I am without doubt that that creep Macdonald committed these brutal crimes and is being punished for them. You pick your heros based on what???? Their immoral guides???? What does that tell us about you....

Sure I'll keep on toking baby but it ain't nothing but the good stuff. Why don't you head on over to Maryland and take your hero some speed, his drug of choice. You two can sit around and dream up more government conspiracies and hallucinate hippies.

cami

03-14-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by caphill

All those bitter old women who have rattled MacDonald bars and grasped at the shirt tails of MacDonald's prison uniform and cried foul when he married the pretty, thin younger woman can watch and wept tonight.

Do you have photos of all these bitter old women who will weep uncontrollable when they spy the lovely Katherine on tv tonight. Any woman who would marry that old fart needs her head examined. Katherine must be have very low self-esteem to tie herself to a man who can never be free. Maybe she has problems in the bedroom if you get my drift so not being able to consummate their marriage is just fine with her. She's probably closed gay just like him.

cami

03-14-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Oh, yeah, just like Mac, she seems to have no problem at all not telling the whole truth. Maybe that's because she doesn't know the whole truth, seeing as how she apparently hasn't even begun to study the records in the case and doesn't know how to evaluate the evidence she does know about. Reminds me a lot of a poster here, now that I think about it. :)

How's your "mum," by the way? Hope all is well...my thoughts are with you both.

My "mum" is just fine...that's the British spelling for it, LOL.... thank you for asking. She has been at death's door twice before but she has both times rallied once again, like she did this time. Now they have a diagnosis though so they can treat the leg symptoms but of course there is no treatment for dementia.

cami

03-14-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by cami

Do you have photos of all these bitter old women who will weep uncontrollable when they spy the lovely Katherine on tv tonight. Any woman who would marry that old fart needs her head examined. Katherine must be have very low self-esteem to tie herself to a man who can never be free. Maybe she has problems in the bedroom if you get my drift so not being able to consummate their marriage is just fine with her. She's probably closed gay just like him.

that should be "closet" and not "closed"

cami

03-14-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by caphill

The lab work notes from Glisson clears shows the hairs #1#7and #8 are being given other #s and are not going to be reported by her. To give them other #s and then not report them seems to me to be a deliberate effort to exclude them from the final lab report. These lab work notes were given to the CID and Murtagh. That is proof that the CID and Murtagh knew these hairs were being omitted and not for the eyes of the defense of the jury. MacDonald attorney filed a legal Motion to get the lab work notes. Murtagh put up a fuss and he was denied the Motion to see the work notes. It was the legal obligation for the prosecution to turn over these notes as a part of the discovery. Shows the power of the State to make up their rules of law if they have a biased Judge ruling in their favor.

After the hairs were discovered, IIRC, the long hair found on Colette's mouth disappeared.

Why do you continue to insist that Glisson was not going to report her findings? You can clearly see her notes, you can clearly see that FJ used their famous cut and paste show to allege that Glisson did something wrong, yet you continue it to this day to insist "they are not going to be reported by me" as a conspiracy and a cover up. When you do that, we posters will jump all over you and correct you. We won't allow you to villify the prosecution or the lab techs for that Ice Pick Baby Killer.

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I agree with caphill, as usual.Yeah, Bertie, we know. Have you ever gone back and looked at your posts? You say this so often it's getting to be a real bore. Don't you have anyone to agree with besides yourself?

I agree with Cami. I agree with JTF. I agree with Byn and Stinkerbelle and Christina. I agree with Rashomon. I agree with Jednme, and with musicgal and with tranquility. I agree with impatience, and with twriter and Spamela, margie and audpaud and Mr. Hardison. I agree with barskin. I agree with Murtagh and Blackburn and Chandler and the jury and appeals court judges and nearly every single one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who have heard this case. The list is endless. By contrast, it seems that you have to make up personalities in order to have any posts at all that support what you say. If all you say is so very important and means so much, why doesn't anyone else see it or agree with you, Bertie? Don't you see something wrong with that picture? I guess not.The problem [the murderer] has now is that he knows he's innocent...No, actually the problem the murderer has always had is that he bludgeoned and butchered his wife and his two little daughters and that he staged the scenes afterwards and made up stories and showed the consciousness of his guilt. If you're not happy with that, you "ought to" go argue with him and not take out your anger on posters here....FBI lab technician James Frier.... He had discovered the existence of black, green, and white wool fibers in debris from the body of Colette MacDonald and the wooden murder weapon. This was hidden from...MacDonald and his defense and Dr Thornton, prior to, and during the 1979 trial, and to the judge and jury....Murtagh conned MacDonald lawyer Segal into believing that Frier's information was forensically insignificant...Why do you lie so much, Albie/Artie/Bertie/Cappy? Is this something you do because you have nothing else to do in your life, or is it some compulsion you just can't help? Seriously, you need to seek some psychiatric help. For Bunny to say that fibers which "could" have come from pajamas are forensically significant and then say at the same time that fibers on the body of murder victims, and hairs under their fingernails, which have never been sourced, or explained, are forensically insignificant, is strained logic.For Bertie to say that Bunny said any such thing is, as Bertie knew before Bertie posted, nothing but more lies from a flamebaiter. Bertie knows the facts already, so if Bertie thinks she/he is going to bait Bunny into sitting here typing it all out again, Bertie is sadly mistaken. Come to think of it, Bertie is sadly mistaken a lot of the time, so I guess this is nothing new.

The only thing Bunny wants to type right now is HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! - Bet you'd given anything in the world for those DNA results not to have shown what they did, wouldn't you? Gee, but I love watching a confirmed liar squirm under the binding hand of Truth. It's been very satisfying through the years, watching Mac squirm every time he's caught in another lie, and watching you do it is just more icing on the cake.

rashomon

03-14-2006, 04:40 PM

This is for Bertie:
Bertie, I must say my hat is off to you because, unlike the rest of us poor and blind 'Mac-done-its', you knew it all along: Mick Jagger was up in the MacDonald murders up to his ears, along with the other devil worshipping bad Rolling Stones guys and their gals

Poster 'JimmyShelter' :D on the A&E board just posted this absolute bombshell:

"MacDonald fingers `different hippies'
New accusations result in rock star arrests

By MARTHA WAGONWHEEL
Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. - New accusations by former Army doctor Jeffrey MacDonald regarding the murder of his wife and children have resulted in at least four arrests - arrests that have literally rocked the rock music world.
Arrested for the 1970 murders of the MacDonald family in New York Monday were Rolling Stones Mick Jagger and Keith Richards along with their former girlfriends Marianne Faithful and Anita Pallenberg. The new arrests came about after MacDonald watched the 2006 Super Bowl halftime show and said he was something "vaguely familiar" about the two aging rock stars. McDonald said it hit him "like a bolt of lightning" that the two musicians and their paramours were the "hippies" that had actually entered his house and murdered his family.

Recently-released DNA evidence had ruled out two American "hippies" named Helena Stoeckley and Gregory Mitchell, but MacDonald's new accusations open up a "whole new can of worms" according a MacDonald attorney.
"We've asked that the DNA from these rock stars be sampled," the attorney said. "This is the biggest break we've had in years."
According to MacDonald's wife Kathryn, after her husband had watched the Super Bowl, he contacted her by telephone and asked that she do some Web sleuthing. Her research turned up some interesting facts.
The first piece of information she discovered was that Jagger and Richards were in the United States around the time of the murders, recording tracks for their "Sticky Fingers" album in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Additionally, photos reveal that both of the rock stars' girlfriends had a penchant for wearing floppy hats (see link:
http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/upclose.html).
Considering the new evidence, it was logical that MacDonald would get Stoeckley and Mitchell confused with Jagger and Faithful, she said. According to Kathryn MacDonald, her husband's standing in the medical community was what prompted legal officials to issue arrest warrants for the two Rolling Stones.
"Jeffrey is an MD and a former Green Beret," she explained. "They are just musicians, and mediocre ones at that. They have not even released a good album since about 1983."
For his part, MacDonald says the two lead Stones "had motive" for killing his wife Collette, since she had been an outspoken critic of their music, calling it "derivative of authentic blues" and "poorly played." Often, MacDonald said, he would play their records only to have his wife launch into tirades about how "Keith could never tune his guitar."
MacDonald also said several Stones tunes released at the time dealt with "themes of brutality and murder." This has further fanned the flames of guilt that have now started blowing towards Jagger and Richards.
When reached by telephone, rock critic Dave Marsh corroborated MacDonald's testimony about the Stones' "brutal music," citing the violence-soaked songs "Midnight Rambler," "Gimme Shelter" and "Memo From Turner" as "music that will be particularly damaging to their testimony."

Bad reactions
According to sources close to the band, the reaction to Jagger and Richards' arrest was "bad all around." Jagger refused to comment, but a spokesperson said he'd "been through worse" and "would come out of this one way or the other."
Richards was more candid. After being released on bail, he told members of the press the arrest was "a load of bollocks" and said he'd personally "kick MacDonald's...." when the ordeal was over. Richards also had tart words for MacDonald's wifely counterpart, calling her "a little shrew" and a "publicity ****."

The rock world was equally shocked. And stunned.
"The Rolling Stones were always the bad boys of rock," former Beatle Paul McCartney went on record as saying. "But they were never nasty enough to be murderers. The bad boy image was all a publicity stunt, really. Mick has a degree from the London School of Economics, after all."
Even Jagger's estranged wife, Jerry Hall, leapt to his defense, quipping "Mick would never kill anything, except maybe my faith in men."
Surprisingly, former Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor even had kind words about his estranged campadres.
"They may have stolen my riffs and killed my career," he opined, "But did they murder actual people? No. I don't think they are capable of that. They could hardly get through `Satisfaction' without a mistake. I don't see them pulling off the perfect crime when they can't even play a song in a halfway decent way."
Pallenberg and Faithful's camps have been mum, but neither have issued denials about their wearing of floppy hats in the early 1970's either.
"I think that silence speaks volumes," said Kathryn MacDonald. "We know they wore the hats and we know one of the killers wore a hat. This is the break we've long been looking for."
As of Monday evening, FBI and CIA had been dispatched to Pallenberg and Faithful's houses in search of retro headwear. Thus far, there has been no word as to what - if anything - officials have found. A source close to Faithful, though, said the place "looked like a rummage sale" and that "if retro clothes make a person guilty, then Marianne will be put away for life."
Meanwhile, the Stones are considering canceling the rest of their 2006 tour and attempting to get their "houses in order" in case they wind up facing long jail sentences for murder.
"The Stones have faced problems before, like drug busts, a death in the band and the lousy `Satanic Majesties' LP," a source close to the group said. "They are sure to emerge from this trouble victoriously."
Bill Wyman could not be reached for comment."

Now that's really something, Bertie, isn't it?
I must calm myself a bit - how could I have been so wrong? How could I have been so blind - I have most of their music in my collection - and still didn't make the connection!
My embarrassment makes me want to hide in the deepest hole: -"GimmeShelter!" (BTW, I'm listening to that great song just now).

Since you don't have access to the A&E board anymore, Bertie, you can write 'Jimmy Shelter' your thanks here for posting that article. I'll forward your reply to him on A&E. :biggrin:

Angie.

(no kidding, that's my real name, although I never really liked that Stones song - a bit too corny, lol).

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Frankly I don't understand Bunny when she says [the murderer] has "demonstrated consciousness of his guilt." I have never seen any evidence of that at all...Sure you've seen it. You just don't know what the phrase means, so of course you don't recognize it when you see it.

The jury, reporters, countless people who read the truth in Fatal Vision and many judges were in agreement about putting the murderer in prison, which to my mind is quite a lot of people. One juror said "A confession by a pathetic acid head such as Helena Stoeckley does not deter for an instant from the mountains of evidence against MacDonald presented at the trial." Anyone who reads the case records can see what this juror was talking about.It looks as though there is a mystery hair under Kristen's fingernail which is still unexplained.Nope, no "mystery hair," Bertie, unless you're also going to label the Christmas tinsel as "mystery tinsel," the nutmeats as "mystery meats," etc. Until you source it, you've got nothing, and of course you know that as well as everyone else here does.

Poor Bertie-boy. Just can't quite get over your shock at those DNA results, can you. I'm laughing so hard I can barely type.

Bunny2

03-14-2006, 06:08 PM

readingperson

03-14-2006, 10:21 PM

Watched Larry King's program tonight. It was pretty much all pro-defense, as no one from the prosecutor's office (other than a police chief who had been an Army investigator at the time) decided to come on. Colette's brother was a panelist, but I felt Larry was a little unpleasant with him at times. He wanted to get his points out due to time limits, so he interrupted Larry once, and Larry reminded him that this was his show. Maybe Larry was just trying to keep things moving, so he didn't mean to sound like that. However, the brother seemed to be about the only one with representing Colette and the children, and I felt sorry for him. I like Larry, but he can be a little testy at times. Katherine MacDonald was given lots of time to speak, but she was in the studio with Larry.

The consensus of the rest of the panelists was that more DNA testing should be done. Most thought that too much time had passed for another trial, so if there was doubt, JM would be set free. I may have misunderstood some of this, so please correct me on anything I may have gotten wrong.

Also, are there any other sites about this case that I could access.

just_beesy

03-14-2006, 10:49 PM

Hey Paula

03-14-2006, 11:34 PM

The evidence points directly to JMD. His blood is where it shouldn't be, and isn't where it should be.

JMD murdered his pregnant wife, Colette, and his daughters Kristen and Kimberly, and he is exactly where he belongs.

JTF

03-15-2006, 01:39 AM

My thoughts regarding Larry King Live:

1) King was literally fawning over Kathryn. Kathryn did her usual stammering routine filled with rumor, innuendo, and falsehoods.

2) The first two words that came to mind when Kathryn basically called Bob Stevenson a Johnny Come Lately to this case rhyme with clucking itch.

3) I needed to take a shower after listening to Barry Scheck blather on about "suppressed" evidence that was introduced at trial. This included candle wax drippings, unidentified fingerprints, and the woman on the street corner ridiculousness.

4) Bob Stevenson was well-spoken and presented the significance of the DNA test results in a more logistical fashion than the alleged DNA expert on the panel, Barry Scheck.

JTF.

margiej

03-15-2006, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula
The evidence points directly to JMD. His blood is where it shouldn't be, and isn't where it should be.

JMD murdered his pregnant wife, Colette, and his daughters Kristen and Kimberly, and he is exactly where he belongs.

Paula, I like the way you think.

margiej

03-15-2006, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by JTF
My thoughts regarding Larry King Live:

1) King was literally fawning over Kathryn. Kathryn did her usual stammering routine filled with rumor, innuendo, and falsehoods.

2) The first two words that came to mind when Kathryn basically called Bob Stevenson a Johnny Come Lately to this case rhyme with clucking itch.

3) I needed to take a shower after listening to Barry Scheck blather on about "suppressed" evidence that was introduced at trial. This included candle wax drippings, unidentified fingerprints, and the woman on the street corner ridiculousness.

4) Bob Stevenson was well-spoken and presented the significance of the DNA test results in a more logistical fashion than the alleged DNA expert on the panel, Barry Scheck.

JTF.

Was it my imagination or was Barry Scheck's face white and strained when he came back on, after being AWOL for awhile? After Bob Stevenson took him to task? Wish Larry had given Bob more time and not have been so rude to the man, who lost his sister Colette. It seemed Kathryn was trying to get the sympathy for the loss of Colette and the kids instead of recognizing that Bob Stevenson was Colette's real kin on the show tonight.

caphill

03-15-2006, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by margiej

Was it my imagination or was Barry Scheck's face white and strained when he came back on, after being AWOL for awhile? After Bob Stevenson took him to task? Wish Larry had given Bob more time and not have been so rude to the man, who lost his sister Colette. It seemed Kathryn was trying to get the sympathy for the loss of Colette and the kids instead of recognizing that Bob Stevenson was Colette's real kin on the show tonight.

Barry Scheck who is not known to suffer fools was very gracious considering the personal attack on him by Stevenson. He knew he was dueling with an one armed man when it came to a discussion of law or science. So it he let it slid when Stevenson called him a liar and just agreed with the only thing that Stevenson said that was valid about the investigation. He agreed there were things that should have been done differently including the bagging the hands.

His appearance was not there to regurgitate the the old case but to discussion the new evidence. He didn't waste time to correct Stevenson on statements he made that had no basis regarding DNA. Stevenson likely would not have understood it anyway.

Stevenson said "Another one of the suspects was black and we can't compare that because his hairs are different" DNA extracted from any source from the body can not define race.

That statement, though not intended, brought attention the fact that it was disclosed that one of the unsourced hairs found between Colette's legs was described as a pubic hair. Every DNA cell is the same in every cell of the body. DNA does not change from a pubic hair, a limp body hair, head hair or blood or tissue.

The hair described as a pubic hair could well be a hair from an African American head hair. Hair Microscopy could possibly distinguish Negroid hair from Caucasian hair but the DNA process does not make that distinction.

Mr. Stevenson's mouth turned down in such a bitter twist. The hatred he projected was difficult to watch. He has a beautiful rich speaking voice but the words were just showed a soul of a bitter and hateful man.

I am was taken back at the emotional personal viciousness he displayed to Mrs. MacDonald. Also, I surprised to hear that he never came to NC when his sister and his nieces were murdered.
Was he estranged from the family at the time of her death.

From his mother's testimony it was revealed some very strange comments she made about his children when she arrived at the hospital to see MacDonald. Those comments made me wonder if there was distance between his family and the Kassabs at that time.

The kind of emotions he displayed are not healthy and are based on hatred and not grieving of a sister lost 36 years ago, IMO. I felt sorry for his misery and hope he finds some peace with his personal turmoil.

stinkerbelle

03-15-2006, 06:46 AM

my very most favorite part, other than kathryn stumbling and fumbling like the fool she is, was barry refusing to say he thinks mac is innocent ;)

PrimeSuspect210

03-15-2006, 06:56 AM

Barry Scheck -- "It's a circumstantial evidence case. But what I can tell you, Larry, is that these DNA results are good. The fingernail of Kristen, which had the hair on it that had a root, that's helpful evidence. There's a long pubic hair, it was described as a pubic hair, that was found between Colette's legs

That is unmatched, that's a third party's hair. And then there's another one in a bed sheet. The fact that there were some of his hairs found on or in her hand doesn't mean much, because he was trying to resuscitate her."

WHOSE (described) pubic hair was between Colette's legs? WHOSE hair is in the bed sheet? And is the bed sheet hair a pubic hair also? Do both of these hairs have the same DNA structure? Either way, they don't belong to MacDonald. As Bob pointed out last night Mitochondrial DNA can definitively rule OUT a suspect.

And WHY would a 2 year-old have hair belonging to someone other than herself or her family members under her fingernail?

Did Colette keep an unclean home for her child to play in? She never cleaned the floors? Never vacuummed? Never mopped? She didn't bathe her child?

The prosecutor and investigators, at the time of the trial, claimed there were no hair, tissues or fibers belonging to anyone outside the MacDonald home found at the scene. WHY did they lie?

Ok ... and I gotta ask it cuz the poor prosecution didn't have anyone but Bob to speak for them last night -- why no representative on LKL last night? They've talked to all the print media, but aren't willing to go live? :shrug:

rashomon

03-15-2006, 07:19 AM

I could only read the transcript, but if I had watched it, I'd probably have spit at the screen!

Oh, how I wish that instead of spineless Larry King, Nancy Grace would have interviewed Kathryn MacDonald! Nancy would have called a murderer a murderer and asked some really tough questions. But I suppose Kathryn would not have agreed to be interviewd by Nancy Grace, lol.

Simply incredible, the gall Kathryn has: comparing herself to Dana Reeve. Tasteless and disgusting, and insulting the memory of Christopher Reeve by putting him down on the same level as the murderer she married.
Hey, Kathryn, in case you have forgotten it: you married a convicted triple murderer! And it is no 'terrible accident' that he is in prison!

And her boundless arrogance towards Bob Stevenson reminds me of Melinda Stephens, who wrote that incredibly snotty and condescending letter to Peter Kearns, where she told him he didn't know how to conduct a criminal investigation properly. Just another example of a besotted woman whose infatuation for a convicted killer prevented her from thinking clearly. And KMD seems to be exactly the same type.

I used to feel sorry for that woman, but I no longer do. This is a type who seeks the limelight and basks in it. She'd probably sit on a different talk show every day if she had the chance.
She seems to be suffering from the same 'attention-seeking syndrome' which Helena Stoeckley had.

MacDonald has finally gotten the woman he deserves. A woman who uses him just like he uses her. He has found his match.

byn63

03-15-2006, 09:37 AM

jtf - outstanding post as always! rash - I agree if I had been watching I'd have wanted to AT LEAST spit at the screen. Honest, I tried to watch but as soon as KM started speaking the bile began to rise and that was it for me.

reading - check out The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site lots and lots of factual documentation.

imho, barry sheck has lost my respect due to his continuing to defend Inmate and attempt to make the DNA testing "good news" for macfantasyland. I think his innnocence project is going to lose something by his association with a proven murderer who has now had his DNA testing. AND, I am sick to death of people claiming some big bad conspiracy about an UNSOURCED hair under the fingernails of a 2 year old child. We all know that Colette was not the world's greatest housekeeper. We all know that Kristen was ACTIVE all day and that the 5mm hair fragment was NOT the only thing found under her nails. We also KNOW that UNSOURCED ITEMS are of no relevant forensic significance.

I can't believe they are now talking about whether or not the hands of the victims had been bagged. That didn't become common practice at crime scenes until later.

tidefan311

03-15-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by byn63

imho, barry sheck has lost my respect due to his continuing to defend Inmate and attempt to make the DNA testing "good news" for macfantasyland. I think his innnocence project is going to lose something by his association with a proven murderer who has now had his DNA testing. IMO, Barry Sheck lost all of my respect when OJ was set free, thanks to him. How can anyone believe him?

cami

03-15-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by rashomon
This is for Bertie:
Bertie, I must say my hat is off to you because, unlike the rest of us poor and blind 'Mac-done-its', you knew it all along: Mick Jagger was up in the MacDonald murders up to his ears, along with the other devil worshipping bad Rolling Stones guys and their gals

Poster 'JimmyShelter' :D on the A&E board just posted this absolute bombshell:

"MacDonald fingers `different hippies'
New accusations result in rock star arrests

By MARTHA WAGONWHEEL
Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. - New accusations by former Army doctor Jeffrey MacDonald regarding the murder of his wife and children have resulted in at least four arrests - arrests that have literally rocked the rock music world.
Arrested for the 1970 murders of the MacDonald family in New York Monday were Rolling Stones Mick Jagger and Keith Richards along with their former girlfriends Marianne Faithful and Anita Pallenberg. The new arrests came about after MacDonald watched the 2006 Super Bowl halftime show and said he was something "vaguely familiar" about the two aging rock stars. McDonald said it hit him "like a bolt of lightning" that the two musicians and their paramours were the "hippies" that had actually entered his house and murdered his family.

Recently-released DNA evidence had ruled out two American "hippies" named Helena Stoeckley and Gregory Mitchell, but MacDonald's new accusations open up a "whole new can of worms" according a MacDonald attorney.
"We've asked that the DNA from these rock stars be sampled," the attorney said. "This is the biggest break we've had in years."
According to MacDonald's wife Kathryn, after her husband had watched the Super Bowl, he contacted her by telephone and asked that she do some Web sleuthing. Her research turned up some interesting facts.
The first piece of information she discovered was that Jagger and Richards were in the United States around the time of the murders, recording tracks for their "Sticky Fingers" album in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Additionally, photos reveal that both of the rock stars' girlfriends had a penchant for wearing floppy hats (see link:
http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/upclose.html).
Considering the new evidence, it was logical that MacDonald would get Stoeckley and Mitchell confused with Jagger and Faithful, she said. According to Kathryn MacDonald, her husband's standing in the medical community was what prompted legal officials to issue arrest warrants for the two Rolling Stones.
"Jeffrey is an MD and a former Green Beret," she explained. "They are just musicians, and mediocre ones at that. They have not even released a good album since about 1983."
For his part, MacDonald says the two lead Stones "had motive" for killing his wife Collette, since she had been an outspoken critic of their music, calling it "derivative of authentic blues" and "poorly played." Often, MacDonald said, he would play their records only to have his wife launch into tirades about how "Keith could never tune his guitar."
MacDonald also said several Stones tunes released at the time dealt with "themes of brutality and murder." This has further fanned the flames of guilt that have now started blowing towards Jagger and Richards.
When reached by telephone, rock critic Dave Marsh corroborated MacDonald's testimony about the Stones' "brutal music," citing the violence-soaked songs "Midnight Rambler," "Gimme Shelter" and "Memo From Turner" as "music that will be particularly damaging to their testimony."

Bad reactions
According to sources close to the band, the reaction to Jagger and Richards' arrest was "bad all around." Jagger refused to comment, but a spokesperson said he'd "been through worse" and "would come out of this one way or the other."
Richards was more candid. After being released on bail, he told members of the press the arrest was "a load of bollocks" and said he'd personally "kick MacDonald's...." when the ordeal was over. Richards also had tart words for MacDonald's wifely counterpart, calling her "a little shrew" and a "publicity ****."

The rock world was equally shocked. And stunned.
"The Rolling Stones were always the bad boys of rock," former Beatle Paul McCartney went on record as saying. "But they were never nasty enough to be murderers. The bad boy image was all a publicity stunt, really. Mick has a degree from the London School of Economics, after all."
Even Jagger's estranged wife, Jerry Hall, leapt to his defense, quipping "Mick would never kill anything, except maybe my faith in men."
Surprisingly, former Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor even had kind words about his estranged campadres.
"They may have stolen my riffs and killed my career," he opined, "But did they murder actual people? No. I don't think they are capable of that. They could hardly get through `Satisfaction' without a mistake. I don't see them pulling off the perfect crime when they can't even play a song in a halfway decent way."
Pallenberg and Faithful's camps have been mum, but neither have issued denials about their wearing of floppy hats in the early 1970's either.
"I think that silence speaks volumes," said Kathryn MacDonald. "We know they wore the hats and we know one of the killers wore a hat. This is the break we've long been looking for."
As of Monday evening, FBI and CIA had been dispatched to Pallenberg and Faithful's houses in search of retro headwear. Thus far, there has been no word as to what - if anything - officials have found. A source close to Faithful, though, said the place "looked like a rummage sale" and that "if retro clothes make a person guilty, then Marianne will be put away for life."
Meanwhile, the Stones are considering canceling the rest of their 2006 tour and attempting to get their "houses in order" in case they wind up facing long jail sentences for murder.
"The Stones have faced problems before, like drug busts, a death in the band and the lousy `Satanic Majesties' LP," a source close to the group said. "They are sure to emerge from this trouble victoriously."
Bill Wyman could not be reached for comment."

Now that's really something, Bertie, isn't it?
I must calm myself a bit - how could I have been so wrong? How could I have been so blind - I have most of their music in my collection - and still didn't make the connection!
My embarrassment makes me want to hide in the deepest hole: -"GimmeShelter!" (BTW, I'm listening to that great song just now).

Since you don't have access to the A&E board anymore, Bertie, you can write 'Jimmy Shelter' your thanks here for posting that article. I'll forward your reply to him on A&E. :biggrin:

Angie.

(no kidding, that's my real name, although I never really liked that Stones song - a bit too corny, lol).

that was hysterical wasn't it? I laughed and laughed...JImmy sure has a great sense of humour and is very quick off the mark.

cami

03-15-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by just_beesy

Thanks cami, now if only I could read her chicken scratch, I'd be ok :chicken:

Well here's what it says:

"did not label all the other vials containing fibres and hairs (#1,#7,#8) but gave #'s and slides ...... to these #'s, since they are not going to be reported by me."

catpurr

03-15-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by JTF
My thoughts regarding Larry King Live:

1) King was literally fawning over Kathryn. Kathryn did her usual stammering routine filled with rumor, innuendo, and falsehoods.

2) The first two words that came to mind when Kathryn basically called Bob Stevenson a Johnny Come Lately to this case rhyme with clucking itch.

3) I needed to take a shower after listening to Barry Scheck blather on about "suppressed" evidence that was introduced at trial. This included candle wax drippings, unidentified fingerprints, and the woman on the street corner ridiculousness.

4) Bob Stevenson was well-spoken and presented the significance of the DNA test results in a more logistical fashion than the alleged DNA expert on the panel, Barry Scheck.

JTF.

I don't even really follow this case like all of you but I did notice these same things. Larry King could use some manners. He was drooling all over himself with Kathryn and was very curt with Collette's brother Bob. I have never seen Kathryn before but she does not strike me as having much in the common sense area. The DNA is proving inmate slaughtered his family. I don't understand how she can claim this is "good news". Like I said I don't follow this case but even I can see this makes him look all the more guilty. Larry King and Barry Scheck made it sound like there is a new trial coming. I just don't get it.

cami

03-15-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210
Barry Scheck -- "It's a circumstantial evidence case. But what I can tell you, Larry, is that these DNA results are good. The fingernail of Kristen, which had the hair on it that had a root, that's helpful evidence. There's a long pubic hair, it was described as a pubic hair, that was found between Colette's legs

That is unmatched, that's a third party's hair. And then there's another one in a bed sheet. The fact that there were some of his hairs found on or in her hand doesn't mean much, because he was trying to resuscitate her."

WHOSE (described) pubic hair was between Colette's legs? WHOSE hair is in the bed sheet? And is the bed sheet hair a pubic hair also? Do both of these hairs have the same DNA structure? Either way, they don't belong to MacDonald. As Bob pointed out last night Mitochondrial DNA can definitively rule OUT a suspect.

And WHY would a 2 year-old have hair belonging to someone other than herself or her family members under her fingernail?

Did Colette keep an unclean home for her child to play in? She never cleaned the floors? Never vacuummed? Never mopped? She didn't bathe her child?

The prosecutor and investigators, at the time of the trial, claimed there were no hair, tissues or fibers belonging to anyone outside the MacDonald home found at the scene. WHY did they lie?

Ok ... and I gotta ask it cuz the poor prosecution didn't have anyone but Bob to speak for them last night -- why no representative on LKL last night? They've talked to all the print media, but aren't willing to go live? :shrug:

Read the dna test results...the hair on the bedsheet has been matched to Colette. It's just more smoke and mirrors from the defence. Barry Scheck should be ashamed of himself...he is quite aware that we all drop hair daily and it can be transferred anywhere.

The limb hair was found in her hand, not on it. Typical MacDonald avoidance of the evidence that points to him. For thirty years he has alleged the hair in Colette's hand came from the murderer...how right he was...it's his. It's his pubic hair as well. Read the reports....it's all in there.

Kristen was a very active child yes and no she did not have a bath and her nails cleaned that night before she went to bed. Read her autopsy and learn what else was found under her nails. She could have picked up that hair playing that day. I didn't hear Barry or Katherine mention the bloody pajama fibre found under Kris's fingernail...did you?

And yes, Colette was not an exlempary housekeeper. You can see the dust and books and other articles under Kris's bed in the CS photos. Read the testimony of the first MP's on the scene attesting to the dust and dirt on the hallway floors.

They didn't lie....we all have unsourced hair and fibres in our home. Unless they can be matched to one of the alleged intruders, they mean nothing. They don't match the hippies Mac alleges were in his home that's for sure...Helena and Greg have been ruled out, dna ruled out.

You'll have to ask the prosecution that question, or more importantly Larry. Did he invite them on and they refused? I haven't watched the full program as yet. Yes, we notice that Bob talked specifics of the crime, i.e. the evidence that proves MacDonald is guilty which Katherine and Scheck studiously avoid. She doesn't have a clue what the evidence is anyway, poor dear.

Did anyone catch Nancy Grace last night? her first half hour was dedicated to Macdonald. Her guests told it like it is...the dna matches him, he's guilty. Only one defence attorney tried to keep up the charade that the unsourced hair under Kris's nail is exculpatory but he was laughed down by the other guests.

Bunny2

03-15-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
The MacDonald competent forensic expert Dr Thornton was confused about that MacDonald case forensic evidence stored in a cell in North Carolina in 1979 as well.He didn't seem too confused at trial when he agreed with the prosecution that the bloody imprints of MacDonald's pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet. Not only did he agree, but he hammered things home even more by correcting Segal and telling him there were two impressions, not just one.Could it be because of Glisson's poor marks and labels, and her confusing marks and labels, that even posters on this forum are confused?I don't think so. I don't recall seeing anyone who's "confused" about this except you and of course your alias, Caphill, who thought #7 and #8 both came from Kimberly but also thought #7 and #8 both came from Kristen.

Bunny2

03-15-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by catpurr
The DNA is proving inmate slaughtered his family. I don't understand how she can claim this is "good news". Like I said I don't follow this case but even I can see this makes him look all the more guilty. Larry King and Barry Scheck made it sound like there is a new trial coming. I just don't get it.Hi, catpurr - welcome to the board!

I doubt seriously that Mac would ever get a new trial. It's all just smoke and mirrors, throwing sand in the faces of an ignorant public and hoping to blind them. Some people have studied the case for years, but you don't have to do that in order to see Mac's guilt, since he himself has shown the consciousness of his guilt many, many times.

Anyway, just wanted to say welcome and I hope you'll post more in the future.

catpurr

03-15-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Hi, catpurr - welcome to the board!

I doubt seriously that Mac would ever get a new trial. It's all just smoke and mirrors, throwing sand in the faces of an ignorant public and hoping to blind them. Some people have studied the case for years, but you don't have to do that in order to see Mac's guilt, since he himself has shown the consciousness of his guilt many, many times.

Anyway, just wanted to say welcome and I hope you'll post more in the future.

Thank you so much for the welcome. Like I said, I have not researched this anywhere near all of you. I was just so thrown by the show last night. I used to have much more respect for Larry King but after last night I was about gagging. I also saw on the A&E site that the pubic hair that was found on Collette between her legs was inmates. I could swear that on LK it was said they were not identified. Or maybe I had stopped listening due to nausea.

audpaud

03-15-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by just_beesy
Don't know if everybody has seen the DNA results or not. http://www.wral.com/news/7887201/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=news

"DNA Test Results are . . . . GROOOOOOOOVY!" :tongue:

audpaud

03-15-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by cami
Ha Ha I typed my reply to that in invisible ink Audpad. Yes Mr. Mac was very charismatic according to sources but he also was very angry and jealous as his position in life. Angry at his lack of education which affected his job status. Angry at his peers who were educated and received better positions and higher renumeration than him. Angry and jealous of educated women. Mr. Mac was very charismatic when he had an audience but late at night when everyone had gone, his anger and jealousy would he would rail against women in particular. His attitudes toward women and education were fostered on his children.

Of course we don't know how the women in that household dealt with these issues. However, sister Mac did say that she felt under stress to achieve, to succeed, to be the best so that was fostered by the parents, imo.

Jay Mac was a speed freak just like little brother. He had a breakdown and beat up his mother on a street corner. Both of them are nuttier than fruitcakes imo. No doubt fostered in that household.

Nurture incubated those personality disorders in that family, IMO.

NOTE: We are discussing jeffrey macdonalds FATHER and FAMILY here . . . in re to my original post/fascination with the family dynamics that breed a murderer ie nature vs nurture:

Tx for the replies to my inquiry rash and cami--as in the Ted Bundy case, I find this kind of background info fascinating.

Hello to all the newcomers as well!:)

So far, it seems Lil MonsterMac's childhood doesn't seem any more dysfunctional than the rest of us, does it?

I tend to think that circumstances were tragically aligned for MurderMac's actions that tragic night . . . Sleep deprivation and amphetmaine abuse led to the intitial murderous rage/outburst Slaughter of Colette & Kimberly. His sociopath-narcissist personality then took over with the calculated/surgical/diabolical/cover-up murder of Little Kristen.:(

audpaud

03-15-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by tidefan311
IMO, Barry Sheck lost all of my respect when OJ was set free, thanks to him. How can anyone believe him?

ITA tidefan . . . Any strides Scheck has made in restoring his credibility in the years since (using DNA for the Poor Souls who did NOT have an adequate defense/resources at trial--POLAR OPPOSITES of the incredible resources macmonster has had at his nauseating disposal!:flamemad: ) . . . were severely damaged at last nights Doddering King Live appearance!

I was upset enuf to email the show (www.larrykinglive.com) to voice my displeasure at the one sidedness of the "interviews" and treatment of the TRUE victim of this case on the panel--Colette's brother--Bob Stevenson & the fact that Kathryn mac AND Scheck came across as the camera loving/publicity hounds that they undoubtedly are! Scheck seemed ill prepared/unknowledgeable about the evidence and seemed to give his usual "dna speech" that he gives on all the cable talk shows!:rolleyes:

I'd like to see the same panel on Nancy Grace as well! Along with "The Abrams Report"/msnbc!

byn63

03-15-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

ITA tidefan . . . Any strides Scheck has made in restoring his credibility in the years since (using DNA for the Poor Souls who did NOT have an adequate defense/resources at trial--POLAR OPPOSITES of the incredible resources macmonster has had at his nauseating disposal!:flamemad: ) . . . were severely damaged at last nights Doddering King Live appearance!

I was upset enuf to email the show (www.larrykinglive.com) to voice my displeasure at the one sidedness of the "interviews" and treatment of the TRUE victim of this case on the panel--Colette's brother--Bob Stevenson & the fact that Kathryn mac AND Scheck came across as the camera loving/publicity hounds that they undoubtedly are! Scheck seemed ill prepared/unknowledgeable about the evidence and seemed to give his usual "dna speech" that he gives on all the cable talk shows!:rolleyes:

I'd like to see the same panel on Nancy Grace as well! Along with "The Abrams Report"/msnbc!

I agree with audpaud!

welcome catspur!

hey tide - I didn't really follow the OJ trial so until you and a few others pointed out BS's involvement, I wasn't aware. So, now my low opinion of BS just sunk even lower thanks to your input.

Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, and unborn son may you FINALLY rest in peace knowing that the butcher that ended your lives will rot in prison.:rose:

catpurr

03-15-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by byn63

I agree with audpaud!

welcome catspur!

hey tide - I didn't really follow the OJ trial so until you and a few others pointed out BS's involvement, I wasn't aware. So, now my low opinion of BS just sunk even lower thanks to your input.

Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, and unborn son may you FINALLY rest in peace knowing that the butcher that ended your lives will rot in prison.:rose:

Thanks for the welcome!!!! :seeya:

PrimeSuspect210

03-15-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by cami

Read the dna test results...<snip>

Would LOVE to read the DNA results. You don't by any chance have a copy you can link to, do you?

I'm not talking about DOJ's Official Press Release dated March 10, 2006 which "interprets" the results for the public at large .... I'm talking about the official lab results from AFIP DNA lab ... that which has been filed with the courts.

TIA.

stinkerbelle

03-15-2006, 04:27 PM

just wanted to say welcome catpurr:)

cami

03-15-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Would LOVE to read the DNA results. You don't by any chance have a copy you can link to, do you?

I'm not talking about DOJ's Official Press Release dated March 10, 2006 which "interprets" the results for the public at large .... I'm talking about the official lab results from AFIP DNA lab ... that which has been filed with the courts.

TIA.

No, sorry I don't. Try the DOJ website, they post the press release for 48 hours. If you take note, there were 40 pages to that release. The news source only published four of them. Or try to get them from the AFIP lab, they might sell them to you. They are a matter of public record aren't they?

Why do you suspect the government of providing false information? You believe Kathryn when she says it's full of falsehoods?

caphill

03-15-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

Would LOVE to read the DNA results. You don't by any chance have a copy you can link to, do you?

I'm not talking about DOJ's Official Press Release dated March 10, 2006 which "interprets" the results for the public at large .... I'm talking about the official lab results from AFIP DNA lab ... that which has been filed with the courts.

TIA.

Me too. I don't think I will get chance to see the actual reports and supporting lab notes any time soon.

These tests were ordered by Court for the defense. I doubt the District Court has anyone rushing to make public these documents will be become an evidence document.

I compliment your question that brings forth the fact the actural DNA reports and analysis is not a matter of internet or public access.

The only thing the public knows about the results is to what the two sides chose to disclose and their interpretations.

catpurr

03-15-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
just wanted to say welcome catpurr:)

Thank you very much!!!:beer:

spurs01

03-15-2006, 09:30 PM

I have the actual court filing. I've sent it to other posters. Anyone else wanting the same, who hasn't already received it, is free to e-mail me at spurs0101@yahoo.com.

I'm not around during the day (can't post from work), but I will send you what I got from my Pacer account.

I'm kind of surprised Christina hasn't posted it (I DID send it to her). Maybe she thinks it's too technical?

Just wondering.

spurs01

03-15-2006, 09:31 PM

BTW, that's NOT a slam on Christina. At. all. Mac's site hasn't posted it either.

spurs01

03-15-2006, 09:34 PM

The official court filing contained 33 pages, I believe.

Very technical stuff. But the actual report from the lab.

Katie Scarlett

03-15-2006, 10:27 PM

I spent a long time on the web trying to get the layman's read on the results. Their was an axe to grind everywhere I looked. Although, I practiced nursing for many years, I don't think that I really understand the technicalities of genetic markers. I get the basics though. Although I'm not a tremendous fan of Barry Scheck because of his affiliation with the OJ debaucle, I do think that the Innocence Project has done a great deal of good. I think that his read on these results are trustworthy. He clearly said that the results were "good", but "not great". This is my take on it. The only possible exculpatory results were the hairs found underneath the fingernails of Kristin and Kimberly. Both were found not to belong to anyone in the household. But they also didn't match that of Helena Stokely or Greg Mitchell.

You could argue that an "apartment" could be found to have numerous hairs of unknown origin given the litany of occupants. But.....these hairs did not belong to Jeffrey MacDonald or anyone else living there at the time. Given the enormous amount of blood found on all three victims, I don't think that this is a reasonable argument. It's possible, but not probable.

I've read both Fatal Vision, and Fatal Justice. Jim Blackburn and Judge DuPree handled this case abominably. If they hadn't we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

I think that Jeffrey MacDonald is probably guilty. I just can't buy the condition of the living room and dining room if a free-for-all fight for life took place in that house. But I'm not 100% convinced.

I'd feel better if he gets his last day with Lady Justice.

Katie Scarlett

Bunny2

03-15-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Katie Scarlett
He clearly said that the results were "good", but "not great".Hi, Scarlett - What that's called is "lawyer speak," similar to the MacSpeak MacDonald (the murderer) has taught to his wife Kathryn....the hairs found underneath the fingernails of Kristin and Kimberly. Both were found not to belong to anyone in the household....But.....these hairs did not belong to Jeffrey MacDonald or anyone else living there at the time.If you read the past posts here and do some research on your own you will find that unsourced items are forensically insignificant, and that Mac already made his arguments (a long time ago) about unsourced items pointing to intruders, and those arguments were rejected by a jury and appeals courts. It is the sourced, not the unsourced, items which are forensically significant, and of course in this case we have a blood-soaked fiber matching fibers of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas under Kris's fingernail. The defense cannot have it both ways. The DNA results are devastating to Mac for this and other reasons (including, of course, what you mentioned re: neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matching any exhibit).Jim Blackburn and Judge DuPree handled this case abominably.How so? The later courts found no errors whatsoever, nothing wrongly suppressed, no charges of bias, etc., and even Mac's own lawyer said twice that he got a fair trial. What did you find to be "abominable" in the trial transcripts or later court decisions?I'd feel better if he gets his last day with Lady Justice.I think he's already had it. Justice prevailed in 1979 and with the outcome of the DNA results it continues to do so, IMHO.

Funny how much you remind me of another poster who used to post under a very similar name...oh, well, I'm sure it's just coincidence. Anyway, welcome again to the board, hope you enjoy your time here.

PrimeSuspect210

03-15-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by cami

No, sorry I don't. Try the DOJ website, they post the press release for 48 hours. If you take note, there were 40 pages to that release. The news source only published four of them. Or try to get them from the AFIP lab, they might sell them to you. They are a matter of public record aren't they?

Why do you suspect the government of providing false information? You believe Kathryn when she says it's full of falsehoods?
I appreciate your response, cami.

I read ahead a little and saw spurs01's offer to email the court filing. I've requested it via email.

I wouldn't say I suspect the government of providing false information ... let's just say I suspect they are skewing the facts, as I suspect they've done since day 1. I firmly believe Kathryn when she says the government's interpretation of the results is full of innuendo and I personally believe the government's interpretation of the results is considerably less than the truth.

Again, thank you for your response.

PrimeSuspect210

03-15-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
I have the actual court filing. I've sent it to other posters. Anyone else wanting the same, who hasn't already received it, is free to e-mail me at spurs0101@yahoo.com.

I'm not around during the day (can't post from work), but I will send you what I got from my Pacer account.

I'm kind of surprised Christina hasn't posted it (I DID send it to her). Maybe she thinks it's too technical?

Just wondering.
Thank you for your kind offer, spurs. I've sent an email to you from my AOL account.

stinkerbelle

03-16-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by PrimeSuspect210

I appreciate your response, cami.

I read ahead a little and saw spurs01's offer to email the court filing. I've requested it via email.

I wouldn't say I suspect the government of providing false information ... let's just say I suspect they are skewing the facts, as I suspect they've done since day 1. I firmly believe Kathryn when she says the government's interpretation of the results is full of innuendo and I personally believe the government's interpretation of the results is considerably less than the truth.

Again, thank you for your response.

how is it you think they're skewing the results? (oops, welcome, btw :) ) they reported the unsourced hair, they did not hide it or try to claim it was inconclusive. do you not think mrs. inmate is skewing the facts when she says the hair was ON rather than IN colette's hand? the mac camp bible, FJ, states numerous times the hair was IN colette's hand (thanks jednme for pointing all those out on the other forum; great post girlie!).

i personally don't find the results an overwhelming victory for either side. i don't think it would be odd for mac's hair to be found on any of the victims, nor do i think the hair, among other things, found under kristen's fingernail is in any way exculpatory. what i think, of course, matters nought, for i'm not a judge. what does make the results bad for macdoneit, and this is in no way skewed by MPO that he's guilty; it's fully documented, is that he has stated unequivocally for years and years and years that that hair in her hand would prove his innocence and of course it has done nothing of the kind. no match to his two favorite scapegoats, so 36 years after the fact, who's he gonna blame now?

stinkerbelle

03-16-2006, 12:27 AM

caphill

03-16-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Katie Scarlett
I spent a long time on the web trying to get the layman's read on the results. Their was an axe to grind everywhere I looked. Although, I practiced nursing for many years, I don't think that I really understand the technicalities of genetic markers. I get the basics though. Although I'm not a tremendous fan of Barry Scheck because of his affiliation with the OJ debaucle, I do think that the Innocence Project has done a great deal of good. I think that his read on these results are trustworthy. He clearly said that the results were "good", but "not great". This is my take on it. The only possible exculpatory results were the hairs found underneath the fingernails of Kristin and Kimberly. Both were found not to belong to anyone in the household. But they also didn't match that of Helena Stokely or Greg Mitchell.

You could argue that an "apartment" could be found to have numerous hairs of unknown origin given the litany of occupants. But.....these hairs did not belong to Jeffrey MacDonald or anyone else living there at the time. Given the enormous amount of blood found on all three victims, I don't think that this is a reasonable argument. It's possible, but not probable.

I've read both Fatal Vision, and Fatal Justice. Jim Blackburn and Judge DuPree handled this case abominably. If they hadn't we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

I think that Jeffrey MacDonald is probably guilty. I just can't buy the condition of the living room and dining room if a free-for-all fight for life took place in that house. But I'm not 100% convinced.

I'd feel better if he gets his last day with Lady Justice.

Katie Scarlett

You write as someone with an open mind. There is the Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site on the Web that has a photo page (10 pages) that pics of the MacDonald home.

Though as you will see from the pics the many things had been distrubed from the time of the first set of pics and the second set.

It will give a good idea of the condition of the living after the crime. The free-for-all lasted for seconds and took place at foot of the sofa which is the entry to the step up to the hallway.

The living has more evidence of a struggle than the master bedroon where Colette was killed. She also struggled with her assailants as evidenced by both her arms being broken and all the defensive wounds on arms and hands.

View these pics for youself and you will have a good idea of the appearance of the house after the murders. You will notice that the afghan, the red clothes, the pillows, the flower pot are being moved around as the pics are being taken. It was determine the flower pot had been uprighted about the MPs when they first arrived at the house. The medics were moving some around to get the gurney through the hall, living room to door.

The site has a voluminous store of information, pics, transcripts, affidavits etc.

Hope you come here and continure to post to give some reasoned balance to this forum.

Katie Scarlett

03-16-2006, 01:01 AM

Thanks for the very nice welcome. :) I appreciate it very much.

I'm just trying to keep an open mind about this whole business. Again, my personal opinion is that he is guilty. But as CTV's Exonerated has shown us all, sometimes things aren't what they seem.

I fully realize that we have to put a period to this whole case at some time. I still have "some" doubts. I would personally feel better with a fresh look at this case. I don't feel the need to always be right about something. I'm okay with having questions that I feel need answers. I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again. But I would rather be wrong than send an innocent person to prison or God forbid, the death chamber. How I wish we had been able to do DNA testing in February 1970.............

Even if that had been possible, DNA results are only as reliable as the people who collect and interpret the data. I don't think, in my own mind, that there is any doubt that the crime scene was handled very poorly. JMO.
:seeya:

cami

03-16-2006, 09:54 AM

cami

03-16-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by caphill

You write as someone with an open mind. There is the Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site on the Web that has a photo page (10 pages) that pics of the MacDonald home.

Though as you will see from the pics the many things had been distrubed from the time of the first set of pics and the second set.

It will give a good idea of the condition of the living after the crime. The free-for-all lasted for seconds and took place at foot of the sofa which is the entry to the step up to the hallway.

The living has more evidence of a struggle than the master bedroon where Colette was killed. She also struggled with her assailants as evidenced by both her arms being broken and all the defensive wounds on arms and hands.

View these pics for youself and you will have a good idea of the appearance of the house after the murders. You will notice that the afghan, the red clothes, the pillows, the flower pot are being moved around as the pics are being taken. It was determine the flower pot had been uprighted about the MPs when they first arrived at the house. The medics were moving some around to get the gurney through the hall, living room to door.

The site has a voluminous store of information, pics, transcripts, affidavits etc.

Hope you come here and continure to post to give some reasoned balance to this forum.

You are aware that articles are always moved at a crime scene. They are photographed first in place, then moved so the technicians can look for evidence underneath them?

The flower pot was righted by a medic. yes, they had to move things to bring the geurney's out. How does that translate to Mac's innocence? None of those things were placed in evidence at the trial. The blood and fibre evidence was. The pajama top and the blue bedsheet, the smoking guns. You don't need much more than that to prove Macdonald is guilty as sin of these murders and the lone killer.

Pray tell where is the evidence of a struggle with three armed men hopped up on drugs in the living room? an overturned coffee table? Look at the pictures on the wall or the side table, not a thing disturbed. Hard to believe some druggie was swinging a baseball bat around there in the dark and all he hit was old ice pick's forehead giving him a bruise. No logical in the least.

Bunny2

03-16-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I think Cami seems to be lacking in imagination with regard to the struggle with the murderous intruder thugs...MacDonald was asleep on a couch when the intruders struck...Did you forget that the long-awaited DNA results are known now, and that not only did they show that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, but also, the all-important "mystery hair" in Colette's hand which he always insisted came from her murderer, was his own?

There were no "murderous intruder thugs," Bertie. As the jury knew years ago, and the appeals courts afterwards, there never were any "intruders." Mac only made up that story in order to try and turn any investigation away from himself; just one of the many demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt.

catpurr

03-16-2006, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Did you forget that the long-awaited DNA results are known now, and that not only did they show that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, but also, the all-important "mystery hair" in Colette's hand which he always insisted came from her murderer, was his own?

There were no "murderous intruder thugs," Bertie. As the jury knew years ago, and the appeals courts afterwards, there never were any "intruders." Mac only made up that story in order to try and turn any investigation away from himself; just one of the many demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt.

Like I said before, I have not researched as much as most of you, but I thought inmate always said that when or if the DNA was done, they would have proof of who the murderer was. I guess they do now.

bandit's mom

03-16-2006, 07:25 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bunny2
[B]Did you forget that the long-awaited DNA results are known now, and that not only did they show that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, but also, the all-important "mystery hair" in Colette's hand which he always insisted came from her murderer, was his own?

Well, at least he was proven to be right. The mystery hair
did come from her murderer.

seawolf4

03-16-2006, 08:46 PM

Watership Down

03-16-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by seawolf4

In your 4th paragraph you said it all. So where were JM's defensive wounds? Oh right, he had none, even though he said he struggled with them while they stabed at him with a knife.

Now that's not true....he had that nice neat wound on his chest that caused a collapsed lung.

Watership Down

03-16-2006, 09:09 PM

Watership Down

03-16-2006, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by caphill

...

The living has more evidence of a struggle than the master bedroon where Colette was killed. She also struggled with her assailants as evidenced by both her arms being broken and all the defensive wounds on arms and hands.

Hey cap....

was Collette killed in the mstr b/r - or in Kimberlys b/r and then moved to the mstr b/r.

I'm kinda rusty on this case, so pls be patient!

caphill

03-16-2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bunny2
[B]Did you forget that the long-awaited DNA results are known now, and that not only did they show that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any exhibit, but also, the all-important "mystery hair" in Colette's hand which he always insisted came from her murderer, was his own?

Well, at least he was proven to be right. The mystery hair
did come from her murderer.

How many hairs were actually tested? How many of those showed no results at all? How many of the ones tested were inconclusive?

What type of DNA testing was done on the hairs? What was the exhibit number for the hair from between Colette's legs? What was the exhibit number the long hair found on Colette's mouth. Was that hair identified as hers or any other family member?

JTF

03-16-2006, 09:33 PM

WD: DNA test results confirmed that the blond hair found in Colette MacDonald's right hand was her own and the light brown limb hair found in her left hand was Jeffrey MacDonalds. Blood, hair, fiber, and fabric impression evidence indicate that Colette was transported from Kristen's room to the master bedroom by her husband.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-16-2006, 09:37 PM

Hi, Watership -

The hair I was talking about is one found in Colette's left hand which was unsourced until recently. Mac always claimed it came from her murderer, and now we know he was right: It was his own.

No one knows for sure whether Kim or Colette was the first to be hit in the MB, but Kim was hit hard enough in that room to cause her brain serum and blood to be deposited there (her urine was also in the bed in that room). Colette was also struck in the MB, may have fallen and been unconscious for a time, but she came to and made her way to Kristen's room, where Mac caught up with her and "really let her have it." After that, she could no longer walk or talk, and he wrapped her in bedding from the MB and carried her from Kristen's room back into the MB (leaving his bloody footprint in Colette's blood exiting Kristen's room as he did so -- no bloody footprints entering the room BTW. He also left bloody imprints of his pajamas on the MB sheet along with Colette's as he carried her.). At some point he carried Kim back to her own bedroom and tucked her in, then clubbed her viciously again on the right side of the head and stabbed her. Also at some point he put his pajama top on Colette, probably to try and account for all the blood that was on it, and then he stabbed her through it, creating 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in it that matched 21 holes in her chest.

The evidence also shows that he stabbed his baby daughter Kristen in the chest and back, and that a pajama fiber was lodged under her fingernail as she tried to defend herself.

Had the jury deliberated just a bit longer, they might have come in with three first-degree convictions instead of just one (for Kristen), since Colette was obviously still alive when she made her way from the MB into Kristen's room, and Kim may have also been alive (albeit just barely) when he carried her back to her room and bludgeoned her again and stabbed her.

Watership Down

03-16-2006, 10:30 PM

Oh yes!! Thank you guys so much for the refresher.

I admit to having lingering doubt of his guilt if other hairs are not his......if this has been discussed, I apologize, but will the defense have to prove the hairs were left during the commission of the murder to win a new trial?

caphill

03-16-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down
Oh yes!! Thank you guys so much for the refresher.

I admit to having lingering doubt of his guilt if other hairs are not his......if this has been discussed, I apologize, but will the defense have to prove the hairs were left during the commission of the murder to win a new trial?

NO

Watership Down

03-17-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by caphill

NO

Just that they are exculpatory? Would it be a Brady violation?

Bunny2

03-17-2006, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Watership Down
Just that they are exculpatory? Would it be a Brady violation? [/B]WD -

If I'm understanding your first question here, unsourced hairs aren't exculpatory; they're forensically insignificant. More than a few unsourced hairs, fibers, and various other items were found in the apartment. Mac argued that they were exculpatory and could only have come from "intruders," but his arguments were thoroughly and unanimously rejected by the jury. He fared no better with the appeals courts, and as a result remains (and likely will remain) in prison until he draws his last breath.

It is the sourced items which are forensically significant, and in this case there was a plethora of evidence sourced to none other than Mac himself. The latest match of his DNA to the hair in Colette's left hand is devastating to him, since he has claimed for years that this could only have come from her murderer, whom he believed to be Greg Mitchell. Neither Mitchell's nor Stoeckley's DNA was matched to any exhibit.

Should the hair under Kristen's fingernail ever be sourced to anyone (not likely at this point IMHO), then Mac's job would, I would think, become one of finding enough weighty corroborating evidence to prove that that particular person did commit murder in the Mac apartment. Should that ever happen (I know we're stretching imagination to the point of fantasy here), then Mac would face what probably would be one of the biggest problems ever, that of explaining why he covered up all these years for someone who helped him murder his family.

And no, the courts found no violation of Brady in this case.

audpaud

03-17-2006, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . . There was a controversial murder in Chelsea, London, UK a few months ago when a wealthy aristocratic man opened his door to a black man who had just been released early from prison. The wealthy City gentleman was stabbed to death and his wife badly injured. I saw no evidence in the reports on the case that any furniture in the house was moved, or damaged at all . . .

Am I the only one wondering what the significance of the man at the door being "black" & being "released early from prison" here is?:confused:

audpaud

03-17-2006, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . . I think Cami seems to be lacking in imagination with regard to the struggle with the murderous intruder thugs on the night of the MacDonald murders.

It's perfectly obvious to me that nothing like that has ever happened to her, or else she would be more sympathetic . . .

What has happened in YOUR life that enables you to imagine that Baby Kristen could put up a better defensive battle than her Green Beret Psycho-Daddy? Not to mention Poor Colette and her two broken arms?

I've never been able to get my imagination expanded enough to wrap around MacMonster LIE #1: "ACID IS GROOOOVY . . . KILL THE PIGS!!!" :rolleyes:

:cool:

audpaud

03-17-2006, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
I don't know for certain if the Kassabs were heavy drinkers, or alcoholics, as has been implied. I never met them. I believe Mildred Kassab deliberately lied at the 1979 trial about ice picks being in the MacDonald apartment. Even Wade Smith seemed to think that Pam Kalin was lying about ice picks when he cross-examined her at the 1979 trial. Lying in a murder trial is very wrong and was very unfair on the innocent Dr MacDonald.

Fred Kassab's and CID agent Kearns' child molestation theory was a lunatic theory. They never had any real proof to back it up and there was certainly no evidence of it at the autopsies.

It's not me who is being lunatic, as Bunny seems to think. As far as I'm concerned 2+2=4. I'm not a pathological liar like Bunny either.

Sentimentality with regard to the Kassabs is not good enough. If they lied in court they ought to have been threatened with legal action. All this unpleasantness could have been avoided if CID agents were qualified homicide detectives and had performed as homicide detectives.

The only thing "lunatic" I'm thinking, is this Post!:shrug:

caphill

03-17-2006, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Just that they are exculpatory? Would it be a Brady violation?

No, any recently done DNA would not be a Brady violation because that was not done or available at the time of the trial.

Brady violation is withholding evidence from the defense. The previous appellate courts would recognize Brady violations based on legal technicalities.

When the 4th Circuit granted and remanded MacDonald motion in January back to the District Court, it was the first time that MacDonald was able to get the higher courts to review the previous Brady issues. US Marshall Britt's allegations of witnessing intimidation opened up the case for review of the evidence in its totality.

It would be very rare to have just one item of discovered evidence to turn a verdict around. The appellate courts deal in the technicalities of Constitution law rather the actual details of evidence. Unless the Government can impeach US Marshall Britt affidavit of witness intimidation, which is a violation of the Constitutional law that guarantees a defendent the rights to a fair trial, then the defendant case is opened up again to be heard in its entirety.

The recent DNA testing was in compliance with a Court order from 1997. The results of the testing has no role in the current Motion to Vacate that is in the Dictrict Court waiting response from the Goernment regarding the allegation of witness intimidation.

It is the prosecution responsibilities to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of a defendant. It is not and has never been the responsibility of a defendant to prove innocence. It virtually impossible to prove innocence unless the actual perp is found.

In this case, if the totality of the all evidence shows intruders were in the house that night that goes to MacDonald's claims to a a third party theory.

Such a big deal is being made that Stoeckely was not found in the few select hairs that were recently tested. The argument by a few posters here is that is proof she was not the killer. That is false. That is only proof the unsourced hairs that yielded the results were not hers.

Stoeckely consistently claimed she was there but she did not take part in the slayings. Some of Stoeckely's hair's samples from over 30 yrs ago were inconclusive or yielded no DNA results in
to use for comparison to all the recent testing done. Her admission and knowledge she frequently worn a long blond wig and a long blond wig strands were found at the scene is very compelling whether or not her natural hair was found on the bodies. The totality of her signed confessions of being there, the possible evidence of her intimidation as witness and the evidence of long blond hairs is very circumstantial evidence that is consistant with MacDonald third party theory of intruders, one whose description matched Stoeckely.