Interesting article here...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1408389

MacDonald's story was the feature on last night's Larry King.

This case has baffled me for so many years. I cannot decide whether he did it or not. There is plenty of evidence both for and against his guilt.

I hope the DNA tests will be completed and released soon. It will be great to have this case finally come to a definite and irrefutable conclusion. No more articles, movies, and books about it.

You know, I just don't understand, if new evidence (actually supressed evidence) has existed, they why is there not a rush to see if this is enough evidence to have a new trial? This has baffled me. I mean, I have seen the movie, I have read the books, I have read articles, seen interviews and yet, I am still confused at that issue. I can understand the DNA part of it, DNA wasn't in use until after 1987, BUT, there were strands of a wig (supposedly) found at the murder scene. Last night one of the military investigators who was the first to arrive on the scene, said he is guilty, and there is nothing that is being hidden by them, etc.

THE MOVIE WAS BIAS AGAINST HIM, THE EVIDENCE WAS MISHANDLED AT THE CRIME SCENE, ANY EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST HAS SINCE BEEN SO MUDDLED IT IS USELESS. MY FATHER WAS A GREEN BERET WHO SERVED WITH HIM, HE DIDN'T THINK "JEFF" (AS HE CALLED HIM ) DID IT. I ASKED MY FATHER IF HE THOUGHT HE WAS CAPABLE OF DOING IT, HE SAID "OF COURSE HE WAS CAPABLE".

it mentions a call to their house that she claims to have picked up and spoken to the person, did they ever figure out through phone records or whatever who had called the house and what they heard on the other end?

it mentions a call to their house that she claims to have picked up and spoken to the person, did they ever figure out through phone records or whatever who had called the house and what they heard on the other end?
who did Helena make this statement to? the article isn't clear...

Regarding the long blonde hair found that Mac hinges his freedom on: If the FBI examined every square inch of my house right now they would find things that I would have no explanation for. Fibers, hairs, fingerprints, and DNA with no identifiable source would be present. This says several things. First, I need to be a better housekeeper. Second, after six years of living there, a lot of people have come and gone. My point is, unless Mac's apartment had been professionally cleaned top to bottom prior to the murders (it had not), there were going to be some things at the crime scene that the defense team would grab and hold on to for dear life. A group of (at least) six marauding, strung out hippies would have left a lot more fiber and DNA evidence than was found.

Regarding the phone call: For some odd reason, the telephone company did not have a record of the call. Also, the guy claiming he made the call was a schizo that had spent time in the same loony bin where Helena Stoeckley had resided. And, ask yourself this question. How often do you receive phone calls at 3:00 AM? Once a year? Twice? Those are usually hang ups or wrong numbers. I know, Mac was a doctor. Still, what are the odds that a patient is going to call at that time of morning from a pay phone at the exact time the Stoeckley Six (or seven or eleven) were supposedly in the apartment?

Regarding Stoeckley's confession: Helena Stoeckley at first said she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders. Later, she said she was present in the apartment and watched MacDonald slaughter his family. Then, after much coaxing, coersion, and extortion she claimed to have been involved in the attacks. My question to people who believe in her confession is, why do you believe one statement over multiple others from a confirmed pathological liar? Could it be that that is just the one you want to hear?

Bottom line: Mac is guilty and is where he belongs.

Regarding the long blonde hair found that Mac hinges his freedom on: If the FBI examined every square inch on my house right now they would find things that I would have no explanation for. Fibers, hairs, fingerprints, and DNA with no identifiable source would be present. This says several things. First, I need to be a better housekeeper. Second, after six years of living there, a lot of people have come and gone. My point is, unless Mac's apartment had been professionally cleaned top to bottom prior to the murders (it had not), there were going to be some things at the crime scene that the defense team would grab and hold on to for dear life. A group of (at least) six marauding, strung out hippies would have left a lot more fiber and DNA evidence than was found.

Regarding the phone call: For some odd reason, the telephone company did not have a record of the call. Also, the guy claiming he made the call was a schizo that had spent time in the same loony bin where Helena Stoeckley had resided. And, ask yourself this question. How often do you receive phone calls at 3:00 AM? Once a year? Twice? Those are usually hang ups or wrong numbers. I know, Mac was a doctor. Still, what are the odds that a patient is going to call at that time of morning from a pay phone at the exact time the Stoeckley Six (or seven or eleven) were supposedly in the apartment?

Regarding Stoeckley's confession: Helena Stoeckley at first said she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders. Later, she said she was present in the apartment and watched MacDonald slaughter his family. Then, after much coaxing, coersion, and extortion claimed to have been involved in the attacks. My question to people who believe in her confession is, why do you believe one statement over multiple others from a confirmed pathological liar? Could it be that that is just the one you want to hear?

Bottom line: Mac is guilty and is where he belongs.

I can't and never will believe Helena's statements/comments because she had no credibility. Her story continuosly changed. Whether someone told her what to say or she had hallucinations (which I am sure are many) of being there. I highly doubt after she said over and over she was so high she couldn't remember anything why suddenly, later on she remembers being in the house? she remembers a phone call? it's all bogus to me.

MaDonald's attorneys brought up, how could he know abt a blonde haired woman with a floppy hat (who was seen on the property earlier in the evening) unless she was in the house? My explanation would be, that he had seen her himself...he may have been looking out the window and caught a glimpse of Helena. With that in mind, he began to think abt a believable story of intruders. And of course, it helped that the Manson murders had just occurred six months prior.

One of the new allegations coming out of this, is that Jefferey MacDonald was "caught in the act" of molesting his daughter, which is what may have triggered the fight and ultimate murders of his family. He had to keep Collette quiet, and in killing her, had to kill his daughters too, especially the one he was supposedly molesting. This was mentioned on the Larry King show the other night. I don't know how this new "theory" came abt, but to me, it almost doesn't matter anymore "Why" he killed them, but that he remain where he is.

Regarding the long blonde hair found that Mac hinges his freedom on: If the FBI examined every square inch of my house right now they would find things that I would have no explanation for. Fibers, hairs, fingerprints, and DNA with no identifiable source would be present. This says several things. First, I need to be a better housekeeper. Second, after six years of living there, a lot of people have come and gone. My point is, unless Mac's apartment had been professionally cleaned top to bottom prior to the murders (it had not), there were going to be some things at the crime scene that the defense team would grab and hold on to for dear life. A group of (at least) six marauding, strung out hippies would have left a lot more fiber and DNA evidence than was found.

Regarding the phone call: For some odd reason, the telephone company did not have a record of the call. Also, the guy claiming he made the call was a schizo that had spent time in the same loony bin where Helena Stoeckley had resided. And, ask yourself this question. How often do you receive phone calls at 3:00 AM? Once a year? Twice? Those are usually hang ups or wrong numbers. I know, Mac was a doctor. Still, what are the odds that a patient is going to call at that time of morning from a pay phone at the exact time the Stoeckley Six (or seven or eleven) were supposedly in the apartment?

Regarding Stoeckley's confession: Helena Stoeckley at first said she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders. Later, she said she was present in the apartment and watched MacDonald slaughter his family. Then, after much coaxing, coersion, and extortion she claimed to have been involved in the attacks. My question to people who believe in her confession is, why do you believe one statement over multiple others from a confirmed pathological liar? Could it be that that is just the one you want to hear?

Bottom line: Mac is guilty and is where he belongs.

Nice whiff. Yeah, I'm sure all of us have blonde 22 inch synthetic wig wibers lying around all over the place. And if the existence of fibers like that was so typical and understandable, why did the MacDonald prosecution feel compelled to suppress it at trial? Perhaps because they were of such high caliber and integrity that three of the prosecutors in the MacDonald case were subsequently disgraced and/or disbarred for misconduct and such crimes as forging signatures, embezzling and changing court documents. Just a guess.

Probability is incompetently understood and persistently misapplied. That is my ongoing frustration on internet websites and elsewhere. It's usually blatant guesswork and when probability is not properly utilized the innacurate scattergun conclusions are pathetic. Those faulty conclusions lead to innocent people sometimes being charged, and when you're charged the overwhelming probability is you will be convicted.

I've posted many times here and elsewhere that Jeffrey MacDonald would never have invented such a large and diverse group of intruders if it weren't, unfortunately for him, the truth. The posters who insist on his guilt have never competently addressed that issue. Because they can't. MacDonald specifically detailed so many aspects of the assault, including a black man with a baseball bat and specific attire, plus two white men who also attacked him. Then the long haired blonde woman who was carrying a flickering object like a candle and making bizarre chants. Is that the known successful strategy of inventing perpretators, a large group including both sexes, plus both black and white? Yeah. And I suppose it's just an incredible coincidence that a woman matching MacDonald's description of her was seen near the crime scene and later confessed, including on camera, to being there and her involvement many times, as did her boyfriend.

It's beyond laughable to assert the evidence decisively points to MacDonald's guilt. The murders occured in 1970 yet he wasn't convicted until late '79. In fact, the decision was initially reversed via the denial of a speedy trial. The timeline itself screams at reasonable doubt, at the absolute outside. It wasn't like MacDonald was in hiding or other suspects were being slowly eliminated. The crime scene evidence was so inconclusive to non-existent that many potential prosecutors declined to go forward with the case while others used terms like "exculpatory character of some of the evidence."

I'll be the first to admit backing Jeffrey MacDonald is a futile situation. He will never be acquitted or released. Too high profile and not enough physical evidence for a reversal. That's what happens when you get interesting situations like skin scrapings from under his wife Colette's fingernails conveniently being lost. MacDonald had no evidence of any scrape marks by a fingernail and the DNA of that skin sample might have exonerated MacDonald. Of course, Thinman and blindfolded others will probably argue that we all have random skin tissue lounging around under our fingernails. What was that again, poor housekeeping?

MacDonald is partially a victim of his own inept handicapping. He didn't grieve properly and that influenced his in-laws to turn against him after he moved to California and resumed a life instead of visiting the graves every day, as Colette's parents apparently wanted. But again, that's what an innocent person would do, since he had nothing to run from. Going on Dick Cavett and ripping his accusers and the process is something a mind-at-ease innocent person does. A Scott Peterson goes on TV claiming he told Laci about his affair with Amber Frey and she was barely upset. Do the comparitive handicapping for yourself.

MacDonald also sealed his reputation with the masses by ignorantly agreeing to a book deal with snake Joe McGinniss. No chance a book like that is going to be a supportive and balanced portrayal tending toward innocence. Innocence doesn't sell. I absolutely can't believe no one advised MacDonald on the probability/certainty that McGinniss would turn against him for financial motive. But again, wanting a definitive book on the case and allowing total access is something an innocent albeit naive person would pursue.

This is a very long post with snippets from this excellent website: http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Overview.html

BTW, I have not written to MacDonald yet but will soon. Just in the past few days I finally located his old prison cellmate from the '80s, Kenny, who now lives here in Las Vegas. Kenny was even more insistent on his belief in MacDonald's innocence than when I spoke to him twice a year or more ago, and said other inmates held the same view regarding MacDonald based on how he acted and what he said regarding his case.

Some highlights of the pro-MacDonald side of this case:

* The Army Hearing

After a six week Army pre-court martial hearing, presiding officer Colonel Warren V. Rock concluded that the charges against Captain MacDonald were " not true". Colonel Rock had learned that cult member Helena Stoeckley, daughter of a retired colonel, had made statements that suggested she had been involved in the murders.* He discovered that army investigators had failed to reveal that Stoeckley, a key narcotics informant for the local and army police, had made admissions to them.* She had admitted that she had worn a floppy hat, blonde wig and boots on the murder night, that she was on drugs that night, and that she had no alibi for the period during which the murders took place. She later admitted that she burned the hat, wig and boots, fearing they would incriminate her.* She was seen by military police, standing at a street corner on post, as they rushed to the crime scene. Colonel Rock requested that Stoeckley be thoroughly investigated by civilian authorities.

In 1971, Helena Stoeckley failed a polygraph administered by the CID (Army's Criminal Investigative Division), in which she denied being at the crime scene.* Years after trial, she confessed, before television cameras, to being with the assailants at the murder scene.

* Greg Mitchell

A heroin addict and soldier, Mitchell was Helena Stoeckley's boyfriend.* Before his death, Mitchell confessed to the crimes to numerous people including a pastor and his boss. In recent years, several friends who knew him well have come forward and signed sworn statements as to Mitchell's confessions to them.* Mitchell stated on numerous occasions that he and his group had gone to the MacDonald home to assault the family, because he believed MacDonald would not help him obtain methadone - a substance used to aid drug addicts.* Mitchell said the group was strung out on drugs, things "got bad" and they left after the phone rang unexpectedly (and was answered by Helena Stoeckley).**

* Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen writes the CID stating the case against MacDonald is too weak to prosecute. He cites "the exculpatory character of some of the evidence together with the total lack of evidence as to possible motive."

* The Long Beach Police Association hosts a $100 per plate dinner to raise money for Jeff's defense.

* Dr. Thomas T. Noguchi, a leading forensic expert, publishes an opinion on the MacDonald case, stating that, given the physical evidence, one person alone could not have committed the murders.

* Dr. David C. Raskin, one of the country's renowned polygraphers, tests MacDonald and finds "no deception"

* Warren Coolidge, former US Attorney for the Eastern District of NC, who fought so hard to indict MacDonald, is disbarred after being caught embezzling funds from clients.

* Former MacDonald prosecutor James Blackburn is disbarred, is indicted on 12 felony counts including changing court documents, and is sentenced to 7 years in federal prison

* FOIA attorney Anthony Besceglie uncovers 1400 new pages of case documents, despite government claims that all information had been previously released to the defense. Michael Malone's report stating he found no pajama top fibers on the club is found.

* The government contended that a surgeon would know how to injure*himself "safely", and the seriousness of MacDonald's collapsed lung*was minimized at trial.* Five of the six doctors consulted at the*Army Hearing (Article 32) testified that MacDonald could not have*predicted the outcome of what they termed a very "serious" stab wound*to the chest, which collapsed the lung by 40%.* All agreed that the liver*could have been damaged, with death resulting, and that even a doctor*would not be able to predict the outcome of such a wound, should he*inflict in on himself. MacDonald's injuries were hardly superficial, in fact serious enough that he was not released from the hospital until 8 days after the murders.

* Colette was found with a piece of gouged skin lodged under one of her*fingernails.* Kimberley, Kristen and their mother were all found with*foreign hairs, unmatched to their father, under their nails. There were*no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald.

* Two of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists, Dr. Thomas Noguchi*of Los Angeles County, CA, and Dr. Ronald Wright of Broward County,*Florida, researched the fatal blows suffered by Colette and concluded*that they were inflicted by a left-handed person.* Greg Mitchell, the man*the defense believes to have been Colette's killer, was left-handed.**Greg Mitchell's blood type (O) was also found on Colette's hands,*but no type B (Jeffrey's type).* A brown hair, has found clutched in*Colette's hand.* Greg Mitchell had brown hair (Jeffrey's was blonde).**Despite the discrepancy in color, the CID lab tried to source the hair*to Jeffrey anyway, but failed

* Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell, two of the alleged assailants told numerous people, including officials, friends and clergy that they did not go to the apartment to kill anyone, just to "shake up" MacDonald, whom they believed to have taken a hard line against drug use on post.* Mitchell and his group assaulted MacDonald, who fell unconscious in the hallway.* They were so high on drugs that their violence escalated.* They say they left in a panic when the phone rang and Helena answered it, throwing the weapons out the back door, without further thought to whether their victims were still alive or not.

* Stoeckley, the woman MacDonald described upon being resuscitated was a known drug user and informant for the Fort Bragg military police.* She was also the daughter of an retired Army Lt. Colonel.* She had no alibi for her whereabouts on the murder night, and later confessed to burning her clothing from that night because it would incriminate her.* The Army had a vested interest in not pursuing Helena Stoeckley and her friends, quite possibly because of some of its own officers involvement in drug trafficking.* Once MacDonald was exonerated by the Army, investigators failed to follow up on suggestions that they pursue Stoeckley and her boyfriend, Greg Mitchell.* At trial, all testimony from the group was deemed "unreliable" by Judge DuPree because they were known drug users.

* A man named Jimmy Friar stated that he was connected to the "wrong" Dr. MacDonald (there were two on post) during the timeframe of the murders, and told authorities the phone was answered by a woman who laughed when he asked to speak to Dr. MacDonald.* He then he heard a man's voice say "Hang up the goddamn phone!"* Later, Helena Stoeckley gave a similar account of answering the* phone call made by Friar.

* Helena Stoeckley identified and described items within the MacDonald home in great detail, including a jewelry box found in the master bedroom, and a broken rocking horse in one of the children's rooms.

* Blonde, synthetic wig hairs, 22 inches in length, were found in a clear-handled hair brush on a table in the living room where MacDonald said he saw the blonde female.* These wig hairs would have been critical to MacDonald's defense.* Army investigator William Ivory knew Helena Stoeckley wore a blonde wig, which matched the descriptions given by MacDonald and MP Kenneth Mica, but didn't reveal the presence of these long blonde wig hairs at the crime scene.

* A bloody, adult palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed on the morning of the murders, near Colette MacDonald's body. The print did not match palm prints of either Jeffrey or Colette MacDonald, nor could it be matched to palm prints from persons known to have been at the crime scene that morning.* Despite extensive efforts by the FBI, the source of this bloody palm print remains unidentified

* A brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberley's bloody fingernail.* This hair was found not be Jeffrey MacDonald's.* It remains a foreign hair in the hand of a murder victim, and was unreported.

* A brown hair, with root intact, was also found under baby Kristen's bloody fingernail. The hair possessed different characteristics from the hair in Kimberly's hand.* It was found not to be Jeffrey's or Colette's hair, yet this too was kept secret from the defense and during the trial.

* Unmatched black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth and shoulder.* These were not reported.* The fibers were important because the FBI also found black wool fibers on the murder club.* At trial, these black wool fibers were misrepresented to the jury as blue cotton fibers from MacDonald's pajama top, and were used to convict him.* They were also important because Stoeckley was known to have affected a wardrobe of black clothing around the time of the murders.

* Human skin under Colette's fingernail, left hand, was lost. The loss wasn't reported, even though it appears clear that MacDonald's injuries (at least 15 stab wounds and 3 head contusions) did not include fingernail scratches.*

WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE FOR KILLING ALL BUT MACDONALD? I don't see that in your post...whatever...........

Wow. No wonder it took him almost a month to reply. He's been typing the whole time.

Do you have anything to add other than fluff intent on confusing the reader and plagiarized material from a website? You sound like the Cliff's Notes version of Fatal Justice.

Are you a Scott Peterson advocate, too?

If you truly believe Mac had fifteen stab wounds, I've got a gorgeous ski-area mountain condo in Kansas for sale you might like.

Wow. No wonder it took him almost a month to reply. He's been typing the whole time.

Do you have anything to add other than fluff intent on confusing the reader and plagiarized material from a website? You sound like the Cliff's Notes version of Fatal Justice.

Are you a Scott Peterson advocate, too?

If you truly believe Mac had fifteen stab wounds, I've got a gorgeous ski-area mountain condo in Kansas for sale you might like.

LOL!!!!!:lol:
Those "stab wounds" were nothing but self-inflicted gashes. If gashes can be construed as stab wounds, then I have been stabbed at least ten times in my life :rolleyes:
When a person is tried for murder the first thing that will need to be addressed is motive. What motive did these "hippies" have? They did it cuz they were drug-crazed??? Then how did MacDonald receive non life-threatening wounds????? btw, my questions are rhetorical because THERE IS NO MOTIVE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO THIS, MACDONALD DID IT.

Well I have watched this case numerous times and have decided to bring it up. I dont think MacDonald did this. He is innocent and to be honest even if he didnt do it, I think the evidence wasnt there to convict him. Certainly the case against him was shaky at best why do you think this case took over 9 years after the murders before it even went to trial? Why even after he was convicted was his conviction overturned by the lower courts in 1980 and MacDonald released on bail pending his appeal? The supreme court upheld MacDonald's conviction in 1982 however he still could have remained free pending a new trial. A judge that didnt even have the authority to revoke the bail did it anyway. I just dont buy that MacDonald murdered his whole family because his daughter peed on his side of the bed and he was upset about it. This was the prosecution's motive. In my view not good enough for a conviction. Basically I think MacDonald would have been acquitted if his defense team had access to all the proseuction's files. Remember that the government had a prison cell filled with boxes of evidence and documents, and MacDonald's defense team didnt get access to it until two weeks before the trial. It certainly was not enough time for them to even come close to going through all that evidence. They did find the guy who mistakenly called MacDonald's house the night of the murders and he said he spoke to a woman. Her problem was she flip flopped so much and besides that she said she wouldnt stick to her story about how she was present at the MacDonald house that night unless she received immunity in exchange for her testimony. It sucks for J effrey MacDonald because he should have never been convicted. MacDonald I dont think would have ever even been tried on the matter had he not gone on the Dick Cavett show and pissed off the government and military. That was MacDonald's biggest mistake probably. His in-laws initially supported him and believed him to be innocent. As Aswi said, when he decided to move on with his life and when he moved out to California his in laws turned on him. I believe this was around 1971 or so that he moved out to California and supposedly when MacDonald made a trip back east and failed to visit his in laws his father in law was enraged and started saying that he thought MacDonald was guilty. They were mad because he had moved on with his life and that he was living the good life out in California. He was driving a Mercedes and living in a beach front Condo. They were mad at him for that and they were mad that he was moving on with his life and living a good life and they were mad that he didnt grieve his wife and daughters every second of the day and that he didnt stay out east and visit their graves every day. This is actually part of the reason I believe MacDonald to be innocent. If he was guilty he wouldnt have gone on the Dick Cavett show and he wouldh ave stayed out east and overplayed the remorse game. MacDonald's in laws probably testified against him at his trial. If MacDonald got a new trial I think he would be acquitted. The justice system will never allow him a new trial though because it would make the justice system look bad. But his in laws both passed away in the early 90's so they wouldnt be there. Sorry for going off on this, it just pisses me off because the guy I think is innocent and he could be out there saving lives as a doctor and they have him in prison. MacDonald applied for parole in 2005 and he was denied. It could be as late as 2020 before he has another parole hearing. MacDonald will be 77 in 2020. Hey Awsi, did you ever write to MacDonald and if so did you ever get a response?

Guilty as sin.

Also the prosecutor in MacDonald's case James Blackburn was disbarred in 1994 and was convicted on 12 felony counts including changing court documents and was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison. The judge in MacDonald's trial, Judge Dupree stood in MacDonald's way every step of the way and blocked his requests for a new trial until his death in 1995. The current judge assigned to the case is James Fox who ironically was a friend of the late Judge Dupree. Fox claims he can be impartial despite his friendship to the late judge. A lot of people on the MacDonald side dont seem to buy it. Apperantly MacDonald will be waiting a long time for another parole hearing. According to his official website, MacDonald could have to way as long as 15 years or until 2021 when he will be 78 before he will have another hearing.

Wow. No wonder it took him almost a month to reply. He's been typing the whole time.

Do you have anything to add other than fluff intent on confusing the reader and plagiarized material from a website? You sound like the Cliff's Notes version of Fatal Justice.

Are you a Scott Peterson advocate, too?

If you truly believe Mac had fifteen stab wounds, I've got a gorgeous ski-area mountain condo in Kansas for sale you might like.

I never saw this world class incompetent reply from Thinman. Notice he didn't address a single point that I posted. Very predictable from the anti-MacDonald crew. Then he resorts to desperately deflecting with a Scott Peterson reference, with no threat of legitimacy. I've never said or posted anything in support of Peterson.

But let's ask a more relevant question. Did you, or do you, insist the Ramseys are guilty also? That's my question. Because there are many more relevant similarities from the MacDonald case to that case than any other.

I inevitably default to probability. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. And in both the McDonald and Ramsey cases if you look at it from a simpleton generic point of view the person(s) from the home would most often be responsible. But occasionally the evidence and common sense leads elsewhere, away from the percentages. Screams elsewhere. MacDonald was unfortunate he had inept and perhaps biased early '70s homicide detectives instead of the caliber of Lou Smit coming onto the scene and rescuing reality.

Thinman, do you even understand the definition of the word plagiarize? :lol:

Obviously not. No more than you can figure out who is guilty and who isn't. I summarized. I never presented those words or ideas as my own. I gave a specific link and wrote "snippets from this excellent website."

But hey, you got away with that phony charge for 7 months. That's better than Dr. MacDonald has managed.

WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE FOR KILLING ALL BUT MACDONALD? I don't see that in your post...whatever...........

Who said the difference had anything to do with motive? How about caliber of the opponent? That's another thing that is pathetically overlooked by people who make that claim, why did McDonald survive while the others did not.

Do you really think killing an adult male in his 20s who is physically fit and in the military is equivalent to slaughtering his wife or a couple of very young children. :lol: :lol:

Knives are not exactly the most reliable form of murder. It takes a hell of a precise and deep blow to hit one of the vital organs. We seem to ignore that and expect everyone is killed swiftly like Nicole Simpson.

Meanwhile, to use that case as a reference again it makes my previous point, since every indication is Ron Goldman fought like hell and very possibly could have survived if not backed up against the fence with little room to manuever. And that was against a former champion athlete. Dr. MacDonald had the entire living room and if his opponents were whacked out druggies they may not exactly have been at 100% in terms of adjusting on the run.

Hey Awsi, did you ever write to MacDonald and if so did you ever get a response?

I did write but did not get a response. But that was during the period with the court decision pending so no doubt there was increased traffic on that website and probably more letters than typical to him. The website was also down for a while so I'm not positive he received it.

I just dont buy that MacDonald murdered his whole family because his daughter peed on his side of the bed and he was upset about it. This was the prosecution's motive. In my view not good enough for a conviction.

See, notice the similarity to the Ramsey case? That's what creative prosecutors specialize in, inventing something with an emotional angle that potentially plays to a jury.

Wetting the bed is the identical absurd motive the Boulder police department assigned to the Ramsey case.

Thank you very much for the posts, kadrmas15. I think you got it exactly right, especially regarding Dr. MacDonald's behavior and how that impacted the case. He was guilty not of murder, but of lousy handicapping in regard to how much dramatically his move to the west coast and the appearance on Dick Cavett would enrage his in-laws.

But again, as you said, that's what an innocent person would do, go on national TV and bash the investigators for suspecting him. I know damn well that's what my instincts would be. It's got to be hell to be falsely accused and if you've got any competitiveness or revenge in your blood it's natural to seek the most public forum and largest audience for your fury. Whether I could restrain myself and understand it would be short term benefit but risk long term backlash, I'm not sure. MacDonald got it wrong and it altered the rest of his life.

Well also what I didnt know was that MacDonald's father in law was actually the one that recommended to Jeff that he go on the Dick Cavett show. I honestly dont think he would have ever been re tried if his in laws hadnt turned on him. Once his in laws turned on him about two years after the murders it was all down hill from there for Jeff.

Well also what I didnt know was that MacDonald's father in law was actually the one that recommended to Jeff that he go on the Dick Cavett show. I honestly dont think he would have ever been re tried if his in laws hadnt turned on him. Once his in laws turned on him about two years after the murders it was all down hill from there for Jeff.

I didn't know that about his father-in-law. An interesting twist.

I completely agree he wouldn't have been tried and convicted if not for the in-laws. And the public perception of his guilt or innocence would be considerably different if he had chosen an author with integrity, unlike Joe McGinniss.

MacDonald certainly screwed up, even if you believe in his innocence as I do. That call to his father-in-law was the worst example, claiming he had tracked down and killed one of the perpetrators.

I just wish we had an audio and video of the night in question. Threads like this can, have and will ramble on without changing anyone's mind. Similar to the DB Cooper threads which I spent too damn much time in. As I've posted before, I would have no trouble betting my life that MacDonald is innocent, if a tape of the night could be unveiled. In fact, I'd agree to a video 2-for-1, instant dust if either Richard McCoy wasn't DB Cooper or MacDonald was guilty. My conversations with his old prison cellmate were a very small part of the handicapping, but added a minor boost that someone who knew him and talked to him repeatedly believed his story and his innocence, after hearing it first hand.

I never saw this world class incompetent reply from Thinman. You're right. Your conspiracy theories based on circumstancial evidence are much more competent. Notice he didn't address a single point that I posted. I have addressed your "points" on many other threads. Use the search tool. Very predictable from the anti-MacDonald crew. While the pro-Mac the Knife crowd always addresses everything thrown their way. Then he resorts to desperately deflecting with a Scott Peterson reference, with no threat of legitimacy. I've never said or posted anything in support of Peterson. Fair enough.

But let's ask a more relevant question. Did you, or do you, insist the Ramseys are guilty also? No. That's my question. Because there are many more relevant similarities from the MacDonald case to that case than any other. I haven't closely followed the Ramsey case. I just hope that whoever is responsible is eventually brought to justice.

I inevitably default to probability. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. And in both the McDonald and Ramsey cases if you look at it from a simpleton generic point of view the person(s) from the home would most often be responsible. But occasionally the evidence and common sense leads elsewhere, away from the percentages. You mean like blood evidence in the Mac the Knife case? Screams elsewhere. MacDonald was unfortunate he had inept and perhaps biased early '70s homicide detectives instead of the caliber of Lou Smit coming onto the scene and rescuing reality.

Thinman, do you even understand the definition of the word plagiarize? :lol: Yes. I also know how to cut and paste just as well as you do.

Obviously not. No more than you can figure out who is guilty and who isn't. I know who is guilty. I summarized. I never presented those words or ideas as my own. I gave a specific link and wrote "snippets from this excellent website."

But hey, you got away with that phony charge for 7 months. Congratulations on discovering my post seven months later. Maybe you will respond to this one before March. That's better than Dr. MacDonald has managed.

Well Thinman we all know you think MacDonald is guilty. Which is fine, it is your right to have whatever opinion you want. However the name calling I think is uncalled for. I am not trying to start something with you so dont take it like that it is just there are some of us that think MacDonald is innocent. We have just as much right to our opinions as you do yours. However I think myself and Awsi have done a pretty good job backing up why we think MacDonald is innocent.

However the name calling I think is uncalled for.

Please show me where I did this.

Hey Awsi, you could probably get a response from MacDonald if you wrote to him directly instead of through his website. If you look up MacDonald at the federal bureau of prisons inmate search write to the prison he is at if you want. I watched this case again and it becomes more obvious to me each time I watch it that he is innocent. As I have said earlier, I just cant believe Jeff MacDonald or really anyone would kill their entire family because their daughter wet the bed. I also have a hard time believing anyone could stab themsef like that. Especially stab themselves repeatedly. Fact of the matter is Jeffery MacDonald is an innocent man that has been in prison for so long for a crime he didnt commit because the military and government were ticked off that they didnt like what MacDonald was saying. MacDonald should be pardoned or at least get a new trial. But the government doesnt want to look bad so he will almost certainly never get a new trial.

Hey Awsi, you could probably get a response from MacDonald if you wrote to him directly instead of through his website. If you look up MacDonald at the federal bureau of prisons inmate search write to the prison he is at if you want. I watched this case again and it becomes more obvious to me each time I watch it that he is innocent. As I have said earlier, I just cant believe Jeff MacDonald or really anyone would kill their entire family because their daughter wet the bed. I also have a hard time believing anyone could stab themsef like that. Especially stab themselves repeatedly. Fact of the matter is Jeffery MacDonald is an innocent man that has been in prison for so long for a crime he didnt commit because the military and government were ticked off that they didnt like what MacDonald was saying. MacDonald should be pardoned or at least get a new trial. But the government doesnt want to look bad so he will almost certainly never get a new trial.

That's probably a good idea, kadrmas15. My email wasn't very long or detailed, just an indication that I was convinced he was innocent and a mention of meeting his former cellmate, Kenny, and what he said.

I agree MacDonald will most likely never get out. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that Kenny is sure he won't. He told me he knows how the system works and they have too much invested in MacDonald being guilty. Hell, I've seen a program on doctors who kill and they use MacDonald as an example and flat out say he butchered his family, or something to that effect.

Motive in this case makes no sense no matter how you look at it. If someone thinks MacDonald is guilty they can't come up with a good explanation why he did it, which leads to the stupid bed wetting theories. It's similarly hard to figure why a group of hippies would break in and slaughter a family including young children. My belief is drugs are a trump card over applied common sense, particularly considering that '60-early '70s era. The one obvious motive is the in-laws pursuing MacDonald after they felt wronged by his new lifestyle, and somehow decided that made him guilty of the crime. Unfortunately, from my standpoint, that motivation decided the result of this case.

One thing is clear: if you are the victim of a crime make damn sure it's a standard one. A believable story to the tunnelvision police and prosecutors. People like MacDonald and the Ramseys pay the price for truth-is-stranger-than-fiction crimes.

He's never getting out. He's staying put. He did it.

I am not trying to get into something with you here but why do you think that? I mean if you are going to go around here saying he did it, put something on the table. As you can see above I along with Awsi and others have laid out things on the table saying why he didnt do it. I just have a hard time believing he did it, especially for the reason the prosecutors said he did it. They said he got mad because his daughter urinated on his side of the bed so he killed his wife and two daughters and then on top of that stabbed himself in the chest collapsing a lung? I dont think so.

Was it a TV Movie?Was it ever released?iF NOT DOES ANYONE HAVE A COPY THEY'D LIKE TO SELL

I am not trying to get into something with you here but why do you think that? I mean if you are going to go around here saying he did it, put something on the table. As you can see above I along with Awsi and others have laid out things on the table saying why he didnt do it. I just have a hard time believing he did it, especially for the reason the prosecutors said he did it. They said he got mad because his daughter urinated on his side of the bed so he killed his wife and two daughters and then on top of that stabbed himself in the chest collapsing a lung? I dont think so.

Here you go... try this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_MacDonald

Pay particular note to the final paragraph on the DNA tests. The last sentence is loaded with grinning irony.

He did it. His story about Helena Stoeckley and the others was and still is a huge pile of bull. It was in 1970, 1979, and today. Always will be.

"DNA test results released March 10, 2006, showed that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's nor any other "intruder's" DNA matched that in any of the "crucial" exhibits chosen by the defense. The results also showed that the hair which MacDonald has repeatedly described as being "clutched" in Colette's hand and which he has claimed for 36 years could only have come from her murderer, was found to be his very own."

Well, well, well...

"DNA test results released March 10, 2006, showed that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's nor any other "intruder's" DNA matched that in any of the "crucial" exhibits chosen by the defense. The results also showed that the hair which MacDonald has repeatedly described as being "clutched" in Colette's hand and which he has claimed for 36 years could only have come from her murderer, was found to be his very own."

Well, well, well...

Yes indeedy... how's that for 'poetic justice'?

Well I have read that article on MacDonald's DNA testing and other stuff before. I am still not convinced of his guilt. I have never said he for sure could not have done it, it is certainly possible. However I just personally dont think he did it and I have always thought the evidence was too circumstancial to convict him. I also believe that if he did do it, he didnt do it for the reasons the prosecution stated. I mean murdereing his whole family because his daughter peed on his side of the bed? Come on. Also if you read the wikipedia article carefully it says that the dna of Stoeckley and Mitchell was not found on the defense exhibits tested. This does not mean their dna or fingerprints were never in the residence. Furthermore the whole crime scene was tampered with by the government and the military police that were investigating it. The piece of hair that Colette was holding and that turning out to be MacDonald's is troubling. But I am still not convinced that he killed them and he should have never been convicted. That is what people forget sometimes is even if you think a person did something, if you are on that jury you have to acquit them if the prosecution cant prove their case. In this case they didnt prove it and MacDonald should have been acquitted. I still personally dont think he did it. It is certainly possible he did but the government case was very circumstancial.

The 'motive' the prosecution used was ridiculous - I agree with you on that. :)

My belief is that he just wanted out. He wasn't happy being married and being a parent. He wanted to 'play around' - why did he have so many affairs and why did he lie about going to Russia? He may have looked happy on the surface but I think he had some resentment over the fact that he was essentially 'tied down'.

I read somewhere that Colette would berate him over his spending habits. He bought a new stereo not long before the murders and she just went off on him. Apparently, she had quite a temper.

So what happened on that cold and rainy February night? Did they have a huge fight? Was it over money? Or his philandering? Or did she catch him in one of his lies, perhaps? Did he lash out and kill her and the kids in a blind rage... a rage fueled by a combination of fatigue and his use of Eskatrol? Only Jeffrey knows and you can bet he will never tell. Then again, he doesn't have to...

The blood spoke for him. So did the DNA. Case closed.

Eskatrol is a stimulant right? I believe it is used these days to treat ADHD. It is an amphetamine if I remember right. Well that wouldnt surprise me if Colette had a temper. She was a Long Island girl those New York women tend to be rather quick with their tempers. In his UM interview he said that him and Colette had purchased the new stereo together. He said they were financially comfortable for the first time ever. Is there any evidence he actually cheated on Colette? Well MacDonald had been married since he was around 20 and had been a father at 21. Being married and a parent and being a full time college student and then going to medical school full time on top of that had to be tough. However I dont really buy the he's guilty, case closed argument. It isnt a closed case. They didnt have the evidence. They didnt have it then and they dont have it now. The hair proves nothing except that Colette grabbed at MacDonald's hair. This could be because he was stabbing her and she was struggling with him as you said or it could be for another reason. However I dont buy the case closed he's guilty argument. I support Dr. MacDonald and I dont think he is guilty.

I will let this speak for itself.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

Well after reading that little piece I still havent changed my mind. It presents some good points, but while cheating on your wife and not paying much attention to her is not a good thing it doesnt mean that a man could brutally club his wife and children to death. After reading that if in fact the stuff that is said there is true, at most MacDonald is guilty of being an inattentive husband and father and a man who enjoyed getting around with other women. These things are nothing to brag about certainly but it doesnt necessarily make him a murderer. That is what bugged me about that site was because MacDonald was a womanizer and was a rather aloof husband and father that he must have automatically murdered his family. They also say other outrageous things like because MacDonald supposedly lied about having physical relations with his wife on a sports field that that automatically makes him a pathological liar. People could get the times of things screwed up. If he lied about it he lied about it, maybe he was trying to look daring or something who knows? As for him not recognizing his wife's wedding ring he probably isnt the only guy that wouldnt recognize the ring he gave his wife especially years after the fact. Like I have said, the governments case was very flimsy on MacDonald from the start. I would be curious to hear why you think he killed his family. Since you even agreed with me that the governments reason for MacDonald killing his family, because his daughter had wet the bed, was crap. MacDonald either should have been acquitted or had the charges dropped against him. This seems to me to have been more the need of his in-laws to pin the rap on someone and because they were angry with MacDonald because he had moved on with his life and was living a rich lifestyle out in California he was a convinenent person to pin the rap on.

The physical evidence points to Mac as the killer. There was no DNA from both Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell. NONE.

The blood evidence and the pyjama top evidence also point to Mac being the killer.

The wax that was found in the house from Helena Stoeckley's candles turned out to be old wax that had been dried for a long time. How do we know this? The wax found had significant amounts of debris on top of it as if it was there for a long time. It wasn't placed there recently. Also, the wax found in the children's bedroom was determined to have come from birthday candles.

Aside from the actual evidence... think about these:

Why would Colette say "Jeff, Jeff, why are THEY doing this to me?!" Come on, does that really make any sense? Much more likely that she was saying "Jeff, Jeff, why are YOU doing this to me?!"

Why would the girls be screaming "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!" if they were being attacked by 'intruders'? Most children would cry out for their MOMMY, would they not? However, if Jeffrey was attacking their mother then it would make sense for them to cry out "Daddy!" out of fear.

Wanna talk about 'motive'? What motive did these 'intruders' have? Why the good doctor and his family? And why was he left alive with only a few scratches (intensive care, my ass! :lol: ) while his family was 'overkilled'?

Jeffrey claims to have seen four intruders while laying on the couch while his family was being attacked. That means that there must have been AT LEAST one other person in either the master bedroom or the children's bedroom, right? If there was no other person there and all the 'intruders' were in the living room 'attacking' Jeffrey then why was there screaming coming from those other rooms? Who was there?

Related to the above... if there were a minimum of FIVE 'intruders' in the house IN ADDITION to the good doctor and his family then why was there so little damage to the apartment and its furnishings? Like Joe Grebner said... "I've seen all night poker parties that caused much more damage to a room."

And how about this one: Jeffrey lied through his teeth when he told Freddy Kassab that he apprehended and killed one of the assailants! Amazing! Well, Freddy knew that was a lie and it was the lie that set him off to discover the truth. Poor Jeff... he just couldn't keep his ego in check and his mouth shut.

The point is that Jeffrey's story just doesn't add up.

Bottom line: Jeffrey R. MacDonald is a murderer. He may be able to fool lots of people out there with his charisma but some of us can see right through his pathetic charade. The case has been solved. He will spend the rest of his life behind bars. No new trials. No parole. Nothing. Period.

Here you go... try this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_MacDonald

Pay particular note to the final paragraph on the DNA tests. The last sentence is loaded with grinning irony.

He did it. His story about Helena Stoeckley and the others was and still is a huge pile of bull. It was in 1970, 1979, and today. Always will be.

Yeah, but it's important to remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I'm not sure where I'm at when it comes to Dr. McDonald, but it's one of the more intriguing cases I have seen on UM.

Here's an interesting counterpoint (http://www.fayettevillenc.com/print?id=229651&type=article)for you, though....

Yeah, but it's important to remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I'm not sure where I'm at when it comes to Dr. McDonald, but it's one of the more intriguing cases I have seen on UM.

Here's an interesting counterpoint (http://www.fayettevillenc.com/print?id=229651&type=article)for you, though....

That article was published about two weeks after the DNA results were released. The evidence showed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell were ever in the house.

People can say what they want, they can devise all sorts of stories, but the evidence speaks for itself and it has contradicted what those people have said.

**********

* The late Helena Stoeckley, a Haymount girl, did run with the hippie-cult generation and reportedly told prosecutor James Blackburn that she was in MacDonald’s home the night of the murders.

The DNA evidence says otherwise.

* Jimmy B. Britt of Apex, who was part of the security detail for MacDonald’s 1979 trial, substantiates her claims and says in a recent affidavit that he heard Blackburn tell Stoeckley that he would indict her for murder if she testified that she and her friends were in the MacDonald home on the night of killings. Blackburn denies Britt’s assertion.

It doesn't matter what Stoeckley said - the evidence demonstrates that she wasn't there.

* Donald Buffkin from Alabama says in a recent affidavit file by MacDonald’s lawyers that he once drank with Greg Mitchell, Stoeckley’s boyfriend, and that Mitchell told him he killed MacDonald’s family. He reportedly wrote on a farmhouse near Fayetteville, “I killed MacDonald’s wife and children,” before his 1982 death because of liver disease.

Greg Mitchells' DNA was not found in the house.

* The late Judge Franklin Dupree was the presiding judge, including hearing all appeals, until 1990. In his rejections of appeals, he declared there was no evidence of intruders in the MacDonald home.

And the Judge was correct - there was no evidence of 'intruders' in the home. His rejections were correct.

* James Proctor, a co-prosecutor, was Dupree’s son-in-law.

What does that prove? Does it prove Mac is innocent? Sorry, doesn't work... juries are only allowed to utilise the evidence in the case - not imagined 'conspiracy theories'.

* James Blackburn, a co-prosecutor, was convicted of 12 felony counts of forgery, fraud, embezzlement and obstruction of justice in November 1993. He was sentenced to a seven-year sentence in federal prison and served about 31 months.

True, but what does any of that have to do with the MacDonald case?

And yet more ammunition against Mac...

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

Why would Colette say "Jeff, Jeff, why are THEY doing this to me?!" Come on, does that really make any sense? Much more likely that she was saying "Jeff, Jeff, why are YOU doing this to me?!"

Why would the girls be screaming "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!" if they were being attacked by 'intruders'? Most children would cry out for their MOMMY, would they not? However, if Jeffrey was attacking their mother then it would make sense for them to cry out "Daddy!" out of fear.

Wanna talk about 'motive'? What motive did these 'intruders' have? Why the good doctor and his family? And why was he left alive with only a few scratches (intensive care, my ass! :lol: ) while his family was 'overkilled'?


HyeTev, so you know EXACTLY what the wife and daughters would have been saying, huh? :lol: That's pretty much the caliber I expect of the anti-MacDonald crew. I tell you what, why don't you give us the dialogue word for word for the entire day, including breakfast. Let me get this straight, you reject everything MacDonald claims about that evening, but you are accepting his account of the wife's pleas word for word, except you change just enough to make him the obvious perpretator.

In a previous post you provided rank speculation, another constant treat from the anti-MacDonald group. Something about a stereo. Spending habits. Tied down. Wasn't happy being married and a parent. A huge fight. Money. Lies. Philandering. Eskatrol. Fatigue. Blind rage. What is this, like tennis, best 3 out of 5?

What motive did the intruders have? Earth to HyeTev, how many UM segments have you watched? If I started listing crimes from total strangers that didn't have a sensible motive I'd be here through October.

A few scratches? It's always particularly revealing when someone makes a rank ignorant comment then applies a smilie to it. It's almost like you are determined to do what you accuse MacDonald of, slash yourself. Here, I think Cyril Wecht has a slightly more informed opinion than yours: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/14/lkl.01.html

"Jeffrey MacDonald had multiple stab wounds, a couple in the abdomen, the forearm, one into the chest that did produce a pneumothorax. He was in the hospital for seven days. To say that because he was a doctor, he can calculate exactly the depth of the penetrating wound and be sure that he will survive that, that is absurd. No doctor, including a thoracic surgeon, is going to undertake that kind of a situation."

And once again there's the amazing question, why were MacDonald's injuries different. I've already addressed that in a previous post. Does the phrase caliber of opponent mean anything to you? Are you actually equating the resistance from little girls or a sleeping wife to that of a young military man at his physical peak? If it weren't repeated so often I'd swear it had to be a joke. Scary. Why are some college football teams favored by 40 and others an underdog, against the same opponent? Jeez, I can't figure it out. Isn't every team the same?

The hair found in Colette's hand was a limb hair, not a head hair. MacDonald gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and was lying on the left side of Colette's body when he was resuscitated himself. It's hardly a shock that his limb hair could be on her body.

On the other hand, the hair found under Kristen's fingernail does not match Dr. MacDonald. It had a full root and is unsourced. Make no mistake, that hair was considered much more significant by the prosecution. They tried to test it secretly and would have been absolutely giddy if it matched MacDonald, coming from under the fingernail of his daughter, who was in a defensive pose. But since it didn't match MacDonald they downplay it and try to shift focus to the limb hair.

There were unmatched black fibers that were on the murder weapon and on Colette, which are consistent with the third party theory along with the long blonde wig hair. Why are the MacDonald detractors so petrifed of a new trial? One where the new DNA evidence can be put forward along with everything suppressed by the original prosecutors, before they had all those unfortunate charges like embezzlement and obstruction of justice

LooksLikeCRicci provided an excellent link, regarding hippies being seen in a 7-11 the morning of the murders but the clerk afraid to come forward in fear they would kill her. Here's a bit more from that link:

* The late Helena Stoeckley, a Haymount girl, did run with the hippie-cult generation and reportedly told prosecutor James Blackburn that she was in MacDonald’s home the night of the murders.

* Jimmy B. Britt of Apex, who was part of the security detail for MacDonald’s 1979 trial, substantiates her claims and says in a recent affidavit that he heard Blackburn tell Stoeckley that he would indict her for murder if she testified that she and her friends were in the MacDonald home on the night of killings. Blackburn denies Britt’s assertion.

* Donald Buffkin from Alabama says in a recent affidavit file by MacDonald’s lawyers that he once drank with Greg Mitchell, Stoeckley’s boyfriend, and that Mitchell told him he killed MacDonald’s family. He reportedly wrote on a farmhouse near Fayetteville, “I killed MacDonald’s wife and children,” before his 1982 death because of liver disease.

* The late Judge Franklin Dupree was the presiding judge, including hearing all appeals, until 1990. In his rejections of appeals, he declared there was no evidence of intruders in the MacDonald home. James Proctor, a co-prosecutor, was Dupree’s son-in-law.

* James Blackburn, a co-prosecutor, was convicted of 12 felony counts of forgery, fraud, embezzlement and obstruction of justice in November 1993. He was sentenced to a seven-year sentence in federal prison and served about 31 months.

Some of that has already been mentioned in this thread. And I'll default to what I've written previously. MacDonald would not have invented such a wild tale involving many people if he were guilty. Far too many permutations to remember and be questioned about. Plus, if he was going to invent that large of a group, why wouldn't he smash up the residence to make it look like 4 or 5 crazy people had been there? It's hysterical the anti-MacDonald group insist he was plotting and concealing to the point he resorts to self-inflicted stab wounds, but he never thinks of trashing the place. Again, truth is stranger than fiction. Like the Ramseys, make sure you are the victim of a normal crime, otherwise the lousy handicappers get involved and the truth is anything they want to twist or invent.

That article was published about two weeks after the DNA results were released. The evidence showed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell were ever in the house.

Oh really? Is that what DNA evidence shows? So, if none of my dad's DNA is found in my house, it proves he was never here?

See what I mean about incompetent handicapping? It's incredible what people actually believe.

And the Judge was correct - there was no evidence of 'intruders' in the home. His rejections were correct.

Hmm. More clever assertions. What do you call the hair with full root under Kristen's fingernail, the one that doesn't match MacDonald? How about the 22-inch wig fiber that was suppressed by the prosecution and doesn't match anything anything Colette owned, but does fit with the decription of the female hippie? The unmatched black fibers that were on the murder weapon and on Colette?

BTW, I'm not sure it has been mentioned in this thread that the MacDonald residence was sealed for more than a decade, then gutted and the contents burned and destroyed in 1984. Defense investigators were never allowed access to look for exculpatory evidence.

Hey good posts Awsi. Yeah, I guess I just dont like it when people say MacDonald did it, he is guilty, case closed. I mean anyone has the right to think MacDonald did it, fine if you think he did it, bring the evidence that he did it. What was the motive? I never have and never will buy the motive that he murdered his entire family because his daughter peed on his side of the bed. I have stated the reasons why I think he is innocent over and over again. The fact of the matter is the government didnt do their job and prove that MacDonald murdered his family. They have to prove that and they didnt yet MacDonald was convicted anyway. MacDonald should be able to launch a new appeal and be free on bond while he is on appeal. The late Judge Dupree should have been removed from this case long before he retired. It was obvious Dupree and his son in law had conflicts of interest due to their personal dislike of Dr. MacDonald. The prosecutor in this case also was a scumbag. Was the one that went to prison the one that was interviewed in the UM segment?

HyeTev, so you know EXACTLY what the wife and daughters would have been saying, huh? :lol: That's pretty much the caliber I expect of the anti-MacDonald crew. I tell you what, why don't you give us the dialogue word for word for the entire day, including breakfast.

What is this, like tennis, best 3 out of 5?

Earth to HyeTev, how many UM segments have you watched?

You're not gonna convince me of anything if you utilise smartassisms and lousy humour. If you cannot discuss this without resorting to 'cheapness' like what is seen above then as far as I'm concerned you are not worth my time.

Hey Heytev, I take issue with something you said in another thread. Well it actually it was something you had the bottom about h ow you said 4 people on acid couldnt organize a trip to the toilet let alone the murder of 3 people. That actually really isnt true. Look at the Helter Skelter killings of Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas and the others. Charles Manson and Tex Watson and Susan Atkins and the others were probably all high on acid when they pulled this off. Manson and Watson planned it, supposedly the girls had no idea what the plan even really was and yet the scary thing is they might never have been caught at it had Susan Atkins not been running her mouth while under arrest for another crime. I dont know if they were actually high on acid when they committed the murders but I they were probably doing acid pretty much daily at that point.

Hey Heytev, I take issue with something you said in another thread. Well it actually it was something you had the bottom about h ow you said 4 people on acid couldnt organize a trip to the toilet let alone the murder of 3 people. That actually really isnt true. Look at the Helter Skelter killings of Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas and the others. Charles Manson and Tex Watson and Susan Atkins and the others were probably all high on acid when they pulled this off. Manson and Watson planned it, supposedly the girls had no idea what the plan even really was and yet the scary thing is they might never have been caught at it had Susan Atkins not been running her mouth while under arrest for another crime. I dont know if they were actually high on acid when they committed the murders but I they were probably doing acid pretty much daily at that point.

That was a quote from a reporter who took the stand during one of Mac's hearings. I actually like this one better... "justice is groovy, kill the appeals."

As far as the Manson case... we do not know for sure whether they were actually doing acid right before they set out to kill Tate and LaBianca.

And once again there's the amazing question, why were MacDonald's injuries different. I've already addressed that in a previous post. Does the phrase caliber of opponent mean anything to you? Are you actually equating the resistance from little girls or a sleeping wife to that of a young military man at his physical peak? If it weren't repeated so often I'd swear it had to be a joke. Scary. Why are some college football teams favored by 40 and others an underdog, against the same opponent? Jeez, I can't figure it out. Isn't every team the same?


Ahh Awsi, where was the good Doctor found when the MP's entered the residence? That's right, laying in the hallway unconscious (unless, of course, he was lying about that too, and just pretended to be knocked out). So, you're saying that it would be hard for six or more people to kill an unconscious man with a club, a knife, and an icepick?

Since you used the football analogy, I will do the same. If a college football game was organized between six University of Buffalo players and one of your beloved Miami Hurricanes players, my money would be on Buffalo to cover about a 100 point spread.

Ahh Awsi, where was the good Doctor found when the MP's entered the residence? That's right, laying in the hallway unconscious (unless, of course, he was lying about that too, and just pretended to be knocked out). So, you're saying that it would be hard for six or more people to kill an unconscious man with a club, a knife, and an icepick?

Since you used the football analogy, I will do the same. If a college football game was organized between six University of Buffalo players and one of your beloved Miami Hurricanes players, my money would be on Buffalo to cover about a 100 point spread.

Mac is a pathological liar and I find it incredulous that there are people who still believe in his innocence. I posted several links in this thread containing evidence that is damning beyond any doubt - especially the 'MacDonald Magical Mystery Tour' in which his lies are exposed - and some people STILL think he's the 'Golden Boy' who was 'wronged' horribly by the Army, the Kassabs, Judge Dupree, Brian Murtagh, James Blackburn, Joe McGinnis and others. Yeah, it's all a HUGE conspiracy! :D

The man is such a narcissistic sociopath... I mean... he just lashes out at anyone who won't buy his BS story. "It's THEIR fault!", he screams. "THEY are bad!", he laments. Blame EVERYONE but himself. Just like Bundy - another sick, deranged, deluded, narcissistic psycho. At least Bundy got what he deserved.

Like Robert Stevenson has said... Jeff's sociopathy actually is a good thing. It's keeping him in prison until he dies. He will NEVER admit guilt. NEVER. And because of that he will never be paroled. :)

Awsi should respond to my post by May.

I'm still trying to figure out where I am on this.... but I have a question: I know a lot of you disregard Helena Stokely as a witness, but I find it really interesting that her story totally corroborates MacDonald's account of what happened.

Observe:
--Stokely's description of what she was wearing matches MacDonald's description. (Synthetic hair and floppy hat)
--Stokely and MacDonald both describe that he had fallen asleep in front of the television and when the four individuals came into the room, the television was on, but it was off the air.
--She and MacDonald BOTH describe her screaming, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" in the moments before MacDonald was assaulted.
--The account of the board being used as a weapon in the assault.
--The witness who called looking for another doctor and was given Dr. MacDonald's number by mistake who ADMITS to hearing a woman laugh hysterically, in addition to others in the background. Stokely tells the same story. Are we to believe that Stokely, MacDonald, and this caller were all in on it together and fabricated the same story?

In addition:
--What about the military MP who saw the woman in a floppy hat and synthetic hair who was standing on the side of the road.
--Also... there was ANOTHER witness who saw the four individuals, including Helena Stokely, and talked to Helena in-depth about the murders.
--What about the convenience store clerk who reported the four hippies on the night the MacDonalds were murdered?

You know, in typing all that, I'm starting to believe that MacDonald is innocent. I'm not fully there yet, but the scale is starting to tip...

I'm still trying to figure out where I am on this.... but I have a question: I know a lot of you disregard Helena Stokely as a witness, but I find it really interesting that her story totally corroborates MacDonald's account of what happened.

Observe:
--Stokely's description of what she was wearing matches MacDonald's description. (Synthetic hair and floppy hat)
--Stokely and MacDonald both describe that he had fallen asleep in front of the television and when the four individuals came into the room, the television was on, but it was off the air.
--She and MacDonald BOTH describe her screaming, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" in the moments before MacDonald was assaulted.
--The account of the board being used as a weapon in the assault.
--The witness who called looking for another doctor and was given Dr. MacDonald's number by mistake who ADMITS to hearing a woman laugh hysterically, in addition to others in the background. Stokely tells the same story. Are we to believe that Stokely, MacDonald, and this caller were all in on it together and fabricated the same story?

In addition:
--What about the military MP who saw the woman in a floppy hat and synthetic hair who was standing on the side of the road.
--Also... there was ANOTHER witness who saw the four individuals, including Helena Stokely, and talked to Helena in-depth about the murders.
--What about the convenience store clerk who reported the four hippies on the night the MacDonalds were murdered?

You know, in typing all that, I'm starting to believe that MacDonald is innocent. I'm not fully there yet, but the scale is starting to tip...

CRicci, too bad the BBC documentary on the MacDonald case never shows up anymore. They used to run it regularly on A&E years ago. It deals with many of the questions you posed and it includes Helena Stoeckley on tape. She was interviewed by 60 Minutes shortly before her death but the segment never aired.

Here's a link that includes a large segment of Chapter 3 from the Fatal Justice book, including many sightings of Stoeckley and the group she was with. The early part of the link is hit-and-miss but once you get to the chapter of the book it's worthwhile. Obviously it's a pro-MacDonald book, the counter to Fatal Vision:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fataljustice3chaphelenastoeckley05not05.shtml

And another link, a case summary by one of the authors of that book:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac_potter_1997-02-05.html

Vanity Fair is an excellent magazine. Here's a long article from '98 that is a balanced portrayal:
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060918fege01

Well I do think Helena Stockley was disregarded as a government witness on purpose. As I recall the government dismissed her saying she was a drug addicted liar. Remember that Stockley changed her story to go against MacDonald only after she found out she wouldnt recieve immunity. Remember that one of the men on the army base had seen a woman matching Stockley's description standing near the MacDonald home the night of the murder. But sadly while I believe MacDonald to be innocent he will most likely never get a new trial and even if he is paroled he will be a very old man. MacDonald will I believe not have another parole hearing until 2020 when he will be 77. MacDonald is innocent and even if he did do it the evidence wasnt there to convict him. Even those people that think MacDonald did it really cant come up with a motive for why he would kill his whole family. Even most of the people on here who think he did it will admit the governments theory that MacDonald killed his whole family because his daughter wet his side of the bed is crap. I also think it is crap that he would kill his whole family because Colette was giving crap for spending too much money. Like I said the government really cant come up with a motive for it and I personally dont think he did it. There is a lot of evidence to prove that he didnt do it or at least to make the case shaky enough to where he should have been acquitted. But of course the people who blindly trust the government on this will keep saying over and over that he is guilty as sin without having any real proof of that except for their personal dislike of Dr. MacDonald.

But of course the people who blindly trust the government on this will keep saying over and over that he is guilty as sin without having any real proof of that except for their personal dislike of Dr. MacDonald.

You Mac the Knife apologists amaze me. No freaking proof? How about a little thing called blood evidence. You're right. The word of pathological liars is much more credible than physical evidence.

Well MacDonald was stabbed too. That would be why his blood was there. Also I have a hard time believing he could stab himself like that. I just dont think a person could stab themselves certainly not in the lung and collapse it. You also have no evidence MacDonald is a "pathological liar." But whatever. I am not trying to convince you to change your mind since your mind is already pretty much made up. I have to prove nothing because I believe the guy is innocent. The people that think he is guilty are the ones that have to proof why he is guilty. I want proof. MacDonalds blood being there isnt going to proof anything. He was stabbed that is why his blood would be there.

Are you serious? You act as though you haven't even seen the UM segment. For most Mac apologists, that is their only knowledge of the case. Mac's blood is not what I was referring to. What about where Colette's, Kristin's, and Kimberly's blood were found? Give me your explanation for that.

As far as Mac and the truth not being close pals, read this: http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

Well MacDonald was stabbed too. That would be why his blood was there. Also I have a hard time believing he could stab himself like that. I just dont think a person could stab themselves certainly not in the lung and collapse it. You also have no evidence MacDonald is a "pathological liar." But whatever. I am not trying to convince you to change your mind since your mind is already pretty much made up. I have to prove nothing because I believe the guy is innocent. The people that think he is guilty are the ones that have to proof why he is guilty. I want proof. MacDonalds blood being there isnt going to proof anything. He was stabbed that is why his blood would be there.

Mac's blood was found in the bathroom - specifically on the sink. He stabbed himself there. Once again, the blood tells the truth.

If Mac was 'attacked' in the living room as he claims why was his blood not found there? Did the four 'intruders' corner him in the bathroom and beat his ass there instead? :lol:

I suggest the Mac supporters read all the trial transcripts found on the Mac case site I cited earlier.

The first time I watched this case was on one of Crystaldawn's DVDs, that was after reading another topic about McDonald and most people thought he was innocent in that thread. So I went into it thinking he's gonna be innocent. But I came out thinking he is guilty as. Just a gut feeling, I think that blood evidence presented on the UM broadcast is what nails it for me and the others here who know he's guilty. :D

The first time I watched this case was on one of Crystaldawn's DVDs, that was after reading another topic about McDonald and most people thought he was innocent in that thread. So I went into it thinking he's gonna be innocent. But I came out thinking he is guilty as. Just a gut feeling, I think that blood evidence presented on the UM broadcast is what nails it for me and the others here who know he's guilty. :D

You bet it does. :)

His 'story' just doesn't make sense.

I think that blood evidence presented on the UM broadcast is what nails it for me and the others here who know he's guilty. :D

Ha! That's special and apropos. You've got the always remarkable Thinman condemning the Mac "apologists" for using the UM segment as the "only knowledge of the case." That's despite relentless emphasis of specifics here from myself and others that were never mentioned on the UM segment.

Then Space Invaderz chimes in with a reference to the UM segment as what nails it for him. But instead of Thinman condemning Space Invaderz for relying solely on the UM protrayal, he stays silent and you've got the other info-less poster HyeTev applauding Space Invaderz with bold lettering for relying on the UM segment, with the capper, "you bet it does."

Do you guys do this intentionally, for laugh purposes? What is it, we're supposed to rely on the UM segment, or not? :lol:

I guess it's simply the caliber of the anti-Mac crowd. Limited.

Awsi should respond to my post by May.

Thinman, do you seriously think you retain a shred of competence on this topic? I don't even sample the old posts in these threads because you've already verified your worth. Wasn't it you who accused me of plagiarizing something, obviously completely ignorant of what that word means? I posted a direct link to a website and said here are snippets from the excellent website, then according to you I plagiarized. When I see that level I'm not exactly rushing back to respond to the next empty post.

Here's a dictionary definition of plagiarize. Maybe you can get it right sometime in our future:

"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (a created production) without crediting the source"

You're not gonna convince me of anything if you utilise smartassisms and lousy humour. If you cannot discuss this without resorting to 'cheapness' like what is seen above then as far as I'm concerned you are not worth my time.

HyeTev, you tried to get cute and pretend you could change words in quotes from MacDonald to completely alter the meaning and therefore prove the version that suits your purpose.

Oh, I heartily apologize for pointing out how ridiculous your version was, that you rejected everything MacDonald said about that night but you want to grasp to his exact wording other than alter a few words. That is beyond pathetic.

But again, exactly what I've come to anticipate.

If you hadn't made such a big sarcastic deal about the wording I would have left it alone. But for those who missed it, I'll paste your own words, the ones I mocked:

Why would Colette say "Jeff, Jeff, why are THEY doing this to me?!" Come on, does that really make any sense? Much more likely that she was saying "Jeff, Jeff, why are YOU doing this to me?!"

Why would the girls be screaming "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!" if they were being attacked by 'intruders'? Most children would cry out for their MOMMY, would they not? However, if Jeffrey was attacking their mother then it would make sense for them to cry out "Daddy!" out of fear.

There. I rest my case. HyeTev's analysis of this case is changing THEY to YOU and DADDY to MOMMY.

Talk about not worth anyone's time.

Ahh Awsi, where was the good Doctor found when the MP's entered the residence? That's right, laying in the hallway unconscious (unless, of course, he was lying about that too, and just pretended to be knocked out). So, you're saying that it would be hard for six or more people to kill an unconscious man with a club, a knife, and an icepick?

What do you mean, unless, of course, he was lying about that too? Haven't you pretty much committed yourself to denouncing MacDonald's entire version of events? Or are you like HyeTev, you want to accept some things, like a piece of dialogue here and there? :lol:

Seems to me you should be insisting MacDonald was all alone, and therefore obviously he wounded himself, and since the injuries were so minor there is no way they could have knocked him out so certainly he was faking the unconscious. Always interesting with the anti-MacDonald crew.

I don't pretend to know how many assailants were there or what the dialogue was or what the course of events was. You act as if it's a certainty MacDonald was unconscious on the ground while the intruders were still there and armed and undisturbed and unhurried and sound of mind and with intent to kill him. I don't know any of that to be true and without a videotape I think everything is pure guesswork. If you want to pretend it's simple to kill a young fit adult male, similar to a wife or young children, be my guest. I guess it's similarly easy to stab yourself and know it won't be fatal, even though 5 of the 6 doctors at the original army hearing testified MacDonald could not have predicted the outcome of what they described as a very serious stab wound to the chest, which collapsed his lung by 40%.

I know that if MacDonald invented the intruders out of thin air there should not be evidence any such group ever existed, or was in the area at the time. Uh, that is not exactly the case. Unlike your claim the Mac crew doesn't know anything about the case other than the UM segment, I have watched and read literally dozens of sources. Among them the BBC depiction, watching it several times when it was being aired regularly, and there was plenty of evidence Stoeckley and her crew had information they should not have had, if they had no involvement. It wasn't exactly generalities like the guy from the Ramsey case; they were using specifics. IMO it was also tilted justice that you had a judge who had a relative on the prosecution, not to mention the shady behavior of the prosecutors that has come to light in subsequent cases.

The anti-Mac crew wants us to believe he was alternately diabolical and idiotic, stabbing himself to make it look good but forgetting to trash the place and not intentionally dropping blood in strategic places where he was going to claim to have been attacked. They want to think he would make up a group of multiple intruders, of both sexes and black and white, even though that obviously is not something you would encounter every day and geometrically more difficult to keep your story straight with so many variables.

Most of this is pure rehash. It's why I tire of these topics where no one changes anyone's mind, like the DB Cooper case. I'd like to see a new trial where the full and new evidence is placed before the jury, including the hair supposedly linked to MacDonald.

There has been recent chatter in this thread about blood evidence. The anti-MacDonald crowd wants you to believe it is absolute, and apparently that the crime scene was handled and evaluated perfectly to maintain that evidence. Anyone who has looked at this case carefully knows that is pure garbage. There is tons of dispute and counter evidence over footprints and the pajama top and the bloody adult palm print, etc.

I'll just provide a good link which looks at the case and the evidence. You can click on the links in the right column that examine other aspects of the case, including MacDonald's wounds, slightly more significant than the likes of HyeTev want you to believe. In fact, you will note that Dr. Jacobson admitted changing his testimony regarding the wounds because the prosecutors convinced him during the grand jury that MacDonald must be guilty of murdering his family. In other words, he slanted his depiction of the wounds to fit what the government wanted and claimed, not based on what he initially saw and concluded regarding the wounds themselves. The other doctors who changed their opinion from 1970 to 1979 apparently did the same thing:

http://www.karisable.com/mac4.htm

Ha! That's special and apropos. You've got the always remarkable Thinman condemning the Mac "apologists" for using the UM segment as the "only knowledge of the case." That's despite relentless emphasis of specifics here from myself and others that were never mentioned on the UM segment.

Then Space Invaderz chimes in with a reference to the UM segment as what nails it for him. But instead of Thinman condemning Space Invaderz for relying solely on the UM protrayal, he stays silent and you've got the other info-less poster HyeTev applauding Space Invaderz with bold lettering for relying on the UM segment, with the capper, "you bet it does."

Do you guys do this intentionally, for laugh purposes? What is it, we're supposed to rely on the UM segment, or not? :lol:

I guess it's simply the caliber of the anti-Mac crowd. Limited.

Notice the :D at the end? Look, this is message board to discuss Unsolved Mysteries. I don't have the time or the carefactor to write up 1000 word essay's and basically reply to myself. I watch the show and make the occasional comment. Unless there is definitative proof MacDonald is innocent then I'll change my mind otherwise judging from the broadcast which is why we are here, I think MacDonald is where he should be. Just my personal opinion, I don't dislike the guy, I don't know him. I'm not out to change anyone elses opinion, am I not allowed to comment?

Well Awsi those were some very good points. The fact of the matter is, the anti-MacDonald crowd really cant prove he did it and they know it. They know the government couldnt prove it but got a conviction anyway off of flimsy evidence. The only reason this case even went to trial in the first place was becase ol Alfred Kassab was pissed that his daughter and grand daughters were murdered I dont blame him for being pissed there but what I do blame him for is getting the wrong man convicted. Kassab was angry and he needed someone to blame for his daughter and grand daughters deaths and his son in law Jeffrey MacDonald was a convinent person for him to blame it on. Kassab was well known to have burned his bridges with MacDonald, after all it was Kassab that had MacDonald go on the Dick Cavett show and afterall that was what started the beginning of the end of MacDonald's freedom. Kassab was well known to be angry that his son in law had moved on with his life and he was mad that his son in law was driving a nice car, living in a nice home and had lots of money. He was mad that MacDonald didnt visit him while he was out east.

HyeTev, you tried to get cute and pretend you could change words in quotes from MacDonald to completely alter the meaning and therefore prove the version that suits your purpose.

Oh, I heartily apologize for pointing out how ridiculous your version was, that you rejected everything MacDonald said about that night but you want to grasp to his exact wording other than alter a few words. That is beyond pathetic.

But again, exactly what I've come to anticipate.

If you hadn't made such a big sarcastic deal about the wording I would have left it alone. But for those who missed it, I'll paste your own words, the ones I mocked:



There. I rest my case. HyeTev's analysis of this case is changing THEY to YOU and DADDY to MOMMY.

Talk about not worth anyone's time.

First off, my words were not 'sarcastic'. In fact, the first part of that 'analysis' I presented wasn't my analysis. I didn't just go to bed one night and woke up the next morning with it. It was what James Blackburn said during the trial. If you have read all the trial transcripts you would know that. If you think it was 'sarcastic' then it's time for you to consult a dictionary.

The second part is my opinion. Is that allowed here or does censorship run roughshod here as well. If so, it wouldn't be the first time I've encountered it.

And as far as mockery... here's my take: Mockery is the poor man's weapon of last resort when it comes to the art of discourse. Stew on that for a while.

Oh... and me being 'uninformed'... Have you read all the trial transcripts? Have you looked at the evidence? Have you?

Assuming that you have done those things, of course, the $60 million question is this: why do you think he's innocent?

I watched the UM segment on this case. Mac's little misting up job doesn't convince me in the least. He cried because he got caught. He thought he could outsmart all the investigators. Well, boo F'in hoo, he didn't. He just couldn't keep his mouth shut and he blew it.

Please respond at your convenience, of course.

Well Awsi those were some very good points. The fact of the matter is, the anti-MacDonald crowd really cant prove he did it and they know it. They know the government couldnt prove it but got a conviction anyway off of flimsy evidence. The only reason this case even went to trial in the first place was becase ol Alfred Kassab was pissed that his daughter and grand daughters were murdered I dont blame him for being pissed there but what I do blame him for is getting the wrong man convicted. Kassab was angry and he needed someone to blame for his daughter and grand daughters deaths and his son in law Jeffrey MacDonald was a convinent person for him to blame it on. Kassab was well known to have burned his bridges with MacDonald, after all it was Kassab that had MacDonald go on the Dick Cavett show and afterall that was what started the beginning of the end of MacDonald's freedom. Kassab was well known to be angry that his son in law had moved on with his life and he was mad that his son in law was driving a nice car, living in a nice home and had lots of money. He was mad that MacDonald didnt visit him while he was out east.

Please explain why the blood evidence is 'flimsy'. I've got all day here so this should be interesting.

What say you... was the blood 'planted'? Was that staged?

Thinman, do you seriously think you retain a shred of competence on this topic?

Yes.

As for the plagiarizing comment, I will resist the urge to use tongue-in-cheek remarks for you in the future since you obviously can't handle it. Here, I'll give you an online definition that maybe you can use sometime in the future.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tongue-in-cheek

My point was that you rarely answer questions directly. You cut and paste from conspiracy theory websites, add superfluous fluff to your posts, and hope you get the reader so dumbfounded that they will forget what they even asked you or what point they were trying to make. You would make a good two-bit attorney.

What do you mean, unless, of course, he was lying about that too? Haven't you pretty much committed yourself to denouncing MacDonald's entire version of events? Or are you like HyeTev, you want to accept some things, like a piece of dialogue here and there? :lol:

Seems to me you should be insisting MacDonald was all alone, and therefore obviously he wounded himself, and since the injuries were so minor there is no way they could have knocked him out so certainly he was faking the unconscious. Always interesting with the anti-MacDonald crew.

I don't pretend to know how many assailants were there or what the dialogue was or what the course of events was. You act as if it's a certainty MacDonald was unconscious on the ground while the intruders were still there and armed and undisturbed and unhurried and sound of mind and with intent to kill him. I don't know any of that to be true and without a videotape I think everything is pure guesswork. If you want to pretend it's simple to kill a young fit adult male, similar to a wife or young children, be my guest. I guess it's similarly easy to stab yourself and know it won't be fatal, even though 5 of the 6 doctors at the original army hearing testified MacDonald could not have predicted the outcome of what they described as a very serious stab wound to the chest, which collapsed his lung by 40%.

I know that if MacDonald invented the intruders out of thin air there should not be evidence any such group ever existed, or was in the area at the time. Uh, that is not exactly the case. Unlike your claim the Mac crew doesn't know anything about the case other than the UM segment, I have watched and read literally dozens of sources. Among them the BBC depiction, watching it several times when it was being aired regularly, and there was plenty of evidence Stoeckley and her crew had information they should not have had, if they had no involvement. It wasn't exactly generalities like the guy from the Ramsey case; they were using specifics. IMO it was also tilted justice that you had a judge who had a relative on the prosecution, not to mention the shady behavior of the prosecutors that has come to light in subsequent cases.

The anti-Mac crew wants us to believe he was alternately diabolical and idiotic, stabbing himself to make it look good but forgetting to trash the place and not intentionally dropping blood in strategic places where he was going to claim to have been attacked. They want to think he would make up a group of multiple intruders, of both sexes and black and white, even though that obviously is not something you would encounter every day and geometrically more difficult to keep your story straight with so many variables.

Most of this is pure rehash. It's why I tire of these topics where no one changes anyone's mind, like the DB Cooper case. I'd like to see a new trial where the full and new evidence is placed before the jury, including the hair supposedly linked to MacDonald.

There has been recent chatter in this thread about blood evidence. The anti-MacDonald crowd wants you to believe it is absolute, and apparently that the crime scene was handled and evaluated perfectly to maintain that evidence. Anyone who has looked at this case carefully knows that is pure garbage. There is tons of dispute and counter evidence over footprints and the pajama top and the bloody adult palm print, etc.

I'll just provide a good link which looks at the case and the evidence. You can click on the links in the right column that examine other aspects of the case, including MacDonald's wounds, slightly more significant than the likes of HyeTev want you to believe. In fact, you will note that Dr. Jacobson admitted changing his testimony regarding the wounds because the prosecutors convinced him during the grand jury that MacDonald must be guilty of murdering his family. In other words, he slanted his depiction of the wounds to fit what the government wanted and claimed, not based on what he initially saw and concluded regarding the wounds themselves. The other doctors who changed their opinion from 1970 to 1979 apparently did the same thing:

http://www.karisable.com/mac4.htm

Cliff's Notes version of this post:

blah blah blah...

Awsi,

That extremely credible (that's sarcasm Awsi, so I don't need a dictionary defining credible) website that you so kindly (more sarcasm) linked, still claims that the hair found in Colette's hand did not belong to Mac the Knife. Nice source (sarcasm).

I didnt say it was planted. However you seem to not even acknowledge the possiblity that the killers could have done this damage in another room and then moved the body's back to the bedrooms. I have never said it wasnt possible that MacDonald did the killings, I dont think he did them personally however it is certainly possible that he did. However you MacDonald haters seem to think he for sure did, end of story, no ifs ands or buts. You guys refuse to accept even the possiblity that he might not have did it.

Also by the way the hair being MacDonald's means nothing really. Had it not been MacDonald's it would have proven his innocence but it wasnt. But it doesnt really matter because it proves nothing. I am still looking forward to hearing your motive on why he would kill his family especially in such a brutal way. Even you MacDonald haters will admit that the governments motive that MacDonald killed his family in a fit of rage over his daughter wetting his side of the bed was crap. You will also admit Colette supposedly being on his case because of his spending that really wouldnt be a motive for him to kill his family either. Also if MacDonald did it why would he throw the board in his own front yard? Also like I said I have a hard time believing a person could stab themselves in the chest like that. As for James Blackburn the guy is a scumbag. He had nothing and he knew it but somehow got a conviction. MacDonald should have been acquitted there was really no hard evidence he did it. Hell if your case is so solid then I guess you MacDonald haters would not be opposed to MacDonald getting a new trial. As you have said, since this case is supposedly a slam dunk then he would get convicted again anyway. So what are you guys afraid would happen if he got a new trial?

Also by the way the hair being MacDonald's means nothing really. Had it not been MacDonald's it would have proven his innocence but it wasnt. But it doesnt really matter because it proves nothing. I am still looking forward to hearing your motive on why he would kill his family especially in such a brutal way. Even you MacDonald haters will admit that the governments motive that MacDonald killed his family in a fit of rage over his daughter wetting his side of the bed was crap. You will also admit Colette supposedly being on his case because of his spending that really wouldnt be a motive for him to kill his family either. Also if MacDonald did it why would he throw the board in his own front yard? Also like I said I have a hard time believing a person could stab themselves in the chest like that. As for James Blackburn the guy is a scumbag. He had nothing and he knew it but somehow got a conviction. MacDonald should have been acquitted there was really no hard evidence he did it. Hell if your case is so solid then I guess you MacDonald haters would not be opposed to MacDonald getting a new trial. As you have said, since this case is supposedly a slam dunk then he would get convicted again anyway. So what are you guys afraid would happen if he got a new trial?

First off, I don't 'hate' the guy. My personal feelings for the man are a nonissue. This isn't 'personal' with me. At the same time, I believe the jury came to the correct conclusion in 1979 and he is serving his time for it.

The government's motive was 'crap' only in that it was incomplete. There was more to it but the government did not have the goods to back it up HOWEVER it still does not negate the evidence. Then again, how many cases are we aware of in which a motive was clearly established? Think of all those UM segments we have seen and tell me how many of them had an established motive? If the physical evidence proves that Mac did it then what need is there for an established motive? Obviously, even a flimsy motive didn't deter the jury from reaching its verdict. The physical evidence was all that was needed.

On the site I linked (much) earlier, Freddy Kassab conjectured what the motive may have been. I am not going to rehash it here as I will not do anyone's homework for them. Seek it out if you're curious.

As far as not believing a man could stab himself... if he was desperate enough to take a chance at having his manufactured tale hold water then he would have done almost anything to achieve that. The blood evidence, once again, indicates that he bled in the bathroom and, unless those four intruders managed to get Mac into the bathroom and beat him up, he stabbed himself there.

Frankly, I think it's time to end this discussion. Those who believe he did it will not be swayed just as much as those who think he didn't do it will not be swayed. This endless going around in circles isn't going to change anything.

Well I would be willing to end it but then you extended the debate with your last post. What is this physical evidence you talk about that MacDonald did it? That only his fingerprints were in the house? That his blood was only in the bathroom? The physical evidence did not prove he did anything. The physical evidence proved he bled in his own house and had in fact touched things in his own house and that is really it. Well Alfred Kassab I really dont take the late Mr. Kassab seriously on this issue. I mean he flip flopped on it. It was also obvious he turned against MacDonald only after he was mad that MacDonald had moved on with his life. It appeared to be a vengence trip, Kassab needed someone to blame for his daughters death and for his grand daughters deaths and MacDonald was a convienent person for him to blame.

Also MacDonald should get a new trial if for no other reason than that his counsel was not allowed adequate time to review all of the government evidence and files and therefore was not able to present the best possible defense.

Well I would be willing to end it but then you extended the debate with your last post. What is this physical evidence you talk about that MacDonald did it? That only his fingerprints were in the house? That his blood was only in the bathroom? The physical evidence did not prove he did anything. The physical evidence proved he bled in his own house and had in fact touched things in his own house and that is really it. Well Alfred Kassab I really dont take the late Mr. Kassab seriously on this issue. I mean he flip flopped on it. It was also obvious he turned against MacDonald only after he was mad that MacDonald had moved on with his life. It appeared to be a vengence trip, Kassab needed someone to blame for his daughters death and for his grand daughters deaths and MacDonald was a convienent person for him to blame.

Freddy 'turned on' Mac after he obtained and read the Article 32 transcript and found major inconsistencies. That is a well-known fact.

Look... we can go round and round over the evidence. It really isn't worth it, to be honest. You say he's innocent - I say he's guilty.

The jury also said he was guilty and that is the only pronouncement that matters. This is my last post in this thread.

I have been reading the posts and am often confused about the comments some people make. I believe that Mac is guilty but I agree on other points as well. I think Stockley's group knew what was going on....that they actually started it by telling Collette at the University that evening secrets about Jeff. The content is speculation, but the group was witnessed to be talking with her. I think they may have been there but did not do the killing.

Someone also stated that Collette had a temper, as typical "New York women". Where do stereotypes and prejudiced labels fit in here???

It has been mentioned about the "obvious" thoughts and feelings of Mr. Kassab and the intentions behind his actions. Unless those discussing it are psychic and know what his thoughts were, I think it is disrespectful to speculate.

I am a nurse and and student of forensics, and I work in in a psychiatric prison facility. The comment that perhaps people had "done the damage in other rooms then moved the bodies back" is so illogical it hurts. More blood is cast during the fight, not after. Is it being suggested then that the other room/s was cleaned as well?? Each family member was of a different blood type. Blood eveidence....location, amount, spatter can not be manuafactured. That kind of forensic evidence doesn't lie....but people do. It has been my experience that anyone is capable of such crimes....especially those who only seem to think of themselves. We call them narcissists, and from all I have heard him speak...Mac is one.

I think he is beyond guilty here. As a father of six. Happily married. This is the only story I cannot stomach and I will turn to another channel if its on. Or if any other program is dealing with this scumbag. Im sorry. Imo, He is a something that is so low there is no word describable.

Completely agree.

Completely agree with Tamster

Saw an interview once with Dick Cavett who has no trouble remember MacDonald coming on his show in 1970. Boy, did that ever make him look bad with that interview. Talking about his dead family you'd think he was talking about a raccoon that he had just run over.

UPDATE:

Still guilty.

UPDATE:

Still guilty.

Was there any motive for him to do this?

Psychological instability + The horror of all horrors.... His daughter wet his side of the bed. I couldn't sleep last night cuz this thread about him. (Don't take that the wrong way. Nothing wrong with the thread. The subject of the thread is what I meant) He disturbs me to no end. My buddy works at a hospital and he has been transferred all over the U.S. He has done multiple things in ERs. He moves or requests transfers. Told me all kinds of horror stories. Babies being covered in cigarette burns etc. Just disturbing. The cigarette burns was because the kid wet the bed. He said it took all he could not to kill the parent. I think of MacDonald everytime I think of that story. I dont think I could beat anyone to death in the heat of the moment. Its inhumane. Immoral. Having said that, Thinking of MacDonald's family. I know it sounds dark. But I don't think Id sweat putting a bullet in his head. I'm sorry if I offend anyone. Im not that kind of person. I have a family that means the world to me. And I cant imagine throwing it away like that moron. Joe Weldon also completely disturbs me. That coward s trying to avoid the death penalty as we speak. Family Killers are the lowest of all ilk. Its not right to murder anyone. But a person's own family. I cannot fathom the evil inside someone.

what about reports of DNA not matching anyone? MacDonald

[QUOTE=neognosis]what about reports of DNA not matching anyone? MacD
Its easy for that to happen. He worked at a hospital for one. Ever use someone else's bathroom? Bathrooms are filled with DNA. Especially hair. Use a friends bathroom. If they made you take your shoes off when you came in. You step in a few hairs with your sock. Before you leave you put your shoes back on. Voila! Coulda been a person who was at the scene after the crime also. A number of different scenarios could be the cause of that.

Once he hit Kimberley he couldn't turn back. His lies about Russia were catching up with him. I was reading Fatal Vision last year when our house flooded and I lost the book in the mess. I'm now trying to finish it because I recently found it. It is a great read. I have no doubts in my mind that he is guilty.

Saw an interview once with Dick Cavett who has no trouble remember MacDonald coming on his show in 1970. Boy, did that ever make him look bad with that interview. Talking about his dead family you'd think he was talking about a raccoon that he had just run over.

Instead of crying out "they should find the people that committed these crimes against me and my family" he said the government rail roaded him. I find him so disgusting each time I see him in a interview. He is a classic narcissist. Even in the book Colette's mother talks about his behavior around the holidays. Wanting to invite all these people over then getting mad at Colette for not stopping her cooking and entertaining with the guests. Colette's mother told him he was being selfish. Colette was upset and he just stormed out of the room.

Plus, y'know the phony Russian trip so he'd be able to shack up with a mistress, while his wife is in the later stages of pregnancy, something she has justifiable reason to be worried about because she'd had difficulties in the past with pregnancy...yeah, he's a real family man, that MacDonald.

That and the whole discrepancy in injuries is what makes me say "Guilty as Sin."

But...but...but...Helena Stoeckley!

He is as guilty as sin. Motive? He lost his temper during an argument with his wife struck her several times and in swinging the 2X4 he accidentally or otherwise struck his daughter in the doorway. At that point, there was no going back. He cared too much about what people thought to get arrested for horrifically beating his wife and striking his daughter unconscious. Because hes so narcissistic he thought if he staged it right he could get away with it. Hes a smug bastard. Again, like Darlie, its a case overkill of the victims but he was relatively in good shape compared to the overkill of two small children and his wife. His blood was only found in the kitchen and over the bathroom sink (sound familiar?). None of his blood was found in the living room where he claimed he was attacked by these blood thirsty hippies. After the baby was stabbed 30 times someone then put her sippy cup back in her mouth (staging much?). Its a joke. He needs to just go away and shut up. Maybe he has convinced himself he is innocent by now.

But...but...but...Helena Stoeckley!

The Helena Stoeckley bit...for some reason, MacDonald supporters believe that Jeff was set up and framed by military investigators. But when you think about it, first of all, why would they frame Jeff? What possible reason could they have? Second of all, who do you think would make a better patsy in this elaborate setup, a drug addict with so shaky a grasp on reality you wonder if she knew what color the sky was, or a respected army doctor and family man?

MacDonald Supporters seem to believe that law enforcement is made up of Inspector Javerts who don't care who hangs for a crime so long as someone hangs for it, but even with that mindset...you'd think they'd find a mentally ill drug addict to be a better scapegoat than Jeffrey MacDonald. Especially since the military tends to be rather conservative in its politics, so no doubt, they'd have a dim view of drug addicts.

But like I said, given that a pregnant woman and two small kids were brutally hacked up, while the six-foot army officer who posed the most threat to the intruders' safety and also had access to the drugs the intruders were allegedly after, has relatively few injuries to show for it...like I said, I keep coming back to discrepancy in injuries.

Just took a brief visit to the pro-innocence MacDonald website and this narcissistic line from MacDonald's bio made me groan...

"The tragic loss of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen has been compounded by the needless continuation of losses since their deaths. How many lives could have been saved had Jeffrey MacDonald continued to serve his community as a skilled and respected innovator in the field of Emergency Medicine?"

Ugh, even if the man was 100 % innocent, that's still one of the more egocentric things I've ever read.

The Helena Stoeckley bit...for some reason, MacDonald supporters believe that Jeff was set up and framed by military investigators. But when you think about it, first of all, why would they frame Jeff? What possible reason could they have? Second of all, who do you think would make a better patsy in this elaborate setup, a drug addict with so shaky a grasp on reality you wonder if she knew what color the sky was, or a respected army doctor and family man?

MacDonald Supporters seem to believe that law enforcement is made up of Inspector Javerts who don't care who hangs for a crime so long as someone hangs for it, but even with that mindset...you'd think they'd find a mentally ill drug addict to be a better scapegoat than Jeffrey MacDonald. Especially since the military tends to be rather conservative in its politics, so no doubt, they'd have a dim view of drug addicts.

But like I said, given that a pregnant woman and two small kids were brutally hacked up, while the six-foot army officer who posed the most threat to the intruders' safety and also had access to the drugs the intruders were allegedly after, has relatively few injuries to show for it...like I said, I keep coming back to discrepancy in injuries.

There were so many drugs in his house that Shaw said "It looked more than a little excessive" after MacDonald said "but I know it looked a little, a little excessive". But I guess drug crazied hippies aren't looking to take Thorazine.

Macdonald used amphetamines. That is one of the theories as to why he flew into a rage. Macdonald had nasty outburst even at his attorneys. Its not hard to see how and why an intense argument could send him over the edge

Just took a brief visit to the pro-innocence MacDonald website and this narcissistic line from MacDonald's bio made me groan...

"The tragic loss of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen has been compounded by the needless continuation of losses since their deaths. How many lives could have been saved had Jeffrey MacDonald continued to serve his community as a skilled and respected innovator in the field of Emergency Medicine?"

Ugh, even if the man was 100 % innocent, that's still one of the more egocentric things I've ever read.

Purely disgusting.

He is as guilty as sin. Motive? He lost his temper during an argument with his wife struck her several times and in swinging the 2X4 he accidentally or otherwise struck his daughter in the doorway. At that point, there was no going back. He cared too much about what people thought to get arrested for horrifically beating his wife and striking his daughter unconscious. Because hes so narcissistic he thought if he staged it right he could get away with it. Hes a smug bastard. Again, like Darlie, its a case overkill of the victims but he was relatively in good shape compared to the overkill of two small children and his wife. His blood was only found in the kitchen and over the bathroom sink (sound familiar?). None of his blood was found in the living room where he claimed he was attacked by these blood thirsty hippies. After the baby was stabbed 30 times someone then put her sippy cup back in her mouth (staging much?). Its a joke. He needs to just go away and shut up. Maybe he has convinced himself he is innocent by now.


Well according to the book it was because the daughter wet their bed and he slapped her and the wife defended her. The story arose because there was a magazine with an article about the Manson family on the coffee table.

The weaknesses in McD's case are IMO as a minimum:

1. His personality and actions (he exaggerated when he claimed to be a Green Beret. He was a doctor attached to the Green Berets but was not one himself; he seemed to get over the murders pretty fast and was enjoying being single)

2. Why wasn't he killed too or instead? Why wasn't he hurt beyond superficially?

3. The story seemed ridiculous particularly as happening on an Army post; also too coincidental that a similar story was in the very magazine on the coffee table

His personality and actions (he exaggerated when he claimed to be a Green Beret. He was a doctor attached to the Green Berets but was not one himself;

The American Justice episode on this case is called "Green Beret Murder Mystery". A quick check of the net reveals A LOT of websites stating he was a Green Beret, so I don't know where you're getting this information from.

To my knowledge, MacDonald was an army doctor with the rank of Captain, assigned as a group surgeon to a special forces group (Green Berets). He never took the qualification course that would have made him a Green Beret. He was a doctor in the medical corps of the army, ranked as a Captain. The media likes to sensationalize things, hence "Green Beret's family slain", etc.

How about the man who was MacDonald's patient phoning his home at the same time the intruders were said to have been there? A woman picks the phone up and is apparently hysterically laughing with some commotion in the background. That's what the guy said. I know people have discredited him saying he had to have dialed the wrong number, but it is one of three things:

- MacDonald hired him to say that
- He misdialed
- MacDonald's story checks out and the hippie was in the house high as a kite

If it is the 2nd one, then who the heck did he call that was laughing?

To my knowledge, MacDonald was an army doctor with the rank of Captain, assigned as a group surgeon to a special forces group (Green Berets). He never took the qualification course that would have made him a Green Beret. He was a doctor in the medical corps of the army, ranked as a Captain. The media likes to sensationalize things, hence "Green Beret's family slain", etc.

^ This is correct. McDonald did not, and was not required to complete the SF qualification course--he was merely attached to an SF unit. Like someone in an airborne unit that wears the maroon beret but isn't jump qualified, he wore the green beret but was never an actual SF officer.

^ This is correct. McDonald did not, and was not required to complete the SF qualification course--he was merely attached to an SF unit. Like someone in an airborne unit that wears the maroon beret but isn't jump qualified, he wore the green beret but was never an actual SF officer.

I was hoping you'd respond to make sure I wasn't making a fool of myself. ;)

How about the man who was MacDonald's patient phoning his home at the same time the intruders were said to have been there? A woman picks the phone up and is apparently hysterically laughing with some commotion in the background. That's what the guy said. I know people have discredited him saying he had to have dialed the wrong number, but it is one of three things:

- MacDonald hired him to say that
- He misdialed
- MacDonald's story checks out and the hippie was in the house high as a kite

If it is the 2nd one, then who the heck did he call that was laughing?

The man had severe mental problems. MacDonald himself never ever said the phone rang. I'm sure he would have told that to the investigators when he was first interviewed by Shaw.

The man had severe mental problems. MacDonald himself never ever said the phone rang. I'm sure he would have told that to the investigators when he was first interviewed by Shaw.

Not to say he is innocent, but would he have even noticed if the phone rang at certain times if his story is true? He could have been unconscious by then.

Not to say he is innocent, but would he have even noticed if the phone rang at certain times if his story is true? He could have been unconscious by then.

Unconscious? From what a superficial mark on his forehead that Colette probably made trying to defend herself (hairbrush or the club). He sure wasn't hit in the head with the force that his daughter was.

Plus who in the world calls a doctor in the middle of the night at home? I know this was 1970 but really?

The blood/DNA evidence is overwhelming that MacDonald's story is a big LIE.
Why in his interview with Shaw did he said "BED" instead of "COUCH" multiple times? Because that is where the fight started and ended. Not on the couch.

Not to say he is innocent, but would he have even noticed if the phone rang at certain times if his story is true? He could have been unconscious by then.

Unfortunately, Helena Stoeckley never made any mention about answering the phone that night and having someone ask for "Dr. MacDonald" before giggling uncontrollably until after Jimmy Friar came forward and made his claim. And this was roughly 9 years or so after the murders when Friar, a man suffering from mental issues who admitted to being completely intoxicated that night, decided to come forward and tell his story.

ah..........I see. Makes sense.

It also important to know that Colette's stepfather was offering a reward for any information that would lead to a arrest. So all sorts of "crazy desperate people" came out of the woodwork thinking I'll get rich.

It also important to know that Colette's stepfather was offering a reward for any information that would lead to a arrest. So all sorts of "crazy desperate people" came out of the woodwork thinking I'll get rich.

This is exactly what William Posey did when he came forward and claimed to have seen Helena on the night of the murders in the company of several men laughing and giggling. He later flunked a polygraph and admitted to making it up (he did admit seeing Helena return home, but she was alone) to get the reward money.

These threads invariably turn into a comedic backslapping fest. The legal system convicts innocent people all the time. It happens for all the reasons evident in this thread. Once a person is zeroed in on as the perpetrator, anything and everything he did is viewed as suspicious and damning. Detectives and prosecutors have a field day tying together meaningless aspects and pumping up their worth, often to the point of outright invention. It makes them feel better, justifying the quest. In this case it's bedwetting and the content of magazine articles, among other things. Wow. What a load. I'm amazed Dr. MacDonald was a free man even before the deaths.

Most disgusting of all, the idea of crime scene reconstruction has entered the realm. I know I mention that frequently, how absurd it is to believe you can piece together what happened based on spots and specks. If I emphasized it 1000 more times it would not be nearly enough. You guys think you know who was there, how many were there, and what happened. You don't. You've merely been brainwashed by flawed contemporary thinking, the idea that just because DNA has exploded onto the scene with the ability to clarify, that everything else in the investigatory field is comparable caliber to DNA. On older cases from the pre-DNA era the detectives didn't know what to collect or where to look for it, let alone what to save. Hippies walk away. And it's no different now. We are making massive mistakes as I type this. Scientific breakthroughs down the road will make further aspects more valuable and telling than we have any right to believe.

There's a decade gap between incident and trial. The gap is there because authorities don't know what happened. Certain people get restless. They don't like the Dick Cavett Show, among other things. Suddenly they are willing to go to court and scream absolute, as if that decade gap of uncertainty never existed.

Naturally the jurors will convict. With all those young butchered bodies somebody has to be punished. We don't have windows B and C waiting in line, like a game show. The state points the finger, carrying enormous benefit of a doubt...undeserved but very real. That benefit of a doubt is frequently on display here, toward this case and many others. I always envision the Nancy Grace scowl attached to the words. Burn him, among other things.

Nobody likes generalities. I've encountered that for decades in Las Vegas. I use very general systems and dependably hit a nice percentage that seldom varies. I'm not trying to subjectively win every game. I'm applying a wide scope approach that finds the correct result far more often than not. Meanwhile, the guy who exhaustively examines every variable ends up either paralyzed by conflicting indecision or sidetracked by irrelevance, determined to liken this scenario to another one, one with a known outcome. He spins and spins, seldom recognizing the error. Not much different with the legal system. They'll jail one innocent guy and apply the same Creative Prosecutor atrocities in another venue, finding the same result. The family is happy and so are the simpletons. Marvelous!

Accused tell strange tales. We've all seen that. Most of the strange tales evolve on the fly, desperately trying to explain away legitimate evidence. When the strange stories occur before the evidence or the suspicion, right off the bat, that's when it gets sad. That guy is probably innocent but it's going to be hellish to prove, or to get anybody to believe him. Fluke needed, like somebody with a conscious to come forward, like the Kay Mortensen case.

As I've posted previously, I absolutely loved Jeff Toobin's summary a couple of years ago on CNN -- (paraphrased), "Since it's such a bizarre story it's probably true." Bingo. No need for anything else. Now there's a big thinker. He would do well in Las Vegas. In fact, I use the MacDonald case in Las Vegas circles as a litmus test. For decades I've asked about it when evaluating newcomers to the sportsbook scene. It's surreal how well it works. The conventional wisdom types, the ones who can't see anything other than flimsy current form when evaluating sports and eventually leave town broke on a bus, they invariably scream disgust and guilt when condemning MacDonald. The guys who find the creative angles and contribute to upping our grasp and winning percentage, they believe in MacDonald's innocence.

The other litmus test categories, BTW, are the JFK assassination, wishbone offense and Barry Switzer. Weird combo, I concede, but remarkably effective. I have several friends who apply it. We need to weed out quickly, like Ortho.

This would absolutely be a Whopper case, if we ever had that video. That's always the problem, the absence of that damn video. That aspect allows the Creative Prosecutors and backslapping obsessive-detail types to roam free and wrong.

These threads invariably turn into a comedic backslapping fest. The legal system convicts innocent people all the time. It happens for all the reasons evident in this thread. Once a person is zeroed in on as the perpetrator, anything and everything he did is viewed as suspicious and damning. Detectives and prosecutors have a field day tying together meaningless aspects and pumping up their worth, often to the point of outright invention. It makes them feel better, justifying the quest. In this case it's bedwetting and the content of magazine articles, among other things. Wow. What a load. I'm amazed Dr. MacDonald was a free man even before the deaths.

Yes, the legal system does convict innocent people. And yes, once a person is considered the "prime suspect" in a case, they are usually zeroed in on and anything they do or say can be construed as "suspicious". The bedwetting was the catalyst to the murders, as evidenced by the amount of blood spatter (and brain matter) from Kimberly found on the walls in the master bedroom. The content of magazine articles isn't just some oddball prosecution "throw something against the wall to see if it will stick" theory, it's evidenced by the creasing of pages from the magazine, as well as blood matching the victims found on the pages.

Most disgusting of all, the idea of crime scene reconstruction has entered the realm. I know I mention that frequently, how absurd it is to believe you can piece together what happened based on spots and specks. If I emphasized it 1000 more times it would not be nearly enough. You guys think you know who was there, how many were there, and what happened. You don't. You've merely been brainwashed by flawed contemporary thinking, the idea that just because DNA has exploded onto the scene with the ability to clarify, that everything else in the investigatory field is comparable caliber to DNA. On older cases from the pre-DNA era the detectives didn't know what to collect or where to look for it, let alone what to save. Hippies walk away. And it's no different now. We are making massive mistakes as I type this. Scientific breakthroughs down the road will make further aspects more valuable and telling than we have any right to believe.

The crime scene reconstruction was easy in this case. Every single MacDonald family member had a different blood type. MacDonald's blood was only found in the bathroom. This isn't flawed contemporary thinking. It's factual evidence.

There's a decade gap between incident and trial. The gap is there because authorities don't know what happened. Certain people get restless. They don't like the Dick Cavett Show, among other things. Suddenly they are willing to go to court and scream absolute, as if that decade gap of uncertainty never existed.

Because, unlike his promise to do so, MacDonald made no real effort to find the "real killers". And also, after the Article 32 hearing, the CID was ordered to extensively seek out "hippie types" and try to find the "real culprits". A massive investigation ensued, coming up empty. All roads led back to MacDonald. This isn't some weird Vegas style betting scenario...it's fact.

Naturally the jurors will convict. With all those young butchered bodies somebody has to be punished. We don't have windows B and C waiting in line, like a game show. The state points the finger, carrying enormous benefit of a doubt...undeserved but very real. That benefit of a doubt is frequently on display here, toward this case and many others. I always envision the Nancy Grace scowl attached to the words. Burn him, among other things.

Nancy Grace was not around on television back in 1979. That's irrelevant. And the jurors will convict, if the evidence leads them to the accused. And in this case it did. If you read the trial transcripts, you will see exactly why MacDonald was convicted.

Nobody likes generalities. I've encountered that for decades in Las Vegas. I use very general systems and dependably hit a nice percentage that seldom varies. I'm not trying to subjectively win every game. I'm applying a wide scope approach that finds the correct result far more often than not. Meanwhile, the guy who exhaustively examines every variable ends up either paralyzed by conflicting indecision or sidetracked by irrelevance, determined to liken this scenario to another one, one with a known outcome. He spins and spins, seldom recognizing the error. Not much different with the legal system. They'll jail one innocent guy and apply the same Creative Prosecutor atrocities in another venue, finding the same result. The family is happy and so are the simpletons. Marvelous!

https://i.imgur.com/AYch4Io.gif

Accused tell strange tales. We've all seen that. Most of the strange tales evolve on the fly, desperately trying to explain away legitimate evidence. When the strange stories occur before the evidence or the suspicion, right off the bat, that's when it gets sad. That guy is probably innocent but it's going to be hellish to prove, or to get anybody to believe him. Fluke needed, like somebody with a conscious to come forward, like the Kay Mortensen case.

MacDonald's tale was not considered strange from the onset. It was the lack of evidence supporting the fact that so called intruders had ever been in his residence, and the lack of any signs of a real struggle from inside which caused his tale to evolve, and his feeble attempts to explain the holes in his story.

The guys who find the creative angles and contribute to upping our grasp and winning percentage, they believe in MacDonald's innocence.

Wouldn't go gambling with those guys.

Wouldn't go gambling with those guys.

:rotflmao:

Wonder if Andy Griffith's performance in the TV movie led to the Matlock series?

Is the title a play on "moron?" If so, it took me a while to catch that.

Naturally the jurors will convict. With all those young butchered bodies somebody has to be punished. We don't have windows B and C waiting in line, like a game show. The state points the finger, carrying enormous benefit of a doubt...undeserved but very real. That benefit of a doubt is frequently on display here, toward this case and many others. I always envision the Nancy Grace scowl attached to the words. Burn him, among other things.


Okay, let's assume the Justice system consists of, as you seem to believe, a bunch of Javerts who don't care about circumstances or about who hangs for a crime, so long as someone hangs for it. Then why, for the love of all that's holy, wouldn't they go after Helena Stoeckley or any of the numerous other drug addicts mentioned in this thread? Who sounds like a better patsy, a drug addict so addled it's a miracle she knows what color the sky is on any given day, or Jeff MacDonald, a respected Army Doctor? Keep in mind that the military tends to be conservative in its political views and probably takes a dim view of drug addicts in general.

Because even if I ignore your ramblings about Las Vegas, nothing you said makes any sense. I just singled out the one paragraph, because it seemed emblematic.

Okay, let's assume the Justice system consists of, as you seem to believe, a bunch of Javerts who don't care about circumstances or about who hangs for a crime, so long as someone hangs for it. Then why, for the love of all that's holy, wouldn't they go after Helena Stoeckley or any of the numerous other drug addicts mentioned in this thread? Who sounds like a better patsy, a drug addict so addled it's a miracle she knows what color the sky is on any given day, or Jeff MacDonald, a respected Army Doctor? Keep in mind that the military tends to be conservative in its political views and probably takes a dim view of drug addicts in general.

Because even if I ignore your ramblings about Las Vegas, nothing you said makes any sense. I just singled out the one paragraph, because it seemed emblematic.

Thank you.

thecars what do u think of jonbenet and john patsy ramsey

For what it's worth, I've been to Atlantic City and I believe he's guilty.

For what it's worth, I've been to Atlantic City and I believe he's guilty.

how did you arrive at that conclusion?:confused:

how did you arrive at that conclusion?:confused:

After waking up with a showgirl in the middle of the afternoon on the beach after a long night that I didn't remember.

I've said it before (in another thread) and I'll say it here. All of this talk of is Jeff innocent or guilty is a mute point now. The man got convicted in a court of law and will probably never be let out.

Personally, it's a little disturbing that after more than 30 years people are still clamoring for his innocence or guilt and this tragedy of a woman and her children gets shown very little to zero sympathy at all. This whole case has turned into a Jeff issue. Everything revolves around him and peoples opinions of either poor Jeff or Jeff is a murderer.

I have my own opinions on the case and I'm going to keep them to myself. The violent and senseless act of killing 2 little girls and their mother is beyond me. Personally I'm going to try my hardest to not comment on this particular issue.

I've said it before (in another thread) and I'll say it here. All of this talk of is Jeff innocent or guilty is a mute point now. The man got convicted in a court of law and will probably never be let out.

Personally, it's a little disturbing that after more than 30 years people are still clamoring for his innocence or guilt and this tragedy of a woman and her children gets shown very little to zero sympathy at all. This whole case has turned into a Jeff issue. Everything revolves around him and peoples opinions of either poor Jeff or Jeff is a murderer.

I have my own opinions on the case and I'm going to keep them to myself. The violent and senseless act of killing 2 little girls and their mother is beyond me. Personally I'm going to try my hardest to not comment on this particular issue.

The fact that people are adamant about his guilt and want him to remain in prison is the ultimate sympathy for Colette and her children. There would be no justice for them, had MacDonald not been convicted.

I feel a deep sympathy for any victims of a crime. Jeff is the only person who has continued to disrespect Colette, Kimberely, Kristen and the unborn son Colette was carrying.

The fact that people are adamant about his guilt and want him to remain in prison is the ultimate sympathy for Colette and her children. There would be no justice for them, had MacDonald not been convicted.

Didn't look at it from that point of view. I think it was the detailed evidence you posted in another thread that sealed my opinion on the case itself. Personally I think the blood evidence is the most damning piece for me. But that's me.