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

Discussion in 'Past Trial Discussion Threads' started by hockeymom, Nov 2, 2003.

  1. smellsarat

    smellsarat Former Member

    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As far as self-inflicted wounds...Chuck Stuart-the pregnant wife killer from Boston,,nearly killed himself staging his supposed attack by a "black man"He ended up with a colostomy bag..which I'm SURE was not the outcome he wanted!!...so even though the wounds can be serious -doesn"t mean they didn't do it to themselves...What still sticks in my mind is his behavior After the crime...I tend to think McGinnis's drug theory would make sense...I know these prescribed drugs can sometimes cause behaviors otherwise not even contemplated....(They are now saying paxil may cause children to commmit suicide-the drug companies do not test things enough or hide their research....with grave consequences...)They can be as dangerous as street drugs..
     
  2. ann92

    ann92 Guest

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

    Sunnmoon New Member

    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Baloney, Baloney, Salami -

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

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

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

    smellsarat Former Member

    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Baloney....
     
  5. Ghostwheel

    Ghostwheel Pyrrhonist

    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sunnmoon, did you see my question about Colonel Rock and the table?

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

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

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

    Ghostwheel Pyrrhonist

    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Baloney, the lady with the floppy hat was not seen? Baloney, he didn't get a fair trial? Baloney, he didn't do it? Baloney and cheese on wheat, with a little mustard (yum)?

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

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

    smellsarat Former Member

    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He's just lucky he didn"t leave a sponge inside his own body...
    ha,ha,ha, sorry getting late...couldn"t resist!!:D :D
     
  8. jednme

    jednme Guest

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

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

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

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Welcome, Jed.

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

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

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

    I didn't know about the polygraph testimony. Thanks for sharing that.
     
  10. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is MO that Jeffy McD is guilty. I think McG feels that in his bones and is exonerated, in a sense, now. He looked at Jeffy in some depth, a depth that only somebody that close, can do. JMO, of course.
     
  11. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    JMO, too, Imon. My sense from the book is that the more McG was exposed to MacD's sociopathic behavior, the more suspicious McG became of the doctor's "all-American boy" persona. McG also interviewed many people who knew MacDonald and learned of a number of incidents where the doctor exploded in bursts of violent or near-violent rage. Hearing these accounts, it seemed more reasonable to McG that the doctor might well have "snapped" on that terrible night in Fayetteville.

    Now these other outbursts did not end in murder, to be fair, nor would they be admissible in court. But their admissibility only goes to the issue of legal innocence; McG (and the rest of us) are entitled to consider that info in forming our personal opinions.
     
  12. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aah, Nova, I concur about the "All American Boy" idea. I think Jeffy just had a very hard time admitting to anybody that he wasn't perfect. Collette found that out the hard way, and I feel sure that upon reflection, McG, realized it, too.

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

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Darn! I can see you and I aren't going to have much of an argument about Dr. MacD. I agree with every word of your post.
     
  14. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, Nova. Every now and then, life's good, when we agree. More often than not, you seem to agree with my thoughts. Jeffy had an ego bigger than all outdoors, IMO, and that created a place in his mind that didn't allow for his human side that could be ugly, at times. Unfotunately for him, he let it fester to the point that it went beyond ugly. I only wish Collette would have loaded up those kids and fled to McG's home, but I sure don't blame her as she was obviously innocent and naive. God rest her, and her children's, soul. Let Jeffy waller in his squaller, while here on earth, IMO.
     
  15. nanandjim

    nanandjim Former Member

    Messages:
    16,107
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Finally...Imon...we have found some common ground. As much as I hate to say these words.....I have to admit I agree with you!:) Jeff MacDonald committed this crime. Must add, though, his behavior and attitude reminds me of SP. As a matter of fact, both Jeff and Scott were notorious womanizers and also either sociopathic or narcisstic. Both of their wives crossed them, and both ended up being murdered.... Both men think they are smarter than everyone else and are accusing the police of framing them....Just some of the similarities...
     
  16. jednme

    jednme Guest


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

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

    Just recently I found the article published in the LA Times. I still ponder why MacD continues to deny the truth surrounding that polygraph and insteads promotes the "it was never completed" claim despite the legal record and testimony being available to the public. Anyhoo...
     
  17. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jeffy has blood on his hands, IMO. He is a master at trying to purport his perfectness, but he's so transparent...
     
  18. Babcat

    Babcat Former Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This case is what got me interested in true crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    smellsarat Former Member

    Messages:
    10,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Babcat..this case also got me...and probably many others interested in true crime....(Also Tommy Thompsons' books "Blood and Money"(?) about the Texas dr who murdered his wife ala Claus Von Bulow and "Serpentine" about the guy who murdered and robbed tourists in Asia)...Good books both...
    But anyway that info in your post ..is that from Fatal Verdict? , where did you get that....or from his web-site...Curious...Thanks!
     
  20. Babcat

    Babcat Former Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nothing comes from his website. Of course that would only be a self serving place. I got the transcripts of the civil trial. And some info came from the book "Fatal Justice". In that book the authors back up their claims with researchable facts. And I did research them.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice