Hi all,

Last summer I was watching UM on LIFETIME and for the first time I saw the Jeffrey Macdonald case which most of you are familiar with. The thing that struck me is by that time (last summer) I had been watching UM for over ten years and had seen every case that I thought Lifetime had broadcasted and remembered several others from the NBC original airings but for the life of me I never saw this one.

What struck me as odd as well is how damn long the segment was (it took three slots) when the longest I'd previously ever clocked one segment as taking is two slots. I thought possibly this was a "new" segment from 2001/2002 (since it was aired as part of a 2001/2002 re-edit) but no dice because Stack looks far too young for it to be dated from then I believe. I have recently gained information that this case was NEVER broadcasted on UM but on their spin off show "Final Appeal" - This would explain why the segment runs about a half hour as I believe "Final Appeal" was a shorter show than UM.

Also again I have never seen a single UM segment taking up more than three "time slots". - Can anyone confirm where this case originally came from?

Later.

DD

It definitely came from the very short-lived UM spinoff "Final Appeal". I think it was from the first episode of that series, in the fall of 1992. I recall watching it when it originally aired. I think someone here may have the exact date. Wasn't it shown on either Friday or Saturday nights?

You can tell that the Sans Serif lettering was different in that segment than in regular old school UM episodes.

They should show more segments from that short series.

I never even heard of that spin-off before, nor do i recall ever seeing anything like it before. I'd like to see it...too bad they don't show it more often.

Yes, it would be nice to see some airings of that spin-off

Here is what the IMDB says about it. A user did comment that they aired the Jeffrey MacDonald case on it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103412/

Off topic, but Jeffrey MacDonald is as guilty as they come and he is right where he belongs. I hope the rest of his life is as miserable as possible.

Off topic, but Jeffrey MacDonald is as guilty as they come and he is right where he belongs. I hope the rest of his life is as miserable as possible.

And I know a number of people on this board feel MacDonald is guilty but there is just as much evidence to prove his innocence as their is his guilt. The problem with this case is due to the trickary of the prosecution during the trial and the way the case was handled the jury never got to hear the evidence supporting MacDonald's claims of innocence. All they heard was the prosecution's physical evidence that MacDonald committed the crimes.

That being said I believe that IF MacDonald murdered his family it did not take place they way the prosecution said it did. It was not a "spur of the moment" thing over his daughter's bedwetting. It was pre-meditated murder - which then begs the question - What was the motive for Macdonald to slay his wife and kids? - Jeff Macdonald did not suffer from mental illness, had a good marriage and was not a violent man.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the theory put forth by the prosecution and certain outfits of the media that MacDonal is guilty of this crime. The physical evidence that the prosecution has is strong but there are too many inconsistencies to make the prosecution's version of the story the definitive one.

Physical evidence of articles of clothing that MacDonald had not had access to, confessions of people who admitted to murdering the MacDonald family and eyewittnesses to support their claims. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T BE LYING in my view - It's highly improbable. In addtion, I believe that Jeffrey MacDonald deserves at least a new trial as a forum for his side of the story to be told to a JURY who has the whole case "no holds bared" put in front of them and let them decide who committed these murders. It takes a lot of rage for a man to kill his children - I'm not say Macdonald is not capable of doing such an act - But surely if he did - I have trouble believing it went down the way that MANY think it did.

In addition my father in law served at the same base as MacDonald around the time of the killings. While they never met my father in-law believes MacDonald is guilty however does state that a number of his collegues then and NOW believe MacDonald is innocent and think the case deserves a second look.

Later.

You know I'm with you Dante - I tend to think he is innocent as well. A new trial certainly wouldn't hurt.

Back to the subject of the spin-off "Final Appeal", by watching RS's intro to the Patricia Stallings case today I wondered if it was on there as well. I'm sure once that show was cancelled they just threw the episodes into UM. Anybody know? It would have been a good candidate for that show.

Back to the subject of the spin-off "Final Appeal", by watching RS's intro to the Patricia Stallings case today I wondered if it was on there as well. I'm sure once that show was cancelled they just threw the episodes into UM. Anybody know? It would have been a good candidate for that show.

The Patty Stallings case was first shown on UM on May 1, 1991. It appears the resolution came on 11/13/91. "Final Appeal" didn't primere until 1992 (according to the IMDB), so I don't think the Stallings case would have been included, as it had already been resolved. Not to mention that the presentation and "update" shown in that case was UM in appearance.

PS - I first heard of the Macdonald case through the TV show "American Justice", and yes, I believe he is innocent.

It's amazing that the posters on this board overwhelmingly believe in Mac the Knife's innocence. I can understand if one's only knowledge of the case comes from the UM segment because UM biased the segment in favor of Mac, in my opinion. However, do some research on the case independently of UM. You will see it in a whole new light. The book Fatal Justice (along with the defense team) relies on circumstantial evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimony to plead his case. Fatal Vision, on the other hand, and the prosecution rely on tangible physical evidence that conclude that Mac slaughtered his family. Getting a bunch of brain damaged hippies to tell outrageous tales is not that big of an accomplishment. Helena Stoeckley also told detectives that she watched Mac kill his family. If you take one of her statements at face value, you have to take them all. Also, I've had Super Bowl parties that did more damage to my apartment than the "intruders" did to the MacDonald home. I refuse to believe that a clan of murderous Woodstock wannabes would be kind enough to not break the furniture, put holes in the walls, and destroy everything in their collective paths. Not to mention, three people are overkilled while the family patriarch is left alive with a superficial stab wound and a bump on his head. I've had papercuts worse than Mac's self-inflicted stab wound. All that aside, the fiber and blood evidence make it indisputable to me. Mac is a sick psychopath who is exactly where he belongs. I even wrote him a letter a few years back telling him so.

Hmm well I've read both books you've mentioned and I've found both of them to be biast towards one side of the case at least in my view but I'm not going to get in a whole "innocence vs. guilt" debate because like I said there is enough evidence either way to build a case. The only thing I will say is that Jeffrey MacDonald does deserve another day in court. If he is truly guilty his case will fold like a deck of cards in front of a jury, if it stands up he will be released - that simple.

The thing is also if you truly believe he is guilty then by letting him have another trial - if he is still convicted after he gets to tell his side of the story then Jeffrey MacDonald's arguements of innoncence will carry less weight. Until that time MacDonald has a plausible story that has convinced many intelligent people that he is innocent. Let the prosecution put on their case and the defense put on their case with the evidence discovered after the inital trial - Let the jury decide whether MacDonald is guilty or not.

Later.

Why does he deserve another trial? What convincing evidence has been brought forth since he was convicted? He was already found guilty by a jury after they heard the damning evidence against him. Do you realize what would happen if we gave every prisoner who cries innocence a new trial? Over half of the people incarcerated claim innocence. Another trial would be an enormous waste of time and money and would yield the same result.

Guilty.

Why does he deserve another trial? What convincing evidence has been brought forth since he was convicted? He was already found guilty by a jury after they heard the damning evidence against him. Do you realize what would happen if we gave every prisoner who cries innocence a new trial? Over half of the people incarcerated claim innocence. Another trial would be an enormous waste of time and money and would yield the same result.

Guilty.

Well to each his own I guess or "agree to disagree" or whatever they say. I feel that the theories he and others have put forward that show that he is innocent more than enough warrant the need for the case to have a second look by a jury. Obviously you and others feel differently which is cool - Obviously you feel strongly enough about your views to write this guy a letter telling him how you feel where as although I do feel he is innocent have no desire to rattle my saber and yell "Free MacDonald" - I feel if he gets released, good for him - If not well there are probably a bunch of other people sitting in prison who are innocent of their crimes who will never be exonorated - UM has profiled a ton of them. I feel he is innocent while you feel he is guilty - Like I said it all comes down to a matter of subjective opinion

Later.

DD

This is a little off topic...
I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of science is not the greatest, but how can it be that each member of the MacDonald family has a different blood group? I was under the impression that children had to have the same blood group as one of their parents. (Remember that other case that aired on UM where a daughter learned she was adopted because she had a different blood group than her mother and father?)

SOMEONE SMART PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! :D

It's amazing that the posters on this board overwhelmingly believe in Mac the Knife's innocence.

I don't believe overwhelmingly in his innocence. I used to think like you, that he was as guilty as sin. The problem is that there is so much circumstatial evidence that it can't be proven one way or another.

Read "Fatal Vision," you think he is guilty. Read "Fatal Justice," you think he is not.

The bottom line is that Jeffrey MacDonald was not a good person in many ways. He had numerous affairs and seemed to be very narcissistic (sp?) at times. But being a jerk doesn't make one a murderer.

Is he guilty or is he innocent? None of us can say either way with any certainty. For every piece of evidence that makes him guilty, I can find one that shows he couldn't have. For every reason why he wouldn't have done it, I can find you one to say he would have.

I don't think any of us will every know the truth. But to say that it is definite one way or the other is a leap in my book.

In addition to the physical evidence, common sense does it for me, Todd. Common sense tells me that the chain of events below could not have happened.

A group of at least six marauding hippies, stoned on hallucinagins, decided to pay a visit to the MacDonald household one night intent on doing harm. They apparently picked the right night because the back door had inexplicably been left unlocked. Nevermind the fact that the greater Fayetteville, NC area has never been on anyone's top-10 safest places to live list. And, they didn't bring their own weapons to assault the family with. They just assumed that something in the home would do. As luck would have it, a club, knife, and icepick were stumbled upon immediately after entering through the unlocked door. They knew the layout of the apartment so well that they could navigate it in the darkness. One of the more violent of the group went to the master bedroom to butcher Colette while the other equally deadly member went to slaughter Kimberly in her room. Meanwhile, Mac tangled with four Neo-Mansonites in the living room. Lucky for him, they were the less brutal of the bunch and only wanted to give him a bump on his head and a superficial stab to the abdomen while chanting an outdated 60's phrase. These six (or more) were also very respectful of the home. They didn't want to break furniture, put holes in the walls, or destroy anything in their collective paths. They made sure not to spill any of Mac's blood on the sofa or floor, and they even carefully laid the coffee table on it's side, rather than knocking it over. After seeing Mac fall unconscious and making sure that Kristen had also been finished off, they used surgical gloves when writing "PIG" on the headboard. They sure were a lot neater and cleaner than their mentors, the Manson family. Then, they wiped their borrowed weapons clean of fingerprints and left them just outside the back door as they vanished into the night never to be seen or heard from again.

Make sense to anyone?

In addition to the physical evidence, common sense does it for me, Todd. Common sense tells me that the chain of events below could not have happened.

A group of at least six marauding hippies, stoned on hallucinagins, decided to pay a visit to the MacDonald household one night intent on doing harm. They apparently picked the right night because the back door had inexplicably been left unlocked. Nevermind the fact that the greater Fayetteville, NC area has never been on anyone's top-10 safest places to live list. And, they didn't bring their own weapons to assault the family with. They just assumed that something in the home would do. As luck would have it, a club, knife, and icepick were stumbled upon immediately after entering through the unlocked door. They knew the layout of the apartment so well that they could navigate it in the darkness. One of the more violent of the group went to the master bedroom to butcher Colette while the other equally deadly member went to slaughter Kimberly in her room. Meanwhile, Mac tangled with four Neo-Mansonites in the living room. Lucky for him, they were the less brutal of the bunch and only wanted to give him a bump on his head and a superficial stab to the abdomen while chanting an outdated 60's phrase. These six (or more) were also very respectful of the home. They didn't want to break furniture, put holes in the walls, or destroy anything in their collective paths. They made sure not to spill any of Mac's blood on the sofa or floor, and they even carefully laid the coffee table on it's side, rather than knocking it over. After seeing Mac fall unconscious and making sure that Kristen had also been finished off, they used surgical gloves when writing "PIG" on the headboard. They sure were a lot neater and cleaner than their mentors, the Manson family. Then, they wiped their borrowed weapons clean of fingerprints and left them just outside the back door as they vanished into the night never to be seen or heard from again.

Make sense to anyone?

Well common sense is good and well but the thing is that what is posted above is a theory - A theory in principal that many people believe is what actually took place regarding the murder of Mac's family. Many others believe the events read as the prosecution painted them. Either are acceptable actually because they are both theories. The difference between the two is that the prosecution's theory was the one the jury went with.

There is this big misconception with a lot of people that when a man is found guilty of a crime it means he automatically did it. The fact is there are probably many innocent men sitting in prison right now (alongside the myriad of guilty men) - I believe Jeffrey MacDonald is one of those innocent men. Yes it is a theory and I probably wouldn't have worded it the same way you did above or put the same spin on it but yes - MacDonald's theory about his innocence "makes sense to me".

This brings the whole issue from a theory to an OPINION on whether you believe Mac's theory or not. You believe he is guilty and the courts agree with you, I never had a problem with that - I'm not trying to convince you he is innocent because very rarely in life when you have someone who believes strongly in their convictions in a case like this will you cause them to waver. I believe he is innocent and should be granted a new trial in which he could tell his side of the story and let the jury decide whether he should "walk" or remain in jail. Thats an OPINION...nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing that is quasi factual in this case is the likelyhood that Jeffrey MacDonald after many years of incarceration with many appeals denied will probably not recieve another trial or be released any time soon. It is extremely hard (and I believe in the main it should be) for a man who is convicted of a crime to get his sentence overturned especially in a case of murder. It's not impossible just highly unlikely.

In summary: It's cool if you think he's guilty - I just don't buy it - Thats basically what this whole thing comes down to right there.

Later.

In addition to the physical evidence, common sense does it for me, Todd. Common sense tells me that the chain of events below could not have happened.

A group of at least six marauding hippies, stoned on hallucinagins, decided to pay a visit to the MacDonald household one night intent on doing harm. They apparently picked the right night because the back door had inexplicably been left unlocked. Nevermind the fact that the greater Fayetteville, NC area has never been on anyone's top-10 safest places to live list. And, they didn't bring their own weapons to assault the family with. They just assumed that something in the home would do. As luck would have it, a club, knife, and icepick were stumbled upon immediately after entering through the unlocked door. They knew the layout of the apartment so well that they could navigate it in the darkness. One of the more violent of the group went to the master bedroom to butcher Colette while the other equally deadly member went to slaughter Kimberly in her room. Meanwhile, Mac tangled with four Neo-Mansonites in the living room. Lucky for him, they were the less brutal of the bunch and only wanted to give him a bump on his head and a superficial stab to the abdomen while chanting an outdated 60's phrase. These six (or more) were also very respectful of the home. They didn't want to break furniture, put holes in the walls, or destroy anything in their collective paths. They made sure not to spill any of Mac's blood on the sofa or floor, and they even carefully laid the coffee table on it's side, rather than knocking it over. After seeing Mac fall unconscious and making sure that Kristen had also been finished off, they used surgical gloves when writing "PIG" on the headboard. They sure were a lot neater and cleaner than their mentors, the Manson family. Then, they wiped their borrowed weapons clean of fingerprints and left them just outside the back door as they vanished into the night never to be seen or heard from again.

Make sense to anyone?

To be honest, I don't really buy the hippie story, either. All I'm saying is that there is not enough evidence to make me believe he did it for sure.

After reading "Fatal Vision" I was convinced. But after doing a lot more reading on the case, there are a lot of things that aren't so clear cut.

It is a fact that the original investigators contaminated the crime scene in numerous ways. Does that mean he is innocent? Heck no. But I do have a harder time believe he is guilty if evidence is possibly tainted.

I agree with Dark. I'm not going to talk you out of your belief that he is guilty. Frankly, I'm not sure. But I do believe there is no overwhelming amount of evidence to prove he is guilty OR innocent.

You guys both make very good points and I'm not trying to be overbearing with my opinion. In fact, I admire your openmindedness to the case. I guess this is just a case that I am overly passionate about.

This is an interesting read on his ability to tell the truth: http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

There was recently an update on Jeffrey Macdonald on the news. He went before a parole hearing asking to be released so he could be with his wife. The two examiners recommended a denial of parole and the U.S. parole commission upheld the recommendation and denied his parole request. He will never be released from prison. I personally think he's guilty. I can't believe so many people think a bunch of drug crazed hippies killed his family and spared him. He simply copied off of Charles Manson. His appeals have been denied for 30 years. He will remain in prison for the rest of his life. He has no hope.

bump

bump

I think you said it all in your original post George. Guilty or Innocent whatever he is unless he comes up with some new hard evidence (I think he has mentioned he has some DNA evidence that will prove once and for all that there were other people in the house that night and he is innocent of the crimes he is accused of but that DNA evidence has been forthcoming for years and would be a harsh blow to Mac if it didn't come out the way he is hoping it would) to eliminate him as a suspect in the case or implicate someone else - Mac has no hope of ever getting out of prison.

The people he alleges were in his house and killed his family are dead. He doesn't have enough new evidence to merit a new trial and Colette's family has been on the opposing side against him for many many years which doesn't help his case at all. What Mac needs to "walk" is first something to get a new trial (possible new DNA evidence or maybe a sympathetic judge who will listen to the claims that Mac's defense didn't have adequate time to peruse the state's evidence against him) and once he gets to trial a sympathetic jury who will free him and take his version of the story above the physical evidence that makes a lot of people feel he is guilty.

The likelyhood of this happening is nil - As far as copying off of Charles Manson - I have to disagree there as I have first hand knowledge of goings on around the area of the base that Mac was stationed at the time when the murders took place that indicate something like this could have happened. Nothing earth shattering but there were a number of "attacks" (mostly written off as pranks) against a lot of the enlisted including my father-in law who was stationed at the same base at the time. Nothing at the level that happened to Mac but there was a lot of unrest at the time due to the Vietnam war a lot of people in that area were very much against the military and the government.

But back to the gist of your post - Mac needs a miracle to get out of prison - Definatley agree 100%.

Later.

Thanks

I would comfortably bet my life that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent. He simply had the extreme misfortune of being the victim of a seemingly implausible truth-is-stranger-than-fiction group of intruders who murdered his family. Naturally the simpletons will conclude he is guilty. The argument of "how could a group of six kill the others while sparing him?" is simpleton to the core.

As I asked on this forum several months ago, why would an undeniably smart person like MacDonald invent such a ludicrous sounding tale involving so many people unless it was the truth? You would have to be an absolute stone moron. The people who invent intruder stories come up with a single black abductor, like Susan Smith did. Likewise the Massachusetts guy who claimed someone killed his wife in their car after he supposedly drove into a bad neighborhood while lost 10 or 15 years ago. I can give one example after another. The more people you place in a crime scene the more variables and the geometric multiplication of explanations you have to invent, i.e where each of them was, what they looked like, what everyone was wearing, what they said, etc. No chance you can invent everything, weave it together into a plausible tale, and remember all your lies if it's nothing but a fantasy creation involving so many people.

Oh yeah, you also can't make long blonde wig fibers materialize out of thin air on command.

A few years ago I met Jeffrey MacDonald's former prison roommate, who lives in Las Vegas, as I do. He stated emphatically that he believed MacDonald is innocent. I mentioned it on this forum. The quote was something like, "At least half the guys in prison claim they are innocent. The only one I ever believed was Jeffrey MacDonald." His former roommate detailed to me how they watched the Fatal Vision movie together in jail when it came out in the mid-'80s, and MacDonald picked it apart piece by piece with all the misleading aspects or outright falsehoods.

I don't believe overwhelmingly in his innocence. I used to think like you, that he was as guilty as sin. The problem is that there is so much circumstatial evidence that it can't be proven one way or another.

Read "Fatal Vision," you think he is guilty. Read "Fatal Justice," you think he is not.

The bottom line is that Jeffrey MacDonald was not a good person in many ways. He had numerous affairs and seemed to be very narcissistic (sp?) at times. But being a jerk doesn't make one a murderer.

Is he guilty or is he innocent? None of us can say either way with any certainty. For every piece of evidence that makes him guilty, I can find one that shows he couldn't have. For every reason why he wouldn't have done it, I can find you one to say he would have.

I don't think any of us will every know the truth. But to say that it is definite one way or the other is a leap in my book.
Narcissits (spelling?) are capable of harming others, but when it comes to themselves, THEY DARE NOT. Which may explain why he "overkilled" his family and he only came away with a slight stab wound. Being a narcissit, he couldn't bring himself to injuring himself. Narcissits hold themselves in high regard. I am not going to get into an argument abt his guilt, just wanted to respond with the narcissit thing.

Awsi,

It's a good thing you aren't really faced with having to bet your life on Mac the Knife's innocence. By simpletons, you must mean people who have common sense. In my estimation, only someone with "gullible" tattooed across their forehead would believe Mac's fairy tale.

You're right: truth is stranger than fiction. But, truth leaves physical evidence. Fiction does not.

Why would he invent that story? Maybe because he thought the military would never disbelieve him on what happened. Maybe because he was arrogant enough to think that his story would be accepted without question.

He didn't weave anything into a plausible tale. It was the implausibility of it along with a little thing called physical evidence that has that psychopath exactly where he belongs.

So he convinced another convict of his innocence. Wow! I'm sure that's the first time that's ever happened.

You want to talk about falsehoods. How about every time Mac the Knife opens his mouth. Explain why he told Freddy Kassab that he had tracked down and killed one of the intruders.

A question for all you Mac supporters: where are all of these DNA results that were supposed to come out this year and free Mac?

DNA Results - He's still waiting on them as are everyone else - I'm sure it will be reported either way either from Mac or through the media what the results or so we'll leave that be for the time being. I don't view "gullible" and take that stereotype of my personality VERY PERSONALLY lets just get that straight okay?

Just because you happen to support someone like Jeffrey MacDonald does not by nature make you a gullible person in other aspects of your day to day life. As far as the debate of his guilt vs. innocence I've given my version and you've given yours and either is plausible given which side of the fence you fall on. Until the there is conclusive proof that Mac murdered his family there will always be doubt on this case in a lot of folks' minds - It's one of those cases that I don't think we will ever know exactly what happened because if Mac did kill his family after all these years of proclaiming his innocence - he sure as hell isn't gonna confess to it now

Later.

I stand by my statement.

Earlier, it was said that anti-Mac's are "simpletons". I don't think responding with "gullible" for the pro-Mac's is out of bounds considering the condescending nature of Awsi's post.

Let's just get that straight okay. :rolleyes:

I stand by my statement.

Earlier, it was said that anti-Mac's are "simpletons". I don't think responding with "gullible" for the pro-Mac's is out of bounds considering the condescending nature of Awsi's post.

Let's just get that straight okay. :rolleyes:



:rolleyes: - Okay I just didn't like the "general term" nature of your statement and since you have alerted me to it the "general term" nature of Awsi's statement as neither is true. Still though you might want to consider that although Awsi's statement was out of line there are a lot more "pro-Mac" supporters who do respect your views of his guilt and have conversed with you in a non-personal manner thoughout this topic - so to call people who support Mac gullible as a general term is just as ignorant as Awsi referring those who don't support Mac as being simple. Lets keep the name calling out of it folks okay? - It's not eighth grade and I apologize for any gasoline I might have thrown on the fire with my comments :)

Later.

It's all good Thinman. I think Jeffey Macdonald is guilty but I have no problem with people believing he's innocent. He's definitely a narcissist. I haven't seen him show any emotion about his family's death. By the way, where did you get Macdonald's nickname Mac the knife from? I thought you were talking about Bobby Darin. :D

As much as I would like to take credit, I did not invent that phrase. I've just heard it over the years from various anti-Mac's.

I guess Mac the Club and Mac the Icepick would be just as appropriate.

In addition to the physical evidence, common sense does it for me, Todd. Common sense tells me that the chain of events below could not have happened.

A group of at least six marauding hippies, stoned on hallucinagins, decided to pay a visit to the MacDonald household one night intent on doing harm. They apparently picked the right night because the back door had inexplicably been left unlocked. Nevermind the fact that the greater Fayetteville, NC area has never been on anyone's top-10 safest places to live list. And, they didn't bring their own weapons to assault the family with. They just assumed that something in the home would do. As luck would have it, a club, knife, and icepick were stumbled upon immediately after entering through the unlocked door. They knew the layout of the apartment so well that they could navigate it in the darkness. One of the more violent of the group went to the master bedroom to butcher Colette while the other equally deadly member went to slaughter Kimberly in her room. Meanwhile, Mac tangled with four Neo-Mansonites in the living room. Lucky for him, they were the less brutal of the bunch and only wanted to give him a bump on his head and a superficial stab to the abdomen while chanting an outdated 60's phrase. These six (or more) were also very respectful of the home. They didn't want to break furniture, put holes in the walls, or destroy anything in their collective paths. They made sure not to spill any of Mac's blood on the sofa or floor, and they even carefully laid the coffee table on it's side, rather than knocking it over. After seeing Mac fall unconscious and making sure that Kristen had also been finished off, they used surgical gloves when writing "PIG" on the headboard. They sure were a lot neater and cleaner than their mentors, the Manson family. Then, they wiped their borrowed weapons clean of fingerprints and left them just outside the back door as they vanished into the night never to be seen or heard from again.

Make sense to anyone?
Not to me in the least. Bottom line, sounds too much like the Tate/La Bianca Murders. Oh wait....duh...that's why he came up with this crazy story, because the Manson crimes had been headlines at that time. To blame hippies is no different than the people who claim "a black man carjacked me" or "a hispanic man kidnapped me". Whatever sounds plausible at the time is what a guilty person would use. Please, let's not get into he's guilty or not. He is in prison and if there was substantial evidence that would help him get released, it should have been brought forth then. He has attorneys working on his case, they should be smart enough to get him a new trial.

Well the issue of debating whether he is guilty or not is something people just do on this forum for the purpose of a good debate...

The rest I agree with you although as I previously mentioned my father in law was on the same base as Mac at the same time and observed several incidents in line with Mac's stories of the druggie hippies (these incidents took place prior to the murders) - That being said my father in law still feel he's guilty - I feel he's innocent but thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Though I do agree that the chances of him getting a new trial as slim to none.

Later.

...To blame hippies is no different than the people who claim "a black man carjacked me" or "a hispanic man kidnapped me"....

Isn't it funny, blacks carjack, and hispanics kidnap! The runaway bride claimed she was kidnapped by two hispanic males, Susan Smith claims she was carjacked by a black man... But hippies have never done anything to me but offer me dope. And yes, I've been carjacked and kidnapped, but not from blacks or hispanics ;)

Isn't it funny, blacks carjack, and hispanics kidnap! The runaway bride claimed she was kidnapped by two hispanic males, Susan Smith claims she was carjacked by a black man... But hippies have never done anything to me but offer me dope. And yes, I've been carjacked and kidnapped, but not from blacks or hispanics ;)
Oh my God. I am glad to see you made it out alive. The black and hispanic statements as a matter of fact, were the reason I used that in my post. I was thinking of the missing bride and Susan Smith. See how we both thought the same thing when all that was mentioned was black-carjacking and hispanic-kidnapping. Hmmmmm. As for the guilt or innocence of McDonald, the initial poster inquired abt where the McDonald case came from. Not the guilt or innocence. It may have led to the topic, but that wasn't what the poster asked.