PDA

View Full Version : OT-LKL,sat.Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald



hockeymom
11-02-2003, 10:24 PM
Did anyone see LKL last night? He was in a Maryland prison with Jeff MacDonald. MacDonald is trying once again to get his conviction thrown out. When you watch him you can easily be convinced that he is innocent. He claims it was all a conspiracy and evidence that would exonerate him was hidden. He and his defense are now going with DNA evidence.Of course he claims this is being held up for some reason.It would be something if he actually was innocent.
On the other hand, I keep thinking of Scott and how similar these 2 are,a big conspiracy,no history of violence,the drug crazed hippies vs the satanic cult worshippers,the inlaws who believed in them until they caught them in lies. It is all frightenly similar!

tthoman
11-02-2003, 11:08 PM
Yes I caught about half of that....also, I read that book written a few years ago....(can't recall the title)...

Cypros
11-02-2003, 11:08 PM
I saw that show. It has been repeated several times over the past week or so. I was familiar with the story from the TV movie that came out many years ago in which he was made out to be very guilty. I must admit that in the LKL interview he was pretty convincing that he was innocent. He said that neighbors saw the hippies enter his home that night and that he would be freed on appeal if he could be granted one. Apparently, at one point, in an effort to appease the in-laws who were traumatized by the death of their daughter and granddaughters and that the killers were still free, Jeff told them that he had hunted them down and killed them. This was, of course, a lie and so when he was initially cleared and went on with his life, the in-laws learned of the lie and became suspicious of him. It was this lie -- he says -- that got him into trouble. I'd like to hear from the neighbors who saw the hippies.

Nova
11-02-2003, 11:50 PM
Jeffrey MacDonald is absolutely, 100% guilty! I always think of him when people describe sociopaths who lie so convincingly because they have no conscience.

But apparently it is also true that evidence was withheld at his trial and the government isn't in any hurry to run DNA tests that might appear to exonerate him.

I, too, would like to hear what the neighbor says. There was a soldier at the time who said he saw a "hippy girl in a floppy hat" (MacDonald's description of one of the assailants) in the neighborhood - but that's a far cry from seeing a band of hippies enter MacDonald's house!

There are some who believe MacDonald is guilty even IF there actually were some "hippies" at the house that night. No matter who was there, we are still left with babies and a housewife who were "overkilled" while a grown soldier (the trainer for the Army boxing team) was barely wounded during a "life-and-death" struggle with multiple assailants.

Rachael
11-03-2003, 12:21 AM
Give me a break. He is completely guilty. I have read this book also. There is no way hippies came into his house and killed his wife and kids and not him. Just like Darlie Router..we are supposed to believe all of these intruders came into their houses and killed innocent (I believe sleeping) children and left the parents alive.

NaturalSelection
11-03-2003, 12:34 AM
Thanks for the thread. Like many of you, I couldn't help but think of Scott Peterson. Like Peterson, MacDonald's expressions of emotion are contrived and transparent. I'm generally skeptical of people who claim they can tell whether someone is lying because the studies show that we're much more confident in this area than we are correct. Only about 5% of people can do consistently better than chance. However, I think different rules apply here, and in the Peterson case as well, because these men are psychopaths (I believe this -- I might be wrong) and don't experience the full spectrum of emotions, making them emotionally retarded in a sense. In the LKL interview, MacDonald became "upset" several times, and "recovered" instantly each time. This jumped out at me, because emotions don't work that way. Like honest facial expressions (except for surprise), emotions fade in and fade out. I thought MacDonald looked ridiculous -- one instant nearly sobbing -- one second later championing his cause. I don't know much about this case, but when they talked about him telling his wife's stepfather that he and a few buddies "took care of" one of the killers, I was reminded of Peterson again. Only someone who is emotionally blunted could believe that this would get the man to move on with his life. Just like Scott saying that Laci was okay with the affair or at peace with it or whatever. DUMB. Emotions matter. Without them, we can't reason very well, because we can't assign a proper value to different behaviors or potential consequences. MacDonald shows that you can be smart in an academic sense but remarkably stupid in the sophisticated world of social interaction -- especially if you're a psychopath. I've had difficulty learning much about the case. Anyone know the State's best evidence against him? What cannot be explained away?

azwriter
11-03-2003, 01:01 AM
I too believe Jeff MacDonald is guilty.
I've read the book, seen the movie, and have heard his interviews several times.
One part of the evidence was the superficial wound he received. And lied about the extent of it afterwards.
There was also some evidence about ice pick stab marks that went through his pajama top. There was proof the marks were in a pattern as if the top was wrapped around his hand. The top was found on his wife's body.
What strikes me as the most damaging are his own words of the account.
He says while he was fighting off some of the "hippies" in the living room, his wife was screaming "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me."
His daughters, he claims were yelling "Daddy!" "Daddy!"
Imagine this: "Jeff, Jeff why are YOU doing this to me?"
And would his daughters call only for him? I think they would be yelling for Mommy.(He was rarely home and they were closer to mom) I think they called "Daddy!" Because he was the one hacking away at them.
My guess, he and his wife were in an argument. She slapped at him and he took that board and hit her. Killing her. One of the daughters entered the room saw what happened, and he had to kill both daughters.
Then being a doctor, he sliced himself, knowing where it would do the least harm, and BINGO he had a story.

philamena
11-03-2003, 02:54 AM
Natural Selection-
Great post!

rondata
11-03-2003, 03:37 AM
Have any of you read fatal justice?

Rosebud
11-03-2003, 05:07 AM
The piece of evidence that gets to me is his p.j. top and the way the stab marks (ice pick?) line up. Also, why are his wounds so minor compared to his wife and the girls. I think he's convinced himself that he didn't do it. I think he has a lot in common with Scott. I did read Fatal Vision. The author had to retract parts of the book because he "embellished" some of it, but reading between the lines told me that Jeff boy is one sick puppy!

rondata
11-03-2003, 05:41 AM
Not fatal vision.. fatal justice. Another book.

DId you know that McDonald successfully sued the author of fatal vision because of lies in it and won?

I use to be convinced of his guilt. I am not so sure anymore.

formyboys
11-03-2003, 09:18 AM
I too, rondata, am on the fence about MacDonald since reading Fatal Justice. The author, of Fatal Vision, if I am correct, is not convinced of his guilt. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I remember reading (I believe) after MacDonald sued him. Feel free to correct me on this, b/c I could be wrong.

Did y'all remember that MacDonald's wife was also pregnant when murdered?

Also, there was another murder (I had the book on this, but need to research who, what, when) that was very similar to these murders that also happened at Fort Bragg to an officer's wife and his children while he was away at a school for the military.

less0305
11-03-2003, 12:02 PM
Well, I refuse to watch LKL anymore BUT..... I have always believed and will always believe that Jeffrey MacDonald savagely slaughtered his family. But did anyone see the show on Friday night (I can NOT remember which news magazine show it was) about the murder of the woman and her two children with the last name Feeney? The husband/father was a high school teacher and he was gone to a teaching seminar 100 miles away and his wife and two children are murdered. I believe that guy was guilty too and he was found not guilty......by a jury who believed he did it, but didn't convict him. Man, he got away with murder!!! I am really hoping that isn't the case with Scott Peterson.

CrimeWatcher
11-03-2003, 12:59 PM
I am not familiar with the case, but am frustrated that evidence was withheld in the trial, and that pertinent DNA tests are not being run.

This man may have some really bad character flaws, but unless all pertinent evidence is examined it is unfair to convict him of the crime.

Sunnmoon
11-03-2003, 01:03 PM
Each person in the MacDonald Family had a different blood type. I don't think Jeffrey counted on that. His story and the blood evidence didn't jive. It's what convicts him in my book, and I believe what convicted him in court.

I also was at Ft. Bragg shortly after that happened and talked to some of the MP/MI personnel involved. One of these personnel and I did a test on a table that was in Jeffrey MacDonald's house that was on it's side. (This table is extremely top heavy). We pushed, rolled, kicked.....and everytime the table landed with the top side down. This table was entered into evidence pictures on it's side. The only way the table could have ended up on it's side was if someone placed it that way.

He's guilty alright.

The similarities between him and Scott Peterson are incredible. Both are very good looking, compulsive liars, womanizers, had pregnant wives that were the epitome of womanhood.

Another similarity is that his daughter had wet the bed and theory has it he just lost control. I always thought he lost control just as possibly Patsy Ramsey lost control with JonBenet.


HM??????? ya think he's not guilty? Why?:waitasec:

The house remained just as it was for years after this, but quite some time later they burned the entire inside and contents and then refurbished. I still got the chills when I drove past the housing project at Ft. Bragg.

tthoman
11-03-2003, 01:43 PM
SUNNMOON: That is interesting....Yeah, I remember they did leave the scene alone for some long time.

If I am not mistaken, the author of Fatal Vision stated he was hired to write about it because of the belief that MacDonald was innocent but as he investigated the case, he slowly became convinced MacDonald was guilty.

formyboys
11-03-2003, 02:35 PM
CrimeWatcher: I'm with you on this one. MacDonald didn't get a fair trial. I hope I don't get blasted for saying it, but if you only read and watched Fatal Vision and have not read Fatal Justice, then you would be convinced of his guilt. I read and re-read Fatal Justice, which is not light reading and that's why I had to re-read it.

Also, tthoman, if you follow this link www.themacdonaldcase.org/macdonald_vs_mcguiness.html, you will see that the author of Fatal Vision was NOT so convinced of MacDonald's guilt, McQuiness, IMO, wrote this book just for the $$ and then after MacDonald sued him, the truth came out from even him.

The MacDonald crime scene was never secured; pictures even prove this in the FJ book. People walked in and out of that crime scene turning things (ex. the flowerpot) back over...etc....

Like I said, I hope I don't get blasted on this, but just check out www.themacdonaldcase.org.

I, too, once believed he was guilty, I really cannot say that now, in fact, I should take back my former statement of "I'm on the fence," I don't believe that he killed his wife and daughters.

As for Scott Peterson, well, that's a whole different story! In fact, I told my BF this weekend that it looked as if Scott wouldn't have actually (and excuse the expression) gotten his hands dirty in killing Laci and Conner; b/c he seemed like such a "preppy". Then I remembered the "Preppy Killer" and thought twice. I do know one thing though, here his lawyer has claimed he has evidence to exonerate Peterson and I tell you, if I was Scott and there was evidence to get me the heck out of jail, I'd have turned it over to the police by now! I know that things may be more confusing than just turning over what they have to the police...what do y'all think? I really believe Scott's guilty though.

I've always wanted to discuss the MacDonald case, but couldn't find anyone interested until this morning. Maybe we can get our own "discussion" going on this and not on Laci's thread?!...maybe?:-)

formyboys
11-03-2003, 02:37 PM
Sorry, the link is: www.themacdonaldcase.org/macdonald_vs_mcguiness.html

Sunnmoon
11-03-2003, 02:49 PM
The MacDonald case is interesting. Would love to discuss it too.

formyboys
11-03-2003, 03:02 PM
Sunnmoon: Are you military still? My ex-husband is military...we discussed this case a lot. Thanks for reading my post and not blasting me:-)LOL! I know we don't agree, but you seem open-minded...if you find a way we can discuss the case on this forum, please let me know...I haven't been around that long and don't know how to go about doing that!

If you wish, just email me and let me know! Thanks!

hockeymom
11-03-2003, 03:08 PM
Sun.
I've always thought he was guilty and until I see something else to show me he's not I will continue to believe in his guilt. I did find him very convincing however on LKL,and it made me think how people can be sucked in by someone who is good at lieing. I would like to read fatal justice and am interested if in fact the prosecutors witheld evidence. What would the motivation be? Why wouldn't the military protect their own? At the time of the crime I would think it would have been better to try and blame it on a drug crazed group of hippies than a military man. Also wouldn't people very high on drugs leave alot more forensic evidence other than 1 strand of hair from a wig?

Member106
11-03-2003, 03:37 PM
I remember reading this book, seeing the movie and watching other reviews of the case. The most glaring thing to me is how Jeff MacDonald starting choking back the tears when he talked about his wife and kids, yet right after it happened barely a tear was shed when talking to the media. Did anyone see his appearance on Dick Cavet--he was downright glib! Funny how he didn't break down then - and that was a few months after the actual incident. I agree that his trial may not have been error-proof, but my gut says he did it.

formyboys
11-03-2003, 03:57 PM
hockeymom: I know you were asking Sun some of these questions, but I think I know one of the answers, at least, but Sun could probably refresh my memory if I'm wrong.

The motivation I think stemmed from the fact that Dr. MacDonald was known to have a zero tolerance for drugs in and around Fort Bragg. Could be the acid tripping hippies knew this from the get go and targeted him and his family. Could be that the drug and crime rate at the time in and around Fort Bragg was high and I do believe, the crime rate to this day is still very high. I have had many a Fort Bragg soldier refer to Fayetteville as being high in crime and that with Fort Bragg being right there at it, it oozes onto the base itself, as it did back then.

Also, like I said, my ex-husband is military. Yes, military will go to some lengths to protect their own, I've seen it happen in and outside of my home while being married in the military in the '90's. Yes, it would have been easy to target the acid tripping hippies, but I don't think the military investigators could pin the tail on the donkeys with them...it was a high profile case and they wanted it, needed it, had to have it SOLVED...so MacDonald was their target. The man had character flaws, no doubt. He either was cheating on his wife at the time or had been having affairs in the past. The man just did not get a fair trial. The military conveniently left out, mishandled and lost evidence. The acid tripping hippies did not leave just one strand of hair from a wig at that scene. There was other evidence under the fingernails of the victims that were never identified. There is so much more stuff, but to get a run down, you'd have to view the site I referred to earlier.

The crime scene wasn't secured from the get go and that, IMO, is what messed this case up from the get go.

Sunnmoon
11-03-2003, 04:02 PM
I am a civilian but work for the military doing background checks for their Top Secret, Secret clearances at UC.

Love to discuss this with everyone. It's still a very fascinating case. I'd love to have evidence that changes my mind. The blood evidence alone convinces me though. The table could have been moved or put on it's side from CID...who knows. The military doesn't take care of their own, just like the police don't take care of civilians, and there is always room for human error. I do believe the military went bumbling in, not realizing what a horrendous crime had taken place. (Forensics weren't as good as they are now and much was overlooked and bumbled in this one)

Each MacDonald family member had a different blood type. And the story Jeffrey MacDonald told of hippies coming in and what had happened.......didn't jive with the blood forensics.

Remember too the Manson/Tate Murders happened previous to this. And the similarities to that one.

Ft. Bragg is a city in itself. When this happened it was removed and a distance from Fayetteville and Springlake. (This happened 33 years ago!) I still find it very strange that anyone would say they saw a girl in a willowy hat walking around on Ft. Bragg.....it was just so removed from other towns. The MP's would have picked her up or questioned her if it was early in the morning on post.

And those dwellings are duplexes. It's so totally strange that all this went on and the other half of the duplex heard nothing. The walls are paper thin and the master bedroom where most of the activity took place are wall to wall.

formyboys
11-03-2003, 04:09 PM
OMG! Sunnmoon, you may have very well done my ex-husband's and my background check!;- I'm kidding, in a way... He had a top secret security clearance. I remember after we married, I had to go to CID and give them fingerprints...etc...and people came out and talked to our neighbors about us...etc...

tthoman
11-03-2003, 04:10 PM
FORMYBOYS:

Thanks for the info.....appreciate the update. It has been a long time since I read Fatal Vision.....and have not followed up on the case.

Sunnmoon
11-03-2003, 04:15 PM
Yep, that's what I do, fingerprints, and gather information for securing a clearance. I'm the one who sent out the investigators to talk to your neighbors....hahaha!

All in a day's work, I tell future lieutenants to come forth with any derogatory information before the military does, and they tell me they stole candy when they were 12....it makes me laugh.

Biggest thing I've ever come across was someone not telling me they had been accused of rape, and had to let them know the Army would not accept them. They were devastated. If the person would have told me in the first place, we could have placed him. But he was being dishonest, and that struck him out with the military.

tthoman
11-03-2003, 04:32 PM
FORMYBOYS:

Just read your link in detail.........the blood evidence of the palmprint on the foot of the bed is enough to re-open this case.......not to mention other points. Disturbing.....

formyboys
11-03-2003, 04:34 PM
tthoman: no problem! It's been a while for me reading and talking about the case also! Might not change your mind, but you might find the info worth it! At least we appreciate each another's views and opinions on here!

Sunnmoon: I got a kick out of your post! But, y'all are really an extremely thorough group of individuals. I mean when my ex and I were dating, he said they went back to his hometown and talked to EVERYBODY....I thought all that stuff only happened in the movies until we decided to marry and he said if there was anything I ever did, I better tell him now!LOL Seriously though, y'all are sort of "feared" by the incoming military and the one's that are staying on and need to keep up to date with their clearances...my husband was always worried about our credit, making sure we paid on time b/c I didn't really realize that credit is reviewed in these types of things b/c he might sell secrets so that we could have paid off bills, etc...he was always uptight about money, but it's paid off for him (no pun intended)....as in his career...:-) I swear I thought I was living in the movies when I had to go to CID! Y'all are also looked upon highly by the military, in the way that you do an outstanding job, I've heard it from many, not only being married to military, but working with the military for several years! Keep up the good work!

FlowerGirl
11-03-2003, 05:58 PM
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY ....etc

Years pass... people mellow to the facts, a new generation is now adults and they all start saying.. "Maybe he is innocent."
NOT!!!

This man is a physcopath from the getgo. He is a convincing liar and has no remorse. Remembering back..his attitude is much like ISP and his stories are just a far fetched.

He has had years and years to perfect his story...and beg witnesses that never were...to come forward. Don't fall for his lies.

Flower Girl

NaturalSelection
11-03-2003, 08:16 PM
Hi Daphne
I didn't see the Dick Cavett show, but like Scott Peterson, he probably enjoyed the attention and even the notoriety, at least to a point. Psychopaths are usually neurologically underaroused and are often thrill seekers, so they crave the spotlight. He could probably hardly restrain himself because he believed he fooled everyone -- NOT.

P.S. I'm open to the possibility that he didn't do it and believe that any impropriety on the part of the State is extremely troubling. However, have you seen him interviewed? The guy is flamboyant and totally unconvincing as a grieving husband and father.

smellsarat
11-03-2003, 08:35 PM
I saw the interview with jeff MacDonald on LKL last week...this case started my interest in true crime. I saw the Dick Cavett interview as well and his attitude was unbelievable, almost like he was having a good time being a celebrity. There is also a web site available by Jeff himself, you can find it on a web search. I looked at it a few months ago and must admit it had me wondering. He has prominent Boston attys and they are working to exonerrate him. I too always believed he was guilty.I did read Final Justice years ago-forget much of it, but still thought he was guilty. But although I question the totality of that I still think he did it. Does anyone remember mention of there being an article in the MacDonald home of the Manson murders by hippies, which MacDonald could easily have read up on. And he was having an affair altho on LKL he said One night stands...It will be interesting to see what the DNA test shows but I still think hes GUILTY!!!I think his in-laws had every reason to be angry tht such a horrific crime left him able to pick up his life as is nothing had happened. Sounds like chuck Stuart-the Boston pregnant wife Killer, and like SP!!!

Old Broad
11-03-2003, 09:02 PM
There is a thread on the unsolved cases here about this case, you might have to go back a while to find it.
IMO there are to many things still unanswered about this case and because of that my mind is open that the possibility is there he could be innocent.
It makes no sense to me that it has taken this long for the DNA to be tested, and yet it still is not done. If there was no question about his guilt I'd think it would have been done a very long time ago.
The floppy hat hippie girl was in fact the daughter of a high ranking officer there at the base. She at times made statements making it sound like there was in fact a group of men who had it out for the Dr because he did not go along with the drug problems they had but turned them in. The strands of hair matches the wig she was known to wear at that time.

There have been some people wrongly imprisoned, we know that now because of the DNA testing that finally set them free.
So I come back to the question again, Why does the military not want to do this testing?

smellsarat
11-03-2003, 09:05 PM
Well, from what I understand..DNA testing costs lots of money! Remember a few months ago it came out that thousands of rape kits had gone untested because of the cost. That to me is totally disgusting!And criminals would all be crying for DNA tests...

Old Broad
11-03-2003, 09:30 PM
smellsarat, it's my believe that they are willing to pay for the testing themselves.

If I was ever in a situation where I was innocent yet thought to be guilty, I would hate to think a test would be refused to me in my fight for freedom.

tthoman
11-03-2003, 10:31 PM
This case sounds like one that the Innocence Project @ the Cordoza Law School should look into, ...which is sponsored by the NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers).

This worthwhile project was founded by Barry Scheck and another attorney. They have been able to prove the innocence of the wrongfully convicted through the use of DNA.

Nova
11-03-2003, 11:53 PM
Emotions matter. Without them, we can't reason very well, because we can't assign a proper value to different behaviors or potential consequences.

What a brilliant statement! I don't believe I've ever seen it put so well...

For the record, I've read Fatal Justice and most of what's on the web as well as McGuinness' book. MacDonald is guilty as sin AND he may also deserve a new and fairer trial.

hockeymom
11-04-2003, 12:12 AM
tthoman,
The Innocence Project has gotten involved. MacDonald said that in the interview.

tthoman
11-04-2003, 12:48 AM
HOCKEYMOM:

Excellent! Only caught the last few moments of the LKL interview. Now maybe the case can be put to rest one way or another.....Wasn't that a re-broadcast? How long ago, do you know?

I never watch LKL anymore as I find it excruciating watching 'Ole Lar' go through his antics.

smellsarat
11-04-2003, 12:51 AM
It was previewed last week. I think even Jeff MacDonald was aggrvataed at LKL's stupidity and inability to grasp simple concepts...Frustrating to get his point across. Larry wished him good luck and shook his hand....I guess larry thinks either he's innocent or Larry is an idiot...Pick One!!!!

tthoman
11-04-2003, 01:17 AM
Larry has become a cranky old man.............

azwriter
11-04-2003, 04:05 AM
Smellsarat,
You are right about the article on the Manson murders being in Jeff's home. It was in a Life or Look magazine found inside his house.
The writing on the headboard in his bedroom would be something picked up from that article.
I still believe he is GUILTY.

Sunnmoon
11-04-2003, 12:42 PM
Natural Selection - like the footnote at the bottom of your entry. (Will never forget your psychic and religious entries - you've made me think twice about these type of things)

Ft. Bragg is an open post, and yes at that time, drugs were used by many soldiers with a simple article 15 that followed sometimes. Ms. Stoeckley was a druggie, so was her boyfriend (an ex soldier), unfortunately most of the people who have "confessed" to this crime have died. So we may and probably won't ever know the truth.

So in regard to MacDonald his situation was very similar to Scott Peterson's. Simply convenient that their pregnant wives no longer exist along with the children they were carrying. How convenient for them to continue their lives with their mistresses and extravagant means of living in the lap of luxury????????

Both had boats, both had champagne tastes on beer budgets, many similarities.

MissMisty
11-05-2003, 07:17 PM
Dr. McDonald is innocent.
Misty

smellsarat
11-05-2003, 07:19 PM
I think he's guilty as did the jury and subsequent appeals courts.

Ivy
11-05-2003, 08:27 PM
Jeffy boy is GUILTY. He murdered his wife and two baby daughters. The BS he spews about Stobley (or whatever her name was) who confessed (she recanted her testimony again and again) to being the hippie woman in the wig that took part in the murders, was a drug addict and mentally unstable. Even her own mother said she was liar and no one should believe a word that came out her mouth.

McDonald says he refuses to apologize for playing golf two weeks after the vicious murders. After all, he says, as tragic as the murders were, he had a right to get on with his life.

McDonald is a sociopath. How can anyone not see that?

azwriter
11-05-2003, 09:19 PM
Ditto Ivy,
Dr. McDonald is just looking for a new generation to BS about his unfair conviction. In his mind, of course he's innocent. This man has had many, many passes in front of the judicial system and look where he is now. Behind bars where he belongs.

tipper
11-05-2003, 10:22 PM
I read Fatal Justice. I think IF what it says is true, the man deserves a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Old Broad
11-07-2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Ivy
Jeffy boy is GUILTY. He murdered his wife and two baby daughters. The BS he spews about Stobley (or whatever her name was) who confessed (she recanted her testimony again and again) to being the hippie woman in the wig that took part in the murders, was a drug addict and mentally unstable. Even her own mother said she was liar and no one should believe a word that came out her mouth.

McDonald says he refuses to apologize for playing golf two weeks after the vicious murders. After all, he says, as tragic as the murders were, he had a right to get on with his life.

McDonald is a sociopath. How can anyone not see that?

So, what you're saying is to not believe this woman when she recanted her confession right?

About MacDonald playing golf, IMO this now reminds people to much of O.J., we can't believe any person who plays golf makes them guilty of murder. I'm sure also that there are many people who murder who never play golf!
It does not surprise me that someone would actually do things after a time when their family is killed. I remember when my brother died very suddenly, that night I was so upset and had to get out of the house, I drove up to the lake just to try and clear my head and trying to make sense of everything. Was my heart broken? Yes. Was I crying uncontrollably? Yes. People do not lock themselves up in a room when death happens. Some take longer than others to get back to their regular schedule, some take less, being in their regular schedule actually helps them! It's not like he went straight from the hospital to a strip club to have a lap dance.

smellsarat
11-07-2003, 04:15 AM
Its one thing when a loved one dies....But Jeff MacDonalds entire family WAS SLAUGHTERED.... IF that happened to me I think I'd be in a hospital or a padded room for awhile...NOT appearing on Dick Cavett preening like some celebrity....:nono:

nanandjim
11-07-2003, 10:34 AM
My vote is GUILTY, and he is where he belongs...
Wanted to add: Amazing how the intruders left him alive but brutally slaughtered the weaker and more defenseless members of the family...Doesn't make sense to me...

piper1
11-07-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
This case sounds like one that the Innocence Project @ the Cordoza Law School should look into, ...which is sponsored by the NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers).

This worthwhile project was founded by Barry Scheck and another attorney. They have been able to prove the innocence of the wrongfully convicted through the use of DNA. Remember Barry Scheck also got off OJ!:fuming:

SisterSocks
11-11-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by rondata
Have any of you read fatal justice?


Yes I have and your point?;)

SisterSocks
11-11-2003, 09:50 PM
He is a sick Bastard ... HE IS GUILTY . The book with Manson had Lee Marvin on the cover and was laying under the over turned coffee table.

Toth
11-11-2003, 10:56 PM
I've always felt that guy was set up by the military and railroaded by the judge and prosecutor.
Its real bad because he seems to not only have asserted his innocence but actually identified the real killers and he was still convicted with some improper testimony from the forensics types as well.

Ghostwheel
11-12-2003, 04:01 AM
Here's and interesting site.

Under Crime scene, it is claimed:
"The investigators claim the crime scene was staged.

They base this theory on the fact that the coffee table was found turned on its side, as opposed to on its top. Their theory is the table was "top heavy" and could not have landed on its side unless it was placed that way. The lead investigator, Bill Ivory, substantiated this theory by explaining the 30 times or more times investigators kicked the table, it always fell on its top

Before the hearing, Colonel Rock went to the crime scene to test Ivory’s theory and reports. In the presence of witnesses, Colonel Rock kicked the coffee table. It fell on its side, hitting the rocking chair and resting on its edge.

Colonel Rock returned to the hearing to establish that his one kick, contrary to Ivory’s claims, resulted in the coffee table coming to rest, exactly as seen in the crime scene photographs. Exactly as Ivory had claimed was impossible. "

Sunnmoon, did you hear about Colonel Rock?

Ghostwheel
11-12-2003, 04:02 AM
Here's an interesting site.
http://www.karisable.com/jmacd.htm

Under Crime scene, it is claimed:
"The investigators claim the crime scene was staged.

They base this theory on the fact that the coffee table was found turned on its side, as opposed to on its top. Their theory is the table was "top heavy" and could not have landed on its side unless it was placed that way. The lead investigator, Bill Ivory, substantiated this theory by explaining the 30 times or more times investigators kicked the table, it always fell on its top

Before the hearing, Colonel Rock went to the crime scene to test Ivory’s theory and reports. In the presence of witnesses, Colonel Rock kicked the coffee table. It fell on its side, hitting the rocking chair and resting on its edge.

Colonel Rock returned to the hearing to establish that his one kick, contrary to Ivory’s claims, resulted in the coffee table coming to rest, exactly as seen in the crime scene photographs. Exactly as Ivory had claimed was impossible. "

Sunnmoon, did you hear about Colonel Rock?

Ghostwheel
11-12-2003, 04:21 AM
This is interesting. I've never read up on this case before. It seems pretty odd that both the "mysterious woman" Stoekley and the man she says committed the murders Mitchell, both dies of cirrhosis of the liver within months of each other. Must have been heavy druggies.

The case is full of holes, though. It would make sense that he'd have fewer wounds, because he was stronger and could fight back. I didn't see reports of "barely wounded" though. I saw reports of a pretty good set of abdominal wounds and a punctured lung, as well as several other injuries. You don't usually puncture your lung if you're faking your own wounds. I need to read more.

Blazeboy3
11-12-2003, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Nova
Jeffrey MacDonald is absolutely, 100% guilty! I always think of him when people describe sociopaths who lie so convincingly because they have no conscience.

But apparently it is also true that evidence was withheld at his trial and the government isn't in any hurry to run DNA tests that might appear to exonerate him.

I, too, would like to hear what the neighbor says. There was a soldier at the time who said he saw a "hippy girl in a floppy hat" (MacDonald's description of one of the assailants) in the neighborhood - but that's a far cry from seeing a band of hippies enter MacDonald's house!

There are some who believe MacDonald is guilty even IF there actually were some "hippies" at the house that night. No matter who was there, we are still left with babies and a housewife who were "overkilled" while a grown soldier (the trainer for the Army boxing team) was barely wounded during a "life-and-death" struggle with multiple assailants.

DITTO!; Well posted; a pregnant housewife/mother at that!!!I remember it being a boy that Collette was pregnant with when Jeff murdered her IMHO/....??? (FWIW...I've strayed away from my homebase(JonBenet) and have never posted anywhere else...this is new to me...forgive me?!

Toth
11-12-2003, 08:51 AM
There is an entire chapter devoted to how his wounds went from serious, life-threaning wounds to mere scratches over the course of the investigation.
Odd how wounds change their severity isn't it?

smellsarat
11-12-2003, 10:08 AM
As far as self-inflicted wounds...Chuck Stuart-the pregnant wife killer from Boston,,nearly killed himself staging his supposed attack by a "black man"He ended up with a colostomy bag..which I'm SURE was not the outcome he wanted!!...so even though the wounds can be serious -doesn"t mean they didn't do it to themselves...What still sticks in my mind is his behavior After the crime...I tend to think McGinnis's drug theory would make sense...I know these prescribed drugs can sometimes cause behaviors otherwise not even contemplated....(They are now saying paxil may cause children to commmit suicide-the drug companies do not test things enough or hide their research....with grave consequences...)They can be as dangerous as street drugs..

ann92
11-13-2003, 11:01 AM
Dr. McDonald did not do this.
The MP screwed up big time in their investigation. The Lady with the floppy hat was seen my the MP on their way to the McDonalds house. They were told to keep it hush hush.
He did not get a fair trail and I belive he was set up.

Sunnmoon
11-13-2003, 11:23 AM
Baloney, Baloney, Salami -

Well, they probably did screw up the investigation, but blood forensics tell a different story.

It's just way too convenient for him to continue on with his extravagant lifestyle and his mistresses.

Like Scott - I think he just cracked and killed them all and then had to cover his butt. Yeah, why would they do such damage to his wife, and his daughters. Nearly crushed his baby's chest cavity and stabbed the crap out. He gets a couple "tiny" stab wounds not deep enough to harm a rabbit. I don't buy that crock of bulldoodoo!

smellsarat
11-13-2003, 12:31 PM
Baloney....

Ghostwheel
11-13-2003, 01:40 PM
Sunnmoon, did you see my question about Colonel Rock and the table?

How would you his testimony that he was able to get the table to end up on it's side after only one try? A table with nothing around it would respond differently than a table with other furniture around it, furniture that might stop it's fall, or slow down it's fall, and I think that might have been the difference between the tests where it always fell on it's top, and the one Colonel Rock did.

Smellarat,
Left a sponge....That was good!

OK, this is out of sync. There were two posts before this that are now after this. Weird.

Ghostwheel
11-13-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by smellsarat
Baloney....
Baloney, the lady with the floppy hat was not seen? Baloney, he didn't get a fair trial? Baloney, he didn't do it? Baloney and cheese on wheat, with a little mustard (yum)?

I find it hard to believe he got any kind of fair trial, myself. What could be fair about screwed up evidence. And if he did do it, DNA evidence won't clear him, so what's the harm?

I would, however, think that a Doctor would know better where to stab himself where he wouldn't punture important parts of his anatomy, but I could be wrong (I've known some pretty poor doctors).

smellsarat
11-13-2003, 03:40 PM
He's just lucky he didn"t leave a sponge inside his own body...
ha,ha,ha, sorry getting late...couldn"t resist!!:D :D

jednme
12-10-2003, 12:48 AM
I am new to this board but have been studying the MacDonald case for some time. I have read FV, FJ, MacD's own website including the short study by Bost, reviewed all documents posted there as well as various newspaper articles from the archieves of both the Fayetteville Observer and LA times. I have discussed this case at length but would be interested in discussing it here.

As far as the civil trial is concerned, it ended in a mistrial based on the very first question the jury was faced with answering. The question, as I understand it, concerned MacD's behavior and not that of McGinniss.

The last witness to testify for the defense (McGinniss) was Cleve Backster, the polygraph examiner that administered the poly to MacD in 1970. Backster was hired by the defense to examine MacD in 1970 but MacD claims that the polygraph was never completed because Mr. Backster started asking inappropriate questions about sex with animals, etc. However, Mr. Backster had a different story to tell. On the witness stand during the civil trial and under oath, Backster testified that MacD failed that polygraph test. MacD claims it was never completed and Backster claims it was and in fact MacD failed it.

Nova
12-10-2003, 09:57 PM
Welcome, Jed.

You are right about the mistrial. The matter was then settled, as I described it above, to avoid a second trial.

But the issue of the civil trial wasn't MacD's behavior per se; after all, MacD was the plaintiff. He sued McG for fraud. MacD basically claimed McG agreed to write a book favorable to MacD, all the while intending to write a "hatchet job". McG's defense was that he originally thought MacD was innocent but changed his mind during the trial. As I said, neither man ever admitted he was wrong about this issue.

McGinnis is a very talented writer, IMHO, but I don't believe MacD is guilty because McGinnis says so. I think one can evaluate the evidence for one's self.

I didn't know about the polygraph testimony. Thanks for sharing that.

Imon128
12-10-2003, 10:08 PM
It is MO that Jeffy McD is guilty. I think McG feels that in his bones and is exonerated, in a sense, now. He looked at Jeffy in some depth, a depth that only somebody that close, can do. JMO, of course.

Nova
12-11-2003, 01:38 PM
JMO, too, Imon. My sense from the book is that the more McG was exposed to MacD's sociopathic behavior, the more suspicious McG became of the doctor's "all-American boy" persona. McG also interviewed many people who knew MacDonald and learned of a number of incidents where the doctor exploded in bursts of violent or near-violent rage. Hearing these accounts, it seemed more reasonable to McG that the doctor might well have "snapped" on that terrible night in Fayetteville.

Now these other outbursts did not end in murder, to be fair, nor would they be admissible in court. But their admissibility only goes to the issue of legal innocence; McG (and the rest of us) are entitled to consider that info in forming our personal opinions.

Imon128
12-11-2003, 01:42 PM
Aah, Nova, I concur about the "All American Boy" idea. I think Jeffy just had a very hard time admitting to anybody that he wasn't perfect. Collette found that out the hard way, and I feel sure that upon reflection, McG, realized it, too.

Jeffy snapped and couldn't take it back so the public wouldn't see his 'other side', so he concocted the stupid story that he did. So very sad for Collette and the kids...and all who loved them and believe in God. Jeffy needs to rot.

Nova
12-11-2003, 03:39 PM
Darn! I can see you and I aren't going to have much of an argument about Dr. MacD. I agree with every word of your post.

Imon128
12-11-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Nova
Darn! I can see you and I aren't going to have much of an argument about Dr. MacD. I agree with every word of your post.

LOL, Nova. Every now and then, life's good, when we agree. More often than not, you seem to agree with my thoughts. Jeffy had an ego bigger than all outdoors, IMO, and that created a place in his mind that didn't allow for his human side that could be ugly, at times. Unfotunately for him, he let it fester to the point that it went beyond ugly. I only wish Collette would have loaded up those kids and fled to McG's home, but I sure don't blame her as she was obviously innocent and naive. God rest her, and her children's, soul. Let Jeffy waller in his squaller, while here on earth, IMO.

nanandjim
12-11-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
.... Jeffy needs to rot.
Finally...Imon...we have found some common ground. As much as I hate to say these words.....I have to admit I agree with you!:) Jeff MacDonald committed this crime. Must add, though, his behavior and attitude reminds me of SP. As a matter of fact, both Jeff and Scott were notorious womanizers and also either sociopathic or narcisstic. Both of their wives crossed them, and both ended up being murdered.... Both men think they are smarter than everyone else and are accusing the police of framing them....Just some of the similarities...

jednme
12-23-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Nova
Welcome, Jed.

You are right about the mistrial. The matter was then settled, as I described it above, to avoid a second trial.

But the issue of the civil trial wasn't MacD's behavior per se; after all, MacD was the plaintiff. He sued McG for fraud. MacD basically claimed McG agreed to write a book favorable to MacD, all the while intending to write a "hatchet job". McG's defense was that he originally thought MacD was innocent but changed his mind during the trial. As I said, neither man ever admitted he was wrong about this issue.

McGinnis is a very talented writer, IMHO, but I don't believe MacD is guilty because McGinnis says so. I think one can evaluate the evidence for one's self.

I didn't know about the polygraph testimony. Thanks for sharing that.


Hi there Nova - I would have to go back and check the source again but I recall reading in "The Journalist and the Murderer" by Janet Malcolm that there was a special verdict form which had, I think, something like 37 questions on it that required a yes/no answer from the jury. The jury hung on the very first question however. That question had something to do with whether or not MacD had uphelp his part of the contract by making all necessary material available to McGinniss in order to write the book. I have not quoted verbatim here and I am pretty certain this information came from that book. There was one juror who said no and the others said yes - they never made it past that first question.

What I should have said that the first question did not involve the behavior of McGinniss (rather than what I did say, which was that it "involved the behavior of Mac") -

Just recently I found the article published in the LA Times. I still ponder why MacD continues to deny the truth surrounding that polygraph and insteads promotes the "it was never completed" claim despite the legal record and testimony being available to the public. Anyhoo...

Imon128
12-23-2003, 01:26 AM
Jeffy has blood on his hands, IMO. He is a master at trying to purport his perfectness, but he's so transparent...

Babcat
12-23-2003, 06:44 AM
This case is what got me interested in true crime.

I wouldn't speculate one way or the other about the pathology of Jeffrey MacDonald. I believe he is somewhat narcisstic. I think most people when put under a microscope will come out with some type of diagnosible disorder.

I am not convinced either way of MacDonald's guilt or innocence. I am very convinced he was not given a fair trial. There are so many reversible errors in the trial that a first year law student would have ordered a new trial. But since the appeal goes to the sitting judge at the trial... no such thing was ordered. For him to grant a new trial would be an admission of poor ruling and poor performance as a judge.

Discovery was witheld from defense, the judge was the former father-in-law of a member of the prosecution team, and the prosecutor was allowed to interogate rather than cross exam MacDonald on the stand. His questions would have been an automatically sustained objection in any other court but this judge's court. "If the evidence shows (fill in the blank) do you have an explanation for that?" Every one of his questions for long periods of time were just like that.

NOBODY can prove a negative, but more importantly no defendent is charged with proving his innocence. And the questions were worded so that false "evidence" was sometimes inserted into the questioning and Mr. MacDonald was charged to explain how it got there. Even authentic evidence cannot be explained by an innocent man. Yet the questions were worded to make him explain or prove himself a liar. If he could explain... he MUST have done it. If he was just guessing... only the guilty would surmise a decent explanation. If he could not explain... it "proved" he was a lying killer. It was a complete play on words designed to literally trick the jury into hearing something they were not. Yet the judge allowed a completely ILLEGAL round of questioning despite any objections by the defense.

As for Mr. McGinnis... He didn't just deceive Jeff MacDonald. He fabricated nearly HALF of the "facts" in his book. He introduced some "amphetamine addicted motive" that was completely unsupported by any evidence and he was compelled at the civil trial to admit he made it up as a form of "poetic license".


But the accuracy of the book wasn't even the issue in the civil trial. The issue was whether the author violated his contract with Dr. M, a contract which gave the author unlimited access to Dr. M's defense, based upon Dr. M's assumption that such access would convince the author of Dr. M's innocence. Was the author obligated to tell Dr. M as he became convinced of Dr. M's guilt? Dr. M says yes. The publisher and author say no. The jury never got to decide.

Au contraire... the accuracy of the book WAS the issue. But MacDonald couldn't sue for libel or defamation from prison since it would go nowhere. And he since he had contracted McGinnis to do the book with an open ended agreement about the author's conclusions, he couldn't sue for breech of contract. He sued for fraud. And it was McGinnis that ended the trial before it came to conclusion and settled because he himself was forced to admit on the stand that he, Joe McGinnis, did not believe MacDonald had killed his family.

The FOIA has opened the files from the case and found enormous discrepencies, exculpatory evidence that was buried including blond wig hairs, candle wax, statements from MPs on the scene admitting to altering the scene before photos were taken. A glass with remnants of chocolate milk from the refrigerator that contains unidentified fingerprints that are also inside the refrigerator was found and logged. The blood type of the urine on the sheets in the master bedroom was found to be that of the other child, and not the child prosecutors contend was in the bed with her mother. There are unidentified hairs not belonging to any member of the family that were found clutched in the two-year-old's hand. And there have been confessions from two people, not just one mentally disturbed woman, recorded. One came from a young man dying after an accident. When the man he confessed to reported the confession to police, some checking revealed that the dying man was the first person named by the woman who had confessed all along.

smellsarat
12-23-2003, 03:54 PM
Babcat..this case also got me...and probably many others interested in true crime....(Also Tommy Thompsons' books "Blood and Money"(?) about the Texas dr who murdered his wife ala Claus Von Bulow and "Serpentine" about the guy who murdered and robbed tourists in Asia)...Good books both...
But anyway that info in your post ..is that from Fatal Verdict? , where did you get that....or from his web-site...Curious...Thanks!

Babcat
12-24-2003, 02:16 AM
nothing comes from his website. Of course that would only be a self serving place. I got the transcripts of the civil trial. And some info came from the book "Fatal Justice". In that book the authors back up their claims with researchable facts. And I did research them.

Toth
12-24-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Babcat
I am very convinced he was not given a fair trial. Right from the start things were bad: the crime scene was trampled by curious MPs, the forensic work was abysmal, one of the first responding MPs saw a woman with a floppy hat, later McDonald mentioned a woman with a floppy hat. The Judge clearly did not allow a fair trial. Later police work was absurdly botched too.

I've always felt that the trio may have been encouraged to select that particular victim. It was not some random crime.

jednme
12-24-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Babcat
[B]This case is what got me interested in true crime.

Au contraire... the accuracy of the book WAS the issue. But MacDonald couldn't sue for libel or defamation from prison since it would go nowhere. And he since he had contracted McGinnis to do the book with an open ended agreement about the author's conclusions, he couldn't sue for breech of contract. He sued for fraud. And it was McGinnis that ended the trial before it came to conclusion and settled because he himself was forced to admit on the stand that he, Joe McGinnis, did not believe MacDonald had killed his family.

Babcat - You got this information from the civial trial transcript? I recall the trial ending in a hung jury which would conflict with the idea that McGinniss himself ended it before it came to conclusion. I don't recall McGinniss being forced to admint that he did not believe that MacDonald had killed his family, he only agreed that he was not absolutely certain that it happened the way he (McGinniss) theorized it to happen in the book. What part of the transcript does McGinnnis say he did not believe MacD killed his family. Also, if you have the transcript, could you tell me what Cleve Backster testified to? I know he testified that MacD failed the polygraphed but what else?

OctSurprise
12-24-2003, 06:08 PM
So I come back to the question again, Why does the military not want to do this testing?

This question was from Old Broad back in early November.

MacDonald was no longer in the military when he was tried and convicted of the murders. He was working in Los Angeles and was a civilian. Any DNA testing must be done by MacDonald's attorneys in coordination with the prosecutor's office.

I've read almost everything there is to read about this case. While I believe he is guilty, he probably should be given another trial.

The only problem with that is some of the evidence is no longer available. The DNA testing would be definitive, if and when it's done. It's unfortunate that 30+ years have passed and many witnesses are dead.

Evidence collection wasn't what it is today, even when it's done in a sloppy manner.

And to the person who commented on Barry Scheck getting OJ off, it didn't happen that way. Barry Scheck was responsible for some of the testing that was done, he only presented his results. I have great respect for his work and the whole Innocence Project. Many people would still be rotting away if his group hadn't stepped in and proved their innocence.

atbay
12-29-2003, 09:57 AM
This question was from Old Broad back in early November.

MacDonald was no longer in the military when he was tried and convicted of the murders. He was working in Los Angeles and was a civilian. Any DNA testing must be done by MacDonald's attorneys in coordination with the prosecutor's office.

I've read almost everything there is to read about this case. While I believe he is guilty, he probably should be given another trial.

The only problem with that is some of the evidence is no longer available. The DNA testing would be definitive, if and when it's done. It's unfortunate that 30+ years have passed and many witnesses are dead.

Evidence collection wasn't what it is today, even when it's done in a sloppy manner.

And to the person who commented on Barry Scheck getting OJ off, it didn't happen that way. Barry Scheck was responsible for some of the testing that was done, he only presented his results. I have great respect for his work and the whole Innocence Project. Many people would still be rotting away if his group hadn't stepped in and proved their innocence.

This case tests my ability to ascertain the truth listening to a suspect. One thing that should concern all system-watchers, though, is why on earth it has taken six YEARS to still not complete the dna testing! Laci is dna tested in a matter of days. It seems the prosecution is stalling on this issue. Why? The points that always bothered me about this case is the "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" quote that just never rang true, and the "Jeffrey why are they doing this?" Which doesn't ring true. Nothing else bothers me and I believe he makes a pretty good case in the LKL interview.

God forbid if anyone breaks into a house and doesn't kill a parent, only the children. We know now that Sam Shephard was innocent. As hard as MacDonald fought MGinnis tellls me he may well be innocent. Shouldn't everyone be concerned that court-ordered dna tests have never been completed?

hollyjokers
12-29-2003, 12:52 PM
This is a great thread. I have read FV & FJ, watched the movie a few times, though it's been quite awhile. I wondered why there hasn't been more discussion of these murders with the similarities between Jeff McDonald & Scott Peterson. I wasn't totally convinced of his guilt after FV, & FJ raised even more questions. I think, as others here do, that at the least, Dr. McDonald deserves a retrial. He may not be innocent, but clearly this case was mishandled.

jednme
12-29-2003, 07:51 PM
This case tests my ability to ascertain the truth listening to a suspect. One thing that should concern all system-watchers, though, is why on earth it has taken six YEARS to still not complete the dna testing! Laci is dna tested in a matter of days. It seems the prosecution is stalling on this issue. Why? The points that always bothered me about this case is the "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" quote that just never rang true, and the "Jeffrey why are they doing this?" Which doesn't ring true. Nothing else bothers me and I believe he makes a pretty good case in the LKL interview.

God forbid if anyone breaks into a house and doesn't kill a parent, only the children. We know now that Sam Shephard was innocent. As hard as MacDonald fought MGinnis tellls me he may well be innocent. Shouldn't everyone be concerned that court-ordered dna tests have never been completed?

Hey Atbay - concerning the MacDonald murders one of the parents was killed, a pregnant mother and wife - in MacD's case, of the four family members in the apartment, he was the sole survior - the two girls and their mother were all murdered. Also, if one were to ever find themselves in such a horrible position, one option would be the course that Mr. Smart took and submit to a lie detector test. Of course they are not admitted in a court of law but as an investigative tool they can be very useful. That is, if you aren't hiding anything, submit to a poly. If you are, refuse it. And without question you should not be caught in a lie.

As to Sam Sheppard, I haven't fully studied the case, but I do believe there is still some reason to suspect that he was responsible for the murder of his wife. After his convinction for the murder of his wife he was granted a new trial because of the media attention surrounding the first trial. The second trial did concluded with a not guilty verdict. For some reason the prosecution did not present the "mistress" during the second trial and from what I understand, they left the jury grasping for a motive. I also understand that his attorney during the second trial was much more agressive than the first one. Despite the not guilty verdict in his favor, Sam Sheppard's son tried to completely clear his father and prove his father factually innocent through a civil trial but that trial did not produce the desired results for the son. So Mr. Sheppard was found not guilty but I am not certain that proves him innocent of the murder. OJ was found not guilty but many still think he did it and with good reason.

Sam Sheppard was not set free because of undisputable evidence of his innocence, i.e. DNA, and no one else has ever been charged with Mrs Sheppard's murder.

I find quite a few similarities in these two murders, the Sheppard murder and the MacDonald murders. To name a few both men were doctors, both were asleep on the couch when the intruders entered and not in bed with their spouses. Both claimed still unidentified intruders were responsible for the murders. Both men were unfaithful to their spouses during the times of the murder. Both claimed to have fought the intruders but were knocked unconscious. Both men were injured during the struggle but survived - both heard their wives calling out.

I am not going so far as to say that I feel certain that Sam Sheppard killed his wife but I don't know that he was innocent either. Evidence still remains that points to him and not an intruder.

atbay
12-29-2003, 09:18 PM
"That is, if you aren't hiding anything, submit to a poly. If you are, refuse it. And without question you should not be caught in a lie."

Glad you have absolute faith in polygraphs. I hope you never wind up in jail accused of something you didn't do, and submit to a poly only to have the results labeled "inconclusive". Might dampen your enthusiasm for this limited use investigative tool. I know it did mine in that very circumstance.

MacDonalds wounds were almost fatal. The DNA tests were ordered by a court over six years ago. Doesn't he deserve the results by now? You know, a few years back, in the State of CA., the average sentence served for murder one was 7 1/2 years! That's a little light, but Dr. MacDonald has been in prison over 20 years, and awaiting test results for over six years seems to me to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Have you read FV/FJ? You make no mention of it if you did. Also, are you aware the window washer in the Shephard case died in prison for another murder? I was sleeping on the couch Xmas night while my SO was alseep in the BR. Glad nobody broke in by your standards of suspicion. Maybe all the couples that are both slaughtered while they sleep, as they are many, are punctuated by couples spending the night apart which presents a tougher target for the intruder.

smellsarat
12-29-2003, 09:22 PM
My recollection is that MacD's injuries were NOT life-threatening...Not that that seals the deal as Chuck Stuart in Boston nearly did himself in trying to look like a victim...

jednme
12-30-2003, 06:28 PM
"That is, if you aren't hiding anything, submit to a poly. If you are, refuse it. And without question you should not be caught in a lie."

Glad you have absolute faith in polygraphs. I hope you never wind up in jail accused of something you didn't do, and submit to a poly only to have the results labeled "inconclusive". Might dampen your enthusiasm for this limited use investigative tool. I know it did mine in that very circumstance.

MacDonalds wounds were almost fatal. The DNA tests were ordered by a court over six years ago. Doesn't he deserve the results by now? You know, a few years back, in the State of CA., the average sentence served for murder one was 7 1/2 years! That's a little light, but Dr. MacDonald has been in prison over 20 years, and awaiting test results for over six years seems to me to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Have you read FV/FJ? You make no mention of it if you did. Also, are you aware the window washer in the Shephard case died in prison for another murder? I was sleeping on the couch Xmas night while my SO was alseep in the BR. Glad nobody broke in by your standards of suspicion. Maybe all the couples that are both slaughtered while they sleep, as they are many, are punctuated by couples spending the night apart which presents a tougher target for the intruder.

Hey Atbay - I don't have "absolute faith" in polygraphs but the polygraph test Mr. Smart submitted to and passed certainly helped move that investigation along early on when Elizabeth was kidnapped from her home. It can be useful as an investigative tool. MacD took and failed a poly early on in 1970 - He denies this but I guess I don't really blame him. Why would he want everyone to know he failed a polygraph? I am not in favor of polygraphs being used in a court of law because I don't have "absolute faith" in them but certainly they can be and are sometimes useful in ruling out suspects. I do not think them infallible however. You have apparently had some experience with a polygraph, I however have never taken one.

I would strongly disagree that MacD's wounds were near fatal. He was suffering for a 20% partial collapse of a lung when he arrived at the hospital. Other than that, he had no wounds that penetrated any other organ or even required stitching. His vitals were stable.

Yes, I do know that the window washer died in jail for a different murder. He also corresponded with Mr. Sheppards son many times regarding the Sheppard murder. The window washer may have been guilty of the other murders but that does not prove him responsible for the murder of Mrs. Sheppard. There is no evidence that the window washer killed Mrs. Sheppard.

And to clear up something else I posted, I never meant to imply that sleeping on the couch makes you guilty of murder. I think I have a little more sense than that. What I was commenting on was the similarities of both cases. Of course I don't think that sleeping on the couch makes you guilty of anything except sleeping on the couch. I too have been guilty of falling asleep on the couch watching television.

Yes, I have read both FV and FJ several times over and I have been to MacDs website and read everything there including the short study by Bost and all the posted FOIA documents. I have read all the appeals I can find on the net, the 1985 appeal and the 1990 appeal, I have searched archives in the LA Times and Fayetteville Observer. I have requested the Art32 and Grand Jury transcripts.

Dreamnine
11-13-2011, 06:11 PM
Guilty..