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

Star Diva

02-03-2005, 08:54 PM

Were there ever conclusions about the DNA samples submitted sometime ago for analysis. I heard there were samples at the crime scene that had never been tested as well as a long blonde hair from a wig.

I read Fatal Vision years ago when it first came out - I must say it was one of those can't put it down reads. I was totally convinced thereafter that MacDonald did it.

I'm still not convinced that he didn't do it - but like Scott Peterson much was made of MacDonald's infidelities and other proclivities, which unfortunately takes the focus away from what is really at issue - did he murder his pregnant wife and two children.

I can accept that he may have killed his wife in a fit of anger and that he may even have killed his oldest daughter accidentally, but it is really hard to imagine that he then went to his youngest child's room and cold-blooded murdered her thinking she'd be a witness. I just don't know.

Icculus

02-03-2005, 09:08 PM

It may be hard to believe, Star Diva, but it IS horrifyingly true.

There's never a straight answer about the DNA sampling, because there's nothing really there to exonerate him, but the MacDonald camp keeps refering to it anyway. Because really, what else can they say when questioned about his "innocence"? "Oh, I just don't think he could have done it." ? Factually, his guilt cannot be denied. Character testimonials and irrevelant, non-existent DNA cannot erase the mountain of factual evidence which covers Jeffery MacDonald in his inescapable GUILT.

Jeffery MacDonald--brutal, remoreseless, wife & baby killer/narcisistsic egomaniac

JMO, of course

cami

02-04-2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Star Diva
[B]Were there ever conclusions about the DNA samples submitted sometime ago for analysis. I heard there were samples at the crime scene that had never been tested as well as a long blonde hair from a wig. [B]

Actually, there were three "synthetic" hairs made of saran. All three have different chemical compositions. As well, wigs were not made of saran in 1970, but doll hair was.

So, unless three of the intruders MacDonald described were wearing wigs, then it's doll hair not wig hair. It's not even worthy of debate.

MacDonald is indeed guilty of these crimes. He will not be granted parole that's for sure.

Fatal Justice is MacDonald's case as he would wish it to be.

cami

02-04-2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann

Thanks for the info Toth. I'll have to read Fatal Justice. LE should look into further if the possibility exists that Jeffrey McDonald may be innocent after all. It has happened before. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Fatal Justice is a piece of trash. It's MacDonald's fantasy of the case. The authors not once contacted the lead investigator, Peter Kearns, of the 1971 reinvestigation although he lived a few short miles from author Bost. There was lots of contact with convict Macdonald though.

MacDonald is a psychopath with narcissistic and histrionic personalty disorders. He'll never keep his name out of the public forum and he'll go to his grave swearing he is innocent.

cami

02-04-2005, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Star Diva
I can accept that he may have killed his wife in a fit of anger and that he may even have killed his oldest daughter accidentally, but it is really hard to imagine that he then went to his youngest child's room and cold-blooded murdered her thinking she'd be a witness. I just don't know.

I don't think he killed the baby because she was a witness. I think it was self-preservation. He had to make it look as if a band of intruders, a la Manson and the girls, committed the crime once he decided to go that way. He could have turned himself in for a domestic dispute and assault if it was only Colette but once Kimberly went down and there was no saving her, I think he decided it was all or nothing. JMO

Icculus

02-04-2005, 01:02 PM

There is not only evidence of intruders but evidence as to their identity

Care to elaborate on this fictitious statement? I know of NO evidence of an intruder. The only "identities" you speak of have no knowledge to suggest they were there, only what the rest of the public knew. In fact, their "statements" do not match the crime scene. Nor does any evidence found point to ANYONE other than JEFFREY MACDONALD.

Man, does he have you snowed. Wake up and stop supporting this brutal double-murderer and his riddiculous "hippies on acid" story.

JMO, but of course

Windy_Nights

02-04-2005, 03:04 PM

Can I subjest a website that has a lot of info on this subject. Its a website belonging to Christina Masewicz author of Scales of Justice: The Jeffrey MacDonald Story. She has spent years researching this case and in the beginning I believe she also thought JM was innocent it was not until later that she came to realise he was indeed guilty in her opinion. I to share her belief that he killed his family. The evidence speaks for itself. This is of course IMO.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

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

cami

02-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Toth
There is not only evidence of intruders but evidence as to their identity.

What evidence Toth? Would you elaborate on that. MacDonald said exactly the same thing yesterday on the Today Show but when his lawyer was asked to elaborate, he said "we are not here to discuss evidence"

Why is MacDonald applying for parole if there is evidence of intruders. Wouldn't he be applying for a new trial based on exculpatory dna evidence?

02-04-2005, 07:59 PM

Read all the books then all the web sites... including Jeffry Mcdonalds site... Look closely at the things the Army kept out, and at some witnesses. Then form your own opinion. I've been a member of the boards only since Nov. When I came in on the Peterson case. I don't post unless I feel strongly on a subject.. The McDonald case I have followed since it happened.. and no I don't think he did it. There are enough inconsistancies to make me feel this way, I have read and reread and I still think there is strong evidence that he didn't do it. But Peterson.. Guilty as charged... my own humble opinion that I am entitled to, just as anyone else here is entitled to theirs. Thank you for letting me speak...Cyndi

Lobsters

02-05-2005, 02:14 PM

If you REALLY want to know who committed this crime, you only have to stop and take a look at the blood evidence.

The blood evidence PROVES that no one but MacDonald committed this crime.

What a shame for him too (sarcasm intended), that ironically enough, all 4 of the family members had different blood types. So it was more than easy to see who had bled where. And THAT is MurderMac's downfall. It CANNOT be explained.

It's absolutely preposterous to think that 4 hippie intruders who were supposedly high and in a murder frenzy would actually take the time to MOVE bodies around the house. WHICH DEFINATELY DID HAPPEN BY THE BLOOD EVIDENCE.

Collette was beaten and bled in Kristen's room. And then she was moved back to the master bedroom in the comforter and sheet from the master bedroom bed.

Kimberly was hit and bled in the entryway of the master bedroom. Her blood is there. So obiviously, she too, was moved.

WHY??????? Why would 4 frenzied hippies do that? It doesn't make any sense.

The person who committed this crime is where he belongs and I hope he ROTS there.

Windy_Nights

02-05-2005, 05:13 PM

The person who committed this crime is where he belongs and I hope he ROTS there. Thank you I agree :beer:

cami

02-07-2005, 12:49 PM

Collette was beaten and bled in Kristen's room. And then she was moved back to the master bedroom in the comforter and sheet from the master bedroom bed.

MacDonald says he never touched that sheet yet there are bloody transfer stains from the cuff of his pajama jacket and his bare shoulder on that sheet.

You are so right, the blood does not lie. It has no stake, no horse in the race, it is what it is and it points directly to MacDonald as the killer.

02-07-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by cami

MacDonald says he never touched that sheet yet there are bloody transfer stains from the cuff of his pajama jacket and his bare shoulder on that sheet.

You are so right, the blood does not lie. It has no stake, no horse in the race, it is what it is and it points directly to MacDonald as the killer.
___________________________

Cami, Thank you for concise and well-stated posts! I have spent so much time on this case, I know it by heart and get so frustrated by people who think JM is innocent. As you said, if nothing else, the blood trail proves his guilt.

He will never be free!

Lobsters

02-07-2005, 02:12 PM

cami

02-08-2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Designer

___________________________

Cami, Thank you for concise and well-stated posts! I have spent so much time on this case, I know it by heart and get so frustrated by people who think JM is innocent. As you said, if nothing else, the blood trail proves his guilt.

He will never be free!

you're welcome. :seeya: Are you a member of our c&j discussion? I too have studied this case for years. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that MacDonald committed these murders so I don't get as frustrated anymore. he won't get out that's for sure. he is not willing to ever express one shred of remorse and could care less that his family was murdered. It's all about him, always.

Grins

02-08-2005, 12:34 PM

=Did JM claim he slept on the couch because the youngest had wet his side of the bed?
If so, were the sheets ever tested for urine?

=If 3 men and 1 woman were attacking JM, who was attacking the rest of the family?

=JM says he was hit by the 'bat' repeatedly on the head; were there serious head wounds found? A fractured skull?

=Did he have any defensive wounds?
How does he have trouble getting out of the afghan which covered him? Mine falls off on its own.

:mad:

=did he pass 2 of 3 polygraph tests?

forensicpsy

02-08-2005, 01:36 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cami

you're welcome. :seeya: Are you a member of our c&j discussion? I too have studied this case for years. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that MacDonald committed these murders so I don't get as frustrated anymore. he won't get out that's for sure. he is not willing to ever express one shred of remorse and could care less that his family was murdered. It's all about him, always. [/QUOTE

I've always felt that JM is somehow addicted to proving that he is innocent. (which I don't believe he is.)

He seems to get a rush...or some kind of "high" when he discusses it. Frankly, the way he goes on and on and on.....it makes me nausious to listen to him whine.

NY-EVE

02-09-2005, 12:31 AM

boy,,,,i'm really outnumbered here........i think he is innocent
why did the army suppress so much evidense ??
and what about the army mp who saw helena stoekly on the street corner the night of the murders ,, just standing in the rain?? and what about the candle wax that was tested and proved to NOT be from any candle in the house ??
i too can go on and on with questions .......a person who is guilty and has somthing to hide does'nt want people investigating ...he has begged for it .......ok people i'm just wanting a friendly discussion ......lets debate and not be mean.....

lucielle

02-09-2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
boy,,,,i'm really outnumbered here........i think he is innocent
why did the army suppress so much evidense ??
and what about the army mp who saw helena stoekly on the street corner the night of the murders ,, just standing in the rain?? and what about the candle wax that was tested and proved to NOT be from any candle in the house ??
i too can go on and on with questions .......a person who is guilty and has somthing to hide does'nt want people investigating ...he has begged for it .......ok people i'm just wanting a friendly discussion ......lets debate and not be mean.....

1) What evidence did the Army supress? Some of the elements of the criem scene were not handled the way they should have been. I.E. ; coffee table was set upright; too many people in the home. But that in no way takes away from the mountain of blood evidence that convicted MacDonald.

2) The officer you are speaking of never said he saw Helena Stoekley on that street corner. He said he saw a girl in a floppy hat. That is all. Even if it WERE her, there is no evidence tying her to the crime scene---nor is there evidence of any of her "accomplices" at the crime scene.

Actually, many who are guilty want to help with the investigation. Why? To figure out what the cops know, how much they may know. Also to seem like they are cooperating.....

If there were 4 crazed drugged up hippies in MacDonalds home, there would have been evidence of those people in that house. There was not. There was also no blood in the living room where MacDonald said he fought for his life. None whatsoever. There was really no evidence of a struggle in the LR, either. The room that had the most evidence of struggle was the bedroom. There was also evidence that COlette was moved from 1 room to another adn Kimberly was also moved. WHy would drug crazed hippies move their victims? To make their story fit? The bodies would have fallen where they lay. Also, why did the drugged out hippies not actually TAKE any of the drugs MacDonald had in one of the closets in the home? The closet was open, the drugs were there to see? Why would drug adicts not take the onel thing they would have come for? (That is the equivalent of saying that a bank robber would leave the bank without the money.) The whole crime scene was obvioulsy staged and iMO if all 4 of those family members did not have different blood types, ut would be harder to prove.

The you can throw in the fact that MacDoanld was not even barely knocked, while his wife & two baby daughters were literally slaughtered! I mean, c'mon. That is just common sense! Why not finish him off? Even if the rest of it made sense, why not brutally stab him multiple times? WHy not club him in the head multiple times? Why not even stab him? These are drug crazed hippies in the throws of homocidal mania, right? Why would they stop?

The correct man is in jail. He will NEVER admit it. NEVER. He is always goin to be "waiting for that piece of evidence that will exonerate him." Any day now, any day. He has said the same thing for the last 30 years and I am sure he will say the same thing while he sits in jail.

cami

02-09-2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Grins
=Did JM claim he slept on the couch because the youngest had wet his side of the bed?
If so, were the sheets ever tested for urine?

=If 3 men and 1 woman were attacking JM, who was attacking the rest of the family?

=JM says he was hit by the 'bat' repeatedly on the head; were there serious head wounds found? A fractured skull?

=Did he have any defensive wounds?
How does he have trouble getting out of the afghan which covered him? Mine falls off on its own.

:mad:

=did he pass 2 of 3 polygraph tests?

Yes, the sheets were tested for urine and found to be from someone with Blood Type A or AB. The youngest daughter's blood type was 0. Colette was A and Kimberly the eldest child was AB. So, unless the mother, Colette wet the bed, the urine is from his eldest daughter and not the youngest as he claimed.

Good question, at least two other people would have had to be in that tiny apt and at the same time he says he was being attacked, the weapons were being used on his wife and daughter so they would have had to have two sets of weapons and since all the weapons came from the home, how likely is that.

No, he had no serious head wounds, just two bruises, one whih

No, he had no defense wounds. None on his wrists or forearms.

No, he failed two of three polys. The first two were private, one by Reid and one by Backster, and the third was given after he had been in jail for quite some time.

cami

02-09-2005, 11:50 AM

cami

02-09-2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by forensicpsy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cami

you're welcome. :seeya: Are you a member of our c&j discussion? I too have studied this case for years. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that MacDonald committed these murders so I don't get as frustrated anymore. he won't get out that's for sure. he is not willing to ever express one shred of remorse and could care less that his family was murdered. It's all about him, always. [/QUOTE

I've always felt that JM is somehow addicted to proving that he is innocent. (which I don't believe he is.)

He seems to get a rush...or some kind of "high" when he discusses it. Frankly, the way he goes on and on and on.....it makes me nausious to listen to him whine.

Yeah it could be labelled Histrionic Personality Disorder. No one but Mac is responsible for where he is today. He won't learn, his big mouth does it every time.

cami

02-09-2005, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Toth
I'd like to hear more about this "candle wax".

Was it determined to be fresh or did it appear to be fresh?

Its certainly an indication of presence of another person: they brought the candle perhaps but they certainly took it away, so they had to have been there.

I sure can't see someone having a sudden impulse to kill his wife and kids and then being real subtle about some candle.

No the candle wax was not fresh and some of it contained household debris. No candle wax, fresh or otherwise, found where he says the woman holding the candle was standing. Obviously, Colette liked to burn candles as evidenced by the drippings found on the wine bottle.

02-09-2005, 12:43 PM

Hi Cami! I have joined the c&j board and am just waiting for my membership to be approved. I was going to post on that board, but saw that you also post here. I am in agreement with you about Jeffery MacDonald. The first time I ever heard anything at all about this case was when I was 8 or 9, the TV movie came on and my Grandma watched it. I watched it with her. When I got older I started to read about it. Then when we got stationed at Ft. Bragg, I went to the library there and looked up old newspaper articles, my husband was so worried about me, thought I was a bit obessed...lol! My husband is in Special Forces, the reason for the move to Bragg was so he could go through the SF course. Anyway, sorry for rambling, for many years I thought MacDonald was innocent. Then the whole DNA thing just convinced me otherwise. I think it was more about hoping he was innocent and that his wife and children didn't see their husband and father doing those things to them. The evidence is overwhelming and once I opened my eyes, it blew me away. So I just thought I would say Hello and tell you how I feel about this case. I hope to join you all soon over on the c&j board!

ArmyWife

cjwebb

02-10-2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by cami

Yes, the sheets were tested for urine and found to be from someone with Blood Type A or AB. The youngest daughter's blood type was 0. Colette was A and Kimberly the eldest child was AB. So, unless the mother, Colette wet the bed, the urine is from his eldest daughter and not the youngest as he claimed.

Good question, at least two other people would have had to be in that tiny apt and at the same time he says he was being attacked, the weapons were being used on his wife and daughter so they would have had to have two sets of weapons and since all the weapons came from the home, how likely is that.

No, he had no serious head wounds, just two bruises, one whih

No, he had no defense wounds. None on his wrists or forearms.

No, he failed two of three polys. The first two were private, one by Reid and one by Backster, and the third was given after he had been in jail for quite some time. Thanks cami.
:seeya:
How do I get to the c&j board?
u kin pm me if ya will

Interesting that JM said in the Hospital he heard, "Jeffrey, why are they doing this to me?" and "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."
Could he have feared someone heard, "Jeffrey, why are YOU doing this to me?"?

cjwebb

02-10-2005, 10:33 AM

Excuse my :punch:
...but can A and B parents have an O child?

lucielle

02-10-2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by cjwebb
Excuse my :punch:
...but can A and B parents have an O child?

I know they obvioulsy can since MacDonald & Colette did.......I don't think that blood type is determined by your parents, though.......hmmmmmm

cami

02-10-2005, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by cjwebb
Excuse my :punch:
...but can A and B parents have an O child?

Yes, the genes in your cells control the blood group you process and the child gets a blood-group gene from the mother and one from the father. Both parents would have to have the 0 gene as well as either A or B in order to pass it on. It's rare but not impossible. I have it in my own family. I'm a B, my sister is A, my brother is AB, another brother is AB RHnegative, two of my sisters are 0. We all have the same parents.

cami

02-10-2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by cjwebb
Thanks cami.
:seeya:
How do I get to the c&j board?
u kin pm me if ya will

Interesting that JM said in the Hospital he heard, "Jeffrey, why are they doing this to me?" and "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."
Could he have feared someone heard, "Jeffrey, why are YOU doing this to me?"?

will do! Yeah, I think it's because he just couldn't block that out. There is a witness who heard a woman screaming and two children crying but that's about it for the "sound" witnesses. Makes you wonder how four of more strangers could have conducted these killings in silence and without leaving any trace evidence they were there. Pretty savvy drug addicts and according to MacDonald they had all ingested five different drugs that night. Wonder they could walk with that much narcotic and/or oppiates in them.

cami

02-10-2005, 02:33 PM

cami

02-10-2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by ArmyWife
Hi Cami! I have joined the c&j board and am just waiting for my membership to be approved. I was going to post on that board, but saw that you also post here. I am in agreement with you about Jeffery MacDonald. The first time I ever heard anything at all about this case was when I was 8 or 9, the TV movie came on and my Grandma watched it. I watched it with her. When I got older I started to read about it. Then when we got stationed at Ft. Bragg, I went to the library there and looked up old newspaper articles, my husband was so worried about me, thought I was a bit obessed...lol! My husband is in Special Forces, the reason for the move to Bragg was so he could go through the SF course. Anyway, sorry for rambling, for many years I thought MacDonald was innocent. Then the whole DNA thing just convinced me otherwise. I think it was more about hoping he was innocent and that his wife and children didn't see their husband and father doing those things to them. The evidence is overwhelming and once I opened my eyes, it blew me away. So I just thought I would say Hello and tell you how I feel about this case. I hope to join you all soon over on the c&j board!

ArmyWife

Hey AW, how are you.....:seeya: Yes, the obsession never stops. The husbands and wives of us on c&j think we are nuts, we've even had them involved in our pajama top experiments, LOL.

I don't any of us, certainly not me, wants to believe he did it and that his children suffered in that way, but we know it happens, it happens all the time. It's shocking and it's sad but it happens.

I think you will like the posters on c&j, they are a very knowledgable group and now that Christina's site is up and running, the transcripts and court documents are there for easy access, the lab reports are all there for those who want to research. I am still making my way through the Article 32 testimonies. What a treasure.

02-11-2005, 11:26 AM

Army doctor who killed wife and daughters delays parole hearing

http://courttv.com/news/2005/0210/armydoctor_ap.html

lucielle

02-11-2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by ArmyWife
Army doctor who killed wife and daughters delays parole hearing

http://courttv.com/news/2005/0210/armydoctor_ap.html

"It didn't seem like it was going to be doable by the date we were scheduled for, so he decided to just wait," she said from her home in Laurel, a Washington suburb.

The man has had 25 years to prepare for his parole hearing and has been saying for years how he has the piece of evidence that will exonerate him---yet NOW he says he needs more time!

Please.

02-11-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

The man has had 25 years to prepare for his parole hearing and has been saying for years how he has the piece of evidence that will exonerate him---yet NOW he says he needs more time!

Please.

I agree with you I don't think he has one thing to exonerate himself, he is SO guilty!

herlock h.

02-11-2005, 06:19 PM

"Acid is Groovy"???? We used to do acid a lot in those days. I am fairly certain that I NEVER heard anyone say, "Acid is Groovy". Sounds like what some really straight person would think people who did acid would say, but had no real exposure or experience with people who did drugs.

JMHO
Herlock

02-13-2005, 04:16 PM

don't fall for the acting....even though the oscars are soon...he is not nominated and should not be considered...he is right where he belongs...til the day he dies...may he rest in peace in teh big house.....its people like him that should scare the public if he was to get out....just like Ted Bundy perpetuated a fraud...so is this man. I vote NO on parole....

NY-EVE

02-14-2005, 12:19 AM

i vote ''yes'' for porole i still feel he did'nt do it

Icculus

02-14-2005, 02:23 AM

i vote ''yes'' for porole i still feel he did'nt do it

Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? You don;t feel? Do you even know the evidence? Don;t you feel this is too important a subject to be so naive and casual about? Look at the evidence. He did it whether you feel he did or not. Wake up.

JMO of course

NY-EVE

02-14-2005, 09:40 AM

oh i'm awake alright....i have studied this case for years
what i meant by ''feel'' is that there are no certainty's but, my gut feeling tells me he is innocent.....my user name is naive.. and for good reason ...it takes alot to convinse me....in my opinion there is way too much that adds to my belief that others did this
how can anyone be 100%sure?? you cant be ..unless the person is cought doing the act...but, like i said in ''my'' opinion he is innocent and i would ''feel'' good about him bring released back in to society,,,my next door neighbor even

lucielle

02-14-2005, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
oh i'm awake alright....i have studied this case for years
what i meant by ''feel'' is that there are no certainty's but, my gut feeling tells me he is innocent.....my user name is naive.. and for good reason ...it takes alot to convinse me....in my opinion there is way too much that adds to my belief that others did this
how can anyone be 100%sure?? you cant be ..unless the person is cought doing the act...but, like i said in ''my'' opinion he is innocent and i would ''feel'' good about him bring released back in to society,,,my next door neighbor even

NY-EVE!

Hello! What exactly would it take for you to be convinced that Jeff MacDoanld committed these crimes? A videotape? A DVD?

How about a mountain of blood evidence that directly contradicts MacDoanlds View of what happened that night? How about t alist of the contradictions IN MacDoanlds story against what we know to be facts?

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

These are step by step comments made by MacDonald that directly conradict what he has said before.

Believe me, the right man is in jail for these brutal murders. He knows it, but he will never admit it. (Much like Diane Downs) There wil always be "that one piece of evidence that will exonerate him," or "that DNA that will prove him innocent." NOTHING he has been able to come up with in the last 25 years has proven in any way, shape or form that he may be innocent. Nothing. Everything he has ever offered up--including any "wig" hair, candle wax, etc has been disproven and explained away.

cami

02-14-2005, 02:40 PM

NY-EVE

02-15-2005, 12:16 AM

hello everyone it's me again .....the lone crusader so to speak
i have looked at every website ,every news article.i have my own copy of fatal vision ..the book too ..and the book fatal justice..i have watched and taped every american justice and similar documentaries ...and i'm still sure he is innocent...cami ..i welcome your replys ..but, lets agree to dusagree ok?
cami... have you ever wandered about the prosecutor in this case?? and why he was disbarred?? its becouse of forgery and misconduct in office and how about the floppy hat woman standing a few blocks away from the home the night of the murders?? those are very big factors in my mind

Windy_Nights

02-15-2005, 11:50 AM

You say one floppy hat lady standing on a corner where were the others you no the 3 other guys. There was more than a prosecutor working on this case and they all came to the same conclusion.

Explain the bloody footprint in colettes blood type matching macdonalds foot coming out of Kimbers rooms, but not one going into the room?

There was way to many contradictions on macdonalds part to be able to believe anything he said. I for one will never believe this man to be innocent like I said the evidence tells the tell of what happened that night.

I hope mac stays in prison it is where he belongs. :read:

lucielle

02-15-2005, 02:32 PM

NY-EVE

02-15-2005, 05:29 PM

yes .. i went to that website,,studied it ..then studied it some more .......there are other things in this case that bothers me ,,not just the two i already mentioned ...
everyone has their opinion ,,so do i ..but i do value the opinions of others ..like i said ,, i have really studied this case up one side and down the other..my conclusion is he's innocent

lucielle

02-16-2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
yes .. i went to that website,,studied it ..then studied it some more .......there are other things in this case that bothers me ,,not just the two i already mentioned ...
everyone has their opinion ,,so do i ..but i do value the opinions of others ..like i said ,, i have really studied this case up one side and down the other..my conclusion is he's innocent

WOuld you care to elaborate. Do you just have a "feeling" that he is innocent, or do ou actually have evidence to back this up? In order to have discussion about this, you must give some reasons first as to why you think the way you do. Note I do not care hwat or how you think, I just want ot know what led you to the conclusion you have besides, "That is just what I think."

cami

02-16-2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
hello everyone it's me again .....the lone crusader so to speak
i have looked at every website ,every news article.i have my own copy of fatal vision ..the book too ..and the book fatal justice..i have watched and taped every american justice and similar documentaries ...and i'm still sure he is innocent...cami ..i welcome your replys ..but, lets agree to dusagree ok?
cami... have you ever wandered about the prosecutor in this case?? and why he was disbarred?? its becouse of forgery and misconduct in office and how about the floppy hat woman standing a few blocks away from the home the night of the murders?? those are very big factors in my mind

You are entitled to your own opinion NY. If you believe MacDonald is innocent, then you do. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just point you to the evidence in the case that the MacDonald camp is unable to provide. I've studied his case for years. After research of all the documents, it's my opinion he is guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. The blood evidence alone cannot be explained from a position of innocence by MacDonald.

Jim Blackburn was prosecuted long after the MacDonald conviction. He embellezed money, he admitted his guilt, served his time and was disbarred. It has no bearing absolutely whatsoever on the Macdonald case.

What do you think about Macdonald's defense attorney, Dennis Eisman, who committed suicide rather than face his own trial for misconduct? You don't find that on MacDonald's website though do you.

What do I think of the woman on the corner? Strictly a coincidence or the one and only MP who saw her is lying. I don't think the MP is lying. The description he gave, floppy hat and raincoat does not match the description Macdonald gave, floppy hat, boots and stringy hair. Maybe Mac spied her as he was outside throwing away the weapons. Needless to say, there's no tangible evidence that she was in the MacDonald apt committing murder that night.

On Macdonald's website he claims:

"Blonde, synthetic wig hairs, 22 inches in length, were found in a clear-handled hair brush on a table in the living room where MacDonald said he saw the blonde female. These wig hairs would have been critical to MacDonald's defense. Army investigator William Ivory knew Helena Stoeckley wore a blonde wig, which matched the descriptions given by MacDonald and MP Kenneth Mica, but didn't reveal the presence of these long blonde wig hairs at the crime scene."

When you research the lab notes on the evidence and the affidavits of the FBI Agent, you come to learn that there were in fact three strands of synthetic fibres all made of saran (not used in wigs in 1970) and all three show different chemical compositions. One matches a fall that Colette owned. That means that Helena would have had to change wigs while the murders were being committed and brush all three wigs with different hairbrushes during the murders and then remove all the wigs so the children could snare her hair under their fingernails.

Absolutely ridiculous. MOO

Link to the affidavit of Janice Glisson affidavit re: the hairbrushes and hair

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affadavit_glisson_1991feb5-4.html

NY-EVE

02-17-2005, 09:40 AM

thanks cami,,for your thoughts and for the links i'll keep comparing notes...the trail of blood seems to be the big factor with alot of you on here but, honestly to me i think the ''trail'' was done by the killers going from room to room ..the crime scene was not preserved properly ..mp's and different people tromping around .there were to many people in that apartment that night one mp even confessed to standing up the flower pot ,,one even stole jeffs wallet ..and why would helena confess ??yes she was a druggie but to me if things would have been handled properly .perhaps it would have left little room for doubt for me any way ..i just dont see a motive i always think....if druggies were wanting revenge on dr. mcdonald ..what better way to get back at some one than to kill their family while being held down to hear it being done...helpless ...he had to be revived with mouth to mouth ..he had a punctured lung and to me that is serious .....thanks for the debate

lucielle

02-17-2005, 11:02 AM

Icculus

02-17-2005, 11:42 PM

If Jeffrey MacDonald was innocent, and truly believed poor Helena Stoeckley was partly responsible for the brutal murder of his family, then answer me this...

Why, when in the same room as Helena, did he show almost an indifference towards her? Where was the rage and grief of a victimized husband? Wouldn't he have shown more emotion and feeling towards this woman if he indeed believed her guilty of such an atrocious crime? He demonstrated more anger towards the MP's that answered his initial 911 call than one of the so-called killers.

I've always found this strange. And completely telling. He showed indifference towards Helena because he knew she was uninvoled. Because he knows he himself is the killer.

JMO of course.

lucielle

02-18-2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Toth
is there an inventory somewhere? I'd think an addict might indeed pass up the medicine cabinet. Its sort of similar to an alcoholic passing up beer, he know it is not strong enough to interest him.

Umm, no. It was a DRUG closet. He had drugs for heroin addicts trying to get clean. This was not just benadryl & tylenol.

:rolleyes:

cami

02-18-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
thanks cami,,for your thoughts and for the links i'll keep comparing notes...the trail of blood seems to be the big factor with alot of you on here but, honestly to me i think the ''trail'' was done by the killers going from room to room ..the crime scene was not preserved properly ..mp's and different people tromping around .there were to many people in that apartment that night one mp even confessed to standing up the flower pot ,,one even stole jeffs wallet ..and why would helena confess ??yes she was a druggie but to me if things would have been handled properly .perhaps it would have left little room for doubt for me any way ..i just dont see a motive i always think....if druggies were wanting revenge on dr. mcdonald ..what better way to get back at some one than to kill their family while being held down to hear it being done...helpless ...he had to be revived with mouth to mouth ..he had a punctured lung and to me that is serious .....thanks for the debate

It's not a blood trail. It's huge blood stains and spots from direct bleeding. It's not possible the killers going from room to room transferred that blood. Colette bled in large quantities in her younger daughter's bed. As she went in that room to protect her youngest daughter, the killer caught up with her and beat her mercilessly with that club, crushing her skull and breaking both her arms. Her blood was on top of the bed in large quantities and splattered on the walls from the weapon. Then she was wrapped in a bed sheet and carried back to the MB and laid on the floor. Drug crazed hippies do not move bodies around.

The eldest daughter Kimberly was attacked in the MB, her blood and brain serum on the floor and wall proves she was injured in the MB and then carried back to her bed in the same sheet that was used to transport Colette. The baby, Kristen, was stabbed in her bed, her blood is in large quantities on the bottom sheet of her bed and on the floor of the room.

NONE of Macdonald's blood was found in the living room or hallway where he says he was attacked by the three men and stabbed. How do you get stabbed and not bleed?

We know all about the medic who stood up the plant pot and the ambulance attendant who stole the wallet. What I don't know is how this makes MacDonald innocent as it in no way diminishes the overwhelming evidence against MacDonald.

Helena was a 17 year-old drug addict who would have done anything for attention. She confessed, recanted, confessed again and recanted and confessed over and over again. Her confessions however are not consistent with the crime and what happened in that house that night. Neither is there one speck of physical evidence to place her in that apartment that night. Have you even read those confessions on Christina's website?

no crime scene has ALL questions answered - but, criminal investigation and trial has to prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT not beyond ALL doubt. Reasonable being the key word in that sentence.

Don't get hung up on motive. The prosecution does not have a legal obligation to prove motive. This was domestic homicide. YOu would have to be intimate with the family dynamics if you want a motive. Who knows why one person kills another, certainly not me and if you are looking for a motive for this crime well you're not going to find one except for an argument that turned physical that turned violent and then the children were killed for self-survival.

.."..if druggies were wanting revenge on dr. mcdonald ..what better way to get back at some one than to kill their family while being held down to hear it being done...helpless ...he had to be revived with mouth to mouth .."

Oh what a bunch of baloney, you actually believe this! If there were intruders in that apt that night, mac would be as dead as his family. If they killed his family to get back at him, then they badly miscalculated MacDonald's reaction. He told his psychiatrist he was "relieved" they were gone and he had an affair within weeks of their deaths while he was under restrictions on base.

Macdonald had a partially collapsed lung from his self-inflicted knife wound. He received no immediate treatment at the hospital other than a bandage over the wound. His vitals were normal and he was orientated as to time and place. Compared to the brutality of the deaths of his wife and daughters, he received barely a scratch.

cami

02-18-2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Toth
is there an inventory somewhere? I'd think an addict might indeed pass up the medicine cabinet. Its sort of similar to an alcoholic passing up beer, he know it is not strong enough to interest him.

I'm not talking about a bathroom medicine cabinet Toth. The hall closet was full of drugs, controlled substances like Thorazaine and Eskatrol diet pills and hypodermic needles. No drug addict is going to leave that behind.

cami

02-18-2005, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Toth
showed indifference? Or simply was more in control of his emotions than you think he somehow should have been?

Regardless of what he showed. Her confessions are absolutely ridiculous and are not consistent with the physical evidence. Nor is there any physical evidence that places her inside the apt. No hair, no blood, no nothing.

The evidence against Macdonald is however overwhelming.

lucielle

02-18-2005, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by cami

It's not a blood trail. It's huge blood stains and spots from direct bleeding. It's not possible the killers going from room to room transferred that blood. Colette bled in large quantities in her younger daughter's bed. As she went in that room to protect her youngest daughter, the killer caught up with her and beat her mercilessly with that club, crushing her skull and breaking both her arms. Her blood was on top of the bed in large quantities and splattered on the walls from the weapon. Then she was wrapped in a bed sheet and carried back to the MB and laid on the floor. Drug crazed hippies do not move bodies around.

The eldest daughter Kimberly was attacked in the MB, her blood and brain serum on the floor and wall proves she was injured in the MB and then carried back to her bed in the same sheet that was used to transport Colette. The baby, Kristen, was stabbed in her bed, her blood is in large quantities on the bottom sheet of her bed and on the floor of the room.

NONE of Macdonald's blood was found in the living room or hallway where he says he was attacked by the three men and stabbed. How do you get stabbed and not bleed?

We know all about the medic who stood up the plant pot and the ambulance attendant who stole the wallet. What I don't know is how this makes MacDonald innocent as it in no way diminishes the overwhelming evidence against MacDonald.

Helena was a 17 year-old drug addict who would have done anything for attention. She confessed, recanted, confessed again and recanted and confessed over and over again. Her confessions however are not consistent with the crime and what happened in that house that night. Neither is there one speck of physical evidence to place her in that apartment that night. Have you even read those confessions on Christina's website?

no crime scene has ALL questions answered - but, criminal investigation and trial has to prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT not beyond ALL doubt. Reasonable being the key word in that sentence.

Don't get hung up on motive. The prosecution does not have a legal obligation to prove motive. This was domestic homicide. YOu would have to be intimate with the family dynamics if you want a motive. Who knows why one person kills another, certainly not me and if you are looking for a motive for this crime well you're not going to find one except for an argument that turned physical that turned violent and then the children were killed for self-survival.

.."..if druggies were wanting revenge on dr. mcdonald ..what better way to get back at some one than to kill their family while being held down to hear it being done...helpless ...he had to be revived with mouth to mouth .."

Oh what a bunch of baloney, you actually believe this! If there were intruders in that apt that night, mac would be as dead as his family. If they killed his family to get back at him, then they badly miscalculated MacDonald's reaction. He told his psychiatrist he was "relieved" they were gone and he had an affair within weeks of their deaths while he was under restrictions on base.

Macdonald had a partially collapsed lung from his self-inflicted knife wound. He received no immediate treatment at the hospital other than a bandage over the wound. His vitals were normal and he was orientated as to time and place. Compared to the brutality of the deaths of his wife and daughters, he received barely a scratch.

Fantastic!

Icculus

02-22-2005, 11:46 AM

showed indifference? Or simply was more in control of his emotions than you think he somehow should have been?

Yes, Toth. Showed indifference. I'm not one to say how one should act, but Jeff MacDonald's emotions conveniently seemed to arise whenever he felt threatened as to the truth coming out, yet were strangely subdued in the prescence of the so-called killer. Explain that for me please? 'Cause I'm not buying it.

And Toth, you've yet to pinpoint all the evidence you feel exonerates him. I'm still unconvinced. You seem hell-bent on defending remorseless murderers. Why is that?

JMO of course

02-22-2005, 03:58 PM

You are so wrong on this one. Mr. McDonald will eventually be exonerated.

Originally posted by cami

Regardless of what he showed. Her confessions are absolutely ridiculous and are not consistent with the physical evidence. Nor is there any physical evidence that places her inside the apt. No hair, no blood, no nothing.

The evidence against Macdonald is however overwhelming.

Icculus

02-22-2005, 04:16 PM

You are so wrong on this one. Mr. McDonald will eventually be exonerated

You gotta love these blanket statements with no foundation whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Care to elaborate? Because Cami articulated her viewpoint very well. You, however, have not.

JMO of course

02-22-2005, 04:22 PM

Well, I am at work at the moment and don't have alot of time to compose such "an articulate viewpoint" as others have.

As far as evidence, one thing that I do recall about the case is the fact that synthetic blond hairs were found in the hair which corroborates his account of
Helena wearing a blond wig.

How about the fact that the prosecutor although now out, spent time in jail for malicious prosecution, hiding evidence etc. This case being one of those.

How about all the items the proscutor surpressed from the defense at the time, such as the skin under one of the girls fingernails, the curly hairs found on Collette that didn't match any of the family, the bloody palm print on the headboard etc. Basically whatever lab work came up that disagreed with his theory the prosecutor hid.

How about the fact that the FBI criminalist who testified was later found to have given fraudlent testimony in many cases, not only this one.

Originally posted by Icculus

You gotta love these blanket statements with no foundation whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Care to elaborate? Because Cami articulated her viewpoint very well. You, however, have not.

Sorry if this is somewhat rambling and I am not quite as articulate, but I am still entitled to my own opinion.
JMO of course

Icculus

02-22-2005, 04:42 PM

Well, I am at work at the moment and don't have alot of time to compose such "an articulate viewpoint" as others have.

Than why say it at all? You already know what you think. Why post that without backing it up? What's the point? To SEE yourself think?

As far as evidence, one thing that I do recall about the case is the fact that synthetic blond hairs were found in the hair which corroborates his account of
Helena wearing a blond wig.

Maybe if those hairs didn't match a fall Collette owned.

How about the fact that the prosecutor although now out, spent time in jail for malicious prosecution, hiding evidence etc. This case being one of those.

What does that have to do with the mountain of factual evidence implicating Jeff MacDonald? Any evidence un-used in the trial was omitted for a reason. It was irrelevant and didn't erase the relevant evidence. It still doesn't.

How about all the items the proscutor surpressed from the defense at the time, such as the skin under one of the girls fingernails, the curly hairs found on Collette that didn't match any of the family, the bloody palm print on the headboard etc. Basically whatever lab work came up that disagreed with his theory the prosecutor hid. How about the fact that the FBI criminalist who testified was later found to have given fraudlent testimony in many cases, not only this one.

What are you basing these claims on? How do they exonerate Jeff MacDonald? Fibers from his pajama top were found behind the bed, right under where he wrote PIG in Colette's blood with a latex glove. Why would hippie intruders use a glove??? You must be reading Fatal Justice. Big mistake. The wealth of faulty and misinterpreted information in that book would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Wake up. Stop disrespecting the dead by blindly supporting their murderer.

JMO as always

:rose: For Colette, Kim, & Kristy, the TRUE victims of this crime

cami

02-23-2005, 01:07 PM

[i]Originally posted by bloodsoblue

As far as evidence, one thing that I do recall about the case is the fact that synthetic blond hairs were found in the hair which corroborates his account of
Helena wearing a blond wig.

How about the fact that the prosecutor although now out, spent time in jail for malicious prosecution, hiding evidence etc. This case being one of those.

How about all the items the proscutor surpressed from the defense at the time, such as the skin under one of the girls fingernails, the curly hairs found on Collette that didn't match any of the family, the bloody palm print on the headboard etc. Basically whatever lab work came up that disagreed with his theory the prosecutor hid.

How about the fact that the FBI criminalist who testified was later found to have given fraudlent testimony in many cases, not only this one.

[/B]

"As far as evidence, one thing that I do recall about the case is the fact that synthetic blond hairs were found in the hair which corroborates his account of
Helena wearing a blond wig. "

This is taken directly from MacDonald's website. What a shame you won't research or read further before making your blanket statement that he will be exonerated. He's lost every single appeal and no one has been to the appeals courts or the supreme court more than MacDonald. He has no where left to go but to apply for parole and he's done that. He'll never be paroled however, since he refuses to accept responsibility for these murders and shows no remorse.

There were in fact, three synthetic hairs made of saran found in the hairbrushes. One was blonde, one was grey and one was black and all three had different chemical compositions. So, unless three of the intruders were wearing wigs and brushing their hair during the murders, those synthetic hairs do not belong to Helena's wig. As a matter of fact, wigs were not made of saran back in 1970 but falls were as was doll hair.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affadavit_glisson_1991feb5-3.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affadavit_glisson_1991feb5-4.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affadavit_glisson_1991feb5-5.html

Links to the affidavit of the technician. You can read the whole thing yourself if interested. You can read where she matches the synthetic hair to falls owned by Colette Macdonald.

"How about the fact that the prosecutor although now out, spent time in jail for malicious prosecution, hiding evidence etc. This case being one of those"

No it isn't. Once again, you've taken this from MacDonald and haven't bothered to look further. Jim Blackburn was prosecuted for forgery, embezzlement and obstruction of justice, years after the Macdonald trial. He voluntary surrendered his license and was disbarred. He pled guilty and served his time, made reparations and has been released. All that the justice system requires of a defendant. Maybe you should read his book he wrote about his case...Flameout is the title.

"How about all the items the proscutor surpressed from the defense at the time, such as the skin under one of the girls fingernails, the curly hairs found on Collette that didn't match any of the family, the bloody palm print on the headboard etc. Basically whatever lab work came up that disagreed with his theory the prosecutor hid."

Try again, the piece of skin was under Colette's fingernail and it was lost, not suppressed. This only helped MacDonald, it's most likely his skin. Colette's body was laying on the floor of her bedroom. We all drop hair daily. We all transfer hair daily. The MacDonalds were in the habit of entertaining large groups of people in their home. Colette allowed neighbours to use her dryer in the utility room off the MB. I am sure that there is lots and lots of foreign hair in my home right now as well as yours.

There was no bloody palm print on the headboard of the bed. There is a latent palm print and blood--the authors of Fatal Justice took the leap to a bloody palm print. But like most of their claims, this is bogus. CID lab notes do not back this claim. CID lab note D-29 lists blood on the footboard as being either Colette's or Kimberly's. Print exhibit 3x30 lists an unidentified palm print on the footboard. Neither document states that the palm print was formed in blood. Fatal Justice makes the connection without supporting documentation. Link to the CID lab notes.

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

"Basically whatever lab work came up that disagreed with his theory the prosecutor hid."

??????? Proof please.

:rose: Colette, Kim, Kris and the unborn baby boy. They will never be forgotten.

cami

02-23-2005, 01:47 PM

To bloodsoblue:

What do you think about Macdonald's defense attorney, Dennis Eisman, who committed suicide rather than face his own trial--something to do with drugs, methamphetmene. You don't find that on MacDonald's website though do you.

cami

02-23-2005, 02:41 PM

To Icculus:

Look at this photo!

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/crime068.html

I've never really studied this before, but I think there's little room for doubt seeing them side by side.

It's the pajama top with pins in the holes, next to the autopsy photo of Colette's chest wounds.

MacDonald=ice pick baby killer.

edited to add the link, duh!

Talking Tina

02-23-2005, 04:18 PM

The Jeffrey McDonald/Green Beret murder case. For everyone who is familiar with the case.....and for everyone who is not.

www.aetv.com

(I think he did it.....he's full of @%&# and also full of *&%$# $#@!!

Temp2Perm

02-23-2005, 04:20 PM

I vaguely remember that was the one where he claimed some thugs broke into his house and killed his entire family but he survived with minor injuries. I believe him......NOT! :rolleyes:

Talking Tina

02-23-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Temp2Perm
I vaguely remember that was the one where he claimed some thugs broke into his house and killed his entire family but he survived with minor injuries. I believe him......NOT! :rolleyes:

yeah he tried to first, make it look like the Manson clan did it.....then when that didn't work......he tried to make it look like some stoners did it........ :rolleyes:

he's right where he belongs....in the clanker.

Talking Tina

02-23-2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Earl Grey
As far as I'm concerned Old McDonald can share a cell with Scott Peterson. They can regale each other with tales of their innocence.

lol........and OJ and a few others too. its the "I'm innocent" club......

yeah right.

Talking Tina

02-23-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Talking Tina

lol........and OJ and a few others too. its the "I'm innocent" club......

yeah right.

no no...its the "Just becuz i hated her doesn't mean i killed her" club.

02-23-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Talking Tina
The Jeffrey McDonald/Green Beret murder case. For everyone who is familiar with the case.....and for everyone who is not.

www.aetv.com

(I think he did it.....he's full of @%&# and also full of *&%$# $#@!!

I remember the case very well. My mom worked with him at ST Mary's hospital in Long Beach. In the 1970's after the murders, before the trial. My mom truly believes he is guilty and so do I.

Thanks for the heads up!

Talking Tina

02-23-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Havasu

I remember the case very well. My mom worked with him at ST Mary's hospital in Long Beach. In the 1970's after the murders, before the trial. My mom truly believes he is guilty and so do I.

Thanks for the heads up!

you're welcome.

i can still see his daughters pictures.....i can't believe he killed them too.

02-23-2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Talking Tina

you're welcome.

i can still see his daughters pictures.....i can't believe he killed them too.

My mom worked with him side by side for several months. It's her belief that the youngest daughter wet his bed and he flipped out! I know it sounds petty, but she truly believes he has a mental disorder as he went into rages at work as well over tiny things.

Talking Tina

02-23-2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Havasu

My mom worked with him side by side for several months. It's her belief that the youngest daughter wet his bed and he flipped out! I know it sounds petty, but she truly believes he has a mental disorder as he went into rages at work as well over tiny things.

well the daughters are believed to have walked in on Jeffrey as he was murdering his wife.....not in his plan.......so he had to kill the daughters too....otherwise, they'd identify him...as their mom's killer!

i believe that too....... i can still see their little sweet faces.

Amy

02-23-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Talking Tina
The Jeffrey McDonald/Green Beret murder case. For everyone who is familiar with the case.....and for everyone who is not.

www.aetv.com

(I think he did it.....he's full of @%&# and also full of *&%$# $#@!!

It was on early this afternoon, too. A repeat of something they have already shown. I didn't sit thru all of it this time.

02-24-2005, 08:47 AM

It is irritating to me how people post their own opinions as a mater of fact.

I did read Fatal Justice and I don't see how you can dispute the WHOLE book as a falsehood.

Its really pointless anyway, because the overwhelming majority of people at this board are highly disrespectful of others who don't share their opinions, so why bother.

Icculus

02-25-2005, 03:45 PM

Cami= Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that shot before, Christina must've updated ! I know, seeing the close-together stabbing pattern makes it impossible to believe this happened while she was doing anything other than lying still. So much for MacDonald's account! :rolleyes:

It is irritating to me how people post their own opinions as a mater of fact.

I did read Fatal Justice and I don't see how you can dispute the WHOLE book as a falsehood.

Its really pointless anyway, because the overwhelming majority of people at this board are highly disrespectful of others who don't share their opinions, so why bother.

These are not opinions, bloodsoblue. They are facts. Sorry.

And frankly, I find it "irritating" and "disrespectful" when starry-eyed murderer fans who love to root for the underdog without truly researching this so-called "victim" spout their unfounded opinions without even explaining their riddiculous statements they basically copied off the Jeffrey MacDonald website. THINK FOR YOURSELF. It's bad enough that Colette, Kim, Kristy, and the unborn baby boy had to die brutally at the hands of their husband and father. Do you have to further disgrace their memory by making silly excuses and irrational rationalizations for their proven killer? What does that say about YOU?

JMO :beer: Call ME disrespectful all you like. Gotta blindly support your murderer :rolleyes:

lucielle

02-28-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Toth
I don't think all four were on acid or drunk at all.
I would like to know how you resolve the McDonald's Restaurant, bloody sink, phone call during crime info?

It could be completely unrelated. Many towns & cities have mor ethan one crime at a time, Toth. Besides, there was no evidence in the bathroom that could be connected to the MacDonald crime scene anyway.

And, since you don't think they were on acid, would you please tell MacDoanld this info--he seems to still believe it to be so.

(Oh, second thought--why chant "Acid is groovy" if they weren't on acid? (not that anyone chants that anyway)

02-28-2005, 02:25 PM

I had always found it odd that there was no evidence in the bathroom at all...if MacDonald had blood on him you would think when he was in there washing up or checking his wounds as he claims he did, there would have been something brushed up along the sink, some blood that dripped on the floor or something!!

cami

02-28-2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by bloodsoblue
It is irritating to me how people post their own opinions as a mater of fact.

I did read Fatal Justice and I don't see how you can dispute the WHOLE book as a falsehood.

Its really pointless anyway, because the overwhelming majority of people at this board are highly disrespectful of others who don't share their opinions, so why bother.

"It is irritating to me how people post their own opinions as a mater of fact."

You took your opinions directly from MacDonald's website. I, at least, have double checked my facts and not relied on FJ or Macdonald's website as an impartial or unbiased source.

Fatal Justice is a piece of trash. Every word edited by MacDonald himself. It's his wish as he would want it to be.

Here's one oversight by the authors of FJ, just an example of their "cut and paste" acts.

"What FJ takes advantage of is #209 is the debris "removed from the club" but there is no mention of pj threads in the reexamination - what they fail to mention is that the pj threads had already been removed from the club and given their own exhibit number (#205) and packaged in a pillbox -"

and here's another proof of their deception:

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

Here's actually what the lab tech wrote. How deceptive of FJ to start the sentence in the middle with the word "they are not.....

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

Link to the cid documents:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_01.html

cami

02-28-2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by kalekona

The internet truely makes it a small world.. I lived in Long beach back in the late '70's.

So many people here have given well documented reasons why this man is guilty. But let me give the one reason I know he is guilty.

4 people on the acid of the 70's could not coordinate a trip to the bathroom together. They certainly couldn't carry out a triple murder and leave no evidence. (even the Manson murderers were not on acid at the time of the killing)

A woman in a floppy hat?? heck it was the 70's floppy hats were in style.

Helena Stockley? Why did she confess and recant so many times?? Simple someone taking acid (the acid from that era) does not remember what they did.. also when your "tripping" your mind is open and susptable, it is very possible she was under the influence at sometime after the murders and it was talkied about, she couldn't tell reality from the trip.

You know what I remember about acid? All they did was sit around and laugh and laugh and laugh over nothing. There's no way that four people on acid committed these murders that I totally agree with. Mac the knife says they were on five different drugs that night, LOL. They would have been comatose don't you think if they ingested what he alleges.

I totally agree about Helena in fact there's quite a bit of proof that Gunderson coerced her.

cami

02-28-2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Toth
I don't think all four were on acid or drunk at all.
I would like to know how you resolve the McDonald's Restaurant, bloody sink, phone call during crime info?

LOL well according to MacDonald on the Larry King Live show, October 24th, 2003, the intruders ingested five different drugs that night so you are at odds with MacDonald.

MacDonald's bloody sink!! Well since there's no blood trail leaving the apt and no bloody fingerprints or latent fingerprints from the Stockely seven found in the apt, perhaps whomever was seen washing blood off their hands cut their fingers. This is a red herring.

MacDonald doesn't mention anything about a phone call in his retelling of what happened that night. Jimmy Friar was a drunk, who left his hospital bed without permission that night and proceeded to the nearest bar and got drunk. He remembers years later that he phoned a Dr. MacDonald in the middle of the night and a woman answered. He told his story to a reporter, from jail, during Macdonald's trial. Why didn't Mac's lawyer pluck him from his jail cell to come testify at the 1979 trial about this alleged phone call. He's not credible. Once again, if there were 6 or more intruders in that apt committing murder, why isn't there any evidence? Why did all the weapons come from the home? Why kill two tiny defenseless children and leave the person who can identify you, the adult, alive with only a few scratches. Another red herring.

cami

02-28-2005, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Tweeter
I had always found it odd that there was no evidence in the bathroom at all...if MacDonald had blood on him you would think when he was in there washing up or checking his wounds as he claims he did, there would have been something brushed up along the sink, some blood that dripped on the floor or something!!

Oh yes, there's lots of blood on the bathroom. Most notably MacDonald's type B blood on the bathroom sink. Not from checking his wounds though, more likely self-inflicting the wounds to his chest. You will notice however, no blood found in the living room where he alleges he received all his injuries.

link to type B blood:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_06.html

NY-EVE

02-28-2005, 03:48 PM

lets be nice to each other and not insult each others intelligence......i have my opinion that he is not guilty as some of you believe he is guilty....i believe our debate would go back and forth forever ......god bless the victims in this case ...i know they are flying amongst the angels ...
if anyone has anything new to post concerning this case ...i'd be anxious to see it .........:seeya:

02-28-2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by cami

Oh yes, there's lots of blood on the bathroom. Most notably MacDonald's type B blood on the bathroom sink. Not from checking his wounds though, more likely self-inflicting the wounds to his chest. You will notice however, no blood found in the living room where he alleges he received all his injuries.

link to type B blood:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_06.html

Ack that's what I had meant...I found it odd there was no blood in the living room, considering that is where he had recieved his wounds...I had found that very puzzeling!!

Icculus

02-28-2005, 05:12 PM

I did read Fatal Justice and I don't see how you can dispute the WHOLE book as a falsehood.

I stand corrected. They spelled Jeffrey MacDonald's name accurately enough, so I suppose that supports your theory. :rolleyes:

cami

03-01-2005, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
lets be nice to each other and not insult each others intelligence......i have my opinion that he is not guilty as some of you believe he is guilty....i believe our debate would go back and forth forever ......god bless the victims in this case ...i know they are flying amongst the angels ...
if anyone has anything new to post concerning this case ...i'd be anxious to see it .........:seeya:

Well here's something new:

Mac has asked for a 30-60 day delay in the parole hearing which was scheduled for tomorrow. :seeya:

lucielle

03-03-2005, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Toth
The delay is so his lawyers can assemble documents that are not immediately available.

Like what?

It has been 35 years and he still cannot assmeble his documents?

:rolleyes:

Also, remember he has been planning on doing this for at least 2 months now---he didn't know then that these docs would not be available? Please, Toth.

cami

03-04-2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Toth
The delay is so his lawyers can assemble documents that are not immediately available.

LOl, yeah they are probably waiting for an affidavit from the fellow prisoner whose life Mac saved when he was choking. Mac is a micro manager and there's no way he doesn't have every pertinent document available for his lawyers.

He's trying to get parole on the merits of his prison record yet still maintain his innocence. The delay is their looking for something to add to that record, something to show him in a good light.

Icculus

03-06-2005, 01:44 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Fatal Justice makes the claim that there was blood in the living room but the evidence was destroyed by the failure of those responding to protect the crime scene.

Gee, how convenient for the baby killer MacDonald. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but even considering the "destroyed" or "witheld" "evidence, this "man" is still overwhelmingly guilty. It is not erased by irrelevant mistakes. Anyone who thinks so is either highly naive, delusional, or grossly misinformed. Probably from reading Fatal Justice.

JMO, of course

Icculus

03-06-2005, 08:55 PM

Actually, the mistakes made were hardly irrelevant. Even the Army adimits this was far from a model investigation.

Thoughts of a staged crime scene began when the flower pot was found in a upright postion and it was thought JM stood it back up however, it is a now known fact that one of the MP's put the pot upright. This fact isn't contested by either side.

Actually, I'm well aware of the flower pot incident, as well as all the unfortunate problems with the investigation. However, like I said, I fail to see how these small imperfections change the bulk of evidence against MacDonald. The damning evidence is not erased by these tiny flaws. The problems aren't big enough or important enough to discount the perfectly good, abundant evidence pointing solely to MacDonald as the killer.

Do you really think the flower-pot changes anything of importance? Like the blood trail? Or anything else that convicted Jeffrey MacDonald?

I wouldn't call some one who read 'Fatal Justice' in order to see this crime from a different perspective naive, delusional or grossly misinformed.

Really? I would. The "different perspective" you speak of is incorrect and wrought with fictional theories. Not based in reality. Like Fatal Justice. Don't play into the controversy game. MacDonald doesn't deserve your support. He brutally murdered his entire family. And HE knows it, even if countless people foolishly believe his joke of a story. Hippie intruders on acid. Right. Wake up.

JMO, but of course :beer:

Icculus

03-07-2005, 04:21 AM

I am awake, thank you. I was thinking perhaps you need to go to SLEEP since you seem to be having issues with your rolling eyes.
LOL! :biggrin:

I stated in my first post that I think he is probably guilty but did not receive a fair trial. No need to worry about him derserving my support---I didn't say I supported him.
Forgive my misstep, I must've skimmed. I suppose I tend to get sensitive when people DO support him.

The are some undisputed facts in 'Fatal Justice' that were never brought to light in 'Fatal Vision' that are significant. In totality, do they outweigh the facts that point towards his guilt? Nope. However, they are interesting to discuss.
Fair enough. As long as the wool isn't pulled over your eyes, and these discussions aren't taken seriously, I agree with the entertainment value of such notions.

The fact that Joe McGinnis initially intended to write a book which favored MacDonald and after getting to know him, changed his mind about his guilt, speaks volumes.
Indeed. :beer:

JMO as always

Icculus

03-07-2005, 09:36 PM

I'm still awake and and since your eye condition seems to have resolved itself, I do believe we're getting somewhere.

Stop it...you're killing me! :lol:

Your next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go through "Fatal Justice' and find 10 facts in MacDonald's favor not presented in "Fatal Vision'. (Spelling his name correctly won't fly).
Now, let's not get nuts. I DID read FJ, but do not own it, although I am well versed in the various points of the defense, if you can call them that. I believe many of those points have since been refuted as false, however I'll have to get back to you on that one to back it up with documented fact. But off the top of my head... 1.) lost fingernail scrapings, 2.)strand of wig hair (later found to be from one of Colette's falls), 3.) incoherent hearsay from druggies Helena supposedly druggedly and inconsistently "confessed" to?, 4.) other various drug-addicts "confessions" which were inconsistent with the crime scene, 5.) old candle wax (as Colette was known to burn them) that apparently is from Helena, 6.) the infamous overturned flower pot, which is essentially meaningless, 7.) JM's wallet stolen by medic, IMO also meaningless, 8.) some shrink paid by the defense to say JM was incapable (which IMO is impossible to say anyway), 9.) perhaps more character witnesses like with Scott Peterson?, 10.) the amb tulance driver that apparently saw a girl with a floppy hat on the street corner (like it wasn;t the 70's and everyone wasn;t wearing them. I believe he later clarified it to be a rain hat, anyway.

There. How'd I do?

Let's face it, "Fatal Vision' is a 'page turner, can't put it down' type book as compared to 'Fatal Justice' which is .....well.....slightly boring

Well that's an understatement. But aside from FJ being boring, I also find it insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Like we're supposed to buy the fantasy trip of JM and his lawyers. I don't.

Should you choose not to accept this mission or should you fail, then I'll have to do it :rolleyes: (shoot!!! it's contagious!) Then we can get a real hot discussion going

Hey! Watch it with those things!

:beer:

JMO, as always

Suzee10

03-07-2005, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Icculus
Sure, alot of people have been falsely convicted. However, Jeffrey MacDonald is NOT one of them. This brutal baby/wife killer is where he belongs. It's only too bad his state didn't support the DP. But he was given 3 consecutive life sentences to assure he never got out, and thank God for that. This parole thing is a joke. He is NEVER getting out.

And Fatal Justice is a piece of trash IMO. It's Jeffery MacDonald's ego-fantasy trip. Read Fatal Vision or Scales of Justice for a truer perspective on this horrifying case.

JMO of course. :beer:

I definatly agree with you Icculus. This guy is so guilty. He repeats the same old junk, "I loved my wife and my kids, I couldn't have done this", bah, he sounds just like simpson. He is where he belongs, and I hope he stays there until he is dead.

Suzee10

Suzee10

03-07-2005, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by cami

I don't think he killed the baby because she was a witness. I think it was self-preservation. He had to make it look as if a band of intruders, a la Manson and the girls, committed the crime once he decided to go that way. He could have turned himself in for a domestic dispute and assault if it was only Colette but once Kimberly went down and there was no saving her, I think he decided it was all or nothing. JMO

I agree Cami. He was so hell bent on saving himself he had so qualms about killing his little daughter. He is the most selfish bas**** that I have ever seen.:rolleyes:

Icculus

03-07-2005, 11:41 PM

I definatly agree with you Icculus. This guy is so guilty. He repeats the same old junk, "I loved my wife and my kids, I couldn't have done this", bah, he sounds just like simpson. He is where he belongs, and I hope he stays there until he is dead.

Suzee10

Indeed. Many similarities. And don;t worry, he WILL.

Susan! Good to see you. What happened to the OJ forum??? I must've missed the brawl ;)

This burden is apparently falling on me. (May be for the best since you also seem to have a slight case of tunnel vision in regards to this case )
Don't get me wrong, I do keep an open mind, and if I heard of anything that logically DID eliminate JM as a suspect and somehow erased or explained away the existing evidence, I would be all ears and first to admit I was wrong.

However, KNOWING the evidence, I do highly doubt that possibility. :shrug:
JMO, as always
Happy reading. :read:

cami

03-08-2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

From all the information available, I think he probably commited this crime however, I really don't feel he received a fair trial. Too much evidence was left out

I know he has had parole hearings before but as was stated, he refuses to show remorse for a crime he says he did not commit. I think he probably could have been out years ago if he admitted the killings and shown remorse.

I've read both Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice. If I'm not mistaken, Fatal Justice makes the claim that there was blood in the living room but the evidence was destroyed by the failure of those responding to protect the crime scene.

What evidence was left out at trial? The prosecution does not bring every single piece of evidence out at trial, something is always held back. The evidence presented was overwhelming proof of his guilt, not refuted by the defense team and it easily convicted him.

"I've read both Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice. If I'm not mistaken, Fatal Justice makes the claim that there was blood in the living room but the evidence was destroyed by the failure of those responding to protect the crime scene."

There was absolutely no blood in the living room whatsoever. Nor is Fatal Justice an accurate source for this case. How did they remove the blood by not protecting the crime scene? Think about this. All three bedrooms are awash in blood yet the living room where Mac says he sustained 19 ice pick wounds does not have one drop of his blood in it. If you read the Article 32 testimony of the first MPs who responded to the initial distress call, you will find that they didn't find any blood in the living room, nor did they find tracked in mud or grass from intruders or wet spots from their feet and footwear.

cami

03-08-2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

Actually, the mistakes made were hardly irrelevant. Even the Army adimits this was far from a model investigation.

Thoughts of a staged crime scene began when the flower pot was found in a upright postion and it was thought JM stood it back up however, it is a now known fact that one of the MP's put the pot upright. This fact isn't contested by either side.

That's actually not quite true. If you read Ivory's testimony, you will realize that it was the position of the children's bodies in their beds as well as the pristine state of the living room that led investigators to believe the scene was staged. The childrens' bodies were posed in their beds.

That's why it's important to read a little further and not take Fatal Justice's claims for truth.

cami

03-08-2005, 10:56 AM

I stated in my first post that I think he is probably guilty but did not receive a fair trial. No need to worry about him derserving my support---I didn't say I supported him.

MacDonald received a fair trial. The judge's opinions on this case were very well written. He was a federal judge. You don't get there by not excelling. All the appeals documents, etc are now on line so posters if interested can judge for themselves.

cami

03-08-2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

I'm still awake and and since your eye condition seems to have resolved itself, I do believe we're getting somewhere.

Your next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go through "Fatal Justice' and find 10 facts in MacDonald's favor not presented in "Fatal Vision'. (Spelling his name correctly won't fly).

Let's face it, "Fatal Vision' is a 'page turner, can't put it down' type book as compared to 'Fatal Justice' which is .....well.....slightly boring

Should you choose not to accept this mission or should you fail, then I'll have to do it :rolleyes: (shoot!!! it's contagious!)

Then we can get a real hot discussion going. :D

Hey can anyone play? LOL. I'm up for that. I don't own FJ so you will have to do it.

cami

03-08-2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV
:chicken: --------> MagnumV

Making a u turn and returning home as the library is closed for the day.

Be back tomorrow.........:hat:

LOL Magnum you are too funny. I love to laugh loud and long.

cami

03-08-2005, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Toth
I will admit that a statement " I loved my wife and kids " is something that carries far less weight for me than things like dna, fingerprints, witnesses, gunpowder residue, etc. However, it does raise certain issues: if there was nothing in the way of fights or another woman waiting in the wings, it does raise a certain presumption. Most reasonably stable men do not suddenly slash their wife and kids on a whim. When there is constant fighting or alcohol abuse I would be more likely to believe it.

"I will admit that a statement " I loved my wife and kids " is something that carries far less weight for me than things like dna, fingerprints, witnesses, gunpowder residue, etc"

Really, yet when you are told that there are no fingerprints, dna, witnesses or gsr found in the Mac home ( and given the documentation that backs it up,) that points to the intruders he alleges were there, you want to know about a phone call and someone washing blood off their hands in a Mickey Ds. What don't you understand about no trace evidence to back Mac's story, nothing, zip, nada.

Not constant fighting but constant adultery on his part. Will diet pill abuse do? Mac's bac was minimal the night of the murders. But there's no doubt he was ingesting strong diet pills and most likely abusing them. They too depress the central nervous system as alcohol does.

Where did you get the idea he slashed and beat them on a whim!!!!! Something happened in that home that night that caused Mac to lose it and a violent rage and physical encounter with his wife ensued. It happens, it's happened before, it'll happen again.

cami

03-08-2005, 12:45 PM

Here's a photo of the type B blood, MacDonald's blood, found on the bathroom sink the morning of the murders.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/crime052.html

And expanded colour photo of the living room. The scene of the life and death struggle with Macdonald vs the three alleged male intruders.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo112.html

cami

03-09-2005, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

Well, no cami, we can't have just ANYONE playing! However, after reviewing your application, I have found that you are an acceptable participant a little sarcastic and a slight problem with tunnel vision but since you have a sense of humor, you're just what we're looking for

I wasn't able to get the book today but as soon as I do, I'll be back with some facts.

PS---Interesting pictures in the links you provided!!!

"a little sarcastic and a slight problem with tunnel vision but since you have a sense of humor, you're just what we're looking for "

I am I am, although I do try not to be sarcastic. I am a work in progress, LOL.

They are very interesting photos. Hey I'm no expert but I would think if you engaged in a furious struggle with three armed men in that living room, you'd at least knock that picture over the sofa sideways or the lamp off the side table. And how do the magazines neatly stack themselves under the upturned table during a furious struggle with three armed men
:shrug: :shrug:

03-10-2005, 12:48 AM

lucielle

03-10-2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by cami

They are very interesting photos. Hey I'm no expert but I would think if you engaged in a furious struggle with three armed men in that living room, you'd at least knock that picture over the sofa sideways or the lamp off the side table. And how do the magazines neatly stack themselves under the upturned table during a furious struggle with three armed men
:shrug: :shrug:

Remember too Cami, we are ot talking about a lazy fat guy either. Jeffrey MacDonald was trained as a Green Beret.

I have had bigger messes in my living room when I was struggling to put together my dining room table for crying out loud!

And the amount of blood that was in all the rooms his fmaily was in was huge compared to the amount in the LR where he was struggling for his life and supposedly was stabbed.

cami

03-10-2005, 11:11 AM

Remember too Cami, we are ot talking about a lazy fat guy either. Jeffrey MacDonald was trained as a Green Beret.

Yeah some GB he was, couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, er wait I mean was an old pajama top.

But his supporters will tell you that he went in as a doctor so other than basic training, he received no other special forces training.

He disgraces the name Green Beret. I wouldn't want his name associated with the company if I were a GB

And the amount of blood that was in all the rooms his fmaily was in was huge compared to the amount in the LR where he was struggling for his life and supposedly was stabbed.

Those bedrooms were a slaughter house compared to the blood in the living room where he allegedly was stabbed 12-15 times, no 19 times, no 23 times, I wish he'd make up his mind about how many stab wounds he received, the blood in the living room was well there wasn't any, none, zip, nada.

Just look at those autopsy photos of poor Colette and the children. Why would strangers do something like that to a pregnant woman and two tiny children if the object of the attack was the husband and father who gets a few scratches and a bruise on the forehead. I need a lobotomy.

lucielle

03-10-2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by MagnumV

No one is going to like this but............ I also feel that he should be released from prison.

I don't think anyone will ever know exactly what happened in that house that night but here is my guess:

IMO, he was exhausted and went to the bedroom to go to sleep. He found that one of his daughter's (there is still a dispute as to which daughter it was) had wet the bed on his side. He was not a happy camper, to put it mildly. I think Colette was already angry with him because he had told her about the trip to Russia and no, I don't think she was thrilled for him. They were already on the 'outs' that night and when he started raising cain about the wet bed, she became angry and smacked him with the hair brush. I think he became enraged and beat her into unconciousness. During the fight, the daughter that had been in the bed, inadvertently became seriously injured. He blamed Colette. He left the bedroom to get more weapons and when he returns, the other daughter is in the room, trying to help/defend her mom and he takes his rage out on her.

I just don't think that after he killed Colette and one daughter, that he would go into the bedroom of his other sleeping child and kill her in her sleep. He was a rotten husband but by all accounts, he was a loving, wonderful father ..........up until this tradgic night when he 'lost it'.

He lost control and took 4 lives in a matter of minutes. Wrong by anyone's standards. However, he is not a repeat offender that has taken the life of someone, gets out and does it again and has done nothing productive his whole life. He is not a risk to society as many convicts are that are released. I believe that if released, he would be an asset to society, which is more than I can say for 99.9% of them.

He may or may not have received a fair trial, but that does not warrant a release from prison, it warrants a new trial. I am certain if he were tired again, the outcome would be the exact same thing.

As far as him being a "loving" father. I think initially he was "loving," but only in the sense that he saw tose kids as an extension of the great, smart & wonderful Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald.

How much can a man love his kids if he keeps taking on job after job after job, travelling constantly---seemingly for no other reason than to get away from his family. (He didn't need to keep taking all those jobs.) And a trip to Russia (that didn't really exist) that just happens to coincide with his 3rd childs birth? Especially after he knows that Colette had a difficult birth with the 2nd.

****I want to add here it would be different but only slightly if he actually WAS going with the Army to Russia. It is the "call of duty" thing. BUT they weren't going to Russia at all! Why would he make that up other than to be as far away from his family as possible.

Also family members made the comment that COlette was lonely, she was always with the kids alone. He was not IMO a loving father figure, he was an absent father figure. My dad was te same way. He lived with us, but that was all.****

NY-EVE

03-10-2005, 02:10 PM

hello everyone .....does any one know if he had his porole hearing yet? if not,,,does anyone know when it will be??
you guys always seem to be in the know ..and i can always get good informative links from you all .....thanks everyone have a great day !!!!!!

lucielle

03-10-2005, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
hello everyone .....does any one know if he had his porole hearing yet? if not,,,does anyone know when it will be??
you guys always seem to be in the know ..and i can always get good informative links from you all .....thanks everyone have a great day !!!!!!

I tried going to his own website to find reference of when exactly this would happen with no luck. I know he was scheduled for a parole hearing in early March and that was of course postponed, but there was not even mention of that on his site. All I could find that was anywhere near what you are looking for was on an open letter which basically just stated that he wanted this year to be "the year" for his realease---and for proof of his innocence.

The other thing that I noticed while I was just perusing his site was how in love with himself this guy really is. He has a page named "The MacDOnald Fmaily" with 1 pic each of Colette, Kim, Kristen and himself with a small description of them.

Then on the next page entitled "Jeffrey MacDonald" he had TONS of pics of himself. Maybe there were 1 or 2 pics of Colette & the kids on that page. It was all about Jeff.

lucielle

03-10-2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by MagnumV

lucielle,

Even his in-laws never claimed he wasn't a good father. Even though he wasn't at home that much, it appears that the time he did spend with his children was quality time. JMO

If he were to have a new trial, I think the possibility of finding him not guilty exists---just because of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' factor. I strongly felt for years, ever since seeing and reading "Fatal Vision' that he was guilty however, after reading 'Fatal Justice', I think the prosecution may not be able to prove it if he were retried.

I'm just curious..........how many people discussing this have read "Fatal Justice'? If you haven't and are interested, don't get it from a bookstore. I called a couple of days ago and the paperback is $14.95!!! Yikes!!! (It's boring anyway, but if you can get through it, it does offer some insight.)

Also, I understand there is another book regarding this case called "Scales of Justice". Has anyone read that book? If you have, can you post as to what it contains and your feelings about the content.

Thanks

We must have read from different sources because I know that I read in one book that Colette was always alone with the kids that Jeff was never there.

May be right about the "reasonab;e doubt," but I think that people's idea of "reasonable doubt" is not what it is intended to be. For many now it seems to have become, "beyond a shodow of a doubt." I DO think he would be convicted because inthe end, his story holds no weight. It does not in anyway corrolate with the crime scene & the woulnds to the other vics vs. himself. Also, his own story does not corrolate aboutu the wounds he received fighting for his life.

Also you have the MANY discrepancies in MacDonalds own words to his relatives, friends & to the police.

Believe me that I think that he would HAVE to have a smoking gun in court to be freed. He would HAVE to have that DNA, or that confession (you know the one that actually corroborates his version,t oo? Not just like Helena Stoekley's) He would HAVE to have large amount so f evidence that there was an intentional coover up in volved and for what reason.

If Scott Peterson could be tried & convicted on the case he was, the MacDonald could definetely be convicted again with only the evidence from the '79 trial. I believe if they introduced the evidence they have that explains away his "exculpatory" evidence they would have him lock, stock & barrel.

About Scales of Justice, I want to read it. I know I nee dto order it, but I have to get my lazy a** off the couch first & foremost.

NY-EVE

03-10-2005, 06:33 PM

MAGNUMV it's nice to be missed ..lol:D so jeffrey has desided to waive his parole hearing?? hum...wander whats up??

03-10-2005, 08:12 PM

From what I read, his parole hearing will be sometime in May... I'll look to see if I can find a link for that tho....I am old sometimes my memory isn't the best...

03-10-2005, 08:13 PM

((((((((((((((Mags)))))))))))))))) I do have my copy of Fatal Justice back again and I've read it!! Thanks again for it!!! Your the best!!

03-10-2005, 08:16 PM

Okay here's the article I had read.....

Former Army doctor Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted 25 years ago of the stabbing deaths of his pregnant wife and two daughters, waived a parole hearing that was set for March and will apply to be heard instead in May, his wife said Wednesday.

And the full article is here...

MacDonald Parole (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=392264&nid=104)

03-10-2005, 11:57 PM

I HATE the articles and such that mention the Fatal Vision book!! Most places you look stress how that book is not at all a book to read to get info on this case!!!

Also I did read that for him to go before the parole board, he does NOT have to admit guilt at all!!! I found that rather interesting!!! All these years he's been in jail he has stressed that is why he hasn't seeked parole, he refused to admit guilt!! So why is it now he does not have to do that and is seeking parole...just makes you wonder!!!

2L8 4A D8

03-11-2005, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Tweeter
I HATE the articles and such that mention the Fatal Vision book!! Most places you look stress how that book is not at all a book to read to get info on this case!!!

Also I did read that for him to go before the parole board, he does NOT have to admit guilt at all!!! I found that rather interesting!!! All these years he's been in jail he has stressed that is why he hasn't seeked parole, he refused to admit guilt!! So why is it now he does not have to do that and is seeking parole...just makes you wonder!!!

I knew it! I just knew it!

I figured that there was a reason after all these years that he was now applying for parole. And don't give me that new wife cr@p!

I would also like to know how is it that he can now apply for parole without admitting any guilt? What is this, a new procedure now for everyone applying for parole? Or is it something special just for him?

:flamemad:

03-11-2005, 02:31 PM

Ha!! I'm with you on the new wife crap!! I don't see that as all of a sudden being a reason!! I'm on vacation so I was going to check into the bi-lines as far as what he actually has to admit to to be paroled...thought that would be interesting!! If and when I find it I'll post it!!

And maybe its just me...but I can't see why ANYONE would want to marry someone in jail for murdering his previous family!! Is it just me or wouldn't you always have doubts as to what if he did do this!!! Personally I do believe he did commit these crimes...but that's just my opinion!!

Talking Tina

03-11-2005, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by cami
Jeffrey MacDonald has applied for parole. Although stating over the years he is totally innocent and would never apply for parole as he will not show remorse for something he didn't do! Harump, I wonder what's changed. Could it be the new wife!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/17/jeffrey.macdonald.case.ap/index.html

this idiot better NOT get bail............or parole................he murdered his wife and two small kids...........(ehem, THREE..........Collette, like Sharon Tate and Laci Peterson, was very pregnant).

2L8 4A D8

03-12-2005, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Tweeter
Ha!! I'm with you on the new wife crap!! I don't see that as all of a sudden being a reason!! I'm on vacation so I was going to check into the bi-lines as far as what he actually has to admit to to be paroled...thought that would be interesting!! If and when I find it I'll post it!!

And maybe its just me...but I can't see why ANYONE would want to marry someone in jail for murdering his previous family!! Is it just me or wouldn't you always have doubts as to what if he did do this!!! Personally I do believe he did commit these crimes...but that's just my opinion!!

Yes, please if you find anything out, please post it! I would be very interested in reading it.

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that he's guilty! His pregnant wife and 2 little daughters were literally slaughtered and he had a few superficial ice pick wounds? Please, GMAB! He is a doctor. He knows where and where not to stab yourself. I don't care what anybody says, he did it!

Like they say, it takes all kinds. Some woman married Richard Ramirez and he killed what, 8 people? Then the Menendez Brothers killed their parents and both of them are now married! All 3 of them confessed to the murders and these women still married them. It's sickening if you ask me.

These are MOO!!!!!!!

:mad:

03-12-2005, 11:45 AM

My sister and BIL are stationed at Ft. Bragg, they live one street over from where the murders occurred. It was very creepy seeing that place after reading about this case. I think he is guilty and hope he never gets out of prison.

03-12-2005, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by =^.^=Mystikat2~
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toth
Gee, I'm not too sure how to reply to this post. ~snip~

Hi Toth. I sure don't blame you if you have a hard time believing me and my situation. Even as I lived through it, I could hardly believe it myself.

I'm not, and I wasn't then, a person who associated with criminals (and I wasn't and I'm not a criminal). Sure, I knew a few people who'd been arrested before, but never anyone who'd been to prison. *I* had never been to a prison before in my life.

I did admit to being shaken by the things I'd seen and had been through there, the personal searches, the rows of razor wire and other security measures, the whole ominous feeling of being there. I didn't feel that cold shiver and nausea until I was standing at the Coke machine. What I felt was real and when my eyes met his I did think I might pass out. I highly doubt he was attempting to render any medical aid. ( I wonder if he would even be allowed to??? :::shrug::: ) He was not menacing or intimidating in his appearance but plenty of others in that room were, yet they didn't affect me that way.

The person I was visiting was my husband. I had no idea that he was a criminal, IF he was a criminal. All I knew were vague things about his business, that he was an investor, we traveled often due to his business meetings out of town. He had never allowed me to ask about his business, as he insisted on keeping business and personal life separate. I was so in love with him that I never questioned anything he said.

One day I came home to find about 30 black sedans in front of my house and the neighborhood and my house filled with agents from the FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS and Federal Marshals and other assorted agencies.

He had been indicted under the RICO law and CCE and a few lesser charges. He was alleged to be the kingpin of a nationwide conspiracy. Simultaneous raids and arrests were being made in 9 other states, totaling almost 60 other people. It was mindboggling. It was a high profile case and unfortunately for the innocent people involved, it received a great deal of media attention.

I figured that since he's been arrested, he would be being held at the Austin Police Department and I would just have to go bail him out. Imagine my shock when I found out that he had already been taken to prison, no police station, no bail, no arraignment...just straight to prison. I thought I must be in a foreign country.

He was held at Bastrop with no bond. A week and a half later, he was arraigned. Yes, I did go out to see him as soon as they would let me. I wanted for him to tell me that this was all a horrible misunderstanding. Several weeks later he was transferred to another facility, which was undisclosed. Eventually he was transferred 11 times to different places with no contact before ending up in a far away state for another bond hearing. Again, nope, no way.

After a while, visiting several facilities and meeting people he knew, my view of *prisoners* changed. Sure, some were scary, but some weren't. Most of their wives and children weren't. We usually all stayed in the same hotel over the weekends when we'd visit, so we got to know each other well. A lot had been like us, living well and minding our own business when they were caught up in some kind of *conspiracy*.

These people weren't Charles Manson, they were bankers and lawyers and stockbrokers and accountants. Even a few of the violent offenders were always nice to me, like the Chagra brothers and Charles Harrelson.

While you may question the integrity of the people that would visit a prison, I feel I was in pretty good company. I flew with Willie Nelson, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmy Vaughan and many other musicians and good people.

So, Toth, whether you choose to believe me or not, I know what happened in my life and if I had the chance , I would probably not change the way things turned out. Sort of, whatever doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger.

I followed a thread over here about JJ Hollywood and saw the JMac thread, so I thought I'd share my perspective and experience.

=^.^=Mystikat2~

I believe you...your first post and this one, too. JMac gives me the creeps. I never even saw him in person! I have watched the movie a couple times on TV about the murders. I hope he never gets out.
As for you, thanks for sharing your story....God bless.
Email me anytime :seeya:

03-12-2005, 11:57 PM

Did anyone happen to watch the show that was on tonight that featured this case I believe it was on a&e on american justice....it was basically the same one as before (if you've seen it already) but it did add how MacDonald has filed for parole and will have a hearing in May.

03-13-2005, 03:27 AM

Mags I'm sorry I just dozed off and woke up...the show was the same one they have aired before so nothing really new there at all but the parole info.....and I had wondered about them holes in the pajama top...if it was done with an ice pick wouldn't it be possible that some of those holes would have been drug back out if they were hung up on the ice pic?? It seemed odd to me some were left inward and some outward I don't see how that could really be possible..

03-13-2005, 12:28 PM

I agree with that 55% is just over half way, to me that's not enough to make an actual conviction on...that's like saying I think that water is hot in that cup without even touching it or seeing steam rise from it...I do believe that MacDonald does deserve a fair trial, I think a lot was overlooked and forced into testimony that shouldn't have been there at all...however even tho I feel he deserves a new trial, I do believe he is guilty and is in the place he belongs!!

03-13-2005, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by cami

Yeah some GB he was, couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, er wait I mean was an old pajama top.

But his supporters will tell you that he went in as a doctor so other than basic training, he received no other special forces training.

He disgraces the name Green Beret. I wouldn't want his name associated with the company if I were a GB

Cami,

My husband is a GB and he doesn't like that JM is associated with them. JM makes my husband sick. We also have GB friends and they all feel the same way. Also things in SF (Special Forces) are obviously done differently now then in the 60's. My husband was in the SF training phase for a total of 18 months. They have certain phases they have to go through, after the last phase they get their Green Berets, but not their SF patch for their uniforms. They then have language school that lasts anywhere from 3 to 6 months, then they have to go to a survival school for about 3 weeks or so. After that they get their SF patch and go to Group. Officers also have to go through all of this training. The training can last a lot longer than 18 months, it just depends on what their MOS (job) is, whether they are medics, communications, officers, etc that is what determines how long they are in training. When one is going through SF training, you are stationed at Ft. Bragg, you may stay there afterwards or go on to another post. Seeing how different things are now, it is surprising to me that they ever just let people join SF and not do all the training, but times are so different now. Anyway, sorry for rambling, but wanted you to know that I personally have not met a GB who is proud of the fact that JM was once one of them.

cami

03-14-2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

Cami!!!

I now have a copy of 'Fatal Justice". I found reference to the crime scene that you are referring to in your above post. I have to go through and read the explanation and then I'll post and see what everyone thinks.

Let me just state again for the record that I'm just playing devil's advocate here because I do think that he commited this crime.

However, I still stand by my statement that he did not receive a fair trial and I'll explain why when I have some facts (that we can discuss) from the book.

No one is going to like this but............ I also feel that he should be released from prison.

I don't think anyone will ever know exactly what happened in that house that night but here is my guess:

IMO, he was exhausted and went to the bedroom to go to sleep. He found that one of his daughter's (there is still a dispute as to which daughter it was) had wet the bed on his side. He was not a happy camper, to put it mildly. I think Colette was already angry with him because he had told her about the trip to Russia and no, I don't think she was thrilled for him. They were already on the 'outs' that night and when he started raising cain about the wet bed, she became angry and smacked him with the hair brush. I think he became enraged and beat her into unconciousness. During the fight, the daughter that had been in the bed, inadvertently became seriously injured. He blamed Colette. He left the bedroom to get more weapons and when he returns, the other daughter is in the room, trying to help/defend her mom and he takes his rage out on her.

I just don't think that after he killed Colette and one daughter, that he would go into the bedroom of his other sleeping child and kill her in her sleep. He was a rotten husband but by all accounts, he was a loving, wonderful father ..........up until this tradgic night when he 'lost it'.

He lost control and took 4 lives in a matter of minutes. Wrong by anyone's standards. However, he is not a repeat offender that has taken the life of someone, gets out and does it again and has done nothing productive his whole life. He is not a risk to society as many convicts are that are released. I believe that if released, he would be an asset to society, which is more than I can say for 99.9% of them.

Sounds good to me Mags. There appears to be little doubt that a fight broke out between Mac and Colette in the MB that night. There's no doubt that someone wet that master bed that night. There's no doubt that his eldest daughter Kimberly was in the MB that night and was injured there as evidenced by a large amount of her blood on the carpet and her brain serum on the door jam. My own personal opinion is it had something to do with the children. To all accounts Colette was a very obediant wife who wouldn't argue with him but she was a very loving and protective mother.

IMO, he was exhausted and went to the bedroom to go to sleep. He found that one of his daughter's (there is still a dispute as to which daughter it was) had wet the bed on his side.

The only way there is a dispute about which daughter is if his youngest was a non-secreter. He says it was the youngest daughter who wet the bed and whom he moved back to her own bed yet the urine is from someone with the blood type of his eldest daughter. The youngest could have wet the bed as well and if she were a non secreter then..... both the girls were wet when their bodies were found.

I just don't think that after he killed Colette and one daughter, that he would go into the bedroom of his other sleeping child and kill her in her sleep.

No he didn't, she had defense wounds down to the bone in the finger of one hand which indicates she too was holding her hands up trying to ward off the knife so she was awake when he killed her.

He lost control and took 4 lives in a matter of minutes. Wrong by anyone's standards. However, he is not a repeat offender that has taken the life of someone, gets out and does it again and has done nothing productive his whole life. He is not a risk to society as many convicts are that are released. I believe that if released, he would be an asset to society, which is more than I can say for 99.9% of them

Sorry but I totally disagree with you. He is trying to get paroled on the merits of his prison record but it doesn't work that way. He refuses to accept any responsbility for these murders and shows not one shred of remorse in the face of the overwhelming evidence against him. He would not be an asset to society, he has not learned a thing in prison and is not rehabilitated and could very well commit murder again if the same situation presented itself. Highly unlikely that it would but never say never.

cami

03-14-2005, 11:24 AM

cami

03-14-2005, 11:32 AM

cami

03-14-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by lucielle

We must have read from different sources because I know that I read in one book that Colette was always alone with the kids that Jeff was never there.

May be right about the "reasonab;e doubt," but I think that people's idea of "reasonable doubt" is not what it is intended to be. For many now it seems to have become, "beyond a shodow of a doubt." I DO think he would be convicted because inthe end, his story holds no weight. It does not in anyway corrolate with the crime scene & the woulnds to the other vics vs. himself. Also, his own story does not corrolate aboutu the wounds he received fighting for his life.

Also you have the MANY discrepancies in MacDonalds own words to his relatives, friends & to the police.

Believe me that I think that he would HAVE to have a smoking gun in court to be freed. He would HAVE to have that DNA, or that confession (you know the one that actually corroborates his version,t oo? Not just like Helena Stoekley's) He would HAVE to have large amount so f evidence that there was an intentional coover up in volved and for what reason.

If Scott Peterson could be tried & convicted on the case he was, the MacDonald could definetely be convicted again with only the evidence from the '79 trial. I believe if they introduced the evidence they have that explains away his "exculpatory" evidence they would have him lock, stock & barrel.

About Scales of Justice, I want to read it. I know I nee dto order it, but I have to get my lazy a** off the couch first & foremost.

From the 1984 Appeal:

Rule 804 (b) (3) was the primary basis upon which this appellant action was filed. Secondary, "new evidence"

The basis of the law as covered by Rule 804 (b) (3) per the appellate decision is:

[O]ne senses in the decisions a distrust of evidence of confessions by third persons offered to exculpate the accused arising from suspicions of fabrication either of the fact of the making of the confession or in its contents, Enhanced in either instance by the required unavailability of the declarant.

The court held that the precendence noted by the defense in this case was being incorrectly interpreted by the defense. The precedence doesn't require determination that the declarant is credible, but that the circumstances CLEARLY indicate the statements are NOT FABRICATED. In my reading of the documentation the court did not find either Helena Stoekley or Prince Beasley credible independently, and they found the circumstances for most of the post conviction hearsay statements by Helena to Gunderson and Beasley to be highly suggestive of fabrication.

"Further, in the context of Stoekley's post trial statements, there is a combination of fabrication of the contents on her part and connivance on the part of the defendant through his agents Gunderson and Beasley,....."

The court further stated that ...."these are members of the lunatic fringe whose desperate desire for attention causes them to confess to celebrated crimes which they did not commit."

Also, Rule 804 (b) (3) requires that "....corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statment," and this burden would not be met by Helena's statements, as well as Beasley's - both statements were considered HIGHLY IMPEACHABLE and even if admitted they would not counteract the strength of the government's case and would not be expected to result in an acquittal.

I was not surprised to find that the court found
"unpersuasive defendant's attempt to finesse the glaring inconsistency (of his statements) by asserting, at this late date, that he may have suffered retrogade amnesia"

Finally, the court also considered the allegedly suppressed evidence as potential newly discovered evidence, and concluded that not only was there no suppresion by the government, but also that it does not merit the granting of a new trial.

The court found in re: evidence suppression:

the information was known to the defense, or could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence, it is cumulative, and would not probably result in acquittal in a new trial.

link to 1984 Appeal (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/us_vs_macdonald_1985mar1.html)

cami

03-14-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by MagnumV

There was a show featuring this case tonight and you didn't pm me?

Go to your room!!! :mad:

Okay, you can come out now, I'm done being mad :)

I'll throw something out from 'Fatal Justice' that I found interesting.

One of the key facts that originally led me to be convinced of his guilt was the pajama top and the information that if folded in a certain way, the ice pick marks matched the wounds on Colette.

The broken fibers should all have faced the same direction when the top was folded and laying flat. ( An example would be poking holes in a pop can with a screw driver---the sharp points would all be on the inside of the can.

However, when Shirley Green, the FBI tech who studied the pajama top was asked about directionality, she said they 'seemed' to have been bent in the same direction. They were not.

Quote, page 155 of 'Fatal Justice"

Dr. Thornton compared notes of the finished FBI experiment with notes of the directionality studies Strombaugh and Green had made in 1971. He discovered that in Green's folding experiment in 1974 she had actually reversed the directions of the broken fibers in 6 of the 11 holes in which she had established directionality in 1971. This is a 55% error ratio and should have caused the experiment to be abandoned, yet the experiment was presented to the jury as valid science.

The directionality of the fibres was not put before the jury. The fact that the ice pick holes were made when the top was stationary is the key to the ice pick holes not the directionality of fibers. There were 17 holes alone in the back portion of MacDonald's pajama top, so the 48 puncture hole figure makes sense.

cami

03-14-2005, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Tweeter
Mags I'm sorry I just dozed off and woke up...the show was the same one they have aired before so nothing really new there at all but the parole info.....and I had wondered about them holes in the pajama top...if it was done with an ice pick wouldn't it be possible that some of those holes would have been drug back out if they were hung up on the ice pic?? It seemed odd to me some were left inward and some outward I don't see how that could really be possible..

Exactly!!!!!!! The violent thrusts of the ice pick would pull the threads back out the holes in some instances.

The holes were neat and round, with no tearing at the edges indicating the top was stationary when it sustained the holes--not being used a shield to ward off three armed men.

lucielle

03-14-2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by cami

Exactly!!!!!!! The violent thrusts of the ice pick would pull the threads back out the holes in some instances.

The holes were neat and round, with no tearing at the edges indicating the top was stationary when it sustained the holes--not being used a shield to ward off three armed men.

Well, lets all be logical here.

If a Green Beret was fighting for his life against 3 men, would he not have sustained even 3 icepick wounds? Would he not have had scratches to go with those?

IMO, in a life & death struggle like that, the shirt would have been torn to pieces.

cami

03-14-2005, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by MagnumV

No problem---The re-run was just on (although they really should have updated their information) and I watched it.

As far as the holes in the top------it's the breakage of the threads that was crucial. Essentially, the examiner folded the top to MAKE it fit Colette's wounds. However, since the directionality wasn't the same in the punctures, the fact is, they didn't match.

For example, if you take a sheet of paper and poke a hole in it from one side with a pencil and then turn it over and poke a hole in it in a different place from the other side. Then fold the paper so the holes match up to make one hole. You can make a pencil mark on your shirt and say "I poked a pencil through this folded paper and made a mark on my shirt" But if I looked at the way the paper holes were bent when that paper was folded together (one in--one out), I would have to say "Tweeter!!! Go to your room!!!

When an experiment is 55% inaccurate, I don't think it should have been admitted as evidence of valid testing. JMO

Also questionable was the fact that MacDonald underwent psychiatric testing by the Army and by his defense attorneys. Both examiners concluded that he was incapable of comitting this crime. The judge did not allow this in as evidence calling it 'junk science'.

As far as the holes in the top------it's the breakage of the threads that was crucial. Essentially, the examiner folded the top to MAKE it fit Colette's wounds. However, since the directionality wasn't the same in the punctures, the fact is, they didn't match.

You cannot fold the top and make it match the wounds on Colette's chest if it had not been there. How do you force it to match the wound pattern? Once again the directionality of the threads means nothing.

Look at this photo: folded pajama top (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo096.html)

The top is being replicated in this experiment as to how it was found on Colette's chest.

Here's another one with the pajama top side by side. I think there's no doubt that the pajama top sustained the ice pick holes at the same time as Colette's chest did.

pajama top with pins (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/crime068.html)

The government contended and has always contended that the significance of the pajama top is: There were three types of blood staining the top with the majority of the blood Type A, Colette's blood type; some of the type a blood stained the top before it was torn; macdonald said he placed it on his wife's chest, the top sustained 48 ice pick holes, macdonald had no ice pick wounds; Colette however had 21 ice pick wounds testified to by the pathologist, the ice pick holes were made while her body was stationary likewise the absence of tearing around the holes indicate they were made while the top was stationary.

Also questionable was the fact that MacDonald underwent psychiatric testing by the Army and by his defense attorneys. Both examiners concluded that he was incapable of comitting this crime. The judge did not allow this in as evidence calling it 'junk science'. [/B][/QUOTE]

Wrong again Fatal Justice. The judge disallowed the psychiatrists to testify as the question of sanity was not an issue. Nor did all the psychiatrists and clinical psychologists give him a clean bill of health. He was tested again by a psychologist and psychiatrist employed by the prosecution and it was after this that Judge Dupree made his ruling citing "to pit shrink against shrink would simply prolong the case and would just tend to confuse the issue"

You can read Dr. Silverman's report here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/psychol_silverman1979aug16_p1.html)

Here's the link to the psychiatric and psychologists reports (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/psychiatric_transcripts.html)

cami

03-14-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

Well, lets all be logical here.

If a Green Beret was fighting for his life against 3 men, would he not have sustained even 3 icepick wounds? Would he not have had scratches to go with those?

IMO, in a life & death struggle like that, the shirt would have been torn to pieces.

Logic seems to have flown out the window on this case. As did common sense right after it.

lucielle

03-15-2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

AS far as the psychiatric testing, I've only found documentation that there were 8 reports done and 7 of them favored MacDonald.

WHat does that matter? I mean really. A few psychiatrists say he was not capable how? He couldn't hold a knife or icepick in his hands? He couldn't swing a wooden bat? ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. I think we all know that now. Especially that monsters hide in plain site.

Besides there are psychiatrists who would say different now. So who to believe?

cami

03-15-2005, 11:11 AM

Well Cami---I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of the pajama top. To me, the directionality of the threads, would be extremely significant to the jury as would the fact (if true) that the test was 55% inaccurate (and IMO therefore, should not have been allowed into evidence as a legitimate scientific test.)

Okay I'm there I agree to disagree about the directionality of threads being important.

Colette's blood staining it in at least four places prior to it being ripped, the neat round ice pick holes and the lack of tearing at the holes, and the lack of rip or cut that corresponds with his chest injury, bears far more weight as evidence of MacDonald's involvement in the crime than the directionality of the threads.

It doesn't match the story Macdonald told that's for sure.

I'm anxious to read the trial testimony on this but it's not posted as yet. I've read the cross examination of Staumbaugh on the blood stains and the rips in the old short study but not his full testimony.

AS far as the psychiatric testing, I've only found documentation that there were 8 reports done and 7 of them favored MacDonald. There was deception employed in the Silverman report but I have to get back to you on the specifics so I can be accurate in what I post. (Which means I have to look up the information in 'Fatal Justice" )

Deception in Silverman's report! Can you point this out please? I hope it's not that MacDonald claim that the psychiatrist was really a government investigator, lOL. You can tell I don't have FJ handy or I would have looked it up right away. I don't see why the psychiatrist's reports are an issue if there is not an insanity defense and neither did the appellate courts. And I don't really care whether or not the psychiatrists said he's not the type to have committed this crime when the physical evidence, especially the blood, says he did. A personality disorder is not insanity. If he is a pathological narcissist then he always will be. I do understand it was one of Segal's reasonable doubt issues but I don't think the judge erred when he refused to allow psychiatric testimony in the trial and neither did the SC.

(Which means I have to look up the information in 'Fatal Justice" )

:lol: :lol:

cami

03-17-2005, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV
:seeya: Cami!

I'm going to get the information organized and then post it. I just wanted to stop in and make your day by telling you that you are correct about why the judge didn't allow the psychological testing----it was indeed because he said the testimonies would cancel each other out and not because it was junk science (as I had stated previously).

Score:

Cami: 1

Magnum: 0

:beer:

:beer:

cami

03-17-2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by cami

:beer:

P.s. I am reading the transcript of Mac's April 6, 1970 formal interview with the CID, the first time he spoke on record about what happened that night. It's an eye opener.

03-17-2005, 05:56 PM

That sounds like some mighty interesting reading...is that online you found that and might possibly have a link for it?

cami

03-18-2005, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Tweeter
That sounds like some mighty interesting reading...is that online you found that and might possibly have a link for it?

Here it is (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/macdonald_1970apr6.html)

First thing that struck me. He says "some people have been stabbed"...... SOME PEOPLE, that's his wife and two daughters and he calls them some people.

03-18-2005, 03:01 PM

Thanks for the link Cami I appreciate it!! And wow @ him saying some people!! That is VERY strange!! Why not say my family or something close along those lines!! I'm gonna get busy reading it now myself!! Thanks again!!

marabeth

03-19-2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by cami

You cannot fold the top and make it match the wounds on Colette's chest if it had not been there. How do you force it to match the wound pattern? Once again the directionality of the threads means nothing.

Look at this photo: folded pajama top (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/photo096.html)

The top is being replicated in this experiment as to how it was found on Colette's chest.

Here's another one with the pajama top side by side. I think there's no doubt that the pajama top sustained the ice pick holes at the same time as Colette's chest did.

pajama top with pins (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/crime068.html)

The government contended and has always contended that the significance of the pajama top is: There were three types of blood staining the top with the majority of the blood Type A, Colette's blood type; some of the type a blood stained the top before it was torn; macdonald said he placed it on his wife's chest, the top sustained 48 ice pick holes, macdonald had no ice pick wounds; Colette however had 21 ice pick wounds testified to by the pathologist, the ice pick holes were made while her body was stationary likewise the absence of tearing around the holes indicate they were made while the top was stationary.

Wrong again Fatal Justice. The judge disallowed the psychiatrists to testify as the question of sanity was not an issue. Nor did all the psychiatrists and clinical psychologists give him a clean bill of health. He was tested again by a psychologist and psychiatrist employed by the prosecution and it was after this that Judge Dupree made his ruling citing "to pit shrink against shrink would simply prolong the case and would just tend to confuse the issue"

You can read Dr. Silverman's report here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/psychol_silverman1979aug16_p1.html)

Here's the link to the psychiatric and psychologists reports (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/psychiatric_transcripts.html) [/QUOTE]

Thank you for the links!:seeya:

Icculus

03-20-2005, 02:02 PM

I do not and never did believe Dr MacDonald did the horrible murder of his family. He has been in prison for years and I hope he gets parole, and is able to enjoy some of his life while he is still young? enough to do so. I firmly believe the crime was committed by the people he tried to describe. There was evidence of intruders, and there were forensics to back it up.

Here we go again. Ignorance rears it's silly head. Sorry, but if you bothered to read back even a few pages on this thread, you'd see all your theories debunked. Just because you "do not and never did believe" MacDonald to be guilty, doesn;t make this brutal murderer innocent.

You are factually INCORRECT.

And why would you blindly believe and support this man, anyway? Pretty pathetic.

Please. Have some respect for the dead and wake up for your own sake.

JMO of course :beer:

2L8 4A D8

03-20-2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Icculus

Here we go again. Ignorance rears it's silly head. Sorry, but if you bothered to read back even a few pages on this thread, you'd see all your theories debunked. Just because you "do not and never did believe" MacDonald to be guilty, doesn;t make this brutal murderer innocent.

You are factually INCORRECT.

And why would you blindly believe and support this man, anyway? Pretty pathetic.

Please. Have some respect for the dead and wake up for your own sake.

JMO of course :beer:

Hi Icculus, good to see you post again! I completely agree with you of course! When I read the post, I just shook my head and said to myself, "This post doesn't even dignify a response!" She probably believes OJ and Scott Peterson are innocent too!

JMO!!! MOO!!!

:beer:

cami

03-21-2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by nomi21
. There was evidence of intruders, and there were forensics to back it up.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Thanks

cami

03-21-2005, 10:03 AM

Frustrated Jury Foreman Speaks (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/art_fayobsrvr_1980aug5.html)

Link to an article with the jury foreman from the 1979 trial. Very interesting.

cami

03-21-2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:cool: I have kept up with this case, and I am aware that there are facts and evidence in the case that were totally ignored.

Of course you have the right to your own opinion. Just want to know what your source is. What is your source that facts and evidence in this case were totally ignored? I suspect it's either Fatal Justice or Macdonald's website. If it is, both are totally biased to innocence and have not shared with the readers the evidence that the prosecution presented at trial. In fact, much is hidden from the supporters of MacDonald so that they stay in the innocent yard yet it is the government that gets blamed for hiding evidence.

:seeya:

03-21-2005, 07:00 PM

Wow!! I have done a LOT of reading on this case and never once have seen ANY evidence that there were intruders and also forensic evidence to back it up!! I'd really love to see a link for that and read that for myself!!!
Cami....thanks again for that link, believe it or not I'm still reading through it so I can compare notes with ya!!

cami

03-22-2005, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Tweeter
Wow!! I have done a LOT of reading on this case and never once have seen ANY evidence that there were intruders and also forensic evidence to back it up!! I'd really love to see a link for that and read that for myself!!!
Cami....thanks again for that link, believe it or not I'm still reading through it so I can compare notes with ya!!

Me neither, I'd like to read it for myself as well. Although I have my suspicions about what he/she is talking about--the black wool, the wig hairs, the unidentified candle wax.

New uploads are going up at www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com daily. The appeals are fascinating. Some of the 1979 trial transcripts are up so I am starting those now although I have no legal training whatsoever.

Have you ever done Macdonald's Magical Mystery Tour?

Here's a link in case you are interested:

Magical Mystery Tour (http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html)

03-22-2005, 01:14 PM

Do you have independant confirmation that this Christina woman's assertions are true. I have checked out the site but I am wondering if the claims made at this site are simply the work of amateur sleuths and CSI's.

Originally posted by cami

Me neither, I'd like to read it for myself as well. Although I have my suspicions about what he/she is talking about--the black wool, the wig hairs, the unidentified candle wax.

New uploads are going up at www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com daily. The appeals are fascinating. Some of the 1979 trial transcripts are up so I am starting those now although I have no legal training whatsoever.

Have you ever done Macdonald's Magical Mystery Tour?

Here's a link in case you are interested:

Magical Mystery Tour (http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html)

cami

03-22-2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by bloodsoblue
Do you have independant confirmation that this Christina woman's assertions are true. I have checked out the site but I am wondering if the claims made at this site are simply the work of amateur sleuths and CSI's.

Which are you talking about? The Magical Mystery Tour? It's a compiliation of what is known and what MacDonald claims. It has many references to Fatal Vision. It has nothing to do with Christina except for a link to her site. What claims are you talking about please? Thanks

Christina M. attended the 1979 trial and has been researching the case ever since. Her website, www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com contains those documents related to this case and it's volumnous. She paid for and received the FOIA documents and all the public documents such as Article 32 transcripts, the Grand Jury transcripts and the Trial transcripts, the autopsies and autopsy photos, appeals, dna tests, etc. The fact that the court documents are there on her website is proof enough.

She makes no claims, except for this one that the trial was unfair (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/). She offers the documents, the complete documents, so you can read and judge for yourself.

Icculus

03-22-2005, 03:45 PM

Not nice Icculus!!! It's not fair to say people 'blindly' support this man unless you know what they are basing their opinions on. If you don't give them a chance to express themselves without saying things like they are pathetic and need to wake up, no one will be willing to discuss this and it will be the end of the thread.

I hear ya, Magnum, but have to respectfully disagree. I'm not trying to be nice. I get angry when someone reads a couple of un-researched non-facts made into "evidence" by MacDonald's fantasy defense team, then proceeds to tell everyone how innocent he is withoout truly looking at ALL the facts in the case.

This form of arrogant ignorance infuriates me. Especially when people get on their little pedestals and spew their smug self-righteousness in their support of this brutal murderer.

I've studied this case for some time, and we all had that moment when we first heard of things such as Helena Stoeckley. But anyone of intelligence who researches it thouroughly soon realizes the riddiculousness of these attempted distractions by the defense. The true evidence speaks for itself. MacDonald is GUILTY.

I'm really sick of people who get off on supporting the "underdog". Like it makes them feel like such a great person. Well I find it self-serving and insulting to the victims. Save your sympathy for someone who actually DESERVES it. There are plenty.

Now, play fair or I'm going to have to shake my bottle of root beer and spray it all over your screen.

You crack me up, Mag. And you take my "straightforwardness" very well. I appreciate that. Obviously, a lot of people think I'm a jerk, but I think they're a bunch of yes men. I am simply a direct woman who stands behind her convictions. However, I always do retain an open mind, regardless of how I come across.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment, 2L8 4A D8. I'm blushing

JMO as always. :beer: to you all.

-Icculus :rose:

03-22-2005, 10:34 PM

Mags!! Sit down.....and take a few deep breaths....IN....OUT...ahhhh much better?? Hee hee and I'm here and got the valium :D

03-22-2005, 10:44 PM

Cami thanks for that link!! I have read the magical mystery tour!! I was fascinated by quite a few of the contradictions that were stated there, I do take the ones related to Fatal Vision tho very loosely.
One thing I was puzzled by was the fact he stated he put his daughter Kristen to bed at 7pm, but yet the neighbor stated that Kristen was there visiting her till past 7pm...and also fact that is was Kimberly's urine on the bed NOT Kristen's. I was also very fascinated by the fact JM had denied there was an ice pic in the ice, when in fact his mother in law, and the babysitter admitted using the ice pic on different occasions!!

margiej

03-23-2005, 01:02 AM

For any of you here who think MacDonald is guilty, you should visit CTV's Crime Library and complain about the one-sided article on MacDonald. I did and was immediately met with rudeness and a biasness I did not know the Crime Library had. I complained that the "story" on MacDonald was soooo false and had such untruths. The person who answered my email immediately suggested I was a "Fatal Vision" freak who was not capable of seeing the truth. TRUTH? Ha! She further stated that no excerpts from "Fatal Vision" were allowed because they had proof that Joe McGinnes lied in the book. I was so upset by this rebuff that I no longer will read any article from CTV's Crime Library. This
happened last summer, I no longer have her emails, but she was a "representative" of the Crime Library. My two cents: she is also a fool, got her head in the sand if she thinks MacDonald is innocent. JMO

03-23-2005, 01:13 AM

03-23-2005, 01:14 AM

Well Mags...looks like your gonna need LOTS of extra valiums tonight!!! I'll make sure to stock up for you :D

Icculus

03-23-2005, 03:35 AM

Margie, what kinds of things did you see that you felt were untruths? I love hearing other people's opinions and remarks on this case....always good to see someone point out something that others might have missed!!
It's a shame you were met with such rudeness!! I do agree with the opinion of not believing much that came from Fatal Vision. I did read the book and at the time thought it was a great book, until I read further info...the book on the lawsuit against that case was very interesting I did think.

I was always under the impression...and Cami correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the so-called "untruths" in Fatal Vision just McGinniss' theory as to MacDonald's motive for the murder being a mixture of his Narcicism and Eskatrol? Wasn't that what he had to admit was only his educated opinion? As far as information regarding the evidence, trial, and case in general, wasn't FV pretty much factual? To the point of containing actual transcripts? I don;t see why FV is so quickly dismissed. The Crime Library people should be ashamed of themselves.

JMO of course. :beer:

03-23-2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Icculus

I was always under the impression...and Cami correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the so-called "untruths" in Fatal Vision just McGinniss' theory as to MacDonald's motive for the murder being a mixture of his Narcicism and Eskatrol? Wasn't that what he had to admit was only his educated opinion? As far as information regarding the evidence, trial, and case in general, wasn't FV pretty much factual? To the point of containing actual transcripts? I don;t see why FV is so quickly dismissed. The Crime Library people should be ashamed of themselves.

JMO of course. :beer:

I think the main reason FV is dismissed, is in fact due to the lawsuit which stemmed from it. I know in articles and such I have read, it basically puts the material down in that book. I do believe you are right in the fact that in FV and in McGinniss' theory it was actually blamed on the eskatrol. The only reason I am against using that book for any "decent" information, is due to the fact that after reading the book on the lawsuit and other articles as well, it honestly doesn't seem to be a good source of information. FV does have PARTS of the actual trial, but of course its not ALL the information, and disposed in the book at McGinniss' desire to prove a point...
I do highly agree, the Crime Library people really should be ashamed of themselves for how they handled that matter!! :beer:

03-23-2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by JustamamaMach12
Well Magnum, I see your favorite little bird is following you around again. Isn't it funny, how for as long as I have known you when you allow that crazy little bird to sit on your shoulders she craps all the way down your back!

I'm at a loss to explain why you let her do that. I have seen it several dozen times though over the last year.

I'll leave the door to reality open and the light at the end of the tunnel turned on just in case you come to your senses.

I apologize for posting this O/T post, but you see MagnumV needs our help. He's hanging out with the wrong crowd again and every time he does this he gets lost.

OH WHERE IS THAT DANG SYLVESTER THE CAT WHEN YOU NEED HIM?

GRANNY! Grab yer cage! Yer bird has rabies!!!!

JMHO :biggrin:

I do believe you are the one who is in need of reality check. YOUR the one following him around in a pathetic manner begging him to talk to you. In case you haven't noticed, the topic of this thread was discussing the JM case. Please, keep on posting this comical threads as you do!! I just love people getting a chance to see the "real" you!!

cami

03-23-2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by margiej
For any of you here who think MacDonald is guilty, you should visit CTV's Crime Library and complain about the one-sided article on MacDonald. I did and was immediately met with rudeness and a biasness I did not know the Crime Library had. I complained that the "story" on MacDonald was soooo false and had such untruths. The person who answered my email immediately suggested I was a "Fatal Vision" freak who was not capable of seeing the truth. TRUTH? Ha! She further stated that no excerpts from "Fatal Vision" were allowed because they had proof that Joe McGinnes lied in the book. I was so upset by this rebuff that I no longer will read any article from CTV's Crime Library. This
happened last summer, I no longer have her emails, but she was a "representative" of the Crime Library. My two cents: she is also a fool, got her head in the sand if she thinks MacDonald is innocent. JMO

Oh yes, I was pointed to that article just last week by a poster on another site who told me I should go read up on MacDonald, LOL. I know who it is, she's followed me around on the c&j website where the most comprehensive discussion is and on the aande discussion board where there is also an active discussion on Macdonald to ridicule me. Research, research, research is what it takes. As Icculus said in her post, most won't scratch the surface, they take Macdonald at face value.

Research into the available records, will show that Fatal Vision has earned its reputation as one of the best and truest books about the case. On the other hand, research shows that Fatal Justice is filled with an amazing number of outright lies and misrepresentations, and it's more or less common knowledge that it was edited by MacDonald himself, which makes it very suspect as a source of accurate information.

cami

03-23-2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Icculus

I was always under the impression...and Cami correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the so-called "untruths" in Fatal Vision just McGinniss' theory as to MacDonald's motive for the murder being a mixture of his Narcicism and Eskatrol? Wasn't that what he had to admit was only his educated opinion? As far as information regarding the evidence, trial, and case in general, wasn't FV pretty much factual? To the point of containing actual transcripts? I don;t see why FV is so quickly dismissed. The Crime Library people should be ashamed of themselves.

JMO of course. :beer:

Yes, McGinniss tried to provide the reader with some reasons for these crimes. He never claimed it was fact ever. If you compare the actual documents with Fatal Vision, you will see every word was true. AND Fatal Vision did not convict MacDonald, the jury did. The book was written long after the trial.

On the other hand, Fatal Justice cannot explain the imprints of MacDonald's bloody pajama cuffs on the master bedroom sheet. They also will not tell you that the sheet Edwards saw covering Colette was white; they leave the reader believing it was the blue master bedroom sheet (to account for the imprints). They completely gloss over the fact that no fibers, bloodspots or hairs or any other evidence were found on or around the sofa area where MacDonald said he was attacked.

03-23-2005, 11:07 AM

That part always amazed me...the fact that there were no hairs, fibers, or bloodspots there by the couch where JM was attacked!! I had thought I had read the sheet covering her was white, not in fact the blue one and I had completely forgotten that, so I am glad you just mentioned that.
I think you are actually right with your comparison of the two books. I know for myself, the reason I have a problem believe too much of FV is due to the fact over that lawsuit. I think I will go read up on that lawsuit now and make sure I have the actual facts of it and not just an estimated guess LoL
Cami I think its horrible there are people on that board ridiculing you!! I can say I love reading your posts here, IMO you have done a lot of reading on this case and seem to have some great ideas and feedback, I for one enjoy reading your posts!! I'd have to say they are just jelous of you and wish they had half as much to input into the discussion as you do!! :beer:

cami

03-23-2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Tweeter

I think the main reason FV is dismissed, is in fact due to the lawsuit which stemmed from it. I know in articles and such I have read, it basically puts the material down in that book. I do believe you are right in the fact that in FV and in McGinniss' theory it was actually blamed on the eskatrol. The only reason I am against using that book for any "decent" information, is due to the fact that after reading the book on the lawsuit and other articles as well, it honestly doesn't seem to be a good source of information. FV does have PARTS of the actual trial, but of course its not ALL the information, and disposed in the book at McGinniss' desire to prove a point...
I do highly agree, the Crime Library people really should be ashamed of themselves for how they handled that matter!! :beer:

Yet the lawsuit was illegal really, Mac signed releases with McGinnis and had no say in how McGinnis eventually portrayed him in the book. I do agree that McGinnis should have been upfront with Mac, however, he attended the 1979 trial not knowing what the government's evidence was. It was sitting through that trial that he came to believe that the government had a case and an overwhelming one at that against MacDonald. It wasn't until after the trial when McGinniss found Mac's handwritten notes that he became aware of the Eskatrol Mac had been taking.

When Mac sued McGinniss it was for fraud, the jury was hung and w/the instructions of the judge they couldn't move to the next question until a decision was reached - they hung on the first question - and not even pro mac!!!! It was degree! McGinniss then offered to settle as he knew Mac would keep trying to control and manipulate him and keep him in court for years.

Excerpt from an article re: a book review of "the journalist and the murderer"

"As it happened, the first question on the form had nothing to do with any of MacDonald's allegations against me. Rather, it asked whether MacDonald had "performed all of the obligations and conditions imposed upon him under the contract." (The "contract" being, in fact, a release MacDonald had signed in which, in return for a minor portion of the book's proceeds, he agreed not to bring legal action of any sort against me, no matter what conclusions I might reach, or might publish. How this matter reached the trial stage despite such a release is another story for another time.)

On this first question, and on this question alone, five of the jurors eventually answered "yes," while the so-called "crank" said no, on the grounds that MacDonald had contracted to tell me the truth about the murders, and by claiming he had not committed them, even after having been convicted of killing his wife and two young daughters, he was in violation of our agreement."

Here's a link

to the whole article (http://archive.salon.com/letters/2000/03/09/mcginniss/)

Also on Christina's site, you will find a transcript of a radio interview with McGinniss, Dr. Sadoff, and another psychiatrist and William F. Buckley, McGinniss discusses the civil suit in that interview. Mac sued him for $15M but quickly settled for $325,000. The Kassabs then sued Mac. So, once the lawyers and the Kassabs received compensation, Mac ended up with $50,000. He would have received $100,000 had he not sued McGinniss.

Lastly, Janet Malcolm too was sued by one of her subjects, and her book the journalist and the murderer appears to be her defense of that lawsuit. She slanders McGinniss but does not aprise her readers of her own legal troubles. Nor did she attend the 1987 Civil trial so how could she accurately report on it. Neither has she ever exposed herself to the evidence the government used to convict MacDonald. Hardly impartial is she.

cami

03-23-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Tweeter
That part always amazed me...the fact that there were no hairs, fibers, or bloodspots there by the couch where JM was attacked!! I had thought I had read the sheet covering her was white, not in fact the blue one and I had completely forgotten that, so I am glad you just mentioned that.
I think you are actually right with your comparison of the two books. I know for myself, the reason I have a problem believe too much of FV is due to the fact over that lawsuit. I think I will go read up on that lawsuit now and make sure I have the actual facts of it and not just an estimated guess LoL
Cami I think its horrible there are people on that board ridiculing you!! I can say I love reading your posts here, IMO you have done a lot of reading on this case and seem to have some great ideas and feedback, I for one enjoy reading your posts!! I'd have to say they are just jelous of you and wish they had half as much to input into the discussion as you do!! :beer:

Well thank you for the compliments but at one time I was, of course, very green about this case but I desired to learn all that I could to acquire all the knowledge I have now. I have been involved in an internet discussion and research on this case for a few years now. Now with access to all the court documents it's become much easier to verify everything and to expose MacDonald for the narcissistic, histrionic, pathological liar he is. I can't explain the depths of my contempt for that man.

Not only the lack of fibres and blood, etc. but look at that large picture on the wall behind the couch, not even tilted. Look at the end table beside the couch, nothing out of place, the lamp, drinking glasses, etc. Look at the clothes folded on the top step of the two steps up to the hallway where he allegedly passed out. Look at the two neat stacks of magazines under the coffee table. Now he wants us to believe he fought with three armed men, crazy on drugs in that location, fighting for his life and the lives of his wife and children. And he fought them off with an old pajama top. That's why my comment that logic and common sense flew out the window in this case.

As always these are my opinions only.

03-23-2005, 12:28 PM

Cami thanks for that link!! I'll read up on that now as well. I myself have read that book the Journalist and the Murderer and I didn't learn until AFTER I had read it about the legal trouble and lawsuit that she was involved in as well!! I didn't agree with many things from the book, and I wasn't exactly sure where she was recieving all her information from. I assumed (and I know what they say about this LoL) that she had actually went and somehow had copies of transcripts regarding the court cases. I appreciate the links you do post, many of them I have not seen and I love the reading! I find it very interesting!!
I have never understood how JM was able to sue McGinniss for fraud!! He did sign releases and gave McGinniss the green light to go ahead with the book, to me it just appears JM didn't like how he was portrayed in the book, so then decided to do something about that!!
The links you posted are GREAT!! Especially the ones regarding the actually court documents and testimony!! Thanks again for the links!!

cami

03-23-2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Icculus

Oh, and thanks for the compliment, 2L8 4A D8.

LOL, that's almost my postal code.

03-23-2005, 12:46 PM

Mags, just use the ignore button..it works best!! There's no point in bothering Coldwater over someone acting like an immature child!!

NY-EVE

03-23-2005, 02:43 PM

hey cami i've been reading your post ...you certainly are in the know ..and have done alot of research..some i havent seen yet......but,, i still feel he's not guilty....
thank you for posting the links ,,they are very informative
i'm still studying ..........lol.....:seeya:

cami

03-23-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
hey cami i've been reading your post ...you certainly are in the know ..and have done alot of research..some i havent seen yet......but,, i still feel he's not guilty....
thank you for posting the links ,,they are very informative
i'm still studying ..........lol.....:seeya:

Hey NY you're back. How you doin.

Hey no problem, everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Keep reading and researching, you'll get there. LOL

Everyone have a happy holiday weekend. Don't eat too much chocolate!!!!

cami

03-23-2005, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Icculus

I hear ya, Magnum, but have to respectfully disagree. I'm not trying to be nice. I get angry when someone reads a couple of un-researched non-facts made into "evidence" by MacDonald's fantasy defense team, then proceeds to tell everyone how innocent he is withoout truly looking at ALL the facts in the case.

This form of arrogant ignorance infuriates me. Especially when people get on their little pedestals and spew their smug self-righteousness in their support of this brutal murderer.

I've studied this case for some time, and we all had that moment when we first heard of things such as Helena Stoeckley. But anyone of intelligence who researches it thouroughly soon realizes the riddiculousness of these attempted distractions by the defense. The true evidence speaks for itself. MacDonald is GUILTY.

I'm really sick of people who get off on supporting the "underdog". Like it makes them feel like such a great person. Well I find it self-serving and insulting to the victims. Save your sympathy for someone who actually DESERVES it. There are plenty.

You crack me up, Mag. And you take my "straightforwardness" very well. I appreciate that. Obviously, a lot of people think I'm a jerk, but I think they're a bunch of yes men. I am simply a direct woman who stands behind her convictions. However, I always do retain an open mind, regardless of how I come across.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment, 2L8 4A D8. I'm blushing

JMO as always. :beer: to you all.

-Icculus :rose:

LOl, I think you are both a hoot and I enjoy reading your posts.

:beer:

Icculus

03-23-2005, 03:28 PM

Justamamamach- What is your problem? Talk about off-topic. Grow up or take it somewhere else. This is the Jeffrey MacDonald thread. Jeez.

JMO

p.s. What is everyone's problem with Mag, anyway? Did I miss something? Aren't we all adults here?

Icculus

03-23-2005, 03:31 PM

Oh, and thanks Cami! :beer: You are one of THE most knowledgable sources on this case I know. I look forward to your posts =). Both here & on C & J.

-Icculus :rose:

03-24-2005, 11:24 PM

That answer is True.

cami

03-29-2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by MagnumV

Correct!!! Go to the head of the class!

False

there's nothing that points to his innocence.

his lawyer's did have access to the evidence.

NY-EVE

03-29-2005, 10:24 AM

i say TRUE .....i believe evidense was with held ...

hello cami......and everyone...

hope everyone had a great easter

and the debate continues.................lol.....:seeya:

cami

03-30-2005, 07:42 AM

hello, hope the Bunny was good to you. I just turned my fridge into a chocolate free zone, working on the rest of the house now.

Yeah the debate continues. What evidence do you think was withheld from the defense? You know if you follow the end notes in FJ, they all lead you back to most of the government documents, however, you have to deal with the authors's cut and paste method of delivering the information.

cami

03-30-2005, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by cami
hello, hope the Bunny was good to you. I just turned my fridge into a chocolate free zone, working on the rest of the house now.

Yeah the debate continues. What evidence do you think was withheld from the defense? You know if you follow the end notes in FJ, they all lead you back to most of the government documents, however, you have to deal with the authors's cut and paste method of delivering the information.

p.s. Oh I have such a terrible memory. Paul Stombaugh's 1979 trial testimony is now uploaded at the Macdonald information site. It's over three days. You can start reading here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979aug07-stombaugh.html)

cami

03-31-2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Icculus
Oh, and thanks Cami! :beer: You are one of THE most knowledgable sources on this case I know. I look forward to your posts =). Both here & on C & J.

-Icculus :rose:

Oh I think Justthefacts and jednme have me beat. I am just slower at reading than they are, Lol.

We are now discussing Stombaugh's trial testimony on c&j. More claims by Fatal Justice will be going where they belong--in the bin.

cami

04-12-2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
i say TRUE .....i believe evidense was with held ...

hello cami......and everyone...

hope everyone had a great easter

and the debate continues.................lol.....:seeya:

Here's the link to the cid lab reports and scans. It's in a zip file so you will need a zip program to unzip it. Get out your FJ and start checking, LOL. www.azwest.net/c&j

cami

04-22-2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by cami

Here's the link to the cid lab reports and scans. It's in a zip file so you will need a zip program to unzip it. Get out your FJ and start checking, LOL. www.azwest.net/c&j

New Parole Hearing Date for MacDonald

According to the U.S. Parole Commission, former Army doctor Jeffrey MacDonald has a parole hearing scheduled for May 10."

www.wral.com/news/4390311/detail.html

NY-EVE

04-27-2005, 12:22 AM

hey cami.....

i bet you'll be at that porole hearing with bells on and bringing the doc a home made chocalate cake........lol......just kiddin......how ya been ?? aint heard ya in a while ?

cami

04-28-2005, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
hey cami.....

i bet you'll be at that porole hearing with bells on and bringing the doc a home made chocalate cake........lol......just kiddin......how ya been ?? aint heard ya in a while ?

LOl, as much as I would like to be there, I can't. I live in Canada, LOL. No public allowed anyway and no press!

Anyway, I wish I could somehow be there as it's Colette's birthday and I would love to be there with a huge homemade sign and candles and show her killer that his victims are not and never will be forgotten.

I am just great and how are you NY. I don't hang out here too much. The on going Mac discussion is at c&j or aande, not here.

Grins

04-29-2005, 08:27 AM

Hello all,
Interesting to me is the testimony of the polygraph examiner hired by JM which appears in the transcript of the civil case for damages filed by JM against McGinnis.

He testified that JM failed the polygraph twice as to his denial that he murdered the victims.

Of course, being his own employee, he did not reveal this information on his own. Nor was he required to do so.

What do you all make of this?

NY-EVE

04-29-2005, 09:55 AM

CAMI..........why did you leave me here then ?? lol
tell me how to het to where yall are ?? what are the links?
i would like to join yall there
glad all is well

cami

04-29-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Grins
Hello all,
Interesting to me is the testimony of the polygraph examiner hired by JM which appears in the transcript of the civil case for damages filed by JM against McGinnis.

He testified that JM failed the polygraph twice as to his denial that he murdered the victims.

Of course, being his own employee, he did not reveal this information on his own. Nor was he required to do so.

What do you all make of this?

You are talking about Cleve Backster. Yes, it's true MacDonald failed two polygraphs. Backster administered his test in April 1970 at the request of the defense and told MacDonald he had failed and could not aid him in his defense. MacDonald refused to take a poly administered by the Army/FBI or the prosecution.

MacDonald refuses/d to sign a release and allow Backster to make his findings public that's why his information has not been revealed. It was a private test.

I make of it that Mac is a liar and a killer.

cami

04-29-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by NY-EVE
CAMI..........why did you leave me here then ?? lol
tell me how to het to where yall are ?? what are the links?
i would like to join yall there
glad all is well

Tee hee you big nut. Here's the links. We will be glad to have you.

http://boards.aetv.com/forum.jsp?forum=222

http://p216.ezboard.com/fcrimeandjustice13552frm3

You have to register at both forums before you can start posting.

:seeya: at the other forums, NY

2L8 4A D8

04-29-2005, 07:42 PM

Cami: Thank you for all of your posts here at OC. I really appreciate it. I am waiting with baited breath to see if JM gets out on parole on 5-10. If he does, I will be absolutely sick to my stomach! As far as I am concerned, he is right up there with OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson.

:mad:

cami

05-02-2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Cami: Thank you for all of your posts here at OC. I really appreciate it. I am waiting with baited breath to see if JM gets out on parole on 5-10. If he does, I will be absolutely sick to my stomach! As far as I am concerned, he is right up there with OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson.

:mad:

Hey no problem, you're welcome.

I agree he's right up there with OJ and Peterson. Worse even. He deliberately stabbed his two year old 33 times. Premeditated.

He better not get out.
:flamemad:

azcutie

05-05-2005, 04:54 PM

I saw a show on this not to long ago. There was plenty of evidence that supports he did not do it. There is also evidence that says he did do it. I think maybe the case needs to be explored more now that we there are more tests that can be done.

lucielle

05-06-2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by azcutie
I saw a show on this not to long ago. There was plenty of evidence that supports he did not do it. There is also evidence that says he did do it. I think maybe the case needs to be explored more now that we there are more tests that can be done.

I beg to differ htat there was not plenty of evidence that supports he did not do it. There is a small amount of evidence that could point to that---although I cannot even come up with any of those reasons now.

That small amount of evidence is just null & void imo when you consider the mountain of evidence that says he did it.

cami

05-09-2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

I beg to differ htat there was not plenty of evidence that supports he did not do it. There is a small amount of evidence that could point to that---although I cannot even come up with any of those reasons now.

That small amount of evidence is just null & void imo when you consider the mountain of evidence that says he did it.

the wig hairs and the unsourced black fibres. Well the wig hair myth has been busted wide open with the posting of the lab results and the affidavits on the information site.

Two black wool fibres were found on the murder club. The fibres are unsourced. However, not every single article or clothing and bedding was examined to find the source of these fibres. When you see the photos of the apt, you can see lots of afghans and pillows that could contain black fibres. As well, articles of the girls clothing, I forget what they were, were similar to these black fibres. As well, Colette allowed the neighbours to use her clothes dryer that was in the small room off the MB. Those fibres could have come from a neighbour's laundry.

these fibres were in addition to the blue pajama top fibres found on the club but the defense likes to ignore the blue ones and allege prosecutor misconduct in not revealing the black wool fibres.

cami

05-09-2005, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by cami

You are talking about Cleve Backster. Yes, it's true MacDonald failed two polygraphs. Backster administered his test in April 1970 at the request of the defense and told MacDonald he had failed and could not aid him in his defense. MacDonald refused to take a poly administered by the Army/FBI or the prosecution.

MacDonald refuses/d to sign a release and allow Backster to make his findings public that's why his information has not been revealed. It was a private test.

I make of it that Mac is a liar and a killer.

Cleve Backster's testimony in the Civil trial regards the polygraph can be read here (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/backster_1987aug11.html)

It's a new upload on the information site.

Magnum357

05-10-2005, 11:24 AM

Hi Cami :seeya:

It's me, MagnumV, the bad boy who got banned for............well, actually, I don't know why I got banned. Ha!

Anyway, there's going to be a segment on Hannity and Colmes tonight about Jeff MacDonald. Just thought I'd pass the information on to anyone who might be interested.

Magnum357 (the big gun)

lucielle

05-10-2005, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Magnum357
Hi Cami :seeya:

It's me, MagnumV, the bad boy who got banned for............well, actually, I don't know why I got banned. Ha!

Anyway, there's going to be a segment on Hannity and Colmes tonight about Jeff MacDonald. Just thought I'd pass the information on to anyone who might be interested.

Magnum357 (the big gun)

Awww man! I do not like H & C, but I guess I will watch it......wait I don't have Cable now I have a satellite---so I don't get Fox------

You know of any links tomorrow I may be able to go to to get some info?

lucielle

05-10-2005, 03:17 PM

Update! Update!

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/parole_prelim_2005-05-10.html

Preliminary decison was that MacDOnald will be eligible for parole in 15 years!

GOOD! Hallelujah!

I was worried they were gonna let this guy go.......

Magnum357

05-10-2005, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

Awww man! I do not like H & C, but I guess I will watch it......wait I don't have Cable now I have a satellite---so I don't get Fox------

You know of any links tomorrow I may be able to go to to get some info?

Sorry, I don't, but after I watch it, I'll post what was said. Fair and balanced. :)

Magnum357

05-10-2005, 06:59 PM

AWWWKK! CORRECTION!!!!

THE SEGMENT IS ON HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS----NOT HANNITY AND COLMES

snoopyone

05-10-2005, 07:35 PM

Panel recommends against MacDonald parole

winston salem journal (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782638834&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099)

2L8 4A D8

05-10-2005, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by lucielle
Update! Update!

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/parole_prelim_2005-05-10.html

Preliminary decison was that MacDOnald will be eligible for parole in 15 years!

GOOD! Hallelujah!

I was worried they were gonna let this guy go.......

YES! YES! YES! YES!

Sorry for screaming, but I am. I am so thrilled! I was so worried that JM would baffle them with his b.s.

Thank you. Thank you. There is a God!

:punch: For JM. How does it feel being on the receiving end?

Mora 12

05-11-2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by snoopyone
Panel recommends against MacDonald parole

winston salem journal (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782638834&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099) Thanks for posting this!!!!!!!!

I've been wondering what the outcome of his parole hearing would be.

IMO - he is 100% guilty and I hope he spends the rest of his nature life behiend bars for the brutal murders of his wife and two children.

I remember when these murders first occurred, and have read every article and book and TV programs made about this case. No one can convince me that JM didn't do this crime. He is right where he belongs!

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2005, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Mora 12
Thanks for posting this!!!!!!!!

I've been wondering what the outcome of his parole hearing would be.

IMO - he is 100% guilty and I hope he spends the rest of his nature life behiend bars for the brutal murders of his wife and two children.

I remember when these murders first occurred, and have read every article and book and TV programs made about this case. No one can convince me that JM didn't do this crime. He is right where he belongs!

Collette was pregnant at the time Jeff slaughtered her. I can't remember how far along she was though.

:rose: For Collette, the baby and the girls ~ God Bless You!

Mimi428

05-11-2005, 12:39 AM

I am thoroughly relieved that the parole board kicked this out for another 15 years.

That says to me that they considered his claims to be completely without merit.

AZcutie - I do not mean this to sound harsh or belittling, but if your profile info is correct, this man's pregnant wife & two beautiful daughters were dead & in the ground THREE YEARS before you were born.

I know there are things you can read, created long after the murders to suit the claim of this narcissistic, heartless, cold-blooded monster. Some of us who were alive & at least semi-grown-up at the time have the perspective of having seen this man on the Dick Cavett Show, having lived thru the murders of Sharon Tate, et al & the arrest & trial of Charles Manson & family.

I can't impart or bestow that on someone who wasn't there. Just as my mother-in-law, who lived thru WWII as a young girl growing up in the UK could not bestow upon me the realities of spending night after night underground & wondering if her family's house would be standing or blown to bits when they all came above ground the next morning.

All I can say is, if you had lived thru that time, saw that man, followed the trial, you would NOT, for one minute ever believe the lies & spin he has so carefully concocted over the years, imvho.

Mora 12

05-11-2005, 08:43 AM

For all the posters that remember these murders, don't you find JM's "personality" very similiar to Scott Petersons??

JM also had that "cocky" attitude, was without any doubt very narristic(sp?), and actually thought he would get away with his story of "someone else did the crime"!!!!!!!

Too bad they can't put him and Scott together in the same cell - LOL.

lucielle

05-11-2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by justus4all
I don't believe he's guilty. I think Helena Stokley took what really happened with her to her grave when she died that mysterious death.

She didn't die a mysterious death, she had many complications due to the excessive amounts of drugs she had taken over the years, she also had numerous mental problems. (I believe she was classfied as a paranoid schizo.)

And how could she have taken anything to the grave with her? LOL! She confessed numerous times, there was nothing left to her story to take to the grave. NONE of the stories checked out at all---most of them actually ALL of them completely contradicted MacDonalds own story as to what happened.

Sorry, maybe on the Atlanta child murders you could be right---but you are defintely wrong on this one. All you have to do is follow the blood trail. There were no hippy intruders in the house that night, if there had been and they had been hopped up on acid--there would have been ample evidence to suppor taht. There is no way that 3 people were in that house without leaving evidence they were there. Especially if JM was "fighting for his life."

We don't even need to mention the amount of overkill inflicted on Colette, Kim & Kristen vs the lack of even mortal wounds on MacDonald. :rolleyes:

Mimi428

05-11-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by justus4all
I don't believe he's guilty. I think Helena Stokley took what really happened with her to her grave when she died that mysterious death.

If there was ever a perfect patsy or a made-to-order strawman, Helena would fit the bill. Her long history of severe drug abuse combined with mental illness really provided plenty of fodder for Jeff to latch on to & work around to create a wonderful theory. He had plenty of time over the years to pull together a grand fantasy about her involvement. Her death was perfect for fitting into his pack of lies. But it certainly wasn't a mysterious death, since she had been very ill from years of drug abuse.

Justus - how old were you when the murders happened? Did you see Jeff on the Dick Cavett Show - or did you see him years later on 60 Minutes? I don't mean this to sound demeaning to those who are not old enough to have been around when it was all happening, I just find it curious that so many who believe Jeff to be innocent seem to have not followed the story at the time, or simply weren't old enough to have known about it.

Mimi428

05-11-2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Mora 12
For all the posters that remember these murders, don't you find JM's "personality" very similiar to Scott Petersons??

JM also had that "cocky" attitude, was without any doubt very narristic(sp?), and actually thought he would get away with his story of "someone else did the crime"!!!!!!!

Too bad they can't put him and Scott together in the same cell - LOL.

Hmmmm - hadn't really thought of the comparisons before, Mora.

I will say this, tho - Scott should WISH he had half the brain-power that Jeff does. The man is very, VERY smart. I also see him as being a great deal "slicker" than Scott will ever hope to be. Smooooooth. Authoritative. He also has the "righteous indignation" role downpat.

But it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if 5, 10, 20 years down the line we read a pack of lies thoroughly woven together in the most convoluted ways from the Scott, much as we have seen Jeff spin out elaborate tales which conveniently portray him as a poor man who loved his wife dearly, but who was wrongfully accused & convicted.

lucielle

05-11-2005, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Hmmmm - hadn't really thought of the comparisons before, Mora.

I will say this, tho - Scott should WISH he had half the brain-power that Jeff does. The man is very, VERY smart. I also see him as being a great deal "slicker" than Scott will ever hope to be. Smooooooth. Authoritative. He also has the "righteous indignation" role downpat.

But it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if 5, 10, 20 years down the line we read a pack of lies thoroughly woven together in the most convoluted ways from the Scott, much as we have seen Jeff spin out elaborate tales which conveniently portray him as a poor man who loved his wife dearly, but who was wrongfully accused & convicted.

Ann Rule said it best when talking of sociopaths, I believe it was that they are a "brialliant mind without the guidance of a conscience." An incredibly smart person without the regular "Brakes" most of us have stopping us.

cami

05-11-2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Magnum357
Hi Cami :seeya:

It's me, MagnumV, the bad boy who got banned for............well, actually, I don't know why I got banned. Ha!

Anyway, there's going to be a segment on Hannity and Colmes tonight about Jeff MacDonald. Just thought I'd pass the information on to anyone who might be interested.

Magnum357 (the big gun)

Okay thanks but I am in Canada remember. I don't know what Hannity and Colmes means, LOL. I watched it on Hardball. PAROLE DENIED!!!!! Yes!

cami

05-11-2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by justus4all
I don't believe he's guilty. I think Helena Stokley took what really happened with her to her grave when she died that mysterious death.

cirrocis of the liver and pneumonia a mysterious death! LOL

He's guilty as sin.

cami

05-11-2005, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by lucielle
Update! Update!

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/parole_prelim_2005-05-10.html

Preliminary decison was that MacDOnald will be eligible for parole in 15 years!

GOOD! Hallelujah!

I was worried they were gonna let this guy go.......

Did you read Bob Stevenson's letter to the Parole Board Lucille, OMG, I cried.

As soon as I heard Matthews say last night "parole denied" i lit my candle for Colette on what would have been her 62nd birthday--May 10th. Not that any of us thought he'd get out on his first bid. I wonder if he will shut up and go away now.

Ice pick baby killer.

cami

05-11-2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Collette was pregnant at the time Jeff slaughtered her. I can't remember how far along she was though.

:rose: For Collette, the baby and the girls ~ God Bless You!

Four to five months. A baby boy.

lucielle

05-11-2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by cami

Did you read Bob Stevenson's letter to the Parole Board Lucille, OMG, I cried.

As soon as I heard Matthews say last night "parole denied" i lit my candle for Colette on what would have been her 62nd birthday--May 10th. Not that any of us thought he'd get out on his first bid. I wonder if he will shut up and go away now.

Ice pick baby killer.

I don't get MSNBC, so I have been looking for the transcripts all day----I guess they will be up tomorrow. I did read the letter on Christina's site yesterday-----I am glad that they saw him for what he is.

Mimi---I am only 24 years old but I knew as soon as I saw tis case that the man killed his family. How could one not? Anyone that thinks that MacDonald is innocent must also believe that OJ is innocnet, etc. I seriously do not know how anyone could look at this case adn not see it! It is right there in the blood and lack of evidenc ethat SHOULD have been there!

i am not a religious person, but I am very spiritual. I said a little prayer for all of them last night as I was falling asleep. I hope they have peace in knowing so many people care and so many people are trying to keep this jacka** where he belongs. I just could not imagine being hurt by the one person you should trust the most! Sadly, it happens more often than not.

I am gonna head to his website to see what they have to say about this.

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2005, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Mora 12
For all the posters that remember these murders, don't you find JM's "personality" very similiar to Scott Petersons??

JM also had that "cocky" attitude, was without any doubt very narristic(sp?), and actually thought he would get away with his story of "someone else did the crime"!!!!!!!

Too bad they can't put him and Scott together in the same cell - LOL.

I think JM is worse than SP. JM not only killed his pregnant wife, but killed his 2 little girls. That's 4. SP only killed his pregnant wife. That's 2. Please do not take this wrong, but killing your pregnant wife is one thing, but then conciously killing your 2 little girls is another IMO.

JM's face has absolutely no expression on it and then these "dead" eyes. OMG! He's as scary as heck to me. JM actually looks like a killer. SP doesn't. He looks like your next door neighbor. IMO it is amazing that 2 people could look so different, but yet still be killers.

JMO and MOO!!

Katt2

05-12-2005, 07:13 AM

I was never entirely convinced he was guilty.

~-Ms Turtle-~

05-12-2005, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich
"MacDonald received three consecutive life sentences for the murders of his 26-year-old wife, Colette, and their daughters, ages 2 and 5, at their apartment at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He claimed he and his family were attacked by drug-crazed hippies."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/10/macdonald.hearing.ap/index.html

chill out

:rolleyes:

Manson comes up for parole all the time too, and he never gets it and never will.

As Katt2 said, there IS an argument that he did not do it also. If you read... your link you will see it's not likely he will get paroled without expressing remorse and basically admitting he did it and since he still maintains his innocence he's not going to do that so... this is much ado about nothing.

Katt2

05-12-2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

There is no way a wife and baby killer should be up for parole. The jury's opinion is the only one that counts. He did the crime..he should do the time. Period.:no:

Yes IF he did the crime. Juries have made mistakes before and convicted innocent people. And I did not say he didn't do it, I said I wasn't convinced he did. That's a tad different than me saying he is innocent.

~-Ms Turtle-~

05-12-2005, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

There is no way a wife and baby killer should be up for parole. The jury's opinion is the only one that counts. He did the crime..he should do the time. Period.:no:

Ok, apparently in the jury's opinion he was given a sentence that had the option for parole at some point. I am sure they could have probably given him life without the possibility of parole. so make up your mind. This is the outcome of the jury's verdict. The POTENTIAL. No one is GIVING him parole, he's just having a hearing.

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

He is in prison because a jury said he was guilty. They heard all the facts and voted accordingly. There is no way he should ever see the light of day.

juries are sometimes wrong, I know nothing about this case, one way or the other, but I do know juries are sometimes wrong

and I agree with the above poster, if he is innocent and will not admit to a crime he did not do, he will not get out, then again if he admits it, I really doubt he would get out either, catch 22

also as a above poster said, the same court that found him guilty, gave him life with the option for parol

Katt2

05-12-2005, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

Yeah..but that has nothing to do with whether he gets paroled or not. He had his due process and was found guilty by the only opinion that counts. The jury. His case has been scrutinized as much as any other. If there was any evidence to exonerate him, he would have had a new trial.

Maybe the Parole Board will have the same doubt I have. I didn't mean to set you off but if there is any possibility he is not guilty, it has a lot to do with whether or not he gets paroled. Let's not argue about it okay? I understand you are upset that he could be paroled and you think he is guilty. I am undecided about his guilt. Just two different opinions but I don't put that much credence in jury verdicts anymore. OJ and need I say more? If it happened once it could have happened all those years back too.

~-Ms Turtle-~

05-12-2005, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by LisaM22

juries are sometimes wrong, I know nothing about this case, one way or the other, but I do know juries are sometimes wrong

and I agree with the above poster, if he is innocent and will not admit to a crime he did not do, he will not get out, then again if he admits it, I really doubt he would get out either, catch 22

also as a above poster said, the same court that found him guilty, gave him life with the option for parol

This is very typical of this poster. He starts threads early in the morning with a thread title that is somewhat misleading (nothing in the article indicates he "might" get paroled, just that he had a hearing for the first time).

Then he posts his emotional rhetoric. He's just in need of attention. I, for one, will not contribute to this thread anymore because it's stupid.

:tongue:

(I'm going back to the CTV gossip thread all about sex lies and video tapes :D )

Katt2

05-12-2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~

This is very typical of this poster. He starts threads early in the morning with a thread title that is somewhat misleading (nothing in the article indicates he "might" get paroled, just that he had a hearing for the first time).

Then he posts his emotional rhetoric. He's just in need of attention. I, for one, will not contribute to this thread anymore because it's stupid.

:tongue:

(I'm going back to the CTV gossip thread all about sex lies and video tapes :D )

Thanks for the heads up.

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

Juries are wrong but many more innocent lives are threatened by parole boards...not juries.

as long as your not on the wrong side of a 'wrong' jury verdict, who cares right :shrug:

the parole boards are over burdened by drug,alcohol and other non violent victimless related crimes that should render no more then at max a year in a local city jail, not prison

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Judge05
You're saying that drugs and alcohol are non-violent. What about all the people who have been injured or killed by someone who was on drugs or drinking? What about the lives that may be saved because that person is no longer on the streets doing drugs or behind the wheel while intoxicated?

that is NOT what I said, but those crimes that are non violent victimless crimes, should not require prison ( at max a yr in city jail)

if a drug related crime IS violent then that would NOT be what I was referring to now would it

save the prison for real criminals

MrsMcGoogle

05-12-2005, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by lg01

Judge usually decides on the sentense, not the jury.

Actually, in NC, the jury recommends the sentence..I believe the judge does have the option to accept or reject it though. I know in our particular experience, the death penalty was sought by the prosecution, but the jury gave him LWOP instead. My husband is just now telling me though, that he thinks sometimes it IS the judge, but he's not sure why. (We're alot of help, huh?)

(PS) I think JM is guilty as sin. From what I read yesterday, the parole board has already recommended NO for his parole..it's just got to be made official now.

Spuds

05-12-2005, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by MaryDee
I often agree with you, Nancy, but to be honest, I was never convinced MacDonald was guilty. I'm not saying he is innocent, I'm just saying I don't know. Now that we can test for DNA, wonder if the hair they found in the house that was such a big "question", could be tested?

:seeya: Wasn't that hair from a blond wig? The DA made it sound like it came from a doll. However no doll manufacturer at that time ever made one with hair that long.

McDonald comes from the area where I live. There has always been doubts among some of the population here as to his guilt.

Obviously only he and God know the truth.

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Judge05
Hubby is in LE and the people that are involed in drugs, if not violent at the time, DO become violent at one point or another. They sell to others, they use them themselves. It is a form of endangering someone else. So, someone who is arrested for drugs, whether selling or using, should not have to pay for their crime? And if that person does not pay fully for their crime and is back out on the street doing drugs or drinking, and they kill someone while 'intoxicated' then what? If they had received a stiffer punishment to begin with that innocent person who just lost their life could have been saved.

where do you get ALL people that have or do a drug are violent? I have known many that have done a drug at one time or anouther when I was younger and guess what, they were never violent :shrug:

now if someone gets violent, you arrest them for a violent crime, simple as that

I have known bad cops, even cops that have done drugs, doesn't mean all cops are bad or all cops do drugs

who says if you give a person 10 years, they will not become a hardened criminal and kill or commit violent acts when they get out vs then just getting 30 days and going on with a normal life?

~-Ms Turtle-~

05-12-2005, 08:48 AM

After the hearing at Federal Correctional Institution near Cumberland, two U.S. Parole Commission hearing examiners recommended no parole and no reconsideration of the matter for 15 years, said U.S. Attorney Frank D. Whitney of Raleigh, N.C. Whitney made a presentation against MacDonald during the two-hour hearing, which was closed to the public and news media.

"We were pleased with the outcome," Whitney said, calling the murders the most heinous crimes in North Carolina history, and adding that MacDonald had served less than a third of his sentence.

He said the recommendation of the two examiners will be sent to the full commission, but that it was unlikely the panel would reject the no-parole recommendation

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/051005_APstate_macdonald.html

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~
After the hearing at Federal Correctional Institution near Cumberland, two U.S. Parole Commission hearing examiners recommended no parole and no reconsideration of the matter for 15 years, said U.S. Attorney Frank D. Whitney of Raleigh, N.C. Whitney made a presentation against MacDonald during the two-hour hearing, which was closed to the public and news media.

"We were pleased with the outcome," Whitney said, calling the murders the most heinous crimes in North Carolina history, and adding that MacDonald had served less than a third of his sentence.

He said the recommendation of the two examiners will be sent to the full commission, but that it was unlikely the panel would reject the no-parole recommendation

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/051005_APstate_macdonald.html

as most of us would of expected, had i been on the board, i would not of let him out either, too risky

Katt2

05-12-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by LisaM22

where do you get ALL people that have or do a drug are violent? I have known many that have done a drug at one time or anouther when I was younger and guess what, they were never violent :shrug:

now if someone gets violent, you arrest them for a violent crime, simple as that

I have known bad cops, even cops that have done drugs, doesn't mean all cops are bad or all cops do drugs

who says if you give a person 10 years, they will not become a hardened criminal and kill or commit violent acts when they get out vs then just getting 30 days and going on with a normal life?

While there is some truth to what you have posted, the fact is that many people commit a crime while under the influence, that might have not done the same thing otherwise. Drug users do not have a normal life whether they do 10 years or 30 days. The bad rap is deserving. IMO

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Katt2

While there is some truth to what you have posted, the fact is that many people commit a crime while under the influence, that might have not done the same thing otherwise. Drug users do not have a normal life whether they do 10 years or 30 days. The bad rap is deserving. IMO

some drug users, some go on to live perfectly normal lives

but you are right, some let it run(ruin) their lives

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

Drugs cause a lot of crime...but what has that to do with paroling a wife and baby killer??:shrug:

it has a lot to do with it, I am tired of child molestors, killers and the like getting out because these non violent victimless criminals are taking up all the beds

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

What the hell..let's send all these useless dregs to Iraq...

might do them some good to be givin the option to join the service (the non violent victimless ones), I know they used to do things like that, not sure if they do anymore, if it can make them productive and save beds for real child molestors, baby killers and the like, I am all for it

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

The whole motley crew should be sent to Iraq..We are paying their room and board anyway..Let them earn it.

we pay for them to be punished, yes, and it is not cheap to keep all those victimless not violent criminals in prision for years and years and years

on the other side, some jails now charge rent, so give a non violent victimless criminal up to a year in a city jail could actually be profitable

MrsMcGoogle

05-12-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~
After the hearing at Federal Correctional Institution near Cumberland, two U.S. Parole Commission hearing examiners recommended no parole and no reconsideration of the matter for 15 years, said U.S. Attorney Frank D. Whitney of Raleigh, N.C. Whitney made a presentation against MacDonald during the two-hour hearing, which was closed to the public and news media.

"We were pleased with the outcome," Whitney said, calling the murders the most heinous crimes in North Carolina history, and adding that MacDonald had served less than a third of his sentence.

He said the recommendation of the two examiners will be sent to the full commission, but that it was unlikely the panel would reject the no-parole recommendation

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/051005_APstate_macdonald.html
LOL ~ thanks MsTurtle ~ I knew someone could get that link out here before I could even find it. :beer:

~-Ms Turtle-~

05-12-2005, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

The book and the movie was one sided..The jury saw both sides..and actually saw the evidence..and heard the real testimony.:shrug:

One piece of evidence kept out of MacDonald's trial that showed up in the foia documents was a confession of murder--actually multiple, polygraph-verified confessions--by Helena Stoeckley, a Fayetteville hippie, drug addict and self- styled "witch" who admitted to owning a blond wig, floppy hat and ice pick; who was spotted by five eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the MacDonald home, in several instances in the company of two white males and a black male in an Army field jacket, on the night the murders occurred; and who never came up with an alibi for where she was during the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/new_republic.html

~-Ms Turtle-~

05-12-2005, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by MrsMcGoogle

LOL ~ thanks MsTurtle ~ I knew someone could get that link out here before I could even find it. :beer:

you're welcome. Sadly it appears to me that it's more likely that an innocent man will be kept behind bars than it is a guilty man will get parole.

I'm outta here now... bye bye

:seeya:

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by MaryDee
Yes, I know, but there's just seems to be something that gives me reason to wonder if they have the right person.

there very well could be a "third" side, but we will probably never know - but would we want to take the chance, not me, I hope to god he is not an innocent man behind bars, but that is all I can do

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

Like Charles Manson...:rolleyes:

he would definitly not be the not violent type - lol - maybe had he not done drugs he would not of been caught though and killed many many more people, never know - life is a mystery

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by ~-Ms Turtle-~

you're welcome. Sadly it appears to me that it's more likely that an innocent man will be kept behind bars than it is a guilty man will get parole.

I'm outta here now... bye bye

:seeya:

your right, if he is innocent he is not getting out and if he is guilty he isn't getting a parol

kinda like heads I win, tails you lose :D

Katt2

05-12-2005, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Nancy Aldrich

Maybe you can start a Jeff Is Innocent site.:tongue:

I don't think anyone here has said they think he is innocent, just that there are doubts. Surely we are allowed this opinion as you have the right to think he is guilty.

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by MaryDee
Can they be evicted if they don't pay their rent?:rolleyes:

doubt it, maybe jailed if they don't pay :rolleyes: not sure I agree with the idea myself, should be a max limit, sounds like additional punishment and that is what fines and restitution are for, the rent should be no more then that max posible fine for the crime

LisaM22

05-12-2005, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by MaryDee
"Maybe" if a lot of people had "not done drugs", there would be a lot less crime, violent or otherwise.

maybe, should we outlaw ALL drugs then? legal or otherwise mind altering drugs? did prohibition reduce crime?

remember I said people need to be punished with up to a year in jail for non violent victimless crimes, I did not say let off scott free, but 5,10,20 and up to life for these non violent victimless crimes is not a good thing, we have better uses for those beds and $$$ wasted housing them

MrsMcGoogle

05-12-2005, 09:26 AM

Okay, I posted this once before, back when I first joined the boards, on another JM thread, but I'll say it again here.

I lived right around the corner from the MacDonald's house on Ft. Bragg. No, not at the time of the killings, a few years later...but our quarters were identical to those the MacDonald's lived in.

After living there for awhile, I became totally convinced that there was NO WAY any "band of hippies" or ANY group of people for that matter, could have come into that house, (they're more like apartments, one long single building with several units)...anyway, there's no way 4 people came into that house, slaughtered that family as viciously as they did (except, conveniently, the BIG STRONG SOLDIER :rolleyes: ).....and NOBODY (neighbors, right through the wall) HEARD the resulting noise. Now, by the same token, if neighbors heard a heated "argument" between the couple next door...they may not have thought anything of it, presumed it was none of their business, and gone back to sleep.

Helena S. was totally discredited...she was sooooo strung out. No-one will ever convince me that this is an innocent man. I've read all the transcripts, both books, virtually everything that's ever been written about this case...the man's your classic narcissist (sp). May he rot where he sits.