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

[Wudge]

Thank for the admission of a possible error on your part . See that wasnt painful ? You have some manners though you often choose not to use them.
It's a mystery why though, since you have not been treated badly here and certainly not by me. If you arent going to debate politely then few will be interested in doing so. Do you totally lack a sense of humor ? Are you shoes too tight ? Why the personal attacks which you have to know is against tos - are you one that are immune from the rules ? The easy guideline is this attack the post not the poster.........
My remarks to Bunny were tongue in cheek and not some indicator of
my maturity . I guess you dont recognize a compliment probably never receiving many. You dont KNOW any thing about me yet are making incorrect and condesending assumptions. Could this be a particular trait of your personality hhmmm I wonder .
Why not read only listening to one side makes it much harder to form an
informed belief.
You seemed to have missed my point, you were given verifiable facts on this case and you respond in return with beliefs and opinions. WHY ?
Do you not have facts that support your beliefs ?
And please if you would go back and answer the questions you may have missed . then we can continue ..........

As I noted previously, I have no interest in arguing 25 year old mouse farts. And as also previously stated, there is no dispositive evidence of guilt and no possible deductive linking of evidence to a valid and reliable conclusion of guilt.

As for your wonderment and added kindergarten comments, wonder no further; I don't do windows or juveniles, which means you have made my ignore list.

 

[rashomon]

I don't have exact recall of their word-by-word testimony, but for the recall I do have, they did not testify that the left cuff "did" make the impression. Might have or could have is not "did".

Thornton agreed re JMD's right sleeve cuff and re Colette's left sleeve cuff. He did not testify re JMD's torn left cuff and re Colette's right cuff.
The fact that Thornton did not testify does not mean that he disagreed.
So we have pj cuff imprints from both Jeff and Colette in that blue sheet.
And to this day, the MacD camp has failed to provide a convincing explanation as to how they got there.
These cuff imprints along with the heavy bloodstains and other bloody imprints on the sheet are among the most damaging pieces evidence against MacD.

 

[Wudge]

Thornton agreed re JMD's right sleeve cuff and re Colette's left sleeve cuff. He did not testify re JMD's torn left cuff and re Colette's right cuff.
The fact that Thornton did not testify does not mean that he disagreed.
So we have pj cuff imprints from both Jeff and Colette in that blue sheet.
And to this day, the MacD camp has failed to provide a convincing explanation as to how they got there.
These cuff imprints along with the heavy bloodstains and other bloody imprints on the sheet are among the most damaging pieces evidence against MacD.

I read the transcripts in the eighties; I do not recall the name or names of the defense witness or witnesses who testified on this matter, but Thornton is a familiar, though unplaced, name. I certainly do not recall anyone affirming the -- thought by some to be a smoking gun -- alleged key cuff imprint to be assuredly so.

Moreover, the crime scene was so unmanaged, that CID's forensic lab results and conclusions (expert opinions) would recieve a credibility discount in any event. This says nothing of the fact that CID's lab notes were withheld from the defense, which certainly fits in the anything goes prosecutorial culture of NC.

 

[Bunny]

I read the transcripts in the eighties; I do not recall the name or names of the defense witness or witnesses who testified on this matter, but Thornton is a familiar, though unplaced, name. I certainly do not recall anyone affirming the -- thought by some to be a smoking gun -- alleged key cuff imprint to be assuredly so.

Moreover, the crime scene was so unmanaged, that CID's forensic lab results and conclusions (expert opinions) would recieve a credibility discount in any event. This says nothing of the fact that CID's lab notes were withheld from the defense, which certainly fits in the anything goes prosecutorial culture of NC.

If you don't recall who testified, haven't read the transcripts online to refresh your memory, and you're not even sure who Thornton is, then you probably didn't read or don't remember correctly the facts behind the supposed "unmanaged" crime scene or the lab notes supposedly "withheld." But all that aside, if you're not interested in discussing the evidence or "mouse farts" in this case, why are you here?

 

[Bunny]

As I noted previously, I have no interest in arguing 25 year old mouse farts. And as also previously stated, there is no dispositive evidence of guilt and no possible deductive linking of evidence to a valid and reliable conclusion of guilt.

Wudge, it's okay to not know much about a case; there are many levels of knowledge and not everyone has to be an expert. But considering that it can be easily seen by your posts that you haven't really studied the evidence or even read the transcripts and other documents online, I don't think statements like the one you make above are going to be taken very seriously.

As previously stated, there certainly was "dispositive" evidence of guilt and a deductive linking of evidence to a valid and reliable conclusion of guilt, which is why the jury came to the verdicts it did and why none of MacDonald's many attorneys in all these many, many years has ever managed to overturn those verdicts.

Can you tell us specifically (1) what lab notes were "withheld" and (2) what item or items in these supposedly "withheld" lab notes you feel were weighty enough to overcome the bloody footprint, the pajama top and bedding evidence, the demonstrations of consciousness of guilt, etc.? Please be as specific if you can, so that I can try to understand what exactly you feel was so important in these notes.

 

[Wudge]

If you don't recall who testified, haven't read the transcripts online to refresh your memory, and you're not even sure who Thornton is, then you probably didn't read or don't remember correctly the facts behind the supposed "unmanaged" crime scene or the lab notes supposedly "withheld." But all that aside, if you're not interested in discussing the evidence or "mouse farts" in this case, why are you here?

Your attempt at applied logic is reaching and fallacious.

As regards my initiation here, I had reviewed a bit of this MacDonald thread as a result of my long personal coverage of this high-profile case, and because this MacDonald case thread happened to be on the crimes in the news forum. This also happens to be where threads on Duke lacrosse case reside, which is a much more current NC case highlighting yet another NC prosecutor gone bad.

My first post on this thread simply noted that if it were up to me, I would have MacDonald released and more likely have the prosecutor, Blackburn -- a disbarred lawyer and disgraced felon who has already served prison time -- be the one behind bars.

At a macro level, I have long considered Macdonald's storyline to be very plausible and likely true. His woman in the floppy hat was real; she did light candles; she was a druggie as were her friends, and she was there that night wearing a wig.

The crime scene was handled like a forsensic pathologist's worst nightmare, thus, resulting forensic evidentiary value was greatly diminshed, to say the least, and mouse farts abound as a result.

Call it a weakness; I just don't like mouse fart arguments, even moreso when they are ancient ones.

 

[Wudge]

If you don't recall who testified, haven't read the transcripts online to refresh your memory, and you're not even sure who Thornton is, then you probably didn't read or don't remember correctly the facts behind the supposed "unmanaged" crime scene or the lab notes supposedly "withheld." But all that aside, if you're not interested in discussing the evidence or "mouse farts" in this case, why are you here?

Both CID's and the FBI's lab notes were withheld, clearly without cause. At the very least, this was a due process violation. But, again, that is the lay of the land in NC; withholding evidence is an artform there. Moreover, the alleged evidence obtained from these lab tests/findings were the basis for the State's entire case!!

Hence, amongst other aspects, it was important for the purposes of finding out: what was investigated, what was found, how and when it was found, what was not found, what transpired in totality as well as being key to preparing for full and effective cross-examination of the State's witnesses. Do you think purposefully denying the defense such availiability, in and of itself, is not truly seriious? Do you think such withholding is proper? (snicker)

 

[Bunny]

My first post on this thread simply noted that if it were up to me, I would have MacDonald released and more likely have the prosecutor, Blackburn -- a disbarred lawyer and disgraced felon who has already served prison time -- be the one behind bars.

At a macro level, I have long considered Macdonald's storyline to be very plausible and likely true. His woman in the floppy hat was real; she did light candles; she was a druggie as were her friends, and she was there that night wearing a wig.

The crime scene was handled like a forsensic pathologist's worst nightmare, thus, resulting forensic evidentiary value was greatly diminshed, to say the least, and mouse farts abound as a result.

Again, this can't be taken seriously since you don't know the evidence and haven't studied the records. JMPO.

 

[Bunny]

Both CID's and the FBI's lab notes were withheld, clearly without cause.

OK, I see you were unable to cite any specifics about the lab notes and were unable even to tell me whose lab notes you were referring to, so let's backtrack a bit: Can you at least tell me who Davidson and Crouchley were?

 

[Bunny]

These cuff imprints along with the heavy bloodstains and other bloody imprints on the sheet are among the most damaging pieces evidence against MacD.

Right, Rash! And I always laugh, remembering not only how Segal referred to the "blue bedspread" when actually it was a sheet and not a bedspread, but also how Thornton made things even worse for the defense when he corrected Segal and told him there were two areas containing imprints of the blue pajama top cuffs, not just one. I can almost feel Segal's shock as he tries to be nonchalant while his heart is dropping down into his shoes...priceless!:

FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION 10:42 a.m.

SEGAL: Yesterday I asked you about an area of the blue bedspread [sic] here which Mr. Stombaugh had marked as to various areas, and one of those areas, you had indicated that you agreed with him as to the fact that it appeared to contain what could be an impression of the cuff of the blue pajama top in this case?

THORNTON: Actually, there were two areas.

SEGAL: And what were those two areas?

THORNTON: "A" and "B".

SEGAL: And what was your conclusion as to what could have made those impressions?

THORNTON: I believe Areas "A" and "B" are consistent as having been made by the blue pajama top.

 

[Bunny]

LisaF, I could not agree more. McDonald wasn't clever enough to make up something his family was saying. Therefore, like you claim, he repeated what they were saying to him as he attacked and killed them.
If Collette was being attacked, wouldn't she shout at and ask her attacker, why are you doing this? Common sense tells you that if she shouted anything to her husband, it would be a plea for help from him. As for the children, if a stranger was attacking them, they would probably call out for their mother for help first. Shouting "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!" would be what they would be saying if it was their dad attacking them. He's a creep for holding on so long to his lies. LIked your post.

Hi, azwriter!

Another thing to consider is MacDonald claims he woke to hear Colette and Kim screaming as they were being attacked, but the weapons with which they were attacked were, according to Mac, being used in the living room against him at the time!

Also, did you ever notice that he changed his stories overnight? Among other changes he made, on Feb. 17 he told the CID he was fighting with three male attackers, but on Feb. 18, after he'd realized he blew it because he needed at least one attacker in the bedroom (because he'd said he heard Colette and Kim screaming that "they" were attacking), he changed his story, and said he was fighting with only two male attackers.

And later, he changed his story again. Despite the fact that he'd already described the female and three males in the living room, he said he didn't remember ever seeing all four "intruders" together.

 

[Wudge]

Again, this can't be taken seriously since you don't know the evidence and haven't studied the records. JMPO.

Once again, your attempt at Aristotelian logic is extremely fallacious. When you get a chance, do study the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

As repeatedly expressed, I have no interest in going through old micro-mouse farts, which are meaningless to my sizing and grading of the pertinent facts/evidence on both sides of the story.

Hopefully, MacDonald will finally get his new trial. And based on the large number of murder convictions that NC Court's have recently reversed for retrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, et al, I think he has a decent chance. If so, we can start anew. If not, we will forever disagree.

I will now return you to your mutual admiration sewing-circle, to which I extend a courteous welcome to Websleuths. (chuckle)

 

[JTF]

Wudge: If you define over 1,000 evidentiary items as "mouse farts," I'd hate to see the size of that mouse. Then again, your inability to discuss the facts of this case or to state a salient argument for MacDonald's innocence, is classic MacDonald camp/groupie nonsense. You follow their tactics to a tee.

STICK TO MESSAGE: State the same evidentiary points over and over again. The fact that all of their arguments have prosaic explanations means little to those who live in MacFantasy Land. Boss, boss. De oven mitts, de oven mitts!

IGNORANCE IS BLISS: When it comes to the more omnious evidentiary items such as the pajama cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet and the bloodstains on MacDonald's pajama top, MacDonald cult members simply will not engage in any kind of discussion.

ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK: When MacDonald's minions are backed into a corner, they merely hurl personal insults. Kathryn MacDonald did that to Bob Stevenson on LKL.

JTF.

 

[Bunny]

Wudge: If you define over 1,000 evidentiary items as "mouse farts," I'd hate to see the size of that mouse. Then again, your inability to discuss the facts of this case or to state a salient argument for MacDonald's innocence, is classic MacDonald camp/groupie nonsense. You follow their tactics to a tee.

STICK TO MESSAGE: State the same evidentiary points over and over again. The fact that all of their arguments have prosaic explanations means little to those who live in MacFantasy Land. Boss, boss. De oven mitts, de oven mitts!

IGNORANCE IS BLISS: When it comes to the more omnious evidentiary items such as the pajama cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet and the bloodstains on MacDonald's pajama top, MacDonald cult members simply will not engage in any kind of discussion.

ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK: When MacDonald's minions are backed into a corner, they merely hurl personal insults. Kathryn MacDonald did that to Bob Stevenson on LKL.

JTF.

LOL!

:woohoo:

 

[aussiegran]

Once again, your attempt at Aristotelian logic is extremely fallacious. When you get a chance, do study the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

As repeatedly expressed, I have no interest in going through old micro-mouse farts, which are meaningless to my sizing and grading of the pertinent facts/evidence on both sides of the story.

Hopefully, MacDonald will finally get his new trial. And based on the large number of murder convictions that NC Court's have recently reversed for retrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, et al, I think he has a decent chance. If so, we can start anew. If not, we will forever disagree.

I will now return you to your mutual admiration sewing-circle, to which I extend a courteous welcome to Websleuths. (chuckle)

I like sewing - Oh wait does that make me an uneducated non thinking moron who isnt capable of sitting on a JURY panel.

 

[stinkerbelle]

i made it, woohoo! :dance:

i thought it was a tea club, not a sewing circle?

hello everyone! and a shout out for the fire brigade

yay, fun smilies here lol!

 

[rashomon]

(Wudge) As regards my initiation here, I had reviewed a bit of this MacDonald thread as a result of my long personal coverage of this high-profile case,

I find it hard to believe that you have had "a long personal coverage" of this case if you don't know who John Thornton is. He was one of the key figures at trial: the defense's expert who had agreed with prosecution expert Paul Stombaugh on a very incriminating piece of evidence.

 

[sharpar]

I like sewing - Oh wait does that make me an uneducated non thinking moron who isnt capable of sitting on a JURY panel.

:laugh: Aussie:

Apparently that would be the least of your deficits of intellect and character. Just glad I wont be needing a jury anytime soon - Scary !
Just another defender who couldnt take the heat and had to leave the kitchen.

Bunny, Rash JTF

Thank you for all your posts and taking on that arrognant, pompous
so much smarter than than you even though I am unaware of the
most incrimmating facts of this case and likely any other .

 

[Bunny]

i made it, woohoo! :dance:

i thought it was a tea club, not a sewing circle?

hello everyone! and a shout out for the fire brigade

yay, fun smilies here lol!

Great to see you here, stinker! And I love the little tag line under your name ("I *heart* the Little Viper")! Spamela wants to have his baby, you "*heart*" him and I'm about ready to clear out a room or two so I can build a shrine to him. I'm laughing; I guess McGinnis and Murtagh don't realize how many of us women worship the ground the Little Viper walks on, eh? LOL!!

 

[JTF]

Sharpar: I've been dealing with his kind for the past 6 years and they're all the same. They present the same arguments, ignore the same evidentiary items, and prefer to take shots at posters rather than discuss the documented record. If Jeffrey MacDonald asked them to drink the Kool Aid outside his jail cell, they all would do it without any hesitation. The problem that all of them have with me is that I once (i.e., 1995-2000) felt that MacDonald was innocent, so I know all their tactics. I corresponded with Fatal Justice co-author Fred Bost, several times, so I also know how the "professional" MacDonald advocates play the game. Christina Masewicz's website has pulled back the curtain on the Wizard and has shown that he is nothing more than a bargain basement family murderer, a coward, and just another in a long line of psychopaths.

JTF.