NC - MacDonald family murders at Fort Bragg, 1970 - Jeffrey MacDonald innocent?

[Amraann]

Although just last night Hubby and I talked about this case.. And agreed he was guilty..

The following quote bothers me ..
The results of DNA testing released in March 2006 showed MacDonald's hair clutched in his wife's hand. Hairs from unidentified people were found in his children's hands.
A retired U.S. marshal claims that federal prosecutor Jim Blackburn intimidated a witness, Helena Stoeckley, who said she was in the house on the night of the murders. Stoeckley later recanted that claim.



Why would the children have other people's hair in their hands??

And Helena was just a drug *advertiser censored*.. AND she was seen near the crime that evening by an officer.

 

[Jolynna]

This is from the U.S. Department of Justice concerning the results of DNA tests:

Helena Stoeckley and Gregory Mitchell (the hippies) were exonerated. NONE of their DNA was found.

DNA testing proved the caucasion limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand that MacDonald said came from the murderer actually came from Jeffrey MacDonald.

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

 

[Amraann]

This is from the U.S. Department of Justice concerning the results of DNA tests:

Helena Stoeckley and Gregory Mitchell (the hippies) were exonerated. NONE of their DNA was found.

DNA testing proved the caucasion limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand that MacDonald said came from the murderer actually came from Jeffrey MacDonald.

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

what about the hair in the children's hands??

 

[tempusfugit]

I have always believed MacDonald was guilty. Frankly, MacDonald & Scott Peterson could have been brothers, same personality traits. IMO

 

[deanws]

I have always believed MacDonald was guilty. Frankly, MacDonald & Scott Peterson could have been brothers, same personality traits. IMO

Agreed.

 

[Jolynna]

what about the hair in the children's hands??

Not Stoeckly or Mitchell. All evidence was tested for DNA and Stoeckly and Mitchell were excluded.

I think the 2006 DNA tests were MacDonald's last shot at a retrial based on evidence.

The release didn't make it sound as if the hair you are referring to was compelling to the US Dept. of Justice.

 

[Jolynna]

what about the hair in the children's hands??

The important thing about the DNA testing is that no hairs were from Helena or the other suspect.

As the US Dept of Justice said, it is normal for people to pick up hairs and fibers in their day-to-day lives. Plus there were investigators, army people, ambulance rescue people etc. on the scene after Jeffrey called for help.

IF any of the hairs or any DNA on the clothes or bedspreads or sheets etc. had come from Stoeckly or Mitchell THAT would have been exculpatory because neither of them would have had a reason to be near any MacDonald ever.

That the only foreign DNA found was from hairs (which can be transferred in ways other than from murdering) wasn't deemed reason enough to retry or clear MacDonald.

I agree.

 

[Nova]

Aw, shoot. I was going to urge you to go gawk and take a pic! Then I saw "on base". Nope. Stay away or you'll be in Guantanamo (oops sp) before you know it.

I wonder what MacDonald thinks. Ick. He has always given me the creeps.

What do you want to bet that as soon as the house is torn down, McDonald will announce there was incontrovertible proof of his innocence inside, if only the house had been preserved?!

 

[MsRusty]

I've always believed MacDonald to be innocent of this. I'll have to admit though I've never really paid attention to any new info on this case. I remember thinking at the time (I actually first heard about this in 1979) that there was no way he could have done it. Can someone refresh my memory and tell me what motive was given?

 

[Nova]

I've always believed MacDonald to be innocent of this. I'll have to admit though I've never really paid attention to any new info on this case. I remember thinking at the time (I actually first heard about this in 1979) that there was no way he could have done it. Can someone refresh my memory and tell me what motive was given?

I don't think anyone really knows, MsRusty. The prosecution theorized that a dispute with the wife got out of hand and then MacDonald killed the kids to make it look like a Manson-type killing. Joe McGuinness, the author of Fatal Vision, speculated that MacDonald might have been abusing amphetimines (which were too widely prescribed at the time; MacDonald was working several jobs and had just volunteered for more night shifts), but the author never claimed to have proof of this.

Personally, what I found telling was the increasing conflict between the doctor and his pregnant, yet increasingly independent wife, his trips to visit a mistress in NYC (IIRC) and the "bad lies" he was telling Collette during conflicts over the pregnancy. I think the doctor had worked himself into a jam and most likely "exploded" on the night of the murders.

But I don't think anybody will ever know for sure what the motive was. I doubt there was a logical motive for killing the wife and that probably wasn't premeditated.

What I do find unbelievable is that a "hippie cult" suddenly sprang up and targeted the family of an unimportant doctor amid the relative security of a Marine base. Even though the Manson murders were thought to be random at first, it was eventually established they were not: Manson had prior connections to the Tate/Polansky house and to the LoBiancos. (And of course, in neither attack did they leave the most dangerous victims alive.)

 

[MsRusty]

I think the next time I'm at the library I'll check the books out again. It's been a long time, all I remember now is that I thought him innocent and I can't remember exactly why I thought that. I do believe Helene's story. IIRC all of the people in her group have now passed away. Isn't it correct that he wasn't a suspect until the father-in-law got upset that McD had moved on with his life and started raising hell about it?

 

[Jolynna]

The father-in-law became upset when he was finally allowed to read the transcripts from the military trial. Kassad knew from his step-daughter that much of the facts MacDonald gave were false. Colette NEVER KNEW Jeffrey wasn't going to Russia to box. She had been told Jeffrey would NOT be able to be with her when their 3rd baby was born because of a trip to Russia Jeffrey made up.She was upset about Jeffrey being gone for their third child's birth. There was more. Colette's stepfather began going through the transcripts page by page making notes on every page and getting angrier and angrier.

The case ultimately was based on blood. Every member of the family was a different type so their movements through the apartment could be tracked from the blood trails. DNA fortified instead of discrediting the finvestigator's theories. The blood showed who was killed where and when.

I think the blood evidence did MacDonald in...not the ex father-in-law. I will never forget how Colette's arms were broken and that there was blood over her child and the child's blanket because she fought with all she had (though wounded) trying, unsucessfully, to save her baby.

To discredit what is known they needed to find evidence of one of the other suspects leaving behind DNA. It didn't happen.

As far as WHY...murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women. http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

This was their third child and Jeffrey was making up stories to get away. A lot of thoughts come to mind on what jeffrey might have been thinking but ultimately they are not as important as the evidence showing how the night went down.

My opinion.

 

[MsRusty]

Thanks, Jolynna. Like I said it's been a while since I've read the book. I don't even know if our library is open tomorrow (I live in a small town) but I'm going to try to get it. And I didn't mean to imply his father-in-law did wrong in talking to authorities, I just am remembering that if he hadn't McD wouldn't have been looked at. I'll ask one more question regarding the case, actually the book, does it contain the DNA reports or is did all that happen way after?

 

[SeekingJana]

The McDonald murder cases always seemed to parallel the case of another doctor who had been a Green Beret, who was having an affair with a blonde young German girl, and whose young son somehow got involved in trying to either free his father or prove he killed the mother. What was the older case guy's name? Arggggh.

I am seriously needing a prescription for Aricept. Can't believe I could remember the name of the medication they advertise on TV.

 

[kline]

I thought his story of getting creepy crawled by the Wal-mart knockoff generic Manson-oids ("LSD is Groovy!!" one of them was supposed to have said during the attack according to McDonald) was so utterly lame and contrived im surprised anyone gave it a moments credence.

 

[NaNaRosebud]

I think it was proved that the hair in the child's hand was that of a doll.

 

[believe09]

The father-in-law became upset when he was finally allowed to read the transcripts from the military trial. Kassad knew from his step-daughter that much of the facts MacDonald gave were false. Colette NEVER KNEW Jeffrey wasn't going to Russia to box. She had been told Jeffrey would NOT be able to be with her when their 3rd baby was born because of a trip to Russia Jeffrey made up.She was upset about Jeffrey being gone for their third child's birth. There was more. Colette's stepfather began going through the transcripts page by page making notes on every page and getting angrier and angrier.

The case ultimately was based on blood. Every member of the family was a different type so their movements through the apartment could be tracked from the blood trails. DNA fortified instead of discrediting the finvestigator's theories. The blood showed who was killed where and when.

I think the blood evidence did MacDonald in...not the ex father-in-law. I will never forget how Colette's arms were broken and that there was blood over her child and the child's blanket because she fought with all she had (though wounded) trying, unsucessfully, to save her baby.

To discredit what is known they needed to find evidence of one of the other suspects leaving behind DNA. It didn't happen.

As far as WHY...murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women. http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

This was their third child and Jeffrey was making up stories to get away. A lot of thoughts come to mind on what jeffrey might have been thinking but ultimately they are not as important as the evidence showing how the night went down.

My opinion.

I agree whole-heartedly. I have a copy of Joe McGinniss' book if anyone wants me to send it-you can sift through the innuendo, but it was the blood evidence that told the whole story. In the end, it was complete overkill of the family, and one perfectly aimed puncture wound deflating his lung that did McDonald in. For me the other compelling evidence was the fact that his PJ top had no tearing holes in it...just stationary holes from when he laid it over Colette and stabbed her with the multiple weapons, yet he had claimed he had used it to defend himself from his attackers.

Colette was a HERO-it must have amazed him when he actually sat down and reflected on what actually happened that night.

 

[Amraann]

I agree whole-heartedly. I have a copy of Joe McGinniss' book if anyone wants me to send it-you can sift through the innuendo, but it was the blood evidence that told the whole story. In the end, it was complete overkill of the family, and one perfectly aimed puncture wound deflating his lung that did McDonald in. For me the other compelling evidence was the fact that his PJ top had no tearing holes in it...just stationary holes from when he laid it over Colette and stabbed her with the multiple weapons, yet he had claimed he had used it to defend himself from his attackers.

Colette was a HERO-it must have amazed him when he actually sat down and reflected on what actually happened that night.

The writer and the publishing Co were sued and lost.

 

[believe09]

The writer and the publishing Co were sued and lost.

Yup-because Joe McGinnis mislead McDonald that he would be writing a book that was pro Jefferey's case so he was given unfettered access to McDonald. Which does not make the trail of evidence any less real. There was a whole lot of attorney/client privileged information as well...it is still a fascinating read and it was not due to Joe McGinniss that McDonald was convicted. And convicted, and his appeals have been denied by the Supreme court....not because of his "innocence" mind you, but because he wanted the double jeopardy rule to apply to his case.

IMO McDonald benefited from a contaminated crime scene, destroyed evidence (his pajama bottoms) and poor medical examination while in the hospital (was he high on amphetamines or diet pills), which is why he received an additional 9 years of freedom after his family was slaughtered. In the end, justice was done I think.

Peace to all

 

[Jolynna]

The writer and the publishing Co were sued and lost.

Which doesn't discredit any of the evidence presented at the trial. The evidence not McGinnis got MacDonald convicted.

Modern DNA testing does not dispute the jury verdict. I think MacDonald is where he belongs.