Neither was MacDonlad credible when he lied to his fil Freddie and told him that he had killed one of the male hippies involved.He was just trying to get him off his back about the investigation by throwing a bone at him.jmo.

McDonald's "you guys are more thorough than I thought" when asked about his multiple affairs functioned as an effective admission of his guilt, imo.

just finished Errol Morris's new book on the case. Strengthened my belief he is innocent or at the very least deserves a new trial..

Among the interesting things discussed:

We already know the original crime scene was horribly compromised and messed up from everyone allowed to walk in and around the bodies and around the house.

The flowerpot and seemingly staged living room area-Morris points out that a flowerpot upright means nothing in terms of Macdonalds guilt or innocence. A staged crime scene doesnt suggest Macdonalds guilt. Those items could have been uprighted and moved by any number of people-from MP's responding to the scene, or even as Macdonald suggests killer intruders. A floweropot standing up really means little in the scheme of guilt versus innocence. Who's to say hippie killers didnt stage the scene after the killing? Staging isnt indicative of macdonald;s guilt.

Morris argued that several things did Macdonald in-two of which were his letter to Freddy Kassab where he lied and said he killed one of the intruders. And two, his appearance on Dick Cavett where he spent the entire time talking about how he had been wronged. Morris and others he interviewed suggested had macdonald merely retreated and moved away, and not done these two things, the powers that be might not have done him in

Morris talks about the hobby horse Helena said was broken. he prints the actual photograph that appeared in the paper, and mentions he went through the paper for nearly a year from the murders until a year later. Not once was the hobby horse mentioned that it was broken. The photo, clearly shown, is a photograph where it looks like an ordinary hobby horse. No aspect of it suggests being broken. Morris talks about how Helena had confessed about the horse prior to it even being talked about.

Morris goes through the many many confessions of helena. She confessed not just once or twice. But many times, To multiple people, including her own mother, as Helena was on her death bed.

Morris talks about the many attempts by the government to deny Macdonalds defense access to the evidence. When they were given access to it, it was hours prior to the trial, so it was impossible to make heads or tails of any of it.

Morris talks about the blond wig fiber found on Colletes hairbrush. And interviews Mattel workers, who say the length of hair found 22-24 inches would be too long for dolls made in 1969-1970. That length of hair just didnt exist in dolls. And further to get that hair out of the dolls head, and in that length, it would have to be ripped out.

Morris talks about wool fibers on the club used to kill, and in the house, black wool which match what Helena was wearing that night.

Morris talks about how investigators from day 1, pooh poohed helena and that angle. They could have arrested her, subpeoned her, taken her clothes, her wig, her boots and looked for DNA evidence. They of course didnt.

Morris goes into detail about the Britt affidavit. Which suggests that Helena confessed to the crime, but a prosecutor told her, if you testify you will be indicted for murder. Morris gathers several witnesses to this. He also says she didnt have access to an attorney for several days when she was initially picked up. She confessed, was intimidated into not testifying, and finally given an attorney, who Morris interviews who says up front every attorneys job is to prevent their client from testifying. Morris suggests they government used her attorney and used Helena for this purpose.

Morris mentions the corrupt nature of the original judge, who openly spoke of his belief Macdonald was guilty. The judge and Helena;s attorney routinely spoke about Helena, which Morris suggested was immoral and possibly illegal.

Morris discusses Fatal vision the miniseries and book. And portrays Mcginnnis as a liar and fraud and huckster who played Macdonald. Morris suggests these two things, the movie and book are the major stumbling blocks for anyone who believes he's innocent. Everyone saw that movie and read the book. As Morris points out, the book is sensationalized. He goes through the screenplay of the movie, and talks about how the screenwriters didnt base the movie on facts. Morris flat out says basically that Mcguinness changed his opinion on Macdonald because writing a book about an innocent man in prison wasnt compelling enough. That his publisher told him to change it.

Morris points out Mcguinness asked Macdonalds permission to stay at his house. And as he was there, Mcguinness noticed a letter, which Macdonald mentioned prior to dinner on the night of the murder, he took a diet pill and fell asleep on the couch. Mcguinness somehow felt this was a smoking gun, and thats what he based his book on. The drug abusing maniac doctor who lost control. It was all based on 1 or two sentences in one diary entry.

Morris talks about how Helena's testimony was given without the jury present, and she wasnt allowed or was too scared to testify. So the jury never heard that someone confessed to the crime multiple times and that multiple witnesses, 7 in fact, corroborated this. Morris says, it wasnt the governments job to determine if Helena was a drug abusing liar. It was their job to present the case, and the jury would decide. His point is that, had the jury heard Helenas confession and statements, and the 7 people who backed up her confessions that Macdonald would be free.

Morris argued that several things did Macdonald in-two of which were his letter to Freddy Kassab where he lied and said he killed one of the intruders. And two, his appearance on Dick Cavett where he spent the entire time talking about how he had been wronged. Morris and others he interviewed suggested had macdonald merely retreated and moved away, and not done these two things, the powers that be might not have done him in

Before I ask, I just wanted to be clear that I read your entire post and do agree with many of the points you've explained. The crime scene was compromised fairly early. There are unexplained fibers. Fatal Vision did have its flaws. All these things I totally and completely agree with.

I'm curious as to what the motivation was--if MacDonald is indeed innocent--to lie about the events of that night if you're already under heavy investigatory fire by personnel that are pretty certain you committed a crime? Wouldn't you want to be as straight-laced and consistent as possible in relaying your story?

And Dick Cavett--I have nothing for that but why.


I think the reason why is that he's guilty, a liar, and arrogant as all hell, and has been from the start. I'm not at all as interested in relaying my own opinion on the matter as much as I am hearing a possible explanation why he would do these things if innocent, though.

Before I ask, I just wanted to be clear that I read your entire post and do agree with many of the points you've explained. The crime scene was compromised fairly early. There are unexplained fibers. Fatal Vision did have its flaws. All these things I totally and completely agree with.

I'm curious as to what the motivation was--if MacDonald is indeed innocent--to lie about the events of that night if you're already under heavy investigatory fire by personnel that are pretty certain you committed a crime? Wouldn't you want to be as straight-laced and consistent as possible in relaying your story?

And Dick Cavett--I have nothing for that but why.


I think the reason why is that he's guilty, a liar, and arrogant as all hell, and has been from the start. I'm not at all as interested in relaying my own opinion on the matter as much as I am hearing a possible explanation why he would do these things if innocent, though.


Morris quotes Macdonald and gives his own take on it as well. Basically, he says what you said. Macdonald is self righteous, proud, macho, cheated on his wife. All that is true, and he lied to Freddy kassab. But all that could be true, AND he could still be innocent. they arent mutually exclusive. No one said macdonald is a choir boy. He admitted his affairs and his faults are numerous. But that doesnt mean he butchered his wife and kids.

Macdonald said he lied to freddy and said he killed the intruder, because freddy and mildred, collettes mom, were constantly calling him. Macdonald had moved on, or had tried to. To start a new life as best he could. And Freddy would constantly call and ask him, "what are we going to do to find the REAL killers?". "We need to find the real killers". Macdonald said it was just insessant and constant. And he realized that he had to get space and get freddy off his back. His made up story was his way of doing that.
Macdonald in the interview for the book, and ive seen him on tv say it as well, says what he did was stupid and a mistake in reguards to this.

The dick cavett thing, as I said, and as the book argues, had macdonald not appeared at all, or spent it all talking about the tragedy of his family being murdered, he wouldnt be in prison now. But, look at it this way, your whole family is murdered in front of you. You saw the killers. You tell MP's about it. And nothing is done. In fact, from day 1, the government claims you are guilty. And they even bring you to trial over it. If he is innocent, his behavior on dick cavett is explainable in this manner, because of the insane situation he had been placed in and what he had witnessed.

As far as him lying about specific events on the night of the murder, Ive never heard that he did. The book never suggests that was the case either. However, Morris does a damn good job of explaining why both Macdonald and Stoekley only seemed to have bits and flashes and partial memories of that night. Morris was interviewing I think some attorney, and the attorney said "have you seen the sound of music the musical?" Morris of course said he had as a young child. And the attorney asked Morris to summarize it. Morris knew of Julie Andrews being in it, and it was about the Nazi's, and a mountaintop and dancing. But he couldnt remember much else. The attorney suggested Morris hadnt seen it. That he was lying. All this was to show, our memories and images of events fade. What we are left with is fragments, little pieces, a piece at a time. In Macdonalds case a woman standing over him with a candle, fighting in the living room. In helenas case-a candle dripping blood, blood on her hands, a rocking horse. The point is none of this suggests either is lying. It just suggests our memories and events arent 100 percent in our minds. Macdonald has been consistent, or as consistent as his memory allowed him to be. Same with Helena and her recollections of that night.

Also, Morris makes the case that I think was pretty self evident. From day 1, from minute 1 of the Mp's arriving on the scene, the narrative was Macdonald killed his wife and kids. This was shown by Mica alerting his superiors of seeing a woman out in the rain that night as he was driving to the scene. When Macdonald mentioned the description of the woman he saw in his house, Mica alerted his superiors of what HE saw on his drive over. Morris could find no evidence, and Mica backed this up, no MP's or higher ups ever tried to send squads out to identify the woman, to question her, to check out her clothing. This is evident in the fact the defense was not given access to case files and evidence. Its evident in the fact that Helena and other witnesses who contradicted and disagreed with the "macdonald did it theory" all were prevented or striken from testifying in front

Morris's overall point that, a trial is about all the evidence. Stuff that supports and stuff that doesnt. Its not the judge or either sides job to strike or disallow stuff. You present ALL the evidence, and let the jury decide. Had the jury heard all the evidence-the black wool fibers, the 22 inch long blond wig fiber, helenas confessions and the 7 witnesses who testified to this, if police had arrested helena and confiscated ALL her clothing and tested it for DNA, the halfway house director who said a man who resembled Greg Mitchell confessed to her and wrote that he did it on a farmhouse wall, would the jury have found macdonald guilty?

This alone is enough to overturn the conviction and get him a new trial-Britt's assertion that Helena was intimidated out of testifying by the prosecution, the fact she was arrested and wasnt read her rights and wasnt given an attorney until a few days later, the prosecutions refusal to grant the defense access to evidence that could possibly free Macdonald, and the Judge's meeting with the defense and discussing what the defence's strategy was and what they knew.

i almost forgot, another great Morris discussion in the book is about the DNA. Because everyone in the family was a different blood type its long been argued you can track the crime scene from room to room. This is usually a Macdonald did it argument. He did it, and you can see he went here, and then here.

Morris brilliantly argues that just because there are different blood types at the scene, that doesnt mean they are the victims. Type O doesnt mean it necessarily was Kristin, or whoever. It could be DNA from intruders. Just because the DNA at the scene is a blood type of one of the victims doesnt mean it IS THE VICTIMS.

Add onto that a compromised and ruined crime scene-where anyone, literally, could walk into the house in the hours after the murders, and did, and you really cant determine WHO WAS WHERE in the crime. People were touching door knobs, sitting on couching, picking up flowerpots. There wasnt any guard preventing anyone from doing this. So, who was to say, that the doorknob wasnt compromised (any fingerprints that existed on it were no useless), or the fingerprints on the flowerpot, or on the Esquire magazine?

None of this was worried about, or followed up on. What does it matter if the government horribly screwed up the crime scene if a man is now locked away for the crime?

Morris points out that all this fit the criteria for reasonable doubt.

How can you admit the crime scene was compromised, and then feel Macdonald is guilty? How is that compatible. The crime scene WAS compromised, so that sort of makes it hard to tell A from B in any of these issues. Thats why this is such a critical and important thing. If it was small potatoes, who cares? But if it prevents us from seeing DNA and fingerprints and making determination

The fact is, Macdonald went to prison in large part because people felt the crime scene that seemingly didnt fit his statements. An MP righting a flowerpot (thus destroying and tampering with evidence, erasing DNA and fingerprints etc...), or even an intruder doing this, just flat out wasnt considered. Thats a real problem.

A person who is sent to prison, in a case where the crime scene is demonstrably and explicitly tampered with, thats not a fair trial. On that alone he should be given a new trial. How can you say anything definitive about Macdonald when everything you base it on is tampered with.

And as I said, a new trial, the jury would hear ALL the evidence. And if he did it, the jury will see that and come to that decision.

another interesting aspect was how at every turn Macdonalds point of view was silenced.

IN 1980 i believe, 60 minutes aired a segment about the case. They interviewed macdonald, mcginnis and helena.

This was around the time of the release of Fatal vision, and mike wallace spent the entire interview convinced Macdonald was guilty. The lead in is "macdonald killed his wife and kids, he says he is innocent." The interview is clearly anti macdonald.

And the helena interview? It never aired. In this interview, she specifically did for 60 minutes, on tape she confessed to the murders.

Its hard to understand why one story aired, and the other didnt. Or one half of a story aired.

Ive never really understood the prosecutions fears of helena. I think the fears were based on the fact she presented a wildly different scenario than the one they peddled.

How can you admit the crime scene was compromised, and then feel Macdonald is guilty? How is that compatible. The crime scene WAS compromised, so that sort of makes it hard to tell A from B in any of these issues. Thats why this is such a critical and important thing. If it was small potatoes, who cares? But if it prevents us from seeing DNA and fingerprints and making determination

The fact is, Macdonald went to prison in large part because people felt the crime scene that seemingly didnt fit his statements. An MP righting a flowerpot (thus destroying and tampering with evidence, erasing DNA and fingerprints etc...), or even an intruder doing this, just flat out wasnt considered. Thats a real problem.

A person who is sent to prison, in a case where the crime scene is demonstrably and explicitly tampered with, thats not a fair trial. On that alone he should be given a new trial. How can you say anything definitive about Macdonald when everything you base it on is tampered with.

And as I said, a new trial, the jury would hear ALL the evidence. And if he did it, the jury will see that and come to that decision.

I think everyone is in agreement that the crime scene was compromised. So the MP's on the scene were inexperienced and had probably never witnessed the brutal slayings of a young mother and her two young children. No wonder the crime scene was compromised! That has little bearing on the innocence of MacDonald. Everything he said and did after the murders is indicative that he is guilty and is where he belongs. His supporters can constantly rehash the same tired arguments about Helena Stoeckely (who was cleared by DNA testing), the crime scene, etc. He was not convicted because of the crime scene. He was convicted because he did it. Plain and simple.

I think everyone is in agreement that the crime scene was compromised. So the MP's on the scene were inexperienced and had probably never witnessed the brutal slayings of a young mother and her two young children. No wonder the crime scene was compromised! That has little bearing on the innocence of MacDonald. Everything he said and did after the murders is indicative that he is guilty and is where he belongs. His supporters can constantly rehash the same tired arguments about Helena Stoeckely (who was cleared by DNA testing), the crime scene, etc. He was not convicted because of the crime scene. He was convicted because he did it. Plain and simple.


Its so interesting people feel so strongly he did it. Because I certainly wasnt there when the crimes were committed. Do you have something to tell is The Cars?

Of course a compromised crime scene effects whether Macdonald is able to clear himself or not. As I keep saying, there was DNA and fingerprints everywhere. And the MPs and original investigators who arrived on scene screwed it up by touching everything. The flowerpot is the perfect example. It very well may have had fingerprints on it, fingerprints of either macdonald or of an intruder, but because an MP picked it up, the fingerprints are damaged or now non existant. That had major consequences. It isnt just inexperienced MP's who screwed up, made a little booboo. Their screwups had major consequences, the largest of which is the contamination of a crime scene. Anyone was allowed to walk in and out of the house in the hours after the murder. Blood was tracked back and forth. Someone sat on a couch. The flowerpot picked up. Any DNA, or fingerprints as a result, and this is forensic science 101 here folks, any DNA that existed, as a result is now contaminated and not readable.

If some MP is sitting on a couch in the living room that also causes major problems. Or MP's walking around the house, stepping in blood, and traipsing around the house. Any DNA and ability to trace what happened is now lost.

As I said, either Macdonald is guilty or not guilty. But you cant honestly tell me all the evidence was presented in the case. The same old tired arguments about Helena keep coming up, largely because she confessed multiple times-the book makes the point that 7 witnesses would have testified at trial that she had confessed to them. Fiber similar to what she was wearing and not matching any clothes in the Macdonald house was found on the murder weapon. Mica saw someone who fit her description near the Macdonald house. Helena should have been allowed to testify in front of a jury.

If macdonalds guilty, that will shine through all the evidence.

The fact is people who are anti Macdonald dont want to hear all the evidence. Helena's lying. The 7 people who she confessed to are lying. The blond wig fiber isnt from helena its from a doll. Macdonald was a drug user and went on a rampage. Britt is lying. Beasley is lying. Helenas mom is lying.

How was she cleared by DNA? How do you know the blood stains in the house were Kristen and Kim and Collette as opposed to intruders with the same blood types. As I said, just because Collette had a certain blood type and it was found in the house, doesnt mean thats she was the ONLY source of it, or that there was ONLY one person with that blood type bleeding. You cant track the crime scene in the house, you just cant.

its hard to come up with a determination about Jeffreys guilt or innocence precisely because of how the MP's and original investigators totally screwed up the crime scene and investigation. MP's picking up the telephone with bare hands. It was more than inexperience, that sort of stuff is frankly illegal. And it screws up the crime scene enough so you really cant tell what is what. The fact is, the MP picking up the phone with his bare hands caused fingerprints that existed on the phone, from Macdonald or other people to be destroyed.

The great example of this is the Esquire magazine, one of the main reasons why he is in prison. Dusted for fingerprints, they found not Macdonalds or anyone elses fingerprints BUT INVESTIGATORS fingerprints.

Thats why it matters and thats why you cant come to a conclusion about the case.

How can you admit the crime scene was compromised, and then feel Macdonald is guilty? How is that compatible. The crime scene WAS compromised, so that sort of makes it hard to tell A from B in any of these issues.

Probably for similar reasons that the pro-MacDonald party hangs on Helena Stoeckley's every word despite the fact that she was a heroin addict who changed her story and recanted multiple times, sometimes even denying she remembered anything about that night at all.

Just as it's possible that a compromised mind could be relaying the truth, it's possible that a compromised crime scene can reveal the truth as well. I'm in agreement with Cars. MacDonald's actions before the crime, his ridiculous faked-up injuries, his story, the manner in which he murdered his family, and his actions after the crime were enough.

The fact is people who are anti Macdonald dont want to hear all the evidence. Helena's lying. The 7 people who she confessed to are lying. The blond wig fiber isnt from helena its from a doll. Macdonald was a drug user and went on a rampage. Britt is lying. Beasley is lying. Helenas mom is lying.

We hear it. We just think most of it is irrelevant.

Helena's testimony is unreliable. Her seven confessors don't do anything to alter the truth of her statements; they can only relay what she told them. The blond fiber could've come from anywhere just as easily as from a drug-addled woman wearing it under a floppy hat during a murder, and God only knows if that's even a wig fiber. Britt can only relay what he was told, which again doesn't alter the truth of the statements. Same with Beasley. Same with Stoeckley's mother.

For the record, I don't think MacDonald was a drug user, and I think I can safely say at least those of us on this board who think MacDonald is guilty don't think so either. I think he wanted to get rid of his family, and THAT'S what set him on a rampage.

Macdonald said he lied to freddy and said he killed the intruder, because freddy and mildred, collettes mom, were constantly calling him. Macdonald had moved on, or had tried to. To start a new life as best he could. And Freddy would constantly call and ask him, "what are we going to do to find the REAL killers?". "We need to find the real killers". Macdonald said it was just insessant and constant. And he realized that he had to get space and get freddy off his back. His made up story was his way of doing that.
Macdonald in the interview for the book, and ive seen him on tv say it as well, says what he did was stupid and a mistake in reguards to this.

I suppose a "Please stop calling me incessantly" wouldn't be sufficient?

As far as him lying about specific events on the night of the murder, Ive never heard that he did. The book never suggests that was the case either. However, Morris does a damn good job of explaining why both Macdonald and Stoekley only seemed to have bits and flashes and partial memories of that night. Morris was interviewing I think some attorney, and the attorney said "have you seen the sound of music the musical?" Morris of course said he had as a young child. And the attorney asked Morris to summarize it. Morris knew of Julie Andrews being in it, and it was about the Nazi's, and a mountaintop and dancing. But he couldnt remember much else. The attorney suggested Morris hadnt seen it. That he was lying. All this was to show, our memories and images of events fade. What we are left with is fragments, little pieces, a piece at a time. In Macdonalds case a woman standing over him with a candle, fighting in the living room. In helenas case-a candle dripping blood, blood on her hands, a rocking horse. The point is none of this suggests either is lying. It just suggests our memories and events arent 100 percent in our minds. Macdonald has been consistent, or as consistent as his memory allowed him to be. Same with Helena and her recollections of that night.

Remembering the plot of a Disney film and recollecting the night you were attacked in your living room by five violent hippies who also murdered your entire family seems a little apples-and-oranges to me.


Morris's overall point that, a trial is about all the evidence. Stuff that supports and stuff that doesnt. Its not the judge or either sides job to strike or disallow stuff. You present ALL the evidence, and let the jury decide. Had the jury heard all the evidence-the black wool fibers, the 22 inch long blond wig fiber, helenas confessions and the 7 witnesses who testified to this, if police had arrested helena and confiscated ALL her clothing and tested it for DNA, the halfway house director who said a man who resembled Greg Mitchell confessed to her and wrote that he did it on a farmhouse wall, would the jury have found macdonald guilty?

Actually, it IS the court's role to admit exhibits into evidence, despite what Mr. Morris may personally feel. Attornies may present exhibits, but the court doesn't have to admit those exhibits into evidence. That's our system. If an attorney chooses not to present a particular piece of evidence, unfortunately, that's his or her error. None of this process is under the table. It's all public. I understand one cannot utilize exhibits not admitted into evidence in making his or her conclusion. But if there was any doubt, that juror can conclude in a way that reflects that doubt.

We hear it. We just think most of it is irrelevant.

Helena's testimony is unreliable. Her seven confessors don't do anything to alter the truth of her statements; they can only relay what she told them. The blond fiber could've come from anywhere just as easily as from a drug-addled woman wearing it under a floppy hat during a murder, and God only knows if that's even a wig fiber. Britt can only relay what he was told, which again doesn't alter the truth of the statements. Same with Beasley. Same with Stoeckley's mother.

For the record, I don't think MacDonald was a drug user, and I think I can safely say at least those of us on this board who think MacDonald is guilty don't think so either. I think he wanted to get rid of his family, and THAT'S what set him on a rampage.

But you werent on the jury. The "evidence" that sent macdonald to prison was an Esquire magazine about satanism and the manson murders. Which was absurd. Esquire had a subscription total of what back in 1969-70? 100,000? How many other people owned copies of the same magazine? He was put in prison for a crime scene based on DNA (which I pointed out is meaningless, you cant track the events of the murder based on what blood is in each room, because of course each family member isnt the only person with that type blood, and nor is macdonald the only person with his type blood). He was put in prison because of a supposedly staged crime scene (how could their be a life or death struggle and valentines day cards still be upright), as I just pointed out the crime scene was ruined by MP's and orginal investigators so its pointless to talk about a staged crime scene. He was also put into prison because the jury was convinced he was a drug user, and was doped up on Eskatril and butchered his family as a result of this fugue state. Well as I said above, this drug theory is based on a few diary entries from macdonald that mention he took some diet pills during dinner that night. No mention that he flipped out, or that he had a bad reaction. Just that he fell asleep on the couch after dinner.

So in that above paragraph ive dismantled the 4 or 5 reasons the jury gave for convicting Macdonald.

Macdonald stepped out on his wife, he's a boastful, prideful guy, and he carried himself that way. But none of that adds up or even indicates he murdered his family.

And a hazy recollection of the events that night? Really, thats what has you convinced he did it? Really?



What i mean to say is, its all fine to say you feel the way you do, that you dont think he's a drug user. But the fact of the matter is, that is what made the jury say "guilty".

His story really hasnt changed. He's maintained for 40 years, he was mauled and beaten by 4 hippies.

My main point is helena was undesputedly prevented from giving her statements to a jury. If you feel she's unreliable, thats within your right. But not allowing her to

And its damn self evident. We dont need to beat around the bush here. Had the jury heard helenas statements, merely heard it, heard that Britt witnessed the prosecution threatening Helena and discouraging her from testifying, heard that the "wig fiber" was NOT doll hair, and heard, merely heard the 7 witnesses who said Helena told them she did it, including helenas mother, I think you know its more than likely the case would have been overtuned and macdonald would be free.

All evidence is worth a hearing. And thats not just macdonald is a killer evidence, thats ALL evidence, including testimony from people who say otherwise and say someone else actually confessed, multiple times. If Helena was unreliable, and the 7 witnesses to her confession, were unreliable, well so be it, but its not in your jurisdiction meg, nor the judges's, or prosectors to prevent the evidence from being HEARD.

And I agree the blond fiber could have come from anywhere. But it didnt come from the girls dolls. And it didnt belong to a member of the Macdonald family.

Probably for similar reasons that the pro-MacDonald party hangs on Helena Stoeckley's every word despite the fact that she was a heroin addict who changed her story and recanted multiple times, sometimes even denying she remembered anything about that night at all.

Just as it's possible that a compromised mind could be relaying the truth, it's possible that a compromised crime scene can reveal the truth as well. I'm in agreement with Cars. MacDonald's actions before the crime, his ridiculous faked-up injuries, his story, the manner in which he murdered his family, and his actions after the crime were enough.


You cant have it both ways though. You cant sit here and say macdonald is a egomaniac, liar, jerk, and drug user who butchered his family, and we are going to take everything that he said and did and link him to the crime. And then come back and say, we have someone who confessed multiple times, to police, to aides, to friends, to many people including her own mother, and her boyfriend admitted to the crime as well, but oh, we wont listen to them because they are drug using liars.

Thats not how things work my friend.

As far as his ridiculous faked up injuries, i believe he was injured 26 places on his body, and that the one to his lung was so close to being lethal, that had it been an milimeter either way, he would have been killed. Plus, theres also the fact, having a collapsed lung ISNT a MINOR injury.

Pro macdonald people hang on Helenas every word because she confessed to the crime multiple times, fit the description mica and macdonald gave, knew about the broken hobby horse even though it wasnt printed in the paper or visible from the newspaper picture, and because her boyfriend admitted to the crime as well. Not to mention the fact the crew she hung around with fit the description of the 4 people macdonald saw. Multiple witnesses in addition to Mica, saw Helena and her crew that night, out and about either prior to or after the murder took place.

also while we are on the topic of liars, antimacdonald folks have no problem taking the word of a liar or fraud, as long as it backs up their main theory-that macdonald killed his wife and family.

Joe Mcginnis is a fraud and liar. Proven one at that. His main thesis of drug use by macdonald is one pulled out of pretty much thin air and has little basis in real facts. Yes macdonald took diet pills, but there is no reason to think he took them and went psychotic. Mcginnis and his book and movie are proven embellishments of facts. Screenwriters took greta liberty with the truth. And Mcginnis was pressured by his publisher and the tv network to make the story better or more interesting.

Lets not pretend those who are suggesting that macdonald is guilty are basing it on pure facts though. Because they arent.

Satanism, Ekatris, and a puffed up ego dont equal murder of family

All evidence is worth a hearing. And thats not just macdonald is a killer evidence, thats ALL evidence, including testimony from people who say otherwise and say someone else actually confessed, multiple times. If Helena was unreliable, and the 7 witnesses to her confession, were unreliable, well so be it, but its not in your jurisdiction meg, nor the judges's, or prosectors to prevent the evidence from being HEARD.

I'm sorry. That isn't the way it works in our justice system. Otherwise, one's right to a fair and speedy trial would be jeopardized.

Evidence does not become evidence until it has been admitted. I shudder to think of a justice system that allows all exhibits to be admitted as evidence, without any regard to their reliability or relevance.

You cant have it both ways though. You cant sit here and say macdonald is a egomaniac, liar, jerk, and drug user who butchered his family, and we are going to take everything that he said and did and link him to the crime. And then come back and say, we have someone who confessed multiple times, to police, to aides, to friends, to many people including her own mother, and her boyfriend admitted to the crime as well, but oh, we wont listen to them because they are drug using liars.

Thats not how things work my friend.

That is commentary about the man's character. Helena Stoeckley had a heroin addiction, which does have a definite physiological effect on the brain. It speaks nothing of her moral character. It's a medical condition that drastically alters her memory, reasoning, and overall mental functionality. And that is why she is unreliable.

As far as his ridiculous faked up injuries, i believe he was injured 26 places on his body, and that the one to his lung was so close to being lethal, that had it been an milimeter either way, he would have been killed. Plus, theres also the fact, having a collapsed lung ISNT a MINOR injury.

Homeboy graduated medical school. He can certainly inflict injuries on himself that he knows won't immediately kill him, and that he himself knows how to treat. Why leave the only adult male in the house alive but kill a woman and two children? It makes no sense.

And a hazy recollection of the events that night? Really, thats what has you convinced he did it? Really?

Nope. I've rehashed a number of times multiple reasons why I think he's guilty here. I just think an argument based on not being able to clearly remember The Sound of Music and comparing it to not being able to recall an attack and three murders is more than a little silly.

Moreover, the doctor would have almost certainly have experienced greatly heightened sensory perception during the event. He'd likely remember it more clearly than he's historically relayed.

But you werent on the jury. The "evidence" that sent macdonald to prison was an Esquire magazine about satanism and the manson murders. Which was absurd. Esquire had a subscription total of what back in 1969-70? 100,000? How many other people owned copies of the same magazine?

There was also blood smears on the tops of the pages in Esquire magazine. Now what's more plausible here...after murdering an entire family, one of these "hippe cult members" decides to plop down and skim through a magazine or that MacDonald himself after killing his wife and kids decides to skim through the magazine to help him create a fake account of the attacks based off of a Charles Manson article he noticed? I don't see how the fact that Esquire was a popular magazine back in the 70's has any relevance to MacDonald's innocence.

He was put in prison for a crime scene based on DNA (which I pointed out is meaningless, you cant track the events of the murder based on what blood is in each room, because of course each family member isnt the only person with that type blood, and nor is macdonald the only person with his type blood).

I don't understand this point at all. Are you saying that in this violent struggle with 4+ intruders one member of the MacDonald family could have inflicted a wound to draw blood from an intruder, but then leave absolutely nothing else (hair, fibers, skin, piece of clothing, etc.) to prove that they were ever there? That's absurd.

He was put in prison because of a supposedly staged crime scene (how could their be a life or death struggle and valentines day cards still be upright), as I just pointed out the crime scene was ruined by MP's and orginal investigators so its pointless to talk about a staged crime scene.

We've talked about the crime scene. It's alleged to have been "compromised" because an MP stood a flower pot up. Yep that's it. That's the only thing the pro-MacDonald people can point to when they say the scene was "compromised". Why not discuss the fact that greeting cards and dinnerware were left undisturbed where MacDonald said he was fighting for his life against three people?

He was also put into prison because the jury was convinced he was a drug user, and was doped up on Eskatril and butchered his family as a result of this fugue state.

That's simply not true. McGinnis stated several times in "Fatal Vision" that the diet pill theory was his and his alone and that it was not based on any scientific evidence. He even recanted the theory in an updated version of "Fatal Vision" that I have. The jury did not convict him because they thought he was a drug user. They convicted him because of his attitude on the stand and because of the fact that he did it. For example, when Helena Stoeckely was testifying, MacDonald sat there stoic and statue like the entire time. This is the woman that MacDonald maintains was there was his wife and two young children were murdered, who was sitting mere yards away from him, and that's his reaction!?

And a hazy recollection of the events that night? Really, thats what has you convinced he did it? Really?

No the fact that his wife and two children were stabbed repeatedly with an ice pick and hit over their heads with a two by four whereas he only had one puncture wound from an ice pick is what convinced me he did it.

His story really hasnt changed. He's maintained for 40 years, he was mauled and beaten by 4 hippies.

He has to stick to his story because he continues to maintain his innocence. He's probably convinced himself that he didn't do it. Most sociopaths do this.

My main point is helena was undesputedly prevented from giving her statements to a jury. If you feel she's unreliable, thats within your right.

She did testify at MacDonald's trial. She testified that she was so hopped up on drugs on the night of the murders and that she was never once in the MacDonald house before, during, or after the murders. She had the perfect opportunity to "set the record straight" and to tell the "truth" at his trial, but she testified before a jury that she had nothing to do with the murders and did not implicate anyone else. What's that tell you?

Its so interesting people feel so strongly he did it. Because I certainly wasnt there when the crimes were committed. Do you have something to tell is The Cars?

Yes. He's guilty and where he belongs. The end.

Multiple witnesses in addition to Mica, saw Helena and her crew that night, out and about either prior to or after the murder took place.

And this is exactly why I think Stoeckley began to have "memories" of being there. I think she was so hopped up on drugs that night she couldn't remember anything. Then you have witnesses (well I've only actually known of one, MP Mica, who simply said he saw a woman with nice legs standing alone) who remember seeing a woman wearing a blonde wig walking around near the MacDonald household. All this talk of the blonde woman and the composite drawings of MacDonald's attackers made Stoeckley (who was a heroin addict, mind you) paranoid into thinking, "well I don't remember where I was that night, maybe I was one of the intruders". The fact that she was a regular heroin user didn't help matters much either. That's why I think she had all of these false confessions. In the 80's, when she was allegedly off of heroin, she did state that she was paid to do that interview (with Ted Gunderson) where she talks about the cult and the murders. She also said she was coached into lying and just making up the cult right on the spot.

Here's a link to an FBI report on Stoeckley that goes into more detail:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/fbi-stoeckley_1979-08-14.html

No the fact that his wife and two children were stabbed repeatedly with an ice pick and hit over their heads with a two by four whereas he only had one puncture wound from an ice pick is what convinced me he did it.


I'll add to that. MacDonald was a practicing physician working not only for the U.S. Army but additionally moonlighting at Cape Fear Valley. One rationally assumes he would be "in the practice", that in the event of a medical emergency he would be able to follow basic procedure for that particular emergency. He didn't.

MacDonald claims he discovered a knife stuck in Colette's chest and that he removed it and began mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He fails to check Colette's airway knowing she has a stab wound to the chest (in which blood might be clogging her airway) and instead immediately jerks out this knife.

Even someone who's graduated a basic first aid course knows not to remove a stabbing object. It's left in to prevent accelerating blood loss. It's reasonable to assume a practicing physician would be able to do the things you don't even have to be any kind of certified first responder to know to do.



And yeah, I've never been moved by those injuries, because it's obvious that the one who inflicted them takes everyone to be either ignorant or a total moron. One puncture wound within the seventh intercostal space resulting in a tiny pneumothorax?! Twenty-two percent (or 40%, depending on which particular health care worker or medical professional you choose to follow in the Article 32 or '79 trial) doesn't even require a needle decompression in most cases, and is about 30% (or 10%) under what's considered a risk for developing respiratory failure. And as testified numerous times, the chances of developing tension pneumothorax (which WILL kill you if left untreated) from a small collapse after being treated with a chest tube is pretty much zip. How convenient. :rolleyes:

ETA: I'm not even sure if he even really meant to collapse his lung, now that I think about. I suppose as Bob Ross once said, we don't make mistakes, we just have happy accidents. :rolleyes:

http://uuuw.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/chest-anatomy.jpg

I'll leave this here. Check out the (right) sixth and seventh intercostal spaces and the proximity of the lungs. There's no way around it. You have to stab at an angle upwards to puncture a lung if you're going to do so within those intercostal spaces.

I've always found it interesting that palpating ribs and intercostal space is an extremely common tool used by medical professionals--like say, doctors--to determine the location of organs in the thoracic cavity.

There was also blood smears on the tops of the pages in Esquire magazine. Now what's more plausible here...after murdering an entire family, one of these "hippe cult members" decides to plop down and skim through a magazine or that MacDonald himself after killing his wife and kids decides to skim through the magazine to help him create a fake account of the attacks based off of a Charles Manson article he noticed? I don't see how the fact that Esquire was a popular magazine back in the 70's has any relevance to MacDonald's innocence.



I don't understand this point at all. Are you saying that in this violent struggle with 4+ intruders one member of the MacDonald family could have inflicted a wound to draw blood from an intruder, but then leave absolutely nothing else (hair, fibers, skin, piece of clothing, etc.) to prove that they were ever there? That's absurd.



We've talked about the crime scene. It's alleged to have been "compromised" because an MP stood a flower pot up. Yep that's it. That's the only thing the pro-MacDonald people can point to when they say the scene was "compromised". Why not discuss the fact that greeting cards and dinnerware were left undisturbed where MacDonald said he was fighting for his life against three people?



That's simply not true. McGinnis stated several times in "Fatal Vision" that the diet pill theory was his and his alone and that it was not based on any scientific evidence. He even recanted the theory in an updated version of "Fatal Vision" that I have. The jury did not convict him because they thought he was a drug user. They convicted him because of his attitude on the stand and because of the fact that he did it. For example, when Helena Stoeckely was testifying, MacDonald sat there stoic and statue like the entire time. This is the woman that MacDonald maintains was there was his wife and two young children were murdered, who was sitting mere yards away from him, and that's his reaction!?



No the fact that his wife and two children were stabbed repeatedly with an ice pick and hit over their heads with a two by four whereas he only had one puncture wound from an ice pick is what convinced me he did it.



He has to stick to his story because he continues to maintain his innocence. He's probably convinced himself that he didn't do it. Most sociopaths do this.



She did testify at MacDonald's trial. She testified that she was so hopped up on drugs on the night of the murders and that she was never once in the MacDonald house before, during, or after the murders. She had the perfect opportunity to "set the record straight" and to tell the "truth" at his trial, but she testified before a jury that she had nothing to do with the murders and did not implicate anyone else. What's that tell you?



Yes. He's guilty and where he belongs. The end.

I'd say its a bit more than an upturned flower pot that has people calling foul on the crime scene. The MP's sitting on the couch. An unrestricted crime scene where anyone could walk in and out, and did, tracking dna and blood all through the house. One investigator actually cut out a piece of the carpet. Touching evidence without gloves, I believe one MP picked up the icepick with his bare hands. The standing up of a flower pot is significant and disturbing, but lets be clear, its not a single incident, its the totality of the crime scene. Its silly to even debate it. The crime scene was compromised. It just was.

Helena never testified in front of the jury. Thats plain wrong. She testified for the judge. The jury wasnt present. The jury never heard her testimony, nor the 7 people who I mentioned who were going to also testify that they heard her confess. That evidence and testimony wasnt presented because she didnt testify in front of the jury. Thats why the Britt statement is so important. If she had testified in front of the jury, what would be the importance of Britts statement. She didnt testify, plain and simple.

Jeffrey had 23 wounds as a result of the attacks. The doctor who treated him for his injuries testified that the lung wound was so close to his heart that not even a cardiac surgeon could know exactly where to injure oneself without hitting the pericardium, and if he hit that he would die. Once again, a collapsed lung is not a minor injury.

I think its silly to sit here and not acknowledge the power and importance that the miniseries and book Fatal Vision had on the general public, and on jurors as well. Its easily the most read book on the case, and the miniseries was one of the most watched of all time. If people have feelings on the case, its most likely seen through Mcginnis' eyes as a result.

My point about the Esquire magazine, is that its irrelavant. If he did kill his family it wasnt because he read about it in a magazine. Thats like those idiots who claim heavy metal bands cause people to commit suicide. its just complete cluelessness on the part of whoever says those things, and it just shows complete ignorance of basic facts. A good majority of that issue of Esquire was read for the jury. Included are discussions about satanism, and witchcraft, the devil, drug use. I just dont see the relevance. Its like someone in the aftermath of a school shooting talking about that they found Black Sabbath albums in the shooters possession. Its meaningless and flat out ignorant. Macdonald indeed could have read that magazine that day. And so too, could have the intruders. Thats the problem with such a widely read and available magazine. Macdonald wasnt the only person in the world who owned that copy.


Also my point about the DNA, is pretty basic forensic 101 really. The argument by the prosecution was that each member of the macdonald family had a different blood type. So the proecution laid out their theory, macdonald did this, went here, and then here, and kristen was here, etc.. The problem with that is that it ignores the fact that yes Collete had type A blood, and Kim was AB. But finding AB blood at the crime scene doesnt automatically mean it was Kristen's blood. Thats a major oversight by the prosecution. They maintained and overlooked the fact that those types of blood could have come from anyone with that blood type. Finding O blood doesnt mean you have found Kims blood. It just means you've found O blood. Secondly, the investigators found two types of fibers on the club, one was purple cotton, matching the pajamas of Jeff. And also found black wool fibers, which were not traced back to anything in the house. These same black wool fibers were also found in collettes mouth. And of course you have the 3 blond wig fibers, that were 22-24 inches long. As I said, doll makers confirmed doll hair wasnt made that long at the time, and the also confirmed that its nearly impossible for anyone to comb the doll and have the hair come out in one huge long 22-24 inch strand like that. the dolls hair just isnt made like that.

And this is exactly why I think Stoeckley began to have "memories" of being there. I think she was so hopped up on drugs that night she couldn't remember anything. Then you have witnesses (well I've only actually known of one, MP Mica, who simply said he saw a woman with nice legs standing alone) who remember seeing a woman wearing a blonde wig walking around near the MacDonald household. All this talk of the blonde woman and the composite drawings of MacDonald's attackers made Stoeckley (who was a heroin addict, mind you) paranoid into thinking, "well I don't remember where I was that night, maybe I was one of the intruders". The fact that she was a regular heroin user didn't help matters much either. That's why I think she had all of these false confessions. In the 80's, when she was allegedly off of heroin, she did state that she was paid to do that interview (with Ted Gunderson) where she talks about the cult and the murders. She also said she was coached into lying and just making up the cult right on the spot.

Here's a link to an FBI report on Stoeckley that goes into more detail:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/fbi-stoeckley_1979-08-14.html

How about the one to her mom before Helena died? And i hate to be the bearer of shocking news folks, but drug users, do...oh the horror...they do sometimes kill people. And sometimes they confess as well.

Theres no question though that both sides, pro jeff and antijeff pulled her and tried to use her to their advantadge. Both sides did. That said, I wonder what Blackburn and others were afraid of by her and her friends testifying? As I said before, its not the prosecution or the defenses job to weigh the merit of evidence. thats solely the jury's job. The prosecution felt she was a liar and drug user and delusional. But its not their concern really.

The purpose of a trial is for all evidence to be weighed by the jury. And whether or not you believe Helena, her multiple confessions, the many people who saw her and her friends that night, the many people who heard her confessions, thats all evidence. And if its all bunk, then thats the jury's task, to sort it out, to chuck it out or to affirm it. But its certainly doesnt get us anywhere when the evidence is just not presented at all.

Ive never really understood the problem with allowing the testimony about Greg Mitchells confession, Helenas multiple confessions, the people who saw her that night, helenas knowledge of the hobby horse. Whats the harm in allowing that? You allow it and the jury decides.

Helena never testified in front of the jury. Thats plain wrong. She testified for the judge. The jury wasnt present. The jury never heard her testimony, nor the 7 people who I mentioned who were going to also testify that they heard her confess.

A judge is always the vetting body for allowing exhibits into evidence, not the jury.

Jeffrey had 23 wounds as a result of the attacks. The doctor who treated him for his injuries testified that the lung wound was so close to his heart that not even a cardiac surgeon could know exactly where to injure oneself without hitting the pericardium, and if he hit that he would die. Once again, a collapsed lung is not a minor injury.

A tension pneumothorax is indeed a severe injury. MacDonald had either a 22% or 40% (again, according to which doctor is testifying) pneumothorax, which is below the 50% standard, and which is not at high risk for developing into tension pneumothorax. He did not have an injury that put him at an immediate fatal risk. A small, typical pneumothorax will not kill you if monitored and treated appropriately, and I reckon he knew that.

There are multiple physicians who testified he could have easily inflicted those injuries on himself, and that he would certainly be skilled enough to do so.

Ive never really understood the problem with allowing the testimony about Greg Mitchells confession, Helenas multiple confessions, the people who saw her that night, helenas knowledge of the hobby horse. Whats the harm in allowing that? You allow it and the jury decides.

Both Stoeckley and Mitchell are dead. Any testimony regarding "confessions" would be hearsay evidence that would most likely be picked apart by a good prosecutor, if it was even allowed to be testified to in court. Helena was alive during MacDonald's trial and was deemed uneccessary to testify since she denied, under oath, ever being in the MacDonald house in front of the judge.

Its silly to even debate it. The crime scene was compromised. It just was.

I'm not debating it. It has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Helena never testified in front of the jury. Thats plain wrong. She testified for the judge. The jury wasnt present. The jury never heard her testimony, nor the 7 people who I mentioned who were going to also testify that they heard her confess. That evidence and testimony wasnt presented because she didnt testify in front of the jury. Thats why the Britt statement is so important. If she had testified in front of the jury, what would be the importance of Britts statement. She didnt testify, plain and simple.

She still testified before the judge, who dismissed her from testifying before the jury because she denied being in the MacDonald house and could contribute nothing to support the claim that he was innocent. Had the jury been in the courtroom, they would have heard the same thing the judge did. She denied being there.

Jeffrey had 23 wounds as a result of the attacks. The doctor who treated him for his injuries testified that the lung wound was so close to his heart that not even a cardiac surgeon could know exactly where to injure oneself without hitting the pericardium, and if he hit that he would die. Once again, a collapsed lung is not a minor injury.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/woundsautopsy.html

Compare the wounds MacDonald recevied to the wounds of his wife and daughters (warning, the link contains pictures of very graphic autopsy photos).

I think its silly to sit here and not acknowledge the power and importance that the miniseries and book Fatal Vision had on the general public, and on jurors as well. Its easily the most read book on the case, and the miniseries was one of the most watched of all time. If people have feelings on the case, its most likely seen through Mcginnis' eyes as a result.

MacDonald's trial began on July 16th, 1979. "Fatal Vision" was released in the spring of 1983, almost four years after he was convicted. "Fatal Vision" had no impact on the jurors, since it had yet to be written.

My point about the Esquire magazine, is that its irrelavant. If he did kill his family it wasnt because he read about it in a magazine. Thats like those idiots who claim heavy metal bands cause people to commit suicide. its just complete cluelessness on the part of whoever says those things, and it just shows complete ignorance of basic facts. A good majority of that issue of Esquire was read for the jury. Included are discussions about satanism, and witchcraft, the devil, drug use. I just dont see the relevance. Its like someone in the aftermath of a school shooting talking about that they found Black Sabbath albums in the shooters possession. Its meaningless and flat out ignorant. Macdonald indeed could have read that magazine that day. And so too, could have the intruders. Thats the problem with such a widely read and available magazine. Macdonald wasnt the only person in the world who owned that copy.

MacDonald did not kill his family because he read about the Manson murders. He killed them because he's a sociopath, and then used the fake Manson-like hippie intruder story to hopefully coverup his crimes. You honestly think one of the intruders thought it was more important to bring an Esquire magazine to the MacDonald residence as opposed to something like, say, an actual weapon?


Also my point about the DNA, is pretty basic forensic 101 really. The argument by the prosecution was that each member of the macdonald family had a different blood type. So the proecution laid out their theory, macdonald did this, went here, and then here, and kristen was here, etc.. The problem with that is that it ignores the fact that yes Collete had type A blood, and Kim was AB. But finding AB blood at the crime scene doesnt automatically mean it was Kristen's blood. Thats a major oversight by the prosecution. They maintained and overlooked the fact that those types of blood could have come from anyone with that blood type. Finding O blood doesnt mean you have found Kims blood. It just means you've found O blood. Secondly, the investigators found two types of fibers on the club, one was purple cotton, matching the pajamas of Jeff. And also found black wool fibers, which were not traced back to anything in the house. These same black wool fibers were also found in collettes mouth. And of course you have the 3 blond wig fibers, that were 22-24 inches long. As I said, doll makers confirmed doll hair wasnt made that long at the time, and the also confirmed that its nearly impossible for anyone to comb the doll and have the hair come out in one huge long 22-24 inch strand like that. the dolls hair just isnt made like that.

I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't continue to point to a "compromised crime scene", and then use unknown black wool fibers, blood evidence, and unknown blonde fibers as evidence in support of MacDonald's innocence. What we can use is the fact that Colette MacDonald had Jeffrey MacDonald's "limb hair" stuck to her left palm. This is the same hair that MacDonald and his supporters insisted was yanked out of the head of one of the intruders as they were killing Colette. Turns out, it was his own. None of the hairs found at the crime scene matched Stoeckely or Mitchell.

Here's more on the 2006 DNA test results:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gov_dna_2006-03-15.html

EDIT: As for his supporters continuing to use the "23-26 wounds" argument, here's a copy of the report taken by the doctor who tended to him at the hospital on the night of the murders.

http://wildernessoferror-data.s3.amazonaws.com/19700302%20-%20Dr%20Severt%20Jacobson,%20report%20on%20MacDonald%20in%20hospital.pdf

This was taken directly from the official "A Wilderness of Error" website. The doctor notes a bruise to the forehead, 2 superficial lacerations, 4 to 5 "small marks" near MacDonal'd left nipple, and the wound to his chest that caused the collapsed lung.

Both Stoeckley and Mitchell are dead. Any testimony regarding "confessions" would be hearsay evidence that would most likely be picked apart by a good prosecutor, if it was even allowed to be testified to in court. Helena was alive during MacDonald's trial and was deemed uneccessary to testify since she denied, under oath, ever being in the MacDonald house in front of the judge.



I'm not debating it. It has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.



She still testified before the judge, who dismissed her from testifying before the jury because she denied being in the MacDonald house and could contribute nothing to support the claim that he was innocent. Had the jury been in the courtroom, they would have heard the same thing the judge did. She denied being there.



http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/woundsautopsy.html

Compare the wounds MacDonald recevied to the wounds of his wife and daughters (warning, the link contains pictures of very graphic autopsy photos).



MacDonald's trial began on July 16th, 1979. "Fatal Vision" was released in the spring of 1983, almost four years after he was convicted. "Fatal Vision" had no impact on the jurors, since it had yet to be written.



MacDonald did not kill his family because he read about the Manson murders. He killed them because he's a sociopath, and then used the fake Manson-like hippie intruder story to hopefully coverup his crimes. You honestly think one of the intruders thought it was more important to bring an Esquire magazine to the MacDonald residence as opposed to something like, say, an actual weapon?



I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't continue to point to a "compromised crime scene", and then use unknown black wool fibers, blood evidence, and unknown blonde fibers as evidence in support of MacDonald's innocence. What we can use is the fact that Colette MacDonald had Jeffrey MacDonald's "limb hair" stuck to her left palm. This is the same hair that MacDonald and his supporters insisted was yanked out of the head of one of the intruders as they were killing Colette. Turns out, it was his own. None of the hairs found at the crime scene matched Stoeckely or Mitchell.

Here's more on the 2006 DNA test results:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gov_dna_2006-03-15.html

EDIT: As for his supporters continuing to use the "23-26 wounds" argument, here's a copy of the report taken by the doctor who tended to him at the hospital on the night of the murders.

http://wildernessoferror-data.s3.amazonaws.com/19700302%20-%20Dr%20Severt%20Jacobson,%20report%20on%20MacDonald%20in%20hospital.pdf

This was taken directly from the official "A Wilderness of Error" website. The doctor notes a bruise to the forehead, 2 superficial lacerations, 4 to 5 "small marks" near MacDonal'd left nipple, and the wound to his chest that caused the collapsed lung.


Obviously there was something upsetting in helenas testimony or what she was going to give as testimony, otherwise Blackburn wouldnt hae threatened her with being indicted for murder. Morris makes an extremely convincing case that Helena was denied an attorney, and wasnt read her rights when they first got her in custody. And then it was only after a couple days, and the intimidation by Blackburn, that they offered her an attorney. All the while knowing the job of a good attorney is to prevent their client from testifying. testifying in front of the judge is alot different than in front of the jury. For one, the jury couldnt rule in their decision about the testimony helena and the 7 other witnesses had. I get it, you think she was a liar and drug user. But that has zero to do with the issue. She had something to offer and say, as did 7 others, and she was intimidated illegally into not testifying. Testifying in front of the judge is meaningless. The judge has been antimacdonald since day 1.

I dont neccessarily think an intruder brought the esquire magazine to the crime scene. What im arguing is that, from a basic standpoint, what someone reads or listens to musically, is meaningless in determining whether they committed a crime. Macdonald could have been a fan of Miles Davis, and Led Zeppelin, but that doesnt tell us whether he committed the crime or not. Its sort of shocking anyone would argue otherwise. But, the esquire magazine, and its contents, the articles contained within, about satan, hippies, drug users, and manson, was entered in as evidence and read for the jury. Lots of time was spent on it. In fact from what I understand 3 or 4 actual articles were read aloud by the prosecution, in their entirety.

As far as the compromised crime scene, it is what it is. If MP's are touching evidence with their bare hands and tracking dna around the house, its nearly impossible to tell whats what. Thats my main point. You seemed to naively suggest the crime scene was messed up merely because of the flower pot. Thats the least of our worries. You cant tell anything about the crime scene. As opposed to the poppycock the prosecution argues-that we can track macdonalds movements and go from room to room and know who was killed where. Its nonsense. Any DNA or fibers that were on that couch, were gone and ruined when an MP sat down on it. Its hard to determine whats what at the crime scene, when it was this screwed up by investigators.

You can complain about superficial wounds all you want. His own doctor said he had 26 wounds on his body. That same doctor argued what I said above, that an expert surgeon would have trouble executing the punctured lung wound without killing themselves. if macdonald did create his own injuries its odd he didnt go for the easy wounds. Why wound yourself in the way he did in terms of his lung? Had he slipped, or hesitated, or made one false move, merely a tiny slip, he would have killed himself. Seems outrageously risky. Dr Sadoff corroboratted this idea, that the collapsed lung was a serious as opposed to minor injury. And the chief of surgury testified to the same thing-that the collapsed lung was dangerously close to a fatal injury.

Fatal Vision has had far reaching consequences. The juries and judges who hear his case now, who sit on boards when he has a chance for a new trial, they are seeing it all through the lens of that book and movie. Most people dont argue macdonald just killed his wife and kids for no reason. Most people, those who feel he's guilty, cite the drug use, which was this false idea made up by Mcginnis to sell books. Anyone who takes that book and movie for anything other than pure entertainment is completely deluded. The script and book were souped up to get more cash and viewers. If you believe Macdonald is guilty thats one thing, but for so many people they've based that on the book and the movie. And those arent accurate accounts of the events.

Either things happened or they didnt. Either there are fibers at the crime scene or there arent. Either helena confessed and people heard it or they didnt. Either people saw Helena and her crew that night or they didnt. Its not a grey area on this. Either Mitchell was at that farmhouse or he wasnt.

I'd like to see the prosecution and judge allow the defense full access to all the files on this case. Everything. Ive never understood the stalling on it. At every turn the prosecution has made it 1000 times tougher for the defense. Allow them to see the evidence.

Helena testified in front of the judge. Thats not the same. Allowing evidence into the courtroom and allowing the jury to hear certain things has major consequences. How many times have you heard in other cases of a jury not being allowed to rule on certain aspects of a case. You hear it all the time. Thats because things have consequences. Allowing helena to testify in front of a jury would have had an effect, and to deny that is engaging in childs play.

The fact of the matter is, helena admitted to the crime just as many times as she denied it. She had witnesses who saw her covered in blood, and getting out of a car around the time of the murders. We have Micas account of a woman on the corner near the macdonald house, and we have Helena's crew who look exactly like the suspects Macdonald named.

You talk about likelihood? Whats more likely, Macdonald came up with all this, pointed the finger at someone, who's boyfriend fit the description of one of the attackers, and BOTH these people admitted to being there. Helena wore a blond wig, and lo and behold blond wig fibers were found at the crime scene. She said the hobby horse was broken, and there was no possible way for her to have known that unless she was there. She was wearing black wool and that was found on the murder weapon and in collettes mouth.

You can complain about superficial wounds all you want. His own doctor said he had 26 wounds on his body.


That is highly dependent on the doctor in question. MacDonald's had plenty of doctors provide testimony on his injuries and condition over the years.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/womack_medl_mac_1970-03-12.html

That's dated 12 MAR 1970.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid-autopies_1970-02-17.html

(Page 26 is cute. I like the part where he gets caught with champagne in his hospital room and is released for duty status less than ten days after he's admitted.)

Dr Sadoff corroboratted this idea, that the collapsed lung was a serious as opposed to minor injury.

You do realize Dr. Sadoff is a psychiatrist, right?


To whom do you refer when you say chief of surgery?

IIRC,the knife was never pulled out of Collette's chest.The weapons were found in the back yard.McDonald said he started CPR on her.That said,I still don't think he's innocent.It's just that,just like many other crimes,over time,the stories,details and versions tend to change,irrelevant of the facts.

The fact of the matter is, helena admitted to the crime just as many times as she denied it.

That makes her an unreliable witness, does it not?

Jeffrey MacDonald and his supporters maintained that an unidentified hair found in the clenched fist of his dead wife was pulled out of one of the "intruders" as he/she was killing Colette. The 2006 DNA test results confirm that this hair came from the head of Jeffrey MacDonald. Now if MacDonald is innocent, how can anyone explain how his wife would have pulled is hair out of his head on the night of the murders?

IIRC,the knife was never pulled out of Collette's chest.The weapons were found in the back yard.McDonald said he started CPR on her.That said,I still don't think he's innocent.It's just that,just like many other crimes,over time,the stories,details and versions tend to change,irrelevant of the facts.

MacDonald maintains he pulled the knife out, last I read. That's something that hasn't changed since his first police interview in 1970.

Which I don't really understand. It sounds so improbable given he's a physician and knows better than to do that and then start performing mouth-to-mouth on someone with a gaping wound in her chest.

Which I don't really understand. It sounds so improbable given he's a physician and knows better than to do that and then start performing mouth-to-mouth on someone with a gaping wound in her chest.

This is another one of those weird explanations MacDonald gives in an attempt to cover up his crimes. He knew his prints were going to be on the paring knife found in Colette, so he had to come up with a reason as to why they'd be there. The same thing with washing the dishes that night. He knew he didn't do them, but he needed a convenient explanantion as to why he would have used rubber gloves that night in case his prints were found on them.

how does one explain the wig fibers, and black wool fibers if macdonald did it. These items were not sourced to anything macdonald or his family owned, and the wig fibers obviously were foreign. They didnt come from someone inside the house.

How does one logically explain, if they feel macdonald is guilty, why would wig fibers, matching exactly what macdonald had described stoekeley as wearing, magically appear in the house? Further, the black wool fibers in collettes mouth and on the club, macdonald wasnt wearing black wool, nor did they own black wool clothes.

The antimacdonald people constantly moan about the fact of liar witnesses. Helena was on drugs and didnt know what she was talking about. Greg checked into a halfway house, and confessed to friends and wrote out "I killed Macdonalds wife and kids", oh but he was a drug user, he wasnt reliable. The neighbor of helena who saw her later that night get out of a car with people matching the descriptions of the suspects, and later acted strange when the neighbor brought that up. Well I guess he was lying too. The lady that saw Helena and a friend at a 7-11 the night of the murder, covered in blood, wearing boots and a floppy hat and wig. Well I guess that person was lying as well. Britt who maintains Blackburn illegally intimidated Helena from testifying, well I guess Britt is just in it for the fame and money. Helenas own mother, and brother who say Helena confessed to being at the macdonald house that night. I guess her mom and brother are liars. The wig fibers at the crime scene, I think those are just doll fibers. The doctors who agreed that Macdonalds wounds were serious and quite nearly fatal, well they are psychiatrists and not real doctors. Helena admitted the hobby horse was broken, but she could have read that in the newspaper. Kathy Smith said Helena had no alibi for the murders and that she was worried Greg would get in trouble. Well I guess Kathys mistaken or maybe she was on drugs too.

The anti macdonald cant explain away the fact helena and her crew were seen by multiple people at or near the crime scene. Carlos Torres, Jan Snyder, Ken Mica, Dorothy Averitt, Prince Beasley, William Posey, Kathy Smith, Debra Harmon and Richard Comisky, every single one of them either observed suspects fitting the description at or near the crime scene.

Helena confessed to everyone, to friends, to Prince Beasley, to attorneys, to family. It wasnt something that was rare.

an example of how damaging a contaminated crime scene can be, would be of course the jon benet murder case. Whether you believe the parents did it, or an intruder, the Boulder police made major mistakes that first day, and a large reason why the case is still ongoing is a result of the botched crime scene. You cant really make judgements about the DNA and whatnot at the scene because police in the jonbenet case, allowed friends and family of the ramseys to gather at the house, family members took items out of the house, members of the family were allowed to leave the residence etc...

how does one explain the wig fibers, and black wool fibers if macdonald did it. These items were not sourced to anything macdonald or his family owned, and the wig fibers obviously were foreign. They didnt come from someone inside the house.

They could have been dropped there by someone else who was inside that house days, weeks, months, before the murder. Since you say the crime scene was compromised, that could explain why the "unknown" fibers were found where they were. Here's another way to exlpain the "unknown" fibers:

"The district court further noted the fibers are unmatched to any known sources in the MacDonald household in part due to the fact that MacDonald family's possessions are no longer available for forensic comparison. Since most of the family's clothing were returned to MacDonald and disposed of after the Army charges against him were dropped, the actual origin of these fibers may never be conclusively determined. However, even allowing for this uncertainty, the court finds there is no likelihood that the jury would have reached a different verdict had it known about the existence of these few wool fibers."

How does one logically explain, if they feel macdonald is guilty, why would wig fibers, matching exactly what macdonald had described stoekeley as wearing, magically appear in the house? Further, the black wool fibers in collettes mouth and on the club, macdonald wasnt wearing black wool, nor did they own black wool clothes.

MacDonald never once said the woman he saw was wearing a wig. But that's a moot point. How does one logically explain the fact that Colette was holding MacDonald's hair in her clenched fist? How did this happen if MacDonald is innocent?

The antimacdonald people constantly moan about the fact of liar witnesses. Helena was on drugs and didnt know what she was talking about. Greg checked into a halfway house, and confessed to friends and wrote out "I killed Macdonalds wife and kids", oh but he was a drug user, he wasnt reliable. The neighbor of helena who saw her later that night get out of a car with people matching the descriptions of the suspects, and later acted strange when the neighbor brought that up. Well I guess he was lying too. The lady that saw Helena and a friend at a 7-11 the night of the murder, covered in blood, wearing boots and a floppy hat and wig. Well I guess that person was lying as well. Britt who maintains Blackburn illegally intimidated Helena from testifying, well I guess Britt is just in it for the fame and money. Helenas own mother, and brother who say Helena confessed to being at the macdonald house that night. I guess her mom and brother are liars. The wig fibers at the crime scene, I think those are just doll fibers. The doctors who agreed that Macdonalds wounds were serious and quite nearly fatal, well they are psychiatrists and not real doctors. Helena admitted the hobby horse was broken, but she could have read that in the newspaper. Kathy Smith said Helena had no alibi for the murders and that she was worried Greg would get in trouble. Well I guess Kathys mistaken or maybe she was on drugs too.

Nope, never said the "witnesses" were liars. They were just told things by liars. Stoeckely was a regular heroin user. Ever been around one? I have one in my family, and to put it nicely, he's not exactly an arbiter of truth. Stoeckely also claimed that she and MacDonald had sex, that she broke into the residence 2 weeks before the murders to steal a bracelet, and that she spoke with Colette over the phone on the night of the murders and asked her several prying questions that Colette answered without a second thought. And again to :horse: the fact that Stoeckely "confessed" then recanted ad naseum makes her an unreliable witness. Greg Mitchell was suffering from PTSD. Any "visions" he may have had were most likely flashbacks from Viet Nam. His "confessions" therefore would also be unreliable. And what physicians do you keep referring to that agreed that MacDonald's wounds were "serious and quite nearly fatal"? Everything I've read on the medical reports of MacDonald's wounds on the night of the attack all say 1 minor head wound, 2 superficial lacerations to his arms, and the wound to his chest that caused the collapsed lung. MegtheEgg86 has already explained how easy it would be for a trained physician to self-inflict a wound that would collapse a lung and still be guaranteed survival.

The anti macdonald cant explain away the fact helena and her crew were seen by multiple people at or near the crime scene. Carlos Torres, Jan Snyder, Ken Mica, Dorothy Averitt, Prince Beasley, William Posey, Kathy Smith, Debra Harmon and Richard Comisky, every single one of them either observed suspects fitting the description at or near the crime scene.

So people saw someone resembling Helena Stoeckely around Fort Bragg on the night of the murders. The only one of those witnesses who places anyone close to resembling one of the "intruders" to the crime scene is Kenneth Mica. He simply saw a woman with "nice legs" standing on a street corner. Stoeckely's fingerprints were taken by and crosschecked with the ones found in the MacDonald residence and there were no matches. So despite what she may have told several people, both DNA and fingerprint evidence conclude that Helena Stoeckely was never in 544 Castle Drive before, during, or after the murders.

Helena confessed to everyone, to friends, to Prince Beasley, to attorneys, to family. It wasnt something that was rare.

Her confessing and then recanting multiple times makes her an unreliable witness. But when she did have a chance to set the record straight and speak the "truth", she denied (under oath) to ever being there.

And here is an explanantion for the wig fibers found at the crime scene:

"The first step in the re-examination of these "wig" fibers was to determine if they were, in fact, true wig fibers and then to determine their source. The grey "wig" fibers were examined using the standard light microscope, the polarizing light microscope and two of the most discriminating techniques that can be used with synthetic fibers-the microspectrophotometer and the Fourier Transform Infrared analysis. They were identified as modacrylic fibers, the most common type of synthetic fiber used in the manufacture of human hair goods.

Investigation revealed that a blond fall, owned and worn frequently by Colette MacDonald, was still available for analysis. It found among Colette's possessions from the residence. When the fall was examined, it was found to be composed of a combination of human hair and modacrylic wig fibers. It was also found that the grey modacrylic wig fibers from the hairbrush matched the grey modacrylic wig fibers found in the composition of the fall. Accordingly, these grey wig fibers were consistent with having originated from Colette's fall.

Therefore, while "true" wig fibers were found at the crime scene, the source of these modacrylic wig fibers could be accounted for--they came from Colette MacDonald's fall.

The source of the "blond synthetic hair" from the clear handled hairbrush posed more of a problem. Again, the same microscopic, optical and instrumental techniques were used, ultimately determining that the "blond synthetic hairs" were composed of saran fibers. Due to problems in manufacturing and the physical properties of saran fibers, they are not suitable for human wigs. They do not look like or "lay" like human hair, therefore, they are not used to make human hair goods.

One of the main uses of saran fibers during the same time of the murders was for doll hair. These "blond synthetic hairs" were very similar to the blond doll hair in the FBI reference collection. In fact the early "Barbie" dolls made by Mattel had hair made of saran fibers.

Since the MacDonald children were known to have owned dolls with blond hair, and since little girls are known to brush the hair of their dolls, it can be inferred that the "blond synthetic hair" found in the hairbrush probably came from a doll belonging to the MacDonald girls or one of their friends. Unfortunately, none of the dolls originally belonging to Kimberley or Kristen are available today for testing purposes."

Taken from thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com website.

There you have it. All of the wig fibers could be traced back to the MacDonald residence. The website does concede that the dolls are no longer available for testing and that there's no way to know 100% if they are the source of the blonde wig fibers found, BUT it does show that they could have came from the residence which would not be solid enough to use as exculpatory evidence to support MacDonald's innocence claims. It's also interesting to note that the "wig" fibers were found in a brush belonging to Colette MacDonald. They were not found anywhere else in the residence. So to believe in MacDonald's innocence, you must also believe that in the middle of a triple homicide, Helena Stoeckely thought it necessary to seek out a hairbrush so she could brush her wig. :rolleyes:

Can I vote both? I believe he did it. I also believe he was wrongly convicted.

This is another one of those weird explanations MacDonald gives in an attempt to cover up his crimes. He knew his prints were going to be on the paring knife found in Colette, so he had to come up with a reason as to why they'd be there. The same thing with washing the dishes that night. He knew he didn't do them, but he needed a convenient explanantion as to why he would have used rubber gloves that night in case his prints were found on them.

Exactly, and that was precisely what I was getting at. He knew he needed to formulate a CYA story.

Can I vote both? I believe he did it. I also believe he was wrongly convicted.

I think lots of people who feel he's guilty do. I don't think they're mutually exclusive myself.

For those who feel MacDonald guilty,do you think he planned it? I can't think of any other reason he would have been acting so strange at dinner,that even Collette commented on it to her friend on the way to class.
I do think he's guilty of 1st degree murder (or would that be 2nd degree?) for Kristen's death;once he offed the others it seems he felt he had no choice but to take her out as well.
But I'm not 100% certain of Collette and Kimberly.Perhaps he just snapped at the bedwetting or something.
Then there's the fact they had wine..perhaps he was hoping for Collette not to wake up while he went for the fatal blow,but she did and it angered him,thus the swinging with the bat and hitting Kimberly as well (I'm not sure he didn't mean to do that though),etc.
IDK,any thoughts? Seems he may have gotten the idea from the mag,and then picked that night to execute it? Or did he perhaps just get angry,perhaps from the bedwetting,and it all flowed from that moment? Any thoughts appreciated.

For those who feel MacDonald guilty,do you think he planned it? I can't think of any other reason he would have been acting so strange at dinner,that even Collette commented on it to her friend on the way to class.
I do think he's guilty of 1st degree murder (or would that be 2nd degree?) for Kristen's death;once he offed the others it seems he felt he had no choice but to take her out as well.
But I'm not 100% certain of Collette and Kimberly.Perhaps he just snapped at the bedwetting or something.
Then there's the fact they had wine..perhaps he was hoping for Collette not to wake up while he went for the fatal blow,but she did and it angered him,thus the swinging with the bat and hitting Kimberly as well (I'm not sure he didn't mean to do that though),etc.
IDK,any thoughts? Seems he may have gotten the idea from the mag,and then picked that night to execute it? Or did he perhaps just get angry,perhaps from the bedwetting,and it all flowed from that moment? Any thoughts appreciated.

My personal feeling is Colette's murder was planned, and that Kimberly and Kristen were incidental. I think Kimberly awoke and he didn't want to leave a witness, and as you said, he felt he couldn't just leave Kristen.

For those who feel MacDonald guilty,do you think he planned it? I can't think of any other reason he would have been acting so strange at dinner,that even Collette commented on it to her friend on the way to class.
I do think he's guilty of 1st degree murder (or would that be 2nd degree?) for Kristen's death;once he offed the others it seems he felt he had no choice but to take her out as well.
But I'm not 100% certain of Collette and Kimberly.Perhaps he just snapped at the bedwetting or something.
Then there's the fact they had wine..perhaps he was hoping for Collette not to wake up while he went for the fatal blow,but she did and it angered him,thus the swinging with the bat and hitting Kimberly as well (I'm not sure he didn't mean to do that though),etc.
IDK,any thoughts? Seems he may have gotten the idea from the mag,and then picked that night to execute it? Or did he perhaps just get angry,perhaps from the bedwetting,and it all flowed from that moment? Any thoughts appreciated.

Here's what I think happened:

MacDonald was exhausted from constantly working at the hospital on minimal sleep. IIRC, the day before the murders he worked a 24 hour shift and got home and slept for five hours before going back to work on the day of the murders. When MacDonald woke up from the couch that night, he went into the bedroom and found Kimberly had wet the bed, so he began to piss and moan about her wetting the bed, how he can't get a good night's sleep now, etc. and he and Colette began to argue. I think he probably hit her, and when she hit him back he became livid. I think Kimberly was standing there the whole time watching her parents fight, and when MacDonald picked up the 2x4 to hit Colette he accidentally hit Kimberly and either killed her or knocked her unconscious. This set Colette into a frenzy and she began to fight and claw at MacDonald who ultimately killed her or incapacitated her with the 2x4. That's when MacDonald knew he had gone too far and needed to come up with a way to cover his own ass. He remembered reading the article about the Manson killings in the Esquire magazine but wanted to refresh some of the details so he went and skimmed over it and saw how the Manson murders were committed by a group of drugged out "hippies" who repeatedly stabbed their victims. So that's when he started to invent the whole "acid is groovy hippie intruder" nonsense. I think he returned to the bedroom and stabbed Colette repeatedly with the ice pick and the parring knife. I think he also took Kimberly to her room and put her in her bed and stabbed her repeatedly with the ice pick. The worst part of it all, IMO, was that Kristen was sleeping through all of this and that MacDonald killed her simply to add some sort of substance to his "intruder" story. It's sick to know that he actually went into her room and stabbed her repeatedly with the ice pick as she slept. He then went to the bathroom and stabbed himself in the chest causing the puncture to his lung and that's when he called for "help".

So in a nutshell, I don't think he got the idea from the Esquire magazine and I don't think he planned on killing Colette or anyone that night. I just think the mounting tension of being tied down in a marriage with two young children he obviously did not want, and the lack of sleep caused him to snap that night. When things got out of control (when he hit Kimberly) he knew there was no turning back. The more I think about this POS, the more I wish he would have been executed.

good thoughts,thank you both.

I got the Erroll Morris book for Christmas, and got done reading it a couple of days ago. The book was basically 450 pages of constantly saying over and over how the crime scene was compromised and how Stoeckely should not have been ignored. NOTHING (outside of Stoeckley's confessions and one alleged Greg Mitchell confession) was shown that would be exculpatory to MacDonald. No smoking gun. No big surprises. A rehash of the same ol' same ol'. But there was one surprise that I thought was quite interesting. The MacDonald supporters constantly point to Kenneth Mica's testimony about seeing a woman on the corner (as he drove by in response to MacDonald's emergency call) as proof that there were in fact intruders, and that this woman was Helena Stoeckley. In the book, Morris interviews Mica, who flat out denies that the woman was Stoeckley. He says the woman looked nothing like Helena Stoeckley, and that he had knew off Stoeckley before the murders (due to her rep around Ft. Bragg as a druggie). Mica also gives a reasonable explanation as to why a woman would have been standing out in the rain that night: he says the woman was most likely a mistress of an officer on Ft. Bragg. She probably parked her car away from where his residence was, to avoid being caught by another officer and/or the wife. And IIRC, Mica claimed this was not an uncommon occurrence on the base.

The MacDonald supporters constantly point to Kenneth Mica's testimony about seeing a woman on the corner (as he drove by in response to MacDonald's emergency call) as proof that there were in fact intruders, and that this woman was Helena Stoeckley. In the book, Morris interviews Mica, who flat out denies that the woman was Stoeckley. He says the woman looked nothing like Helena Stoeckley, and that he had knew off Stoeckley before the murders (due to her rep around Ft. Bragg as a druggie).

That answers a question that's long been in the back of mind. It explains why MacDonald supporters don't tend to jump all over Mica's testimony. If he HAD flatly stated he thought the woman was Stoeckley, you know they'd scream it from the mountaintops. Instead, all we usually get is "Ken Mica saw a woman in a floppy hat", and that's that.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-05/lifestyle/35638455_1_inmate-new-hanover-county-murderer-online-review

http://live.washingtonpost.com/chatological-humor-121211.html

The first link is a link to an article written in the Washington Post about Brian Murtagh, which pretty much rips Errol Morris's book to shreds. The second gives some more details left out of the article and it's a Q & A with the article's writer. The article leaves no more room for any argument over MacDonald's innocence, IMO.

EDIT: Went back and reread the part in Morris's book where he interviews Kenneth Mica. Mica says that he saw the woman standing on a corner on Honeycutt Road, which separated the barracks and the housing for the officers. Mica theorized that the woman was an officer's wife who went to the barracks to cheat on her husband, which would explain why she never came forward.

My personal feeling is Colette's murder was planned, and that Kimberly and Kristen were incidental. I think Kimberly awoke and he didn't want to leave a witness, and as you said, he felt he couldn't just leave Kristen.

If I recall correctly, only Kristen's death was premeditated. Colette and Kimberly were killed "in the heat of the moment".

It is believed by prosecution, and supported by blood evidence, that MacDonald accidentally hit Kimberly while physically hitting Colette during a fight over his philandering or him whining about the kids still wetting their beds. Kimberly went in to defend her mom, and MacDonald struck her by mistake and went to depose her in her bed, Colette sobbing behind. That's when, somehow in his angry mind, he decided to get rid of them and blame the murders on the hippies as a "Manson copycat murder" to dodge guilt; at the time the Tate/Labianca murders were still fresh in California, and anyone would have readily believed that there were copycat hippie killers either members of the Manson family or worshipping Manson, roaming around California. At the time Fort Bragg was an open city, and civilians could come and go from outside the town without oversight. He starting hitting her again, Colette came in screaming and in panic to defend Kimberly, and MacDonald killed her and finished off Kimberly. He then went to Kirsten's room, her still asleep in her crib, and murdered her.

Both Colette and Kimberly's murder weren't planned in cold blood per se, he acted on an impulse while enraged. Murderous intent doesn't equal premeditation, the latter has to be proven without a shadow of a doubt, that it was planned in advance of time before committing the murder. Prosecution succeeded only in Kristen's case because it was the only murder that the jury felt was made in cold blood on a defenseless victim.

I agree with that conclusion : Nothing proves that MacDonald coldly planned in advance to get rid of Colette through murder and slaughter his family when starting to fight with her. The likeliest possibility is that it all fell to come down with MacDonald's rage climbing in one big fight with Colette escalading in wife beating, culminating in hitting Kimberly by accident, and his wounded narcissistic pride unaccepting that he would lose his "property" : Colette, who would now assuredly divorce and leave with the kids.

Whenever MacDonald tells his story, a lot of people have noticed that he seems to get the most choked up when talking about Kristen's death. They speculate this is because Colette and Kimberley's deaths were done in the heat of the moment, whereas he actually made a conscious choice to kill Kristen when he didn't have to. That realization might produce the closet thing to guilt he could possibly feel.

EDIT: Went back and reread the part in Morris's book where he interviews Kenneth Mica. Mica says that he saw the woman standing on a corner on Honeycutt Road, which separated the barracks and the housing for the officers. Mica theorized that the woman was an officer's wife who went to the barracks to cheat on her husband, which would explain why she never came forward.

A woman visiting her Jody makes PERFECT sense about why she never came forward.

If I recall correctly, only Kristen's death was premeditated. Colette and Kimberly were killed "in the heat of the moment".

It is believed by prosecution, and supported by blood evidence, that MacDonald accidentally hit Kimberly while physically hitting Colette during a fight over his philandering or him whining about the kids still wetting their beds. Kimberly went in to defend her mom, and MacDonald struck her by mistake and went to depose her in her bed, Colette sobbing behind. That's when, somehow in his angry mind, he decided to get rid of them and blame the murders on the hippies as a "Manson copycat murder" to dodge guilt; at the time the Tate/Labianca murders were still fresh in California, and anyone would have readily believed that there were copycat hippie killers either members of the Manson family or worshipping Manson, roaming around California. At the time Fort Bragg was an open city, and civilians could come and go from outside the town without oversight. He starting hitting her again, Colette came in screaming and in panic to defend Kimberly, and MacDonald killed her and finished off Kimberly. He then went to Kirsten's room, her still asleep in her crib, and murdered her.

Both Colette and Kimberly's murder weren't planned in cold blood per se, he acted on an impulse while enraged. Murderous intent doesn't equal premeditation, the latter has to be proven without a shadow of a doubt, that it was planned in advance of time before committing the murder. Prosecution succeeded only in Kristen's case because it was the only murder that the jury felt was made in cold blood on a defenseless victim.

I agree with that conclusion : Nothing proves that MacDonald coldly planned in advance to get rid of Colette through murder and slaughter his family when starting to fight with her. The likeliest possibility is that it all fell to come down with MacDonald's rage climbing in one big fight with Colette escalading in wife beating, culminating in hitting Kimberly by accident, and his wounded narcissistic pride unaccepting that he would lose his "property" : Colette, who would now assuredly divorce and leave with the kids.
good thoughts,was wondering what you think about him acting so strangly at dinner.Even Collette had commented on it to the friend driving her to class.

Guilty. Guilty as hell.

This is one of the earliest true crime stories I became aware of in my youth. And as I have passed on into adulthood and have a wife and children of my own (including two young girls) I get more disturbed by the murders.

Normally I wouldn't be so rude but; anyone that thinks MacDonald isn't guilty needs to have their head examined.

Guilty. Guilty as hell.

This is one of the earliest true crime stories I became aware of in my youth. And as I have passed on into adulthood and have a wife and children of my own (including two young girls) I get more disturbed by the murders.

Normally I wouldn't be so rude but; anyone that thinks MacDonald isn't guilty needs to have their head examined.

I agree. Hopefully this latest hearing will be MacDonald's last and final appeal. He needs to rot in prison for the rest of his life.

Time for a bump:

This was on again the other night and I'm aware while there is much evidence to the contrary every time I hear this man speak on UM, I get the feeling I'm listening and looking into the eyes of an innocent man.

That leads me to believe either one of two possibilities are true. Either he actually is an innocent man (as I believe him to be) or he is a full blown sociopath capable of convincing not only himself but another party (in this case being me) of his innocence.

I'm undecided on this one, like 50/50 chance for guilty/innocent. From what I've read, iris version of event events seems just as likely. And there was that crazy blonde...

And there was that crazy blonde...

That's just it: she was crazy. And addicted to heroin. And recanted her story 48,753 times.

Time for a bump:

This was on again the other night and I'm aware while there is much evidence to the contrary every time I hear this man speak on UM, I get the feeling I'm listening and looking into the eyes of an innocent man.

That leads me to believe either one of two possibilities are true. Either he actually is an innocent man (as I believe him to be) or he is a full blown sociopath capable of convincing not only himself but another party (in this case being me) of his innocence.

The bolded portion describes MacDonald to a "T".

Time for a bump:

This was on again the other night and I'm aware while there is much evidence to the contrary every time I hear this man speak on UM, I get the feeling I'm listening and looking into the eyes of an innocent man.

That leads me to believe either one of two possibilities are true. Either he actually is an innocent man (as I believe him to be) or he is a full blown sociopath capable of convincing not only himself but another party (in this case being me) of his innocence.

He's innocent. I'd certainly wager very heavily on it, although not to absolute certainty, like Richard Floyd McCoy as D.B. Cooper.

Per usual, Jeff Toobin of CNN had the proper focus, in an article linked earlier in this thread. I doubt I've disagreed with Toobin more than once or twice since he become prominent, during the O.J. Simpson case. He always has a terrific grasp on probability, the angle that properly attaches to the point in question, whether it's the obvious one or not:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/08/justice/errol-morris-book

"The story is so bizarre and unlikely and it might actually be true," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "It seems too preposterous on its face that a smart guy might have come up with something better, which raises the possibility that it might actually be true."

That aspect overwhelms everything, IMO. Both sides scramble to define physical evidence in their favor. I think it's virtually meaningless. Crime scene reconstruction is a crock. It's always one dimensional and straight forward. The computer generations are laughably simplistic. You never see someone spinning out of place and grabbing a weapon, or both guys leaving the area briefly and bouncing off a wall before returning to the same basic location. That type of thing unfolds in real world confrontations but after-the-fact depictions don't comprehend any of it. It's like an Igor version. Similarly, experts look at clothing or condition of a room and think they can determine exactly how many people were there, and how it unfolded. All it would take is one suddenly uncovered video in a high profile case -- after the expert testimony -- to destroy the practice and the mythology. Imagine what the Rodney King testimony would have sounded like, minus that video.

As I posted years ago, you never want to be the victim of an extraordinarily unusual crime. Prosecutors are wildly creative. Detectives are not. They laser focus on the most obvious answers, the names and faces smack in front of them. In this case the people who are simply poor to mediocre handicappers, to no real fault of their own, want to make it out to be an Occam's razor situation. It reminds me of Las Vegas when I'll mention a sports betting system or angle to a new friend. Invariably he'll enthusiastically try to pin it everywhere. I have to calm him and emphasize not to lose sight of it, in fact to maintain loyalty, while recognizing trump card factors occasionally intervene.

Besides, this case sat around for what, nearly a decade, before MacDonald's trial? That alone indicates uncertainty. The parents had to push. It's not as if MacDonald was hiding, or someone else the chief suspect. It's always funny to me that when creative prosecutors go to trial they have to pretend that period of hesitation didn't exist. It's never maybe he did it. They have to adopt the scowl and fierce words, the absolutes and all the ridiculous interpretations.

I noticed some of those interpretations while sampling the late pages of this thread. MacDonald was influenced by reading a magazine. Really, that's what you are going with? I particularly loved the assertion that MacDonald saw Helena Stoeckley in the area the night of the murders, and decided to pin it on her. Now that's priceless, the single best flail I've read regarding this case. He had no idea if she had a dozen witnesses to her location or doings, but standing near his house was enough to launch a butchering of his family.

Innocent man. Wrongly convicted and hated. Unfortunately, that's going to be within the sample, this century and forward.

He's innocent. I'd certainly wager very heavily on it, although not to absolute certainty, like Richard Floyd McCoy as D.B. Cooper.

I agree with you about McCoy, but there is no doubt in my mind that MacDonald is guilty and right where he belongs.

That aspect overwhelms everything, IMO. Both sides scramble to define physical evidence in their favor. I think it's virtually meaningless. Crime scene reconstruction is a crock. It's always one dimensional and straight forward. The computer generations are laughably simplistic. You never see someone spinning out of place and grabbing a weapon, or both guys leaving the area briefly and bouncing off a wall before returning to the same basic location. That type of thing unfolds in real world confrontations but after-the-fact depictions don't comprehend any of it. It's like an Igor version. Similarly, experts look at clothing or condition of a room and think they can determine exactly how many people were there, and how it unfolded. All it would take is one suddenly uncovered video in a high profile case -- after the expert testimony -- to destroy the practice and the mythology. Imagine what the Rodney King testimony would have sounded like, minus that video.

You're right, both sides try to reconstruct the crime scene to fit their narratives of the crime. And yes, I'm sure the crime scene reconstruction is not 100% accurate because nobody knows how it went down (other than MacDonald). But one thing that does not lie, is the DNA evidence in the case. No DNA was found in that residence that supported the theory that intruders were the ones who committed the murders.

Besides, this case sat around for what, nearly a decade, before MacDonald's trial? That alone indicates uncertainty. The parents had to push. It's not as if MacDonald was hiding, or someone else the chief suspect. It's always funny to me that when creative prosecutors go to trial they have to pretend that period of hesitation didn't exist. It's never maybe he did it. They have to adopt the scowl and fierce words, the absolutes and all the ridiculous interpretations.

The hesitation was, IMO, because the army screwed up the case initially when they did not charge him. When Rock dismissed the charges (at the Article 32 hearing), what was the CID/Army supposed to do at that point? I think they knew he was guilty but were hesitant to pursue him out of fear of public scrutiny. It also should be noted that during the entire near ten year period of freedom for MacDonald he made zero effort to locate the "real killers". He gave plenty of interviews to magazines, newspapers, and even appeared on television. He had the chance to give his case national exposure but the only thing he could talk about were the injustices done to him by the army and the CID. That is extremely telling, IMO.

I noticed some of those interpretations while sampling the late pages of this thread. MacDonald was influenced by reading a magazine. Really, that's what you are going with? I particularly loved the assertion that MacDonald saw Helena Stoeckley in the area the night of the murders, and decided to pin it on her. Now that's priceless, the single best flail I've read regarding this case. He had no idea if she had a dozen witnesses to her location or doings, but standing near his house was enough to launch a butchering of his family.

MacDonald did not get the idea to kill his family from a magazine. MacDonald killed his wife and children after an argument started. What caused the argument is up for debate. Some believe it was the bedwetting and MacDonald's fatigue that caused him to snap. Others think he wanted out of a marriage he was trapped in, and that Colette said something to him that night that made him snap. I don't think we'll ever know for sure why he killed his family. He got the idea for the coverup from the magazine. MacDonald was treating drug addicted soldiers on Ft. Bragg. Greg Mitchell was a drug addicted soldier. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that MacDonald treated Mitchell and saw Stoeckley and Co., or simply saw them around the base and decided to use their general descriptions to set up a bunch of druggie hippies. No one is saying this is what caused him to murder his family. Only he knows the real reason why he did it. But the magazine, Stoeckley and the hippies, etc. were only used as dressings of the crime after the fact.

Innocent man. Wrongly convicted and hated. Unfortunately, that's going to be within the sample, this century and forward.

This is another big point of contention in this case. MacDonald was convicted of the murder of his wife and two daughters. Therefore, the burden of proving that he didn't do it shifts on his supporters. It's been over 40 years now since the murders. Not one single shred of evidence has surfaced that could exonerate MacDonald. All of his appeals were denied. His paroles were denied. The MacDonald is innocent argument is tired, IMO. If there is an overwhelming amount of evidence of corruption, coverup, and a wrongly convicted man, why is he still rotting in jail? DNA is the one irrefutable piece of evidence that is usually used to free wrongfully convicted men from prison. Funny how DNA evidence in the MacDonald case points to no one other than MacDonald himself committing these murders.

Anyone know if there have ever been any other Manson Family style copycat murders like this one?

I think McDonald planned it to some extent.He may have gotten the general idea from the magazine,then noticed the hippies around the area,and decided to attempt to pull it all together in that way.
I do think he was tired of family life (it was said he had run around on Collette),and while I don't think he intended to kill the kids,at least not at first..the events that occurred left him feeling he had no choice.
I also think he didn't want another child,and ridding of Collette got him free of marriage and another baby.(Recall she was pregnant.Also recall Scott Peterson.It happens).
I think what went down was:

Jeff had decided that evening prior to carry out the murder of Collette.Thus the reason he was acting so strangely at dinner,that even Collette commented on it to a friend driving her to class.
Jeff plied her with some wine (the 2 wine glasses found on the counter) thinking she would be out cold when he killed her.He may have encouraged her to go to bed early.We know he stayed up.
After awhile,when he thought she was fast asleep,he went to the bedroom with the club,knives and icepick,thinking he would just knock her out cold and then finish the job with the other weapons,making it appear to be an attack by multiple intruders.The only problen was,Kimberly had climbed in the bed with her,and she needed to be moved.(I don't think the bedwetting really came into play as far as Jeff's anger was concerned,as I don't think he'd planned on going to bed that night anyway,obviously).He went to move her and Collette woke up.That ruined his whole plan,and,furious at Collette,he struck her with the club. (recall the prosecution saying she'd said Jeff,Jeff,why are you doing this to me????! He did it b/c it was what he'd planned to do anyway (only she woke up).
Kimberly got in the way (he may have put her in her own bed and she got back up) and was inadvertently struck by the club when he was swinging it.By then,it was too late to turn back the clock. (exactly what the prosecutors said).
Kim and Collette injured (and maybe unconcious briefly),he then went to Kristen's room to do the same to her.Only Collette managed to follow him in there at some point,and Jeff finished her off when she did.He then did the same to Kim and Kristen,moving the bodies and staging the crime scene.(BTW----Jeff put a little bottle of chocolate milk in Kristen's mouth after he killed her.....this is something only a PARENT would do!) Research that as far as true crime goes if you don't believe me.There are certain things in the way a crime scene is staged that indicate parental behavior.
I think he got the idea to write PIG on the headboard in blood from the mag.We know he kept surgical gloves in the apt. and so probably used them to do that.
Anyway,that is just my take on it.I think he'd planned to off Collette,then send the girls to live with their gparents (Collette's mom and step-dad) ,saying he couldn't handle being a single dad of 2 girls.And they probably would have taken them,and he knew it,thus the reason of his original intention to just kill Collette.This is JMO though,based on what we know of Jeff and the murders.I don't care to debate.

Anyone know if there have ever been any other Manson Family style copycat murders like this one?

None that I know of. Nor was there any reason or motive credibly presented as to why someone would have randomly targeted MacDonald and his family.

None that I know of. Nor was there any reason or motive credibly presented as to why someone would have randomly targeted MacDonald and his family.

Because he was hasslin' them, man! :lol: :rolleyes:

Because he was hasslin' them, man! :lol: :rolleyes:

Forgot about that "groovy" motive...

this was a very disturbing episode to watch. i noticed on page 3 a lot of people began to lean towards mcdonald's guilt even stating that his hearing the alleged perpetrators saying "groovy, kill the pig" was somehow damning, but didn't anyone recall that helena stoeckley herself admitted to saying those very words (or something to that effect) in the documentary 'false witness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2788994/)' also featured as part of this um episode?

this was a very disturbing episode to watch. i noticed on page 3 a lot of people began to lean towards mcdonald's guilt even stating that his hearing the alleged perpetrators saying "groovy, kill the pig" was somehow damning, but didn't anyone recall that helena stoeckley herself admitted to saying those very words (or something to that effect) in the documentary 'false witness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2788994/)' also featured as part of this um episode?

Actually if you look at the polling the people who believe in his guilt vs. people who believe in his innocence are pretty close to an even split. It isn't a landslide in either direction anyhow.

I've always believed this case warrants a new trial and although personally I've always believed in Dr. MacDonald's innocence, I do think his chance of gaining his release are slim as I believe it would've happened by now if it ever had a chance of happening at all.

all 4 of them had different blood types,this is how it was possible to separate the movement of the bodies and to determine what steps MacDonald took to stage the scene.
also,if the weapons came from within the house...and they did,it indicates a very high probablity of it being someone within the home.
drug-crazed hippies bother to kill,write pig on the headboard using a glove,put a bottle of milk in the baby's mouth after killing her,leave the weapons by the door...etc.Hardly.
also recall that Jeff lied to his father in law that he'd found one of the hippies and killed him,in an attempt to get him off his back about finding the 'killers'.he also moved to Long Beach,Ca and by all appearances,put the murders of his wife and kids behind him pretty easily.
i dont care to debate,just some thoughts.

Actually if you look at the polling the people who believe in his guilt vs. people who believe in his innocence are pretty close to an even split. It isn't a landslide in either direction anyhow.

I've always believed this case warrants a new trial and although personally I've always believed in Dr. MacDonald's innocence, I do think his chance of gaining his release are slim as I believe it would've happened by now if it ever had a chance of happening at all.

I thought a new trial would have been fair as well. I seriously doubt the outcome would have been any different, but it may have cleared up a lot of the speculation.

I thought a new trial would have been fair as well. I seriously doubt the outcome would have been any different, but it may have cleared up a lot of the speculation.

That's just it though, every single one of MacDonald's appellate hearings have been for new trials. His defense tries to present new "evidence" that would warrant a new trial. And every single time, the "evidence" is picked apart and proven to point the finger of blame squarely back on MacDonald. That is why he does not deserve a new trial. There is nothing to indicate anyone killed his family other than MacDonald himself.

Actually if you look at the polling the people who believe in his guilt vs. people who believe in his innocence are pretty close to an even split. It isn't a landslide in either direction anyhow.

I've always believed this case warrants a new trial and although personally I've always believed in Dr. MacDonald's innocence, I do think his chance of gaining his release are slim as I believe it would've happened by now if it ever had a chance of happening at all.

yes. i've held my reservations on which side i stand because i feel like i don't have all the information. all i can say is that it was a tragic case of events

Watching the UM segment, I thought the guy was innocent. Then I watched a 48 Hours Mystery story about MacDonald and began to have my doubts about his innocence. After I read "Fatal Vision", I was about 90% convinced he did it. Then after reading about lie after lie (in his own words) over the web, and after reading Errol Morris' book I'd say I am 100% convinced of his guilt now.

Watching the UM segment, I thought the guy was innocent. Then I watched a 48 Hours Mystery story about MacDonald and began to have my doubts about his innocence. After I read "Fatal Vision", I was about 90% convinced he did it. Then after reading about lie after lie (in his own words) over the web, and after reading Errol Morris' book I'd say I am 100% convinced of his guilt now.

I'll grant you this much, the UM segment makes him look innocent as heck which is somewhat of a failing of their "Final Appeal" segments. While I feel they are arguably the best segments of the entire series, they are usually skewed towards the appellant perhaps for obvious reasons.

The phone call in the middle of the night, the terrible prosecutor, and the defense having a ridiculously short amount of time to prepare do make MacDonald's case look pretty strong. But from the other things I've seen, particularly in this thread and out of MacDonald's own mouth and actions, I really lean towards him being guilty. I do think he didn't have a fair trial, however.

The phone call in the middle of the night, the terrible prosecutor, and the defense having a ridiculously short amount of time to prepare do make MacDonald's case look pretty strong. But from the other things I've seen, particularly in this thread and out of MacDonald's own mouth and actions, I really lean towards him being guilty. I do think he didn't have a fair trial, however.

Everyone here bashes the prosecutors in the case (more Blackburn than Murtagh), but I think Blackburn was courteous and professional during MacDonald's trial. He even allotted Wade Davis time out of his closing argument so Davis could address the jury one last time (Davis's co-counsel Bernie Segal rambled well over the defense's allotted time for their closing argument). What he did after the trial (embezzlement, IIRC) does not mean he was crooked during the MacDonald trial.

he was innocent!

I'll grant you this much, the UM segment makes him look innocent as heck which is somewhat of a failing of their "Final Appeal" segments. While I feel they are arguably the best segments of the entire series, they are usually skewed towards the appellant perhaps for obvious reasons.

The "Final Appeal" segments were always my favorite type of segment on UM. I used to think virtually all of the appellants featured were innocent, until I got older and dug a little deeper. I understand what UM was doing, they were trying to make compelling television, but had they featured all of the facts, 95% of the appellants would have been obviously guilty.

what about the guy who allegedly robbed a gay station when he was at his house? michael something

what about the guy who allegedly robbed a gay station when he was at his house? michael something

Michael Scott Martin? Yeah he was innocent at least in my opinion. Actually a lot of them were innocent from where I stand. Martin, Purvis, Lloyd Self, Johnny Lee Wilson, Patricia Stallings, Larry Race, Steve Shores, Thomas Ziegler, Luis Diaz.

Then there are those whom I presume are innocent but am still somewhat on the fence about including MacDonald. Also added to that list would be Consagra, Montecalvo and Branion whom in his case I believe may be innocent of the actual crime of murder but I'm not sure if he didn't hire someone to kill his wife.

The ones that I feel have the most chance of being guilty would be Stuart Heaton, Darlie Routier and Thomas Drake.

Michael Scott Martin? Yeah he was innocent at least in my opinion. Actually a lot of them were innocent from where I stand. Martin, Purvis, Lloyd Self, Johnny Lee Wilson, Patricia Stallings, Larry Race, Steve Shores, Thomas Ziegler, Luis Diaz.

Then there are those whom I presume are innocent but am still somewhat on the fence about including MacDonald. Also added to that list would be Consagra, Montecalvo and Branion whom in his case I believe may be innocent of the actual crime of murder but I'm not sure if he didn't hire someone to kill his wife.

The ones that I feel have the most chance of being guilty would be Stuart Heaton, Darlie Routier and Thomas Drake.

I agree about Michael Scott Martin and Tommy Ziegler. The obvious innocent people (Purvis, Wilson, Stallings, etc.) were all cleared during UM's run. I tend to think the most likley innocent final appellants were the ones who had "alternate" theories to the crimes they were convicted for that actually made sense. Like Fred Young having an identical twin brother, or the El Ruk'n gang members murdering a guard rather than a law abiding guy returning from a dentist appointment. This is primarily why I think people like Consagra were guilty. His explanation of what "really" happened just makes no sense. Same with Race, Routier, Heaton, and Drake.

I'd say UM's most successful Final Appeal segments were Patricia Stallings and Tony Miller since they were both released specifically because of viewer tips. Without the show, who knows if they would have ever been exonerated?

I'm on the fence on this one. Sure Helena's statements match what Jeffrey McDonald's account states, but who's to say that McDonald heard Helena's account of the night and then added it into his story to cloud his guilt? I saw this case on NBC about a year ago and it had me leaning toward his guilt, but I'm not so sure anymore.

I agree about Michael Scott Martin and Tommy Ziegler. The obvious innocent people (Purvis, Wilson, Stallings, etc.) were all cleared during UM's run. I tend to think the most likley innocent final appellants were the ones who had "alternate" theories to the crimes they were convicted for that actually made sense. Like Fred Young having an identical twin brother, or the El Ruk'n gang members murdering a guard rather than a law abiding guy returning from a dentist appointment. This is primarily why I think people like Consagra were guilty. His explanation of what "really" happened just makes no sense. Same with Race, Routier, Heaton, and Drake.

I just don't get the feeling that Larry Race murdered his wife. I think her death was very much a tragic and unfortunate accident.

As for Consagra, I'm probably going to forever remain on the fence regarding his culpability in the murder of his two friends. I think there is evidence that he was at the very least involved in the murders but I also think there are significant questions as to whether or not he had an accomplice or even was the one that pulled the trigger on either of the victims. My best gauge on the case is Consagra was quite possibly a willing accomplice to the crime but there may be one or more parties that got away with murder in that case.

I'm on the fence on this one. Sure Helena's statements match what Jeffrey McDonald's account states, but who's to say that McDonald heard Helena's account of the night and then added it into his story to cloud his guilt? I saw this case on NBC about a year ago and it had me leaning toward his guilt, but I'm not so sure anymore.

he's innocent

The man's story makes zero sense.

It will take a Herculean effort to convince me:

1. A gang of violent people will literally massacre a young woman and two defenseless little girls but will inflict nothing more than a couple of non-fatal stab wounds and an abrasion on the man they allegedly had the problem with to begin with--who would have given them the most trouble physically and stood the best chance of defending the home with a firearm.

2. That said gang would not bring their own weapon to "the job" in order to either implicate MacDonald or otherwise deflect attention from themselves, but have no problem dripping candlewax or dropping wig fibers everywhere.

3. That a physician would jerk a penetrating object out of a stabbing victim, yet find hand washing to be a vital task in the midst of such an event. This one really pisses me off. I might not be a medical doctor, but I'm not an idiot.

Guilty.

I agree, MegtheEgg. I think another thing that has moved me off the fence is that we're supposed to expect that these drugged up hippies would stab a two-year-old so many times and brutally bludgeon a five-year-old and pregnant woman...but they didn't inflict nearly that much damage on the man they allegedly had it out for, one who was allegedly resisting the attack so much? Why wouldn't they have kept attacking him after he "fainted?" I know one can argue that they were on drugs and such and not thinking straight, but come on. Everyone else's murder was complete overkill. But why would there only be overkill on the person who fought back the most that they were supposed to be angry at?

Also, I notice that a lot of the Final Appeal subjects I believe to be guilty never say, "I hope we can find who really did this." You can argue that this was in their interview and not shown, sure, but I would expect to hear this more from a person wrongly accused of a murder. At the very least, I would have hoped that MacDonald would say something like this on the Dick Cavett show or in any of his interviews. Not an indicator of guilt, but interesting to say the least.

I think he's guilty. Read Fatal Vision years ago.

iirc,i think Jeff was enjoying the attention he got on the Dick cavett show,and was said not to have appeared to have been grieving or inteterested in finding the 'killers' at all (didn't mention it,according to his father in law).I think it was said he was even joking and laughing?

ETA: this interview is on the forbidden site.WOW.He is indeed laughing and making jokes.
Even dick cavett,when asked later,said MacDonald's affect was all wrong.And Collette's older brother commented that he was 'grinning like a Cheshire cat' and never once mentioned wanting the public's help to find the killers.It was all about him,and how he had been so 'wrongly' treated.

Look up: Jeffrey MacDonald on Dick Cavett

MacDonald knew he cut himself in the bathroom and knew his blood would have been found in the sink. Thus he needed to come up with an "innocent" explanation as to why his blood would be in there. That's why we have this ridiculous "washing my hands because I'm a surgeon" nonsense. I also think he used the dish washing gloves to help clean up or conceal the crime scene, which is why he gives the even more ridiculous "I may have put the gloves on to wash the dishes at 2 in the morning" story.

iirc,i think Jeff was enjoying the attention he got on the Dick cavett show,and was said not to have appeared to have been grieving or inteterested in finding the 'killers' at all (didn't mention it,according to his father in law).I think it was said he was even joking and laughing?

ETA: this interview is on the forbidden site.WOW.He is indeed laughing and making jokes.
Even dick cavett,when asked later,said MacDonald's affect was all wrong.And Collette's older brother commented that he was 'grinning like a Cheshire cat' and never once mentioned wanting the public's help to find the killers.It was all about him,and how he had been so 'wrongly' treated.

Look up: Jeffrey MacDonald on Dick Cavett

I watched that clip a while back. It is very hard to believe an innocent man would act like that on TV after his whole family, including very young daughters, had been violently massacred.

When I've seen family members of other murder victims being interviewed on camera, they don't act like MacDonald did. You can tell they are genuinely grieving.

Now, I can see where a man (especially a military man) back in those days might want to keep his emotions in check during such an interview, and would want come across as a strong individual, but it didn't seem to me like he was trying to maintain his composure and keep from breaking down publicly. It seemed attention seeking and self serving, imo.

I don't get why people are so quick to believe Stoekley's flimsy "confession." Especially when there is no evidence of it being true. I guess it's easy to deflect the blame from MacDonald onto someone else, but I GUARANTEE these same people would be saying "She's innocent!" "She's being railroaded by the police" etc, if she was being thrown in jail based on that same "confession." (yes, I know she is dead, which also makes it easy to blame her). Some people never seem to want believe that anyone could be guilty.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is why Colette would scream out "Jeff! Jeff! Why are they doing this to me?" in the middle of being clubbed and stabbed repeatedly by alleged "intruders". Wouldn't it make sense for her to cry out for help if MacDonald's story were true? Also, how can Kimberley cry out "Daddy!" Daddy!" when she was clubbed in the head and stabbed in the neck a bunch of times? Plus, it was raining the night of the murders. No wet footprints by intruders were found inside the home. MacDonald's story just doesn't make sense at all. I used to think he was innocent but after doing research and reading more about the case and trial, I am convinced he is guilty.

MacDonald knew he cut himself in the bathroom and knew his blood would have been found in the sink. Thus he needed to come up with an "innocent" explanation as to why his blood would be in there. That's why we have this ridiculous "washing my hands because I'm a surgeon" nonsense. I also think he used the dish washing gloves to help clean up or conceal the crime scene, which is why he gives the even more ridiculous "I may have put the gloves on to wash the dishes at 2 in the morning" story.

Definitely.

I also think the deal with supposedly removing the knife from Colette was to explain any of his fingerprints being on that weapon.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is why Colette would scream out "Jeff! Jeff! Why are they doing this to me?" in the middle of being clubbed and stabbed repeatedly by alleged "intruders". Wouldn't it make sense for her to cry out for help if MacDonald's story were true? Also, how can Kimberley cry out "Daddy!" Daddy!" when she was clubbed in the head and stabbed in the neck a bunch of times? Plus, it was raining the night of the murders. No wet footprints by intruders were found inside the home. MacDonald's story just doesn't make sense at all. I used to think he was innocent but after doing research and reading more about the case and trial, I am convinced he is guilty.

I agree 100% with everything you've brought up here.

I definitely am with you on that weird claim about Colette's attack in particular. One possible explanation for why MacDonald claimed Colette cried out with that specific statement is because she actually screamed, "Jeff! Jeff! Why are you doing this to me?"

"Jeff! Jeff! Why are you doing this to me?"

Yes,that's just what the prosecution said,and it makes sense to me.
And that is one reason I think he planned it,only I think he'd planned to do it when Collette was asleep,but she woke up.He continued with the attack anyway.Collette had no idea why he was striking her;it seems she had no reason to beleive there was any reason he should have been upset at the moment.It sounds like it was totally out of the blue to her.
It was also said Jeff made this statement b/c he wasn't sure what the upstairs neighbors heard,and so he was covering his tracks with the remark.(only he altered it).And indeed they did hear something,I just don't recall at rightoffhand what it was.

Also, I notice that a lot of the Final Appeal subjects I believe to be guilty never say, "I hope we can find who really did this." You can argue that this was in their interview and not shown, sure, but I would expect to hear this more from a person wrongly accused of a murder. At the very least, I would have hoped that MacDonald would say something like this on the Dick Cavett show or in any of his interviews. Not an indicator of guilt, but interesting to say the least.

Shoot no. As soon as he got out of the Army, he bebopped over to the west coast and didn't even so much as inquire about any further investigation into the murder of his entire family.

He hasn't changed since 1970. Not a single appellant word for the "real killers" of his pregnant wife and two children, but volumes upon volumes of "I was screwed! This is an injustice!" to this very day. Forty-three years of appealing to the public to work toward getting him back the get-out-of-jail-free card he had for nearly a decade, but not for seeking out the murderers of his wife, his two daughters, and his unborn child, or even for their memories. Hell no. It's all about Jeff.

Shoot no. As soon as he got out of the Army, he bebopped over to the west coast and didn't even so much as inquire about any further investigation into the murder of his entire family.

He hasn't changed since 1970. Not a single appellant word for the "real killers" of his pregnant wife and two children, but volumes upon volumes of "I was screwed! This is an injustice!" to this very day. Forty-three years of appealing to the public to work toward getting him back the get-out-of-jail-free card he had for nearly a decade, but not for seeking out the murderers of his wife, his two daughters, and his unborn child, or even for their memories. Hell no. It's all about Jeff.

Doesn't he assume they are all dead? I mean I know the two individuals profiled on UM are dead, Helena and her boyfriend.

Doesn't he assume they are all dead? I mean I know the two individuals profiled on UM are dead, Helena and her boyfriend.

Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were alive for years while MacDonald was out after his Article 32 hearing and subsequent (honorable) discharge. Stoeckley died in 1983 and Mitchell in 1982. During the nine years he was out free, MacDonald never once urged any investigating authority to look at ANY particular suspect until he needed out of prison in 1979.

Additionally, there allegedly may be two other "intruders" running loose today that he's never been too vocal about finding either.

Shoot no. As soon as he got out of the Army, he bebopped over to the west coast and didn't even so much as inquire about any further investigation into the murder of his entire family.

He hasn't changed since 1970. Not a single appellant word for the "real killers" of his pregnant wife and two children, but volumes upon volumes of "I was screwed! This is an injustice!" to this very day. Forty-three years of appealing to the public to work toward getting him back the get-out-of-jail-free card he had for nearly a decade, but not for seeking out the murderers of his wife, his two daughters, and his unborn child, or even for their memories. Hell no. It's all about Jeff.

I agree with you. He never talks about finding his family's "real killers". It's always about how he didn't receive a fair trial and was screwed. He'll never admit to brutally murdering his whole family. MacDonald is completely in denial. And where's this evidence that's supposed to exonerate him? Nowhere! Remember back in 2006 when it was proven by DNA tests that the hair found in his wife's hand was actually his own? I can't believe there are supporters who believe he is innocent. He's a narcissistic sociopathic murderer who will die in prison.

Yep, Meg, agree with you on all counts. By the way, American Justice's version of the MacDonald story is on the forbidden site. It has interviews with Collette's brother and clips of her mother and stepfather's views as well (from interviews shot before they both passed away in the mid-90s). There is a deeper look at the marriage as well. It has more graphic pictures shown in it, though, just as a warning to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

Here's something I've been curious about for a couple of days now. For those who think MacDonald is innocent, do you also believe Stoeckley was involved somehow? Or do you disregard her testimony completely and think there were four other intruders who murdered the MacDonald family? I guess I'm curious to see if anyone changed their mind after the DNA testing done excluded Stoeckley and Mitchell.

ACID IS GROOVY KILL THE PIG

Another thing I noticed watching the American Justice segment: Both of Colette's arms were broken and her face was extremely bruised and discolored. MacDonald claims he was punched repeatedly and fighting with multiple men, but he really only had one contusion on his forehead, the punctured lung, and a few stab wounds in his upper body. So these intruders go crazy on Colette and beat her up on top of all the stabbing and break her arms because she resisted, but MacDonald's resistance got him minor injuries in comparison? The doc shows pictures of MacDonald's face after the incident and one of Colette lying on the floor. Her face is just completely bashed; his looks barely touched in comparison. Just another thing that makes me lean toward his guilt.

Back when I leaned toward innocent, that phone call in the middle of the night from the man looking to reach a different Doctor MacDonald really had me thinking that Stokely was there since she verified that interviewee's story and they had similar accounts. However, she has recanted so many times and there is that new DNA evidence to think about. I just really don't believe her account. What do you all think about that phone call from the man looking for a different MacDonald?

What do you all think about that phone call from the man looking for a different MacDonald?

His credibility has been called into question. For one, he was suffering from some mental disability (schizophrenia, IIRC) at the time and was not supposed to be drinking. The night of the murders he claims to have been at a bar and was sloshed at the time he made the phone call. I think he was drunk and remembered wrong, or wanted to put himself into the spotlight of an important case just like countless others have done over the years with false information.

there was no mention of a phone call in prior accounts,other than MacDonald calling for help.this is more recently?
sounds made up to me.

there was no mention of a phone call in prior accounts,other than MacDonald calling for help.this is more recently?
sounds made up to me.

There was a man in Fayetteville who claimed he'd been referred to a Dr. Robert MacDonald by a healthcare provider and was given Jeffrey MacDonald's home phone number by mistake. He says he made a phone call to the J. MacDonald residence on the evening of February 17, 1970 and a woman picked up the phone. He reported hysterical laughing after asking for Dr. MacDonald and hearing male voices in the background.

Cars is correct: the man suffered from a mental disorder and had been drinking heavily on the night in question.

Shoot no. As soon as he got out of the Army, he bebopped over to the west coast and didn't even so much as inquire about any further investigation into the murder of his entire family.

He hasn't changed since 1970. Not a single appellant word for the "real killers" of his pregnant wife and two children, but volumes upon volumes of "I was screwed! This is an injustice!" to this very day. Forty-three years of appealing to the public to work toward getting him back the get-out-of-jail-free card he had for nearly a decade, but not for seeking out the murderers of his wife, his two daughters, and his unborn child, or even for their memories. Hell no. It's all about Jeff.

This speaks volumes. I still am floored how anyone can say this man is innocent.

This speaks volumes. I still am floored how anyone can say this man is innocent.

It blows my mind that people are still insistent that Helena Stoeckely and her cohorts were somehow involved in the crime. As far as I can tell, every single piece of exculpatory "evidence" that MacDonald has produced has been refuted completely.

This speaks volumes. I still am floored how anyone can say this man is innocent.

I had seen this on UM years ago and thought he was guilty, and finally watched the movie Fatal Vision tonight because Karl Malden is in it. The ****er is guilty.

I had seen this on UM years ago and thought he was guilty, and finally watched the movie Fatal Vision tonight because Karl Malden is in it. The ****er is guilty.


If I remmeber this case correctly, it is about a girl breaking in, saying 'acid is grovey' then knocking jeff out. He was the only one that survived.

What I never understood was the police suspected this woman who did it, and she confessed. To a bbc channel that was doing the doc.

The other man also confessed on his death bed.

Also, as for motive. Jeff was turning people in who he thought were using drugs. I guess the group was pissed off about that, because they were selling them. They just wanted to beat him up.

Also, the thing that is really interesting is. The hospital gave out a wrong phone number by mistake and just happpend to call jeffs house. When the patient called, a woman answered. And when he asked the woman can i speak to jeff, she started to laugh loud, and the patient said she sounded crazy.

unsolved mysteries did a really long segmant on this.

I go back and fourth on this case however, if all the evidence was presented at trail, i think he gets found not guility. Maybe not innocent, but def. not guility.

It blows my mind that people are still insistent that Helena Stoeckely and her cohorts were somehow involved in the crime. As far as I can tell, every single piece of exculpatory "evidence" that MacDonald has produced has been refuted completely.

Well she admitted it to the bbc doc crew, and the other man also admitted it on his death bed.

she even said, that she said "acid is grovey"

The motive in this case was to shut up him, and to not kill him and his family, but to quiet him. because he was turning people he expected of donig drugs into the police.

One thing i can't explain away is, when the patient called his house by mistake, the hosp gave the patient the wrong number. when he asked to speak to dr. blah blah, and he said the woman on the other ended just started to laugh loud, like she was crazy. The he said, he heard a man on the other end say , well yell, hang up the phone.
this is a third party witness, who really would not lie.

just doing some quick research on this case. He didn't get a fair trail at all.
for one the prosecutor on this case got disbarred. for threatening people.
and the judge in the case was the father in law of the prosecutor.

I go back and fourth on this case however, if all the evidence was presented at trail, i think he gets found not guility.

I don't. I think he still would have been convicted.


Well she admitted it to the bbc doc crew, and the other man also admitted it on his death bed.

she even said, that she said "acid is grovey"


...One thing i can't explain away is, when the patient called his house by mistake, the hosp gave the patient the wrong number. when he asked to speak to dr. blah blah, and he said the woman on the other ended just started to laugh loud, like she was crazy. The he said, he heard a man on the other end say , well yell, hang up the phone.
this is a third party witness, who really would not lie.

Helena Stoeckley confessed and retracted more often than some of us change socks, and most significantly, she never took the stand in 1979. Her moment arrived, and she didn't take it. She never "set the record" straight, despite the defense holding her up as some kind of star "witness". The fact of the matter is, she was a troubled heroin addict who lied about many things, significant and insignificant. (As well, that "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" thing came from MacDonald first. This isn't a case of Stoeckley telling the authorities this before MacDonald had a chance to do so).

Jimmy Friar is a seven-time felon who regularly took hydromorphone to "control epileptic seizures" (despite the drug being an opioid analgesic, not an anticonvulsant). By his own account, he's been a psychiatric in-patient in over eleven different Army and VA hospitals, including Walter Reed, Womack, and Montcrief. He himself admits to being intoxicated when he made the phone call, and to lying to the staff duty officer that morning, telling him he was a physician and that he needed to speak with "Dr. MacDonald" immediately. So, yes, I think the chances of him lying are really pretty good.

I don't. I think he still would have been convicted.




Helena Stoeckley confessed and retracted more often than some of us change socks, and most significantly, she never took the stand in 1979. Her moment arrived, and she didn't take it. She never "set the record" straight, despite the defense holding her up as some kind of star "witness". The fact of the matter is, she was a troubled heroin addict who lied about many things, significant and insignificant. (As well, that "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" thing came from MacDonald first. This isn't a case of Stoeckley telling the authorities this before MacDonald had a chance to do so).

Jimmy Friar is a seven-time felon who regularly took hydromorphone to "control epileptic seizures" (despite the drug being an opioid analgesic, not an anticonvulsant). By his own account, he's been a psychiatric in-patient in over eleven different Army and VA hospitals, including Walter Reed, Womack, and Montcrief. He himself admits to being intoxicated when he made the phone call, and to lying to the staff duty officer that morning, telling him he was a physician and that he needed to speak with "Dr. MacDonald" immediately. So, yes, I think the chances of him lying are really pretty good.

Yes she didn't take the stand because the prosecutor theating her that if she does she would be charge with murder also. This is what got the prosecutor disbarred in later years.

all of this could of been settled if the police would of sent a car out that night, that the first police on the scene saw on the way there.

also, you can just say, or they are druggiest who cares what they say. I don't get why, but whatever.
you can't explain away the call that came into the house, which is on the phone records.

Yes she didn't take the stand because the prosecutor theating her that if she does she would be charge with murder also. This is what got the prosecutor disbarred in later years.

No, it wasn't. Blackburn was disbarred for fraud and embezzlement in a completely unrelated case that occurred fourteen years after the trial.

also, you can just say, or they are druggiest who cares what they say. I don't get why, but whatever.

What these individuals have said, and their life circumstances, are actually quite significant. Convicts lie. Drug addicts often lie. Mentally ill people often give accounts that are simply untrue. At least Jimmy Friar is all of these things, and Helena was definitely a drug addict and did not live a life conducive to good mental health. I do care about what they say, because it reveals them to be completely unreliable.

you can't explain away the call that came into the house, which is on the phone records.

I would like to see a phone record that Jimmy Friar's phone call came into the MacDonald residence on February 17, 1970, because I've never seen one. Why? Because the defense decided not to introduce the "evidence" concerning Friar or call him as a witness, even after filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Judge Dupree asked twice if the defense wanted the writ issued. The first time, they asked for more time to decide. The second time, they told Dupree no. And that was that.

Therefore, there is no phone record among the 1979 trial documents.

If you know where one exists on the internet, please let me know, because I would like to see it.

the so-called phone call was nothing but a made-up indicent it seems.it would certainly be rather convenient if it actaully did occur,which i don't buy.jmo.

the so-called phone call was nothing but a made-up indicent it seems.it would certainly be rather convenient if it actaully did occur,which i don't buy.jmo.

Helena Stoeckley herself never testified to anything concerning a phone call that night until the defense gave Friar's account to the press--and that's well-documented. There's nothing about answering a ringing telephone in the MacDonald home until 1980 from Stoeckley.

As she was in Raleigh at the time the articles were published in 1979, it seems reasonable that she read one or more of them and then began to further embellish her story.

Helena Stoeckley herself never testified to anything concerning a phone call that night until the defense gave Friar's account to the press--and that's well-documented. There's nothing about answering a ringing telephone in the MacDonald home until 1980 from Stoeckley.

As she was in Raleigh at the time the articles were published in 1979, it seems reasonable that she read one or more of them and then began to further embellish her story.

Good point. Never even knew that. Someone was feeding these people information in an attempt to drum up reasonable doubt, IMO.

Good point. Never even knew that. Someone was feeding these people information in an attempt to drum up reasonable doubt, IMO.

Absolutely. I think that is exactly what happened. The moment you begin looking into just the timeline of who said what when, the whole thing unravels pretty quickly. I think that's why MacDonald's defense lawyers today hang their hats on fiber "evidence"--many Americans tend to incline an ear to forensics, which is just within and beyond the average joe's grasp academically for him to be dangerous on a jury--and on the surface, it can seem like a maze to negotiate: blue fibers, black fibers, pajama fibers, synthetic hair. It's not in reality, but MacDonald and his attorneys want you to either completely over-simplify or completely over-complicate it.

But it isn't as though this hasn't backfired on them. Remember how they used to hoot and holler about that hair found in Colette's hand--the one that was "someday" going to exonerate their client--and it ended up coming from Jeff? :rolleyes:

I wonder if the BBC paid Helena for the interview? There is only one thing an addict loves just as much as their drugs....and that is money, so that they can go buy more drugs.

I have to admit, guys, I'm really on the fence about this case. I really have no idea what to think.

I have to admit, guys, I'm really on the fence about this case. I really have no idea what to think.

Just remember that everything Helena "confessed" to over the years was either something that was said by MacDonald in an interview, or in print in a newspaper article or magazine. This is how she knew there was a rocking horse in one of the children's bedrooms. Every detail she confessed to she learned from the mouth of MacDonald himself.

Just remember that everything Helena "confessed" to over the years was either something that was said by MacDonald in an interview, or in print in a newspaper article or magazine. This is how she knew there was a rocking horse in one of the children's bedrooms. Every detail she confessed to she learned from the mouth of MacDonald himself.

Ooops, I guess I should have been more clear. I'm not on the fence about what Helena said (because as you mentioned, everything she said she could have just got from what MacDonald already described). I'm on the fence about whether or not he is innocent or guilty. I really don't know what to think with this case.

Ooops, I guess I should have been more clear. I'm not on the fence about what Helena said (because as you mentioned, everything she said she could have just got from what MacDonald already described). I'm on the fence about whether or not he is innocent or guilty. I really don't know what to think with this case.

There has been no credible evidence ever presented over the years to suggest anyone other than MacDonald committed these murders. Helena and her boyfriend Greg Mitchell's DNA was tested to see if there were any matches at the crime scene and there were none. They were officially ruled out as suspects.

Jimmy Friar is a seven-time felon who regularly took hydromorphone to "control epileptic seizures" (despite the drug being an opioid analgesic, not an anticonvulsant). By his own account, he's been a psychiatric in-patient in over eleven different Army and VA hospitals, including Walter Reed, Womack, and Montcrief. He himself admits to being intoxicated when he made the phone call, and to lying to the staff duty officer that morning, telling him he was a physician and that he needed to speak with "Dr. MacDonald" immediately. So, yes, I think the chances of him lying are really pretty good.


When I was younger and would watch this segment, it would be this phone call that put me on the fence. But hearing later about this witness' background and such just throws his credibility entirely out the window. This on top of no evidence of real intruders, MacDonald's superficial wounds and attitude, Stokely recanting and changing her story multiple times, etc. has me convinced he is guilty. I just cannot fathom his story being true. Even if drugged up hippies broke into the house, why would they stab the other occupants, including a two-year-old, multiple times yet they only give the male and biggest threat to them one big stab and the rest of his injuries are minor in comparison? Both of Collette's arms were broken from fighting back. Yet they don't do this or anything close to MacDonald? He ends up with a contusion, minor stab wounds in the chest and a punctured lung. Collette and Kristen were stabbed so many times and Kimberly's head was bashed in. So they overkill the family but Jeff ends up with minor wounds in comparison? Come on. Did he get a fair trial? No, but I still believe he is guilty.

I'm wondering now about the witness who claims Greg Mitchell confessed to him.

When I was younger and would watch this segment, it would be this phone call that put me on the fence. But hearing later about this witness' background and such just throws his credibility entirely out the window. This on top of no evidence of real intruders, MacDonald's superficial wounds and attitude, Stokely recanting and changing her story multiple times, etc. has me convinced he is guilty. I just cannot fathom his story being true. Even if drugged up hippies broke into the house, why would they stab the other occupants, including a two-year-old, multiple times yet they only give the male and biggest threat to them one big stab and the rest of his injuries are minor in comparison? Both of Collette's arms were broken from fighting back. Yet they don't do this or anything close to MacDonald? He ends up with a contusion, minor stab wounds in the chest and a punctured lung. Collette and Kristen were stabbed so many times and Kimberly's head was bashed in. So they overkill the family but Jeff ends up with minor wounds in comparison? Come on. Did he get a fair trial? No, but I still believe he is guilty.

There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if Jeffrey MacDonald were re-tried tomorrow--even under a jury that had never even heard of MacDonald and his case--he would be found guilty again.

I'm wondering now about the witness who claims Greg Mitchell confessed to him.

Just read an article about that. Another BS post-'79-trial "confession" from Fayetteville's favorite substance-addled motley crew, I think--if the Griffins' story is even true to begin with. It's a very, very well-publicized case with many years behind it, so I think the potential for wild yarn spinnin' is pretty high.

In case anyone else might be interested, here's a link:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/20/3542715/couple-man-said-he-murdered-macdonalds.html

Just read an article about that. Another BS post-'79-trial "confession" from Fayetteville's favorite substance-addled motley crew, I think--if the Griffins' story is even true to begin with. It's a very, very well-publicized case with many years behind it, so I think the potential for wild yarn spinnin' is pretty high.

In case anyone else might be interested, here's a link:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/20/3542715/couple-man-said-he-murdered-macdonalds.html

These people don't realize that Mitchell was suffering from PTSD and a serious drug addiction. With Stoeckley's rampant "confessions" implicating him, the guy probably began to believe that he may very well have been with her that night. And they conveniently decided to wait 30 years to tell this "confession"? BS.

And they conveniently decided to wait 30 years to tell this "confession"? BS.

Seems like the timing of that story being made public and MacDonald being back in court is probably no coincidence.

If it was MacDonald's defense that managed to turn up this couple, I'll laugh my fool head off.

Seems like the timing of that story being made public and MacDonald being back in court is probably no coincidence.

If it was MacDonald's defense that managed to turn up this couple, I'll laugh my fool head off.

I believe his defense did similar things with Friar, Stoeckley, and other "witnesses" who overheard Mitchell and company confess to come forward (coincidentally around the time of one of MacDonald's appeals or when there was a television program dedicated to the murders) and spout their BS. My only question is why? Was it for compensation, attention, or because they truly believed that MacDonald was innocent and were doing the right thing?

I believe his defense did similar things with Friar, Stoeckley, and other "witnesses" who overheard Mitchell and company confess to come forward (coincidentally around the time of one of MacDonald's appeals or when there was a television program dedicated to the murders) and spout their BS. My only question is why? Was it for compensation, attention, or because they truly believed that MacDonald was innocent and were doing the right thing?

Yes. I really do think that back in the late '70s and '80s MacDonald's defense figured these "confessions" were the best thing they had going in they way of trying to create just enough doubt in juror's, and potential supporters', minds (I suppose that worked quite well with the latter group, however).

Later on, as fiber analysis became more sophisticated, it seems to me they thought they could swing it with that--and it ended up backfiring on them when much of that evidence could be traced back to MacDonald himself or the household. Now it seems like they're going right back to digging up "confession" stories again, only this time, the "confessors" aren't with us anymore. You'd think after over thirty years, they'd have had time to come up with something better than I-know-a-guy-who-said-sloppy-drunk-Greg-Mitchell-admitted-to-the-murders-one-night-in-1980.

You'd think after over thirty years, they'd have had time to come up with something better than I-know-a-guy-who-said-sloppy-drunk-Greg-Mitchell-admitted-to-the-murders-one-night-in-1980.

You also think there would have been other people coming forward saying they overheard others besides Mitchell and Stoeckley that "confessed". I find it funny that no one has been able to ID the black male allegedly seen with Stoeckley and co. on the night of the murders. He was wearing sergeant stripes, and was seen by several people around Fort Bragg. Stoeckley never id'ed him as far as I know, and the others she initially id'ed as the assailants all passed polygraph tests (including Mitchell). It's amazing to me that MacDonald still has supporters, and that the defense would stoop so low to constantly keep bringing up "confessions" from 30 plus years ago.

You also think there would have been other people coming forward saying they overheard others besides Mitchell and Stoeckley that "confessed".

Exactly. The "confessors" are two people (both of whom were heavy drug users and one who suffered mental illness until the day he died) once involved in a romantic relationship...and no one else. Not one person. Who even reported either of those two "confessing" to them until Stoeckley went public, and dragged Mitchell into the tale with her?

I find it funny that no one has been able to ID the black male allegedly seen with Stoeckley and co. on the night of the murders. He was wearing sergeant stripes, and was seen by several people around Fort Bragg.

Yeah, it's like he's left out of the equation entirely. The conspiracy theorists seem to be too busy screaming about the woman in the floppy hat definitely being Stoeckley. Even "proof" that Greg Mitchell was there isn't nearly as elaborated on as is that concerning Stoeckley. It really is a gigantic hole and I have no idea why they haven't at least attempted to pull at least a name out.

Well, then again...I guess it's pretty obvious why.


It's amazing to me that MacDonald still has supporters, and that the defense would stoop so low to constantly keep bringing up "confessions" from 30 plus years ago.

I'm just glad their sail is finally wearing thin. I had a feeling it eventually would.

I'm just glad their sail is finally wearing thin. I had a feeling it eventually would.

I just wish MacDonald would man up and admit to what he did. They've beaten to death the hippie angle over and over again, and even with the advent of forensic technology, there is not one single piece of evidence that points to any other person being in that house on the night of the murders besides the MacDonald family.

I just wish MacDonald would man up and admit to what he did. They've beaten to death the hippie angle over and over again, and even with the advent of forensic technology, there is not one single piece of evidence that points to any other person being in that house on the night of the murders besides the MacDonald family.
What about the guy calling their home by accident and Helena picking up with a guy's voice in the background? That has been the main event that makes me believe he is innocent.

What about the guy calling their home by accident and Helena picking up with a guy's voice in the background? That has been the main event that makes me believe he is innocent.

Posts #365 and #367 of this thread. They're a page back.

When I was younger and would watch this segment, it would be this phone call that put me on the fence. But hearing later about this witness' background and such just throws his credibility entirely out the window. This on top of no evidence of real intruders, MacDonald's superficial wounds and attitude, Stokely recanting and changing her story multiple times, etc. has me convinced he is guilty. I just cannot fathom his story being true. Even if drugged up hippies broke into the house, why would they stab the other occupants, including a two-year-old, multiple times yet they only give the male and biggest threat to them one big stab and the rest of his injuries are minor in comparison? Both of Collette's arms were broken from fighting back. Yet they don't do this or anything close to MacDonald? He ends up with a contusion, minor stab wounds in the chest and a punctured lung. Collette and Kristen were stabbed so many times and Kimberly's head was bashed in. So they overkill the family but Jeff ends up with minor wounds in comparison? Come on. Did he get a fair trial? No, but I still believe he is guilty.

I'm wondering now about the witness who claims Greg Mitchell confessed to him.

Thank you! Again, that's what I keep coming back to in this case: the discrepancy in injuries. So far, none of his defenders have even tried to explain that away.

Thank you! Again, that's what I keep coming back to in this case: the discrepancy in injuries. So far, none of his defenders have even tried to explain that away.

Nor have they tried to explain away the fact that no pyjama fibers were found in the lounge ( despite MacDonald claiming that his PJ top was repeatedly torn there) but some were found under the bodies of Colette and the children. Nor the fact that aside from an overturned coffee table and a few drops of blood in the hallway, the hallway and lounge were in a neat and orderly condition - remarkable, given that Mac claims to have fought for his life against a gang of psychotic hippies there. Nor the fact that not once during or after the attack did Mac feel the need to call out to his neighbours for help. Nor the sheer improbability of a tired and disorientated (and unarmed) Mac, who had no room to move in a cramped apartment, being able to successfully ward off a homicidal gang armed with knives and lumps of wood to the point where he only suffered minor injuries. Nor the fact that Macdonald never spent a dime trying to find the killers of his wife and children - while moving to California and treating himself to a water-side condo, boat, Maserati sports car and all sorts of other goodies. Nor the fact that aside from Ms Floppy Hat's "acid is groovy" nonsense, not one of his other attackers is reported to have said a single word as they went about their grim business.

And that's before I even get to the DNA evidence.

MacDonald's story is absurd. Take away the "confessions" of an alcoholic heroin addict who regularly abused mescaline, LSD and God knows what else and ALL material evidence is entirely consistent with his guilt.

Nor have they tried to explain away the fact that no pyjama fibers were found in the lounge ( despite MacDonald claiming that his PJ top was repeatedly torn there) but some were found under the bodies of Colette and the children. Nor the fact that aside from an overturned coffee table and a few drops of blood in the hallway, the hallway and lounge were in a neat and orderly condition - remarkable, given that Mac claims to have fought for his life against a gang of psychotic hippies there. Nor the fact that not once during or after the attack did Mac feel the need to call out to his neighbours for help. Nor the sheer improbability of a tired and disorientated (and unarmed) Mac, who had no room to move in a cramped apartment, being able to successfully ward off a homicidal gang armed with knives and lumps of wood to the point where he only suffered minor injuries. Nor the fact that Macdonald never spent a dime trying to find the killers of his wife and children - while moving to California and treating himself to a water-side condo, boat, Maserati sports car and all sorts of other goodies. Nor the fact that aside from Ms Floppy Hat's "acid is groovy" nonsense, not one of his other attackers is reported to have said a single word as they went about their grim business.

And that's before I even get to the DNA evidence.

MacDonald's story is absurd. Take away the "confessions" of an alcoholic heroin addict who regularly abused mescaline, LSD and God knows what else and ALL material evidence is entirely consistent with his guilt.

:clap :clap :clap

There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if Jeffrey MacDonald were re-tried tomorrow--even under a jury that had never even heard of MacDonald and his case--he would be found guilty again.
]


Me either.

The trial judge was tough on Mac - no doubt -but it was not like he was running some show trial. Many decisions went against MacDonald, but MacDonald did get the benefit of the judge denying the prosecution's motion to introduce Mac's Article 32 testimony. Had they been able to spend a few days going through that, MacDonald's credibility before the jury would have been destroyed long before he ever took the stand. The prosecution were also prevented from raising the issue of MacDonald's womanising - something which would have exposed Mac's witness stand crocodile tears over his "beautiful wife" for the shameless pantomime performance that they were

MacDonald advocates complain about two things:
a) the exclusion of the psychiatric evidence; and
b) the prosecution reading the Esquire article onto the record

As for a), as far as I'm concerned, you can take ALL the psychiatric evidence in this case (for and against McDonald) and throw it in the trash. It all reads like a load of sub-Freudian mumbo-jumbo and baseless speculation. Given Mac wasn't pleading insanity, the judge was right to exclude it.
As for b), I don't see what the issue is. It doesn't undermine Mac's defence in any way (his lawyers can argue that its not that big a coincidence that the murderers bore some resemblence to the subjects of the Esquire article. Esquire was a popular magazine, and tens of thousands of men would have had a copy in their living room). If anything, the jurors hearing all these lurid tales about weird hippy freaks are likely to think Mac's story is more - not less - probable. The only objection you could have to the prosecution's decision is that they wasted the Court's time.

What sunk Mac at trial was the following:
a) the sheer absurdity and improbability of his ridiculous explanantion
b) the physical evidence
c) his obnoxious, agressive performance on the witness stand

Me either.

The trial judge was tough on Mac - no doubt -but it was not like he was running some show trial. Many decisions went against MacDonald, but MacDonald did get the benefit of the judge denying the prosecution's motion to introduce Mac's Article 32 testimony. Had they been able to spend a few days going through that, MacDonald's credibility before the jury would have been destroyed long before he ever took the stand. The prosecution were also prevented from raising the issue of MacDonald's womanising - something which would have exposed Mac's witness stand crocodile tears over his "beautiful wife" for the shameless pantomime performance that they were

MacDonald advocates complain about two things:
a) the exclusion of the psychiatric evidence; and
b) the prosecution reading the Esquire article onto the record

As for a), as far as I'm concerned, you can take ALL the psychiatric evidence in this case (for and against McDonald) and throw it in the trash. It all reads like a load of sub-Freudian mumbo-jumbo and baseless speculation. Given Mac wasn't pleading insanity, the judge was right to exclude it.
As for b), I don't see what the issue is. It doesn't undermine Mac's defence in any way (his lawyers can argue that its not that big a coincidence that the murderers bore some resemblence to the subjects of the Esquire article. Esquire was a popular magazine, and tens of thousands of men would have had a copy in their living room). If anything, the jurors hearing all these lurid tales about weird hippy freaks are likely to think Mac's story is more - not less - probable. The only objection you could have to the prosecution's decision is that they wasted the Court's time.

What sunk Mac at trial was the following:
a) the sheer absurdity and improbability of his ridiculous explanantion
b) the physical evidence
c) his obnoxious, agressive performance on the witness stand

Excellent post. I also like your point about how none of the other "intruders" besides Stoeckley ever uttered a single word. Not one. And out of all four "intruders" not one of them had a hard time either watching or taking part in killing 2 innocent young children?! Don't buy it.

I used to be on the fence about this case. He did it. Has he ever shown any kind of sympathy for his daughters? Every time I see his interviews it's never about justice for his family that was brutally murdered. If he was truly innocent why not spend all the resources to find out who killed his family, not to exonerate him?

I used to be on the fence about this case. He did it. Has he ever shown any kind of sympathy for his daughters? Every time I see his interviews it's never about justice for his family that was brutally murdered. If he was truly innocent why not spend all the resources to find out who killed his family, not to exonerate him?

No sympathy and very little emotion. Even when he describes being "attacked", he tells the story like he's telling a funny anecdote at a barbeque.

No sympathy and very little emotion. Even when he describes being "attacked", he tells the story like he's telling a funny anecdote at a barbeque.
Just way too calculated, like he has every word planned, like he's rehearsed this story. I know it's been decades since the attack and he's told the story multiple times and we all grieve differently, but I also find it suspect. Also notice: The "tears" don't seem to make an appearance until he talks about Kristen.

I could even write all this off as him being a different kind of mourner and very good at masking emotions-- if the evidence showed signs of intruders AND if he hadn't gone partying it up after the murders with seemingly no concern of finding these hippies and avenging his family. On the Dick Cavett show, for example, did he ever express grief and upset about losing his family? I seem to remember all he did was get mad that he was briefly charged. If he was innocent, sure being upset you were suspect is normal. But where is the concern about your slain family? He just seems to care about him, as Meg eloquently said in an earlier post. "It's all about Jeff."

[QUOTE=WishfulDreamer]Just way too calculated, like he has every word planned, like he's rehearsed this story. I know it's been decades since the attack and he's told the story multiple times and we all grieve differently, but I also find it suspect. Also notice: The "tears" don't seem to make an appearance until he talks about Kristen.
QUOTE]


Yes, and when you look at his story, there's just fact after fact that doesn't add up. Ignoring the physical evidence (EVERY SINGLE BIT of which implicates Mac) and in addition to points I've previously raised ,why didn't Mac bring out a pillow to the lounge if he was sleeping on it? No pillow was found in teh living room. Who in the hell washes up dishes in surgical gloves? At 1 o'clock in the morning no less? Why didn't his alleged attackers bring any weapons to the house if they were intent on wiping out his family? Why didn't they steal any of the (massive) supply of drugs or syringes that were in his house? Why did he claim to have taken the hickory knife out of Collette's chest - anyone with basic first aid (let alone a SURGEON) knows not to do that? And why was he so insistent on telling attending EMTs that he had done this? there were plenty of other things that were of much higher priority. Mac claims the hippies knocked him out in the hallway - so why didn't they continue to beat him up and stab him there while he was unconscious, instead of leaving him (relatively) unscathed? If they are happy to kill women and children, they should have no compunction about finishing off a grown man. Why did he bother going to the bathroom and cleaning up after the attack? Its not like he was about to eat dinner. Why did the hippies put on gloves before writing "Pig" on the headboard? Its not like they seemed too worried about leave forensic evidence when attacking Mac or his family.

I could go on all day. Mac's version of events is nonsense. Just nonsense upon nonsense upon nonsense. Mac's story would be comical were it not for the horrific fate suffered by Collette and the girls.
Mac is a cold-blooded violent psychopath. God bless Freddie Kassab. Without him, this monster would still be free and living the good life in California.

God bless Freddie Kassab. Without him, this monster would still be free and living the good life in California.

:clap

Macdonald would have most likely gotten away with this horrible crime if he simply kept his mouth shut. His huge ego couldnt settle for just getting away with murder. He wanted to make the investigators look foolish as well. The appearance on the Dick Cavett Show was an incredibly stupid move and shows a shows a shocking amount of arrogance.
The television appearance coupled with the lie he told his father in law turned up the heat in this case. I bet Macdonald has been kicking himself in the ass for the past 30-40 years for those missteps.

Macdonald would have most likely gotten away with this horrible crime if he simply kept his mouth shut. His huge ego couldnt settle for just getting away with murder. He wanted to make the investigators look foolish as well. The appearance on the Dick Cavett Show was an incredibly stupid move and shows a shows a shocking amount of arrogance.
The television appearance coupled with the lie he told his father in law turned up the heat in this case. I bet Macdonald has been kicking himself in the ass for the past 30-40 years for those missteps.


Okay, I haven't read all 27 pages, but what makes me think he is innocent, is the floppy hat girl was seen by the 2 guys who were called to the crime scene and MacDonald was hypnotised and still said 4 people attacked his family.......or do we not believe in this? Not smartass, truly asking.

I hate when people say "no emotion" equals guilt. I never cry and sadly witnessed a murder. I mean, why cry? Anger and shock seem more likely of an emotion :/ Me? Shock. I was blank as Michael Myers. I didn't boo who.

Okay, I haven't read all 27 pages, but what makes me think he is innocent, is the floppy hat girl was seen by the 2 guys who were called to the crime scene and MacDonald was hypnotised and still said 4 people attacked his family.......or do we not believe in this? Not smartass, truly asking...

The woman in the floppy hat did exist. It was not Helena Stoeckley. Kenneth Mica, the MP who was responding to the distress call from the MacDonald home, says he saw a lady with a floppy hat standing on a corner near the MacDonald house. Mica was interviewed recently by Errol Morris and said that the lady on the corner was absolutely NOT Stoeckley and that it was most likely a woman having an affair with a ranking officer stationed at Fort Bragg. I personally think when MacDonald went outside to ditch the weapons, he saw the lady and decided to use her general description as one of the attackers. I really don't buy into the hypnotism aspect either. There's no way to know one way or the other if he was truly hypnotized.

I hate when people say "no emotion" equals guilt. I never cry and sadly witnessed a murder. I mean, why cry? Anger and shock seem more likely of an emotion :/ Me? Shock. I was blank as Michael Myers. I didn't boo who.

Yes people all react differently to traumatic events. That's not even an issue with me at all. The main issue for me is the fact that he never showed any emotion at all. I'm not talking not crying either. I mean he wasn't angry, shocked, bitter, sad, spiteful, or any other emotion you could think of. He was just blank. And here's my other point, had you been interviewed about the murder you witnessed on national television (had the murderer still been on the loose) would you sit there and crack jokes with the host of the tv show, and then go on to complain about the injustices you suffered? Or would you be more concerned with catching the killer? Because MacDonald was more concerned with the former.

I laugh when I'm nervous, so I would not do a TV show or take a lie dectector test. I would look guilty as sin. I mean, life goes on. You have to stone up. I never truly followed his case. I ma going by what I see. The emotion thing is so overplayed. until you go through it, ya don't know how you will act. I asked for a Coke after I was whisked away....does that mean I am a cold blooded killer? No. It was the first thought it my head and I dislike Coke!!!!

I laugh when I'm nervous, so I would not do a TV show or take a lie dectector test. I would look guilty as sin. I mean, life goes on. You have to stone up. I never truly followed his case. I ma going by what I see. The emotion thing is so overplayed. until you go through it, ya don't know how you will act. I asked for a Coke after I was whisked away....does that mean I am a cold blooded killer? No. It was the first thought it my head and I dislike Coke!!!!

His lack of emotion alone is certainly not an indicator of his guilt, of course.

It is, however, an immense detail in the face of what one learns when he or she further investigates and/or follows his case rather than looking at the surface of it.

I laugh when I'm nervous, so I would not do a TV show or take a lie dectector test. I would look guilty as sin. I mean, life goes on. You have to stone up. I never truly followed his case. I ma going by what I see. The emotion thing is so overplayed. until you go through it, ya don't know how you will act. I asked for a Coke after I was whisked away....does that mean I am a cold blooded killer? No. It was the first thought it my head and I dislike Coke!!!!

That's a lot different than joking with a television show host about watching his rival on the night your wife and two young daughters were savagely murdered. MacDonald, if innocent, knew the killers of his family were still on the loose. The man did not make one single appeal to anyone to come forward with information, did not implore the audience to look at the composite drawings of the suspects, nothing. He bemoaned the fact that the army had enough gull to even suspect him at all.

Okay, I haven't read all 27 pages, but what makes me think he is innocent, is the floppy hat girl was seen by the 2 guys who were called to the crime scene and MacDonald was hypnotised and still said 4 people attacked his family.......or do we not believe in this? Not smartass, truly asking.

I hate when people say "no emotion" equals guilt. I never cry and sadly witnessed a murder. I mean, why cry? Anger and shock seem more likely of an emotion :/ Me? Shock. I was blank as Michael Myers. I didn't boo who.

If you had taken a peek at some of the other pages, you would have discovered that we're not convicting him solely on his lack of emotion, but on physical evidence like the discrepancy in injuries. A pregnant woman and two small children are brutally hacked up yet the six foot army officer who posed the most threat to the intruders gets off with a hole in his chest?!

If you had taken a peek at some of the other pages, you would have discovered that we're not convicting him solely on his lack of emotion, but on physical evidence like the discrepancy in injuries. A pregnant woman and two small children are brutally hacked up yet the six foot army officer who posed the most threat to the intruders gets off with a hole in his chest?!
Exactly. Colette, a pregnant woman, was stabbed multiple times and BOTH of her arms were broken from trying to defend herself. The injuries on her are just unreal, as in extremely horrific. I have seen documentaries about the case and pictures of Colette and the children were shown, it's just brutal. But MacDonald ends up with a contusion, a few stab wounds that don't do a lot of damage to him, and a punctured lung. The man of the house who would pose the most threat to the intruders, who allegedly fought very hard to defend his family, doesn't have injuries close to as brutal as those on his wife and children. Even if we are to believe that drugged up hippies committed this crime, why the extreme brutality against those who pose the least threat to them, including a 2-year-old? They break a pregnant woman's arms in a violent struggle and stab her many times and the man of the house, a green beret, isn't beaten nearly as badly even though he would pose the most threat to them? I don't believe it. To me, the extent of the injuries seems consistent with a crime of passion, though I do find the fact that MacDonald was behaving oddly in the days prior to the murder eerie. Many posters have theorized that the only premeditated murder here was that of Kristen, but I'm not certain myself. I think, however, that he is definitely guilty, one way or the other.

In conclusion, to me, these factors are not what makes MacDonald a murderer:
1) He was an adulterer
2) He planned to leave town while his wife was heavily pregnant
3) He showed little emotion
4) He went on TV only ranting about being looked at as a suspect, rather than hoping the real killers were brought to justice and then partied it up in California in the years following the murders.

These points only help seal the deal for me, but the main reasons I believe him to be guilty are:
1) The above-written, completely inconsistent injuries among the family.
2) Absolutely NO evidence connecting any outside figures to the crime.
Helena Stokely recanting a million times and being a drug addict also adds to this. I don't buy that she was there. The witness who claims Helena answered the telephone during the murders being a multi-time felon with severe psychological problems also smashes that theory apart.

. Even if we are to believe that drugged up hippies committed this crime, why the extreme brutality against those who pose the least threat to them, including a 2-year-old? They break a pregnant woman's arms in a violent struggle and stab her many times and the man of the house, a green beret, isn't beaten nearly as badly even though he would pose the most threat to them? I don't believe it. .


Yes. The discrepancy between the extent of his injuries and those of his family is incredibly incriminating, and has no realistic, logical explanantion other than that Mac is the killer.Defenders of MacDonald tend to just brush this aside: "Yeah, I guess that is kind of weird. Anyway, back to Helena Stokeley..."

Yes. The discrepancy between the extent of his injuries and those of his family is incredibly incriminating, and has no realistic, logical explanantion other than that Mac is the killer.Defenders of MacDonald tend to just brush this aside: "Yeah, I guess that is kind of weird. Anyway, back to Helena Stokeley..."

Yes! :lol:

So i've been interested in this one lately. Based on the UM segment alone, I thought he was likely innocent. Then, after seeing a few other documentaries on it (particularly the 48 Hours & American Justice episodes), I was kinda leaning more towards his guilt. That, and the one anti-MacDonald site with all the discrepancies in his story is pretty damn incriminating. Now, i'm not sure of either side. A lot of people tend to dismiss Helena Stoeckley (and i'll agree, for good reason), but something tells me she might've been genuine. I mean, she told her mom about the whole thing and how she felt guilty about it. Druggie or not, I don't know why someone would lie to their own mother about such an occurrence. And of course, we have the call from Jimmy Friar, which further places her under suspicion (though maybe Jeff had one of his many lady friends whom he had an affair with help him out, and she answered the phone - anyone else think about this as a possibility?) Another interesting point I saw was that the "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" scenario was so unreal, that there's no way Jeff (who i've heard was pretty intelligent) would be dumb enough to use as his excuse for what happened. Or maybe he was. Then we have his actions after the murders (Dick Cavett, the phone call, etc) which show he clearly didn't care about finding who actually committed these crimes...because he himself was responsible. Or maybe, just maybe, he was actually innocent and, in which is gonna sound pretty bad, was happy his family was gone so he could move on. If he really is innocent, that could explain his narcissistic behavior after the events of that night.

I'm not saying Jeff is a wholesome, great person who's behind bars for something he didn't do, because it's clear he's just a tiny bit self-conceited. I'm not entirely convinced he's innocent...but i'm not convinced of his guilt, either. I have a feeling we'll never know what truly happened that night unless A. Jeff confesses and/or names an accomplice or B. one of the other two assailants come forward with enough evidence to show they were in his house that night. So yeah, i'm pretty unsure on this one, with all the evidence available.

MacDonald is guilty. Ignore all the testimony. Ignore what he said, ignore what Stoeckley said (she has given multiple accounts of her involvement over the years - from full confessions to denying she was ever present at the house to saying she saw MacDonald to the deed) and just look at the physical evidence.

Not one person - not the EMTs who attended the scene, nor the MPs who responded to the initial call, not the FBI investigators who took over the case, not Freddie Kassab - not one single person who has been in the apartment where the attacks took place thinks the events could have gone down the way MacDonald said they did. It was a crowded, small apartment with no room to move. Had 4 heavily armed psychos come in there with the intention of killing MacDonald he would now be dead.

His Pyjama fibres were found underneath the bodies of the victims - this is impossible if events transpired as he said they did.
No pyjama fibres were found in the lounge where the attack on him allegedly took place - this is impossible if events transpired as he said they did.
No evidence of any nature whatsoever was found to suggest the presence of the attackers - no wet/muddy footprints, no scuffing on the ceiling/walls, no Stoekley fingerprints - this is impossible if events transpired as he said they did.
The tears in his pyjama top were neat and cylindrical - not ragged - this is impossible if events transpired as he said they did.
A hair Colette was clutching when she died was DNA tested a few years back and found to be MacDonalds - this is impossible if events transpired as he said they did.
The bodies were moved after their deaths - this is impossible if events transpired as he said they did.
I could go on all day - the evidence all points in one direction...to MacDonald. People lie. Physical evidence does not.

Defenders of MacDonald usually respond to this with accusations of a "cover up" and alleging that the government "framed" him. To which there is only one response: WHY?

Yes, MacDonald is smug, arrogant and a philanderer, but he was an ARMY DOCTOR. His supposed attackers were DIRTY DRUG TAKING HIPPIES. The Government and the Army would have been breaking their necks to pin his family's murder on a bunch of long haired, acid head freaks. However, after scouring the country for weeks talking to every hippy group known to man, and re-examining the evidence, the FBI came to the sad conclusion that there was only one person who could have murdered Colette and the girls.

I do agree with you on one point - MacDonalds behaviour after the murders (that weird appearance on TV, forgetting his family and having endless flings with a succession hotties while his wife's body was still warm) doesn't prove his guilt - it only proves he's a callous narcissist. What does prove his guilt is the physical evidence - every last particle of it.

^Yes...to all of that.

Damn, great post. I never heard about the fibers under all of the victims, definitely says a lot. I hate the idea of thinking he's guilty (I couldn't imagine anyone doing this to their family, sociopaths included), but there's just so little evidence to show anyone but him was responsible. That little evidence is what gets me, though. Even though it's likely meaningless, part of me wonders if it's possible that's really the only evidence that survived...but again, what reason does the military have to frame him, a respected doctor? Also, forgive me if i'm wrong, but Jeff claimed he gave Collette CPR, right? Part of me thinks part of his hair naturally fell out during this...or maybe he made that up to explain why his DNA was all over her.
It's strange. Based on the UM segment, I was completely sure he was innocent. Then, examining evidence and seeing a couple more shows on it, he started to look just a little bit suspicious (and narcissistic; believe it or not I thought he was sincere and seemed likable in the UM episode). Then, looking at that MacDonald case site and reading through this thread, i'm nearly convinced he alone is responsible, but I still have some nagging doubts. Heheh, to put it in his own words..."you guys are more thorough than I thought."

On a lighter note, I learned there's an underground short film by cult punk Joe Christ called "Acid is Groovy, Kill the Pigs". Apparently, it's about the cult of hippies who supposedly attacked MacDonald on the road after those events. Sounded pretty neat, i'd like to track it down and give it a watch.

And of course, we have the call from Jimmy Friar, which further places her under suspicion (though maybe Jeff had one of his many lady friends whom he had an affair with help him out, and she answered the phone - anyone else think about this as a possibility?)
When I was on the fence, this made me think MacDonald could possibly be innocent. I mean, how could some stranger possibly have called MacDonald and heard a crazy hippy woman on the other end if she wasn't there? However, if you search the thread, MegtheEgg provided a great post which really diminishes Friar's credibility; Friar is a multi-time felon with severe psychological issues.


Jimmy Friar is a seven-time felon who regularly took hydromorphone to "control epileptic seizures" (despite the drug being an opioid analgesic, not an anticonvulsant). By his own account, he's been a psychiatric in-patient in over eleven different Army and VA hospitals, including Walter Reed, Womack, and Montcrief. He himself admits to being intoxicated when he made the phone call, and to lying to the staff duty officer that morning, telling him he was a physician and that he needed to speak with "Dr. MacDonald" immediately. So, yes, I think the chances of him lying are really pretty good.

Yeah, I saw that. That phone call makes or breaks the case, really. Did they ever check phone records back then to see if someone had placed a call to the MacDonald residence that night? Or did they not have that technology?

Yeah, I saw that. That phone call makes or breaks the case, really.


What makes or breaks the case is the physical evidence. It is impossible, not just unlikely or highly unlikely, but actually impossible for things to have gone down the way Mac said they did, based on the physical evidence. All the evidence leads to the conclusion that he was the only person in the house aside from the victims on the night of the murders. There is literally no explanation consistent with the physical evidence other than him being the guilty party.

The Friar allegation can be dismissed out of hand, particularly since he didn't bother to mention his amazing phone call until years after the event. High profile cases always tend to attract all manner of oddballs and attention seekers.

A lot of Mac's defenders base their conclusions on the fact that they cannot imagine how a father could do such a thing. Unfortunately, this sort of thing does happen - Canadian wrestler Chris Benoit killed his family without warning. Instances of fathers "snapping" and murdering family members are mercifully rare, but they do happen - and happen far more frequently than random rampages by hippy gangs who, after doing their terrible deeds, then fade away, never to be seen nor heard of again.

What makes or breaks the case is the physical evidence. It is impossible, not just unlikely or highly unlikely, but actually impossible for things to have gone down the way Mac said they did, based on the physical evidence. All the evidence leads to the conclusion that he was the only person in the house aside from the victims on the night of the murders. There is literally no explanation consistent with the physical evidence other than him being the guilty party.

The Friar allegation can be dismissed out of hand, particularly since he didn't bother to mention his amazing phone call until years after the event. High profile cases always tend to attract all manner of oddballs and attention seekers.

A lot of Mac's defenders base their conclusions on the fact that they cannot imagine how a father could do such a thing. Unfortunately, this sort of thing does happen - Canadian wrestler Chris Benoit killed his family without warning. Instances of fathers "snapping" and murdering family members are mercifully rare, but they do happen - and happen far more frequently than random rampages by hippy gangs who, after doing their terrible deeds, then fade away, never to be seen nor heard of again.
You really nailed it there, dude. The Chris Benoit comparison is spot-on. I have but one more question, though: I forget where I heard this, but I believe I read somewhere that there were unidentified fibers under Kristen/(I forgot the other girl's name, sorry)'s fingernails. Did these ever get tested? And if so, were they from MacDonald??

Again, I gotta say reading this thread gave me new insight into this case. Love this forum.

fibers under Kristen/(I forgot the other girl's name, sorry)'s fingernails. Did these ever get tested? And if so, were they from MacDonald??

.


From memory, I think there was an allegation that there were unidenified fibres under one of the girls fingernails, as I further recall they weren't MacDonalds.

But this proves nothing - young children get all kinds of stuff on their hands from playing, crawling around etc.

Mac's allegations are that four people came into his house, killed his family, beat him up and then left. Do you honestly think that such a group could act without leaving a single footprint (it was raining on the night of the murder), no blood evidence, no scrapings on the walls or ceilings (you try swinging a lump of wood in a tiny, crowded apartment and see what happens), no fingerprints on the murder weapons, and the neighbours neither seeing nor hearing a thing? I doubt whether an elite Marine/Special Forces squad could carry off such a mission, let alone a bunch of psychotic, acid-crazed hippies

Aside from a tipped over coffee table, the apartmentment was also in a neat and orderly condition - Mac's attackers must be the tidiest, most fastidious crazy hippie killer gang in history.

It was also impossible for the "assailants" to raise a club over their heads and swing downward (as MacDonald had claimed) because the ceiling in the house was too low. MacDonald described his "assailants" general height, and it would have been impossible for this to have happened the way he says it did. His blood is only found in the bathroom. Why? He was attacked in the living room, according to his account. So after being beaten unconscious in the living room, and then waking up and going to the bathroom, he then starts to bleed? Impossible. The family having four different blood types destroyed any hope he had of substantiating his story. His blood was found in the bathroom because that's where he inflicted his wound to his chest and bled in the sink. It isn't found anywhere else in the house. That alone proves he's guilty, IMO.

Currently watching the UM segment again now. This man never ceases to irritate the water out of me, even in things I've seen a hundred times before.

I will be heading back to Ft Bragg again this year. I'll be sure to check out Castle Drive to see if anything has been built over the old housing.

Currently watching the UM segment again now. This man never ceases to irritate the water out of me, even in things I've seen a hundred times before.




To me, the following epitomises the character of this man:

From his 1979 trial, under direct examination from Counsel

Q Dr. MacDonald, are you married today?
A No.
Q Is there some reason why you are not married?
A I can't forget my wife and children.

This from a guy who was shacked up with a nurse while his wife's murder was being investigated, who wrote numerous drooling letters to Joe McGinniss boasting about how "sensual" the endless stream of young hotties he'd taken up with after his wife's death were; who never spent a dime trying to find the killers of his wife and children (instead buying a waterside condo, Maserati sports car and yacht while Freddie Kassab and Collette's mother put up their life savings as reward money), who, given national tv exposure, barely mentioned Collette and the children, instead whining about being investigated and doing a Bob Hope stand up routine; who...

ah, forget it, my blood pressure is rising just typing this :mad: :mad: :mad: and a POS like MacDonald isn't worth it.

Oh well, his latest appeal should be due to be handed down in a few months. It will fail and that will finally be it. MacDonald will be forced to confront the fact that he will die in prison. Hopefully, this might prompt a confession and a sign of contrition, though I wouldn't count on it.

I have read that some people believe if he owns up to it, it makes his chances for parole that much more likely. So let's hope he keeps lying and denying.

I can't remember if I have commented on this thread. But if there was ever a case I am on the fence about, it is this one. Read the book over a decade ago, seen all the true crime episodes.......I really don't know, however, if I had to lean toward one side or the other while up here on this fence, it would be toward the guilty side.

I have read that some people believe if he owns up to it, it makes his chances for parole that much more likely. So let's hope he keeps lying and denying.

I've heard these rumors too, but I can't imagine they'd ever agree to parole him under any circumstances. There are a lot of crimes where a person can get a second chance if they confess and show genuine remorse, but I don't think murdering your wife and two children is one of them.

I've heard these rumors too, but I can't imagine they'd ever agree to parole him under any circumstances. There are a lot of crimes where a person can get a second chance if they confess and show genuine remorse, but I don't think murdering your wife and two children is one of them.

I agree. But I was thinking that maybe because the murders were committed back in 1970, somehow (due to the laws being less strict back then) he'd have a chance of being paroled now. I hope he doesn't ever get out, and I hope he finally confesses and then still dies in prison.

Another interesting point I saw was that the "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" scenario was so unreal, that there's no way Jeff (who i've heard was pretty intelligent) would be dumb enough to use as his excuse for what happened. Or maybe he was.

Funny, this strikes me as almost EXACTLY the sort of thing someone like McDonald, who had no meaningful connection to the world of REAL teenagers/early 20s folks and REAL drug culture, would put into the mouths of "hippies" he'd imagined. The idea of a stereotypical but ill-defined group of hippies chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," is almost the quintessential example of terrible writing and/or projection, the kind of thing that someone who has obviously no first hand experience with such people would embarrass himself by claiming they said.

It's like the 40-something Dad who attempts to be cool by trying to use slang he THINKS his teenagers use. The only thing missing here is the inevitable follow-up, "See kids? Dad is cool!"

Funny, this strikes me as almost EXACTLY the sort of thing someone like McDonald, who had no meaningful connection to the world of REAL teenagers/early 20s folks and REAL drug culture, would put into the mouths of "hippies" he'd imagined. The idea of a stereotypical but ill-defined group of hippies chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," is almost the quintessential example of terrible writing and/or projection, the kind of thing that someone who has obviously no first hand experience with such people would embarrass himself by claiming they said.

It's like the 40-something Dad who attempts to be cool by trying to use slang he THINKS his teenagers use. The only thing missing here is the inevitable follow-up, "See kids? Dad is cool!"

Just about every single person that was around (and who lived the 60's) when these murders happened agree with you. Nearly every article I've read has said a near identical thing...nobody was saying "groovy" in 1970. The term was already outdated.

Funny, this strikes me as almost EXACTLY the sort of thing someone like McDonald, who had no meaningful connection to the world of REAL teenagers/early 20s folks and REAL drug culture, would put into the mouths of "hippies" he'd imagined. The idea of a stereotypical but ill-defined group of hippies chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," is almost the quintessential example of terrible writing and/or projection, the kind of thing that someone who has obviously no first hand experience with such people would embarrass himself by claiming they said.



Yes...as I've also previously noted, according to MacDonald, every member of the gang except Ms Floppy Hat seems to have gone about annihilating his family in complete silence - they must be the must self-disciplined mob of psycho acidhead killer hippies in history!

So I am at Ft Bragg on TDY as we speak, and my living accommodations are in fact about two miles from Castle Drive. I'm in class through the week and don't have a personal vehicle while I'm here, but if anyone is interested in seeing what the site where the home was looks like today, let me know and I'll try to swing by there before I leave.

So I am at Ft Bragg on TDY as we speak, and my living accommodations are in fact about two miles from Castle Drive. I'm in class through the week and don't have a personal vehicle while I'm here, but if anyone is interested in seeing what the site where the home was looks like today, let me know and I'll try to swing by there before I leave.

I don't even know if the house still stands but I'd love to see a picture of the site currently.

I don't even know if the house still stands but I'd love to see a picture of the site currently.

It was torn down in 2008, as were the other housing units in that neighborhood, although sometime after 1984 MacDonald's unit was cleaned out, cleaned up, and open for other families to live in (which they did) right up until the decision was made to demolish it. There was some word about how the site had actually become something of a tourist attraction, but I think the actual reason was because that particular housing development had some rather aged infrastructure.

So I'm not sure what is there today. Probably new homes. Guess I'll find out.

Being a Green Beret, if 4 intruders had came in at least 2 of them will be seriously injured.

He is well known to throw a hell of a punch compared to his peers from the boxing team. (From his boxing coach)

The sergeant intruder he described for throwing this punch is himself.

My husband and I have a close friend who actually is a Special Forces officer. I can assure you that although they are exceptionally well-trained and well-disciplined, they are not movie-perfect, hulking kung fu masters by any stretch of the imagination. At least not the ones I've met.

Also, Cars: Not having a personal vehicle and not really knowing how to get out there with someone else without seeming like a complete weirdo, I wasn't able to get out to the site. :( BUT, I did pass the neighborhood a couple of times on Bragg Boulevard while on trips that were class-related. It was only when I went back and confirmed the name of the neighborhood that I knew I had passed it, but I was nearly certain it was the one because the housing units themselves have not really changed at all. They've been upgraded somewhat--I noticed new doors, roofs, and front door landings--but otherwise they look exactly like the investigation photographs.

Given this, I imagine the new unit at 544 probably doesn't look very different from the one that sat there until 2008. Apparently it is a junior enlisted and NCO community now:

http://www.braggpicerne.com/Corregidor-Courts-Bougainville-mobile

yeah sure some of the older ones are fatties. At that age of 26 he was just out of training school and known to be active in physical activities like the army boxing team.

Jeff dosen't look the kind of coward who will hide when the intruders butcher his family.

In fact he is a fierce, combative and competitive person who don't value other's opinion, gonna argue all the way using intelligence to prove a point. He hates to be corrected and shown he is wrong.

Its quite compelling Collete did not shout, the whole neighbourhood would have heard.

I agree. But I was thinking that maybe because the murders were committed back in 1970, somehow (due to the laws being less strict back then) he'd have a chance of being paroled now. I hope he doesn't ever get out, and I hope he finally confesses and then still dies in prison.

yeah thats true, back on the old war days people were not afraid of committing murders.

Back then people were fierce, now technology has soften people.

Jeff's story will look real in 1970. Today will be solved in 5 minutes by computer graphics reconstruction.

This mystery will remain forever etched in everyone's mind even in 2099. I will say jeff is smart guy ahead of his time to be so good in mind games.

The books have overhyped the murders to make money, some of the info can't be true, only the CID/FBI people know the truth as they seen the evidence first hand.

He is thrown inside jail after proof from investigation nevertheless, the books can have their own hypothesis.

My husband and I have a close friend who actually is a Special Forces officer. I can assure you that although they are exceptionally well-trained and well-disciplined, they are not movie-perfect, hulking kung fu masters by any stretch of the imagination. At least not the ones I've met.

Also, Cars: Not having a personal vehicle and not really knowing how to get out there with someone else without seeming like a complete weirdo, I wasn't able to get out to the site. :( BUT, I did pass the neighborhood a couple of times on Bragg Boulevard while on trips that were class-related. It was only when I went back and confirmed the name of the neighborhood that I knew I had passed it, but I was nearly certain it was the one because the housing units themselves have not really changed at all. They've been upgraded somewhat--I noticed new doors, roofs, and front door landings--but otherwise they look exactly like the investigation photographs.

Given this, I imagine the new unit at 544 probably doesn't look very different from the one that sat there until 2008. Apparently it is a junior enlisted and NCO community now:

http://www.braggpicerne.com/Corregidor-Courts-Bougainville-mobile

On a vacation last year to Myrtle Beach, we passed by several signs that led to Ft. Bragg. Thought about stopping by, but I wouldn't have a clue how to get to Castle Drive. Oh well, it was torn down and rebuilt, but at least MacDonald is still rotting in prison.

At that age of 26 he was just out of training school and known to be active in physical activities like the army boxing team.

Does anyone know if MacDonald even went through the SF qualification course? He was a physician assigned to 3rd Special Forces Group, not an actual 18A. For instance, I may while assigned to an Airborne unit wear the maroon beret without having earned jump wings. I don't know if SF works the same way. MacDonald had also been in the Army for just a little over seven months at the time of the murders. He may have entered at the rank of captain (as all Army doctors do), but he still would have been amazingly cherry to Army training and culture. That godawful beret-shaping job often seen in photos of him from that time period seems to be a good indication. It looks like a pizza baker's hat or something.

This case still drags on. The defense isn't going to rest until each piece of DNA/hair is tested. It will all lead back to one finding that he is guilty. This is a article about the "new evidence" and the pending out come of a judge deciding whether he gets a new trial.

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/local/article_8b681cd6-191a-5cd0-b7bf-1285e4fb5226.html

It baffles me that Jeffrey MacDonald gets so many defenders. Where are the supporters for Cameron Todd Willingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham) or Carlos DeLuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_DeLuna)?

My husband and I have a close friend who actually is a Special Forces officer. I can assure you that although they are exceptionally well-trained and well-disciplined, they are not movie-perfect, hulking kung fu masters by any stretch of the imagination. At least not the ones I've met.

<snip>

This is my experience as well. A close friend of mine was an Operator for years and he was rather bookish. When he was a young Lt he used to come to my house and we'd play guitar and talk about books.

Some have a strange way of discipline but it is present nonetheless. One of my Soldiers when I was a young NCO came to me straight from group and group ruined him. He said "yeah" and "man" and always had his hands in his pockets. He was awesome at his job but his military bearing was nearly non-existent.

Does anyone know if MacDonald even went through the SF qualification course? He was a physician assigned to 3rd Special Forces Group, not an actual 18A. For instance, I may while assigned to an Airborne unit wear the maroon beret without having earned jump wings. I don't know if SF works the same way. MacDonald had also been in the Army for just a little over seven months at the time of the murders. He may have entered at the rank of captain (as all Army doctors do), but he still would have been amazingly cherry to Army training and culture. That godawful beret-shaping job often seen in photos of him from that time period seems to be a good indication. It looks like a pizza baker's hat or something.

That's an excellent point.

I worked with a PA that was an 18D and I know that currently 18D school alone is nearly two years. I trained several at Fort Hood and Fort Leonard Wood when they would do their clinical rotations.

I sent him an email. I think he was 5th group and I asked if he knew if the physicians had to be SF-Q to be "in" 3rd. My gut tells me no but I may be wrong. Standards since 1970 may be completely different than they are today or even 15 years ago.

A new trial for MacDonald would be pointless. Helena Stoeckely and Greg Mitchell are both dead, any sort of "confessions" they had would be hearsay. And ultimately, Helena testified at MacDonald's original trial and denied ever being present during the murders.

It baffles me that Jeffrey MacDonald gets so many defenders. Where are the supporters for Cameron Todd Willingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham) or Carlos DeLuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_DeLuna)?

I'm very curious to see what the legacy of the MacDonald case will be after he dies and if there will be still be defenders who continue to believe an innocent man was wrongly convicted. I'm sure one of the reasons MacDonald will never make a confession is because he probably likes the idea of people debating the case and defending his innocence 100 years from now.

I'm afraid you're right, Robin. We'll probably never get a confession out of the bastard and people will probably continue to defend MacDonald. Again, I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but none of his defenders have even tried to explain the discrepancy in the injuries received by MacDonald compared with the ones received by his wife and children. They just keep saying "Helena Stoeckley" because the word of a drug addict far outweighs actual physical evidence apparently. :rolleyes:

They are determined to find some evidence that someone other than the MacDonald family was in the house that night. New blood evidence they want tested and hairs they claim do not belong to anyone in the family. They are gasping at straws (short straws at that). All the evidence will point to one thing-he murdered his family. Supporters just can't face the fact that this man did such a horrific thing. Believing the drug crazied hippies did it is better for them. But the evidence doesn't support that theory.

They are determined to find some evidence that someone other than the MacDonald family was in the house that night. New blood evidence they want tested and hairs they claim do not belong to anyone in the family. They are gasping at straws (short straws at that). All the evidence will point to one thing-he murdered his family. Supporters just can't face the fact that this man did such a horrific thing. Believing the drug crazied hippies did it is better for them. But the evidence doesn't support that theory.

That's what unfortunately is going to keep this case going...every time a "new unidentified" hair or fiber is found in the evidence that all of a sudden means more supporters coming out of the woodwork saying, "SEE THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE!". Problem is, they fail to realize that MacDonald's house was a rental unit, and there was probably thousands of hairs and fibers collected there from not only MacDonald's friends and family, but the families that lived in that unit before him.

That's what unfortunately is going to keep this case going...every time a "new unidentified" hair or fiber is found in the evidence that all of a sudden means more supporters coming out of the woodwork saying, "SEE THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE!". Problem is, they fail to realize that MacDonald's house was a rental unit, and there was probably thousands of hairs and fibers collected there from not only MacDonald's friends and family, but the families that lived in that unit before him.

Exactly. Why anyone would be shocked and amazed that there would be unidentified hairs or fibers in a military housing unit is beyond me. I'm sure there are MANY hairs and fibers not belonging to the occupants in even a private home.

Exactly. Why anyone would be shocked and amazed that there would be unidentified hairs or fibers in a military housing unit is beyond me. I'm sure there are MANY hairs and fibers not belonging to the occupants in even a private home.

This has always been a major issue of mine - how many friends, neighbours, repairmen, removalists, relatives etc have you had into your house? There must be dozens of different people's fibre samples in my house.

The idea that some psychotic hippy gang can enter a tiny apartment (on a rainy night no less!), violently massacre a family and leave NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of their presence other than a few tiny hair samples would be LOLable were the circumstances of Collette and the children no so tragic.

The idea that some psychotic hippy gang can enter a tiny apartment (on a rainy night no less!), violently massacre a family and leave NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of their presence



Sorry, I should clarify that they did leave apparently leave evidence of the word "Pig" written on a headboard in the victims blood - which they had written after thoughfully putting on some of Jeff's surgeons gloves...leaving the syringes and powerful drugs in his medical cupboard utterly undisturbed.

A new trial for MacDonald would be pointless. Helena Stoeckely and Greg Mitchell are both dead, any sort of "confessions" they had would be hearsay. And ultimately, Helena testified at MacDonald's original trial and denied ever being present during the murders.


I think MacDonald is desperately hoping that his conviction will be quashed, and due to the passage of time and lack of witnesses, the prosecution will decline to retry him, allowing him to spend the rest of his life a free man.

This is what happened with the imprisoned boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, who was never exonerated for his alleged murders. However, after being twice convicted, spending years in jail and getting a new trial, all potential witnesses were either dead or too old to put on the stand, so the prosecution decided not to go forward - despite there originally being evidence against him which was a great deal stronger than many of his celebrity supporters would care to admit.

Hey, maybe MacDonald could convince Bob Dylan to sing a song about him, that may be a ticket to freedom! :)

Hey, maybe MacDonald could convince Bob Dylan to sing a song about him, that may be a ticket to freedom! :)

Worked for the West Memphis 3.

The MacDonald case was presented on Unsolved Mysteries as if MacDonald were definately innocent and this was some kind of miscarriage of justice. Since we all know that is not true, it makes me wonder about some of these other "Final Appeal" stories, not to mention the "Murder vs Suicide" stories. Since we know that the show was not above treating them in an extremely one-sided fashion, can we really have a good opinion of these cases based on Unsolved Mysteries segments?

I believe some of the Final Appeal segments featured on UM the people accused were not guilty but this isn't one of those. I knew of this case long before UM featured it and I've always believed he is guilty. Until I see evidence of anyone else being in that house on that night that won't change.

Every time I visit this thread the simpletons are having another party, mocking anyone who believes in MacDonald's innocence. There won't be a confession because he didn't do it.

If this were a slam dunk physical evidence case it would have gone immediately to trial and conviction. The reluctance and decade long delay tells you all you need to know about that aspect.

For some reason this case attracts unusually bitter people who desperately rip MacDonald and can't stand the thought that anyone supports him. Deep down they are insecure, and extremely relieved that the courtroom aspect of this case was so slanted.

Most people are inept handicapppers. I learned that quickly in Las Vegas. They can only see what is smack in front of their nose, and are paralyzed by flimsy variables like current form, unable to throw it away in favor of the big picture. If all you know is what happened yesterday, you don't know much of anything.

That type leaves town broke on a bus, and that type similarly is fixated on Jeffrey MacDonald's guilt. They lump it as just another homegrown slaughter, instead of what it actually was, an extremely rare case of intruders without evidence, of truth is stranger than fiction. I detailed several months ago a very similar case on Investigative Discovery in which two innocent people absolutely would have been convicted of murder, if not for information coming forth at the last minute.

Nobody will ever change their mind on this case. I just wish the actual video would somehow surface. It would terrorize the justice system in general, and all but eliminate the laughable practice of crime scene reconstruction. Those specialists are the ultimate charlatans.

I would be more apt to believe McDonald's guilt if there weren't other suspects (there are) who had motive, means, and opportunity (there are). It seems like the murder weapons came from the house, but that would jive with the claim that Mitchell and company only went there with the intention of roughing Jeff up a little and things went horribly wrong.

In regards to the statements that the females had more and more serious injuries, it's important to note that an adult male (Jeff) is going to be able to deflect more blows than a pregnant woman and two little girls, who would be almost defenseless. And yes, Helena Stoeckly isn't the most credible witness in the world, but her statement that she thought Jeff was dead when she left the house also helps explain this.

I don't really put any weight into things such as the pajama top recreation and crime recreation based on blood spills. It's a) confusing, b) an inexact science. You might be able to glean certain things from it, but it doesn't paint the entire picture.

In response to the statements that there wasn't much signs of a struggle, other than a few overturned items. This wouldn't be surprising though: Jeff was asleep on the sofa and was surprised by several people. He woke up to 3 men attacking him. He would have been almost strictly on defense and wouldn't have been able to mount hardly any offense.

Wish I could agree. I'd love for a father, husband not to be guilty of this horrific crime but IMO he is.

It seems like the murder weapons came from the house, but that would jive with the claim that Mitchell and company only went there with the intention of roughing Jeff up a little and things went horribly wrong.


How do you go from wanting to "rough someone up" to brutally murdering two children, and then writing "pig" on a bed headboard with their blood? (having thoughtfully put on surgical gloves beforehand, of course)

In regards to the statements that the females had more and more serious injuries, it's important to note that an adult male (Jeff) is going to be able to deflect more blows than a pregnant woman and two little girls, who would be almost defenseless.

Which would make more sense if MacDonald actually HAD any defensive wounds. Instead his hands and forearms were completely unmarked.

And yes, Helena Stoeckly isn't the most credible witness in the world, but her statement that she thought Jeff was dead when she left the house also helps explain this.

Stoeckley has said she was there on the night of the murder. She's also said she wasn't there. She's also said she was there, but holding a candle that "dripped blood". She's also said she was there but "upstairs" when the murders happened (it was a single storey apartment). She's also said she wasn't there, but was having an affair with MacDonald. She's also said that she was there and saw MacDonald do the deed. In short, Stoeckley was an alcoholic heroin addict whose word is worthless - utterly worthless. It should be noted that in the initial investigation, she was unable to tell FBI Officers where MacDonald lived, and showed no signs of recognition when driven to the MacDonald apartment. She was also unable to name any of her alleged co-offenders and upon being put on the stand at MacDonald's trial, elicited no reaction whatsoever from MacDonald - before she denied, under oath, having anything to do with the murders.

I don't really put any weight into things such as the pajama top recreation and crime recreation based on blood spills. It's a) confusing, b) an inexact science. You might be able to glean certain things from it, but it doesn't paint the entire picture.

The only way to mount a barely credible case for Mac's innocence is to completely disregard the physical evidence.

In response to the statements that there wasn't much signs of a struggle, other than a few overturned items. This wouldn't be surprising though: Jeff was asleep on the sofa and was surprised by several people. He woke up to 3 men attacking him. He would have been almost strictly on defense and wouldn't have been able to mount hardly any offense.

Which makes his story all the more absurd given that he escaped with a few scratches and bruises - save for a "small incision" wound to his lung (the precise, deliberate and minor nature of which is completely at odds with the violent frenzy Mac descibed, and which the bodies of his family evidenced).

How do you go from wanting to "rough someone up" to brutally murdering two children, and then writing "pig" on a bed headboard with their blood? (having thoughtfully put on surgical gloves beforehand, of course)

It's simple. They had gone there with the intention of roughing up Jeff, Collette and/or the kids disturbed them, they altered their plans. An intruder putting on gloves, happens all the time. Not far-fetched in the least.


Stoeckley has said she was there on the night of the murder. She's also said she wasn't there. She's also said she was there, but holding a candle that "dripped blood". She's also said she was there but "upstairs" when the murders happened (it was a single storey apartment). She's also said she wasn't there, but was having an affair with MacDonald. She's also said that she was there and saw MacDonald do the deed. In short, Stoeckley was an alcoholic heroin addict whose word is worthless - utterly worthless. It should be noted that in the initial investigation, she was unable to tell FBI Officers where MacDonald lived, and showed no signs of recognition when driven to the MacDonald apartment. She was also unable to name any of her alleged co-offenders and upon being put on the stand at MacDonald's trial, elicited no reaction whatsoever from MacDonald - before she denied, under oath, having anything to do with the murders.

Stoeckley also stated there was a broken horsey in the house. Which there was. She couldn't have possibly known that unless she was there. That's not even taking into account her wearing of the wig, the wool, the boots and her holding the candle, which completely corroborated with the evidence and Jeff's accounts. You can say she's unreliable, yes. Does that mean she's lying? No.

The only way to mount a barely credible case for Mac's innocence is to completely disregard the physical evidence.

From the compromised crime scene. No less than 15 people traipsed through that house in the hours immediately afterward.

Which makes his story all the more absurd given that he escaped with a few scratches and bruises - save for a "small incision" wound to his lung (the precise, deliberate and minor nature of which is completely at odds with the violent frenzy Mac descibed, and which the bodies of his family evidenced).

Last time I checked, a collapsed lung wasn't a minor injury.

MacDonald's blood was found in one section of the apartment...the bathroom. Had he gotten stabbed, and if his story is true, his blood should have either been in the living room or the hallway where he claims to have lost consciousness. It was only found in the bathroom...which is where he self inflicted the wound to his chest, causing his lung to collapse.

For some reason this case attracts unusually bitter people who desperately rip MacDonald and can't stand the thought that anyone supports him. Deep down they are insecure, and extremely relieved that the courtroom aspect of this case was so slanted.

I have no dog in this fight, since MacDonald murdered his wife and kids long before I was even born. I'm not bitter, I just have actually read nearly everything pertaining to this case...starting with the pro-MacDonald material and working my way around that. And for every pro-MacDonald piece of "evidence", there is an actual piece of evidence that refutes it. He's exactly where he belongs.

Yeah, I've gotta side with guilty as sin, simply because it's the most sensible option. I'm reminded of the Diane Downs case in which we were expected to believe that a carjacker shot three small kids dead center in the chest but left the adult, who posed the most threat and had the keys to the car, with a hole in her arm. Wouldn't be surprised if Downs had a few defenders here too...:rolleyes:

Again, given that Jeffrey posed the most threat and had access to the drugs the crazed hippies were allegedly after, wouldn't he have been the prime focus. Wouldn't he at least have some defensive wounds to show for it?

As hard as it is to believe, parents can and do occasionally kill their children. Besides from what I heard, Jeffrey was hardly a model husband/father. Wasn't he planning to go off on some trip while his wife was in the later stages of pregnancy even though she had had trouble with previous pregnancies and was justifiably worried? Maybe that's small evidence but it does say quite a bit about him.

I have no dog in this fight, since MacDonald murdered his wife and kids long before I was even born. I'm not bitter, I just have actually read nearly everything pertaining to this case...starting with the pro-MacDonald material and working my way around that. And for every pro-MacDonald piece of "evidence", there is an actual piece of evidence that refutes it. He's exactly where he belongs.

I have to agree. I've read it all. I've watched every segment that has ever been on TV. And yes I was less than 2 years old when this happened. Blood evidence never lies. Jeff does. His supporters swore that the hair found in Colette's hand was from the intruders. That was tested in 2006 and found to be from Jeff. I believe that no matter how much is found to be from Jeff his supporters will continue to believe "his" story. Because no one wants to be a man killed his family. People believe that Downs & Routier killed their children because they are women.

. Besides from what I heard, Jeffrey was hardly a model husband/father. Wasn't he planning to go off on some trip while his wife was in the later stages of pregnancy even though she had had trouble with previous pregnancies and was justifiably worried? Maybe that's small evidence but it does say quite a bit about him.


Yes, he told Colette he intended to accompany the Army amateur boxing team on a visit to the Soviet Union for a few weeks- not the sort of thing a pregnant woman wants to hear (all the more so since no such Russian trip was planned by the boxing team... Jeff was presumably planning on spending some time with one of his mistresses and needed a cover story). What also speaks to his character is his being shacked up with some young nurse within weeks of his wife's murder.

I don't think the murders were premeditated by Mac (I think he just snapped that night through a combination of frustration and exhaustion), but having gotten rid of a wife he didn't love and a family he didn't really want, he was free to live the life of a glamorous, free wheeling playboy , which he did with gusto until justice finally caught up with him.

Jeff's wounds were much more serious, and more frequent, than what has been reported, on here and elsewhere. We all know about the wound that collapsed his lung. It has been said that other than that and a few "small cuts and bruises", Jeff had no injuries. This is simply not true. It's also interesting to note that, for whatever reason, Jeff's injuries were never photographed, whereas all 3 other members of the MacDonald family were.

-2 doctors reported seeing a large contusion on his forehead, and another on his right temple.
-A fellow officer reported seeing lumps on the back of his head, and numerous wounds to the chest, abdomen and arms. He believed them to be ice pick wounds, which would be consistent with one of the weapons that was found at the scene.
-A third doctor elaborated on the wound of Jeff's abdomen, stating that it spread apart and had gone through a great deal of the abdomen wall.
-A fourth doctor reported seeing 4 puncture wounds to the upper chest and multiple other puncture wounds on the arms and abdomen, coming from a very sharp object. Said wounds were confirmed by another doctor and the officer aforementioned.
-A fifth doctor reported seeing several puncture wounds that may have come from an ice pick.

In totality, Jeff received at least 17 stab wounds in the hands, arms, torso, bicep and abdomen, and multiple contusions of the head. He spent over a week in the hosptial. This is coming from 5 doctors and an officer.

I should point out that Helena Stoeckly, and possibly Greg Mitchell, later stated that they believed Jeff was dead when they exited the house. It's understandable why they would think that, given the injuries I described above.

To address the issue of 'why didn't the intruders bring their own weapons', I'll offer this: The MacDonald house consisted of Jeff, a pregnant woman, and 2 little girls. In contrast, the opposing side conisted of at least 4 adults, 3 of whom were tough males. I'm thinking there were probably even more than that, possibly upwards of 7. Jeff only recalled seeing 4, perhaps he didn't see the others as they were elsewhere in the building (murdering the other occupants) or perhaps he didn't recall. Now if one side consists of 7 adults, mostly males, and the other consists of 4 people, including a pregnant woman and 2 little girls, who would not be able to mount much offense, there probably wouldn't be a great need to bring a whole arsenal with you as well, would there be? Especially if the statement that they only went there to rough up Jeff a little.

With respect to the opposing viewpoint, I don't understand how some can completely dismiss everything Helena Stoeckly and Jimmy Friar and Greg Mitchell said because they were druggies/felons, while at the same time, saying that the prosecutor's corruption for embezzlement is irrelevant because it happened years after the fact. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anytime someone is found out to be a bad character, their previous actions come into question, deservedly so. Especially since his father-in-law was the judge (who made things rough for the defense at every turn).

To put this into perspective, remember that crazy professor from Huntsville, AL who shot up and killed people during a staff meeting 4 years ago? Well they found a few other suspcious things in her past, such as 2 relatives that died suspciously in 1986. She was also suspected in mailing a pipe bomb.

Yes, Helena Stoeckly was a drug addict who said some things that were not true. On the flip side of the coin, she was an informant whose accurate testimony assisted in several HUNDRED drug arrests. Prince Beasley attested to that. It was the corrupt judge who made an exception that Helena's statements wouldn't be accepted this time out.

It's also important to note that Helena was a drug informant who was accustomed to using drugs and committing crimes and getting away with it because she was constantly being cut deals. This time, she was informed that she wouldn't be cut a deal, and then and only then, did her statements change and said she wasn't there the night of the murders.

Jeff's wounds were much more serious, and more frequent, than what has been reported, on here and elsewhere. We all know about the wound that collapsed his lung. It has been said that other than that and a few "small cuts and bruises", Jeff had no injuries. This is simply not true. It's also interesting to note that, for whatever reason, Jeff's injuries were never photographed, whereas all 3 other members of the MacDonald family were.

-2 doctors reported seeing a large contusion on his forehead, and another on his right temple.
-A fellow officer reported seeing lumps on the back of his head, and numerous wounds to the chest, abdomen and arms. He believed them to be ice pick wounds, which would be consistent with one of the weapons that was found at the scene.
-A third doctor elaborated on the wound of Jeff's abdomen, stating that it spread apart and had gone through a great deal of the abdomen wall.
-A fourth doctor reported seeing 4 puncture wounds to the upper chest and multiple other puncture wounds on the arms and abdomen, coming from a very sharp object. Said wounds were confirmed by another doctor and the officer aforementioned.
-A fifth doctor reported seeing several puncture wounds that may have come from an ice pick.

In totality, Jeff received at least 17 stab wounds in the hands, arms, torso, bicep and abdomen, and multiple contusions of the head. He spent over a week in the hosptial. This is coming from 5 doctors and an officer.

I should point out that Helena Stoeckly, and possibly Greg Mitchell, later stated that they believed Jeff was dead when they exited the house. It's understandable why they would think that, given the injuries I described above.


People who have been stabbed 17 times in the "hands, arms, torso, bicep and adomen" tend to spend a great deal longer than a week in hospital. MacDonald enjoyed dinner sitting up and even drank a glass of champagne on his first night in hospital. Wikipedia (referencing the original hospital report) describes his injuries thus:

MacDonald suffered cuts and bruises on his face and chest along with a mild concussion. He also had a stab wound on his left torso in what a staff surgeon referred to as a "clean, small, sharp" incision that caused one lung to partially collapse. He was treated at Womack Hospital and released after one week

EVERY SINGLE INVESTIGATOR expresssed surprise at the discrepancy between MacDonald's minor injuries and the savage overkill his family suffered. Along with the neat and orderly condition of his apartment, its what raised their initial suspicions upon first attending the crime scene.

Now if one side consists of 7 adults, mostly males, and the other consists of 4 people, including a pregnant woman and 2 little girls, who would not be able to mount much offense, there probably wouldn't be a great need to bring a whole arsenal with you as well, would there be? Especially if the statement that they only went there to rough up Jeff a little

If seven adults went on a psychotic rampage in a tiny apartment, they would leave a great deal more forensic evidence than the few tiny fibers that MacDonald advocates desperately want to believe are evidence of intruders. A hair (with blood on it) that Collette was clutching was FOUND TO BE MACDONALD's. This is extremely incriminating.

With respect to the opposing viewpoint, I don't understand how some can completely dismiss everything Helena Stoeckly and Jimmy Friar and Greg Mitchell said because they were druggies/felons, while at the same time, saying that the prosecutor's corruption for embezzlement is irrelevant because it happened years after the fact. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anytime someone is found out to be a bad character, their previous actions come into question, deservedly so. Especially since his father-in-law was the judge

His father in law wasn't the judge, as that would be grounds for automatic recusal. The judge was the former father in law of a lawyer who had represented an FBI agent for four weeks at Mac's article 32 hearing nine years prior to the trial and had no further role in the matter (google "Dupree recusal").

Can a prosecutor be corrupt? Sure (though I struggle to see why they would put their neck on the line to stitch up an army doctor in order to save some impoverished, drug taking acid freaks) - but then you have to explain why the FBI, CID, Freddie Kassab and endless appeal judges involved in the matter thought MacDonald was guilty. Are they all part of the conspiracy? Stoeckley is a vitally important part of MacDonald's defence. If her credibility is impeached, then his defence falls apart... and since she was a brain damaged alcoholic drug addict who gave literally dozens (if not hundreds) of varying accounts of her involvement, her credibility is zilch.


It was the corrupt judge who made an exception that Helena's statements wouldn't be accepted this time out.

Er, no. Stoeckley swore under oath at Mac's trial that she wasn't there on the night of the murder. Mac's lawyers attempted to introduce hearsay evidence that she had previously admitted to being there. The judge (properly) rejected their motion. Writer Gene Weingarten (google "weingarten macdonald morris") spoke to one of the jurors at the trial, who stated that Stoeckley cut such a pathetic, wretched figure on the witness stand, that even if she HAD confessed her involvement, he probably wouldn't have believed her.

This time, she was informed that she wouldn't be cut a deal, and then and only then, did her statements change and said she wasn't there the night of the murders.

From the get go, Stoeckley's story changed by the day (or at least, by the mixture of chemicals she had swirling in her bloodstream at any given moment). It is incorrect to suggest that she had her story straight and only changed it on the witness stand

People who have been stabbed 17 times in the "hands, arms, torso, bicep and adomen" tend to spend a great deal longer than a week in hospital.

and your point is...?

Along with the neat and orderly condition of his apartment

Jeff never testified to fighting with them on any place other than the couch. The overturned items were in the general vicinity of the couch. If nothing else was disturbed, that would fit with Jeff's version of events.

If seven adults went on a psychotic rampage in a tiny apartment, they would leave a great deal more forensic evidence than the few tiny fibers that MacDonald advocates desperately want to believe are evidence of intruders. A hair (with blood on it) that Collette was clutching was FOUND TO BE MACDONALD's. This is extremely incriminating.

But, as others pointed out (and I should note these same people side with your belief Jeff is guilty) that house used to belong to other people. Surely, there must be some evidence that other people lived there. Or visitors, or whatnot.

A hair on Collette's hand that matched Jeff's? He bent over her perfoming mouth-to-mouth. Hair probably fell out of his head onto her hand. Extremely incriminating, in your mind maybe.

Can a prosecutor be corrupt? Sure (though I struggle to see why they would put their neck on the line to stitch up an army doctor in order to save some impoverished, drug taking acid freaks) - but then you have to explain why the FBI, CID, Freddie Kassab and endless appeal judges involved in the matter thought MacDonald was guilty. Are they all part of the conspiracy? Stoeckley is a vitally important part of MacDonald's defence. If her credibility is impeached, then his defence falls apart... and since she was a brain damaged alcoholic drug addict who gave literally dozens (if not hundreds) of varying accounts of her involvement, her credibility is zilch.

Most people on here think he's guilty. Doesn't mean he is. Helena's credibility isn't zilch because you say it is. Here's the thing: In virtually all cases when a criminal lies, it's to keep themselves from going to jail. But in Helena's case, her statements about being involved probably would have put her in prison. It was only until she realized the severity of her situation that she claimed she wasn't involved.

Jeff's wounds were much more serious, and more frequent, than what has been reported, on here and elsewhere. We all know about the wound that collapsed his lung. It has been said that other than that and a few "small cuts and bruises", Jeff had no injuries. This is simply not true. It's also interesting to note that, for whatever reason, Jeff's injuries were never photographed, whereas all 3 other members of the MacDonald family were.

I'm going off of memory here, but I think MacDonald's defense had arranged for him to take a polygraph test and after the test was over, Bernie Segal approached the polygraph administrator and asked how he did. He said something along the lines of, "you better get ready for his appeals." And two CID investigators were having a conversation about whether or not MacDonald was telling the truth shortly after questioning him. Franz Grebner (CID investigator) famously said, "either he's lying, or he's the biggest (p)ussy in the world." MacDonald himself has said his injuries weren't severe during CID questioning: "[An] MP or medic, I don't know--was giving me respiration--artificial respiration, which I apparently didn't need."

-2 doctors reported seeing a large contusion on his forehead, and another on his right temple.

He in all likelihood had gotten into a physical altercation with Colette, when he went after their daughter. Colette fought for her life and her daughters, and she probably got a few good knocks in on him.

-A fellow officer reported seeing lumps on the back of his head, and numerous wounds to the chest, abdomen and arms. He believed them to be ice pick wounds, which would be consistent with one of the weapons that was found at the scene.

MacDonald admitted at his trial that he never once said he was stabbed with an icepick. He assumed he was being punched. And he thought he was stabbed with a knife. He admitted during an exchange with James Blackburn that it was suggested to him that he was stabbed with an icepick, and he's stuck to that story ever since.

-A third doctor elaborated on the wound of Jeff's abdomen, stating that it spread apart and had gone through a great deal of the abdomen wall.

There was an exchange during the grand jury investigation between Victor Woerheide and a doctor they were questioning. Woerheide: "From the records that you reviewed of Dr. MacDonald's treatment in the hospital, the observations that were made concerning his vital signs, his blood pressure, his respiration, his temperature, his heartbeat, etc., was he ever in serious peril as a result of whatever happened on the night of February 17?" Dr. Fisher: "No, sir, not in my judgment. He was at no time in significant peril, really. He did require treatment, but the treatment was simple and successful." Woerheide: "And there were no signs of neurological damage and only a few superficial marks on his body, plus this pneumothorax condition?" Dr. Fisher: "Certainly nothing according to the records, nor did I elicit anything in talking to those physicians when I interviewed them."

In totality, Jeff received at least 17 stab wounds in the hands, arms, torso, bicep and abdomen, and multiple contusions of the head. He spent over a week in the hosptial. This is coming from 5 doctors and an officer.

None of these doctors ever once said any of these injuries were life threatening. These come directly from the hospital notes taken by doctors, orderlies, and residents: http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/3D/html/wounds.html

I should point out that Helena Stoeckly, and possibly Greg Mitchell, later stated that they believed Jeff was dead when they exited the house. It's understandable why they would think that, given the injuries I described above.

No it's not that understandable when you compare what injuries MacDonald had to his wife and children. MacDonald was "stabbed" once in the chest, had some bruises, and some nick marks on his chest which indicated that someone had scratched him. If the "intruders" went out of their way to viciously stab a 2 year old and a 4 year old, why wouldn't they do the same to MacDonald?

To address the issue of 'why didn't the intruders bring their own weapons', I'll offer this: The MacDonald house consisted of Jeff, a pregnant woman, and 2 little girls. In contrast, the opposing side conisted of at least 4 adults, 3 of whom were tough males. I'm thinking there were probably even more than that, possibly upwards of 7. Jeff only recalled seeing 4, perhaps he didn't see the others as they were elsewhere in the building (murdering the other occupants) or perhaps he didn't recall. Now if one side consists of 7 adults, mostly males, and the other consists of 4 people, including a pregnant woman and 2 little girls, who would not be able to mount much offense, there probably wouldn't be a great need to bring a whole arsenal with you as well, would there be? Especially if the statement that they only went there to rough up Jeff a little.

Why did they go there to rough up MacDonald? MacDonald has admitted that nothing was stolen from the residence, during CID questioning. So to rough him up to steal drugs isn't the motive. And if they were there to rough up Jeff, why attack the others? Why go through the trouble to search his house for surgical gloves (all under the influence of mind altering drugs) to conceal prints while they write "PIG" in blood on the head board? And MacDonald's apartment was fairly small for a family of four. Now you're adding on 4-7 additional people inside. At most that's 11 people...why wasn't the house in complete disarray? Greeting cards on a china cabinet were left undisturbed. None of the neighbors reported hearing anything unusual, other than the sound of an angry Colette screaming at (whom the neighbor thought) MacDonald.

With respect to the opposing viewpoint, I don't understand how some can completely dismiss everything Helena Stoeckly and Jimmy Friar and Greg Mitchell said because they were druggies/felons, while at the same time, saying that the prosecutor's corruption for embezzlement is irrelevant because it happened years after the fact. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anytime someone is found out to be a bad character, their previous actions come into question, deservedly so. Especially since his father-in-law was the judge (who made things rough for the defense at every turn).

This is a fair point. But let's just throw out Blackburn's history, as well as Stoeckley's past. She's repeatedly denied being there, and then admitted it, and then back and forth and all over. This, by definition, makes her unreliable. It has nothing to do with her past.

It's also important to note that Helena was a drug informant who was accustomed to using drugs and committing crimes and getting away with it because she was constantly being cut deals. This time, she was informed that she wouldn't be cut a deal, and then and only then, did her statements change and said she wasn't there the night of the murders.

Stoeckley's information didn't result in any big busts, just low level hippie type drug users like herself. And her story was believed (initially) for a time. The CID was ordered to re-investigate her alibi (after the army dismissed the charges against MacDonald), and went back and investigated every aspect of the case thoroughly in 1974. This is when the grand jury returned a verdict to indict MacDonald for the murders. And DNA doesn't help MacDonald's cause: "DNA testing, conducted by an independent laboratory selected by Jeffrey MacDonald, has determined that neither the DNA of Helena Stoeckley nor Gregory Mitchell was present in any of the questioned hair or blood samples tested, and thus has produced no evidence exculpatory of MacDonald." Stoeckely named Mitchell as the murderer of Colette. Why was his DNA not present on or around Colette? They just weren't there.

ETA: Jimmy Friar is not a reliable witness, because MacDonald's story refutes Friar's. Friar says he called a residence (wanting to speak to a Dr. MacDonald) at "about" 2:00 a.m., and IIRC, he was leaving a bar at the time (which would coincide with closing time...shortly before 2:00 a.m.) when he made the call. MacDonald says he read a book, washed dishes, and then went to bed at 2:30 a.m. No mention of a phone call. Not to mention, witnesses placed Stoeckley and her friends at a Dunkin Donuts at 2:00 a.m. that morning. Add on to the fact that Stoeckley never mentioned the phone call until after Friar's story broke, and I think it's safe to say that makes Friar and Stoeckely that much more unreliable.

A hair on Collette's hand that matched Jeff's? He bent over her perfoming mouth-to-mouth. Hair probably fell out of his head onto her hand. Extremely incriminating, in your mind maybe.

Actually it was a hair found in her clenched fist, as if she ripped the hair out of someone's head. Initial DNA tests showed "inconclusive" results for the hairs found in her hand. MacDonald had screamed for years that this was the hair of Greg Mitchell. New tests confirmed that the hairs belong to MacDonald. There is no innocent explanation for those hairs.

MacDonald first said he had no knowledge of owning a ice pick. One day some of the supporters are going to flip. Maybe when each piece of DNA/hair fibers are tested to come from Jeff. Not drug crazied hippies.

And no he will never confess to what he did. Because he is narcissistic man. He has lied to himself for so long and got his ego boosted so much throughout the years that he actually believes he didn't do this.

In totality, Jeff received at least 17 stab wounds in the hands, arms, torso, bicep and abdomen, and multiple contusions of the head. He spent over a week in the hosptial. This is coming from 5 doctors and an officer.

Where did you get this information from? Mac was stabbed once. A staff surgeon who treated MacDonald described the stab wound as "clean, small and sharp." MacDonald as a doctor knew how to inflict the stab wound on himself without it being fatal. The bruises were probably from Colette hitting him in the head with a hairbrush and the cuts were probably from Colette and possibly Kristen fighting off MacDonald.

And no he will never confess to what he did. Because he is narcissistic man. He has lied to himself for so long and got his ego boosted so much throughout the years that he actually believes he didn't do this.

Even on his death bed, he'll never confess. He's already convinced himself that he didn't murder his entire family.

Where did you get this information from? Mac was stabbed once. A staff surgeon who treated MacDonald described the stab wound as "clean, small and sharp." MacDonald as a doctor knew how to inflict the stab wound on himself without it being fatal. The bruises were probably from Colette hitting him in the head with a hairbrush and the cuts were probably from Colette and possibly Kristen fighting off MacDonald.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Facts.html

There, you can also read about how 5 of the 6 doctors testified that MacDonald would not have known how to inflict the stab wound that collapsed his lung without it being fatal.

Interesting you brought up the hairbrush. Do you know that synthetic wig hairs were found on it that didn't match anything to the house? Helena Stoeckly wore a wig that night and said she burned it later that night.

Actually it was a hair found in her clenched fist, as if she ripped the hair out of someone's head. Initial DNA tests showed "inconclusive" results for the hairs found in her hand. MacDonald had screamed for years that this was the hair of Greg Mitchell. New tests confirmed that the hairs belong to MacDonald. There is no innocent explanation for those hairs.

I have a hard time believing someone can die with a clenched fist. The muscles would almost certainly be relaxed.

Interesting you brought up the hairbrush. Do you know that synthetic wig hairs were found on it that didn't match anything to the house? Helena Stoeckly wore a wig that night and said she burned it later that night.

Colette owned several wigs as well as the children owning several dolls. Colette's mother testified that the children would often wear Colette's wigs and brush their hair as well as brush the hair of their dolls. There were three "saran fibers" found in the hair brush. They were a 24", 9", and 22" in length. Lab tests were conducted and determined that the three fibers came from two different source materials.

"In 1990, hair and fiber expert Michael Malone matched the 24-inch saran fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the saran fibers matched any wig exemplar in the FBI's reference collection. There were also two platinum-colored synthetic hairs found in hairbrushes at the crime scene and Malone matched these synthetic hairs to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald."

There you have it. The hairs did not come from an outside source. Unless Helena Stoeckely brought a doll to the crime scene, or put on one of Colette's wigs during the commission of the crime.

I have a hard time believing someone can die with a clenched fist. The muscles would almost certainly be relaxed.

"A limb hair found in Colette MacDonald's left hand was one of the keys to the defense team's position that Colette was killed by an intruder. Greg Mitchell's name was even bandied about as being the probable donor of that limb hair. The importance of this hair lay in the fact that a splinter from the club was also present in Colette's hand. To everyone involved, this indicated that the donor of the hair was also the wielder of the club that brutalized Colette. The test results demonstrated that the limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5, matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Body hairs found on the multi-colored bedspread and on top of Kristen's bed also matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald."

MacDonald's hairs are found throughout the house. This is understandable. However, if there were in fact "intruders", one of these hairs found in the areas where the murders were committed. All of these hairs come back to MacDonald. If MacDonald was attacked and knocked unconscious in the living room, how did his limb hair get into Colette's hand? Both the prosecution and MacDonald's defense contended that whoever murdered Colette had lost this limb hair in the process of hitting her with the club (since splinters from the club were found with the hair in her hand). That leaves no other possibility other than MacDonald being the one who was beating her with the club.

I have a hard time believing someone can die with a clenched fist. The muscles would almost certainly be relaxed.

While muscles do initially begin to relax after death, you can maintain a clenched fist post-mortem. A number of deceased people are found with their hand(s) in that position--in fact, Colette's clenched fist is visible in some of the autopsy photographs.

Here's another interesting tidbit that points to MacDonald's guilt.

Some people will not let go of the fact that Helena Stoeckely and Greg Mitchell (among others) were involved somehow. Despite repeated confessions and then denials to uncertainty from both, they still believe they were involved somehow. Despite the DNA testing results that prove that none of the unsourced fibers in the house came from either of them, they still think they were involved. But there is another group of suspects that come off as much, much more promising from a pro-MacDonald standpoint. They were dubbed the New York four. After the Article 32 hearing, the government was ordered to find and investigate other suspects. Four suspects were arrested in New York because they matched the physical descriptions given by MacDonald, and resembled the police sketches made. Here's where it gets interesting:

"CID agent Bennie Hawkins subsequently traveled to Suffolk County to discuss the case with police officials. Hawkins discovered that these four individuals had rented a house in Fire Island with Jeffrey MacDonald's brother, Jay, in the Summer of 1969. Jeffrey MacDonald had visited his brother during that summer and was seen conversing with people who matched the descriptions of the New York Four at the Shortstop Bar in Long Island. Joseph Lee was an African-American male, Gary Burnett and Kenneth Barnett were Caucasian males, and Annette Cullity was a Caucasian female. Lee was seen wearing an army field jacket and Cullity was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots. The number of intruders, their racial make-up, and their clothing items all matched the descriptions provided by Jeffrey MacDonald."

Sounds good so far, right? The suspects had previous contact with him, and rented a house from his brother. These suspects would then seem to have a better motive to attack MacDonald as opposed to random drugged up hippies whom MacDonald claimed to have never seen before in his life (Stoeckely and Mitchell).

"Hawkins obtained fingerprint exemplars of the New York Four and their prints did not match any of the prints found at 544 Castle Drive. In December of 1970, Jeffrey MacDonald and his lawyer, Judge Rodgers, went to the Suffolk County Police Department to read the May 9, 1970 arrest report. This trip occurred several months after the completion of the Article 32 hearings. Despite the New York Four matching the descriptions of the four intruders, MacDonald never publicly commented on this visit to the Suffolk County Police Department."

Shucks. The "suspects" were proven to have never been in 544 Castle Drive. And despite the fact that these people matched MacDonald's descriptions to a tee, he never once went public saying (despite the fingerprint results) that these were the people that murdered his family? Awful fishy. But then again, this makes MacDonald look even guiltier, IMO. These four people whom he knew before the murders, used their descriptions (and what they usually wore) for his descriptions for his "intruders". After he murdered his family, and then used a vague memory of four people he knew before, and because of their association with his brother (who was into drugs and kind of a shady character), decided to blame the murders on them (or at least use their characteristics to make up his "intruders"). I think we've solved the mystery of where MacDonald got his idea of these "intruders" from. He just got lucky when Stoeckely came out and began to think she was involved with the murders.

"CID agent Bennie Hawkins subsequently traveled to Suffolk County to discuss the case with police officials. Hawkins discovered that these four individuals had rented a house in Fire Island with Jeffrey MacDonald's brother, Jay, in the Summer of 1969. Jeffrey MacDonald had visited his brother during that summer and was seen conversing with people who matched the descriptions of the New York Four at the Shortstop Bar in Long Island. Joseph Lee was an African-American male, Gary Burnett and Kenneth Barnett were Caucasian males, and Annette Cullity was a Caucasian female. Lee was seen wearing an army field jacket and Cullity was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots. The number of intruders, their racial make-up, and their clothing items all matched the descriptions provided by Jeffrey MacDonald."
I totally forgot about the New York Four. That makes so much sense now. It's funny how MacDonald seems to remember every details about them even going as far as to use them and their appearances in his hippies gang story. Very clever on Mac's part.

I totally forgot about the New York Four. That makes so much sense now. It's funny how MacDonald seems to remember every details about them even going as far as to use them and their appearances in his hippies gang story. Very clever on Mac's part.


Don't forget Mac's charming lie to Freddie Kassab that he and some Army buddies had "dealt with" one of the intuders. If someone who had murdered your wife and children were on the loose, would you be so flippant as to come up with a pretend story about killing them, thus precluding any further investigation of them?

Mac could only make up that story about the intruder, because he knew the intruder didn't exist.

Having just re-watched my copy of the American Justice episode, I wanted to mention the following points.

-There was at least one unidentified hair found on at least one of the victims, that doesn't match Jeff or anyone else in the household.

-The number of people who traipsed through the unpreserved crime scene in the hours after the murder was 22. Among evidence that was destroyed included over 40 fingerprints. Also, the flower pot and phone were picked up by bare hands and placed in their original positions, among other things. Helena claimed to have used the phone.

-Jeff stated that while he was being resuscitated (he kept going in and out of consciousness) he pleaded to have medical personnel attend to his wife and kids. He also stated he would do anything to have them back. Some have stated that Jeff did nothing to try and find the real killers of his family, but having the composite sketches of the 4 people he saw refutes that. Some have also given Jeff flak for his statement that "there have been stabbings" to the 911 operator, rather than 'my family has been stabbed.' But Jeff had stated that his head felt like it was splitting in 2, and there was a 3 minute gap in the phone conversation to the 911 operator as Jeff was in so much pain he couldn't produce coherent statements at that point.

One possibility I wanted to mention: This happened in 1970, racial tensions were high at this time period. Jeff stated one of the assailants was black. In cases where a white person lied and stated a black person was responsible when they themselves did it (off the top of my head, Susan Smith and Charles Stuart come to mind), there was a significant backlash from the African-American community, and understandably so. Yet, there was no such backlash here. Again, MacDonald had initially been cleared of any wrongdoing, and it wasn't until years after the fact that more and more people thought he was guilty.

-FWIW, Jeff admitted that his story about tracking down one of the assailants and murdering him wasn't his best move. He stated that Freddie Kassab was so distraught by the murders -- to the point that even almost a year after the crimes, he hadn't moved past the first stage of grief. Jeff said he made up the story to help get Freddie past it.

-In regards to the New York Four, I'm guessing the reason Jeff didn't publicly state they were responsible was because a) he could get into legal trouble for suggesting it, and b) he wasn't sure if they, or Helena Stoeckly and Greg Mitchell and company, or another group did it. I'm not sure what possible motive the New York Four might have had, but there was a possible motive confirmed for Stoeckly and co. They were also high, and people do crazy and violent things under the influence.

I worked with a PA that was an 18D and I know that currently 18D school alone is nearly two years. I trained several at Fort Hood and Fort Leonard Wood when they would do their clinical rotations.

I sent him an email. I think he was 5th group and I asked if he knew if the physicians had to be SF-Q to be "in" 3rd. My gut tells me no but I may be wrong. Standards since 1970 may be completely different than they are today or even 15 years ago.

So yes, apparently at least as of about 7 years ago, you did not have to be SF-Q to be a physician provider for a SF Unit though it is strongly preferred.

There's a reason that the enlisted 18D training is nearly two years long: So the Medical SF Sergeants can be more independent from the providers they work under. When I was a medic I worked directly under the supervision of a provider and my scope of practice was only as wide as they would allow.

The fact that he was a medical professional leads me to believe that this would make it more likely that he inflicted the wounds he received to himself. If I remember the segment correctly he had a punctured lung. If you don't know what you are doing this can be very dangerous but to a medical professional, especially a military medical professional that may encounter traumatic thoracic penetration, the training for treating such wounds with limited supplies is extensive and actually quite simple.

That's not quite proof but certainly leads credence to the belief that the wounds may have been self inflicted.

-There was at least one unidentified hair found on at least one of the victims, that doesn't match Jeff or anyone else in the household.

The American Justice episode was filmed before and aired in 2005. The DNA testing was done in 2006, which eliminated Stoeckley and Mitchell, and confirmed the hair was MacDonald's.

-The number of people who traipsed through the unpreserved crime scene in the hours after the murder was 22. Among evidence that was destroyed included over 40 fingerprints. Also, the flower pot and phone were picked up by bare hands and placed in their original positions, among other things. Helena claimed to have used the phone.

The flowerpot was touched, as well as MacDonald's wallet being stolen. Inexperienced MP's probably never had seen such a brutal crime scene, mistakes were sure to be made. And Stoeckely's claims about using the phone only came about after Jimmy Friar contacted MacDonald's defense in 1979.

-Jeff stated that while he was being resuscitated (he kept going in and out of consciousness) he pleaded to have medical personnel attend to his wife and kids. He also stated he would do anything to have them back. Some have stated that Jeff did nothing to try and find the real killers of his family, but having the composite sketches of the 4 people he saw refutes that. Some have also given Jeff flak for his statement that "there have been stabbings" to the 911 operator, rather than 'my family has been stabbed.' But Jeff had stated that his head felt like it was splitting in 2, and there was a 3 minute gap in the phone conversation to the 911 operator as Jeff was in so much pain he couldn't produce coherent statements at that point.

Yes but these are things coming from the prime suspect in the murders, MacDonald himself. All of the paramedics stated that he was taken from the house sitting upright, in a calm, sedate state. He did NOTHING in terms of pressuring the government to reopen the investigations into the murders (like his father-in-law did). Once he moved to California he repeatedly told family and friends that he wanted to "put the past behind him" and couldn't understand why the Kassabs couldn't do the same.

-FWIW, Jeff admitted that his story about tracking down one of the assailants and murdering him wasn't his best move. He stated that Freddie Kassab was so distraught by the murders -- to the point that even almost a year after the crimes, he hadn't moved past the first stage of grief. Jeff said he made up the story to help get Freddie past it.

This absolutely makes no sense. To help Freddi get past the grief, he should have been their shoulder to shoulder with him pressuring the government and other agencies to reopen the murders to find the real killers of his wife and kids. He did none of this.

-In regards to the New York Four, I'm guessing the reason Jeff didn't publicly state they were responsible was because a) he could get into legal trouble for suggesting it, and b) he wasn't sure if they, or Helena Stoeckly and Greg Mitchell and company, or another group did it. I'm not sure what possible motive the New York Four might have had, but there was a possible motive confirmed for Stoeckly and co. They were also high, and people do crazy and violent things under the influence.

He didn't publicly comment on the New York Four because that's where the idea for his "intruders" came from. You don't find it incredibly coincidental that the "suspects" matched the same appearance as well as the same type of dress that the New York Four were known to wear? Think about it: if MacDonald is innocent, the New York Four could not have been the ones who committed the murders since their prints were not found anywhere in the apartment. So what are the odds that another group of four (black male who wears an army jacket with Sergeant stripes, a white woman who wears boots and a floppy hat) attack MacDonald and his family seemingly out of the blue? And also of note, MacDonald initially told investigators that the woman had a floppy hat, and mentioned seeing her bare legs and shiny boots. It was only after Stoeckely's story came out that MacDonald began to add in the "stringy hair" or wig aspect to his story.

I have a hard time believing someone can die with a clenched fist. The muscles would almost certainly be relaxed.

Slightly OT:

I would think so too. The one case that comes to mind first tho, is Keith Warren. If you look at the crime scene photos, on the Keith Warren Justice blog one of his hands is in a fist and other is nearly fully contracted into a fist.

As his case was supposedly a suicide by hanging, I'd like to know how often that happens with hanging victims. I would assume that in that situation, their arms would drop to their sides and their hands would be mostly open and not tightly clenched.

MacDonald's wallet being stolen.

But that would indicate intruders. Since it's never been established or even suggested that Jeff left the crime scene, where could have have put it that it would never be found?

He didn't publicly comment on the New York Four because that's where the idea for his "intruders" came from. You don't find it incredibly coincidental that the "suspects" matched the same appearance as well as the same type of dress that the New York Four were known to wear? Think about it: if MacDonald is innocent, the New York Four could not have been the ones who committed the murders since their prints were not found anywhere in the apartment. So what are the odds that another group of four (black male who wears an army jacket with Sergeant stripes, a white woman who wears boots and a floppy hat) attack MacDonald and his family seemingly out of the blue? And also of note, MacDonald initially told investigators that the woman had a floppy hat, and mentioned seeing her bare legs and shiny boots. It was only after Stoeckely's story came out that MacDonald began to add in the "stringy hair" or wig aspect to his story.

But you have some people on here suggesting that Jeff saw Helena, Greg Mitchell and company beforehand (perhaps even earlier the previous day) and used them as a guideline for his descriptions. I'm sorry, but your side can't have it both ways.

But that would indicate intruders. Since it's never been established or even suggested that Jeff left the crime scene, where could have have put it that it would never be found?

The wallet was found somewhere in New York, and it was later determined to have been stolen by one of the medical personnel. He admitted to stealing it when the CID began it's thorough investigation.

But you have some people on here suggesting that Jeff saw Helena, Greg Mitchell and company beforehand (perhaps even earlier the previous day) and used them as a guideline for his descriptions. I'm sorry, but your side can't have it both ways.

I'll be perfectly honest, I believe I was the one who came up with the idea that MacDonald saw Helena and company at some point wandering around Ft. Bragg...but that was before I had read about the New York Four. I had knew of the four suspects (dubbed NY Four) that were arrested in New York because there was a brief mention in Fatal Vision about them. But I had no clue, until yesterday, that the NY Four also matched the physical descriptions (and composites) made by MacDonald, and also that MacDonald had had prior contact with these people. And the pro-MacDonald people cannot have things one way without believing the other. For example: MacDonald supporters keep insisting that Helena was the woman Ken Mica saw standing on the corner in the early morning hours despite the fact that Mica has said that A. he knew of Helena due to her presence on the fort and knew what she looked like and B. the woman was NOT Helena, but someone he thought to have been having an affair with one of the enlisted officers. Mica has said that his statement about the woman was blown out of proportion and that he has been repeatedly misquoted to play up the whole "pro-Mac" angle.

was Ken Mica driving?

was Ken Mica driving?

No. He was the passenger who remarked to the driver something along the lines of, "did you see that woman back there"?

And since this thread has picked up some life recently, I don't know if this has been discussed or not but Kristen, the 2 year old, was found murdered in her bed. What's interesting to note (but rarely gets mentioned) is that there were wounds in her chest but no cut marks in her pajama top. In other words, someone pulled the top up to stab her, and then put it back down. No one besides MacDonald would have had a motive to do this.

And since this thread has picked up some life recently, I don't know if this has been discussed or not but Kristen, the 2 year old, was found murdered in her bed. What's interesting to note (but rarely gets mentioned) is that there were wounds in her chest but no cut marks in her pajama top. In other words, someone pulled the top up to stab her, and then put it back down. No one besides MacDonald would have had a motive to do this.

Not sure where you're getting that from.

I think the reason I have such a hard time believing Jeff is guilty is because so many of the key players on the anti-Jeff side are shady people. I mean, we have a corrupt prosecutor, Joe McGinnis and his dishonest book, the list goes on.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/12.html

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/13.html

Here it talks about, among other things, the hair found on each of the female victims not matched to anyone in the house (it was short, brown hair -- Jeff had blonde hair), skin underneath Collette's hand and bloody syringes that were lost (probably convenientlly lost). Also, it talks about black wool fibers found not matching anything to the house, the falsehood that Jeff's pajama fibers were found on the club, the wax drippings that didn't come from any candle in the house (Helena frequently used them), a burnt match found (nobody in the family smoked)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/14.html

The link immediately above talks about the chief forensic "expert" who concluded that the blood stains found on Jeff's pajama top occured after the tears. The "expert" had only year of chemistry in college and his grades were very poor. His findings were later refuted by a real expert in the field.

I also wanted think it was crummy the judge only allowed the defense 2 weeks to look at the mounds of evidence in the case, a process which could have taken months or years. What a crock.

And what about the belief by experts who said she believed Collette to be killed by a left-handed assailant? Jeff is right-handed.

Not sure where you're getting that from.

I think the reason I have such a hard time believing Jeff is guilty is because so many of the key players on the anti-Jeff side are shady people. I mean, we have a corrupt prosecutor, Joe McGinnis and his dishonest book, the list goes on.

That was from a Washington Post article, where Brian Murtagh discusses why MacDonald had to kill Kristen.

"There were wounds in Kristen’s chest that didn’t have corresponding defects in the clothes,” Murtagh says. He talks in lawyer speak. What he means is: Kristy was probably killed as she slept, by someone who first lifted her pajama top, as if to better identify the location of vital organs. She is knifed front and back, with anatomical precision, along the heart, the aortic arch and the pulmonary vein."

As to the anti-MacDonald people being "shady", I wouldn't call it that. Blackburn was a disgraced prosecutor well after the MacDonald trial, and McGinnis perhaps did lie to MacDonald to get more information out of him...I don't see the big deal there.

With regards to the hair:

A hair found under Kristen's fingernail could not be matched to any member of the MacDonald family. However, at one of his appeals the prosecution, "presented affidavits from lab technicians showing it was a naturally shed hair, not the result of violence; also, that it had not been found on Kristy at all, but had resulted from accidental contamination of the lab sample. The defense didn’t effectively refute this."

A blue bedsheet was found crumpled and tosses near a closet in the master bedroom. Something MacDonald claims to have never touched. There were 28 bloodstains found on the sheet, 26 from Colette, 2 from Kimberly. A hair was found with a piece of skin still attached to it, and MacDonald's defense had stated that, "If this hair and piece of skin were subjected to DNA testing, and were such testing to result in a determination that this item did not originate from either Jeffrey MacDonald, his wife, or his daughters, it would be highly persuasive evidence of MacDonald's innocence, for there is little, if any, possibility that this hair and skin found their way into the bedding in the master bedroom other than as a result of a struggle between the victims and the persons who committed the murders." But DNA testing was done in 2005 on this hair, and it was Colette's. This supports the notion that MacDonald had used the sheet to carry bodies and move them from room to room.

With regard to fibers:

"Unsourced fibers" are "forensically insignificant" according to the FBI. There were a total of 5 "dark wool" fibers found. 2 on the club, three on the body of Colette. Nothing was found to have matched the fibers, that much is true. But the five fibers had different chemical compositions, meaning they came from three different sources. Stoeckley never mentioned wearing dark wool or dark clothing for that matter (MacDonald's defense claims that Stoeckley was the source of the fibers). Not to mention MacDonald destroyed or threw out a lot of clothing after the Article 32 hearing. There are several pictures and home movies that show the MacDonald family wearing dark wool caps and sweaters. The reason there is no match to these is because there is nothing to test them against, since MacDonald threw it all away.

With regard to the candle wax:

"During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal argued that three unsourced candle wax drippings found at the crime scene indicated the presence of intruders. The fact is that Colette MacDonald loved candles as evidenced by CID Exhibits G-9 through G-17. These exhibits included several glass bottles which bore traces of multi-colored wax. There were also 14 unused candles found at the crime scene. In terms of the three unsourced wax drippings, all three differed in chemical composition, which indicated that the drippings came from three different candles. Two of the three wax drippings were found in Kimberley MacDonald's room. One wax dripping resembled birthday candle wax and the other wax dripping was similar to wax found on a glass bottle in the dining room. The third unsourced wax dripping was found on the left slat of the coffee table in the living room. This particular wax dripping was comparatively old and contaminated with household debris. The argument that the three wax drippings are unrelated evidentiary items is bolstered by the fact that there was no trail of wax drippings leading from the living room and extending into Kimberley’s room."

You can read more about defense claims and some rebuttals here:

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/defense_claims.html

Not sure where you're getting that from.

I think the reason I have such a hard time believing Jeff is guilty is because so many of the key players on the anti-Jeff side are shady people. I mean, we have a corrupt prosecutor, Joe McGinnis and his dishonest book, the list goes on.


Does it really "go on"?

Yes, the prosecutor was disbarred over a completedly unrelated matter many years after the MacDonald trial, and I've previously stated that I thought McGinnis was unethical in his dealings with Mac (though when you are writing about a guy who killed his family, I guess questions of ethics are relative). But everyone else?

What about Freddie Kassab - even Mac's most loyal supporters have to concede he was a devoted husband and step father who spent every waking hour for years attempting to find the killer of Collette and the girls (as opposed to Mac, who wanted to "move on"...as though the unsolved slaughter of your entire family was like a relationship break up or getting fired from a job).

What about the other prosecutor Brian Murtagh - who has devoted essentially his entire career to this case (and the Lockerbie bombings) - costing him plenty in terms of foregone earnings and promotions.

What about the numerous FBI and CID officers who worked on this matter - do you think these guys, who are the embodiment of the establishment WANTED to find an Army doctor guilty of murder...do you honestly think they are protecting a ragtag gang of druggy hippie psychos?

What of the numerous judges who have rejected Mac's endless appeals and the 12 jurors (including a Green Beret) who unanimously convicted him?

Personally I think McGinniss believed Jeff in the beginning but the more Jeff talked with him, he believed Jeff actually committed the crime. This book came out after the trial. Plenty of books have been writted about imfamous murders. Ann Rule has written several that I know of. I've been reading to her some of hers. Mac supporters just simply can't believe that he commited this crime. Not matter how much evidence is already there and no matter how many tests are run they won't change their minds. One day though everyone will know the truth.

I see nothing wrong with what McGinniss did. So he might and lied to and conned a man who killed his wife and two young daughters...boo hoo.

ETA: In a legality sense, the only way MacDonald can be proven "factually innocent" is by legally proving someone else committed the murders. Harking on unsourced fibers in the house is not going to accomplish this since at MacDonald's original trial, the prosecution admitted and contended that there were unsourced fibers found...but he still got convicted. So arguing over unsourced fibers is meaningless, because they mean nothing in terms of getting MacDonald out of jail, or "proving" his "innocence". Same goes with unsourced hair, etc. If that's the best MacDonald defenders can come up with, he's going to die in jail.

One more thing with regards to MacDonald. I'll give him credit...his story hasn't changed much over the years. But then again, neither has his attitude with regards to the crimes. Even on Dick Cavett he was talking about the injustice done to him by the military, how dare they even think he was responsible for the crimes? And now, even these days, his attitude remains the same. Errol Morris interviewed him for his book, and the whole damn time is spent complaining about how the jury that convicted him selectively looked at evidence (according to Morris and MacDonald, the evidence could be interpreted any which way, which is in itself, asinine) and how he won't stop fighting until he gets his freedom. Not one single solitary mention of the fact that, although Stoeckley and Mitchell are dead, there are still 2 "intruders" out there that "murdered" his family who should be the ones rotting in jail as opposed to him. He has never once, not one single solitary time, mentioned the fact that he wants justice for his family, and wants to find the real culprits. And in 2012, a writer for the Press-Telegram wrote how he first interviewed MacDonald in 1984:

"I'm not sure I even want to talk to you," the man convicted of killing his pregnant wife and two daughters said, glaring at us.

We asked why. He said, "You wrote in your last story that I have no friends left in Long Beach."

Here's what we never got out of MacDonald: A sense of hatred or even anger about the people who supposedly killed his wife and daughters, or a sense of sorrow about their deaths. He spoke solely of the injustice of his imprisonment. It's nothing that could be used against him in court, but it always rubbed us the wrong way.

Yes...he was more concerned with the fact that an article stated his Long Beach friends turned on him opposed to the fact that the real killers of his family were out and about, not facing justice. :rolleyes:

One more thing with regards to MacDonald. I'll give him credit...his story hasn't changed much over the years. But then again, neither has his attitude with regards to the crimes. Even on Dick Cavett he was talking about the injustice done to him by the military, how dare they even think he was responsible for the crimes? And now, even these days, his attitude remains the same. Errol Morris interviewed him for his book, and the whole damn time is spent complaining about how the jury that convicted him selectively looked at evidence (according to Morris and MacDonald, the evidence could be interpreted any which way, which is in itself, asinine) and how he won't stop fighting until he gets his freedom. Not one single solitary mention of the fact that, although Stoeckley and Mitchell are dead, there are still 2 "intruders" out there that "murdered" his family who should be the ones rotting in jail as opposed to him. He has never once, not one single solitary time, mentioned the fact that he wants justice for his family, and wants to find the real culprits. And in 2012, a writer for the Press-Telegram wrote how he first interviewed MacDonald in 1984:

"I'm not sure I even want to talk to you," the man convicted of killing his pregnant wife and two daughters said, glaring at us.

We asked why. He said, "You wrote in your last story that I have no friends left in Long Beach."

Here's what we never got out of MacDonald: A sense of hatred or even anger about the people who supposedly killed his wife and daughters, or a sense of sorrow about their deaths. He spoke solely of the injustice of his imprisonment. It's nothing that could be used against him in court, but it always rubbed us the wrong way.

Yes...he was more concerned with the fact that an article stated his Long Beach friends turned on him opposed to the fact that the real killers of his family were out and about, not facing justice. :rolleyes:

Even on the miniscule (and I do mean miniscule) chance that his story is actually true, he's still a turd, frankly.

Mac supporters just simply can't believe that he commited this crime. Not matter how much evidence is already there and no matter how many tests are run they won't change their minds. One day though everyone will know the truth.

I'm a Mac supporter and I firmly believe we've reached a stalemate in this case. Essentially this means Mac will never be released from prison (even if he is ever able to exonerate himself, it's too much of a political football after all these years) and those of us who support him see the case as too convoluted to proclaim the man guilty.

Perhaps therefore I should amend my stance. I support Mac because I am not convinced of his guilt. However I am not necessarily convinced of his innocence either and believe that if Mac is in fact as guilty as his detractors claim that he is a far more dangerous man than most people assume at first blush. Without belaboring the point if Mac is indeed guilty, for him to both carry on his charade of innocence and to involve so many well intentioned people in what would be a conspiracy of innocence is something remarkable in enough of itself.

Essentially this means Mac will never be released from prison (even if he is ever able to exonerate himself, it's too much of a political football after all these years) .

Nonsense. Mac killed his family 44 years ago and was convicted 35 years ago....aside from Mac and prosecutor Brian Murtagh, everyone involved in this matter during its highest profile period is now either long retired or dead. There's no risk to reputations or delicate political issues that would be raised by releasing him. There is one reason - and one reason only - why Mac is still behind bars. He's guilty.

Perhaps therefore I should amend my stance. I support Mac because I am not convinced of his guilt. However I am not necessarily convinced of his innocence either .


Stay on the thread....we'll try to fully convert you to "guilty"!

I support Mac because I am not convinced of his guilt.

Fair enough. May I ask what aspects of the case is holding you back from convincing you of his guilt?

Nonsense. Mac killed his family 44 years ago and was convicted 35 years ago....aside from Mac and prosecutor Brian Murtagh, everyone involved in this matter during its highest profile period is now either long retired or dead. There's no risk to reputations or delicate political issues that would be raised by releasing him. There is one reason - and one reason only - why Mac is still behind bars. He's guilty.




Stay on the thread....we'll try to fully convert you to "guilty"!

Doubtful because I'm not looking to be converted from my stance. To answer The Cars' question below oftentimes with me in regards to matters like this it's more of a feeling than anything else as to whether or not I believe the person in question is innocent or guilty. In the case of Dr. MacDonald I've always believed in his innocence period and don't see why that should really offend anyone since I'm not trying to convert them to my side of the debate.

Doubtful because I'm not looking to be converted from my stance. To answer The Cars' question below oftentimes with me in regards to matters like this it's more of a feeling than anything else as to whether or not I believe the person in question is innocent or guilty. In the case of Dr. MacDonald I've always believed in his innocence period and don't see why that should really offend anyone since I'm not trying to convert them to my side of the debate.
What exactly do you mean, it's more of a feeling than anything else? Even with all of the evidence that points to him being the killer, you still believe he is innocent? I used to think he was innocent and wasn't capable of this horrific crime but as I read transcripts and studied the evidence that was presented at his trial, I came to believe he was guilty. He did it, plain and simple. The evidence doesn't lie. People do.

Doubtful because I'm not looking to be converted from my stance. To answer The Cars' question below oftentimes with me in regards to matters like this it's more of a feeling than anything else as to whether or not I believe the person in question is innocent or guilty. In the case of Dr. MacDonald I've always believed in his innocence period and don't see why that should really offend anyone since I'm not trying to convert them to my side of the debate.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I respect the fact that you haven't been debating/arguing/trying to convince others of your beliefs. I was just genuinely curious as to what makes people believe in MacDonald's innocence.

I think the most important aspect of this case was MacDonald's interview on April 6th, with the CID investigators. It was the very first time, just 6 weeks after the murders, that he would tell his story on the record. MacDonald was asked to give his account of the murders, what had happened, etc. before being confronted with the physical evidence and the doubts the CID investigators had in his story. Here's some excerpts:

And the guy on my left was a colored man, and he hit me again; but at the same time, you know, I was kind of struggling. And these two men, I thought, were punching me at the same time. Then I--I remember thinking to myself that--see, I work out with the boxing gloves sometimes. I was then--and I kept--"Geeze, that guy throws a hell of a punch," because he punched me in the chest, and I got this terrible pain in my chest.

Oddly, he's thinking "Gee, this guy throws a hell of a punch", as opposed to the more rational "oh God what's happening to my wife and kids, I have to get to my wife and kids", or even less rational (but more likely), "oh no these people are killing me...I'm going to die".

So, when I reached up to feel my head, you know, my hands were bloody. And so I--I think it was the second circuit 'cause it--by that time, I was--I was thinking better, I thought. And I went into that--I went into the bathroom right there and looked in the mirror and didn't--nothing looked wrong. I mean there wasn't really even a cut or anything.

This is immediately after MacDonald (unsure if it was the first time or second time) allegedly checked his wife and children. Notice how, for the first official time in telling his story, he admits to the investigators that his injuries were not severe, and there was hardly anything wrong with him.

Oh, I just seemed to have a little--a little bump on this head, and I had pain back here and a little lump back here (motioning to the back of his head). It wasn't very exciting. It wasn't what I, you know, expected.

Again, this is MacDonald describing his head injury. Nothing that would seem to indicate a violent struggle with 3 adult males.

And, so they were looking me over, and there was just a little trickle of blood here and a whole bunch of little puncture marks across my abdomen. And I guess we ended up with fourteen of them, or something like that; and there was a little--a little cut here [MacDonald motions to his arm].

Immediately after, the CID investigator asks him, "You didn't do it yourself, did you?" To which MacDonald immediately replies:

No. So, they said to me, "Well, you know, we'll have to get an x-ray." So, we got an x-ray; and he came back and said, "The x-ray looks good." And when your chest is bubbling, you have a pneumothorax. I mean, if you take a breath and bubbles come out--I mean it's very simple. Any Special Forces medic knows that and any nurse knows that, and they'll put a chest tube in. In Cape Fear they know when a chest tube has to go in before--before you even see the patient. And I said, "Well," I said, "I don't know about you guys," I said, "But my chest hurts like hell and I can't breathe and it's bubbling." Now, that to me--that means I have a pneumothorax with a puncture in the lung. In other words, it won't bubble unless the lung has been punctured. And so, Dr. Jacobson came over and he says, "Take a deep breath." And I took a deep breath and it was bubbling, and he says, "Hey, you need a chest tube." So I said, "Dick Tracy," you know; but that's beside the point. He's okay; he's a good guy.

Now this is interesting to me. Instead of being po'ed at the fact that the investigators have just insinuated that he inflicted his injuries on himself, he simply says "no" and then goes into a rambling sentence about what had happened once he got to the hospital. Sounds like he was trying to make the investigators forget that they had even asked the question in the first place.

So, then I was standing in the middle--middle of the hallway after this kind of second trip [to check his wife and children], and I didn't know what to do. I kept saying to myself, you know, "What--what comes now?" And I remember I--it flashed through my mind to go next door to my idiot neighbor, but I realized that would be futile, and--

Yes, your wife and children were just murdered by a gang of drugged up crazies, but you figured it would be futile to seek out help from the closest place available because you have an "idiot" neighbor. :rolleyes:

Investigator: Well, this towel was laying right across her abdomen, the abdomen and upper thighs area.

MacDonald: Well, then I must have--either I put it there or the medic put it there. But I--maybe I did as I was covering my wife. I really don't--

Investigator: I don't want to talk you into anything.

MacDonald: No, no, that's--I know. You see, that's what happens now.

Investigator: I don't want to do--

MacDonald: Everyone--everyone--I mean I've talked--well, only--really, only two people know the whole story aside from you people. But in telling them, some things, you know, sound funny after a while; and I'm not sure what--you know, whether--like one time I remember, Ron Harrison, who got involved with this thing and was around all the time, he--he heard most of it, and he asked me a couple of things about it. I remember when I told him, that my mother said it wasn't exactly what I, you know--

Investigator: Might have said to her?

MacDonald: Right. And I, you know--she--in other words, they reacted a little different. And so I really don't know how many times I've been talked into it--of course, the newspaper had such--they had me saying things that--everyone said to me, "Well, now, they--they kept saying, "Hit him again" and stuff like that. I'm not even--I'm not sure. I don't think I ever heard that. I don't think I ever heard that.

MacDonald is admitting to changing his story several times to several different people. He even admits that his mother challenged him on it.

I don't think so. I remember washing my hands off, you know, in my compulsive manner. But I--I thought it was in the bathroom where I was doing that from.

Now why on Earth would MacDonald take the time to wash his hands after the brutal murder of his family? And before someone suggests he was going into shock, I'll give you another MacDonald gem:

And a couple times I had to--thinking that I was going into shock and not being able to breathe. Now I--you know, when I look back, of course, it's merely a symptom, that shortness of breath. It isn't--you weren't really that bad, but that's what happens when you get a pneumothorax. All I know is, when I looked at my, you know, medical records and stuff and they told me what my blood pressure was, I couldn't have been unconscious from shock.

No shock for the doc.

Investigator: You fought your way to the entrance to the hallway?

MacDonald: Yeah, you asked me that fifteen times, right.

Does this not just scream a--hole?

Well, again, now, a person will come in the emergency room and say he has taken LSD and he's having an acute anxiety reaction, paranoid, and he's, you know, seeing people that he's afraid or anything. That could be LSD; it could be speed; it could be mesc--you know, any of the--any of the amphetamine-type things--or mescaline. And very often the kids don't know what they've taken, so you have no way of knowing. But they always say LSD. And like I treated one two nights ago at Cape Fear, and this guy was--not two nights ago--last week, and this guy was capable of anything, I'm sure. He was extremely agitated and wild; and all you had to do was move and, you know, he'd jump up and he was very paranoid. You know, people were attacking him and he had to defend himself.

MacDonald admits that someone who's hopped up on LSD is going to be very agitated, wild, and paranoid. Apparently the ones who murdered his family were not wild enough to disturb greeting cards that were found upright on his bureau right next to where he claims he was attacked.

Investigator: Let me show it to you, if I can. Like I say, this is important to you and I want you to--

MacDonald: Okay.

Investigator: --understand what we're talking about. Now, we've got a--got you pajama top. (Shaw draws picture of the top.) A very crude, rude drawing, but that's the way it is. And this is the front of it. Kind of a v-neck affair?

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: All right, it's torn down here.

MacDonald: Okay.

Investigator: And your pocket was over here, okay?

MacDonald: Uh-huh (Yes).

Investigator: And that's since been torn off.

MacDonald: Uh-huh (Yes).

Investigator: Now, this had a couple of spots of blood on it. (Pointing to the pocket)--

MacDonald: Uh-huh (Yes).

Investigator: --As we said, Colette's blood. The rest of this area (pointing to the top where the pocket had been removed) is drenched with blood--

MacDonald: Uh-huh (Yes).

Investigator: --as is this, but that's another story. This is over in--in the master bedroom--in your bedroom--

MacDonald: Uh-huh (Yes).

Investigator: --way over here someplace, away from Colette.

MacDonald: Could it have been torn off me, I mean in this struggle and--

Investigator: Yeah, that's what I'm--

MacDonald: Someone else dropped it?

Investigator: That's what we think, that it was torn off the--off the jacket there during the struggle. But we have to find a way to get it to the bedroom.

MacDonald: I don't know. Maybe someone--maybe it was hanging on this; and when I walked in, it fell off. You know, I mean--I just--there's a couple ways I could picture it. Either--say that, when we were struggling, it was torn off--

Investigator: Okay, we'll say that.

MacDonald: --and the person on the way out the door dropped it. Is that possible?

Investigator: Well. Anything is possible.

MacDonald: Right, okay.

Investigator: Some things are less possible.

MacDonald: So when it was hanging on me--when it--it was hanging on my jacket, when I took it off my arms and--when I was in the bedroom and I was taking it off, and it dropped off then. I don't know. I would assume that it was ripped off and dropped by that--by them or that when I took the shirt off--you know, I opened it up to put it over my wife and it dropped off then. And maybe it was kicked away from the body or something by the people--you know, the medics or the MPs that were giving me artificial respiration. And then the blood--this part got soaked because, you know, I put it over my wife. I really don't know. I just--you know. It just seems to me that there's some way to explain it.

Investigator: In addition, we found fibers from this jacket in Kristy's room and in Kimmie's room--both.

MacDonald: Holy Christ.

Investigator: Again, I'm not sharp-shooting you now--

MacDonald: No, I know.

Investigator: --but you told us that you--

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: --took this off--

MacDonald: Took it off, right.

Investigator: --in the master bedroom.

Now I understand that MacDonald shouldn't be required to explain the forensic evidence, since (if his story was true) was going through an emotional trauma at the time. But MacDonald claims to have taken his PJ top off when he went into the master bedroom when he checked Colette. He checked her first, and then went into his daughter's bedrooms. If his story is to be believed, there should NEVER have been ANY PJ fibers (not small fuzz or debris, but large shreds off of the top of his PJ) in those bedrooms. "Holy Christ" indeed.

Investigator: Did you see anything out of the back door?

MacDonald: No.

Investigator: Did you see your neighbor's lights on?

MacDonald: I didn't notice. Usually, the only lights on that--well, if the couple's porch light is on--our neighbor right next door to us always has their light on. But I didn't notice it. I mean--

Investigator: It's quite a ways down?

MacDonald: Yeah. I mean I--I didn't notice that or anything. I didn't--all I did was look out the door and--probably--and go right back in. I don't remember any specifics at all. I didn't see anybody, and that's what I was looking for.

Investigator: But you didn't--you didn't see anything remarkable at all or--apparently?

MacDonald: No.

Investigator: Was it raining?

MacDonald: I--it was wet. I don't know if it was raining. It looked wet out.

Investigator: Did you put on that terry-cloth robe that you have at any point that evening?

MacDonald: The brown one?

Investigator: The sauna robe.

Investigator: The white one.

MacDonald: The white one?

Investigator: Uh-huh (yes).

MacDonald: I have three of them.

Investigator: Okay, there was a knit white terry-cloth robe--

MacDonald: Yeah, I know what it is, my shower robe. No.

MacDonald's robe was wet and had blades of grass on the bottom of it. He says he did not wear it. Unless the intruders decided to wear it, go outside, kneel down, and then come back in and return the robe there is no other logical reason as to why his robe would have blades of grass on the bottom of it. He put his robe on, went outside, knelt down and threw the weapons into some bushes before going back inside. That's where the blades of grass and the wetness came from.

Investigator: Kimmie was in your bedroom, and she got hurt in there.

MacDonald: She got hurt?

Investigator: Uh-huh (Yes).

MacDonald: You mean that night?

Investigator: That's what I'm saying.

MacDonald: Unless she went in--now, she hardly ever did any more. She did real rarely, but very rarely would she leave her bed. She was, you know, at that point now where she slept in her own bed and stayed there. You know, very rarely she would go in with Colette and myself; but that was like once a month that occurred.

Investigator: If she heard something, would she have--and been awakened. If she had been awakened, was she the type of child that would go and investigate to see what was going on?

MacDonald: Well, Kristy would. Even at two and a half, probably, but I'm not sure about Kimmie. Kimmie was like a--you know, she got bucked off the new pony I just got them once and she wasn't--it took her awhile to get back on. You know what I mean? She wasn't a take-charge and that--I don't know.
That's conjecture, but Kimmie was--she was real effeminate and real soft and gentle, you know; and I--I don't know--I don't know. But if she had a nightmare, for instance, the only parable [sic] I can draw--if she'd wake up crying from a nightmare, she'd just sit there and yell until Colette came in, whereas Kristy would come charging into the bedroom and dive into the bed. You know, a whole different--different way of doing something. If--if Kimberly heard screaming, I would doubt if she'd--if she would--if she would go and investigate that. She's bright and curious, but she's also a very dependent type child, you know.

Investigator: You don't think she would--

MacDonald: Well, she might. I know--I mean, how do you tell what, you know, what--what a five-year-old girl is--But I wouldn't--if you said to me, "What would I expect?" I'd say, "No." Kristy, yes. Kristy would go charging anywhere, partially because she's young enough so she doesn't have any fear yet; but--but Kimmie--Kimmie was always different. She was always, you know--you had to take her by the hand, except in--except in academic things. I mean she was the one that came home and knew how to read and write way too early and stuff like that. But like she would--she'd get pushed around by other kids, whereas Kristy--Kristy would defend her. Believe it or not. Kimmie would come home crying, and Kristy would run over and crack someone, so--geeze, that's the first time I heard that. I--I didn't--I hadn't heard anything about--about Kimberly being injured in the master bedroom. Umph. Now I heard them both screaming, so, you know, I think--I'm positive it was Kimmie, definitely, with Colette because she's the only one who would call me Jeff; and I know her voice. And I'm sure the other one was--was Kimberly. So, you know, but I didn't know that--what you just said.

MacDonald's story is that Kristen was the one that was in the bed with Colette that night, and that Kristen wet the bed. But when confronted with the fact that Kimberly's blood is in the master bedroom (a lot of it), he then goes on to say that Kimberly wasn't the type of girl to leave her bedroom if she was scared. In other words: he's been caught in another lie.

Investigator: But this weapon was used on Colette and Kim. It is a brutal weapon. We have three people here that are over-killed almost; and yet, they leave you alive.

MacDonald: Well, I've gone over that myself and the only way I can see that I was the first one; that when I was unconscious--

Investigator: While you were laying there in the hallway, why not give you a good lick or two behind the head with that club and finished you off?

MacDonald: Well, Maybe I was--

Investigator: You saw them eye-to-eye. They don't know that you wouldn't be able to identify them at a later date. Why leave you there alive?

MacDonald: I don't know. Maybe they assume that--that I was dead and the frenzy got worse and worse. I--I don't know. I've thought about this. I've spent many sleepless nights in the last six weeks, you know. The only thing I can say is I did hear some screaming and perhaps I was the first one, and then things got worse and worse. I don't know.

Grebner brings up an excellent point, and one I never even considered. MacDonald allegedly saw this people, and had a vague description of them. Why leave him alive?

Investigator: And as we enter the bedroom, we have Kimberly's blood on the rug--mat. To the right of the door, we have a sheet and coverlet for the bed; and on the sheet is Colette's blood and Kimberly's; and on the bedspread--isn't that correct-- on the bedspread it's Colette's blood, large quantities--both--the hairs of Kimberly. Now hippies don't--they let bodies fall where they may.

MacDonald: Right, I agree with you.

Investigator: So, it is another staged scene probably. Kimberly was returned to her bed--possibly carried in the sheet.

MacDonald: Couldn't that blood have been transported to that bed any other way? On the hands?

Investigator: Too much of it--too much blood. It couldn't have been transported by hands--(Inaudible)--but there's blood there. There is absolutely no evidence that could be found, even though we had technicians for five days in there, of an alien being in that house. There would have had to have been five people by your story. You saw four of them. You get that many people in a house that small, you're going to have evidence of it.

MacDonald: You mean to tell me there was nothing in that house from anyone else?

Investigator: Not in those bedrooms.

MacDonald: Well, there's been plenty of people in those bedrooms. I mean if they hadn't been there that night, there were people in those bedrooms; so I don't understand what you are saying. That--that--isn't--that doesn't necessarily hold true to me, in my mind.

Investigator: We are talking about people in there to commit a crime. Not people the kids had in. The kids were asleep.

MacDonald: I don't know what you want me to say here.

MacDonald's story is crumbling around him. He admits that the "intruders" wouldn't move bodies around, but then can't come up with an explanation as to why Kimberly's blood is found in large quantities in the master bedroom. Now, again, if innocent, he surely wouldn't be able to explain certain forensic evidence in this case because according to his story he was unconscious. But by his own admission, Kimberly was in her bed the whole night, and would have never left it no matter what. She would have stayed in her bed, if afraid, and screamed until either MacDonald or Colette went in to comfort her.

MacDonald: Holy Christ. I tell you what it looks like to me. It looks like you've run out of things and--and you are picking out someone--the easiest one. That's what it looks like to me. You've got to solve it by the end of the fiscal year so when the report goes in, there's a hundred percent solved rate.

Investigator: No, I've been at this for ten--twenty years, and I'm going to stick one more. So, I'm not in any hurry. It is just that we have all this and it would tend to indicate that you were involved in it rather than five people who came from the outside and picked 544 Castle Drive, and went up and were lucky enough to find your door open. I've spent many a night out on this post, and I know one thing, with the number of dogs we have around, you don't go around rattling doors here and find one that's open so you can come in and for no apparent reason and knock off three people. At that hour of the morning, the patrols we have around would keep a group of five people from wandering through the housing area-- or driving through...

MacDonald: Oh, that's a lot of baloney. I've never seen a patrol there at night, and I've been there since August.

Investigator: Well, I can assure you they are there. You probably weren't looking for them.

MacDonald: Well, where do we go from here?

Investigator: It's up to you.

MacDonald: It's not up to me. I told you what I--what I know. You put some pictures in front of me, tell--tell me they are staged and tell me I did it.

Shouldn't MacDonald's response (after he realized the CID investigators suspected him as being responsible) been a bit more on the, "oh well if you think it's me, investigate me, but please don't focus the whole investigation on me or else the real killers will get away", instead of his snide fiscal year comment?

MacDonald: But it took your office six weeks to question me about these things?

Investigator: Captain, we've been all over the United States tracing down hippies and girls with long blond hair.

MacDonald: I'm sure. I understand that, but it seems to me that--

Investigator: This box just holds part of the work we've done. We've talked to thousands of people.

There goes that theory that the government was focused on MacDonald from the get-go, and wasn't interested in finding anyone else. Then, Grebner slides a manilla envelope over to MacDonald containing a picture of one of his mistresses:

You're more thorough than I thought. That was a--that was a--very unmemorable one-day thing. You guys have gone on some mild stuff in calling--in calling me a family murderer.

That sounds like an admission, IMO. "Than I thought"...why would he be thinking how thorough the CID was going to be, if he in fact was an innocent victim? Wouldn't he be happy with that fact, so the real murderers would be caught? And by this point MacDonald's answers have started to reek of sarcasm. Instead of screaming angrily that he didn't do it, apparently he thought some heavy doses of sarcasm would make himself look better. MacDonald and Grebner than begin to discuss the possibility of he taking a polygraph. Grebner assures him that if he passes, the investigation will proceed elsewhere.

Investigator: This polygraph we are talking about, it will only help you, it can't hurt, because it can't be presented in court, and like we said--

MacDonald: No mention of the polygraph can be made in court?

Investigator: The element to mention that can be made is--

MacDonald: I wasn't aware of this. I had no idea that was true.

Investigator: The element that can be discussed, if it is discussed, is if the direct question is asked--did you--well, not you--but was a polygraph examination conducted. It can be answered yes or no, it was conducted, or no, it wasn't conducted. In fact, they--don't--the court system now days don't discuss this.

MacDonald: They don't what?

Investigator: They don't discuss it at all. It is an investigative tool.

Investigator: As he was saying, if it comes back conclusive no deception indicated then we trust it enough to say to ourselves, all right, let's forget this thing, and stop pursuing this line of investigation.

MacDonald: You mean to tell me that--that's never wrong? I find that's hard to believe, just from any instrument.

Investigator: Not never wrong. The machine itself is probably never wrong.
It is as good as any machine can be. It is simple.

MacDonald: No, I understand that, but I mean don't--you mean to tell me there aren't some people that resist and it is wrong--you follow me?
Their blood pressure changes, or their respiration changes, and it doesn't prove me guilty of a crime. I just find that hard to believe.

Investigator: There are people. I've known people who've had the test and said I beat the machine, but these tests are something that isn't important to a man, and they don't just put you on a machine--they don't hook you up to this thing and say (Inaudible)

MacDonald: No. It is an interrogation technique--

Investigator: Right.

MacDonald: Probably is the skill of the guy that's doing it, right?

Investigator: Sure, it's got to be. That's why, if he runs a test here for us, it is immediately sent up to Washington, or it goes to Third Army, where it it isn't (Inaudible)--it is reviewed and you know, between these people they come up with a pretty good answer.

MacDonald: I just--ah--I don't lie the--ah--so much emphasis placed on what looks to me pretty superficial things--that's the only thing I'm scared of, to perfectly honest with you. I mean it seems to you that you guys have some pretty mild stuff and calling me a family murderer.

Again, no sense of anger towards the fact that he now knows the CID considers him a suspect.

The rest of the interview is spent discussing the polygraph (MacDonald asks over and over about how accurate they are), the Kassab's, and MacDonald's relationship with Ron Harrison. At one point, it seems like the CID begins to hint that because Ron Harrison was somewhat of an oddball, that perhaps he was involved in the murders, and MacDonald is covering for him. They even question as to whether or not MacDonald ever saw Harrison with a girlfriend, and whether or not they were in the residence. So again, the CID was not entirely focused (or sold) on the theory that MacDonald acted alone. This interview is very important, but the main reason is this was the first and only time MacDonald was formally interviewed, and was actually challenged on his story. His answers do not hold any water. Immediately after this interview, MacDonald was named in the press as a suspect. He then retained an attorney, and did not cooperate with the CID any longer. This is the best we could ever get with regards to challenges to his story, and his responses to the challenges.

My only question is this. What did Helena Stoeckley have to gain by going on television and confessing to the murders? Jeff and Helena had no prior knowledge of each other and (to my knowledge) never even met each other prior to the murders. To me it makes no sense at all as to why a woman would go on national television and interject herself into a sensationalized case. I'm very hard pressed to believe that anyone would take the fall for someone they didn't know and for 3 murders no less. It could have been an elaborate ploy by McDonald himself along with his attorney to drum up reasonable doubt, but that nagging question always comes back to me.

It's not uncommon for people to confess to crimes they didn't commit, especially if they are suggestible or have mental issues and Helena had those out the yin-yang. A high profile case like MacDonald's brings all kinds of crazies out of the woodwork.

She was a known drug addict. I'm sure she was paid for that interview. People on drugs will do things/say things just to get money.

It's important to note the time this happened. This was like, 2 or 3 in the morning. Jeff stated everyone was asleep, which I can believe given the hour.

Now, I can believe Jeff might have had issues. I can believe he didn't like Collette spending what he thought was too much money. I can believe he was angry with her at times.

What I can't believe, is that both Jeff and Collette being awake at this hour and Jeff deciding THEN is the time to confront her about whatever he was supposedly angry with her about. I definitely don't believe he woke her up and started arguing about money, or affairs or anything else for that matter, especially with the kids sleeping nearby.

Another option is Jeff calculated the premeditated murder of his family. But wouldn't he have staged the crime scene to make it look more like an intrusion? He certainly had the time.

The bedwetting theory flops hard as a motive. I heard that so often in the JonBenet Ramsey case, it made me want to puke. Children wet the bed, it's a fact of life. Any parent that has a problem with kids wetting the bed needs to be checked for communicable diseases and severe mental defects. I have not heard of a single documented case in the entire history of the world of a parent killing their child over bedwetting. If someone knows of one, I'd be curious to learn about it.

And then there's the diet pills theory. That was such a great theory that Joe McGinniss got sued for it and settled.

And speaking of JonBenet Ramsey, this case has a lot of resemblances to it. Because with JonBenet, the people that believed someone in the house was responsible, quite frankly, couldn't collectively make their minds up about it. First John was guilty, then Patsy was guilty, then it was John and Patsy together, then it was Burke (that one really angered me) with Patsy covering for him, then it was John again who also molested her. And that, right there, is one of the good reasons I am convinced that the Ramseys weren't responsible. Because the theories are all over the place.

And so we're back to Jeff MacDonald. Wiped out his entire family over bedwetting? Diet pills? Thoroughly unconvincing.