PDA

View Full Version : Jeffrey Macdonald asks for a new trial


Pages : [1] 2

missyjane77
03-27-2010, 10:54 AM
It's been 40 years since MacDonald's wife, Colette, and their two young daughters were brutally murderedin their home in Fort Bragg, N.C., and 31 years since MacDonald, a former army surgeon, was convicted in their murders. He claimed that a group of people, high on drugs, attacked him and murdered his wife and children.

MacDonald's lawyer, Joseph Zeszotarski, argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., that MacDonald deserves a new trial, based primarily on statements made by people tied to the case that had not previously been heard and new DNA findings that MacDonald's team wants submitted to the court.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/fatal-vision-murders-jeffrey-mcdonald-seeks-trial/story?id=10179806

(Mods, I wasn't sure where to post this. Please move this if it's not in the right place.)

believe09
03-27-2010, 11:08 AM
Lets give Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez new trials while we are at it, OK? JK. I read the "new evidence" and it in no way shape or form is new trial worthy in my honest opinion. I would love to know how MacDonald is funding his defense after all of these years.

Blondie in Spokane
03-27-2010, 07:08 PM
Why doesn't this guy just shut up, go away and do his time???? Ever since I saw that clip of his appearance on the Dick Cavett Show it settled it for me without any doubt, the way he mugged for the camera and played to the audience. What an ass. What a psychopath in every sense of the word. Poor Collette and babies.

PomMom12
03-27-2010, 07:31 PM
I have followed this case for as long as I can remember and I think JM should get a trial as I believe there has been enough reasonable doubt created since he was found guilty in 1979.

The woman in the white floppy hat - HS - admitted that she had been in the house the night of the murders. Unfortunately, investigators decided that she was not reliable because of her drug use.

JB, the prosecutor in the case, has refused to answer many questions about the case and even served time in prison himself.

And last, by not least, JMs story has not changed in 40 years. He has been asked numerous times about what happened on that night in 1970 and his answers have always been the same.

:twocents:

missyjane77
03-27-2010, 08:46 PM
From what I understand, there is also evidence that wasn't presented to the jury....things like a long blonde synthetic hair that didn't match any of the dolls in the house. I'll see what I can dig up.

believe09
03-27-2010, 08:59 PM
The new evidence is that the defense claims Jim Blackburn threatened Helena Stockley, evidence which is hearsay since Helena is dead and unable to testify to being threatened-this is the same Helena Stockley that wrote a letter to the judge that the defense also was threatening her back during the actual trial. Her testimony was deemed unreliable because she recanted as many times as she claimed she was there and was unable to relate the crime or even the layout of the house.

The other piece of evidence is that one of the children had a hair under a fingernail that did not match any of the occupants of the house-this is the defense that claims this.

MacDonald was a Green Beret hardened by YEARS of working out, who had NOT one scratch on him BUT a single incision which was just deep enough to puncture his lung. There was blood in the bathroom where the scalpels were kept and there were rubber gloves taken from that location.

Not one other occupant of that house posed any kind of reasonable threat to the intruders. Not one of them. But the one person who could have been a danger has a single wound on him of any consequence. He has no ice pick wounds, in spite of his claims, he has no head wounds. NOTHING. And his wife and children were SLAUGHTERED.

MacDonald is EXTREMELY fortunate his crime occurred when it did. He is lucky they threw his pajama pants away. He is pond scum and I wish oh wish that people would stop investing time in him.

alsmom
03-27-2010, 10:00 PM
Why doesn't this guy just shut up, go away and do his time???? Ever since I saw that clip of his appearance on the Dick Cavett Show it settled it for me without any doubt, the way he mugged for the camera and played to the audience. What an ass. What a psychopath in every sense of the word. Poor Collette and babies.

I had never seen that before. I just looked it up and saw a small snippet on youtube. uhhggg it reminded me of the guy on 48 hours a couple of weeks ago. I forget his name (Bob something) but the episode was "Thou Shalt Not Kill". He acted creepy like that. He was mugging for the cameras. He made me :sick:

believe09
03-27-2010, 10:10 PM
Please dont be offended by my post-JM is incredibly guilty in my mind. The Dick Cavett show is one of many many pieces of evidence that nailed it for me. I respect the thoughts and feelings of others that may disagree....please dont let my harsh words about him dissuade you from expressing your own thoughts!!

Nyla4
03-27-2010, 11:09 PM
It's been 40 years since MacDonald's wife, Colette, and their two young daughters were brutally murderedin their home in Fort Bragg, N.C., and 31 years since MacDonald, a former army surgeon, was convicted in their murders. He claimed that a group of people, high on drugs, attacked him and murdered his wife and children.

MacDonald's lawyer, Joseph Zeszotarski, argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., that MacDonald deserves a new trial, based primarily on statements made by people tied to the case that had not previously been heard and new DNA findings that MacDonald's team wants submitted to the court.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/fatal-vision-murders-jeffrey-mcdonald-seeks-trial/story?id=10179806

(Mods, I wasn't sure where to post this. Please move this if it's not in the right place.)

Thank you for posting this missyjane77. I think this creep is right where he belongs but I like to keep up on any news about him. I have no doubt that this deranged lunatic is guilty as heck and will only leave prison in a pine box. Why doesn't he just give up his pathetic claims that the drug addled hippies murdered his beautiful pregnant wife and adorable daughters admit his crimes and accept his fate? His arrogance and ridiculous story make me so sick. Does he really think that the public and the courts will buy his bs?

txsvicki
03-28-2010, 02:35 AM
I saw a tv program about this case the other night. Maybe he does deserve a new trial since a woman did confess, the prosecutor was charged with crimes, the 24" long blonde synthetic hair was found, and Helena knew that a spring on the kids rocking horse was broken. She claims that she tried to ride it and an MP did see a similiar looking woman standing on the corner with a blonde wig and floppy hat on. However, I don't see how all the stab holes in Jeffrey's PJ top matched with the stab wounds to his wife.

Mercyneal
03-28-2010, 08:58 AM
Jeffrey MacDonald is a psychopath and a murderer. Everyone should read "Fatal Vision."

The guy had had multiple, multiple affairs all through his marriage - including one with a 16 year old girl - the daughter of his parents' friends, whom he was driving across country. He started a NEW AFFAIR immediately after the murder,while in the Army Barracks hospital.

The woman in the floppy hat is just some story he made up. Helena Stockley was a small, wasted waif of a woman and wasted druggy who couldn't possibly have committed those murders and organized others to do it with her that night. Her brain was fried.

Additionally, MacDonald went on the Dick Cavett show after he was initially cleared by the Army and joked about the murders. That's what made his murdered wife's father, Freddy Kassab, suspicious. Kassab then repeatedly asked MacDonald for the transcript of the hearings the Army conducted against Macdonald. Macdonald wouldn't give them to him. Finally, Macdonald called up Kassab and LIED and said he had met the GUY who had murdered his family in a bar and that he and other guys had killed the guy and buried him. Turned out this was just a lie to get Kassab from getting too curious.

MacDonald as I said is a lying sociopath who feels no remorse about killing his family.

missyjane77
03-28-2010, 10:19 AM
They were talking about this on the radio the other morning. Several people who had read "Fatal Vision" were actually convinced of his INNOCENCE after reading the book. I'm curious why, after 40 years, he wants a new trial now.

believe09
03-28-2010, 10:57 AM
They were talking about this on the radio the other morning. Several people who had read "Fatal Vision" were actually convinced of his INNOCENCE after reading the book. I'm curious why, after 40 years, he wants a new trial now.

Because he can. It is how he maintains his sense of self. He is incapable of simply doing his time and paying for the crime, imo. He is completely unwilling to be out of the limelight. HE LOVES the attention of the attorney conferences, of people discussing him, of playing that he was wronged.

We are not talking about his attorneys uncovering evidence that shows he was innocent. We are talking about attorneys coming up with minutia that someone hopes would get his conviction overturned under reasonable doubt.

It is ridiculous imo. And I would still like to know how someone who is not supposed to have profited in anyway from the slaughter of his wife, unborn son and daughters is funding his defense.

believe09
03-28-2010, 11:02 AM
FWIW, I have never met anyone convinced of his innocence. I have met many people who believe that the first responders hopelessly screwed up the crime scene.

But they did not screw up the blood trail. They did not screw up the stationary pajama top that was stabbed through. They did not screw up the bloody fingerprint of MacDonalds on the Life Magazine with the article about the Manson Murders. They did not screw up the fact that MacDonald was virtually uninjured. They did not screw up the mugging on the Dick Cavett show.

MacDonald had 10 years of freedom and prosperity after slaughtering his family. He should thank his lucky stars that he received that much and set it to rest. But he wont. Imagine the dreams that man must have, especially about Krissy.

PomMom12
03-28-2010, 12:02 PM
Jeffrey MacDonald is a psychopath and a murderer. Everyone should read "Fatal Vision."

The guy had had multiple, multiple affairs all through his marriage - including one with a 16 year old girl - the daughter of his parents' friends, whom he was driving across country. He started a NEW AFFAIR immediately after the murder,while in the Army Barracks hospital.

The woman in the floppy hat is just some story he made up. Helena Stockley was a small, wasted waif of a woman and wasted druggy who couldn't possibly have committed those murders and organized others to do it with her that night. Her brain was fried.

Additionally, MacDonald went on the Dick Cavett show after he was initially cleared by the Army and joked about the murders. That's what made his murdered wife's father, Freddy Kassab, suspicious. Kassab then repeatedly asked MacDonald for the transcript of the hearings the Army conducted against Macdonald. Macdonald wouldn't give them to him. Finally, Macdonald called up Kassab and LIED and said he had met the GUY who had murdered his family in a bar and that he and other guys had killed the guy and buried him. Turned out this was just a lie to get Kassab from getting too curious.

MacDonald as I said is a lying sociopath who feels no remorse about killing his family.

And having affairs makes a guy a murderer? If so, the government better build more prisons!

kemo
03-28-2010, 02:36 PM
The "Cult of Dr Jeff" is funtioning? There are still folks who believe in his innocence? I'm surprized.

Anyone who want's up to speed on the case need only concern themselves with the foresnic evidence, This was a textbook example of a staged crime scene. The scene at the house appeared consistant with McDonald's account of the crime. Once forensic testing discovered where the murders actually occured before the bodies were rearranged, it was obvious what really happened.

You have to give him credit'; perhaps it was his military training, but he really did deal well with the the situation "on the fly". He butchers his family in a fit of anger then is able to come up with a credible story, stages "serious" but not lifethreatening injuries to himself, and rearranges the crime scene convinciingly in a couple of hours. His quick thinking allowed him to walk free for years. (although he would probably have walked out years age if he had just boned up to it from the get go.)

For those of you who can't accept that a "clean cut green beret" could have done this when there were all kinds of "drug crazed" hippies running around, consider this:
When McDonald found out that his father-in-law, who believed in his "innocence" was being a pest to the military, pressuring them to continue tne investigation, he tried to get his father-in-law to "back off". He made up a story that he and some friends found out who did it and "took care of them" themselves, and by pressuring the military to pursue the investigation, his father-in-law could get HIM in trouble.

Can anyone explain why an "innocent" Dr Jeff would have done this?

Mercyneal
03-28-2010, 02:43 PM
Um Pommom 12, I didn't say that having affairs makes you a murderer. It certainly goes to show that he was not the loving faithful husband he purported himself to be. Additionally, his wife was pregnant with their THIRD Child. He was feeling trapped.Just before he murdered he, he lied to his wife and said he was traveling with the boxing team of the Green Berets to Russia and that he would be out of communication with her for a couple of months. Turned out it was a HUGE lie. He wasn't hired to go with them. Turned out he was trying to rendezvous with an old honey.. But really you need to read the book. He certainly had a motive, in his mind. He was trapped, didn't want the third kid, so he pulled a " Scott Peterson"on his pregnant wife and then clubbed and stabbed his little girls to death - so hard that their brains were splattered on the wall.

There is also schizophrenia in his family. His brilliant brother became a psychotic schizophrenic who also had violent episodes.

And there's no reason for him to lie about having found the murderer himself and killed him. That is truly bizarre. He just wanted the case to go away.

passionflower
03-28-2010, 02:46 PM
5th appeal.........
What was his sentence? LWOP?
I'm surprised some bleeding heart judge hasn't left him out.
Usually murderers get out in what 20 years???

JBean
03-28-2010, 03:02 PM
here is some old discussion on McD.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1925&highlight=macdonald (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1925&highlight=macdonald)


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17848&highlight=macdonald (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17848&highlight=macdonald)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89604&highlight=macdonald (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89604&highlight=macdonald)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61925&highlight=macdonald (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61925&highlight=macdonald)

Mercyneal
03-28-2010, 03:31 PM
I remember that MacDonald had a violent temper and many people recall him exploding with rage over the smallest things.

He's very much like Scott Petersen - a lying, schmoozing, womanizing sociopathic murderer.

Also there is some indication from the psychiatric reports that MacDonald may have had homosexual tendencies and worked hard to distance himself from them.

He certainly did not like strong women. His wife was meek and deferred decisions to him. But once she went back to college and started to speak her own mind and challenge MacDonald, he didn't like that.

The girlfriends he chose after the murder were all fluffy, empty-headed secretaries with names like Candy. Never any woman with a powerful career. He always objectified women when he talked about them, and described them only by their physical attributes as in "she was a statuesque blonde."

When you see him interviewed now, he's developed a nervous tic, where he keeps blinking. It's as if he's trying to keep down in his mind what really happened and has to work hard to make sure that the reality of what he did never intrudes.

believe09
03-28-2010, 03:53 PM
Oh my yes-the boxing trip to Russia. Never adequately explained that one. Incommunicado behind the iron curtin at the time his son was supposed to be born.

Even if I never knew any of the physical evidence, the way he speaks about women and the Dick Cavett show would have been enough to so set off my hinky meter big time.

It fascinates me the way he captures people, however....I always go back and re read Fatal Vision when discussions arise. The Kassabs loved him and believed in him-what do you think it took to get them to believe otherwise about him? He blew it big time...huge. That was his unraveling...once they guessed the truth they did what any parent would have done and moved heaven and earth to see the murderer of their loved ones locked up.

believe09
03-28-2010, 03:55 PM
I remember that MacDonald had a violent temper and many people recall him exploding with rage over the smallest things.

He's very much like Scott Petersen - a lying, schmoozing, womanizing sociopathic murderer.

Also there is some indication from the psychiatric reports that MacDonald may have had homosexual tendencies and worked hard to distance himself from them.

He certainly did not like strong women. His wife was meek and deferred decisions to him. But once she went back to college and started to speak her own mind and challenge MacDonald, he didn't like that.

The girlfriends he chose after the murder were all fluffy, empty-headed secretaries with names like Candy. Never any woman with a powerful career. He always objectified women when he talked about them, and described them only by their physical attributes as in "she was a statuesque blonde."

When you see him interviewed now, he's developed a nervous tic, where he keeps blinking. It's as if he's trying to keep down in his mind what really happened and has to work hard to make sure that the reality of what he did never intrudes.

Anyone remember his brother testifying at his trial. Oh my, wowl. Jay I think his name was-yikes.

missyjane77
03-28-2010, 04:02 PM
He is married now, so that may explain the funding of his defense in some part.

Mercyneal
03-28-2010, 04:11 PM
Macdonald tries for a new trial every few years. Yawn. I do remember the testimony of Jay Macdonald at the trial. When they asked him where he lived he said something like "In the solar system, on planet earth." Totally looney-tunes.

In 2005, Macdonald was also trying to get a new trial. Colette's brother Bob Stevenson went on Larry King to discuss the case. I found what he said to be very interesting. Macdonald had also had an affair with a 16 year old ( or was she 15?) when he was married. So Bob Stevenson's theory is very interesting:

KING: Bob Stevenson, the brother of Colette, the wife who was killed, has contacted us back. He wants to add something about motive, Bob.

BOB STEVENSON, BROTHER OF JEFFREY MACDONALD'S MURDERED WIFE: [I]Thank you Larry.

Over the years, the most often asked question that's ever come to me even by friends wanting to sew this up in their minds as what could the motive have been? What could it have been?

Fred Kassab developed a theory, but frankly nobody has had the guts to print or to air his theory. Fred Kassab always believed that Jeffrey MacDonald is a child molester.

You see, one of the key facts that he lied about is the urine stains. As secretors and each of them having different blood types, it could easily be shown whose urine that was. That urine did not belong to the youngest child. It belonged to the oldest child.

Why would a man create a lie that doesn't need to be created? Even a clever liar only changes those facts that need to be changed for a reason. Fred thought about the many reasons that could be possible and in his mind, there is only one.

He believed that this narcissistic rage and fury came about because Jeffrey was caught in some form of a sexual act with his oldest child by my sister. In a very chilling report done by one of the psychiatrists, Dr. Hirsch Lazaar Silverman, it shows MacDonald to be a man who under the proper stimulation could easily have created such a crime and committed those acts.

believe09
03-28-2010, 07:14 PM
Macdonald tries for a new trial every few years. Yawn. I do remember the testimony of Jay Macdonald at the trial. When they asked him where he lived he said something like "In the solar system, on planet earth." Totally looney-tunes.

In 2005, Macdonald was also trying to get a new trial. Colette's brother Bob Stevenson went on Larry King to discuss the case. I found what he said to be very interesting. Macdonald had also had an affair with a 16 year old ( or was she 15?) when he was married. So Bob Stevenson's theory is very interesting:

KING: Bob Stevenson, the brother of Colette, the wife who was killed, has contacted us back. He wants to add something about motive, Bob.

BOB STEVENSON, BROTHER OF JEFFREY MACDONALD'S MURDERED WIFE: [i]Thank you Larry.

Over the years, the most often asked question that's ever come to me even by friends wanting to sew this up in their minds as what could the motive have been? What could it have been?

Fred Kassab developed a theory, but frankly nobody has had the guts to print or to air his theory. Fred Kassab always believed that Jeffrey MacDonald is a child molester.

You see, one of the key facts that he lied about is the urine stains. As secretors and each of them having different blood types, it could easily be shown whose urine that was. That urine did not belong to the youngest child. It belonged to the oldest child.

Why would a man create a lie that doesn't need to be created? Even a clever liar only changes those facts that need to be changed for a reason. Fred thought about the many reasons that could be possible and in his mind, there is only one.

He believed that this narcissistic rage and fury came about because Jeffrey was caught in some form of a sexual act with his oldest child by my sister. In a very chilling report done by one of the psychiatrists, Dr. Hirsch Lazaar Silverman, it shows MacDonald to be a man who under the proper stimulation could easily have created such a crime and committed those acts.

Leave it to you to sew this up for me Mercy-I never ever ever understood why the lie about whose urine was in the bed. Could not figure it out. It makes perfect sense-even when faced with the information that it was Kimberly's urine and not Kristen, he insisted it was not Kimberly. IIRC he made a comment along the lines of why he would assume the CID could type blood correctly instead of addressing the issue.....would MacDonald have turned to his child when Colette became unattractive to him? Falls in line with his level of self involvement and some of the other testimony from young women about his wolfish behavior.

Really Really interesting. Someone should hit that really hard....

Nyla4
03-28-2010, 08:17 PM
5th appeal.........
What was his sentence? LWOP?
I'm surprised some bleeding heart judge hasn't left him out.
Usually murderers get out in what 20 years???

He was found guilty of one count of murder in the first degree for the murder of his daughter Kristen and two counts of murder in the second degree for the murders of his pregnant wife Colette and daughter Kimberly. His sentence was life with the possibility of parole for all three murders. His sentences are running concurrently.

MacDonald always said he would never apply for or attend a parole because he is innocent but in 2005 he did have a parole hearing. He actually went into his hearing and stated he should be released because he is innocent. I can't believe that he thought he would get a recommendation for parole just by proclaiming his innocence. With all the years he has been incarcerated and been around other inmates, jail house lawyers, real lawyers, and access to the prison law library you would think he would know that in order to gain parole you actually have to accept guilt and show remorse for your crimes. His arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

waltzingmatilda
11-28-2011, 09:22 AM
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20111020/ARTICLES/111029987

~snipped~

MacDonald has an evidentiary hearing at 10 a.m. Nov. 28 in the Federal Courthouse in downtown Wilmington, according to the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office, although the date is subject to change.

JoeFromLB
11-28-2011, 11:51 AM
http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2011/11/09/1136239?sac=Home

The hearing has been postponed until April 30, 2012. His lawyers are withdrawing from the case due to a conflict of interest. They will have to be replaced.

MayraMM
09-16-2012, 02:00 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/jeffrey-macdonald-dna_n_1886547.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

I've semi-followed this case for years. It'll be interesting to see what turn this is going to take now!

katydid23
09-16-2012, 02:08 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/jeffrey-macdonald-dna_n_1886547.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

I've semi-followed this case for years. It'll be interesting to see what turn this is going to take now!

But just because they found three hairs in the home, that does not mean they were the killers. I am sure the kids had friends over and there were housekeepers or workers and neighbors and others who entered the home that week.

thefragile7393
09-16-2012, 02:17 PM
The same turn that it took years ago when he was convicted. He just does not give up.

MayraMM
09-16-2012, 02:51 PM
If I remember correctly, the day before the murders they had a barbecue or some other sort of get together. If the DNA comes up as just not belonging to anyone in the family, it wouldn't mean anything. If, tho, they match it with a known criminal in the databases, that would make a world of difference.

But, it's not just DNA that they're going to present, apparently.

NancyA
09-17-2012, 07:50 AM
Ooh, I searched all over for a thread about this case (one I'd never heard of) after a visit to Costco where I picked up and read the sleeve blurb for a new book - A Wilderness of Error - by Errol Morris. All I could find was this thread in the Archived Cases forum where I posted.

I did go back and get the book and managed to devour 200 pages or so yesterday afternoon before getting dragged away by husband out to dinner with friends. Obviously it's coming from the POV that JM is innocent and, I have to say, EM's account is very compelling thus far and leads me to a presumption of at least reasonable doubt and an unsafe conviction. Trying not to jump to any hasty conclusions though, I'm going to find and buy the other book - Fatal Vision - referenced in the Archived thread and read that too before forming an opinion.

hollyjokers
09-17-2012, 09:08 AM
I read Fatal Vision & came away thinking he could still be innocent (granted i was about 12), then years later another book came out, Fatal Justice, which was supposed to prove his innocence once & for all. It & some of the tv interviews MacDonald gave are what convinced me he is the only person to have committed this crime.

The urine theory was very interesting. I'd never heard that.

hollyjokers
09-17-2012, 01:36 PM
It seems like in every town, there are "characters." An oddball that everyone recognizes, whether they are slow, a little crazy or dress weird. I guarantee Helen Stoakley was one of Fort Bragg's characters. Funny, he could describe her to a T, but only offered a generic "black guy" description about the guy he was physically fighting, though he was observant enough to notice the man was wielding an ice pick.

believe09
09-17-2012, 01:40 PM
It seems like in every town, there are "characters." An oddball that everyone recognizes, whether they are slow, a little crazy or dress weird. I guarantee Helen Stoakley was one of Fort Bragg's characters. Funny, he could describe her to a T, but only offered a generic "black guy" description about the guy he was physically fighting, though he was observant enough to notice the man was wielding an ice pick.

An ice pick that never injured him.

lillygator
09-17-2012, 02:09 PM
I remember that movie so vividly.....I recall the father in law coming in and all the holiday cards were on the mantel yet none were knocked over as if there had been a struggle.....

MayraMM
09-17-2012, 02:48 PM
Ooh, I searched all over for a thread about this case (one I'd never heard of) after a visit to Costco where I picked up and read the sleeve blurb for a new book - A Wilderness of Error - by Errol Morris. All I could find was this thread (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183356) in the Archived Cases forum where I posted.

I did go back and get the book and managed to devour 200 pages or so yesterday afternoon before getting dragged away by husband out to dinner with friends. Obviously it's coming from the POV that JM is innocent and, I have to say, EM's account is very compelling thus far and leads me to a presumption of at least reasonable doubt and an unsafe conviction. Trying not to jump to any hasty conclusions though, I'm going to find and buy the other book - Fatal Vision - referenced in the Archived thread and read that too before forming an opinion.

Watch the movie, too, if you can find it.

MayraMM
09-17-2012, 02:52 PM
I remember being convinced of his innocence. Then I remember there were all these trials, guilty/not guilty, free/not free, and I thought it odd with the double jeopardy laws.

I would love to see modern forensics and profiling applied to this case, see what the experts would say now.

KathrynL
09-17-2012, 03:10 PM
This site has lots of case information, and input from Colette's brother.

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

JenniferTx
09-17-2012, 05:45 PM
I know I'm an outsider on my thoughts on this case but I think he is innocent. I believe HS when she confessed to being in the house that night and that her boyfriend was the one that killed Colette.

Madeleine74
09-17-2012, 06:02 PM
Helena Stoeckly was a drug abuser who changed her story about a dozen times. Sometimes she was there, sometimes not, sometimes she couldn't remember. She was determined to be an unreliable witness because she was so impaired she couldn't figure out what day it was most of the time. She was a heroin addict, an alcoholic, and couldn't determine reality.

What hippies walk into someone's home, don't have any weapons on them, go searching and find an icepick and a knife and also take a slat of wood matching one daughter's bed and go on a rampage on a 2 yr old, a 5 yr old and a helpless sleeping pregnant woman? Not even Charlie Manson would allow the hurting of a child (though I guess he didn't care about pregnant women).

You have to look at the evidence to see how ridiculous JM's claims are and how they don't match the crime scene.

hollyjokers
09-17-2012, 07:56 PM
That's what I mean about her being a Fort Bragg character. I'm sure she was known about town as that strung-out hippie with the blond wig & floppy hat. He may have come across her in the hospital & knew she probably didn't know what day of the week it was. Also, the hippies knew where the surgical gloves were kept in the very back of the cabinet under the sink.

Fake leather boots. I'm rereading Fatal Vision & he says the girl is wearing fake leather boots. But can't even give a basic description of the "negro" or the two white guys.

Boodles
09-17-2012, 08:14 PM
Helena Stoeckly was a drug abuser who changed her story about a dozen times. Sometimes she was there, sometimes not, sometimes she couldn't remember. She was determined to be an unreliable witness because she was so impaired she couldn't figure out what day it was most of the time. She was a heroin addict, an alcoholic, and couldn't determine reality.

What hippies walk into someone's home, don't have any weapons on them, go searching and find an icepick and a knife and also take a slat of wood matching one daughter's bed and go on a rampage on a 2 yr old, a 5 yr old and a helpless sleeping pregnant woman? Not even Charlie Manson would allow the hurting of a child (though I guess he didn't care about pregnant women).

You have to look at the evidence to see how ridiculous JM's claims are and how they don't match the crime scene.

And of course when the hippie woman broke into the house to murder children, she made sure to light a candle, hold it in front of her face during the struggles around her, while chanting "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs.". That phrase was described in an article about the Manson family in a magazine found on the coffee table.

It's really mind boggling that JM has had so many chances in court. That poor family (Colette's).

Madeleine74
09-17-2012, 09:18 PM
I'm confident that MacDonald is not going anywhere. His only way out of prison is in a pine box. All the evidence (blood, fiber, weapons, staged scene)...nailed him and nothing he comes up with is going to erase that.

hollyjokers
09-17-2012, 09:56 PM
From KathrynL's link:

Freddy Kassab's take on the four intruders, must have been during the Joe McGinness lawsuit.

"When I read the case the first few times, I was skeptical about the existence of the 4 intruders--as skeptical & unbelieving as have been almost all who have familiarized themselves [with] this material. But on rereading portions of the transcripts again last nite, I have now come over to the belief that, as MacDonald has kept insisting, there were indeed "4 intruders."

MacDonald's goals from the beginning to this day have been to impress, to prove his manhood, to con, to screw--whomever he wanted, whenever he wanted, wherever he wanted. Many men want a little bit of that kind of freedom, but the normal man, the normal man [with] a wife & a family, derives enough genuine & deep & lasting satisfaction from family life, that the balance between irresponsible "freedom" & commitment to his wife & his children--whom he truly loves more than he resents--allows him to forego that kind of self centered freedom, without too much "burden" or sense of entrapment. For MacDonald the balance tilted far to the other side--to the point where the resentment was volcanic, the love only paper thin. So there came to be specifically 4 people--not 7, not 2--who intruded most especially upon his "space," 4 people who got in the way of his being the macho celeb & playboy he needed to be in order even to feel alive. 4 intruders--three white, one black--just like MacDonald told us. Who were they? I can name 3 of them: Colette, Kimberly, Kristy. The 4th intruder--black not in skin but figuratively black: as yet unseen, dark, invisible--the half-grown baby that Colette was carrying, MacDonald's as yet unborn son, as it turned out to be--the 4th intruder.

In MacDonald's fatal blindness--blindness to the deep & genuine feelings that animate ordinary people & unite them to their loved ones--in his fatal blindness, he murdered the intruders, all 4, & making himself free at last! Free at last--to live out his image of the big shot, the glamour boy, the stud. This is the unbridled egomania, the wanton disregard for the feelings, even for the lives, of those who intruded most heavily upon his dreams--that Joe McGinniss quite correctly labeled "pathological narcissism" in his book. And I am being flown out here 2500 miles to be asked is Joe McGinniss' interpretation/assumption a fair one! Well, my answer is that how MacDonald dealt [with] his family shows me that in one detail at least MacDonald was an honest man--for though he lied as usual [with] his mouth, [with] his brain he told the truth. Yes, there were 4 intruders in his life. And out of his pathological narcissism, he killed them. I do not know of a narcissism more pathological than this."

Madeleine74
09-17-2012, 11:23 PM
For anyone who didn't get to see the excellent 1980s interview Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" conducted with MacDonald, McGinnis, Colette's parents and others, you'll want to watch:

www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7419216

JeannaT
09-18-2012, 01:29 AM
I may be the only one praying that he gets a fair, new trial. I have thought he was innocent all along.

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 01:55 AM
There were unforgivable mistakes made in the investigation, but the mistakes do not account for the blood evidence, the lack of ANY forensic evidence in the living room area of attack, his many lies such as not owning the ice pick, knives & wooden club, or how he & a green beret buddy hunted down & killed one of the real killers. No reason for an innocent man to lie about those things.

What evidence makes you think he has been innocent all along? Testimony of celebrity coroner Thomas Noguchi? He'll state his opinion to suit the highest bidder.

Lots of mistakes made by investigators in Kathleen Savio's case as well, but the truth still shines through in the end.

Charlie09
09-18-2012, 02:37 AM
I may be the only one praying that he gets a fair, new trial. I have thought he was innocent all along.

My dad always thought he was innocent too. (I know that's not what the majority here believe. My mom brought it up last week - and she was glad to see a new trial too!)

Madeleine74
09-18-2012, 03:20 AM
Thinking or believing MacDonald is innocent requires ignoring:

- The many lies he told
- The blood evidence that shows his version of events could not have happened the way he claimed
- The overkill of his family (30+ stab wounds to his 2 yr old)
- His admitted use of amphetamines in the weeks before the murder
- The fact that all the weapons came from inside his home and his denial of owning an ice pick (they did own one)
- The obvious and poorly staged scene in the living room
- The fact there was no blood and nothing was broken and greeting cards were not even disturbed in his story of a "violent struggle with at least 3 hippies in his living room"
- The ice pick holes in his pajama top with no ripping or fraying which match the exact pattern of stab wounds in Collette's chest, when he said he was wearing the pajama top and only used it to cover Collette after she was dead.
- His episodes of rage, which was witnessed by author Joe McGuinnes
- His lie to his father-in-law that he and a buddy found the murderer and "took care of him."
- His blood at the bathroom sink, where he created his self-inflicted stab wound
- The bloody PJ sleeve impression on the sheet that he used to move a body when he claimed he wasn't wearing the pajama top and didn't pick anyone up with the sheets in his bedroom.


And that's just off the top of my head. There is so much more evidence in this case. His in-laws were his staunchest supporters for years and when his father-in-law studied the evidence, all the testimony from the Army inquest, and went through the crime scene in person and compared it to the evidence found and MacDonald's story, he then realized JM murdered his family.

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 03:52 AM
Fatal Vision in its entirety in 18 installments on YouTube. Great quality too.

Fatal Vision TV-movie 1984. The First 10 Minutes - YouTube

STANDREID
09-18-2012, 08:06 AM
They should tell MacDonald to hang it in his @$$ - that's my ruling from the bench:denied:

robinparten
09-18-2012, 08:17 AM
[QUOTE=KathrynL;8369420]This site has lots of case information, and input from Colette's brother.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/transcripts.html[/QUOT

I have always thought hat JM was guilty, I read Fatal Vision back when I was a kid and that book convinced me. If you go to the website referenced above and look at the claims versus facts page, I don't see how you cannot be convinced of his guilt after reading through that whole page.

rollinginit
09-18-2012, 08:26 AM
They had this story on one of those investigating shows....maybe 20/20 or Dateline??? Can't remember, but it was about 1 mth or so ago.

I started off thinking he was innocent, but they showed some interviews with this guy. Smooth guy. He gave off the creep vibe. JMO

kato
09-18-2012, 08:27 AM
Are you friggin' kidding me? Fat chance! He sure has some nerve.

JenniferTx
09-18-2012, 08:43 AM
I may be the only one praying that he gets a fair, new trial. I have thought he was innocent all along.

I guess it is just you and I that believe that he is innocent. I do hope that he does get a new trial.

believe09
09-18-2012, 09:01 AM
Thinking or believing MacDonald is innocent requires ignoring:

- The many lies he told
- The blood evidence that shows his version of events could not have happened the way he claimed
- The overkill of his family (30+ stab wounds to his 2 yr old)
- His admitted use of amphetamines in the weeks before the murder
- The fact that all the weapons came from inside his home and his denial of owning an ice pick (they did own one)
- The obvious and poorly staged scene in the living room
- The fact there was no blood and nothing was broken and greeting cards were not even disturbed in his story of a "violent struggle with at least 3 hippies in his living room"
- The ice pick holes in his pajama top with no ripping or fraying which match the exact pattern of stab wounds in Collette's chest, when he said he was wearing the pajama top and only used it to cover Collette after she was dead.
- His episodes of rage, which was witnessed by author Joe McGuinnes
- His lie to his father-in-law that he and a buddy found the murderer and "took care of him."
- His blood at the bathroom sink, where he created his self-inflicted stab wound
- The bloody PJ sleeve impression on the sheet that he used to move a body when he claimed he wasn't wearing the pajama top and didn't pick anyone up with the sheets in his bedroom.


And that's just off the top of my head. There is so much more evidence in this case. His in-laws were his staunchest supporters for years and when his father-in-law studied the evidence, all the testimony from the Army inquest, and went through the crime scene in person and compared it to the evidence found and MacDonald's story, he then realized JM murdered his family.

:clap: Thank you for this.

ERRN1313
09-18-2012, 09:35 AM
Ooh, I searched all over for a thread about this case (one I'd never heard of) after a visit to Costco where I picked up and read the sleeve blurb for a new book - A Wilderness of Error - by Errol Morris. All I could find was this thread (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183356) in the Archived Cases forum where I posted.

I did go back and get the book and managed to devour 200 pages or so yesterday afternoon before getting dragged away by husband out to dinner with friends. Obviously it's coming from the POV that JM is innocent and, I have to say, EM's account is very compelling thus far and leads me to a presumption of at least reasonable doubt and an unsafe conviction. Trying not to jump to any hasty conclusions though, I'm going to find and buy the other book - Fatal Vision - referenced in the Archived thread and read that too before forming an opinion.

Nancy and anyone else who is interested in this case should also read "Fatal Justice" by Potter and Bost.

I read "Fatal Vision" the day it came out. I just happened to be at Fort Bragg visiting my two brothers who are Amry Special Forces Green Berets. We all sat and read the book as well as driving by 544 Castle Drive which was still boarded up and considered a crime scene. (I still have the pictures we took). I truly believed GUILTY and offered to pull the switch. When I heard about "Fatal Justice", I bought it the day it came out too. After reading that, I now have doubt as to his guilt. If everything in that book is true, then he is innocent. I will have to go out and get the newest book to see which side of the fence I will jump to.

But in all fairness, one can't just read "Fatal Vision" to determine guilt without reading "Fatal Justice" for the other side of the story. Joe McGinniss admits to using "poetic license" and making up parts of the book, he lost a lawsuit for doing just that. If there is any chance he is innocent, I think he needs to get a new trial. FWIW and My 2 cents!
:fence:

JenniferTx
09-18-2012, 09:43 AM
Nancy and anyone else who is interested in this case should also read "Fatal Justice" by Potter and Bost.

I read "Fatal Vision" the day it came out. I just happened to be at Fort Bragg visiting my two brothers who are Amry Special Forces Green Berets. We all sat and read the book as well as driving by 544 Castle Drive which was still boarded up and considered a crime scene. (I still have the puctures we took). I truly believed GUILTY and offered to pull the switch. When I heard about "Fatal Justice", I bought it the day it came out too. After reading that, I now have doubt as to his guilt. If everything in that book is true, then he is innocent. I will have to go out and get the newest book to see which side of the fence I will jump to.

But in all fairness, one can't just read "Fatal Vision" to determine guilt without reading "Fatal Justice" for the other side of the story. If there is any chance he is innocent, I think he needs to get a new trial. FWIW and My 2 cents!
:fence:

I believed him to be guilty years ago but after seeing the interview with HS I switched to not guilty. I still believe it was HS's boyfriend that killed Colette. I just don't understand why HS would lie about being in the house if she really wasn't. She even mentioned the horse that she tried to ride. I think he deserves a new trial and I do believe he is innocent. If he isn't I'd be really shocked.

JulieR
09-18-2012, 10:48 AM
I agree to hear Macdonald's account of events that night, it sounds crazy that anyone else was involved. Just after reading one interview my feeling was lock him up!!! However if the stuff in this summary is true the case should be looked at. Don't get me wrong, Macdonald is a jerk and by all accounts a womanizer, cheat and liar but if evidence was lost, misplaced and not all shown to the jury in his favor I don't find that fair either. Put it all out there and let the jury decide. JMO, I am still reading.

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

NancyA
09-18-2012, 11:02 AM
I agree to hear Macdonald's account of events that night, it sounds crazy that anyone else was involved. Just after reading one interview my feeling was lock him up!!! However if the stuff in this summary is true the case should be looked at. Don't get me wrong, Macdonald is a jerk and by all accounts a womanizer, cheat and liar but if evidence was lost, misplaced and not all shown to the jury in his favor I don't find that fair either. Put it all out there and let the jury decide. JMO, I am still reading.

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

That's my feeling so far, I'm not prepared to dub the guy 'innocent' solely on the basis of what I'm reading - I am allowing for author bias and there's a lot of stuff niggling me - but having googled a few articles about the case I am VERY concerned about the complete botching of the crime scene and the possible tainting and suppression of evidence. To me it doesn't matter, even if it means a guilty man walks, if due process was not followed then he deserves a retrial at the very least.

ERRN1313
09-18-2012, 11:26 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/17/Did-Joe-McGinniss-Condemn-an-Innocent-Man

Interesting read.

Morris, an Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker whose past work was instrumental in freeing a man falsely convicted of murder, takes apart the key elements of the MacDonald case bit by bit. As the New York Times reviewer put it, “[Morris] will leave you 85 percent certain that Mr. MacDonald is innocent. He will leave you 100 percent certain he did not get a fair trial.” But how did we not hear about this sooner? The incompetent and corrupt manner in which this case was handled is outrageous. The errors are glaring. In order to comfortably be assured that MacDonald got a fair trial and is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” we have to forget a number of significant facts.

Forget the fact that a racist good old boy judge was openly contemptuous and hostile to MacDonald’s Jewish lead defense attorney and his opinion seeped into his decisions. Forget the fact that the prosecution withheld evidence and lab reports (and, according to new evidence, actually threatened the key defense witness to make her change her testimony). Forget the fact that the crime scene itself was badly mishandled – with evidence moved, destroyed, contaminated, and even stolen. Forget the fact that MacDonald had no motive for the crime, and that the in-laws who testified against his character had previously testified under oath praising his character. And most of all, forget the fact that MacDonald gave the police who arrived at the crime scene detailed descriptions of four suspects, and the police had spotted a woman who fit his description wandering around his neighborhood at 3 a.m. while they were on their way to the crime scene. Forget the fact that this same suspect also coincidentally confessed to multiple people that she and three men who fit MacDonald’s descriptions were involved in the murder of his family. Forget the fact that she was spotted that night with these three men by multiple witnesses – including by a witness who saw blood on her boots. Forget the fact that one of the men also confessed to the murders. Forget the fact that they even confessed to having a clear motive for wanting to commit the crime specifically against MacDonald and his family.

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 11:29 AM
I read Fatal Justice when it came out as well. About midway through, I realized it was propaganda put out by MacDonald & his team.

As far as HS, she was a very damaged person. When people began hounding her, feeding her details of the case, she started to believe she was there. She never could describe the layout of the apartment & I believe DNA tested recently did not match her or her boyfriend. Also, the cop who signed an affidavit that he witnessed HS being threatened or coerced has been impeached.


The case has been reviewed & dissected multiple times, and JM still sits in jail where he belongs.

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 11:38 AM
"Forget the fact that he lied about which child wet the bed...."

Madeleine74
09-18-2012, 11:39 AM
The problem is when people only use their "feelings" to determine guilt or innocence and refuse to look at the facts in the case. They see an interview with MacDonald and he looks like a nice guy to them so that means he must be innocent. Or they read a couple articles and make a determination from that. Snap judgements in one direction or the other, which is very common.

You have to look at the evidence. There is no way to get past the pajama top evidence (which was certainly not withheld from anyone), there is no way to avoid the blood evidence, of which there is a multitude, and it simply does not match what MacDonald said happened.

Watching one interview with Helena Stoeckly is a fraction of the number of interviews she gave and she changes her story a bunch of times.

How realistic is it that 4 drugged out people entered the MacDonald apartment, carrying no weapons, and they somehow found an ice pick, a knife, and a board that matches a slat from underneath one daughter's bed to then attack a family including 2 little girls? Yet no one woke up when they entered and started looking for weapons, not even MacDonald, who said he was asleep on the couch in the living room, which is right near the kitchen and any entrance into the apartment, and he only awoke upon being "attacked/stabbed" while on the couch. JM's blood isn't on the couch...his blood is found in the bathroom at the sink.

His story reminds me of the story told by Darlie Routier, who sits on death row in TX. Strange how all these killers enter homes without any weapons of their own, go hunting for a murder weapon inside the victim's home, leave no fingerprints or DNA, don't steal anything, and then overkill sleeping children and manage to not kill the primary adult who was right there.

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 11:47 AM
It's just a travesty that men who tell enormous lies (have to be in Russiia during birth of 3rd child), wind up with dead wives & kids, and THEN have to put up with corrupt police, DA's, judges....damn shame.

ERRN1313
09-18-2012, 11:54 AM
I read Fatal Justice when it came out as well. About midway through, I realized it was propaganda put out by MacDonald & his team.As far as HS, she was a very damaged person. When people began hounding her, feeding her details of the case, she started to believe she was there. She never could describe the layout of the apartment & I believe DNA tested recently did not match her or her boyfriend. Also, the cop who signed an affidavit that he witnessed HS being threatened or coerced has been impeached.


The case has been reviewed & dissected multiple times, and JM still sits in jail where he belongs.

If it was just propaganda, how was it backed up with information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act listed at the back of the book. :


Relying on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act -- more


than 10,000 pages of investigative reports, witness statements, affidavits, handwritten lab notes, transcripts, official letters and other documents, Potter and Bost deftly chart a snowballing chain of events leading to a virtual legal whiteout by the time of MacDonald's 1979 trial.


In all, Bost and Potter describe in detail 21 items of physical evidence never presented in MacDonald's defense that clearly point to the presence of others. Among them: a bloody syringe and an unidentified piece of skin under Colette's fingernail that was extensively tested and subsequently disappeared when it did not match MacDonald's

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/IS-JEFFREY-MACDONALD-INNOCENT-Despite-his-3042069.php#ixzz26pyqpFc5

waltzingmatilda
09-18-2012, 11:58 AM
This hearing is being heard near where I live. If the judge grants a re-trial, I will try to go watch a few days and report back to y'all, lol!

I haven't followed this case closely as I was a kid when it happened. But remember my mom thought he was guilty.

Here's the latest from yesterday....

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2012/09/17/macdonald-returns-to-court-fatal-vision-case

Wade Smith, a defense attorney for MacDonald during the 1979 trial, testified Monday. Smith told the court that in January 2005 federal marshal Jimmy Britt told him he heard Helena Stoeckley say she was threatened by the prosecutor.

“He heard prosecutors threaten Helena Stoeckley,” says Errol Morris, author of ‘A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald.'"This is the crucial defense witness in 1979 threaten by the prosecution.”

Smith says Britt, who died in 2008, told him Stoeckley, a police informant and witness in the case, was in the house the night of the murders. And that the prosecutor told Stoeckley she'd be charged with murder if she repeated that story in court.

The hearing will continue Tuesday morning. It could last a few weeks and the judge will ultimately have to decide if it is worth re-examining the case.


wm

ERRN1313
09-18-2012, 12:06 PM
Britt's affidavit:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Images/Britt_Affidavit.pdf

Boodles
09-18-2012, 12:44 PM
Just listening to the snippets on the news and online articles, it sure seems there is a lot of HERESAY in this hearing. I mean, Britt's wife said he said that Helena said....and Stoeckley's brother said his mother said that Helena said.

Where was all this back then when these people would have testified in first person (before they died)?

I'm not a lawyer, but aren't these very belated and multiple-people-removed statements inadmissible? I am curious about whatever DNA arguments the defense may present, but so far these other statements don't seem reliable to me. This seems like grasping for straws. And further torturing the victims' family and loved ones.

oceanblueeyes
09-18-2012, 12:51 PM
I have always believed McDonald was guilty.

But I have a question.

Beth just said on IS that the state lost the skin found underneath Colette's fingernails. So they cant test the DNA now. DNA testing was not available when he was convicted.

My question:

Did JM have fingernail scratches on him at the time of the murders?

oceanblueeyes
09-18-2012, 12:55 PM
Just listening to the snippets on the news and online articles, it sure seems there is a lot of HERESAY in this hearing. I mean, Britt's wife said he said that Helena said....and Stoeckley's brother said his mother said that Helena said.

Where was all this back then when these people would have testified in first person (before they died)?

I'm not a lawyer, but aren't these very belated and multiple-people-removed statements inadmissible? I am curious about whatever DNA arguments the defense may present, but so far these other statements don't seem reliable to me. This seems like grasping for straws. And further torturing the victims' family and loved ones.

They must be admissable or the Judge would not allow them to testify. I guess he does think they are credible witnesses.

It seems a lot like DPs case and the witnesses are able to testify to hearsay statements since the other people are no longer living.

I do believe what the witnesses are saying is true and was told to them but Im not sure this will get him a new trial.

IMO

oceanblueeyes
09-18-2012, 12:57 PM
IS also mentioned something about one of the attorneys got disbarred.

I missed who it was.

Which attorney and what were they disbarred for?

thanks to anyone who will answer.

IMO

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 01:30 PM
It was the lead prosecutor, Blackburn, years after he left the DA's office & in private practice. Disbarred & served time in prison.

I think it was in some of Bob Stevenson's (Colette's brother) remarks that another officer has already impeached Britt's affidavit. Britt was not present at the time he says Blackburn made the threats to HS. MacDonald camp also putting out conspiracy theories about HS's death from pneumonia & liver disease. Oooooh.

I don't think any photographs were taken of JM's wounds but according to Fatal Vision, EMTs treating JM noted puncture wounds evenly spaced on his chest & surmised they looked like fingernail marks.

Boodles
09-18-2012, 01:32 PM
Britt's affidavit:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Images/Britt_Affidavit.pdf

Quite interesting - thanks for posting.

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 01:51 PM
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/and_more.html

Judge Fox stated that if Jimmy Britt truly heard the words he ascribed to Blackburn; it still does not prove a threat by Blackburn. At the time of the interviews, Helena was without counsel and Blackburn would have been obligated to inform Helena what would happen if she testified to being present at the crime scene. The defense cannot prove that Helena would have testified differently without Blackburn’s alleged comments. Judge Fox is saying “for the sake of argument {arguendo}, let us assume Blackburn did say he would indict Helena if she testified that she and friends were present at 544 Castle”. This statement would still not be enough to exculpate MacDonald. Without being able to determine the exact context the statements are useless.

The government filed a Motion for Publication with Modifications, the order discussed herein. There was no legal precedence cited for this motion. The government filed this motion requesting that certain “facts” be edited into the order as Judge Fox issued it. The modifications requested included:

(1) The fact (with substantial documentation) that Helena Stoeckley was not held in Greenville Co. jail prior to being brought to Raleigh for the trial. Helena was held in the Pickens Co. jail.
(2) The fact that (with considerable documented evidence) Jimmy Britt was not the DUSM that picked Helena up in South Carolina and he was not involved in the transport of Helena to Raleigh, NC.
(3) The fact (again with proof) that DUSM Vernoy Kennedy and a female guard signed for and picked up Helena at the Pickens Co. jail the day before her meeting with the defense and then prosecutors in Raleigh.
(4) The fact (more evidence) that DUSM Kennedy met up with DUSM Dennis Meehan and Janice Meehan in the Charlotte NC area and exchanged custody of Helena. The Meehans then transported Helena to the Wake Co. jail in Raleigh NC.

The government hinted that it has additional evidence in its possession that further proves the lies and misrepresentations contained in Jimmy Britt’s affidavit and thus the motions related to his allegations. Jimmy Britt lied. Helena was not in his presence during the drive from S. Carolina to N. Carolina and therefore, it is impossible for her to have made the alleged confessions as contained in his affidavit. By the same token, Britt’s claims of having heard Helena tell Blackburn the same confession the next day during their meeting is a lie. Since Helena was not in his presence the previous day she could not have confessed to Britt, period.

Despite the defense assertions in the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (COA) on these denials, it is not an adjudicated fact that Britt was truthful in his affidavit. In fact, the truth or falsity of Britt’s comments are irrelevant to the rationale Judge Fox used in coming to his decisions. The Motion for COAs is denied. The motion to publish with modifications is denied except for the correction of non-substantive clerical errors in the order.

JulieR
09-18-2012, 01:57 PM
That's my feeling so far, I'm not prepared to dub the guy 'innocent' solely on the basis of what I'm reading - I am allowing for author bias and there's a lot of stuff niggling me - but having googled a few articles about the case I am VERY concerned about the complete botching of the crime scene and the possible tainting and suppression of evidence. To me it doesn't matter, even if it means a guilty man walks, if due process was not followed then he deserves a retrial at the very least.

I agree, it reminds me of the Julie Rae Harper case when she was put away for killing her son, and in the end it was Tommy Lynn Sells who did it. Now no one believed someone just broke in to kill a child, police till this day still say she got away with murder. However they never looked anywhere else.

Macdonald would be better to keep his mouth shut, because hearing him talk it just sounds so unbelieveable but suppressing evidence and a tainted crime scene makes you have to wonder what if...........just what if?

I also think even if there was a smoking gun proving he didn't do it........people would not believe him ( I am not saying I believe him either), but People still think JRH killed her son.

Boodles
09-18-2012, 02:03 PM
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/and_more.html

Judge Fox stated that if Jimmy Britt truly heard the words he ascribed to Blackburn; it still does not prove a threat by Blackburn. At the time of the interviews, Helena was without counsel and Blackburn would have been obligated to inform Helena what would happen if she testified to being present at the crime scene. The defense cannot prove that Helena would have testified differently without Blackburn’s alleged comments. Judge Fox is saying “for the sake of argument {arguendo}, let us assume Blackburn did say he would indict Helena if she testified that she and friends were present at 544 Castle”. This statement would still not be enough to exculpate MacDonald. Without being able to determine the exact context the statements are useless.

The government filed a Motion for Publication with Modifications, the order discussed herein. There was no legal precedence cited for this motion. The government filed this motion requesting that certain “facts” be edited into the order as Judge Fox issued it. The modifications requested included:

(1) The fact (with substantial documentation) that Helena Stoeckley was not held in Greenville Co. jail prior to being brought to Raleigh for the trial. Helena was held in the Pickens Co. jail.
(2) The fact that (with considerable documented evidence) Jimmy Britt was not the DUSM that picked Helena up in South Carolina and he was not involved in the transport of Helena to Raleigh, NC.
(3) The fact (again with proof) that DUSM Vernoy Kennedy and a female guard signed for and picked up Helena at the Pickens Co. jail the day before her meeting with the defense and then prosecutors in Raleigh.
(4) The fact (more evidence) that DUSM Kennedy met up with DUSM Dennis Meehan and Janice Meehan in the Charlotte NC area and exchanged custody of Helena. The Meehans then transported Helena to the Wake Co. jail in Raleigh NC.

The government hinted that it has additional evidence in its possession that further proves the lies and misrepresentations contained in Jimmy Britt’s affidavit and thus the motions related to his allegations. Jimmy Britt lied. Helena was not in his presence during the drive from S. Carolina to N. Carolina and therefore, it is impossible for her to have made the alleged confessions as contained in his affidavit. By the same token, Britt’s claims of having heard Helena tell Blackburn the same confession the next day during their meeting is a lie. Since Helena was not in his presence the previous day she could not have confessed to Britt, period.

Despite the defense assertions in the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (COA) on these denials, it is not an adjudicated fact that Britt was truthful in his affidavit. In fact, the truth or falsity of Britt’s comments are irrelevant to the rationale Judge Fox used in coming to his decisions. The Motion for COAs is denied. The motion to publish with modifications is denied except for the correction of non-substantive clerical errors in the order.

Great post, thanks. Just curious, what do you think was Britt's motivation? Do you think it was a conscious lie or that he was "confused" with his memories?

oceanblueeyes
09-18-2012, 02:32 PM
It was the lead prosecutor, Blackburn, years after he left the DA's office & in private practice. Disbarred & served time in prison.

I think it was in some of Bob Stevenson's (Colette's brother) remarks that another officer has already impeached Britt's affidavit. Britt was not present at the time he says Blackburn made the threats to HS. MacDonald camp also putting out conspiracy theories about HS's death from pneumonia & liver disease. Oooooh.

I don't think any photographs were taken of JM's wounds but according to Fatal Vision, EMTs treating JM noted puncture wounds evenly spaced on his chest & surmised they looked like fingernail marks.

Thank you for answering Holly.

The one thing that does bother me though is they seem to have lost probably the most important piece of forensic evidence and that was the skin found underneath Colette's fingernails.

That would seal JMs fate one way or the other.

And it does bother me when any Prosecutor threatens a witness just because they dont like what they have to say.

I dont know if Hilda told the truth but I do know drug addicts are capable of telling the absolute truth. It happened in the Mel Ignato murder trial and because the jury nor the public believed his drug addicted girlfriend he got away with murder. She told the entire truth..even telling the jury that he made her tape the entire murder. Years later a carpet layer laying carpet in the home found the tape in an airconditioning duct.

I just cant find a reason why Britt would lie about something like this.

I do believe he is most likely guilty even though he has never waivered and maintained his innocence for over 40 years.

But if there is evidence in the case that can be tested I do believe it should.

Of course it will be up to this Judge to decide if all this evidence warrants a new trial.

ETA: Is he appearing before Judge Fox again?

IMO

JenniferTx
09-18-2012, 02:46 PM
The problem is when people only use their "feelings" to determine guilt or innocence and refuse to look at the facts in the case. They see an interview with MacDonald and he looks like a nice guy to them so that means he must be innocent. Or they read a couple articles and make a determination from that. Snap judgements in one direction or the other, which is very common.

You have to look at the evidence. There is no way to get past the pajama top evidence (which was certainly not withheld from anyone), there is no way to avoid the blood evidence, of which there is a multitude, and it simply does not match what MacDonald said happened.

Watching one interview with Helena Stoeckly is a fraction of the number of interviews she gave and she changes her story a bunch of times.

How realistic is it that 4 drugged out people entered the MacDonald apartment, carrying no weapons, and they somehow found an ice pick, a knife, and a board that matches a slat from underneath one daughter's bed to then attack a family including 2 little girls? Yet no one woke up when they entered and started looking for weapons, not even MacDonald, who said he was asleep on the couch in the living room, which is right near the kitchen and any entrance into the apartment, and he only awoke upon being "attacked/stabbed" while on the couch. JM's blood isn't on the couch...his blood is found in the bathroom at the sink.

His story reminds me of the story told by Darlie Routier, who sits on death row in TX. Strange how all these killers enter homes without any weapons of their own, go hunting for a murder weapon inside the victim's home, leave no fingerprints or DNA, don't steal anything, and then overkill sleeping children and manage to not kill the primary adult who was right there.

Oh now Darlie Routier is guilty without any doubt. She butchered her oldest 2 sons while they were sleeping. The state of Texas will end up carrying out her death sentence in a few years after she has exhausted all of her appeals.

Madeleine74
09-18-2012, 02:57 PM
Oh now Darlie Routier is guilty without any doubt. She butchered her oldest 2 sons while they were sleeping. The state of Texas will end up carrying out her death sentence in a few years after she has exhausted all of her appeals.

Oh quite a few people have doubt about her case. I'm not one of them, as I did my own reading of the testimony and I looked at each of the exhibits that were available and I am satisfied that her guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

MacDonald's case is very similar. No one broke in, the scene doesn't match the story told, overkill of 2 sleeping children, the lies, the changing story details MacDonald told, the blood, the pajama top, all items used in the murder were owned by the MacDonald family, which means these "4 intruders" came to the apartment with no weapons on them (although according to MacDonald one woman had a lit candle which she carried around). Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And, the crime scene doesn't match his story. There's no way to spin that.

ERRN1313
09-18-2012, 03:35 PM
"Regarding Jeffrey MacDonald's wounds

There has been much speculation regarding the extent of Jeff MacDonald's wounds, given that he survived the attacks, but his family did not. At trial, the government contended that Colette had caused all of the wounds except for one to his lung, which they said was self-inflicted.

The government contended that a surgeon would know how to injure himself "safely", and the seriousness of MacDonald's collapsed lung was minimized at trial. Five of the six doctors consulted at the Army Hearing (Article 32) testified that MacDonald could not have predicted the outcome of what they termed a very "serious" stab wound to the chest, which collapsed the lung by 40%. All agreed that the liver could have been damaged, with death resulting, and that even a doctor would not be able to predict the outcome of such a wound, should he inflict in on himself.

Interestingly, MacDonald's wounds were never photographed, while those his family suffered were rigorously documented. Womack Hospital photographer John McCaffrey waited for a request
to record MacDonald's wounds, but it never came. "Somebody goofed," he said.

However, eye witness accounts and medical records describe injuries to MacDonald that go far beyond those minimized by the prosecution.

For example, the government claimed that MacDonald had only a small bruise to the head. Doctors Paul Manson and Robert McGann both observed and testified to seeing " a large contusion" over his left mid-forehead area, and another one over the right temple, slightly obscured by the hairline.

Friend and fellow officer Ron Harrison, when interviewed by the CID, stated that when he went to the hospital, he not only observed the bruises on the front of MacDonald's head, but lumps at the back of the head, and numerous wounds to the chest, arms and abdomen, and what he believed to be ice pick wounds to the neck.

Dr. Straub, at Womack Hospital, examined Jeffrey MacDonald's abdominal wound. He testified at the Army hearing that he "spread it apart, as I recall, and saw that it had gone through a great deal of the muscle of the abdominal wall."

The government made a point of claiming MacDonald suffered no wounds to the hands or arms. But Dr. Severt Jacobson, also of Womack Hospital, described to the grand jury in 1974 cuts he observed to MacDonald's forearms and hand "from a very sharp object". The government also claimed there were only superficial wounds to the chest, other than the stab wound, and no ice pick wounds. But Dr. Jacobson told of seeing four puncture wounds to the upper chest, and multiple punctures elsewhere (arms, abdomen). The puncture wounds were corroborated by Dr. Robert McGann and officer Ron Harrison.

Dr. Frank E. Gemma, an Army surgeon wrote a report on MacDonald's injuries upon his admission to Womack Hospital. He, too, noted "several small puncture wounds that may have come from an instrument such as
an icepick."

In order to protect their scenario of Colette injuring her husband in self-defense, the government ignored any and all mention of ice pick wounds in the records. It would have been implausible for Colette to have been wielding not only a knife and a club, but an ice pick, as well. The presence of three different types of wounds from three different types of weapons gave credence to MacDonald's account of multiple intruders.

Considering all the statements from medical personnel, hospital records and eye witnesses, MacDonald summarily suffered at least seventeen stab wounds to the hands, arms, and torso, stabbings through the muscle in the bicep and abdomen, a stab wound to the lung requiring a chest tube and two surgeries, and multiple contusions to the head. He required resuscitation at the murder scene. He could not save his family because he was knocked unconscious.

Colette was found with a piece of gouged skin lodged under one of her fingernails. Kimberley, Kristen and their mother were all found with foreign hairs, unmatched to their father, under their nails. There were no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald."

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Facts.html

Madeleine74
09-18-2012, 04:23 PM
I'm rewatching some of Fatal vision in which details of evidence are discussed. I forgot so many things. Such as:

- Fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found under the master bed, right under where the word "PIG" was written on the headboard in blood.

- Fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found underneath Collette's body, yet when found, MacDonald had placed the punctured pajama top on Collette's chest.

- The way the pajama top was folded on Collette's chest, with the pajama top having 42 puncture holes and no tearing or fraying of any of those holes, proves the top was on Collette's chest as she was stabbed and it was folded in that manner. The 42 holes match the pattern of the 21 ice pick wounds on Collette.

- Further, Collette's blood was scientifically determined by the FBI to be on the pajama top BEFORE those ice pick wounds were made to the top...meaning there were no holes in the top and Collette's blood got on his pajama top and this was before she was stabbed in the chest. This is counter to what he claims in his version of events.

- Jeff claimed he dropped the pajama top from his hands right before entering the master bedroom, and then he said he picked up the pajama top to cover Collette's chest wounds after trying to give her resuscitation. The evidence on that pajama top proves his version could not have happened that way.

- The ice pick (which was one of the murder weapons) was kept on top of the refrigerator. How would the murderers entering a dark apartment know to find a weapon there?

- MacDonald described his attackers including their faces (4 of them). However, no lights were on in the living room at the time of the attack and when the living room lights are turned out any person appearing as MacDonald claimed these 4 did, only appear in sillouette and no facial features can be seen.

- MacDonald claims he was attacked in the living room by 4 people. However he also claims at the exact same time as he is being attacked, he heard his wife screaming for help, asking "why are they doing this to me" and also claims he heard his daughter yelling as well, "Daddy...Daddy...Daddy." So if 4 people were attacking MacDonald in the LR as MacDonald states, why would his wife be screaming down the hall in the master bedroom?

- MacDonald claimed he was beaten in the living room and stabbed in the LR as well. No fibers were found and no splinters from the piece of wood were found. There was no blood found where he claimed he was injured. However, fibers from his pajama top AND wood splinters were found in the master bedroom and possibly in one of the kids' room, but not where MacDonald claimed to be (on the couch).

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 05:00 PM
I'm not going to keep going point/counterpoint against the heavily edited, well-funded propaganda put out by themacdonaldcase.ORG, it would never end. Bottom line is he lied, he lied, he lied, and continues to lie. Throw out the SUBSTANTIAL and telling blood evidence, the pajama top and fibers, the broken hairbrush, the weapons & gloves from the home, his minimal wounds, etc., etc., There's NO reason for an innocent man to lie.

oceanblueeyes
09-18-2012, 05:12 PM
I'm not going to keep going point/counterpoint against the heavily edited, well-funded propaganda put out by themacdonaldcase.ORG, it would never end. Bottom line is he lied, he lied, he lied, and continues to lie. Throw out the SUBSTANTIAL and telling blood evidence, the pajama top and fibers, the broken hairbrush, the weapons & gloves from the home, his minimal wounds, etc., etc., There's NO reason for an innocent man to lie.

I have tried to research some on my own concerning his wounds. This one says that he had no scratches on his body.

This case happened so long ago that I have forgotten a lot of it. I dont know why I was thinking he didnt have any wounds except the one that punctured his lung.

Medical and court records substantiate MacDonald was knocked unconscious. MacDonald was taken to Womack Army Hospital. His injuries outlined below were documented by the doctors there who examined him; Dr. Severt Jacobson, Dr. Merrill Bronstein and Dr.Gemma.

Wounds to MacDonald’s head included discolored, swollen, scraped blunt trauma to the left forehead at the hair line. A smaller bruise on the right forehead. On the left posterior portion of his head, covered by his hair, was a contusion.

There was a large bruise on the left shoulder and left upper arm. A complete, through and through knife wound, that entered one place and exited another, was found on the left bicep muscle along with several puncture wounds. There were cuts on the left hand and fingers, in the web of the index finger and thumb.

4 – 5 puncture wounds were found above the heart area, on the left chest . The right chest wound was 3/4" wide, going into the anterior chest, between the ribs, at the 7th intercostal space that collapsed his lung. A 3" long, jagged laceration down the rectus muscle, in the left upper quadrant of the abdomen intersected another knife laceration, extending outward and down. These 2 different knife wounds formed an inversed "V" with the outer side of the laceration slightly shorter than the inside.

There were several punch marks across the center of the abdomen. Merrill Bronstein, MD, described the abdominal laceration as "gaping" --exposing the fascia of the muscle. The doctor stated this wound should have been sutured, but they were more concerned with the serious chest wound, bubbling blood froth with ever quick breath, indicating a collapsed lung, so the abdominal wound was taped closed.

MacDonald’s injuries did not include any fingernail scratch marks according to CID reports and an interview with Dr. Severt Jacobson.


http://www.karisable.com/mac3.htm

Madeleine74
09-18-2012, 05:22 PM
For those who would like a summary of the blood evidence, where it was found, and what else was found (fiber evidence, etc.), just watch these 2 short videos from the movie, "Fatal Vision." Ignore all the melodrama and music and just listen and watch where the evidence was found. It's really a perfect summary.

I've already found the spot on the first video below that starts the FBI agent's summation so you don't have to watch any of the stuff that comes before. Start it at 5min and 30 seconds in. The evidence presentation continues into Video #2 for about 4 min. Total time to watch and get a full recap of the forensic and physical evidence found at the scene = 9 min.

First Watch this video from 5:30min elapsed time to the end of the video

Fatal Vision TV-movie 1984. The Thirteenth 10 Minutes - YouTube



Then watch this for about 4 min


Fatal Vision TV-movie 1984. The Fourteenth 10 Minutes - YouTube

hollyjokers
09-18-2012, 05:44 PM
Bill Lumberg will get to the bottom of this!

"Hellllo Jeffrey, whaaat's happenin'? Ummm yeah, we're gonna need to talk about your, uh, pu-jahma top. It's just we're trying to figure out how the fibers got under/around your butchered wife and kids, so if you could uhhhh, try and explain that, that would be grrrrreat. Mmm-Kay? Thaaaaanks.

Oh! Oh! And I almost forgot! We're gonna need you to tell us how the ripped-off poc-ket of your puh-jahma top got blood spatter on it too. That would, uhhh, really help a bunch. Terrrrr-ific."

Boodles
09-18-2012, 06:14 PM
I have not rehashed all the evidence, but I read all the books (excepting the newly released one) and tons of documents back during the period before, during and after the last trial. There is so much evidence supporting his conviction. I have no doubts.

But what clinched it for me was the evidence derived from the infamous pajama top which Madelaine has described, the pattern and alignment of the punctures in it, and the blood evidence found on it, the location of its fibers, etc. It contradicts his entire "story."

waltzingmatilda
09-19-2012, 09:17 AM
Just listening to the snippets on the news and online articles, it sure seems there is a lot of HERESAY in this hearing. I mean, Britt's wife said he said that Helena said....and Stoeckley's brother said his mother said that Helena said.

Where was all this back then when these people would have testified in first person (before they died)?

I'm not a lawyer, but aren't these very belated and multiple-people-removed statements inadmissible? I am curious about whatever DNA arguments the defense may present, but so far these other statements don't seem reliable to me. This seems like grasping for straws. And further torturing the victims' family and loved ones.

I understand what you mean Boodles. I just read this article and wondered the same thing.

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2012/09/18/witness-brother-testifies-macdonald-hearing

ERRN1313
09-19-2012, 11:24 AM
This hearing is being heard near where I live. If the judge grants a re-trial, I will try to go watch a few days and report back to y'all, lol!I haven't followed this case closely as I was a kid when it happened. But remember my mom thought he was guilty.

Here's the latest from yesterday....

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2012/09/17/macdonald-returns-to-court-fatal-vision-case

Wade Smith, a defense attorney for MacDonald during the 1979 trial, testified Monday. Smith told the court that in January 2005 federal marshal Jimmy Britt told him he heard Helena Stoeckley say she was threatened by the prosecutor.

“He heard prosecutors threaten Helena Stoeckley,” says Errol Morris, author of ‘A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald.'"This is the crucial defense witness in 1979 threaten by the prosecution.”

Smith says Britt, who died in 2008, told him Stoeckley, a police informant and witness in the case, was in the house the night of the murders. And that the prosecutor told Stoeckley she'd be charged with murder if she repeated that story in court.

The hearing will continue Tuesday morning. It could last a few weeks and the judge will ultimately have to decide if it is worth re-examining the case.


wm

BBM. If he is granted a new trial, I may just have to take vacation and drive down myself for it. I would like to hear everything first hand and not decide innocence or guilt from a made for tv miniseries and a couple of books. Fatal Vision was definitely written to prove guilt and Fatal Justice makes you take a second look. Innocent or guilty, he deserved a fair trial. Some things make me go "hmmmmm?" Still a fence sitter.

Madeleine74
09-19-2012, 11:42 AM
Fatal Vision was definitely written to prove guilt and Fatal Justice makes you take a second look. Innocent or guilty, he deserved a fair trial. Some things make me go "hmmmmm?" Still a fence sitter.

Actually the author of "Fatal Vision," Joe McGinnis, was given full access to all documents and proceeding transcripts and everything. He sat through the trial every day. He wrote a long opinion piece a few years after the book was published that he had personally come to like MacDonald very much but could not ignore the evidence presented in court during the trial, which showed it was MacDonald who killed his family. He went through many sleepless nights trying to reconcile the man he knew in person to the killer he finally realized he was, despite how likeable MacDonald was.

McGinnis said he didn't start out with any slant and he agreed to write a book detailing events and evidence as he saw it. It was MacDonald who asked McGinnis to write a book about him, his life, the crimes. McGinnis was only going to write an 800 word article, which he did, then agreed to do a book.

All books are intended to sell. Why else would a publishing house agree to spend money to publish it? MacDonald negotiated a rare financial deal for himself -- he would get 20% of the first $150K profits made on the book, then 33% of the rest of the profits on the book, plus 40% of the profits from any movie or video rights. He willingly gave McGinnis full rights to tell the story with no say in the conclusion. He signed two documents giving these rights and had his attorney (Bernie Segel) sign as his witness.

MacDonald wasn't happy with the book because the conclusion of the author was that MacDonald was the killer, but he made out financially very well on the sale of the book and movie rights. More books sold = more $$$ in MacDonald's pocket.

robinparten
09-19-2012, 11:45 AM
"Forget the fact that he lied about which child wet the bed...."

That's a big one

ERRN1313
09-19-2012, 12:22 PM
Actually the author of "Fatal Vision," Joe McGinnis, was given full access to all documents and proceeding transcripts and everything. He sat through the trial every day. He wrote a long opinion piece a few years after the book was published that he had personally come to like MacDonald very much but could not ignore the evidence presented in court during the trial, which showed it was MacDonald who killed his family. He went through many sleepless nights trying to reconcile the man he knew in person to the killer he finally realized he was, despite how likeable MacDonald was.

McGinnis said he didn't start out with any slant and he agreed to write a book detailing events and evidence as he saw it. It was MacDonald who asked McGinnis to write a book about him, his life, the crimes. McGinnis was only going to write an 800 word article, which he did, then agreed to do a book.

All books are intended to sell. Why else would a publishing house agree to spend money to publish it? MacDonald negotiated a rare financial deal for himself -- he would get 20% of the first $150K profits made on the book, then 33% of the rest of the profits on the book, plus 40% of the profits from any movie or video rights. He willingly gave McGinnis full rights to tell the story with no say in the conclusion. He signed two documents giving these rights and had his attorney (Bernie Segel) sign as his witness.

MacDonald wasn't happy with the book because the conclusion of the author was that MacDonald was the killer, but he made out financially very well on the sale of the book and movie rights. More books sold = more $$$ in MacDonald's pocket.

I agree with you and I know all of that. MacDonald "thought" he was going to write about his innocence, and that's why he ended up suing him and got over $325,000 as a settlement from McGinnis. My only issue is that 2 books were written, now a 3rd, looking at the same set of evidence and documents, yet come to different conclusions. I thought he was guilty as sin from the get go, but reading some of the additional documents that were never shown before, I can't help but have some doubts. I can't personally say at this point he is guilty or innocent, and I do see alot that says he's guilty too, as I origionally believed, but I would like some additional information I guess to be 100% certain one way or the other. And in general, I am usually the first one to say "guilty, string 'em up" in most cases. Even in the Petit case, I suspected the husband originally for the same reasons, he was the only survivor, until all the facts came out.

The MacDonald case has haunted me from the beginning, for a number of reasons. Another thing I will add here that has nothing to do with your post and a little OT, is that even though he is referred to as "the Green Beret Doctor", he was not a Green Beret, he never went through Special Forces training. He was assigned to the SF unit as a medical doctor. (Another one of my pet peeves - LOL).

ERRN1313
09-19-2012, 12:38 PM
Sarah Palin's review of Morris's book:

McGinniss also wrote “The Rogue: the Search for the Real Sarah Palin” after moving in next door to the Palins in Wasilla, Alaska, in May 2010.
Neither the Palins nor the Wasilla townspeople were too thrilled about the new resident or the work he produced. And Palin makes that clear in her review of the Morris book.
She endorses Morris’s description of her “old neighbor” as “a craven and sloppy journalist who confabulated, lied, and betrayed while ostensibly telling a story about a man who confabulated, lied, and betrayed.”
She went on to say:
“MacDonald signed a contract giving McGinniss exclusive rights to his life story, and so McGinniss was given unprecedented access to the defense team – living with them, working with them, eating with them. But when the guilty verdict came down, McGinniss did a one-eighty on them. Apparently, falsely convicted men don’t make for good books. McGinniss decided it was a better story to agree with the jury. MacDonald wasn’t a sympathetic figure. He did himself no favors with some media appearances. So, McGinniss went about writing a book that would convince people the government got the right verdict and we could all pat ourselves on the back and leave Jeffrey MacDonald to rot in his jail cell till Judgment Day.
“McGinniss’ book actually embellished the prosecution’s case – even supplying a motive. According to McGinniss’ theory of the case, MacDonald secretly wanted to break free of his wife and kids and so he murdered them one night in a fit of rage induced by some diet pills he was taking. (Oddly enough, the millions of other people who were also taking those same diet pills somehow avoided murdering their families.)”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/18/4270631/sarah-palin-weighs-in-on-jeffrey.html#storylink=cpy

ERRN1313
09-19-2012, 01:14 PM
This website has a lot of documents, scanned images, CID investigation information etc. I am not linking it in regards to guilt vs innocence, just for the information it contains.

WARNING: There are pictures of the crime scene including graphic pictures of the victims and the autopsy photos. Some of you may choose not to look at these. Unfortunately it is a real eye opener as to what was done to these innocent victims either by someone who should have loved them or total strangers.

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

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 01:43 PM
How is what McGinness did any different than Truman Capote did when he wrote In Cold Blood? Other than give MacDonald a pretty hefty share of the profits.

Sarah Palin....nuff said. It doesn't even make sense that he would have to change his story to be more sensational than an innocent man being imprisoned for killing his family But hey, give the guy a new trial, let him out on bond so he can stay with the Palin clan.

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 01:46 PM
I will say the pictures are a little misleading: his photos were not taken until August 1974. Of course, his wounds look like nothing compared to the others.

Madeleine74
09-19-2012, 02:05 PM
MacDonald "thought" he was going to write about his innocence, and that's why he ended up suing him and got over $325,000 as a settlement from McGinnis.

On the stand MacDonald's testimony was that he realized he had no control over what McGinniss would write and had no basis for an assumption that McGinnis would write him as being innocent. In fact, upon being presented with the releases he signed (2 of them), he conceded he assumed what would be written, but McGinnis never said or promised what 'spin' the book would take and never said he would "write him as innocent." McGinniss's testimony was that he made no promises and couldn't know which way the book would go because at the time of the agreement the trial had not happened yet and he didn't have the info he eventually got.

The jury could not decide and the case was eventually settled out of court. The $$$ MacDonald got was in-line with what he would have gotten anyway from the royalties.

wonders
09-19-2012, 02:30 PM
This website has a lot of documents, scanned images, CID investigation information etc. I am not linking it in regards to guilt vs innocence, just for the information it contains.

WARNING: There are pictures of the crime scene including graphic pictures of the victims and the autopsy photos. Some of you may choose not to look at these. Unfortunately it is a real eye opener as to what was done to these innocent victims either by someone who should have loved them or total strangers.

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

Thank you ERRN1313. Horrible, just horrible. IMO, no one would do this kind of overkill murder on a woman and children and leave JM in the minor condition he was. He was a Dr, he knew he would be saved before he could die. Collette fought for her life as did one of the girls (can't remember which one). He's guilty as sin and is exactly where he belongs and should have been given the DP and that should have been carried out years ago.
I say go ahead and give this monster another trial, use the hearsay and the jury will wonder why this wasn't brought up years ago when all those people were still alive. Further more with today's technolgy they can do an animated video to show exactly what he did to them and prove it didn't happen the way he said it did. The result will be the same GUILTY. Do you know if he was also charged with the unborn childs death?

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 02:32 PM
Pretty good article listing the new evidence that is being introduced. Interesting that he doesn't want the Hilton bath mat or pajama top retested. If there were a smoking gun in this case, I'd say those items would be on the top of my list. Why aren't the weapons being tested for touch DNA?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/11345217/

wonders
09-19-2012, 02:37 PM
I will say the pictures are a little misleading: his photos were not taken until August 1974. Of course, his wounds look like nothing compared to the others.

With all due respect hollyjokers, IMO it dosen't matter if they were taken yesterday. His wounds were absolutely nothing compared to Collette's and the childrens. If it had been intruders they would have done the overkill on him first.

Madeleine74
09-19-2012, 02:54 PM
Thank you ERRN1313. Horrible, just horrible. IMO, no one would do this kind of overkill murder on a woman and children and leave JM in the minor condition he was. He was a Dr, he knew he would be saved before he could die. Collette fought for her life as did one of the girls (can't remember which one). He's guilty as sin and is exactly where he belongs and should have been given the DP and that should have been carried out years ago.
I say go ahead and give this monster another trial, use the hearsay and the jury will wonder why this wasn't brought up years ago when all those people were still alive. Further more with today's technolgy they can do an animated video to show exactly what he did to them and prove it didn't happen the way he said it did. The result will be the same GUILTY. Do you know if he was also charged with the unborn childs death?

I want to see the pics but won't because I'm squeamish and am afraid I'll have nightmares so I'm not clicking on that site. Those of you who are braver have my admiration.

Makes you wonder why "hippies" hate little toddlers and/or the female gender, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

No, MacDonald was not charged for killing his unborn son. There was no law on the books recognizing a fetus as a person in a murder in 1970.

For those who think a band of "hippies" did this crime, you still have to explain this piece of physical evidence that even the defense doesn't counter:

Just how did these drugged out hippies find the ice pick in the apartment (it was kept on top of the fridge), get JM's pajama top off of him intact, get Collette to bleed all over it first, then get the pocket ripped off of it in the master bedroom, then put the pajama top on Collette's chest, and then stab her through JM's pajama top 21 times, leaving 42 perfect cylindrical holes with no fraying? Which "drug crazed hippy" did that? Remember, MacDonald said he was on the couch in the living room with his pajama top somehow wrapped around his hands, warding off blows from 4 attackers. That pajama evidence doesn't go away so it has to be explained using laws of physics on planet earth. Oh, and while you're at it, you also have to explain how JM's torn pajama fibers got on and in the beds of both daughters that night if his pajama top was wrapped around his hands or laying on top of his wife's dead body in the master bedroom.

Madeleine74
09-19-2012, 03:01 PM
Pretty good article listing the new evidence that is being introduced. Interesting that he doesn't want the Hilton bath mat or pajama top retested. If there were a smoking gun in this case, I'd say those items would be on the top of my list. Why aren't the weapons being tested for touch DNA?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/11345217/

Funny how he doesn't want the 2 items to be retested that are most incriminating to him. Hmmmm....

wonders
09-19-2012, 03:13 PM
I want to see the pics but won't because I'm squeamish and am afraid I'll have nightmares so I'm not clicking on that site. Those of you who are braver have my admiration.

Makes you wonder why "hippies" hate little toddlers and/or the female gender, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

No, MacDonald was not charged for killing his unborn son. There was no law on the books recognizing a fetus as a person in a murder in 1970.

For those who think a band of "hippies" did this crime, you still have to explain this piece of physical evidence that even the defense doesn't counter:

Just how did these drugged out hippies find the ice pick in the apartment (it was kept on top of the fridge), get JM's pajama top off of him intact, get Collette to bleed all over it first, then get the pocket ripped off of it in the master bedroom, then put the pajama top on Collette's chest, and then stab her through JM's pajama top 21 times, leaving 42 perfect cylindrical holes with no fraying? Which "drug crazed hippy" did that? Remember, MacDonald said he was on the couch in the living room with his pajama top somehow wrapped around his hands, warding off blows from 4 attackers. That pajama evidence doesn't go away so it has to be explained using laws of physics on planet earth. Oh, and while you're at it, you also have to explain how JM's torn pajama fibers got on and in the beds of both daughters that night if his pajama top was wrapped around his hands or laying on top of his wife's dead body in the master bedroom.

It's ok Madeleine74 if you can't look at the photo's. Even without looking at them you have a great grasp on who did it.
Thank you for answering my question. I didn't think it was on the books at that time. If he wants a new trial now, I wonder if they can charge him with it now. Probably not. One can have dreams. Right?

Madeleine74
09-19-2012, 04:13 PM
If he wants a new trial now, I wonder if they can charge him with it now. Probably not. One can have dreams. Right?

Only the laws in existence at the time of the crime would be applicable. He's clearly not going anywhere. :jail:

It wouldn't bother me if he got a new trial. If he has real evidence to show, then I say, "bring it!" None of the original evidence that got him convicted is going to change. None of the lies he told can be changed. His stories of how the attack went down (and I think he told a couple different ones) still don't match the crime scene. That pajama top evidence will nail him every time.

LinasK
09-19-2012, 04:25 PM
Only the laws in existence at the time of the crime would be applicable. He's clearly not going anywhere. :jail:

It wouldn't bother me if he got a new trial. If he has real evidence to show, then I say, "bring it!" None of the original evidence that got him convicted is going to change. None of the lies he told can be changed. His stories of how the attack went down (and I think he told a couple different ones) still don't match the crime scene. That pajama top evidence will nail him every time.
Yeah, except for the cost of the new trial- so why bother???

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 06:47 PM
Thank you ERRN1313. Horrible, just horrible. IMO, no one would do this kind of overkill murder on a woman and children and leave JM in the minor condition he was. He was a Dr, he knew he would be saved before he could die. Collette fought for her life as did one of the girls (can't remember which one). He's guilty as sin and is exactly where he belongs and should have been given the DP and that should have been carried out years ago.
I say go ahead and give this monster another trial, use the hearsay and the jury will wonder why this wasn't brought up years ago when all those people were still alive. Further more with today's technolgy they can do an animated video to show exactly what he did to them and prove it didn't happen the way he said it did. The result will be the same GUILTY. Do you know if he was also charged with the unborn childs death?

But what bothers me is it seems his injuries have been greatly downplayed, imo. Since there was never a televised trial I have always just assumed the only injury he had was the one to his chest that collapsed his lung.

But I have read countless sites in the past three days......both pro-prosecution and pro-defense sites trying to get an unbiased view of this case. It was not as I assumed it to be all these decades. He was unconscious when found and they had to do mouth to mouth rescessitation on him before transporting him. I read the list of his injuries and they certainly didnt seem minor to me. And I cant help question why a doctor would even stab himself in an area that could collapse a lung when he could have done it in many other less vital areas of his body. He had wounds that the doctor said was 'gaping' and one of the knife wounds went in one side of his bicep and came out the other side.

The evidence found under Colette's fingernails also bothers me greatly. Somehow it has been conveniently lost. And MacDonald had no scratches anywhere on his body.

I really had no doubt he was guilty. Maybe I just assumed back then if the Prosecution says someone is guilty and the jury agreed it was the right verdict. Back then when this happened I was busy raising our children and working. The internet was not available like it is today where so much more can be learned about this case and others. But after reading endlessly for three days about this case I now have my doubts. Not that he is innocent but a possibility that he may be. It reminds me of all the times innocent people have been incarcerated for a crime they did not commit. Those DAs and juries were just as sure of those defendants guilt as the jury was in MacDonald's case.

So from a selfish point of view I wish he would be granted a new trial so that the case could be done during a time when forensic evidence and expert witnesses are so much more advanced in knowledge and technology than they were when the initial trial was held.

IMO

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 06:58 PM
Pretty good article listing the new evidence that is being introduced. Interesting that he doesn't want the Hilton bath mat or pajama top retested. If there were a smoking gun in this case, I'd say those items would be on the top of my list. Why aren't the weapons being tested for touch DNA?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/11345217/

Colette MacDonald, who was 5 months pregnant with a baby boy, was hit repeatedly in the head with a piece of wood and suffered 16 knife wounds – seven in her chest and nine in her neck – and 21 icepick wounds, according to the medical examiner. The brutal beating left her with two punctured lungs and two broken forearms, the latter of which the medical examiner described as defensive wounds.

Why would he need to use three different weapons on one small pregnant woman?

IMO

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 07:12 PM
Also I see from the above link the Innocence Project is going to help pay for any further testing.

Christine Mumma, executive director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, is one of the attorneys working on MacDonald's fight for a new trial. The center has helped exonerate three people since its inception, including Greg Taylor, who spent 17 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.

The North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence and The Innocence Project have offered to pay the costs associated with any further DNA testing and for identifying an independent lab to conduct the testing in MacDonald's case. Their request is expected to be addressed by the courts after the September hearing.

trigger
09-19-2012, 07:46 PM
Colette MacDonald, who was 5 months pregnant with a baby boy, was hit repeatedly in the head with a piece of wood and suffered 16 knife wounds – seven in her chest and nine in her neck – and 21 icepick wounds, according to the medical examiner. The brutal beating left her with two punctured lungs and two broken forearms, the latter of which the medical examiner described as defensive wounds.

Why would he need to use three different weapons on one small pregnant woman?

IMO


IDK maybe rage and being high on drugs and lack of sleep.

Madeleine74
09-19-2012, 08:09 PM
The theory is MacDonald, who admitted to taking amphetamines to lose weight (he claimed to have lost 12 to 15 lbs in 3 weeks) and to stay awake to work some doubleshifts got into a fight with his wife and it escalated. He may have hit his eldest daughter by mistake as he was swinging the club at his wife in the MBR and she walked in upon hearing the fighting.

Then, as the theory goes, he knew he had mortally wounded his wife and daughter and decided to claim it was a band of hippies, just like the article he read in Esquire Magazine about the Manson murders 6 months before. This magazine was found in the livingroom. To be able to claim multiple assailants he thought each victim needed to have wounds from different weapons. He also made the decision then to murder his youngest child to complete the story he had decided--he got first degree murder for her killing, and second degree murder for his wife's and oldest child's murders.

That's one of the ways they got him -- he was still wearing the pajama top when he went into each child's room and stabbed them with a knife and an ice pick. Fibers from his pajamas were found in each girl's room, under his wife's body, under the writing of "PIG" on the headboard in the master bedroom.

wonders
09-19-2012, 08:43 PM
Only the laws in existence at the time of the crime would be applicable. He's clearly not going anywhere. :jail:

It wouldn't bother me if he got a new trial. If he has real evidence to show, then I say, "bring it!" None of the original evidence that got him convicted is going to change. None of the lies he told can be changed. His stories of how the attack went down (and I think he told a couple different ones) still don't match the crime scene. That pajama top evidence will nail him every time.

I'm with you girl. The results are going to be the same. Guilty as charged and that will be that.

wonders
09-19-2012, 08:49 PM
Yeah, except for the cost of the new trial- so why bother???

I'm not thrilled with that either Linask but it will put an end to it. The guilty verdict isn't going to change. But we don't know if he will get a new trial the Judge could put a giant :denied: stamp on it. I think we are just trying to prepare ourselves in the event he does get a new trial.

wonders
09-19-2012, 09:26 PM
Colette MacDonald, who was 5 months pregnant with a baby boy, was hit repeatedly in the head with a piece of wood and suffered 16 knife wounds – seven in her chest and nine in her neck – and 21 icepick wounds, according to the medical examiner. The brutal beating left her with two punctured lungs and two broken forearms, the latter of which the medical examiner described as defensive wounds.

Why would he need to use three different weapons on one small pregnant woman?

IMO

Hi oceanblueeyes,
The only way I know how to answer your questions is to say JM's injuries cannot even come close to the injuries that took the lives of his wife, unborn baby boy and his two girls.
Why so many weapons? Well, in my opinion he was trying to cover up a murder he commited. He was on drugs for weight loss and staying awake I believe. As we know today it's called drug rage I believe.
I hope this helps you out some.

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 09:44 PM
IDK maybe rage and being high on drugs and lack of sleep.

I dont know trigger. I just cant make sense of it and from what I have read they never knew what his motive was for doing this.

imo

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 09:47 PM
Hi oceanblueeyes,
The only way I know how to answer your questions is to say JM's injuries cannot even come close to the injuries that took the lives of his wife, unborn baby boy and his two girls.
Why so many weapons? Well, in my opinion he was trying to cover up a murder he commited. He was on drugs for weight loss and staying awake I believe. As we know today it's called drug rage I believe.
I hope this helps you out some.

Thanks. But he still didnt have minor injuries as it has been said.

Was that ever verified? The amount of drugs he was taking? The reason I ask I dont think I have ever heard of a case where someone was taking a diet drug and it turned them into a mass murderer.

Do you know of such a case because millions have taken diet drugs even back then.

IMO

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 09:55 PM
I'm not thrilled with that either Linask but it will put an end to it. The guilty verdict isn't going to change. But we don't know if he will get a new trial the Judge could put a giant :denied: stamp on it. I think we are just trying to prepare ourselves in the event he does get a new trial.

I really dont see him getting a new trial even if it is warranted. This case is a hot potato for any court imo. You have a man that has been locked up for decades and it is one of the most famous murder trials in modern history. The Judge is not going to take a chance that in a new trial he could be found NG. The Judge knows if that happens JM would have a valid lawsuit that would probably break the bank.

JM told his wife that he was at peace no matter how the hearing winds up and that all he wanted was to get the evidence tested that hasnt been lost and a chance for some of the facts to come out that didnt in the trial.

I dont even think he expects a new trial and he will never go before the parole board. He has been eligible since 1991 but does not appear. His reasoning he says is he is never going to admit to something that he did not do.

So he will keep teaching classes in prison and die there.

IMO

oceanblueeyes
09-19-2012, 10:00 PM
The theory is MacDonald, who admitted to taking amphetamines to lose weight (he claimed to have lost 12 to 15 lbs in 3 weeks) and to stay awake to work some doubleshifts got into a fight with his wife and it escalated. He may have hit his eldest daughter by mistake as he was swinging the club at his wife in the MBR and she walked in upon hearing the fighting.

Then, as the theory goes, he knew he had mortally wounded his wife and daughter and decided to claim it was a band of hippies, just like the article he read in Esquire Magazine about the Manson murders 6 months before. This magazine was found in the livingroom. To be able to claim multiple assailants he thought each victim needed to have wounds from different weapons. He also made the decision then to murder his youngest child to complete the story he had decided--he got first degree murder for her killing, and second degree murder for his wife's and oldest child's murders.

That's one of the ways they got him -- he was still wearing the pajama top when he went into each child's room and stabbed them with a knife and an ice pick. Fibers from his pajamas were found in each girl's room, under his wife's body, under the writing of "PIG" on the headboard in the master bedroom.

If that was his intention he could have just used a different weapon on each victim. Not four different weapons on Colette and two weapons on the children.

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 10:00 PM
From Fatal Vision:

The doctor on duty in the emergency room made a quick examination and noted three injuries in addition to the chest wound: a bruise on the left side of the forehead, the skin of which was not broken; and superficial stab wounds of the abdomen and upper left arm. None of MacDonald's wounds required stitching.
His blood pressure was 120 over 70, his pulse 78, respiration rate 26, and temperature 99-all considered normal vital signs.
The second doctor to examine MacDonald was the surgical resident on duty, Benjamin Klein. He observed the same injuries that the first doctor had, and in addition noted, on the left side of the chest, "four puncture type wounds along a linear track, spaced rather evenly, about two to three millimeters apart."
The military policeman who had given MacDonald mouth-to-mouth resuscitation had observed the same marks. To him, they appeared to be scratches, "like where someone had dug their nails into him." - Joe McGinniss

Okay, here is the part about his ice pick wound:

The Type B blood of Jeffrey MacDonald was found in significant quantity in only two locations within the apartment: on the kitchen floor in front of the cabinet that contained the box of rubber gloves, and on the right side of the bathroom sink, in a pattern suggesting it might have dripped from the right side of the chest of a person who had stood in front of the sink while making a neat, clean incision between two ribs-an incision, perhaps, only one centimeter long, and just deep enough to puncture a lung without doing any other damage.

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 10:07 PM
He has appeared before parole board, most recently in 2005 where Colette's brother, Bob Stevenson, sat five feet away from MacDonald & his wife and gave his full opinion on why the man should never see the light of day, including the belief he shared with his late stepfather, Freddy Kassab, that Colette had interrupted MacDonald in the act of molesting Kimberley. MacDonald was visibly shaken by the accusation.

SoBeCzar
09-19-2012, 10:17 PM
It is a good thing those crazy hippies decided to concentrate on taking out the super strong wife and children. Otherwise they might have been overpowered. :rolleyes:

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 10:32 PM
Any medical people in here: would it be possible for JM to be in complete hysterics as was reported by various medical personnel & still have basically normal BP & pulse? I feel like everything he did sounds very calculated: posing with his head on Colette's chest when discovered, collapsing & requiring mouth-to-mouth. My teenage daughter once scared the crap out of me during a sports physical by controlling her breathing so her heart rate dropped. The doctor was ready to send her to the ER.

wonders
09-19-2012, 10:48 PM
Thanks. But he still didnt have minor injuries as it has been said.

Was that ever verified? The amount of drugs he was taking? The reason I ask I dont think I have ever heard of a case where someone was taking a diet drug and it turned them into a mass murderer.

Do you know of such a case because millions have taken diet drugs even back then.

IMO

Your welcome.
In my opinion his wounds were very minor compared to his wife and childrens. He called the MP's himself, he knew he would be saved. The more I think about it, if he had been attacked first by his own words by real "hippies" he may have died before they even left or shortly after with a collapsed lung. In my opinion Collette fought very hard for her life and it would have taken a bit of time to do the damage that was done to her and then move on to the children of which one also fought for her life. In my opinion he stabbed himself after the scene was set and he was ready for the MP's to come.
I don't know if the drug thing is confirmed or not and I apologize for stating something that I'm not sure about. I also don't know of any case back then that was blamed on drugs, once again my apologies on that too.
I did a google search for this case and each site I clicked on was a pro Jeff site and couldn't read all for the slant on them and don't want to trust wekipedia IYKWIM. I just want to read legal documents. I will try again to see what I can learn.

Boodles
09-19-2012, 10:51 PM
If that was his intention he could have just used a different weapon on each victim. Not four different weapons on Colette and two weapons on the children.

You're trying to make sense of something that makes no sense. No murders make sense, yet they occur all the time. Regarding the eskatrol (drugs), there is so much to read about it. But you'll read one thing, and then later read something where he contradicts himself or has a totally different angle. He got tangled up in all his lies and fantasies. It's not logical, and you'll hurt your head trying to make it all fit as though it is.

Colette's brother, Bob Stevenson, has said he thinks Colette caught him or somehow confronted him about abusing one of the daughters. He suspected that set off McDonald's raging that fateful night.

wonders
09-19-2012, 10:55 PM
Any medical people in here: would it be possible for JM to be in complete hysterics as was reported by various medical personnel & still have basically normal BP & pulse? I feel like everything he did sounds very calculated: posing with his head on Colette's chest when discovered, collapsing & requiring mouth-to-mouth. My teenage daughter once scared the crap out of me during a sports physical by controlling her breathing so her heart rate dropped. The doctor was ready to send her to the ER.

You've got an excellent point there hollyjokers with his vital's being that darn good for someone who just went through what he claims he just went through. And isn't strange that they wouldn't be sky high too after commiting such a horrible crime. Unless he is a psychopath, which I think he very well may be.

katydid23
09-19-2012, 11:03 PM
If drugged up Hippies were in the home of a highly trained Armed forces warrior, threatening his pregnant wife and two little girls, I would expect him to be DEAD before his family was slaughtered. My husband would have fought until his head was cut off. He would not have been a bit banged around.

hollyjokers
09-19-2012, 11:32 PM
His biggest priority had never been his wife or kids, it was his status as a THE Doctor, THE green beret, a macho macho man; reading his descriptions of his many, many qualities, and his lovemaking conquests is absolutely nauseating. So he effed up big time, in hitting Colette and/or Kimmy - Kimmy's head wound was severe enough that she was likely comatose & close to death very soon after being struck. He was not about to throw away all he had worked for over a bunch of girls. They were replaceable, his prestigious career and accomplishments were not.

Madeleine74
09-20-2012, 12:23 AM
I'm not thrilled with that either Linask but it will put an end to it. The guilty verdict isn't going to change. But we don't know if he will get a new trial the Judge could put a giant :denied: stamp on it. I think we are just trying to prepare ourselves in the event he does get a new trial.

Just to clarify my earlier comment on this, I'm not saying he should get a new trial or that I support him getting a new trial (I don't), but it wouldn't bother me if he did because, other than the cost of a trial (which I agree is not money well spent), I think he'll still be found guilty. Of course I could be wrong and it's always possible a new jury of 12 might see it differently. Anyway, as long as he is never released or declared "not guilty," that's the most important thing to me. I think his chances of actually being granted a new trial are somewhere between slim and none.

fullmoon
09-20-2012, 12:57 AM
Hellenna Stoekley had given so many different versions of her alleged involvement that she can't be believed. If that's all the defense has, I don't think it will go very far.

Peazzzer
09-20-2012, 01:10 AM
: deadhorse: JMO, he shows up like a bad penny.

StephanieH
09-20-2012, 01:36 AM
The "miracle" of the MacDonald family is that there were four different blood types. A, B, AB and O. This was what convinced me that Jeff murdered his family, because the blood tells the story. Jeff is B and Collette is A. Collette's blood starts dripping in the hallway, near Kimberley's. In fact, there is quite a bit of blood of both of their blood in the hallway. Then Kimberley's blood follows her into her bedroom, where is spatters all over her bedroom. Collette's blood is in her bedroom as well, but NOT much of Jeff's blood and not any of Kristen's. Then, Collette's blood is in Kristen's bedroom, as she runs in there to save her only living child. Jeff probably finished killing her there, as there is a great deal of Collette's blood there. Was Kristen awakened? We will never know.

We do know Collette's blood trails from Kristen's room back to the master bedroom, where there is a great deal of Colette's blood and a little bit of Jeff's blood and some of Kimberley's blood, probably transferred from Collette.

Finally, Kristen's blood is mostly contained in her room because her daddy killed her in there, most likely as he held her on his lap. She was, after all, his favorite child. She was the tomboy, the one who didn't trap him into marrying Collette. The one who looked more like him and who acted more like him. The one he intentionally killed. If any of the murders bothers him at night, this is the one that likely haunts him.

But he did it. The blood tells the story. Jeff's blood--and ONLY Jeff's blood--is in the bathroom sink. Where he stabbed himself after finishing off his youngest daughter so he could, hopefully, keep his career.

Honestly? I believe he accidentally killed Kimberley and that started this whole awful string of events. But I DO believe he intentionally killed Kristen and Collette to stage it.

Betty P
09-20-2012, 02:43 AM
Pretty good article listing the new evidence that is being introduced. Interesting that he doesn't want the Hilton bath mat or pajama top retested. If there were a smoking gun in this case, I'd say those items would be on the top of my list. Why aren't the weapons being tested for touch DNA?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/11345217/

An interesting quote from this article

Stoeckley, a known drug addict who claimed off and on that she was in the MacDonald apartment that night, has died as well. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology examined Stoeckley’s hair roots and found that her profile was not consistent with any other crime scene samples tested, eliminating her as a source, according to court records.

BBM

If Stoeckly's hair was not consistent with any of the crime scene evidence, that pretty much rules her out. So are McDonald's defenders still trying to accuse her of the murders? If she had been there that night, her hair would have been left at the crime scene.

NancyA
09-20-2012, 07:50 AM
An interesting quote from this article



BBM

If Stoeckly's hair was not consistent with any of the crime scene evidence, that pretty much rules her out. So are McDonald's defenders still trying to accuse her of the murders? If she had been there that night, her hair would have been left at the crime scene.

She was reported to be wearing a long blonde wig hence the defence team's concentration on some long synthetic hairs found in a hairbrush. Also found was candle wax not consistent with any candles within the home.

After reading the EM's book I'm still no further forward with being able to say if JM was innocent or guilty, surprisingly that appears to be EM's conclusion too, I am inclined to believe however that the initial investigation and the subsequent trial were very flawed.

waltzingmatilda
09-20-2012, 09:14 AM
BBM. If he is granted a new trial, I may just have to take vacation and drive down myself for it. I would like to hear everything first hand and not decide innocence or guilt from a made for tv miniseries and a couple of books. Fatal Vision was definitely written to prove guilt and Fatal Justice makes you take a second look. Innocent or guilty, he deserved a fair trial. Some things make me go "hmmmmm?" Still a fence sitter.

Come on down, ERRN! I'll meet you at the courthouse,LOL! I know very little about this case and it sure would be interesting to watch if the re-trial is granted.

wm

JenniferTx
09-20-2012, 09:23 AM
I dont know trigger. I just cant make sense of it and from what I have read they never knew what his motive was for doing this.

imo

MacDonald had no motive to kill his family. Just because he was taking diet pills doesn't make him a murderer. I have been taking perscription diet pills now close to 3 weeks and yes they keep you awake at night but I haven't felt like killing anyone at all. I just don't think him taking diet pills had anything to do with the murders. Granted that I don't really know what happened in that home that night since I wasn't even born until July of 1970.

I had asked my mom about this case since she was pregnant with me at the time. She said she remembers it very clearly and that everyone thought he was guilty. She did say she remembered HS's claim that she was in the house that night. How would HS know about the broken horse if she wasn't in the house?

waltzingmatilda
09-20-2012, 09:36 AM
Thank you ERRN1313. Horrible, just horrible. IMO, no one would do this kind of overkill murder on a woman and children and leave JM in the minor condition he was. He was a Dr, he knew he would be saved before he could die. Collette fought for her life as did one of the girls (can't remember which one). He's guilty as sin and is exactly where he belongs and should have been given the DP and that should have been carried out years ago.
I say go ahead and give this monster another trial, use the hearsay and the jury will wonder why this wasn't brought up years ago when all those people were still alive. Further more with today's technolgy they can do an animated video to show exactly what he did to them and prove it didn't happen the way he said it did. The result will be the same GUILTY. Do you know if he was also charged with the unborn childs death?

Good morning, wonders! I don't think NC had a law back then to charge for an unborn child's death. IIRC, and don't quote me on this, a law was recently enacted. Someone correct if I am wrong please.

wm

robinparten
09-20-2012, 10:51 AM
I have always believed that Jeff killed his family, and that it began with an argument, and/or with him doing something to Kimmie and Collete walking in on him. Once he hit the point of no return by having fatally injured his daughter, he did what he thought he had to do to save himself since he is a narcassist. I believe that many years ago he probably completely disassociated with the events of that evening and he compartmentalized it all. I bet he could probably pass a lie detector test now.

I cannot believe the agony that Colette's family has had to go through, and continues to go through. It's beyond horrible that they are still having to live with this.

believe09
09-20-2012, 11:33 AM
MacDonald had the only motive to kill his family. Nothing was taken from the home-a home jam packed with meds that MacDonald lifted regularly from the base.

He wanted his freedom. Yet another baby on the way-he didnt want any of them to begin with. He married Collette because she was pregnant.

jjw
09-20-2012, 11:54 AM
I have always believed that Jeff killed his family, and that it began with an argument, and/or with him doing something to Kimmie and Collete walking in on him. Once he hit the point of no return by having fatally injured his daughter, he did what he thought he had to do to save himself since he is a narcassist. I believe that many years ago he probably completely disassociated with the events of that evening and he compartmentalized it all. I bet he could probably pass a lie detector test now.

I cannot believe the agony that Colette's family has had to go through, and continues to go through. It's beyond horrible that they are still having to live with this.

This happened years before I was even born, so please excuse my ignorance on this case. I have read and seen various crime shows about the JM case, but don't recall anything about abuse of the wife or children. Was there a history(police reports, ER visits) of spousal abuse in this case?

Wouldn't an autopsy looked for sexual assault on the bodies? In the JonBenet case, the doctors claimed she showed signs of previous sexual abuse. So did the McDonald girls show any signs of previous sexual abuse? Had Colette mentioned that she suspected him of abusing the girls? Or, did these accusations start after he was arrested and convicted of the murders?

A previous poster mentioned that they believed it all started w/the accidental killing of KM. Why do you believe that?

Sorry if my questions are repetitive or dumb, but some of the posts piqued my curiosity.

Madeleine74
09-20-2012, 11:54 AM
MacDonald had no motive to kill his family.

He didn't have a motive until after he beat up his wife so badly he thought she was dead (she wasn't yet). It was an argument/fight that escalated into violence tht night. His daughter Kimberly was hit by the slat of wood he wielded (this slat of wood likely came from the master bedroom closet), Kimberly's blood found in the MBR, near the doorway. He may have hit her by accident at first. Either way, it was at that point he had a decision to make: turn himself in and face the consequences of this fight that got out of control OR try to make it look like a crime committed by others. That was the point where motive comes into play. It's why MacDonald got 2nd degree murder for Collette & Kimberly (i.e. crime of passion or rage, not premeditated) and 1st degree murder for the youngest (premeditated). The knife and ice pick come into play after Collette is beat up, then hit by the club and Kimberly is hit by the club in or near the MBR. The knives and ice pick are part of the staging. He left one knife (a bent paring knife from the kitchen) in the MBR. He took the ice pick and another knife, wiped them on the bathmat in the bathroom (impressions of the wiping are on that mat), then opened the back door and threw out the wiped ice pick and knife behind some bushes next to his apartment and threw out the slat of wood. He left the back door unlocked, which provided the excuse that the "hippies just walked into his house." There was no break-in.

Consider that all the weapons belonged to and came from the MacDonald apartment:

- The slat of wood matched the slats from under one of the kid's beds--it had the same paint on it as was used to paint one of the beds.
- Paring knife from kitchen
- Hickory knife from kitchen drawer
- Ice pick from top of refrigerator (MacDonald denied they owned an ice pick, but 2 witnesses said the family had one & they had used it at the MacDonald apartment)

How would HS know about the broken horse if she wasn't in the house?Supposedly pictures from inside the house, including one showing the broken horse, was published in the paper and this was before HS started saying she was there. She could have seen the picture or heard details of the crime. She was one of the, if not the, top informants for the PD at the time. She was leading a double life--drug addict/drug dealer/cult member and secret informant to the PD. A psychiatrist diagnosed her as having a "schizoid personality disorder."

wonders
09-20-2012, 12:18 PM
[/B]

Good morning, wonders! I don't think NC had a law back then to charge for an unborn child's death. IIRC, and don't quote me on this, a law was recently enacted. Someone correct if I am wrong please.

wm

Good morning to you too waltzingmatilda. Right, someone answered that yesterday. There were no laws on the books at the time for unborn children.

wonders
09-20-2012, 12:30 PM
This happened years before I was even born, so please excuse my ignorance on this case. I have read and seen various crime shows about the JM case, but don't recall anything about abuse of the wife or children. Was there a history(police reports, ER visits) of spousal abuse in this case?

Wouldn't an autopsy looked for sexual assault on the bodies? In the JonBenet case, the doctors claimed she showed signs of previous sexual abuse. So did the McDonald girls show any signs of previous sexual abuse? Had Colette mentioned that she suspected him of abusing the girls? Or, did these accusations start after he was arrested and convicted of the murders?

A previous poster mentioned that they believed it all started w/the accidental killing of KM. Why do you believe that?

Sorry if my questions are repetitive or dumb, but some of the posts piqued my curiosity.

Hi jjw, First of all you have great questions that I'm unable to answer but someone will be able to.
As far as the abuse goes, I can tell you from my personal experince that when the cops showed up at my house one time all they did was shine a flashlight in my face and soon after left. It was such a different time back then.

QueenD
09-20-2012, 01:12 PM
Just to clarify my earlier comment on this, I'm not saying he should get a new trial or that I support him getting a new trial (I don't), but it wouldn't bother me if he did because, other than the cost of a trial (which I agree is not money well spent), I think he'll still be found guilty. Of course I could be wrong and it's always possible a new jury of 12 might see it differently. Anyway, as long as he is never released or declared "not guilty," that's the most important thing to me. I think his chances of actually being granted a new trial are somewhere between slim and none.

If the jury is picked from pinalleas county florida.:floorlaugh:

believe09
09-20-2012, 03:46 PM
If the jury is picked from pinalleas county florida.:floorlaugh:

That was awesome.

hollyjokers
09-20-2012, 04:46 PM
The sexual abuse theory came well after his conviction, and was due in large part to advances in testing that determined it was 5 year old Kimberly who wet the bed, while JM had insisted all along it was Kristen.

hollyjokers
09-20-2012, 06:01 PM
Also, he was examined by a psychiatrist early on for Bernie Segal. The psychiatrist said he didn't believe MacDonald had committed the crimes as he shows no sign of psychosis, but then went on to say MacDonald had some weird sexual hang ups, and was possibly a latent homosexual. Which was why he went out of his way to be uber-macho.

Not a psychiatrist, but I don't think he had to be psychotic to commit the crimes. A short burst of rage that had disastrous consequences. The stabbings, the ice pick, overkill was all simply following through on a plan to save HIMSELF.

oceanblueeyes
09-20-2012, 08:05 PM
An interesting quote from this article



BBM

If Stoeckly's hair was not consistent with any of the crime scene evidence, that pretty much rules her out. So are McDonald's defenders still trying to accuse her of the murders? If she had been there that night, her hair would have been left at the crime scene.

I thought she said she was wearing a wig and a 22 inch synthetic hair was found.

From what I have read she passed polygraphs.

I dont think anyone ever accused her of murder. She is the one who said she was there but didnt murder anyone.



IMO

oceanblueeyes
09-20-2012, 08:11 PM
He didn't have a motive until after he beat up his wife so badly he thought she was dead (she wasn't yet). It was an argument/fight that escalated into violence tht night. His daughter Kimberly was hit by the slat of wood he wielded (this slat of wood likely came from the master bedroom closet), Kimberly's blood found in the MBR, near the doorway. He may have hit her by accident at first. Either way, it was at that point he had a decision to make: turn himself in and face the consequences of this fight that got out of control OR try to make it look like a crime committed by others. That was the point where motive comes into play. It's why MacDonald got 2nd degree murder for Collette & Kimberly (i.e. crime of passion or rage, not premeditated) and 1st degree murder for the youngest (premeditated). The knife and ice pick come into play after Collette is beat up, then hit by the club and Kimberly is hit by the club in or near the MBR. The knives and ice pick are part of the staging. He left one knife (a bent paring knife from the kitchen) in the MBR. He took the ice pick and another knife, wiped them on the bathmat in the bathroom (impressions of the wiping are on that mat), then opened the back door and threw out the wiped ice pick and knife behind some bushes next to his apartment and threw out the slat of wood. He left the back door unlocked, which provided the excuse that the "hippies just walked into his house." There was no break-in.

Consider that all the weapons belonged to and came from the MacDonald apartment:

- The slat of wood matched the slats from under one of the kid's beds--it had the same paint on it as was used to paint one of the beds.
- Paring knife from kitchen
- Hickory knife from kitchen drawer
- Ice pick from top of refrigerator (MacDonald denied they owned an ice pick, but 2 witnesses said the family had one & they had used it at the MacDonald apartment)

Supposedly pictures from inside the house, including one showing the broken horse, was published in the paper and this was before HS started saying she was there. She could have seen the picture or heard details of the crime. She was one of the, if not the, top informants for the PD at the time. She was leading a double life--drug addict/drug dealer/cult member and secret informant to the PD. A psychiatrist diagnosed her as having a "schizoid personality disorder."

Frankly I dont think a drug addict was sitting down reading newspapers or magazines.

The photo was shown but they did not mention the spring was broken even though it was.

HS said she knew it was broken because she sat on it, iirc.

Strange that the Judge found her unreliable yet it came out later on that other police agencies found her very reliable and had depended on her to make over a 100 busts in drug cases.

So she is conveniently incompetent in other criminal cases but then she isnt in the JM case.

Which two witnesses said they had seen the icepick? I know at first Colette's family was adamant that they didnt own one and years later they said they did.

IMO

Madeleine74
09-20-2012, 08:31 PM
I just read that MacDonald failed a polygraph in April 1970. This was given to him by a polygraph expert (Cleve Backster), setup by MacDonald's attorney at the time, Bernie Segal. Backster was sworn to silence and never spoke of it for 17 years until he was subpoenaed in the civil trial in MacDonald vs McGinniss case by the defense. Backster had told Segal:

"The results [of MacDonald's examination] were very unambiguous. They were not borderline at all. In my opinion he was being deceptive … concerning the questions relating to the crime [and so] I told him I could not be of help to him in his defense because he had failed the polygraph test …”

http://www.joemcginniss.net/the-1989-epilogue

Blondie in Spokane
09-20-2012, 09:18 PM
MacDonald had no motive to kill his family. Just because he was taking diet pills doesn't make him a murderer. I have been taking perscription diet pills now close to 3 weeks and yes they keep you awake at night but I haven't felt like killing anyone at all. I just don't think him taking diet pills had anything to do with the murders. Granted that I don't really know what happened in that home that night since I wasn't even born until July of 1970.

I had asked my mom about this case since she was pregnant with me at the time. She said she remembers it very clearly and that everyone thought he was guilty. She did say she remembered HS's claim that she was in the house that night. How would HS know about the broken horse if she wasn't in the house?


i have always believed he was guilty but that has always been a sticking point with me...hiw did she know about the dang broken rocking horse? That still bothers me!

Blondie in Spokane
09-20-2012, 09:24 PM
oh...sorry everyone...I see Madeleine answered this question earlier! I should read thru the WHOLE thread before I jump in.....thanks everybody for all the good info....I had forgotten so much about this case!

And thanks Madeleine!

Madeleine74
09-20-2012, 09:24 PM
i have always believed he was guilty but that has always been a sticking point with me...hiw did she know about the dang broken rocking horse? That still bothers me!

1. Pictures from the bedroom (showing the broken rocking horse) had been allegedly published in the newspaper back then. HS could have seen them.

2. HS was an informant for the FPD (Fayettevlle PD) at the same time as this all was happening. She had frequent contact with investigators and could have learned something that way as well.

Things weren't so tightly controlled back in 1970. Info about the crimes, crime scene, details were much easier to obtain than it is now.

hollyjokers
09-20-2012, 09:51 PM
Which two witnesses said they had seen the icepick? I know at first Colette's family was adamant that they didnt own one and years later they said they did.

IMO

The teenaged neighbor who babysat the girls testified she's used that ice pick to break up Popsicles & Colette's mom had also used it.

Linda7NJ
09-20-2012, 10:12 PM
The sexual abuse theory came well after his conviction, and was due in large part to advances in testing that determined it was 5 year old Kimberly who wet the bed, while JM had insisted all along it was Kristen.

I don't understand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hollyjokers
09-20-2012, 10:24 PM
Um, JM repeatedly said Kristy was in bed with Colette. When he went in to bed after 2 am, he found that she had peed on his side of the bed. He put her in her own bed, then went out & slept on the couch. I believe during the April 1970 interrogation he was asked about it again (I think maybe the investigators mixed up the girls' names & he corrected them, maintaining that it was Kristy). Years later it was determined that the urine could not have come from Kristy, but from Kimmy or Colette & Colette was ruled out. So there is the question of why would he lie about something as seemingly mundane as that.

Hope that helps ?

jjw
09-20-2012, 11:30 PM
Um, JM repeatedly said Kristy was in bed with Colette. When he went in to bed after 2 am, he found that she had peed on his side of the bed. He put her in her own bed, then went out & slept on the couch. I believe during the April 1970 interrogation he was asked about it again (I think maybe the investigators mixed up the girls' names & he corrected them, maintaining that it was Kristy). Years later it was determined that the urine could not have come from Kristy, but from Kimmy or Colette & Colette was ruled out. So there is the question of why would he lie about something as seemingly mundane as that.

Hope that helps ?

Did both girls have trouble with bed wetting? If both did, then he might have just been confused about which one it was. Don't understand why people would assume that was proof of sex abuse.

I need to stop reading Websleuths right before bedtime. Some of these stories freak me out. :nerves:

katydid23
09-20-2012, 11:37 PM
Did both girls have trouble with bed wetting? If both did, then he might have just been confused about which one it was. Don't understand why people would assume that was proof of sex abuse.

I need to stop reading Websleuths right before bedtime. Some of these stories freak me out. :nerves:

It is not 'proof' of sexual abuse. But it often happens when little kids are about to be routinely abused. Sometimes out of fear or anger or avoidance.

fullmoon
09-21-2012, 10:02 AM
The photo was shown but they did not mention the spring was broken even though it was.

48 Hours addressed this. One of the crime scene photos that shows the rocking horse indicates that none of the springs was broken. The photo is shown on the show. It will be repeated on the OWN network on Sept. 25 either at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. (Not sure since the scheduling on OWN notes both times. Those interested may want to set your DVRs from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. just to play it safe).

Linda7NJ
09-21-2012, 12:29 PM
It is not 'proof' of sexual abuse. But it often happens when little kids are about to be routinely abused. Sometimes out of fear or anger or avoidance.

But far more kids just simply wet the bed for no reason at all. Considering its often heredity ...wouldn't be surprised if they both wet the bed.

Betty P
09-21-2012, 01:16 PM
oh...sorry everyone...I see Madeleine answered this question earlier! I should read thru the WHOLE thread before I jump in.....thanks everybody for all the good info....I had forgotten so much about this case!

And thanks Madeleine!

I agree! It's been 20 yrs or more since I read Fatal Vision and all the other information about the case. I really need to refresh my memory, go back and re-read this stuff.

I think the Jeffrey MacDonald case was the very first time I experienced the process of analyzing the evidence, timeline, etc. from start to finish. But all the new stuff I've read lately just doesn't quite convince me he's innocent.

believe09
09-21-2012, 01:17 PM
It was kimmy in the bedroom, and IIRC her blood was on the door jam. Part of the speculation in the book was that he grabbed the bed slat from Collette and hit Kimmy on his back swing. He knocked Collette out, took Kimmy to her room and finished her off, Collette dragged herself to Kristy's room to save her and he murdered both of them there.

Then he carried Collette to the bedroom-his foot print appeared in Collette's blood in the hall way headed to the bedroom.

Again, his blood appeared in two places in minute amounts-on the pocket of his pajamas which was torn off before anyone was injured and in the bathroom where the scalpels were kept.

oceanblueeyes
09-21-2012, 01:30 PM
Frankly I dont think a drug addict was sitting down reading newspapers or magazines.

The photo was shown but they did not mention the spring was broken even though it was.

HS said she knew it was broken because she sat on it, iirc.

Strange that the Judge found her unreliable yet it came out later on that other police agencies found her very reliable and had depended on her to make over a 100 busts in drug cases.

So she is conveniently incompetent in other criminal cases but then she isnt in the JM case.

Which two witnesses said they had seen the icepick? I know at first Colette's family was adamant that they didnt own one and years later they said they did.

IMO

OMG! Im quoting my own post from yesterday. I was so tired when I wrote this post last night and it shows! LOL

I meant to say 'she was conveniently incompetent in the MacDonald case yet very competent in over a hundred drug cases.

Sorry.

oceanblueeyes
09-21-2012, 01:40 PM
I agree! It's been 20 yrs or more since I read Fatal Vision and all the other information about the case. I really need to refresh my memory, go back and re-read this stuff.

I think the Jeffrey MacDonald case was the very first time I experienced the process of analyzing the evidence, timeline, etc. from start to finish. But all the new stuff I've read lately just doesn't quite convince me he's innocent.

BBM

I was always a die hard guilty in the JM case and never even thought much more about it until now nor did I ever read up on it through all these years. I did read Fatal Vision decades ago. Now there are many books I want to read that I wasnt even aware that is out there. I never realized how many sites have been set up for JM over the years either. A lot of them pro-prosection and a lot of them pro-defense.

But now Im not sure if he is guilty or innocent. I never thought I would have any doubt in this case but I do.

Im at the stage of 'maybe he is guilty.....maybe he is innocent.' I just dont know. I havent found anything that convinces me beyond a reasonalbe doubt either way but I sure have read a lot that has shaken my core belief that I have had held for years.

But if half of what I have read about the crime scene being trampled and contaminated or that evidence was withheld from the defense is true... I do think he deserves a new trial whether innocent or not.

IMO

Boodles
09-21-2012, 07:51 PM
48 Hours addressed this. One of the crime scene photos that shows the rocking horse indicates that none of the springs was broken. The photo is shown on the show. It will be repeated on the OWN network on Sept. 25 either at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. (Not sure since the scheduling on OWN notes both times. Those interested may want to set your DVRs from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. just to play it safe).


hmmm, can't find it. It is 48 hours Hard Evidence? None of the descriptions match the MacDonald case when I search on OWN. Thanks.

Madeleine74
09-21-2012, 08:05 PM
This was all I could find:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/48hours/main2580419.shtml

48 Hours: Crime Scene Overview - 48 Hours - CBS News

Blondie in Spokane
09-21-2012, 08:08 PM
BBM

I was always a die hard guilty in the JM case and never even thought much more about it until now nor did I ever read up on it through all these years. I did read Fatal Vision decades ago. Now there are many books I want to read that I wasnt even aware that is out there. I never realized how many sites have been set up for JM over the years either. A lot of them pro-prosection and a lot of them pro-defense.

But now Im not sure if he is guilty or innocent. I never thought I would have any doubt in this case but I do.

Im at the stage of 'maybe he is guilty.....maybe he is innocent.' I just dont know. I havent found anything that convinces me beyond a reasonalbe doubt either way but I sure have read a lot that has shaken my core belief that I have had held for years.

But if half of what I have read about the crime scene being trampled and contaminated or that evidence was withheld from the defense is true... I do think he deserves a new trial whether innocent or not.

IMO

I'm right there with you Ocean!

hollyjokers
09-22-2012, 01:14 AM
In revisiting Bernard Segal's treatment of HS in Fatal Vision, he did everything Blackburn is accused of doing and more. Speaking softly like she was a sleeping child, promising immunity, "the statute of limitations on this is up, nothing will happen I promise," he showed her crime scene photos of all three rooms, then when she remained steadfast that she could not help, she was not there, he threatened her with prison. Later during a lunch break, while eating a bologna sandwich, she flipped through the album of crime scene & autopsy photos like it was a fashion magazine.

She testified on a Friday, they kept her in a hotel in Raleigh over the weekend while the judge mulled over an issue, and it was then she told one of Segal's assistants about the broken horse. She said the wheels were broken, when it was actually on rails.

hollyjokers
09-22-2012, 01:32 AM
Haha! In reference to evil incarnate, Jim Blackburn's intimidation methods. On Monday morning, Segal came in, flush with his new hearsay testimony of Helena's confession, Judge Dupree says, "oh, incidentally, Mr. Segal, Miss Stoeckley also phoned me twice Saturday night to tell me she was in mortal fear of Bernard Segal, counsel for the defendant, and wishes to be appointed her own attorney."

SMK
09-22-2012, 02:45 PM
Don't know if anyone posted this before, just came upon it now:

Author: Jeffrey MacDonald confession needs court hearing

http://media.thestate.com/smedia/2012/09/21/00/22/xesYL.St.74.jpg

A Charlotte couple’s assertion this week that they heard an acquaintance confess to the murder of Jeffrey MacDonald’s family is the latest proof that MacDonald deserves a new trial, writer Errol Morris said Thursday.

Morris is the author of “A Wilderness of Error,” a new and critical look at MacDonald’s 1979 conviction for murder. The writer and filmmaker was in Wilmington for much of the week, sitting in on a federal court hearing in which MacDonald sought a new trial.


http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/21/2450187/author-jeffrey-macdonald-confession.html#.UF31po1lRqE

hollyjokers
09-22-2012, 03:20 PM
I wish someone would write a book about the horrible harassment & crimes committed against an incapacitated woman, with a history of mental illness dating back to high school, all to secure the freedom of a narcissistic killer who has lost countless appeals and case reviews over the past 30 years.

Color me sappy.

Madeleine74
09-22-2012, 06:04 PM
I wish someone would write a book about the horrible harassment & crimes committed against an incapacitated woman, with a history of mental illness dating back to high school, all to secure the freedom of a narcissistic killer who has lost countless appeals and case reviews over the past 30 years.

Color me sappy.

Not to mention HS has been dead for 30 years now.

I always wondered why a woman carrying either a candle or a flashlight would shine it up close to her own face as MacDonald claimed (so Dr. MacDonald could get a good glimpse of her) instead of shining a light towards him, in what was a fairly darkish room. How many people do you know walk around with a light shining the light upon their own faces (outside of some Halloween special affect, that is)? That one never made sense to me either. It was raining all that day, had been for days before, and into the day after, yet HS is carrying around a lit candle and it never went out?

Also in the "huh?" category. MacDonald claims his daughter was yelling, "Daddy,Daddy, Daddy." Why wasn't she yelling for her Mommy, who was her primary caretaker (Daddy worked all day and extra shifts and a 2nd job). I think the daughter WAS yelling "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy" because her Daddy was hitting her mommy with the club. A liar will incorporate some of the truth in a story.

Boodles
09-22-2012, 08:52 PM
Not to mention HS has been dead for 30 years now.

I always wondered why a woman carrying either a candle or a flashlight would shine it up close to her own face as MacDonald claimed (so Dr. MacDonald could get a good glimpse of her) instead of shining a light towards him, in what was a fairly darkish room. How many people do you know walk around with a light shining the light upon their own faces (outside of some Halloween special affect, that is)? That one never made sense to me either. It was raining all that day, had been for days before, and into the day after, yet HS is carrying around a lit candle and it never went out?

Also in the "huh?" category. MacDonald claims his daughter was yelling, "Daddy,Daddy, Daddy." Why wasn't she yelling for her Mommy, who was her primary caretaker (Daddy worked all day and extra shifts and a 2nd job). I think the daughter WAS yelling "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy" because her Daddy was hitting her mommy with the club. A liar will incorporate some of the truth in a story.

EXACTLY! I had a chilling thought yesterday. It's said there's an ounce of truth in every lie...

Well, remember Jeff has always claimed that he awoke to Colette's screams of "Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" I have always thought that was such a stupid phrase for him to have made up. She would not have screamed those words to him from the bedroom if he was in the living room. She would have screamed "HELP!" or "Stop" or "why are you[/b] doing this?"

But now I get it. If your husband is beating you with a wood club, you might scream, "{insert name}, why are YOU doing this to me?" And that is what I think JM heard in Colette's screams that night as he was killing her. She wasn't asking him why [u]they were beating/stabbing her; she was begging him to know why HE was.... So his lie is partially based on some words he heard. Maybe this has been obvious to everyone else all these years, but it just clicked for me...

So tragic.

Madeleine74
09-22-2012, 10:27 PM
But now I get it. If your husband is beating you with a wood club, you might scream, "{insert name}, why are YOU doing this to me?" And that is what I think JM heard in Colette's screams that night as he was killing her.

That quote is exactly something that Prosecutor Blackburn mentioned during his closing arguments. He suggested the same thing to the jury.

I got a hold of an ebook copy of Fatal Vision to reread since it's been at least 25 years since I first read it.

Blondie in Spokane
09-22-2012, 10:33 PM
EXACTLY! I had a chilling thought yesterday. It's said there's an ounce of truth in every lie...

Well, remember Jeff has always claimed that he awoke to Colette's screams of "Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" I have always thought that was such a stupid phrase for him to have made up. She would not have screamed those words to him from the bedroom if he was in the living room. She would have screamed "HELP!" or "Stop" or "why are you[/b] doing this?"

But now I get it. If your husband is beating you with a wood club, you might scream, "{insert name}, why are YOU doing this to me?" And that is what I think JM heard in Colette's screams that night as he was killing her. She wasn't asking him why [u]they were beating/stabbing her; she was begging him to know why HE was.... So his lie is partially based on some words he heard. Maybe this has been obvious to everyone else all these years, but it just clicked for me...

So tragic.
I had never thought of that....certainly makes sense....thanks for posting that!

sandybeach1267
09-22-2012, 10:45 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not but people DO break into homes without weapons, without being heard by the adults, sometimes even animals do not respond, they do use weapons found in the home, kill children and leave adults unharmed. I know I am spelling the name wrong but think of Tommy Lynn Sells. A mother was convicted of murdering her own son only to later be released when he confessed. Jessica Lundsford was kidnapped from her own bedroom without any adults waking up. ANYTHING is possible and we should remember that before assuming that no one would do such a thing. They have and they will again!

LinasK
09-22-2012, 10:46 PM
I got a hold of an ebook copy of Fatal Vision to reread since it's been at least 25 years since I first read it.
I'm pretty sure I still have the original!

hollyjokers
09-22-2012, 10:57 PM
Nobody is ASSUMING anything. He was tried and found guilty by a panel of jurists his attorneys approved. His conviction has been appealed to the Supreme Court & upheld. No investigation is without flaw, but his story & the forensic evidence are "diametrically opposed."

Madeleine74
09-22-2012, 11:03 PM
ANYTHING is possible and we should remember that before assuming that no one would do such a thing. They have and they will again!

Anything may be "possible" in the realm of hypothetical crimes out there but in this case, that's simply not what happened. You'd have to spin such a convoluted set of circumstances to make MacDonald's story fit -- 4 intruders, no weapons other than those they found inside the apartment, no footprints (and it was raining and muddy outside so I guess the 4 intruders were levitating that night), no fingerprints, no injuries, no fibers from them, 3 men attacking 1 person on a couch while one woman stands there, yet that man is barely injured. At the exact same time somehow those 4 people who are attacking MacDonald are simultaneously attacking his wife in a back bedroom AND his 5 year old daughter, and stabbing the wife with an ice pick through her chest, leaving a torn PJ pocket and PJ threads on the floor and under the body of Collette in the MBR while MacDonald's PJ top is still on him in the living room. According to MacDonald, his pajama top was never off of his body until *he dropped it onto the floor and then put it over his wife's chest.* How did the 48 perfectly cylindrical ice pick holes get in MacDonald's PJ top and manage to match the wound pattern (21 holes) in Collette's chest?

Nope. Defies the laws of physics, time, space, gravity and probably several other laws I haven't thought of.

Cappuccino
09-22-2012, 11:04 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not but people DO break into homes without weapons, without being heard by the adults, sometimes even animals do not respond, they do use weapons found in the home, kill children and leave adults unharmed. I know I am spelling the name wrong but think of Tommy Lynn Sells. A mother was convicted of murdering her own son only to later be released when he confessed. Jessica Lundsford was kidnapped from her own bedroom without any adults waking up. ANYTHING is possible and we should remember that before assuming that no one would do such a thing. They have and they will again!

Yes, you're right, such things do happen, bizarre as they may seem. I'm not a fan at all of accusing the one person left alive in the house just because he/she is left alive. The case you quote of Julie Rae Harper is one shocking example of why people should NOT do that, but there are many, many others. Stephanie Crowe, Riley Fox, Elisabeth Smart, etc etc.

Most people here know of those cases, and yet most people here are highly skeptical of MacDonald's defense. Why? Hmmm...a group of hippies who break into a house to commit mass murder, chanting "acid is groovy, kill the pigs", and leave the man of the house alive. This is backed up by a mentally "not all there" woman who confesses, recants, confesses, recants and so on.

Sorry, but this is claptrap. I'm sure it sounded believable back in 1970, with the Manson family still fresh in peoples' memories, and with knowledge of false confessions being close to zero. But with the knowledge we have in 2012, its a wonder Helena Stoeckley and her friends didn't fall prey to a miscarriage of justice. MacDonald may or may not be entitled to a new trial, but only on legal technicalities. He is by no means an innocence case, and I'm disappointed in Errol Morris for taking him on as such.

borndem
09-23-2012, 01:46 AM
An ice pick that never injured him.

That's correct - and all of the weapons used were found in the master or found neatly placed just outside the back door of their house, and they were all traced back to the MacD home.

His wounds were very slight. He had a punctured lung that was quickly repaired at the hospital, and he had a slight abrasion on the left side of his forehead -- the medicos that attended his injuries did not even put a BandAid on his forehead. The wounds were nowhere close to being a danger to his life.

He said he was fighting with one of the intruders when he was in the living room -- his said it looked like an icepick, and stated that the cuts in his pj top were when it was around his hands (his words to account for the many holes in his pj top), but he had no puncture injuries from that "attack."

Guilty then. Guilty now. Period. JMHO.

Sonya610
09-23-2012, 07:03 AM
This is happening in Georgia too. A man who confessed to killing a store clerk in 1974 wants a new trial. He not only confessed but his family hid the loot from the robbery for him.

He finally got a new trial but now his lawyers want the charges DISMISSED not because they claim he is innocent, but because most of the evidence is now gone and key witnesses have either died or are now senile, even the lead investigator has since died.

I wonder if this will be a new trend for murderers convicted ages ago?

Article on Georgia new trial scam:
During a hearing Thursday in which bond was denied for Johnson, Stacey F. Morris argued “almost every piece of evidence” in the case is no longer in existence and a key witness has died.

http://www.macon.com/2012/09/21/2186017/warner-robins-woman-floated-purchases.html

sandybeach1267
09-23-2012, 09:15 AM
Ok, so after re-familiarizing myself with the details of this case I believe that there are enough questions to at least give the man another trial. Why is it possible to believe that Charles Manson could get people to commit murder for him and in such a horrible way but unbelievable that there may be another group of "crazies" that would do something similar? There are copy cat killers all the time. The crime scene was completely contaminated, witnesses were not listened to, evidence "disappeared", and the man has consistently maintained his innocence for 40 years. I always have questions when important evidence is conveniently gone. It is easier for us to believe that a previously high functioning member of society would suddenly "freak out" and kill his own family than to believe that a group of people using drugs known to cause violence would break in and do something so heinous. It helps us sleep at night. As for the "lie" about which child wet the bed, who knows what kind of chaos would be in your mind after such an event. Do we really expect that anyone is humanly capable of remembering an event such as this in complete detail? IF he had been caught molesting his daughter, that may explain the reason for killing his family, however, why would he molest her in the same bed that his wife were sleeping in? I have been a victim of this myself and believe that it would have been done in the child's room where no one else would be but the two of them. I have heard that his reaction to this accusation was noticeable. There have been way too many innocent people convicted simply because the first responders assumed it was them and chose to ignore evidence to the contrary. All the evidence that points away from them somehow disappears. We have a problem in this country and IMO it's time to face it instead of continuing to believe that people simply "snap" and kill their own families. Not that they don't but again, I feel that we are quicker to believe this because we don't want to think that some stranger could enter our homes and do the same. How many parents have to lose their children and then go through the horror of being falsely blamed and imprisoned for it before we accept that the alternative often happens?

believe09
09-23-2012, 09:38 AM
After reading McGuiness's current testimony about being present when Helena was interviewed by the defense team, this one is going to die a pretty quick death imo.

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/09/21/1205722?sac=fo.local

Please, let it be the last we hear of this man until his obit.

believe09
09-23-2012, 09:57 AM
I wish someone would write a book about the horrible harassment & crimes committed against an incapacitated woman, with a history of mental illness dating back to high school, all to secure the freedom of a narcissistic killer who has lost countless appeals and case reviews over the past 30 years.

Color me sappy.

I loved this post. You should write it-I will buy it for sure. :blowkiss:

SoBeCzar
09-23-2012, 10:41 AM
It has been a very long time since I read about this case so forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question. Can't the board used have DNA testing done to check the end where someone would hold it to wield it? Has it been checked? Even if LE did a sloppy investigation it would not place Macdonalds dna on the end of the board.
I read where a killers dna was found many many yrs later on the shirt sleeves of a woman who's body was dumped. The theory was a killer would have drug her by her arms thus leaving dna on her long sleeves.

Madeleine74
09-23-2012, 11:24 AM
If the board is still in evidence and chain-of-custody has been maintained, sure it can be DNA tested. Anything can be tested as long as permission is given by the court and someone pays for the testing.

Since MacDonald was convicted of 3 murders the burden is no longer on the state to prove his guilt (since they already did that in 1979), the burden shifts to MacDonald to prove his innocence and/or find a legal reason his conviction should be overturned.

SLM
09-23-2012, 11:42 AM
It's been many, many years since I've read or seen anything on this case but, if memory serves, his account of the events always seemed very contrived. From the minimal signs of struggle in the living room, to the matching up of the stab wounds in his pyjama top to the wounds on his wife's torso, and why leave him alive when they so brutally killed every other member of the family. It just doesn't make any sense.

SoBeCzar
09-23-2012, 12:30 PM
If the board is still in evidence and chain-of-custody has been maintained, sure it can be DNA tested. Anything can be tested as long as permission is given by the court and someone pays for the testing.

Since MacDonald was convicted of 3 murders the burden is no longer on the state to prove his guilt (since they already did that in 1979), the burden shifts to MacDonald to prove his innocence and/or find a legal reason his conviction should be overturned.


Thank you. I was thinking in terms of a new trial. If anyone has doubts it might be definitive evidence to convince them. I have no doubts.

LaMer
09-23-2012, 01:17 PM
Ok, so after re-familiarizing myself with the details of this case I believe that there are enough questions to at least give the man another trial. Why is it possible to believe that Charles Manson could get people to commit murder for him and in such a horrible way but unbelievable that there may be another group of "crazies" that would do something similar? There are copy cat killers all the time. The crime scene was completely contaminated, witnesses were not listened to, evidence "disappeared", and the man has consistently maintained his innocence for 40 years. I always have questions when important evidence is conveniently gone. It is easier for us to believe that a previously high functioning member of society would suddenly "freak out" and kill his own family than to believe that a group of people using drugs known to cause violence would break in and do something so heinous. It helps us sleep at night. As for the "lie" about which child wet the bed, who knows what kind of chaos would be in your mind after such an event. Do we really expect that anyone is humanly capable of remembering an event such as this in complete detail? IF he had been caught molesting his daughter, that may explain the reason for killing his family, however, why would he molest her in the same bed that his wife were sleeping in? I have been a victim of this myself and believe that it would have been done in the child's room where no one else would be but the two of them. I have heard that his reaction to this accusation was noticeable. There have been way too many innocent people convicted simply because the first responders assumed it was them and chose to ignore evidence to the contrary. All the evidence that points away from them somehow disappears. We have a problem in this country and IMO it's time to face it instead of continuing to believe that people simply "snap" and kill their own families. Not that they don't but again, I feel that we are quicker to believe this because we don't want to think that some stranger could enter our homes and do the same. How many parents have to lose their children and then go through the horror of being falsely blamed and imprisoned for it before we accept that the alternative often happens?

I agree, a new trail would be warranted, especially after reading Errol Morris's book, A Wilderness of Error.

I am curious to know if any one here had read the book.

JulieR
09-23-2012, 01:54 PM
I agree, a new trail would be warranted, especially after reading Errol Morris's book, A Wilderness of Error.

I am curious to know if any one here had read the book.

No didn't read the book. I have been studying the material on all the web sites. I agree he should get a new trial. To read his accounts of what happened, I believe he is guilty!! However there are things I question things like the PJ, top that was a joke, how they made that match. Then his PJ bottoms were lost. I also think its strange he didn't have much injuries to his hands like you would expect after stabbing someone, or any scratch marks. If there really was 3 hairs found that don't match the Macdonald family they were found on and near the body......that makes you question. I also believe skin from under some one's finger nail was lost. In cases like this it always makes me question since they didn't seem to have enough to put him away the first time, then what 9 years later they do? IDK I am still reading and tend to believe it deserves to be looked at again, then on the flip side you could say he sure covered his tracks, by saying I removed the knife, I checked and rechecked the kids, I washed my hands. Macdonald maintaining his innocents don't mean much to me, really he isn't going to get out by saying he did it. I just think at this point it should all be put before a jury and let them decide and any and all evidence that's left should be tested !!!!

JulieR
09-23-2012, 01:59 PM
It's been many, many years since I've read or seen anything on this case but, if memory serves, his account of the events always seemed very contrived. From the minimal signs of struggle in the living room, to the matching up of the stab wounds in his pyjama top to the wounds on his wife's torso, and why leave him alive when they so brutally killed every other member of the family. It just doesn't make any sense.

Aw I know however remember the Dr. Petit family killings, had the two guys not been caught right away it could have looked like the Dr. was involved.

katydid23
09-23-2012, 02:22 PM
Aw I know however remember the Dr. Petit family killings, had the two guys not been caught right away it could have looked like the Dr. was involved.

But they thought Dr. Petit was tied up in the basement unconscious. Then they set the house on fire. So they did not leave him expecting he was going to survive, imo.

Why would 'hippies', trippin on LSD and chanting about killing the 'pigs', viciously murder two little girls and barely touch an Army captain?

borndem
09-23-2012, 02:27 PM
But just because they found three hairs in the home, that does not mean they were the killers. I am sure the kids had friends over and there were housekeepers or workers and neighbors and others who entered the home that week.

Very good point, katydid -- JM liked to have a couple of folks over for drinks, regardless of the strain it may have put on Collette who would be trying to get dinner organized & done -- heaven knows he was no help. Anyway, those hairs could be from cocktail-time guests, some Green Beret buddy or two, a baby sitter (the hair under Kristen's fingernail), or anyone who may have visited and held Kristen or given her a bottle or some little playmate of Kim's or Kristen's, etc., etc. I just don't think those hairs are that big a deal. That they weren't found initially is understandable or it could be a bit worrisome for a couple of even nefarious reasons.

On another subject, as has been said previously, the walls in those duplexes is apparently quite thin -- our neighbors, a retired Army Colonel and his wife, who had lived in just the same type duplex years ago in Ft. Bragg -- near Castle Drive -- said you could hear the commode flush or someone sneeze in the apt. next door. They agreed that there was no way a band of anybody could come in and do that type of crime without waking up everyone in the next door apt. And they added that the master bedroom in the apts. shared a wall.

Guilty then. Guilty now. Period.

TorisMom003
09-23-2012, 02:39 PM
JM has lied about many things that he claims occured that night. There is plenty of reason why the MPs and LE thought that he was the one who killed his family. JM claimed that he did mouth to mouth on both the girls and Collette, however, there is no way that he actually performed mouth to mouth on either one of the girls. One need only look at the crime scene photos to understand that is a lie. There was no struggle of life or death in the living room area, the proof of that is the cards still being upright on the cabinet. A group of "hippies" on acid is not going to be together enough to commit and clean up a crime in the manner in which this was done. It's pretty amazing that they (the 4 or maybe it was 6) were able to find a home of a Dr that had the back door unlocked. So many lies that have been proven to be lies.

Personally I don't see the point of another trial. It would be a waste of money when the verdict would remain the same.

MOO

borndem
09-23-2012, 02:58 PM
This site has lots of case information, and input from Colette's brother.

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

A lot of reading -- but it's a must for any follower of this case. Very interesting. I've seen & read it before, but it's very much worth another review.

Thanks, KathrynL for providing.

JulieR
09-23-2012, 03:40 PM
But they thought Dr. Petit was tied up in the basement unconscious. Then they set the house on fire. So they did not leave him expecting he was going to survive, imo.

Why would 'hippies', trippin on LSD and chanting about killing the 'pigs', viciously murder two little girls and barely touch an Army captain?

Why kill the children well because they could ID the killer. Maybe they thought Macdonald was dead.

My point was IF the guys weren't caught right away, since Dr. Petit lived they would have looked at him as having involvement in his families deaths.
I do for the most part believe Macdonald is guilty, but there is still them little things that nag me, that's why I am trying to come to my own conclusions from the material available. However I am the first to admit I always give people the benefit I would be the worst person to be on a jury.......really.

borndem
09-23-2012, 04:18 PM
Helena Stoeckly was a drug abuser who changed her story about a dozen times. Sometimes she was there, sometimes not, sometimes she couldn't remember. She was determined to be an unreliable witness because she was so impaired she couldn't figure out what day it was most of the time. She was a heroin addict, an alcoholic, and couldn't determine reality.

What hippies walk into someone's home, don't have any weapons on them, go searching and find an icepick and a knife and also take a slat of wood matching one daughter's bed and go on a rampage on a 2 yr old, a 5 yr old and a helpless sleeping pregnant woman? Not even Charlie Manson would allow the hurting of a child (though I guess he didn't care about pregnant women).

You have to look at the evidence to see how ridiculous JM's claims are and how they don't match the crime scene.

Absolutely, Madeleine! Not only that -- if these 4 people were on acid during this break-in/murder (with not a murder weapon among them), they would not be in a murderous rage, they would not have the power of organized thought to plan such a thing, & they would have a heyell of a time finding a specific address, and remembering & carrying out their initial plan and strategy would be impossible.

It just didn't happen -- not a chance. LSD just does not affect people in that way, ever. It's very difficult just to drive a car out of a driveway. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

LinasK
09-23-2012, 04:54 PM
JM has lied about many things that he claims occured that night. There is plenty of reason why the MPs and LE thought that he was the one who killed his family. JM claimed that he did mouth to mouth on both the girls and Collette, however, there is no way that he actually performed mouth to mouth on either one of the girls. One need only look at the crime scene photos to understand that is a lie. There was no struggle of life or death in the living room area, the proof of that is the cards still being upright on the cabinet. A group of "hippies" on acid is not going to be together enough to commit and clean up a crime in the manner in which this was done. It's pretty amazing that they (the 4 or maybe it was 6) were able to find a home of a Dr that had the back door unlocked. So many lies that have been proven to be lies.

Personally I don't see the point of another trial. It would be a waste of money when the verdict would remain the same.

MOO I agree!

LinasK
09-23-2012, 05:03 PM
Don't know if anyone posted this before, just came upon it now:

Author: Jeffrey MacDonald confession needs court hearing

http://media.thestate.com/smedia/2012/09/21/00/22/xesYL.St.74.jpg

A Charlotte couple’s assertion this week that they heard an acquaintance confess to the murder of Jeffrey MacDonald’s family is the latest proof that MacDonald deserves a new trial, writer Errol Morris said Thursday.

Morris is the author of “A Wilderness of Error,” a new and critical look at MacDonald’s 1979 conviction for murder. The writer and filmmaker was in Wilmington for much of the week, sitting in on a federal court hearing in which MacDonald sought a new trial.


http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/21/2450187/author-jeffrey-macdonald-confession.html#.UF31po1lRqE
The thing is- false confessions happen more frequently than one would think. Just look at John Mark Karr in the JonBenet Ramsey case. He got the DA to fly him over free of charge from Thailand and released him here in the United States when he is a pedophile, but none of the evidence linked him to the case in the slightest!!! Some people just want their 15 min. of fame.

hollyjokers
09-23-2012, 05:06 PM
I thought it was interesting that during the 1979 trial when MacDonald's attorney was trying to coerce Helena Stoekley into admitting she was in the house, he showed her the crime scene photos. She said a person on acid, weed, heroin & whatever else that she normally took would not have done that, but someone on speed would. "Did they ever check to see if he was on speed?" It was after the trial was over, McGinniss was staying in MacDonald's Huntington Beach condo, he found MacDonald's notes saying he may have taken an Eskatrol pill with dinner.

borndem
09-23-2012, 05:44 PM
There were unforgivable mistakes made in the investigation, but the mistakes do not account for the blood evidence, the lack of ANY forensic evidence in the living room area of attack, his many lies such as not owning the ice pick, knives & wooden club, or how he & a green beret buddy hunted down & killed one of the real killers. No reason for an innocent man to lie about those things.

What evidence makes you think he has been innocent all along? Testimony of celebrity coroner Thomas Noguchi? He'll state his opinion to suit the highest bidder.

Lots of mistakes made by investigators in Kathleen Savio's case as well, but the truth still shines through in the end..

Ouch! And touche, jokers. The Thanks button was not enuff for this post! Excellent comparison, IMO.

They matched the club to slats to Kim's (was it Kim's? or Kristens's) bed; the babysitter testified to using the ice pick; and one of the knives had been used to pry open a can of paint used in the house. If you were the killer(s) would you have stopped to neatly put them in the backyard of the apt, near the door, or would you have possibly have dumped them in a dumpster or storm drain, etc.??

And why, if the killers were in the living room with JM, would Collette be saying "Help" and "Why are they doing this to me?" ? Why would his pj threads -- lots of them -- be under Collette's body? And in the backyard? And under Kim's fingernail? And how could a stain pattern of Collette's blood be seen on the pocket of his pj's before it was torn? And why is so little of JM's blood type in the apt -- drops found in the bathroom (where he injured himself with the scalpel) & kitchen only (where he got the gloves)? And so much more...

borndem
09-23-2012, 06:10 PM
It's just a travesty that men who tell enormous lies (have to be in Russiia during birth of 3rd child), wind up with dead wives & kids, and THEN have to put up with corrupt police, DA's, judges....damn shame.

I think it may also be the cause of global warming....

katydid23
09-23-2012, 06:19 PM
Why kill the children well because they could ID the killer. Maybe they thought Macdonald was dead.

My point was IF the guys weren't caught right away, since Dr. Petit lived they would have looked at him as having involvement in his families deaths.
I do for the most part believe Macdonald is guilty, but there is still them little things that nag me, that's why I am trying to come to my own conclusions from the material available. However I am the first to admit I always give people the benefit I would be the worst person to be on a jury.......really.

The youngest girl was two years old. There was no chance she was going to ID anyone. She was stabbed 33 times, so it was not a case of protecting one's identity, imo.

There was no reason to think McDonald was dead. He had little to no injuries and he would have been breathing and had a pulse. Everyone else in the family was brutalized. They were victims of overkill. He had one serious stabbing injury, compared to 33 in the 2 yr old.

Madeleine74
09-23-2012, 07:50 PM
The problem with murder cases is when you let your feelings rule instead of just looking at the evidence.

The logic employed in these situations goes on emotion and not the physical evidence--to some it seems possible that since a Charlie Manson & his mind control cult did what they did in 1969 in Hollywood that it could be repeated again and in a matter of months. Never mind that such a thing has never occurred again in the 43 years since, just the fact that it's possible, allows some to make the leap that it must have happened in the MacDonald case because MacDonald said so and someone wrote "PIG" on the headboard in the bedroom.

Those surgical gloves used in the commission of the crime at the MacDonald house, the ones in which bloody pieces were found? Those were stored under the kitchen sink, behind a sack of potatoes, behind cleaners and underneath something else. IOW, not visible at all and not easily accessible. Yet those who believe 4 intruders were there think it logical drugged out intruders found (or brought their own I guess) surgical gloves; to me it shows they don't know the simple facts in the case.

Or they read something about crime scene contamination and to them that means every single piece of blood evidence, fiber, gloves, all of it, is somehow not relevant. There were 81 fibers from MacDonald's PJs in the master bedroom. There were a dozen or more of PJ fibers in Kim's room under her covers and more fibers in Kristen's room. There were ZERO PJ fibers in the LR, where MacDonald said he was attacked. No one was walking around sprinkling MacDonald PJ fibers. How could all evidence of 4 intruders be magically obliterated in the apartment but only blood, fiber and other evidence from the family be left?

Or upon hearing that MacDonald's PJ bottoms got thrown away or a piece of skin under one daughter's nails was misplaced that somehow exonerates MacDonald. It doesn't. You have to use all the other evidence you have that wasn't thrown away.

And none of the misplaced evidence erases MacDonald's blatant and obvious lies. You have to ask yourself WHY an innocent husband and father would not only lie about the murders and the crime scene but show no interest at all in finding out who did this to his family. The only ones looking for answers and demanding case updates were Collette's mother and stepfather. MacDonald was busy building his new life in CA.

believe09
09-23-2012, 08:00 PM
I am trying to decide under what circumstances a multi time convicted murderer whose convictions have been repeatedly upheld should be allowed to burn the resources of cash strapped jurisdictions for something so completely un-awe inspiring as the evidence raised.

I appreciate the desire to cross every t and dot every i. MacDonald is playing a game. Like Bundy and many others...like the ones Scott Peterson and Drew Peterson will play as well.

I have worked with the Innocence Project and have been amazed and heartened by the work they do. IIRC, they havent touched MacDonald with a 10 foot pole. Please correct me if I am wrong.

JulieR
09-23-2012, 08:25 PM
The youngest girl was two years old. There was no chance she was going to ID anyone. She was stabbed 33 times, so it was not a case of protecting one's identity, imo.

There was no reason to think McDonald was dead. He had little to no injuries and he would have been breathing and had a pulse. Everyone else in the family was brutalized. They were victims of overkill. He had one serious stabbing injury, compared to 33 in the 2 yr old.

Some places say his wounds were bad and other places make light of them. He was in the hospital I think 8 days. I never read the 2 year old was stabbed 33 times....haven't been that far maybe. I know many here have a strong belief in his guilt and I can't blame them, I need to come to that conclusion on my own. It sure appears he is guilty, I just have a hard time with after the fact 9 years later they have enough to put him away. I really wish with all the new DNA stuff that wasn't available back then they would retest all that's left and put an end to it. If other people really were in the house it would show on some of their clothing or something, touch DNA on the weapons something would be left. With the hairs found someone said well other people would have left hairs babysitters, friends I agree but these were found on the bodies one under the youngest finger nails it just seem worth testing. I always have that little thing that says what if..........what if he is innocent? I know don't blast me I do still need to read more, believe me every time I read Macdonald's own words I'm like He is guilty!! He didn't do himself any good by talking thats for sure.

borndem
09-23-2012, 08:27 PM
A bit about Jim Blackburn -

I know Jim Blackburn personally -- he's not a close friend, but he is a friend of mine, and I have known him ever since he was prosecuting MacDonald in Federal Court. He was then, and still is, brilliant, a true Southern gentleman (and I mean this as a very fine compliment), a Christian, a good family man, and an honest and good citizen. I saw him in triumph and in tragedy. He is doing well, very happy and upbeat and still charming (in that way that some people do when they don't realize they're doing it). He is a good guy.

This blurb from his website explains briefly his fall:

http://blackburnseminars.com/author

katydid23
09-23-2012, 08:46 PM
Some places say his wounds were bad and other places make light of them. He was in the hospital I think 8 days. I never read the 2 year old was stabbed 33 times....haven't been that far maybe. I know many here have a strong belief in his guilt and I can't blame them, I need to come to that conclusion on my own. It sure appears he is guilty, I just have a hard time with after the fact 9 years later they have enough to put him away. I really wish with all the new DNA stuff that wasn't available back then they would retest all that's left and put an end to it. If other people really were in the house it would show on some of their clothing or something, touch DNA on the weapons something would be left. With the hairs found someone said well other people would have left hairs babysitters, friends I agree but these were found on the bodies one under the youngest finger nails it just seem worth testing. I always have that little thing that says what if..........what if he is innocent? I know don't blast me I do still need to read more, believe me every time I read Macdonald's own words I'm like He is guilty!! He didn't do himself any good by talking thats for sure.

Colette, who had been pregnant with her third child, was lying on the floor of her bedroom. She had been repeatedly clubbed (both her arms were broken) and stabbed 37 times (21 times with an ice pick and 16 times with a knife). Her husband's torn pajama top was draped upon her chest. On the headboard of the bed, the word "pig" was written in blood.
Five-year-old Kimberley was found in her bed, having been clubbed in the head and stabbed in the neck with a knife between eight and ten times. Two-year-old Kristen was found in her own bed; she had been stabbed with a knife 33 times and stabbed with an ice pick 15 times.[2][3][4]
MacDonald was found next to his wife alive but wounded. His wounds were not as severe as what his family had suffered. He was immediately taken to nearby Womack Hospital. MacDonald suffered cuts and bruises on his face and chest along with a mild concussion. He also had a stab wound on his left torso in what a staff surgeon referred to as a "clean, small, sharp" incision that caused one lung to partially collapse. He was treated at Womack Hospital and released after one week.[5]

[from wiki...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald

ETA: How hard would your husband or boyfriend fight to save his little children from invaders? Mine would have had a lot more than one stab wound to take him down. And he is not a trained Army warrior in peak condition either.

hollyjokers
09-23-2012, 09:33 PM
The problem with murder cases is when you let your feelings rule instead of just looking at the evidence.

The logic employed in these situations goes on emotion and not the physical evidence--to some it seems possible that since a Charlie Manson & his mind control cult did what they did in 1969 in Hollywood that it could be repeated again and in a matter of months. Never mind that such a thing has never occurred again in the 43 years since, just the fact that it's possible, allows some to make the leap that it must have happened in the MacDonald case because MacDonald said so and someone wrote "PIG" on the headboard in the bedroom.

Those surgical gloves used in the commission of the crime at the MacDonald house, the ones in which bloody pieces were found? Those were stored under the kitchen sink, behind a sack of potatoes, behind cleaners and underneath something else. IOW, not visible at all and not easily accessible. Yet those who believe 4 intruders were there think it logical drugged out intruders found (or brought their own I guess) surgical gloves; to me it shows they don't know the simple facts in the case.

Or they read something about crime scene contamination and to them that means every single piece of blood evidence, fiber, gloves, all of it, is somehow not relevant. There were 81 fibers from MacDonald's PJs in the master bedroom. There were a dozen or more of PJ fibers in Kim's room under her covers and more fibers in Kristen's room. There were ZERO PJ fibers in the LR, where MacDonald said he was attacked. No one was walking around sprinkling MacDonald PJ fibers. How could all evidence of 4 intruders be magically obliterated in the apartment but only blood, fiber and other evidence from the family be left?

Or upon hearing that MacDonald's PJ bottoms got thrown away or a piece of skin under one daughter's nails was misplaced that somehow exonerates MacDonald. It doesn't. You have to use all the other evidence you have that wasn't thrown away.

And none of the misplaced evidence erases MacDonald's blatant and obvious lies. You have to ask yourself WHY an innocent husband and father would not only lie about the murders and the crime scene but show no interest at all in finding out who did this to his family. The only ones looking for answers and demanding case updates were Collette's mother and stepfather. MacDonald was busy building his new life in CA.

I <3 you. lol

Madeleine74
09-23-2012, 09:55 PM
The reason, btw, that all the really 'good' forensic evidence only came to light later was because the FBI got involved. While Hoover was still in charge of the FBI, he wrote a memo in which he refused the FBI to get involved in the MacDonald case since it was a "military matter." It wasn't until after Hoover's death in 1972 (3 yrs after the murders) that the FBI could even be approached to help investigate the crime.

The rest of the years were filled with various initiatives to get the Justice Dept to reopen the investigation, and all the other legal maneuverings it took (by Freddy Kassab, Collette's father) to bring about justice. It didn't take 9 years to "find" the evidence...most of that time was because no one wanted to bother investigating the case after the military declined to bring the case to court martial in 1970. It's a lot of extra work to take on a case. Kassab fought an uphill battle all the way. That he got this case re-opened and investigated is an amazing testament to the human spirit because he was turned down so many times by so many people. Investigating this case became his life's mission--he wanted to know the truth. And he did it; he got this case solved.

JulieR
09-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Colette, who had been pregnant with her third child, was lying on the floor of her bedroom. She had been repeatedly clubbed (both her arms were broken) and stabbed 37 times (21 times with an ice pick and 16 times with a knife). Her husband's torn pajama top was draped upon her chest. On the headboard of the bed, the word "pig" was written in blood.
Five-year-old Kimberley was found in her bed, having been clubbed in the head and stabbed in the neck with a knife between eight and ten times. Two-year-old Kristen was found in her own bed; she had been stabbed with a knife 33 times and stabbed with an ice pick 15 times.[2][3][4]
MacDonald was found next to his wife alive but wounded. His wounds were not as severe as what his family had suffered. He was immediately taken to nearby Womack Hospital. MacDonald suffered cuts and bruises on his face and chest along with a mild concussion. He also had a stab wound on his left torso in what a staff surgeon referred to as a "clean, small, sharp" incision that caused one lung to partially collapse. He was treated at Womack Hospital and released after one week.[5]

[from wiki...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald

ETA: How hard would your husband or boyfriend fight to save his little children from invaders? Mine would have had a lot more than one stab wound to take him down. And he is not a trained Army warrior in peak condition either.

Wow I just started reading at that site tonight.... Poor Colette I am reading about her now she really put up one heck of a fight then after the autopsy they put the baby back inside her .....that just made me cry.
Oooo and to your question agree mine would be dead before he would stop fighting for his family......well he isn't in peak condition I would have to fight for him I guess....lol.

Madeleine74
09-23-2012, 10:11 PM
Some of the evidence:

"The laboratory team from Fort Gordon spent four days inside 544 Castle Drive.

In addition to the eighty-one blue threads in the master bedroom, they found nineteen in the bedroom of Kimberly MacDonald, the majority of them under the covers that had been tucked up around the dead girl. Two threads were found in Kristen's bedroom, but in the living room, where Jeffrey MacDonald had said his pajama top had been torn during his struggle with the intruders, no fibers from it were found. A CID agent with a magnifying glass spent hours on his hands and knees, searching through the nap of the living room carpet, but all he found was some confetti from a child's game and a few strands of tinsel which had fallen, weeks earlier, from the family Christmas tree. Investigators found not only fibers, but splinters. These splinters, which were bloodstained and which appeared to have broken off the club that had been found outside the back door, were located in all three bedrooms of the apartment, including Kristen's, although Kristen had not been attacked with the club. No splinters, however, were found in the living room, where Jeffrey MacDonald said the intruders had struck him."

"It was proved by microscopic analysis that the loose fibers found in the three bedrooms of 544 Castle Drive were, in fact, identical in composition to those used in the manufacture of Jeffrey MacDonald's torn blue pajama top. It was also determined that the rubber glove fragments found in the master bedroom were identical in chemical composition to the surgical rubber gloves that had been kept beneath the MacDonald kitchen sink."

Source: Joe McGinniss. Fatal Vision

borndem
09-23-2012, 10:39 PM
I have not rehashed all the evidence, but I read all the books (excepting the newly released one) and tons of documents back during the period before, during and after the last trial. There is so much evidence supporting his conviction. I have no doubts.

But what clinched it for me was the evidence derived from the infamous pajama top which Madelaine has described, the pattern and alignment of the punctures in it, and the blood evidence found on it, the location of its fibers, etc. It contradicts his entire "story."

Yes, Boodles & Maddie (bbm) -- I remember there was a little teaser about "special evidence" that was going to be brought out by the prosecution "soon" (this was while the trial was in progress -- it was covered fairly closely here in Raleigh, which is about 75 miles from Ft. Bragg). Several days later, a picture of the pj top was in the News & Observer (newspaper published in Raleigh NC, circ ~ 150K). It was on a mannequin-like dummy with a lot of little white squares all over it.

Yep, that did it for the jury too, according to some of them in comments after the trial. As one juror also said, something to this effect, "It was not one piece of evidence, it was all of them taken together. Such is how a circumstantial case is built.

ETA: Absolutely no doubt in my mind either, Boodles, so I'll say it again: Guilty then. Guilty now. Period.

I will add here, that I have just gone to our little library and pulled down my 663 page 1st edition Fatal Vision which I will re-read after a number of years, but for about the 5th time... whew. How many of you have done the same just lately?!http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

hollyjokers
09-23-2012, 10:41 PM
The Fort Bragg boxing coach said the first time MacDonald showed up in January to work out with the team, the other members were doing a five-minute heavy bag workout. The coach said it is exceedingly strength-sapping and usually takes months to build up the endurance to finish it. MacDonald not only completed the full five minutes, but didn't appear to show much fatigue afterwards. He also sparred with the Team's middleweight champion & held his own.

But he passed out from a minor bump on the head & was unable to defend his family. He claimed he was exchanging blows with these assailants. The wounds to Colette show she fought as hard as any mother could, and there is no blood, spit, tears belonging to anyone outside that family in the apt.

Source: Fatal Vision.

hollyjokers
09-23-2012, 10:50 PM
Yes, Boodles & Maddie (bbm) -- I remember there was a little teaser about "special evidence" that was going to be brought out by the prosecution "soon" (this was while the trial was in progress -- it was covered fairly closely here in Raleigh, which is about 75 miles from Ft. Bragg). Several days later, a picture of the pj top was in the News & Observer (newspaper published in Raleigh NC, circ ~ 150K). It was on a mannequin-like dummy with a lot of little white squares all over it.

Yep, that did it for the jury too, according to some of them in comments after the trial. As one juror also said, something to this effect, "It was not one piece of evidence, it was all of them taken together. Such is how a circumstantial case is built.

I will add here, that I have just gone to our little library and pulled down my 663 page 1st edition Fatal Vision which I will re-read after a number of years, but for about the 5th time... whew. How many of you have done the same just lately?!http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

A criminologist meeting with Bernie Segal regarding the pajama top said something to the effect of, "Holy Christmas, Bernie, that's as good as a fingerprint."

borndem
09-23-2012, 11:42 PM
"Forget the fact that he lied about which child wet the bed...."

That's a big one

Indeed, robin & holly -- That has always haunted me. When I first read about the bedwetting, I didn't think much about it, but then when JM talked about going to bed & seeing Kristen there & the bed wet, I had to go back & find where I had initially read about who wet the bed.

I would like to know your thoughts on why you think he said this... Was he paranoid about the bad head injury his older daughter had?

hollyjokers
09-24-2012, 12:29 AM
I think it probably was trying to avoid the subject of Kimmy being in the master bedroom. After rereading Fatal Vision (and I should say I stand corrected; I had thought the urine evidence didn't surface until after the trial, but it actually came in during the grand jury), I can't figure out a scenario for the sexual abuse discovery to come into play. IMO The argument was probably more about Colette revealing too much of their family dynamics at her child psych class. It did not seem to paint him in a very good light (making the pregnant wife get up & sleep on the couch).

borndem
09-24-2012, 01:32 AM
Hi oceanblueeyes,
The only way I know how to answer your questions is to say JM's injuries cannot even come close to the injuries that took the lives of his wife, unborn baby boy and his two girls.
Why so many weapons? Well, in my opinion he was trying to cover up a murder he commited. He was on drugs for weight loss and staying awake I believe. As we know today it's called drug rage I believe.
I hope this helps you out some.

Good point about the drugs -- he said himself in his notes for the lawyers, "I may have taken an Eskatrol Spansule, but I'm not sure." He was tested at the hospital for the typical drugs: pot, alcohol or cocaine, IIRC, but he was not tested for speed (as he would have been today)...

He was 26 years old, had 2 children and another on the way. He was tired of his wife whom he had "had to marry" (his wife was merely tired), he didn't want to be married anymore, he had been up for over 24 hours that night, he worked 3 jobs & had just gotten home.

He goes into the bedroom, his side of the bed is wet -- it woulda pizzed me off, too -- so he may have said something ugly to his daughter & upset her, Collette gets on him, and he's tired & wants to sleep in his own bed (can't blame him for that), and now she starts in. He may have been ruff with the daughter when he got her out of bed, and Collette maybe tries to stop him, he lashes out at her, she runs to the storage room, he angrily goes after her (She's not gonna hit me!), she finds the bed slat, hits him on the forehead, and he just loses it. He gets it from her and pummels her with it, she runs back in the bedroom, the daughter is there crying, he pulls back the slat like a baseball player at bat and he hits his daughter, hard, by mistake. Now Collette is at him and it's on. To the death. She's no match -- this man is healthy, fit and strong and now his adrenaline is in the ascendant.

No real motive needed there -- this was hot-blooded, 2nd-degree murder. Now in his frenzied speed-fueled rage, he's got to figure out how to save his butt from being arrested for murdering his wife & child. He's frantic. You know the rest, sports fans...

borndem
09-24-2012, 01:50 AM
If drugged up Hippies were in the home of a highly trained Armed forces warrior, threatening his pregnant wife and two little girls, I would expect him to be DEAD before his family was slaughtered. My husband would have fought until his head was cut off. He would not have been a bit banged around.

Excellent point about your DH and the Daddy of your family, katy. What father would have done differently than you describe??

Thanks for bring us to something sensible that should have happened if the 4 hippies were in there.

Boodles
09-24-2012, 10:49 AM
I must have finally parted with my MacDonald (and other) murder books last year. I went to look for them to refresh my memory, but they're gone. I'll be darned if I buy Fatal Vision again...doesn't JM get a percentage of each sale?

It will be interesting to see what transpires this week. I wonder if the hearing is open to the public.

Madeleine74
09-24-2012, 11:23 AM
I purchased a copy back in the 80's when the book first came out but it's long gone. I just acquired an ebook copy of Fatal Vision from someone. No more paper books for me. ;)

robinparten
09-24-2012, 12:02 PM
Indeed, robin & holly -- That has always haunted me. When I first read about the bedwetting, I didn't think much about it, but then when JM talked about going to bed & seeing Kristen there & the bed wet, I had to go back & find where I had initially read about who wet the bed.

I would like to know your thoughts on why you think he said this... Was he paranoid about the bad head injury his older daughter had?

This is my theory - JM did not plan to murder his family that night, but something spiraled way out of control. I think he hit and/or killed Kimmie first, Collette rushed to protect her child and he beat her as well. Once it happened, there was no going back. In order for him to keep HIS life intact, he had to do something to explain the beating/murder of child and wife. He sees the Manson article and decides to recreate that scenario. He believes his story will not be seriously questioned, and his reputation will get him through this without serious scrutiny. Why did he lie about which child wet the bed? No one will ever know, but you have to wonder if it had anything to do with Jeff losing control. I think Freddie Kassab theorized about JM molesting Kimmie because he was trying desperately to make sense out of the unthinkable. It could have happened but it's a leap to go there. Unfortunately, no one will ever know the details of the truth of what happened. So sad.

borndem
09-24-2012, 01:34 PM
[/b]

Good morning, wonders! I don't think NC had a law back then to charge for an unborn child's death. IIRC, and don't quote me on this, a law was recently enacted. Someone correct if I am wrong please.

wm


Hi, matilda! :seeya:

NC did not have a law back then, but this is a federal case, so I don't think it would have mattered. I think, JMO, if there had been a federal law at the time, they would have charged him. That case was so long ago, I'm thinking that there might not have been a law such as that anywhere, but that's just a guess...

Good to see you on this case! I was, and still am, a close follower of this case. I hope he does not get another chance at freedom -- he gave that up x 3 in February, 1970, IMHO.

borndem
09-24-2012, 01:53 PM
The sexual abuse theory came well after his conviction, and was due in large part to advances in testing that determined it was 5 year old Kimberly who wet the bed, while JM had insisted all along it was Kristen.

Hi again, holly! Somehow I missed the info about JM's possible abuse of KM. What I would add to that theory is that children who are abused often do wet their beds due to stress and possibly pain causing them not to feel the urge to urinate. Also KM may have been sleeping with her mom to be "safe" from further abuse. This possibility is so awfully difficult to contemplate for me. We ask what else could he have done to hurt Collette and the children, and now we see what might have been possible. She was just a little girl who loved her daddy....

JulieR
09-24-2012, 02:05 PM
Anyone know if there was a time of death on the victims? It would seem to me that Macdonald would have had to take some time to come up with all the running around he did that night. Wonder if when he told the officers he was running around checking the pulses it wasn't really running to each room with an different weapon. First the wood then the ice pick then the knifes. Also, where can I find the blood evidence in the transcripts?

borndem
09-24-2012, 02:18 PM
Frankly I dont think a drug addict was sitting down reading newspapers or magazines.

The photo was shown but they did not mention the spring was broken even though it was.

HS said she knew it was broken because she sat on it, iirc.

Strange that the Judge found her unreliable yet it came out later on that other police agencies found her very reliable and had depended on her to make over a 100 busts in drug cases.

So she is conveniently incompetent in other criminal cases but then she isnt in the JM case.

Which two witnesses said they had seen the icepick? I know at first Colette's family was adamant that they didnt own one and years later they said they did.

IMO

Hello, friend-from-another-case, and one-time NC resident! :seeya:

Re the ice pick: The refrigerator was not frost-free which means that someone would manually have to defrost it from time to time. Collette's mother said he had used the ice pick during a Thanksgiving holiday she had spent with them at the apt, to free-up something and the baby-sitter said she had used it for the same reason. One of them said the kids wanted pop-sicles and she had used the ice pick to free them up so she could give them to the kids -- seems to me it was the baby-sitter who wanted to get the pop-sicles, but I cannot be sure. IIRC, it was Jeff only who was adamant about them not having an ice pick -- I remember that pretty well because it was tuff for me to imagine any family not having one, especially when there was a non-frost-free fridge.

The bent paring knife was used to pry open the paint container that was found in the storage room which was between the MBR and the back door -- that was why it was bent. And, IINM, Collette's mother also id'ed the Old Hickory knife as one she had seen in the kitchen drawer.

HTH

borndem
09-24-2012, 03:28 PM
48 Hours addressed this. One of the crime scene photos that shows the rocking horse indicates that none of the springs was broken. The photo is shown on the show. It will be repeated on the OWN network on Sept. 25 either at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. (Not sure since the scheduling on OWN notes both times. Those interested may want to set your DVRs from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. just to play it safe).

I can't find it at those times on either 9/25 or 9/26 or 9/27 (between 2:00 and 5:00am). Is there more than one OWN channel? I don't want to miss it! Thanks!

borndem
09-24-2012, 03:33 PM
48 Hours addressed this. One of the crime scene photos that shows the rocking horse indicates that none of the springs was broken. The photo is shown on the show. It will be repeated on the OWN network on Sept. 25 either at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. (Not sure since the scheduling on OWN notes both times. Those interested may want to set your DVRs from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. just to play it safe).

Help! I can't find it, looking at the short notes that say what the program is to be, on 9/25, 9/26 or 9/27 between 2:00am -- 5:00am. Is there another OWN program showing "Undercover" somewhere? I don't want to miss it! Thanks!

borndem
09-24-2012, 08:57 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not but people DO break into homes without weapons, without being heard by the adults, sometimes even animals do not respond, they do use weapons found in the home, kill children and leave adults unharmed. I know I am spelling the name wrong but think of Tommy Lynn Sells. A mother was convicted of murdering her own son only to later be released when he confessed. Jessica Lundsford was kidnapped from her own bedroom without any adults waking up. ANYTHING is possible and we should remember that before assuming that no one would do such a hing. They have and they will again!


:welcome: sandybeach!!!! :greetings:


We're glad to have you with us!

borndem
09-24-2012, 09:05 PM
hmmm, can't find it. It is 48 hours Hard Evidence? None of the descriptions match the MacDonald case when I search on OWN. Thanks.

Same here, Boodles -- I don't want to miss it -- either they have changed when they are showing it, or their individual program descriptions are not correct. I would like to see it!

hollyjokers
09-24-2012, 09:15 PM
I don't have it listed on my tv either.

Prosecution rested today. Then the judge allowed HS's attorney to testify, waiving attorney/client privilege. He said HS told him she was in the home, it was a confrontation that got out of hand over JM's "hard stance on drugs." I'm sure she probably implicated good ole Greg Mitchell, who, unlike Jeffrey MacDonald, passed a polygraph test, submitted fingerprint & hair samples which did not match any in the home. Tomorrow both sides have 3 hours for closing arguments.

borndem
09-24-2012, 09:51 PM
If the board is still in evidence and chain-of-custody has been maintained, sure it can be DNA tested. Anything can be tested as long as permission is given by the court and someone pays for the testing.

Since MacDonald was convicted of 3 murders the burden is no longer on the state to prove his guilt (since they already did that in 1979), the burden shifts to MacDonald to prove his innocence and/or find a legal reason his conviction should be overturned.

My good friend was a clerk in Judge Dupree's office, although she worked for another judge also in that office during the trial. There was one entire evidence room in that office area that contained the MacDonald case evidence only -- a room full. (Oh, you don't know how badly I wanted to see what was in that room!) The room was kept intact and sealed for many years after that trial under Dupree's orders. Years later, when my friend left that office for another position, the room was as it had been, still filled with the MacDonald case evidence & still sealed. She has no idea when that room was cleared.

borndem
09-24-2012, 10:03 PM
I thought it was interesting that during the 1979 trial when MacDonald's attorney was trying to coerce Helena Stoekley into admitting she was in the house, he showed her the crime scene photos. She said a person on acid, weed, heroin & whatever else that she normally took would not have done that, but someone on speed would. "Did they ever check to see if he was on speed?" It was after the trial was over, McGinniss was staying in MacDonald's Huntington Beach condo, he found MacDonald's notes saying he may have taken an Eskatrol pill with dinner.

Yes, and yes, holly -- and MacD was never tested for speed...

Madeleine74
09-24-2012, 10:37 PM
Do you ever talk to Blackburn these days, Borndem?

If yes, tell him he has some fans of his closing out there.

Also, I loved the way he questioned MacD on the stand, asking him "if the jury should find that x, y, and z happened, do you have an explanation for that?" He did it about 4 or 5 times using different facts from the case and it was so effective. Plus that whole in court demo of slashing a PJ top that was similar to MacD's with an ice pick to show just how the top should look if MacD was really attacked by an ice pick-wielding man. Brilliant stuff!

hollyjokers
09-24-2012, 10:49 PM
Borndem, I know people probably want to talk about the "new evidence" aka red herrings, but another good point Joe McGinniss made in Fatal Vision was when Helena Stoekley made her much-anticipated appearance at the trial. Jeffrey MacDonald's reaction to seeing his worst nightmare personified was...minor curiosity. He was only excited that Bernie was going to get her to admit being in the house, but beyond that, he didn't show rage, fear, or any discernible emotions towards the person who supposedly helped annihilate his family. One of those things that make you go, hmmmmm.

borndem
09-25-2012, 01:37 AM
Do you ever talk to Blackburn these days, Borndem?

If yes, tell him he has some fans of his closing out there.

Also, I loved the way he questioned MacD on the stand, asking him "if the jury should find that x, y, and z happened, do you have an explanation for that?" He did it about 4 or 5 times using different facts from the case and it was so effective. Plus that whole in court demo of slashing a PJ top that was similar to MacD's with an ice pick to show just how the top should look if MacD was really attacked by an ice pick-wielding man. Brilliant stuff!

Yes -- I think he knows that he still has fans & believers -- and he truly is modest about it, but I don't let up. And remember, that case was his FIRST murder case. (Talk about smart & passionate for justice...)

And MacD could not give a straight answer to any of Blackburn's "If the jury should find" questions. He would come back with "No," or "I have no explanation for that finding," or "other than incompetence by the investigators, no, I have no explanation" or the like. Those answers, or lack thereof, really, really hurt him; and he was losing his temper by the second -- and that hurt, too, since it showed his lack of patience and his narcissistic disdain for the whole cross examination and for every Southerner in the courtroom....Not a good showing for the good doctor, husband or father....

I see him every couple of months or so, though not lately, and I will indeed tell him. He is so genuinely modest and just a very likeable and good guy. A great loss to the system of jurisprudence.

borndem
09-25-2012, 01:54 AM
Borndem, I know people probably want to talk about the "new evidence" aka red herrings, but another good point Joe McGinniss made in Fatal Vision was when Helena Stoekley made her much-anticipated appearance at the trial. Jeffrey MacDonald's reaction to seeing his worst nightmare personified was...minor curiosity. He was only excited that Bernie was going to get her to admit being in the house, but beyond that, he didn't show rage, fear, or any discernible emotions towards the person who supposedly helped annihilate his family. One of those things that make you go, hmmmmm.

You said it, holly. He had apparently gotten a good look at her that night with that candle under her face -- did he look into her eyes? She was there when her drug-crazed hippie friends walked in there and took control of his entire family & residence -- horrors for that macho-macho man who apparently could do nothing with those men who overpowered him that night, although he held his own with Green Beret boxers in training for those matches over in Russia. Although he was young and fit and strong and usually in control both by brains & by brawn. Such a pity. So overpowered that he did not undergo even half the beatings that a 5- and a 2 1/2-year old little girl and a clumsy pregnant wife had withstood until they bled to death or were brain-damaged enuff to finally stop breathing. Yeah, those guys were just too much for him.

And yes, when he saw her that day, he didn't even make a move or a grimace with her reminding him of the most awful night in his life? Not move a muscle? No reaction whatsoever. Talk about self-control....

please excuse the rant....

believe09
09-25-2012, 07:25 AM
:bow: to Mr. Blackburn. :)

oceanblueeyes
09-25-2012, 10:37 AM
:bow: to Mr. Blackburn. :)

Weren't two of these prosecutors disbarred later on? It takes a lot for an attorney to be disbarred.

Blackburn was disbarred (12 felony counts including changing court docs)...and from what I read so was Warren Collidge.

Didnt both of these men work on the JM case?

These are not the kind of lawyers "I" would give accolades to or high fives.

IMO

hollyjokers
09-25-2012, 11:15 AM
I remember reading about Dr. Petit's body language & reactions to being about 8 feet away from the men who destroyed his family & nearly killed him. It wasn't minor curiosity, it was rage, fear, overwhelming sadness. Dr. Petit wants with his entire being for every one to remember his beautiful wife & daughters, Dr. MacDonald wants every one to remember him.

"Every body reacts differently to grief." - Attorneys for Scott Peterson, Christopher Vaughn, and so on.

hollyjokers
09-25-2012, 12:15 PM
In the thirty-three years since the conviction, have they ever shown that Jim Blackburn embezzled money from the Jeffrey MacDonald trial? Have they ever shown that the 48/21 pajama top evidence was manufactured? Were the pajama top fibers proven to have been planted in Kimberley's bedclothes, under Kristy's fingernail? Was the bloody pajama top sleeve cuff imprinted on the bloody sheet like one of those Jesus-on-toast miracles? No? That's weeeeeierrD!

Was the AHA! wig hair shown to come from one of Colette's falls?
Was the AHA! mystery hair in Colette's hand proven to be Jeffrey MacDonald's? Uhhh, the answers to those questions would both be YES!

Whatever Blackburn did later to disgrace himself, he was a genius to steer clear of questioning JM on jump parties, Russia trips, flight attendants, nurses & poolside orgies: how many seasoned prosecutors would have done just that?

"Just cuz he's a liar & just cuz he's cheater doesn't mean he's a killer!" - attorneys for Scott Peterson, Christopher Vaughn, and so on.

JenniferTx
09-25-2012, 12:50 PM
Excellent point about your DH and the Daddy of your family, katy. What father would have done differently than you describe??

Thanks for bring us to something sensible that should have happened if the 4 hippies were in there.

I watched an interview with HS and she stated that they were at the apartment to just rough him up and then she goes on to state that they (their cult) was going to teach him a lesson by killing his family. She stated something about killing a pregnant woman as something the cult was seeking out to do. I will have to look to see if I can find the link. I do remember that HS was pregnant at the time of this recording and she wouldn't give out too much information because she was scared for her life and the life of her unborn baby.

StephanieH
09-25-2012, 01:20 PM
The long, blonde synthetic hair that was found has already been addressed. It was the type used in the hair of dolls, NOT the kind used in human hair wigs. The shorter synthetic hair was used in something that Collette was known to own. Unfortunately, all of the dolls and clothing are long gone, so there is no way to be exact on the fibers, but there is enough knowledge of fibers from that time frame to know that these are likely the source.

Even if Stoekley et al were in the house, murdering Collette (who had a broken arm from defending herself and her children) and the kids, how does Jeff explain his lack of injuries? How does he explain not calling for help until AFTER everyone left? How does he explain joking about it on Dick Cavett? How does he explain him telling his father-in-law that he killed one of the killers?

Fine, he didn't mourn in any traditional ways. That doesn't make him a murderer. He mixed up his stories and got lucky because the murderers apparently only wanted to kill women and children (although even Charles Manson wouldn't kill children) and leave the man, the biggest threat, safe and sound. OK, so let's believe that. OK, let's believe that Jeff was in such a state of shock that he removed a knife from his wife, even though every ounce of his clinical training as a surgeon told him not to. (Why? Because he already knew his prints were on it?) Let's just believe that he was unconscious while three or four (depending) people savagely stabbed his family to death, despite no significant head injury.
OK, you have to believe all of that to believe his story. Plus, he lied to Collette about the Russian boxing team. What was that about? We will never know because, until proof was found, Jeff denied that as well.

hollyjokers
09-25-2012, 01:50 PM
http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/false.htm

Link about people who make false confessions. HS actually fits into all three categories IMO.

Cappuccino
09-25-2012, 02:58 PM
http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/false.htm

Link about people who make false confessions. HS actually fits into all three categories IMO.

That's my opinion too. She - and her friends - are very lucky the police saw through that story. Alot of police departments would have fallen for it back in 1970, what with the Manson killings having happened only a year or so before.

SMK
09-25-2012, 05:06 PM
Jeffrey MacDonald’s lawyers ask judge to vacate his murder conviction

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/25/2368682/jeffrey-macdonalds-lawyers-ask.html

borndem
09-25-2012, 08:09 PM
I remember reading about Dr. Petit's body language & reactions to being about 8 feet away from the men who destroyed his family & nearly killed him. It wasn't minor curiosity, it was rage, fear, overwhelming sadness. Dr. Petit wants with his entire being for every one to remember his beautiful wife & daughters, Dr. MacDonald wants every one to remember him.

"Every body reacts differently to grief." - Attorneys for Scott Peterson, Christopher Vaughn, and so on.

bbm

Again, holly, the Thanks button was not enuff. Beautifully and eloquently said. That is MacD to a T. The Arch Narcissist described in one sentence.

Made me <shiver>.

hollyjokers
09-25-2012, 09:31 PM
I've not really been a fan of twitter, except for courtroom feeds, and being a Browns fan, reading hilarious comments during the game about how bad we suck. But I tweeted Joe McGinniss about the waste of time & money this hearing thing was but thanked him for speaking out for Colette & the girls. And he tweeted me back. Yay! He said he spent time with Colette's brother, Bob Stevenson & he's still fighting to keep JM behind bars. So I got excited & picked up my Kindle which had completely gone kaput a few days ago, and it started working again. Thanks Joe McGinniss for being my lucky charm! I hope you're just as lucky for Bob, Colette, Kimmy & Kristy.

Madeleine74
09-25-2012, 10:58 PM
And he tweeted me back.

Now that is way cool!! I bet he's seeing a resurgence of sales of his book. Now that I think about it, I bet McD no longer gets any royalties from the book and hasn't since he sued. His written and signed agreement precluded him from suing. Once he did (sue) I bet that made the royalty contract null and void.