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

New Posts

Tipstaff said:
Yes, that was it. Between this book and Helter Skelter (before this IIRC) I had nightmares but never game up true crime.....and look where I find myself...here with all of you!!!!:woohoo:
Click to expand...

Heyyyyyyyyyyy! You stole my story! LOL, I had the very same two books!
 
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.
 
Madeleine74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Cracka*Jaxx said:
I don't recall this finding one way or the other. I'd have to research it.


At that time period lots of girls wore floppy hats; it was the style. One of my best friends in high school wore one of those hats, too, so it wouldn't be unusual to see a girl wearing one.


I never could figure out why HS would say she was in the house if she wasn't. But, then again, I've never been a druggie and have no idea what goes on in their minds.

I wonder how the investigators will know if the hairs match HS's boyfriend. Did they save DNA from him? If I'm not mistaken, everyone that was supposed to be at the murder scene with HS is now deceased. Not to mention, the hairs could have gotten there from anyone the family was in contact with. I just can't imagine MacDonald's sentence being reversed because of 3 hairs. All the other evidence apparently pointed directly to him.
Click to expand...

BBM
How convenient is that for JM. I just cannot see him getting a new trial unless there is very solid forensic evidence.
I also need to refresh my memory about this case as I was a young person at the time.
 
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.
 
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."
 
I may be the only one praying that he gets a fair, new trial. I have thought he was innocent all along.
 
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.
 
JeannaT said:
I may be the only one praying that he gets a fair, new trial. I have thought he was innocent all along.
Click to expand...

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!)
 
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.
 
Fatal Vision in its entirety in 18 installments on YouTube. Great quality too.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyTfkTub67I&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Fatal Vision TV-movie 1984. The First 10 Minutes - YouTube[/ame]
 
They should tell MacDonald to hang it in his @$$ - that's my ruling from the bench:denied:
 
KathrynL said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
JeannaT said:
I may be the only one praying that he gets a fair, new trial. I have thought he was innocent all along.
Click to expand...

I guess it is just you and I that believe that he is innocent. I do hope that he does get a new trial.
 
Madeleine74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

:clap: Thank you for this.
 
NancyA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
ERRN1313 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 2,321 (members: 197, guests: 2,124)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
2,124
Total visitors
2,321
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,818
Messages
18,012,936
Members
229,513
Latest member
meliMar
Back
Top