I'm in the process of writing final papers for law school and was reviewing some of my favorite UM segments at this time. The Jeffrey MacDonald story is one of those that's on my list. UM does a great job of presenting his side of the story, in addition to showing some of the information that helped convict him. I know it's been hashed out over and over again on these boards, but I'm just curious: How many of you believe Dr. MacDonald's story?

Innocent.

I'm going back and forth on this one. Whether Joe McGinniss should face a firing squad or lethal injection.

Guilty!! Throw away the key!

I think the prosecutor should be locked up and MacDonald freed. Oh wait the prosecutor already did a few years in a federal prison for various offenses. Free MacDonald! Hey Awsi did you ever write to MacDonald?

Guilty as hell.

I think the prosecutor should be locked up and MacDonald freed. Oh wait the prosecutor already did a few years in a federal prison for various offenses. Free MacDonald! Hey Awsi did you ever write to MacDonald?

I wrote a brief email to the contact section of his website. Never received a reply. I'd like to find his prison cellmate from the '80s, a guy named Kenny who I mentioned a few times on this board. Maybe Kenny would like to post something here, or send Dr. MacDonald a note. But Kenny is someone I run into very infrequently.

One friend of mine named Carl knows Kenny's last name, but I don't have it. Maybe if I had the last name we could verify that Kenny was in the same prison at the time MacDonald was. At least one member of this forum frequently mentions looking up info like that.

Kenny said at least half the guys he met in prison proclaimed innocence, but Dr. MacDonald was the only one he ever believed. I'm not asserting that's conclusive, but it goes along with the impression I've always had about the case, especially after watching the BBC account which included interviews with Helena Stoeckley.

I wrote a brief email to the contact section of his website. Never received a reply.

SHOCKER!

SHOCKER!

Yeah, well apparently it shocked you. When I posted that I was thinking of sending Dr. MacDonald a message you posted he was sure to contact me immediately, begging for money to support his case.

No, I said you shouldn't be surprised if the only response you receive is a form letter asking for a $5 donation to the "defense fund". This would come from someone like yourself who actually believes MacDonald's fairy tale. Not Mac himself.

Well thinman I personally think you need to bring something of substance to the table. I mean it is obvious that your personal hatred of MacDonald clouds your judgement so much that you think he is just pure evil. I mean that is fine that you hate MacDonald and think he is guilty, you have the right to think that. However why dont you for once actually back up the fact that you think he is guilty instead of just saying "guilty." I think it is because you know you cannot prove it and that the governments case was a bunch of crap.

Could soemone tell me what this story was about.

This is a VERY condensed version of what happened, so you should search the boards to find out more, but here's the story in a nutshell:

Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald was a Green Beret. One evening, his entire family was murdered and MacDonald himself was attacked. His wife and two little girls did not survive the attack, and I believe he was stabbed in the lung. After an investigation, Dr. MacDonald was charged with three counts of murder. After a lengthy court battle, he was convicted.

Dr. MacDonald claims that he is innocent and that a group of hippies killed his family. His recount of the story is that he fell asleep in front of the T.V. and woke up to someone screaming, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." When he woke up, he was attacked and beaten with a club.

The prosecution pointed out that the living room was largely undisturbed and looked like no struggle had taken place. In addition, the only blood evidence found in the house came from the members of the MacDonald family.

There's a lot more to the case, but I'm going to leave it at the barest. Like I said, Dr. MacDonald is a popular topic on these boards... search a bit and you'll find the WHOLE story.

I think he's guilty. He thought he could get away with it because a. he's a doctor b. he's high ranking military c. the hysteria of the manson murders might take eyes off him.
He is evil and sick and is where he belongs.

I remember hearing something to the effect that the lady in the floppy hat, gave some interview to the BBC shortly before she died in which she gave up to two-three people involved........

I could be mixed up though

Yeah she did and in addition another person within the same group named Greg Mitchell gave himself up to a friend shortly before he passed away describing how the events of that night still traumatized him years afterwards and how horrible guilty he felt for his involvement in the crime.

That's one point that always seems to reverberate with me: How MacDonald's story matches that of Helena Stokely, the woman in "the floppy har." I don't see how two people who have never met before could tell the same story...

Huhm, Lets see corrupt prosecuter, trying to just get a conviction to better their own name and career, never bother looking at other poss suspects or senarios.... taking advice from the victims family in that the suspect is guilty just lock them up don't bother having a trail. Sounds familiar-----of course the Duke Lacross case-----oh wait or do I mean the Jeff Mac case. Luckily this is 2007 and we were able to expose the fraud prosecuter was in the Duke case. Kadrmas15 your right, both the jokers should have gone to jail.
ps- I have written to MacDonald camp. I received a response within days, from a volunteer from his legal team that operates the website. No they did not ask for $ ....they just appriciated the support and agknolegded that MacDonald received my e mail.

ps- I have written to MacDonald camp. I received a response within days, from a volunteer from his legal team that operates the website. No they did not ask for $ ....they just appriciated the support and agknolegded that MacDonald received my e mail.

Thanks for that info, BuffaloBill. I'll send another email to that website.

I always have bilieved Captain McDonald and I am also an army veteran.

You guys might as well e-mail Manson, Richard Ramirez, and Gary Ridgeway.

Please send the good Doctor my regards.

I always thought this was an incredible story. On one hand, Dr. MacDonald's story is very far fetched, but on the other hand my intuition says he is telling the truth. It's one thing to kill your wife (not that you don't need to be sick in the head to do it), but to kill your two little girls? I know there are people in this world evil enough to do that, but I just don't believe Dr. MacDonald is one of them.

innocent.

After reading this thread, I did some searching on the internet and came to the conclusion that his story is less "far fetched" than I originally thought. On http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Overview.html it says that samples were submitted for DNA testing in March, 2006. Has anybody heard about any results? I hope a valid conclusion comes from this.

After reading this thread, I did some searching on the internet and came to the conclusion that his story is less "far fetched" than I originally thought. On http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Overview.html it says that samples were submitted for DNA testing in March, 2006. Has anybody heard about any results? I hope a valid conclusion comes from this.

I found a blurb about the dna results but not sure I fully understand it. It seems to me like they found dna on all the victims that didn't match MacDonald's as well as some that did:

35. March, 2006: The AFIP (DNA lab) releases the preliminary results of the DNA tests, filing them with the district court for the judge's evaluation. The results from the 15 exhibits tested include unsourced hairs under the nail of Kristen MacDonald and on the body of Colette MacDonald, as well as hairs from the family members, and some that yielded insufficient data for testing.

Well I think comparing Dr. MacDonald to Richard Ramirez and Gary Ridgeway is overstepping it just a bit. As for Manson he never killed anyone as far as we know but had others do his dirty work for him. As for Dr. MacDonald, my opinion on him is well known on here so I will not repeat it. Awsi, I hope your attempt at contacting Dr. MacDonald is successful.

I was looking for the e mail that was sent to me by MacDonalds web site volunteer. Now this was over the fall (2006) that I e mailed. I do recall they had hopes in getting an answer from the courts sometime in Jan/Feb this year on a new trail. Hopefully I can find that e mail response- I have a feeling I might have accidentally deleted it...and than forward the substance of it.............for kadrmas 15, unfortunately the trail on the Bike Path Rapest has gone cold again...police have no other leads...it appears he still has the upper hand on the law.

REALLY HOPE Dr. McDonald did it !! I hate to think of an innocent person in jail all those years.

Hey Buffalo Bill, well that is too bad. I wonder if they will ever catch him? I saw an update thing on AMW on him. Apperantly they got some tips that are promising but nothing concrete. They arent really any closer to catching him as you said. I just wonder when he will strike next. I think he will probably lay low for a little while longer and wait for the publicity to die down somemore. What do you think? As for MacDonald, I hope he didnt do it. I understand what you are saying in that you hope he did it because you wouldnt want to think he did it, but at the same time I would never hope anyone did any crime like that.

I think he was definitely innocent. The man's memory was the main piece of "evidence" used against him since his story didn't check out with the physical evidence. I mean come on, what was his motive? Kids wetting the bed?

Also with all the other people coming forward (like that patient who phoned his house) I don't see him being guilty. It's terrible that he's still in prison apparently.

I've always believed him to be innocent. The time set during this crime, there were a lot of crazy, psychological messed-up people on LSD comitting criems. Look at the Manson Family.

I've always believed him to be innocent. The time set during this crime, there were a lot of crazy, psychological messed-up people on LSD comitting criems. Look at the Manson Family.

welcome to the forum! :wave:

yeah, I agree. Fayetteville, NC (which is where this took place) was ran rampant with drugs at the time this occured.

I know they didn't give alot of merit to Helena Stoeckley as a witness since she was drugged out herself, but she said something that I thought was interesting.

"the t.v. was on, but it was off the air."

that seems like something that only someone in the house could have known. in fact, she seemed to know alot of things that one could have only known had they been in the house that night or researched the case. And Helena Stoeckly didn't strike me as the type that researched unsolved murder cases alot.

I think the main reaosn that people think Dr. McDonald is guilty is because they believe his injuries were minor compared to that of the rest of the family. Gosh, he had multiple stab wounds, a punctured lung, and severe abrasions and stuff on his head, and other injuries. Sounds like pretty severe to me.

And of course, that farfetched bedwetting theory rears its ugly head again in this case. As if it wasn't farfetched enough in the JonBenet case, it springs up again here. Has there ever been a documented case of a parent flipping out over a bedwetting? I don't know of any.

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.

welcome to the forum! :wave:

yeah, I agree. Fayetteville, NC (which is where this took place) was ran rampant with drugs at the time this occured.

I know they didn't give alot of merit to Helena Stoeckley as a witness since she was drugged out herself, but she said something that I thought was interesting.

"the t.v. was on, but it was off the air."

that seems like something that only someone in the house could have known. in fact, she seemed to know alot of things that one could have only known had they been in the house that night or researched the case. And Helena Stoeckly didn't strike me as the type that researched unsolved murder cases alot.

I think the main reaosn that people think Dr. McDonald is guilty is because they believe his injuries were minor compared to that of the rest of the family. Gosh, he had multiple stab wounds, a punctured lung, and severe abrasions and stuff on his head, and other injuries. Sounds like pretty severe to me.

And of course, that farfetched bedwetting theory rears its ugly head again in this case. As if it wasn't farfetched enough in the JonBenet case, it springs up again here. Has there ever been a documented case of a parent flipping out over a bedwetting? I don't know of any.

Yup. Just like some murders set crime scenes to look as if it was suicide (burning the body etc), I think it's evident that they purposely attacked him the least so someone would get the blame for their crime instead of them. Plus, wasn't there blonde synthetic hair pieces around the house that also wasn't closed off to the public. He did say that he saw a blurry image of a woman wigth blonde hair with a floppy hat.

If he tried to go to the supreme court already, or hasn't he should use the fourth amendment (for search and seizure). The fact he was tried with evidence from a crime scene that wasn't secured off from the public seems a little fishy to me.

I used to think he was innocent but I'm now leaning more towards guilty. Wasn't there some recent DNA testing that showed his skin under his wife's fingernails?

No, it was a hair that she was clutching. The hair turned out to be that of Dr. MacDonald. I still believe Dr. MacDonald is an innocent man. You have that piece of trash Blackburn who by the way was later disbarred and served federal prison time for embezzeling money from his law firm and tax evasion and who lied about Dr. MacDonald and hit evidence from his defense. Dr. MacDonald came up with very vivid descriptions of people in his house. Including a woman that I believe was Helena Stokley being in a blonde whig with a floppy hat. SGT Kenneth Mica saw the same woman standing at a corner near the MacDonald home the night of the murders. Personally I think Greg Mitchell and Helena Stokley and the gang murdered the MacDonald family because they were angry about Dr. MacDonald turning in druggies.

I'm in the process of writing final papers for law school and was reviewing some of my favorite UM segments at this time. The Jeffrey MacDonald story is one of those that's on my list. UM does a great job of presenting his side of the story, in addition to showing some of the information that helped convict him. I know it's been hashed out over and over again on these boards, but I'm just curious: How many of you believe Dr. MacDonald's story?

Not me, he's guilty as sin and he's where he belongs.

No, it was a hair that she was clutching. The hair turned out to be that of Dr. MacDonald. I still believe Dr. MacDonald is an innocent man. You have that piece of trash Blackburn who by the way was later disbarred and served federal prison time for embezzeling money from his law firm and tax evasion and who lied about Dr. MacDonald and hit evidence from his defense. Dr. MacDonald came up with very vivid descriptions of people in his house. Including a woman that I believe was Helena Stokley being in a blonde whig with a floppy hat. SGT Kenneth Mica saw the same woman standing at a corner near the MacDonald home the night of the murders. Personally I think Greg Mitchell and Helena Stokley and the gang murdered the MacDonald family because they were angry about Dr. MacDonald turning in druggies.

Mica did not see the same woman. He said he saw "a woman wearing a floppy hat." MacDonald said she wore boots, Mica commented on her "nice legs."

There was no evidence that Greg Mitchell and Helena Stokeley were ever in the MacDonald house committing murder. There's no dna evidence, no hair, no fingerprints, etc.

MacDonald is guilty of these murders and if they were angry at MacDonald they would have killed him, not his wife and children.

Huhm, Lets see corrupt prosecuter, trying to just get a conviction to better their own name and career, never bother looking at other poss suspects or senarios.... taking advice from the victims family in that the suspect is guilty just lock them up don't bother having a trail. Sounds familiar-----of course the Duke Lacross case-----oh wait or do I mean the Jeff Mac case. Luckily this is 2007 and we were able to expose the fraud prosecuter was in the Duke case. Kadrmas15 your right, both the jokers should have gone to jail.
ps- I have written to MacDonald camp. I received a response within days, from a volunteer from his legal team that operates the website. No they did not ask for $ ....they just appriciated the support and agknolegded that MacDonald received my e mail.

Get real, there's more than enough evidence to convict Mac ten times over. The prosecutor did not get into legal trouble until years and years after the MacDonald verdict and it was for embezzling money....nothing more.

Are you aware that MacDonald had 10 years of freedom before being tried for this crime? So your Just lock in up without a trail (trial) is a very inexperienced thing for you to post. You must be just a kid.

welcome to the forum! :wave:

yeah, I agree. Fayetteville, NC (which is where this took place) was ran rampant with drugs at the time this occured.

I know they didn't give alot of merit to Helena Stoeckley as a witness since she was drugged out herself, but she said something that I thought was interesting.

"the t.v. was on, but it was off the air."

that seems like something that only someone in the house could have known. in fact, she seemed to know alot of things that one could have only known had they been in the house that night or researched the case. And Helena Stoeckly didn't strike me as the type that researched unsolved murder cases alot.

I think the main reaosn that people think Dr. McDonald is guilty is because they believe his injuries were minor compared to that of the rest of the family. Gosh, he had multiple stab wounds, a punctured lung, and severe abrasions and stuff on his head, and other injuries. Sounds like pretty severe to me.

And of course, that farfetched bedwetting theory rears its ugly head again in this case. As if it wasn't farfetched enough in the JonBenet case, it springs up again here. Has there ever been a documented case of a parent flipping out over a bedwetting? I don't know of any.

MacDonald did not have multiple stab wounds. He had one stab wound that collapsed his lung 20%, a stab wound that appears to be self-inflicted. He had two superficial slash wounds--one on the abdomen and one on the uppr arm. He had two bruises on his head and one bump...all could have been inflicted by Colette when they fought in the bedroom.

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

Link to the medical documents on MacDonald

Jeffrey McDonald is where he belongs. He wanted out of the marriage, he wanted to be free, adn he killed them adn blamed it on some "druggies." My favorite part of his story was how he said the goupd of stoners was repeating, "Acid is grovvy! Kill the pigs!" I mean c'mon. And a group of people on LSD can't coordinate a trip to the toilet, let alone a mass murder. ANd they hacked the three women but Dr. McDonald gets one wound? If they were so organized wouldn't they try to take out the lone male first? And why the heck would a bunch of hippies be hanging out on a military base?

Get real, there's more than enough evidence to convict Mac ten times over. The prosecutor did not get into legal trouble until years and years after the MacDonald verdict and it was for embezzling money....nothing more.

Are you aware that MacDonald had 10 years of freedom before being tried for this crime? So your Just lock in up without a trail (trial) is a very inexperienced thing for you to post. You must be just a kid.

Quite rude.

Get real, there's more than enough evidence to convict Mac ten times over. The prosecutor did not get into legal trouble until years and years after the MacDonald verdict and it was for embezzling money....nothing more.

Are you aware that MacDonald had 10 years of freedom before being tried for this crime? So your Just lock in up without a trail (trial) is a very inexperienced thing for you to post. You must be just a kid.

Please remember that is a forum to discuss cases and everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it doesn't agree with yours. Any posts that are derogatory to other members will be removed.

CPT MacDonald deserves a new trial, despite his guilt or innocence. At least CID can admit it when it flubs its investigations. Not so much the FBI, apparently.

From the very beginning (which is a curiousity in and of itself, as J. Edgar Hoover never wanted Bureau hands on it to begin with), the entire investigation was shoddy, shady, and wildly unprofessional:

-In 1974, the FBI did not accept evidence tested in other laboratories, for obvious reasons---the samples may be tampered with, contaminated, etc. Waived in the MacDonald case, for unspecified reason.

-FBI records show over 50 items of evidence that were misrepresented or concealed from the defense during trial, to include unidentified hairs (human and synthetic), unidentified candle wax, unmatched human blood, and various unmatched fibers from the crime scene.

-Dr. Richard Wright, forensic pathologist, testified that Colette had been clubbed by a left-handed assailant. CPT MacDonald was right-handed. (Greg Mitchell, however, was not.) Later, an FBI agent submitted an affidavit that stated Dr. Wright had retracted his opinion, which was false.

-FBI lab technician Michael Malone (suspected of committing perjury in other federal cases) misrepresented fiber evidence at trial, citing the FBI's "standard sources" that saran fibers could not be used in wigs. FBI source books actually stated the very opposite.

-Helena Stoeckly confessed to aiding in the murder of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen to Bureau agents. When she denied involvement during trial, the FBI was eager to testify that Stoeckly was probably "under the influence of drugs" when she made her confession. A hospital blood test from the same day refutes this.

-Two words: Jim Blackburn.



Jeffrey MacDonald is an innocent man, as far as I'm concerned. His entire case has been a gross miscarriage of justice.

And a group of people on LSD can't coordinate a trip to the toilet, let alone a mass murder. ANd they hacked the three women but Dr. McDonald gets one wound? If they were so organized wouldn't they try to take out the lone male first? And why the heck would a bunch of hippies be hanging out on a military base?

Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell both mentioned that they didn't want to kill MacDonald. They wanted to scare him, and things got completely out of hand.

MacDonald not being killed can be explained. One thing that can't be forgotten is that MacDonald was a Green Beret. He had training to defend himself. Colette and his daughters didn't have that. He's going to be a hell of a lot harder to kill than his family. And that one big wound he had resulted in a collapsed lung. The doctors at the original hearing said that there was no way that MacDonald could predict that it would only collapse it by 40% and not be fatal.

The hippies hanging out on the military base, Helena was the daughter of a colonel and Greg Mitchell was in the military.

For everyone that believes Mac the Knife is innocent, I suggest you do some research of your own outside of the UM segment. I will agree that the UM segment leans toward his not being guilty and if that was my only knowledge of the case, I would probably also believe that he did not kill his family. However, as much as I love UM, it is a show that mortgages the mystery element to the hilt. I think there are many cases profiled by UM where certains details and explanations were intentionally left out with the sole purpose of keeping the audience guessing. That is what keeps fans glued to their sets each week. Also, with MacDonald's case, UM showed the prosecution's theory first and the defense's theory last. So, the audience comes away from the show with the pro-MacDonald stance fresh on their minds. What if it was the other way around? Would more posters here believe in his guilt?

I know we are not supposed to link other sites here, but I will make a suggestion. Nobody has done more research on the case than Christina Masewicz. Her website is an excellent resource for any questions about the case. She was a Mac supporter in the beginning, but changed her mind because of the overwhelming evidence pointing to Mac and Mac alone.

The bottom line for me is that there are over 1,600 pieces of physical evidence that say that MacDonald is the killer. Not one shred of physical evidence links Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, or any other hippie to the crime scene. All you have is hearsay, rumors, and rantings from a group of paranoid, schizophrenic drug addicts. And, how convenient that the two whose names come up most often, Stoeckley and Mitchell, both died over 25 years ago.

MacDonald is where he belongs and may he rot for what he did to his family.

Yes Thinman, one point you overlook though is that both Mitchell and Stokley admitted before their deaths that they were involved. Stokley would recant after that scumbag James Blackburn (who by the way later served prison time for tax evasion, embezzlement and many other things and was also disbarred) would threaten her. Now, I do agree there are certain problems with this case. I do believe Dr. MacDonald to be innocent of these murders, however I also believe that he knows more than he is telling. I just get that feeling from him. I mean, to me, it just does not make sense why MacDonald would kill his family in this way. I mean, there should have been blood all over him, there is simply no way that you could kill that many people and with all that blood, not have blood spatter on you. Were MacDonald's pajama's tested? Both the pajama top and pajama bottoms? After all, some will argue he covered Colette with the pajama top on purpose so that he could explain away her blood presence on it. However that type of blood would look different than blood spatter from clubbing and stabbing people to death. Yeah MacDonald had affairs and yeah he was a less than ideal husband. Does not make him guilty of murder though. It is sad that there are folks out there who will instantly think someone is guilty because of an affair. I mean, look at the Manson family murders. Those were extremely vicious and not only were these murders committed by people that did not know the victims but the perpetrators were actually sober and straight the night of the murders.

Stoeckley confessed to being involved several times. She was also a very sick person and as unreliable as one witness could possibly be. These were the rantings of a brain damaged, strung out loser who happened to be a member of the occult. I'm sure saying she was involved was fun for her. It allowed an otherwise no account person to become famous.

It has not been confirmed whether Mitchell did or not. Mitchell's buddy, Bryant Lane, says he confessed (after Mitchell was dead). How reliable is Bryant Lane? Once again, hearsay and rumors.

Keep in mind, this case was one of the most high profile murder cases in North Carolina history. To have a few looney tunes confess to being involved in a high profile case is nothing miraculous. People confess to crimes all the time that they had nothing to do with.

guilty as sin....and he isn't where he belongs he should have gotten death for what he did to those little girls.

His pajama pants were burnt I think I remember correctly at the hospital. Right? Correct me anyone if I'm wrong.

Dr. MacDonald is innocent. Okay, so, to hear it this way, Stokely, Mitchell, Mitchell's friend, the Fayetville PD detective as well as MacDonald are lying. Okay, Sergeant Mica did not describe a woman that exactly matched Stokley, But he was close. Weird how if he was so far off from MacDonald how he would describe someone so similiar. Why would Bryant Lane lie? Why would the patient lie? Are they mistaken? Doubtful. By the time they were interviewed (Lane and the patient) Mitchell and Stokley had already been dead for 5 or 6 years. So this would mean that Lane and the patient were lying to gain attention which i have a hard time believing, I mean I get you are just determined to find MacDonald guilty but come up with something better other than you 'think' he did it. Again, according the physical evidence, MacDonald could not have been the perpetrator. You are assuming he was based on the ridiculous and highly biased 'analysis' done by that scumbag and convicted felon James Blackburn.

Dr. MacDonald is innocent. Okay, so, to hear it this way, Stokely, Mitchell, Mitchell's friend, the Fayetville PD detective as well as MacDonald are lying. Okay, Sergeant Mica did not describe a woman that exactly matched Stokley, But he was close. Weird how if he was so far off from MacDonald how he would describe someone so similiar. Why would Bryant Lane lie? Why would the patient lie? Are they mistaken? Doubtful. By the time they were interviewed (Lane and the patient) Mitchell and Stokley had already been dead for 5 or 6 years. So this would mean that Lane and the patient were lying to gain attention which i have a hard time believing, I mean I get you are just determined to find MacDonald guilty but come up with something better other than you 'think' he did it. Again, according the physical evidence, MacDonald could not have been the perpetrator. You are assuming he was based on the ridiculous and highly biased 'analysis' done by that scumbag and convicted felon James Blackburn.

Read for comprehension, my friend. Yes, I called Stoeckley and Bryant Lane liars. I'll try not to stutter next time. I said it was unclear if Greg Mitchell ever confessed, so I did not call him a liar. Nor, did I call the Fayetteville(note the spelling) detective a liar. He reported what he was told by Helena Stoeckley. The patient? I assume you mean the pay phone calling patient. Funny how there were no records of that call at the phone company. Computer error, I am sure. And yes, Mac the Knife is the king of all liars. He told Freddy Kassab, his father-in-law, in a taped conversation, that he had tracked down one of the hippies and killed him, for Christ's sake. Oh wow, Kenneth Mica spotted a woman wearing a hat, coat, and rain gear on a rainy night! Get out of here! That would be like seeing a guy in shorts and a t-shirt jogging on a sunny afternoon. I need to come up with something better than I 'think' he did it? There is no think to it. I 'know' he did. Over 1,600 pieces of physical evidence agree with me. Just what physical evidence is there that says Mac the Knife could not have been the killer? Jimmy Blackburn is no choirboy, no doubt. But, being a shady attorney (as most are) does not mean that he was not exactly right concerning MacDonald. Likewise, the pro-Mac supporters constantly cry, "just because he cheated on his wife, that does not mean he killed her!"

Not sure if anyone is interested, but I found a site online where you can order the unedited 80 minute video of Helena Stoeckley confessing to the murders. A portion of it was shown on the Final Appeal/Unsolved Mysteries segment on the MacDonald case. It might be worth a look to anyone who is on the fence with regard to her credibility.

Dr. MacDonald is innocent. Okay, so, to hear it this way, Stokely, Mitchell, Mitchell's friend, the Fayetville PD detective as well as MacDonald are lying. Okay, Sergeant Mica did not describe a woman that exactly matched Stokley, But he was close. Weird how if he was so far off from MacDonald how he would describe someone so similiar. Why would Bryant Lane lie? Why would the patient lie? Are they mistaken? Doubtful. By the time they were interviewed (Lane and the patient) Mitchell and Stokley had already been dead for 5 or 6 years. So this would mean that Lane and the patient were lying to gain attention which i have a hard time believing, I mean I get you are just determined to find MacDonald guilty but come up with something better other than you 'think' he did it. Again, according the physical evidence, MacDonald could not have been the perpetrator. You are assuming he was based on the ridiculous and highly biased 'analysis' done by that scumbag and convicted felon James Blackburn.

A "dr" he is not and no longer entitled to that title. He's nothing but a convict now.

The blood and fibre evidence prove that ice pick baby killer is guilty. DNA tests prove no dna from Mitchell or Stokeley found at the crime scene, no fingerprints, no blood, etc.

Oh and Brian Murtagh and Victor Woreheide who compiled the evidence against Mac, all Blackburn did was try him.

Not sure if anyone is interested, but I found a site online where you can order the unedited 80 minute video of Helena Stoeckley confessing to the murders. A portion of it was shown on the Final Appeal/Unsolved Mysteries segment on the MacDonald case. It might be worth a look to anyone who is on the fence with regard to her credibility.

Why not try this website instead of a television program heavily biased toward Ice Pick's innocence. How anyone can still believe that man is innocent is beyond me.

Here you can read Stockeley's confession, recantation, confession, recantation. You an also read from Prince Beasley and Gunderson how they kept her in a motel room for an entire weekend promising her a date with show business and feeding her information about the crime scene and the crime.

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

For everyone that believes Mac the Knife is innocent, I suggest you do some research of your own outside of the UM segment. I will agree that the UM segment leans toward his not being guilty and if that was my only knowledge of the case, I would probably also believe that he did not kill his family. However, as much as I love UM, it is a show that mortgages the mystery element to the hilt. I think there are many cases profiled by UM where certains details and explanations were intentionally left out with the sole purpose of keeping the audience guessing. That is what keeps fans glued to their sets each week. Also, with MacDonald's case, UM showed the prosecution's theory first and the defense's theory last. So, the audience comes away from the show with the pro-MacDonald stance fresh on their minds. What if it was the other way around? Would more posters here believe in his guilt?

I know we are not supposed to link other sites here, but I will make a suggestion. Nobody has done more research on the case than Christina Masewicz. Her website is an excellent resource for any questions about the case. She was a Mac supporter in the beginning, but changed her mind because of the overwhelming evidence pointing to Mac and Mac alone.

The bottom line for me is that there are over 1,600 pieces of physical evidence that say that MacDonald is the killer. Not one shred of physical evidence links Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, or any other hippie to the crime scene. All you have is hearsay, rumors, and rantings from a group of paranoid, schizophrenic drug addicts. And, how convenient that the two whose names come up most often, Stoeckley and Mitchell, both died over 25 years ago.

MacDonald is where he belongs and may he rot for what he did to his family.

thank you for mentioning CM's website, she and Bunny have done a terrific job. If by the time you've read all the lab reports, court transcripts, the article 32, you're still on innocent, then nothing will change your mind. It sounds like that here.

Quite rude.

I apologize, I didn't mean to be rude. Nothing gets my ire up more than this case.

Yes Thinman, one point you overlook though is that both Mitchell and Stokley admitted before their deaths that they were involved. Stokley would recant after that scumbag James Blackburn (who by the way later served prison time for tax evasion, embezzlement and many other things and was also disbarred) would threaten her. Now, I do agree there are certain problems with this case. I do believe Dr. MacDonald to be innocent of these murders, however I also believe that he knows more than he is telling. I just get that feeling from him. I mean, to me, it just does not make sense why MacDonald would kill his family in this way. I mean, there should have been blood all over him, there is simply no way that you could kill that many people and with all that blood, not have blood spatter on you. Were MacDonald's pajama's tested? Both the pajama top and pajama bottoms? After all, some will argue he covered Colette with the pajama top on purpose so that he could explain away her blood presence on it. However that type of blood would look different than blood spatter from clubbing and stabbing people to death. Yeah MacDonald had affairs and yeah he was a less than ideal husband. Does not make him guilty of murder though. It is sad that there are folks out there who will instantly think someone is guilty because of an affair. I mean, look at the Manson family murders. Those were extremely vicious and not only were these murders committed by people that did not know the victims but the perpetrators were actually sober and straight the night of the murders.

He did have blood all over him, his pj top was soaked with blood. As were the pj bottoms, the pj bottoms were thrown away at Womack so who knows what type of blood was on his pj bottoms. However, it's strongly suspected it is Kris's blood. You can see the transfer pattern from Mac's pjs on the box spring of her bed.

Yes, according to Mac, these intruders ingested five different drugs that night as opposed to the Manson killers who did no drugs the night of the Tate murders. I suggest that if those alleged intruders ingested 5 different drugs, including acid, they would have been comatose, not murdering little children and a pregnant woman.

I've forgotten a lot of the blood evidence but there were five different blood stains in Colette's blood that stained Mac's pj top before it was torn.

The most damning piece of blood evidence is the blue bedsheet found crumpled with the bedspread on the floor in the master bedroom. Mac's pj top transferred blood stains to the sheet at the same time Colette's did.

And all the blood evidence came in at trial, the defence did not object.

Also, Mac has lost his appeal on the alleged Blackburn threatened Helena at trial so obviously the circuit court doesn't believe that happened.

As for Stockeley, she confessed, recanted, confessed, recanted and confessed some more so which confession should we believe? The one where she goes upstairs and sees the two little boys or the one where she answers the phone and it just happens to be some drunk looking for a Dr. Mac. Her confessions were completely at odds with the physical evidence found in the apt as well.

Yup. Just like some murders set crime scenes to look as if it was suicide (burning the body etc), I think it's evident that they purposely attacked him the least so someone would get the blame for their crime instead of them. Plus, wasn't there blonde synthetic hair pieces around the house that also wasn't closed off to the public. He did say that he saw a blurry image of a woman wigth blonde hair with a floppy hat.

If he tried to go to the supreme court already, or hasn't he should use the fourth amendment (for search and seizure). The fact he was tried with evidence from a crime scene that wasn't secured off from the public seems a little fishy to me.

No other case in American jurisprudence has gone to the Supreme court as much as this one has. Mac keeps coming up with silly notions to appeal his murder convictions on and keeps finding even sillier attorneys to represent him. He just lost an appeal.

Well we only have Mac's say so that the public was allowed to view the crime scene..he probably means the neighbour next door who was brought down to identify everyone...that's the public in his mind.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. What I will say is that just because a person lost appeals does not mean they are for sure guilty and it does mean the courts are right. What stinks for MacDonald is his case is out of North Carolina which is part of the most conservative federal court system in the country.

I started this thread and I'm sad to say that I STILL don't know what side of the fence that I'm resting on....

Also, I just thought I'd throw my two cents in on the fact that the prosecutor got busted a few years after the McDonald case for embezzling money. Coming DIRECTLY from someone who is also bound by the rules of the American Bar Association, I can tell you that embezzling money, especially from clients, is a VERY BIG DEAL. I'll repeat that: It's a VERY BIG DEAL. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can get away with almost anything and keep your law license. Embezzling money is the one thing that you can do where you're absolutely guaranteed to never practice law again.

In my opinion, the fact that the prosecutor got busted for embezzlement a few years later says MAJOR things about his character. It's not one of the MAIN reasons that I think that McDonald could be innocent, but it's definitely a factor. The fact that he was also buddy-buddy with the judge is a bigger factor for me, personally.

I agree CRicci. As I mentioned above, James Blackburn is a total scumbag. Even if MacDonald is guilty, Blackburn is still a piece of garbage. He was perfectly content to throw a potentially innocent man in prison for the rest of his life, to steal money from his law firm and clients and then on top of all of that act like the victim. I saw on Amazon where all these pathetic people were kissing up to him because of a book he wrote, yet these same people were ripping on MacDonald. Pathetic! In my opinion, MacDonald is innocent, Blackburn is a guilty piece of garbage. An embezzler, a thief, a liar and on top of all of that, a person that was willing to put innocent people in jail just to make himself look good so he could chalk another notch in the win column.

In my opinion, the fact that the prosecutor got busted for embezzlement a few years later says MAJOR things about his character. It's not one of the MAIN reasons that I think that McDonald could be innocent, but it's definitely a factor.

By that same logic, what does it say about MacDonald's character that he was a serial adulterer and pathological liar? Does that make him guilty?

What stinks for MacDonald is his case is out of North Carolina which is part of the most conservative federal court system in the country.

When all else fails, blame the South. Mac must be innocent after all.

I was not 'blaming the south' Thinman. The fact that MacDonald cheated on his wife proves that he was a bad husband, not a killer. North Carolina is part of a circuit of the federal court, the 4th circuit court of appeals which is the most conservative federal appeals court circuit in the United States. That is all I was referring to. The United States in general has serious problems in the legal system with innocent people being convicted of various crimes on a regular basis because jurors speculate and come up with their own baffling logic instead of doing their job which is to focus on evidence. The problem with convicting MacDonald is that it simply was not proven that he was the only one that could have done the crime. In fact, the ice pick could not be put in his hand, the club could not be put in his hand. Yeah he had a potential motive and yeah he had told certain lies (like practically all humans do from time to time) and yes he had cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Yes it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife, I am not condoning that. However that is a pretty big leap to see that he for sure murdered his wife and children because he had cheated on his wife and lied on a few occasions.

The problem of jumping to conclusions and forming a lynch mob is worse in the south but it is bad in this country at a whole. However North Carolina does have a higher than average level of people that have been freed because they were innocent and wrongfully convicted. Mistakes happen, I understand that. I would hope that a majority of the time the prosecutor was just doing their jobs and not intentionally putting an innocent person in prison.

However in the MacDonald case, you had James Blackburn prosecuting the case who as has been mentioned in this thread already, is a total disgrace. The trial judge, the late Franklin Dupree was heavily biased against MacDonald and he and Blackburn both hampered the defense by stonewalling and not allowing the defense to see the prosecutions evidence until two weeks before the trial was due to start. That should have resulted in a new trial for MacDonald right there. It was simply not possible for his lawyer to present the best possible defense when he was not able to view most of the evidence because he did not have time to review it because he was not allowed to see it until so soon before trial. Again, I am just pointing out the errors. To be honest, even if MacDonald is guilty, I still do not understand how people cannot be troubled by all the legal problems in this case?

I was not 'blaming the south' Thinman. The fact that MacDonald cheated on his wife proves that he was a bad husband, not a killer. North Carolina is part of a circuit of the federal court, the 4th circuit court of appeals which is the most conservative federal appeals court circuit in the United States. That is all I was referring to. The United States in general has serious problems in the legal system with innocent people being convicted of various crimes on a regular basis because jurors speculate and come up with their own baffling logic instead of doing their job which is to focus on evidence. The problem with convicting MacDonald is that it simply was not proven that he was the only one that could have done the crime. In fact, the ice pick could not be put in his hand, the club could not be put in his hand. Yeah he had a potential motive and yeah he had told certain lies (like practically all humans do from time to time) and yes he had cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Yes it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife, I am not condoning that. However that is a pretty big leap to see that he for sure murdered his wife and children because he had cheated on his wife and lied on a few occasions.

The problem of jumping to conclusions and forming a lynch mob is worse in the south but it is bad in this country at a whole. However North Carolina does have a higher than average level of people that have been freed because they were innocent and wrongfully convicted. Mistakes happen, I understand that. I would hope that a majority of the time the prosecutor was just doing their jobs and not intentionally putting an innocent person in prison.

However in the MacDonald case, you had James Blackburn prosecuting the case who as has been mentioned in this thread already, is a total disgrace. The trial judge, the late Franklin Dupree was heavily biased against MacDonald and he and Blackburn both hampered the defense by stonewalling and not allowing the defense to see the prosecutions evidence until two weeks before the trial was due to start. That should have resulted in a new trial for MacDonald right there. It was simply not possible for his lawyer to present the best possible defense when he was not able to view most of the evidence because he did not have time to review it because he was not allowed to see it until so soon before trial. Again, I am just pointing out the errors. To be honest, even if MacDonald is guilty, I still do not understand how people cannot be troubled by all the legal problems in this case?

I don't care if he was tried in Massachusettes, Texas, or Antarctica. The overwhelming physical evidence would have convicted him regardless. I repeat, please do some research on this case outside of Unsolved Mysteries. The story is, at best, poorly told on UM.

I repeat, please do some research on this case outside of Unsolved Mysteries. The story is, at best, poorly told on UM.

Technically, it wasn't on UM :D

For all the Mac supporters, let me see if I have this straight. On a cold, rainy, February night, a group of marauding hippies decide to have a bloodbath party on Castle Drive. They get lucky, as Mac's backdoor is unlocked and they don't have to break in. Forgetting their own weapons, they conveniently find some that will do inside Mac's home. Finding Mac on the couch, four of them wrestle around with him only to not leave a trace of evidence that a struggle occurred. They gently lay the coffee table on it's side so that it will not turn all the way over given that it is top heavy. Meanwhile, at least two other acid-munching zealots are brutally slaughtering Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen in the bedrooms. They don't leave a shred of their own evidence, but do manage to leave Mac's pajama top fibers under and around the bodies. Then, they move the bodies around from room to room, leaving a bloody footprint of Mac's exiting Kristen's bedroom. They are able to leave one of Mac's hairs in Colette's hand and match the wounds in Colette with the holes in Mac's pajama top. Finding rubber gloves under the sink aids in their effort to scrawl the Manson-esque "PIG" on the headboard. All the while, they are able to keep the apartment in tip top condition. They leave no holes in the wall, no broken windows, and no scuff marks on the hardwood floors. They obviously do not want Mac to lose his security deposit! Upon leaving, they decide to return the two knives, club, and icepick they borrowed. They leave them just outside the backdoor after wiping them clean for prints. Does this about cover it?

The MacDonald Case always weirded me out! In some aspects it seems as if the prosecutor(s) framed a guilty man, if that makes sense? Then the more I read about the man and how he may have presented himself, it's possible his arrogance and funky attitude doomed Dr. MacDonald. The background of his serial cheating and then cavalier attitude during his decade of freedom after the killings surely didn't evoke sympathy from jurors....

Thinman, I have done my research. Please do not treat me like an idiot because I happen to disagree with you. First off the physical evidence was far from 'overwhelming'. Actually I sincerely doubt he would have been convicted in the north. But he was on trial in a southern state with a 'guilty, guilty, guilty' philosophy. Yes MacDonald told his father in law that he had tracked down and killed one of the alleged intruders. Yes MacDonald was lying and he admitted as such. As far as I know you thinman and myself have lied at least once in our lives. Does that make us murderers too?

North Carolina is part of a circuit of the federal court, the 4th circuit court of appeals which is the most conservative federal appeals court circuit in the United States.

Being conservative isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your arguments about the South and conservativism are coming across as very sterotypical and ignorant. Just because people are conservative, or from the South, doesn't mean they are ignorant, or that they will convict people at the drop of a hat.

If you have done your research, then please explain to me how the physical evidence does not point to Mac. How do you explain away 1,600 pieces of physical evidence that show that he is the killer? That is not overwhelming? What would be?

Here we go again, the north/south bs. That's a crock. The only thing missing here is the race card, but oops, Mac is white. We can't use that one. Pick a new straw man argument. Any state, north, south, east, or west that would not convict Mac is a place that I would never want to go.

Well I didnt say being conservative was a bad thing. Interesting how I'm the one that is ignorant, not the people that look at a defendant and assume he is guilty because he was charged with a crime? North Carolina has one of the highest wrongful conviction rates in the country. With the exception of Illinois most of the states with the highest conviction rates are southern states. I understand things are changing in the south and that is great, no where is perfect, nor am I claiming any state is perfect. Wow, so if a jury returned a verdict you didnt like you would not want to go there? Thinman the physical evidence all depends on how interpret it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree Thinman, I am not going to argue with you about this case anymore. However I felt the need to respond to say that my comments about the south were taken out of context. In fact I am a conservative republican. However I am just not a fan of the pro-prosecution crowd's philosophy of shifting the burden to the defendant to prove his innocence.

As a Southern sista, who's a left-of-center Democrat, I can tell ya that the South is NOT monolithic! :p

Anyway, Jeffrey MacDonald came across very badly in interviews. It was this cloud of smug over him. Just like some folks may not trust the word of some drugged up hippie, like Ms. Stokely (sp?). It's not fair but between the a-hole attitude and "high" witness, I can understand why there was a conviction.

Bottom line: people, rumors, theories, and half-cocked ideas lie; physical evidence does not.

I looked at this case for the first time, and upon looking at it...I don;t know how the heck anyone could think that Jeff McDonald did this murder???!!!:mad:

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it? There was no real history of family discord in this case like there was with Brad Bishop.

This was a botched investigative job by the military police, that has snowballed into a false belief that only Jeff McDonald could be the killer.

It's obvious to me that the were attacked by Ms Stokely and other soldiers, either for drugs, thrills or part of some bizzare cult murder.

The real tragedy is that the other suspects are probably dead (vietnam)

I looked at this case for the first time, and upon looking at it...I don;t know how the heck anyone could think that Jeff McDonald did this murder???!!!:mad:

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it?



This is what never ceases to amaze me about this case. No evidence? Wow. Just wow.

Jeffrey McDonald also had the huge misfortune of having his case investigated by two investigative branches that were caught in a jurisdictional snafu and where in a period of major adjustment.

The investigative units for military even back then were notoriously bad back then. They are not like the NCIS or CGIS units we have today, which are primarily civilian branches that don't have to adhere a high ranking military officer. The investigators were esentially glorified MPs, whose duty was to follow orders first, investigate second.

The FBI, i believe(who should have had the case in the first place) were in their post-Hoover transition period when they were just transitioning over. The mistakes they made were almost as bad as the MPs.

If Jeffrey McDonald was a civilian who's family was murdered in a New York City/Philadelphia/Detroit or LA apartment. This case would have been solved long ago by competent investigators who were not held back by fear of rank or working in old FBI style rules.

Without a doubt the worse example of police work i have ever seen!:mad:

So, am I to believe that the incompetent CID investigators also planted the damning blood evidence, fiber evidence, and destroyed the evidence that proved the existence of the Manson disciples?

Heh, forget it, Thinman. You're not gonna convince the pro-Mac die-hards of anything. Just remember what people have said of Mac - he's one hell of a charmer. He even duped the Long Beach PD right before his trial.

But that's all right. He's not leaving FCI Cumberland except in a body bag. :cool:

I can't believe this is still being discussed. Wow. :lol:

Mastermind I completely agree that this investigation was bungled from the start. Yes the CID really did not do a real investigation here. IT was just the keystone cops trying to pin the murders on someone as soon as possible to save face. Basically once they publicly accused MacDonald there was no going back. They had to make those charges stick. The CID even had their tails between their legs when this whole thing was dropped in late 1970 like it should have been. However when MacDonald went on the Dick Cavett show and basically exposed the CID for what they were, a bunch of incompetent investigators, and after that the CID decided MacDonald was going down. Simple as that.

I would not say this is the worst investigation I have ever seen but it is up there. North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Texas, New York, to name a few are the states with the highest wrongful conviction rates in the country. Some cases that I can think of off hand that were notoriously bungled investigations include the cases of Johnny Lee Wilson, John Purvis, Luis Diaz, Tommy Ziegler, Walter Alvord, Dennis Perry, I could go on and on.

What is most amazing to me is how there are still people who are simply not willing to believe that innocent people actually get convicted of crimes they did not do. I mean I really do not know what it will take to convince some folks that this actually happens in America and that it has gone on really since the beginning and sadly always will go on.

So, am I to believe that the incompetent CID investigators also planted the damning blood evidence, fiber evidence, and destroyed the evidence that proved the existence of the Manson disciples?


No, what i think your supossed to believe is that the crime scene was compromised from the begining and that if you look at any crime scene you can choose the evidence that best fits your case and ignore the ones that don't.

Again, people miss 3 of the most obvious points of this case

1. There is absolutely no history of violence or conflict in his background to suggest that this type of could have happened. I mean if the guys wanted to escape his family, he could have just gone to Vietnam or just killed his wife and kept his children alive and lived with his girlfriend.

2. Jeff McDonlad was also a victim of the attack. He could just as easily have perished along with his family.

3. There was already a suspicious person at the crime scene other than McDonalds. A person with a suspicious background who has repeatedly tried to confess.

They had a rehash type show not too long ago somewhere on cable.

The thing that stood out to me hearing the story this time around was that everyone in the family had a different blood type.

Now I admit I didn't do too much studying up on genetics and heredity, but what I do remember learning is that blood type is either that of mom or dad or combination of mom and dad - as in dad is type a and mom is type b, child could easily come out type ab.

At least that's what was drilled into out heads back then


So, if the girls had blood types different than Jeffrey, wouldn't that indicate that they may not have been his?

Have they ever tested the DNA of the children to see if anything matches?

That could also have been a motive - he maybe could be the good guy for pretending the two were his, but now here comes a third and it's maybe too much for him to handle?

The thing that stood out to me hearing the story this time around was that everyone in the family had a different blood type.

Holy cow, Tendervittles! This is the first I've heard about that. What year did they test the blood and determine that everyone had a different blood type? Was it at the time of the murders, or later?

Did they just do ABO typing or did they determine it down to the RH factors to say that someone was O+ and another was O- and that's what made them have different blood types, or were they all A, AB, B, and O?

That is sooooo bizarre! Especially considering the fact that Dr. Mac was the one fooling around all the time. Who would think that the wife fooling around, too? Or were one or both of the girls from a previous marriage?

And since the officials have known about the different blood types among the victims, I would think that if any blood evidence remains, they would want to do DNA testing on it.

Well I thought there were rumors that Colette did have at least one affair? I mean afterall, MacDonald was gone a lot of the time as he was always either in school or off doing stuff in the Army or whatever. For some reason I want to say that it was rumored Colette had at least one affair as well but I do not think it has ever been proven. Yes all of the MacDonalds I believe had different blood types from each other. None were exactly the same. Yes the blood was tested in 1970 and it was just blood typing, obviously long before the days of DNA testing.

wow....this is one of the most "weird" cases of its kind that UM has showcased. I remember watching this one and being left scratching my head. But I've only seen the segment once and don't have enough time in my day to research the 1,600 pieces of evidence that were linked to the suspect. What I will say is that if I were left alive in the same situation(if we imagine for a moment that is was an outside attack).....I would much rather be dead. to elaborate, first I don't know how I would ever live without my family....but that's just me. so for the people that said maybe his post-attitude had a factor...that would be most unfortunate because the court should always factor that grief/grieving being different for everyone....completely voids that notion of having any substance in a court room. Second reason I would want to be dead.... there would be an enormous amount of physical evidence and circumstance pointed at me being the lone survivor in my home with my DNA all over the house. A fellow with a law degree and a crafty imagination could easily paint a picture or develop a motive.

Having said that I don't know where I stand on this case. There is some evidence(maybe not the 1600 pieces in his home) that suggests that the man could be not guilty as well. Given the the character of the prosecutor...the confession of the woman....etc. There are enough things presented that make you wonder beyond doubt and that's where different philosophies or interpretations come into play and the law/justice/fairness is supposed to play out in every conviction. I believe each branch of the military actually does have very reliable and sophisticated investigative authorities today....i know the army and air force certainly do. I'd imagine the dept of navy does as well. I don't know much about how it was then. So if the murders took place on a base development.....was this a court martial or was it handled by the civilian court system....and why?

There are a few passionate ones on here that believe one way or the other and I had a few chuckles when reading. But one should look at and consider every stone in this case. when you refuse to uncover all of the stones...things are left uncovered....guilty men/women go free and innocent ones get convicted. It's unfortunate. that's why the integrity of the law official is of the most importance.....and with this case we know there is a cloud in that respect.

Well, the charges were originally dropped in 1970 and MacDonald I believe left the service in early 1971. Because he was an officer and not receiving military benefits when the charges were re-instated in 1974 after he was indicted by a federal grand jury (because the murders occurred on a Army base, Fort Bragg) he was allowed to be tried under federal law and he was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office and a federal judge was the trial judge. I imagine IF MacDonald were ever given a new trial and acquitted on the federal charges that the state would indict him. I'm not sure if that would be allowed or not? I think it would be allowed.

This kind of reminds me of the case of Tim Hennis who was also if I remember right, an Army Soldier at Fort Bragg who was convicted in 1985 of murdering three members of a four member family. He was convicted on state charges and sentenced to death. He was awarded a new trial in 1988 and in 1989 was acquitted. He then returned to the Army and served out the rest of his career there until he retired in 2004. In 2006, the military brought charges against him. They were able to do this because he was receiving military retirement pay and benefits so they were able to recall him to active duty so they could bring murder charges against him. Hennis is still awaiting trial.

Mastermind I completely agree that this investigation was bungled from the start. Yes the CID really did not do a real investigation here. IT was just the keystone cops trying to pin the murders on someone as soon as possible to save face. Basically once they publicly accused MacDonald there was no going back. They had to make those charges stick. The CID even had their tails between their legs when this whole thing was dropped in late 1970 like it should have been. However when MacDonald went on the Dick Cavett show and basically exposed the CID for what they were, a bunch of incompetent investigators, and after that the CID decided MacDonald was going down. Simple as that.

I would not say this is the worst investigation I have ever seen but it is up there. North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Texas, New York, to name a few are the states with the highest wrongful conviction rates in the country. Some cases that I can think of off hand that were notoriously bungled investigations include the cases of Johnny Lee Wilson, John Purvis, Luis Diaz, Tommy Ziegler, Walter Alvord, Dennis Perry, I could go on and on.

What is most amazing to me is how there are still people who are simply not willing to believe that innocent people actually get convicted of crimes they did not do. I mean I really do not know what it will take to convince some folks that this actually happens in America and that it has gone on really since the beginning and sadly always will go on.

Oh, so now Dennis Perry is innocent, too. Please tell us what proof you have. Also, Johnny Lee Wilson is from Missouri. I am convinced that some here believe everyone who says they "didn't do it" is not guilty. You would probably be astonished at the number of inmates that claim they were framed and/or wrongly convicted. I have heard it is around 50% of the prison population.

I am well aware that people get wrongly convicted. I live less than two miles from where the Darryl Hunt case occurred (one of the more famous DNA exonorations). Unlike Mac the Knife though, there was no physical evidence linking Darryl Hunt to the crime scene. I have yet to see anyone on this thread try to refute the physical evidence at the MacDonald crime scene. How do you deny the damnability of the blood, fibers, and hairs?

No, what i think your supossed to believe is that the crime scene was compromised from the begining and that if you look at any crime scene you can choose the evidence that best fits your case and ignore the ones that don't.

Again, people miss 3 of the most obvious points of this case

1. There is absolutely no history of violence or conflict in his background to suggest that this type of could have happened. I mean if the guys wanted to escape his family, he could have just gone to Vietnam or just killed his wife and kept his children alive and lived with his girlfriend.

2. Jeff McDonlad was also a victim of the attack. He could just as easily have perished along with his family.

3. There was already a suspicious person at the crime scene other than McDonalds. A person with a suspicious background who has repeatedly tried to confess.

1. Everyone who has ever committed a violent act (murder, rape, assault, etc.) at one time had no documented history of violence. This proves absolutely nothing. It is up for debate whether or not Mac had ever laid his hands on his family in a harmful manner. We will never know. We cannot ask them because Mac took care of that. Also, multiple people have stated that Mac was prone to rage.

2. Don't make me laugh. I have had paper cuts worse than the injuries Mac sustained. Go to Christina Masewicz's website. It has crime scene and autopsy photos of the real victims. They are butchered beyond anything imaginable. Then, you have good 'ol Mac's ugly mug right above them showing his "wounds". Good thing there are arrows pointing to them. Otherwise, you would have no idea where they are.

3. Helena Stoeckley also recanted those confessions on multiple occasions. In addition, every person she claimed she was with that night has been interviewed, polygraphed, and cleared by the FBI (not the CID, state police, or Keystone cops) as having any involvement. Each also claimed that Stoeckley was an attention whore who would confess to anything.

1. Everyone who has ever committed a violent act (murder, rape, assault, etc.) at one time had no documented history of violence. [QUOTE]

If that's true then basically everyone would be a suspect in a murder.
Question is if you had a choice between two suspects : a husband with no history and a young woman with a history of drug use and witchcraft.

Who would be the most likely #1 suspect?

2. Don't make me laugh. I have had paper cuts worse than the injuries Mac sustained. Go to Christina Masewicz's website. It has crime scene and autopsy photos of the real victims. They are butchered beyond anything imaginable. Then, you have good 'ol Mac's ugly mug right above them showing his "wounds". Good thing there are arrows pointing to them. Otherwise, you would have no idea where they are.

Your tone is too personal. I frankly i have no personal stake in this case. I'm just trying to get down to the truth.

Are you telling me that those wounds were defensive? All of them?

3. Helena Stoeckley also recanted those confessions on multiple occasions. In addition, every person she claimed she was with that night has been interviewed, polygraphed, and cleared by the FBI (not the CID, state police, or Keystone cops) as having any involvement. Each also claimed that Stoeckley was an attention whore who would confess to anything.




A massive point being missed is that MCDonald explicitely mentioned a woman and the crime scene. if make was going to make up a story about about his family being attacked. He could have easily just mentioned 3 guys and no woman.

And yet it just happens that the military police at the time of the scene find a women at the scene that matches Helena Stoekley.


Thinman,

This may be hard for you to believe but i had always been under the assumption that Mac did kill his family. It was when i read more of the case that i began to realize that i realized it was quite the opposite.

I am more than willing to put a bastard that murders his family in jail. Whether it be the Ramseys, Brad Bishop or that scum Chad Noe.

But looking at the evidence, that is not the case here. This was a botched police investigation that snowballed into a case of the law enforcement covering themselves.

For every evidence that damns Mac, there is an identical piece of evidence that you can list that exonerates him. When you have conflicting evidence like that, it usually signals staging or covering up.

In that case the only party that could stage is law enforcement, so the evidence that damns him is probably either incorrect, falsified or interpreted wrong.

I don't care how mishandled the crime scene was, every member of the family had a different blood type. This provides a virtual map of every move the family made. How about the pajama fiber evidence? How about the lack of one, just one, tiny little piece of evidence suggesting intruders?

"For every evidence that damns Mac, there is an identical piece of evidence that you can list that exonerates him. When you have conflicting evidence like that, it usually signals staging or covering up."

Bull. Hearsay, rumors, lies, confessions, and recantations are not evidence. Fingerprints, footprints, blood, fibers, and hairs are. I'm still waiting. Someone refute the physical evidence and/or explain how it got there.

I was not 'blaming the south' Thinman. The fact that MacDonald cheated on his wife proves that he was a bad husband, not a killer. North Carolina is part of a circuit of the federal court, the 4th circuit court of appeals which is the most conservative federal appeals court circuit in the United States. That is all I was referring to. The United States in general has serious problems in the legal system with innocent people being convicted of various crimes on a regular basis because jurors speculate and come up with their own baffling logic instead of doing their job which is to focus on evidence. The problem with convicting MacDonald is that it simply was not proven that he was the only one that could have done the crime. In fact, the ice pick could not be put in his hand, the club could not be put in his hand. Yeah he had a potential motive and yeah he had told certain lies (like practically all humans do from time to time) and yes he had cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Yes it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife, I am not condoning that. However that is a pretty big leap to see that he for sure murdered his wife and children because he had cheated on his wife and lied on a few occasions.

The problem of jumping to conclusions and forming a lynch mob is worse in the south but it is bad in this country at a whole. However North Carolina does have a higher than average level of people that have been freed because they were innocent and wrongfully convicted. Mistakes happen, I understand that. I would hope that a majority of the time the prosecutor was just doing their jobs and not intentionally putting an innocent person in prison.

However in the MacDonald case, you had James Blackburn prosecuting the case who as has been mentioned in this thread already, is a total disgrace. The trial judge, the late Franklin Dupree was heavily biased against MacDonald and he and Blackburn both hampered the defense by stonewalling and not allowing the defense to see the prosecutions evidence until two weeks before the trial was due to start. That should have resulted in a new trial for MacDonald right there. It was simply not possible for his lawyer to present the best possible defense when he was not able to view most of the evidence because he did not have time to review it because he was not allowed to see it until so soon before trial. Again, I am just pointing out the errors. To be honest, even if MacDonald is guilty, I still do not understand how people cannot be troubled by all the legal problems in this case?

The evidence was there for the defence to peruse anytime they wanted to prior to trial. They wanted it sent to them in California, which no DA, Blackburn or anyone will/or would do. Don't blame Blackburn for that. The problem is you listen too much to MacDonald and his lies. All the court documents are here on line waiting for anyone to peruse. Just looking at the autopsy photos compared to Mac's booboos should make anyone ask questions.

The blue pajama top and the blue bedsheet are irrefutable proof of his guilt...along with the dna tests that place his hair clutched in his wife's hand. No dna from Mitchell or Stockeley

I started this thread and I'm sad to say that I STILL don't know what side of the fence that I'm resting on....

Also, I just thought I'd throw my two cents in on the fact that the prosecutor got busted a few years after the McDonald case for embezzling money. Coming DIRECTLY from someone who is also bound by the rules of the American Bar Association, I can tell you that embezzling money, especially from clients, is a VERY BIG DEAL. I'll repeat that: It's a VERY BIG DEAL. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can get away with almost anything and keep your law license. Embezzling money is the one thing that you can do where you're absolutely guaranteed to never practice law again.

In my opinion, the fact that the prosecutor got busted for embezzlement a few years later says MAJOR things about his character. It's not one of the MAIN reasons that I think that McDonald could be innocent, but it's definitely a factor. The fact that he was also buddy-buddy with the judge is a bigger factor for me, personally.

Of course it's a big deal, but please provide some proof because Blackburn embezzled money 10 years after the MacDonald murders that he framed Mac.

Blackburn was disbarred, jailed and made restitution. Isn't that all the justice system requires? MacDonald murdered his wife and two baby girls...zero doubt in my mind. I've read every single court document, lab report, autopsy report, Article 32, Grand Jury etc. to do with his case.

Mac's defence at trial tried to prove through his character that he was not the type to commit murder whilst Blackburn let the evidence speak for itself to the jury. The jury also stated they found Mac evasive and angry when he testified.

I agree CRicci. As I mentioned above, James Blackburn is a total scumbag. Even if MacDonald is guilty, Blackburn is still a piece of garbage. He was perfectly content to throw a potentially innocent man in prison for the rest of his life, to steal money from his law firm and clients and then on top of all of that act like the victim. I saw on Amazon where all these pathetic people were kissing up to him because of a book he wrote, yet these same people were ripping on MacDonald. Pathetic! In my opinion, MacDonald is innocent, Blackburn is a guilty piece of garbage. An embezzler, a thief, a liar and on top of all of that, a person that was willing to put innocent people in jail just to make himself look good so he could chalk another notch in the win column.

MacDonald went to trial 10 years prior to Blackburn's embellezzment. So what about the intervening 10 years? Where are all the other innocent victims Blackburn sent to prison?

Well I didnt say being conservative was a bad thing. Interesting how I'm the one that is ignorant, not the people that look at a defendant and assume he is guilty because he was charged with a crime? North Carolina has one of the highest wrongful conviction rates in the country. With the exception of Illinois most of the states with the highest conviction rates are southern states. I understand things are changing in the south and that is great, no where is perfect, nor am I claiming any state is perfect. Wow, so if a jury returned a verdict you didnt like you would not want to go there? Thinman the physical evidence all depends on how interpret it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree Thinman, I am not going to argue with you about this case anymore. However I felt the need to respond to say that my comments about the south were taken out of context. In fact I am a conservative republican. However I am just not a fan of the pro-prosecution crowd's philosophy of shifting the burden to the defendant to prove his innocence.

How do you misintrept Mac's bloody pajama cuffs tranferring blood to the blue bedsheet at the same time Colette's did?

Holy cow, Tendervittles! This is the first I've heard about that. What year did they test the blood and determine that everyone had a different blood type? Was it at the time of the murders, or later?

Did they just do ABO typing or did they determine it down to the RH factors to say that someone was O+ and another was O- and that's what made them have different blood types, or were they all A, AB, B, and O?

That is sooooo bizarre! Especially considering the fact that Dr. Mac was the one fooling around all the time. Who would think that the wife fooling around, too? Or were one or both of the girls from a previous marriage?

And since the officials have known about the different blood types among the victims, I would think that if any blood evidence remains, they would want to do DNA testing on it.

Collette (his wife) was type A, Mac is type B, Kimberley was type AB and Kristen the baby was type 0 but she was rh negative. She also had to have a complete blood transfusion when she was born due to the rh negative.

Both children were Mac's as was the unborn son. He has never denied that the children were his and no one can find any evidence that Colette ever had an affair.

The differing blood types is what helped them solve this case. There may have been evidence lost or contaminated but there was a ton of blood and fibre evidence in this case and all that blood leads to mac and only Mac as the killer.

Blood does not lie and it has no stake in this case. It is what it is and all of it points to Mack the Knife.

It would be a waste of both your time and mine for me to argue this. However I will for the last time make try to make things clear from my point of view. Yes blood doesnt 'lie'. It cannot talk as far as I can tell. Yup Blackburn is the innocent man. Not. Yeah he pled guilty 10 years after the fact but was/is a lifelong scumbag. I love it how you give the former prosecutor a free pass but yet you take MacDonald where there is really nothing but your own speculation and innuendo and you constantly label him a guilty man when the evidence just is not there. Yes forensic evidence does not 'lie' which by the way is a common term used by prosecutors and pro-prosecutor hacks into misleading people into believing that forensic evidence is never wrong. Forensic evidence can be tainted, it can be misinterpreted. The blood being in different rooms really proves nothing. It certainly does not prove MacDonald murdered his own family. I love how you are perfectly willing to speculate about MacDonald but everyone else is off limits. Again, MacDonald was not perfect, he was a cheater and at best an aloof father. However that does not make him a killer. But juries and prosecutors get things wrong. It happens. You have yet to acknowledge this. Basically I am not arguing with you anymore about MacDonald's innocence. I believe he is innocent, you believe he is guilty. Someone else could be proven to be the killer and you would still believe MacDonald was guilty. Anyway, I am done with this particular thread as the point has been talked to death.

Personally Cami I feel you are too ignorant on the issue

Question for the mod: In this thread alone, I have had one post edited and one deleted entirely for suggesting that others are less than intelligent on this case. Why is this post allowed to stand?

Question for the mod: In this thread alone, I have had one post edited and one deleted entirely for suggesting that others are less than intelligent on this case. Why is this post aloud to stand?

I agree and its been edited. Next time just contact me in private about it.

I was not suggesting she was less than intelligent. I was suggesting that she had the facts skewed. She believes in her point of view and that is fine. I was merely challenging it and in that particular sentence I went to far with it. If it offended her I apologize, that should not have happened. I never asked for your comments to be edited thinman, I do not know who did but it was not me. So I guess that is why I cannot figure out why you decided to get involved? I have researched both sides of the MacDonald case to the best of my ability. In fact, when I first learned about this case, I too believed he did it. I read 'Fatal Vison' I looked at the anti-MacDonald websites and thought that was the only side to the story. However then I read the book 'Fatal Justice' which is basically a counter-attack of 'Fatal Vison' and saw the UM segment and looked at Pro-MacDonald websites. I then compared the two versions and found that overall, it made more sense that MacDonald did not do it. If Cami or you (thinman) or anyone else did this and came to the exact opposite conclusion than that is fine. I have no issue with that. It would show you did your research. It was not my intent to offend anyone, I just get irritated sometimes and go over the top. It happens. I deserved to have my comments edited in that instance because I went too far with the comment. However I was not saying she was not intelligent, I was saying she may have not looked at all the facts. I should have said that in a better way.

you constantly label him a guilty man when the evidence just is not there.

In that case, what is your definition of evidence? Or, short of a confession from Mac (which we will never get), what would it take for you to believe him guilty? OJ says he is innocent, too. Do you believe him?

Mac's story is on "Notorious" on the bio channel right now.

I haven't followed this case as closely as I've followed many others. Please excuse my ignorant comments. I would just like to make some observations.

There's no doubt that the MPs made lots of errors. I'm sure that they were just not used to dealing with such severe crimes and probably had no training on how to handle such things.

I'm concerned about the fact that Colette became accidentally pregnant inthe early 1960s, forcing Mac to marry her. (Pretty standard to marry the knocked up girlfriend back then.) She became pregnant again quite quickly. Fairly soon, debt began to take it's toll on them. They were in debt, living in gov't apartments, Mac's career plans seemed to be stunted (which probably frustrated him), and then Colette became pregnant yet again.

Colette's 2nd pregnancy was life threatening. Her doctor had advised her to prevent becoming pregnant again. This should have been fairly easy in 1970, since the pill was pretty reliable then. (That's why I was born in 1967. My mom went off the pill to become pregnant with me, and then I never had any brothers and sisters, because she went back on it.)

Mac worked his full time job, then took on a part time job to help dig out of debt. At the same time, Colette was taking child psychology classes on the base. And they had two little kids with another on the way. That's a lot of pressure.

After Colette was advised to not have another pregnancy, in order to save her own life, Mac decided to take a voluntary special assignment in Russia that could have very likely, kept him over seas while Colette suffered a life threatening delivery of the 3rd child. That doesn't sound like the actions of a person who has concern for anyone other than himself.

Also, while Mac was being attacked by the hippies, he recalls Colette screaming to him, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" There were only four perpetrators. Just exactly WHO was attacking her? I thought Mac was busy fighting off 3 men in the living room while a woman watched. Who was in the bedroom attacking Colette?

AND, if "they" are violently attacking you, stabbing you multiple times, breaking both your arms, etc, how do you have time to do anything but scream? Yet Colette yelled out a long and complete sentence asking Mac why they were doing that to her. I would tend to think that her question was more like, "Jeff, Jeff, why are YOU doing this to me?"

Then, Mac recalls he oldest daughter yelling, "Daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy!" Why did she yell this? Where was Mac? Was he the one attacking her, so she was screaming his name? Or was he busy in the living room with the four attackers and she was yelling for her daddy's help because she heard the fight, as Mac was trying to lead us to believe?

Regarding the drugged up, floppy hat woman and her blonde stringy hair. This woman was a natural brunette and it's been alleged that she would often wear a blonde wig. Mac made a repeated point of mentioning how "stringy" and "dirty" her hair was. Generally, unkempt hippies have dirty, stringy, long blonde hair that is somewhat thin due to neglect. Blonde wigs are usually thicker than natural hair. It takes a lot of major neglect to make a thick blonde wig stringy. Especially to the point that a man fighting off 3 male attackers in the middle of the night would happen to notice the condition of her hair.

And I just can't ignore those photos. Mac's family was butchered yet by comparison, he had minor injuries.

I'm kinda thinking that he wanted to get on with his career as a doctor, a green beret, travel the world on special military assignments, etc. But his wife kept getting pregnant with unwanted and unplanned babies ever since they were dating. The domestic life and the burdens and debts involved with that kept him from realizing his dreams.

Knowing that this 3rd (dangerous) pregnancy would likely be the one to hold him back from his special assignment in russia, he figured out a way to eliminate his responsibilities at home so he could be free to pursue his exciting career.

I'm kinda thinking that he wanted to get on with his career as a doctor, a green beret, travel the world on special military assignments, etc. But his wife kept getting pregnant with unwanted and unplanned babies ever since they were dating. The domestic life and the burdens and debts involved with that kept him from realizing his dreams.

But why kill his children and why do it in this matter? He was a doctor. He could have done nearly a number of ways. Heck he could have shot them with a number of medicines and toxins he had access to. He also could of gotten rid of the bodies Heck he could have shot therm with a gun from the depot on the base without it being traced.

He could have killed his wife and had his children live with his mother while he pursued assignments

He could also have simply made up to her that he HAD to go to Vietnam or whatever, there would have been nothing she could have done to stop him.

The manner in which both the wife and children were killed was savage to the point of being psychotic. That to me and the manner of the crime scene point to this act not being premiditated. This would have to have been Mac going ballistic and into a psychotic rage. There is nothing Mac's background that shows him capable of this.

The only way i see mac doing this act is if he hired some soldiers to kill his family and rough him up as well.

That's the only logical scenario where i see Mac being guilty.

Mastermind, I've thought of that too. How could a father butcher his own family so savagely? In a man with Mac's background, it would seem unlikely that he would choose such a horribly violent method to kill them.

Unless they're enraged by infidelity, etc, spouses usually don't use such overkill, do they? Don't they usually strangle, or use one to two gunshots, or one or two stabs?

The MacDonald family definitely suffered 'overkill'. If Mac did it, I would think that it was specifically because he wanted to make it look like the manson murders. The overkill was part of the staging.

But good grief, for a father to stab his two little girls to death so violently. It's so hard to believe he could do something like that and remain so calm. You'd think that a man guilty of such a thing would finally crack.

It would be a waste of both your time and mine for me to argue this. However I will for the last time make try to make things clear from my point of view. Yes blood doesnt 'lie'. It cannot talk as far as I can tell. Yup Blackburn is the innocent man. Not. Yeah he pled guilty 10 years after the fact but was/is a lifelong scumbag. I love it how you give the former prosecutor a free pass but yet you take MacDonald where there is really nothing but your own speculation and innuendo and you constantly label him a guilty man when the evidence just is not there. Yes forensic evidence does not 'lie' which by the way is a common term used by prosecutors and pro-prosecutor hacks into misleading people into believing that forensic evidence is never wrong. Forensic evidence can be tainted, it can be misinterpreted. The blood being in different rooms really proves nothing. It certainly does not prove MacDonald murdered his own family. I love how you are perfectly willing to speculate about MacDonald but everyone else is off limits. Again, MacDonald was not perfect, he was a cheater and at best an aloof father. However that does not make him a killer. But juries and prosecutors get things wrong. It happens. You have yet to acknowledge this. Basically I am not arguing with you anymore about MacDonald's innocence. I believe he is innocent, you believe he is guilty. Someone else could be proven to be the killer and you would still believe MacDonald was guilty. Anyway, I am done with this particular thread as the point has been talked to death.

aaaaaaaaahahahaha do I smell cop out.

It would be a waste of both your time and mine for me to argue this. However I will for the last time make try to make things clear from my point of view. Yes blood doesnt 'lie'. It cannot talk as far as I can tell. Yup Blackburn is the innocent man. Not. Yeah he pled guilty 10 years after the fact but was/is a lifelong scumbag. I love it how you give the former prosecutor a free pass but yet you take MacDonald where there is really nothing but your own speculation and innuendo and you constantly label him a guilty man when the evidence just is not there. Yes forensic evidence does not 'lie' which by the way is a common term used by prosecutors and pro-prosecutor hacks into misleading people into believing that forensic evidence is never wrong. Forensic evidence can be tainted, it can be misinterpreted. The blood being in different rooms really proves nothing. It certainly does not prove MacDonald murdered his own family. I love how you are perfectly willing to speculate about MacDonald but everyone else is off limits. Again, MacDonald was not perfect, he was a cheater and at best an aloof father. However that does not make him a killer. But juries and prosecutors get things wrong. It happens. You have yet to acknowledge this. Basically I am not arguing with you anymore about MacDonald's innocence. I believe he is innocent, you believe he is guilty. Someone else could be proven to be the killer and you would still believe MacDonald was guilty. Anyway, I am done with this particular thread as the point has been talked to death.

And I love it how you continue to call Blackburn a "lifelong scumbag" without offering any proof just your own "speculation."

Of course they do but we're discussing the MacDonald case not cases where the prosecutors and juries get things wrong. Prosecutors and juries are human just like us and none of us are infallible.

I'm not willing to believe that Blackburn framed MacDonald and then never committed another crime until 10 years later. Doesn't sound very criminal sophiscated to me. Especially when the Grand Jury proceedings were brought by Woerheide and Murtagh after they investigated the case...Blackburn was only brought on for trial.

However, you have shown absolutely nothing that Blackburn did anything criminal in the MacDonald case. The blood and fibre evidence proved MacDonald killed his family, nothing else nothing more. I've read every single court document, lab report and everything else to do with this case. There is no evidence of intruders in the MacDonald home.

Well continue to stick your head in the sand about this brutal baby killer.

I've read every court transcripts, every lab report, every witness statement and then some to do with this case so don't tell me it's just speculation on my part. Blood doesn't lie, nor does the evidence but as Blackburn stated in his final argument "people can and they do"

Yeah don't bother to answer, you know you're incorrect that's why. Cop out.

Mac's story is on "Notorious" on the bio channel right now.

I haven't followed this case as closely as I've followed many others. Please excuse my ignorant comments. I would just like to make some observations.

There's no doubt that the MPs made lots of errors. I'm sure that they were just not used to dealing with such severe crimes and probably had no training on how to handle such things.

I'm concerned about the fact that Colette became accidentally pregnant inthe early 1960s, forcing Mac to marry her. (Pretty standard to marry the knocked up girlfriend back then.) She became pregnant again quite quickly. Fairly soon, debt began to take it's toll on them. They were in debt, living in gov't apartments, Mac's career plans seemed to be stunted (which probably frustrated him), and then Colette became pregnant yet again.

Colette's 2nd pregnancy was life threatening. Her doctor had advised her to prevent becoming pregnant again. This should have been fairly easy in 1970, since the pill was pretty reliable then. (That's why I was born in 1967. My mom went off the pill to become pregnant with me, and then I never had any brothers and sisters, because she went back on it.)

Mac worked his full time job, then took on a part time job to help dig out of debt. At the same time, Colette was taking child psychology classes on the base. And they had two little kids with another on the way. That's a lot of pressure.

After Colette was advised to not have another pregnancy, in order to save her own life, Mac decided to take a voluntary special assignment in Russia that could have very likely, kept him over seas while Colette suffered a life threatening delivery of the 3rd child. That doesn't sound like the actions of a person who has concern for anyone other than himself.

Also, while Mac was being attacked by the hippies, he recalls Colette screaming to him, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" There were only four perpetrators. Just exactly WHO was attacking her? I thought Mac was busy fighting off 3 men in the living room while a woman watched. Who was in the bedroom attacking Colette?

AND, if "they" are violently attacking you, stabbing you multiple times, breaking both your arms, etc, how do you have time to do anything but scream? Yet Colette yelled out a long and complete sentence asking Mac why they were doing that to her. I would tend to think that her question was more like, "Jeff, Jeff, why are YOU doing this to me?"

Then, Mac recalls he oldest daughter yelling, "Daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy!" Why did she yell this? Where was Mac? Was he the one attacking her, so she was screaming his name? Or was he busy in the living room with the four attackers and she was yelling for her daddy's help because she heard the fight, as Mac was trying to lead us to believe?

Regarding the drugged up, floppy hat woman and her blonde stringy hair. This woman was a natural brunette and it's been alleged that she would often wear a blonde wig. Mac made a repeated point of mentioning how "stringy" and "dirty" her hair was. Generally, unkempt hippies have dirty, stringy, long blonde hair that is somewhat thin due to neglect. Blonde wigs are usually thicker than natural hair. It takes a lot of major neglect to make a thick blonde wig stringy. Especially to the point that a man fighting off 3 male attackers in the middle of the night would happen to notice the condition of her hair.

And I just can't ignore those photos. Mac's family was butchered yet by comparison, he had minor injuries.

I'm kinda thinking that he wanted to get on with his career as a doctor, a green beret, travel the world on special military assignments, etc. But his wife kept getting pregnant with unwanted and unplanned babies ever since they were dating. The domestic life and the burdens and debts involved with that kept him from realizing his dreams.

Knowing that this 3rd (dangerous) pregnancy would likely be the one to hold him back from his special assignment in russia, he figured out a way to eliminate his responsibilities at home so he could be free to pursue his exciting career.

What special assignment in Russia? Aaaaahahaha that's Mac thinking he's more important than he is. He was a doctor why would have be "specially assigned" to Russia.

What special assignment in Russia? Aaaaahahaha that's Mac thinking he's more important than he is. He was a doctor why would have be "specially assigned" to Russia.

Well, that's what they called it on the episode of Notorious. A "voluntary special assignment". Maybe he just asked to get transferred out of the country to get away from his wife and kids and he called it a "special assignment" to make himself sound all Green Beret Bigshot.

It would be a waste of both your time and mine for me to argue this. However I will for the last time make try to make things clear from my point of view. Yes blood doesnt 'lie'. It cannot talk as far as I can tell. Yup Blackburn is the innocent man. Not. Yeah he pled guilty 10 years after the fact but was/is a lifelong scumbag. I love it how you give the former prosecutor a free pass but yet you take MacDonald where there is really nothing but your own speculation and innuendo and you constantly label him a guilty man when the evidence just is not there. Yes forensic evidence does not 'lie' which by the way is a common term used by prosecutors and pro-prosecutor hacks into misleading people into believing that forensic evidence is never wrong. Forensic evidence can be tainted, it can be misinterpreted. The blood being in different rooms really proves nothing. It certainly does not prove MacDonald murdered his own family. I love how you are perfectly willing to speculate about MacDonald but everyone else is off limits. Again, MacDonald was not perfect, he was a cheater and at best an aloof father. However that does not make him a killer. But juries and prosecutors get things wrong. It happens. You have yet to acknowledge this. Basically I am not arguing with you anymore about MacDonald's innocence. I believe he is innocent, you believe he is guilty. Someone else could be proven to be the killer and you would still believe MacDonald was guilty. Anyway, I am done with this particular thread as the point has been talked to death.

Are you serious???? The blood in different rooms proves nothing. Well how about the five blood spots on Mac's pajama top in Colette's blood? Blood that got spattered there prior to the top being ripped? How did that happen if the top was ripped in the living room by the hippies? Colette's blood in Kris's room means she was beaten there brutally, cast-off blood was all over the walls and ceiling. Her blood was on Kristen's top sheet in large quantities. MacDonald's footprint exits the room made in Colette's blood. Where's Mac's blood in the living room where he says he fought for his life and lives of his family?

How can you claim Mac is innocent when you don't know the physical evidence against him? Sheesh

Oh and Colette was found in the master bedroom so someone carried her from Kris's room back to the MB...drug crazed hippies...yeah right.

Well, that's what they called it on the episode of Notorious. A "voluntary special assignment". Maybe he just asked to get transferred out of the country to get away from his wife and kids and he called it a "special assignment" to make himself sound all Green Beret Bigshot.

Yeah I agree he tried to make it sound like he was a bigshot...making sure latrines were cleaned was not his idea of the "golden boy's" career. See that's how the entertainment programs get things wrong. Mac tried to fool Colette that he was going with the boxing team to Russia. The boxing team had no schedule to go to Russia only to New Jersey where Mac's HS girlfriend lived.

I was not suggesting she was less than intelligent. I was suggesting that she had the facts skewed. She believes in her point of view and that is fine. I was merely challenging it and in that particular sentence I went to far with it. If it offended her I apologize, that should not have happened. I never asked for your comments to be edited thinman, I do not know who did but it was not me. So I guess that is why I cannot figure out why you decided to get involved? I have researched both sides of the MacDonald case to the best of my ability. In fact, when I first learned about this case, I too believed he did it. I read 'Fatal Vison' I looked at the anti-MacDonald websites and thought that was the only side to the story. However then I read the book 'Fatal Justice' which is basically a counter-attack of 'Fatal Vison' and saw the UM segment and looked at Pro-MacDonald websites. I then compared the two versions and found that overall, it made more sense that MacDonald did not do it. If Cami or you (thinman) or anyone else did this and came to the exact opposite conclusion than that is fine. I have no issue with that. It would show you did your research. It was not my intent to offend anyone, I just get irritated sometimes and go over the top. It happens. I deserved to have my comments edited in that instance because I went too far with the comment. However I was not saying she was not intelligent, I was saying she may have not looked at all the facts. I should have said that in a better way.

Actually I've researched this case for years, it's you who has not looked at all the facts. I've read every book including Fatal Justice. I have every television program and movie on tape, except for the Dick Cavette interview which is impossible to find. There's a whole website of court documents, lab documents, medical documents, witness statements, autospy results, etc. for you to research. Until you've done that, you're the one who is not looking at all the facts.

No, I don't take offense at what you called me. I know I'm right on this case. I could allege that you're not very intelligent if you believe that blood evidence doesn't matter but I won't because I'm not like that.

Are you serious???? The blood in different rooms proves nothing. Well how about the five blood spots on Mac's pajama top in Colette's blood? Blood that got spattered there prior to the top being ripped? How did that happen if the top was ripped in the living room by the hippies? Colette's blood in Kris's room means she was beaten there brutally, cast-off blood was all over the walls and ceiling. Her blood was on Kristen's top sheet in large quantities. MacDonald's footprint exits the room made in Colette's blood. Where's Mac's blood in the living room where he says he fought for his life and lives of his family?

How can you claim Mac is innocent when you don't know the physical evidence against him? Sheesh

Oh and Colette was found in the master bedroom so someone carried her from Kris's room back to the MB...drug crazed hippies...yeah right.

Thank you. He says there is "no evidence against Mac". What in the hell is all the blood, hair, and fibers? The evidence against Mac is so ungodly insurmountable that it is laughable.

Thank you. He says there is "no evidence against Mac". What in the hell is all the blood, hair, and fibers? The evidence against Mac is so ungodly insurmountable that it is laughable.

LOL, I agree. Blood means nothing to this poster because a 17-year old little girl, attention seeker, drug addict with a psychoid personality confessed. Never mind that none of her so called confessions had anything to do with the crime committed since they were so at odds with the physical evidence found. Oh and Blackburn is a scumbag. Proof of Mac's innocence.

Ice pick baby killer.

Actually I've researched this case for years, it's you who has not looked at all the facts. I've read every book including Fatal Justice. I have every television program and movie on tape, except for the Dick Cavette interview which is impossible to find. There's a whole website of court documents, lab documents, medical documents, witness statements, autospy results, etc. for you to research. Until you've done that, you're the one who is not looking at all the facts.

No, I don't take offense at what you called me. I know I'm right on this case. I could allege that you're not very intelligent if you believe that blood evidence doesn't matter but I won't because I'm not like that.

I stand corrected. Apparently there is an UM program of this case. I have never seen it on tv and I don't have a copy of it...but I have everything else.

Wow, passions really are flaming in this thread, aren't they?

I have been interested in the MacDonald case since 1984 or 1985. Like cami, I have read or viewed nearly every publication or program on this case. For a long time, I believed MacDonald was innnocent. Then I believed he did not get a fair trial, at the least. My opinion changed within the last several months, upon finding CM's website and reading it thoroughly, as well as her book. Now I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jeffrey MacDonald DID murder his wife and his two daughters.

Reading about Colette and the girls' wounds is very different from seeing the actual crime scene and autopsy photos. To suggest that MacDonald's wounds were anywhere near as severe as theirs is blatantly ridiculous. Colette and the girls were overkilled. Why bash in the skull of a 5 year old, or stab a 2 year old 33 times - - neither of whom could identify anyone - - and leave the male Green Beret alive and well? MacDonald had a slight bump on his forehead, not even torn skin - - but his wife's skin was torn down to her skull and his daughter had a piece of cheekbone protruding through her skin. MacDonald had one shallow puncture wound and one stab wound in his midsection (that caused the partial collapse of his lung) - - Colette had been stabbed in the chest many times, Kimberley had been stabbed in the neck over half a dozen times and Kristen was stabbed repeatedly in the back. Check out the pictures. It's obscene. No way in any rational, sensible world can MacDonald's injuries be compared to theirs.

Further, reading the entirety of the Article 32 transcript, and not just portions that were published in Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice, will help you to realize that MacDonald's story just cannot possibly happen the way he says it does. Are we to believe that drugged out hippies with a personal grudge against MacDonald - - who just happened to almost exactly resemble acquaintances of his brother's, by the way - - came in thru the back door of the residence, walked thru the master bedroom without awakening Colette, walk by MacDonald on the sofa without awakening him, go to the kitchen and sort thru Colette's messy (per MacDonald's statements) kitchen drawers to find the knife and ice pick and then go back thru the family room, again without awakening MacDonald, to attack and kill Colette and the children (of course, not counting finding the club), despite the fact that MacDonald was apparently their target? Don't forget the fact that there were no footprints found at the scene, other than MacDonald's, no grass that was brought in from the outside, despite it being a rainy night - - other than grass found on the hem of MacDonald's own bathrobe and the murder weapons were property of the MacDonald family, which the alleged intruders conveniently left, nice and neat, under a bush outside the MacDonald back door. And based on the blood evidence, the intruders were kind enough to carry Colette back to the master bedroom and Kimberley back to her room and even tuck her into bed with her security blanket. Also based on the blood evidence, despite MacDonald claiming to have been beaten about the head with the club used to bludgeon Colette and Kimberley (which I would assume would have been in a bloody condition), not one drop of his blood (or Colette's or Kimberley's) was found in the living room. Cast off blood spatter was found in the master bedroom, Kimberley's bedroom and Kristen's bedroom but not in the living room. In fact, MacDonald's blood was only found in the hall bathroom and in the kitchen, outside a cabinet containing surgeon's gloves.

Read the Article 32 hearing transcript and wonder why MacDonald would refer to his family as "some people" (as in "some people have been stabbed") and call the people he claims killed his family as the "alleged intruders". Seeing as how MacDonald is the one alleging such people attacked and killed his family, it's very unsettling.

Once again, as someone who used to believe MacDonald was innocent, the physical evidence is monumentally overwhelming. The blood evidence, the fiber evidence, the DNA evidence points to no one but Jeffrey MacDonald.

This is another one of those cases where I think people are too close to the flame here to give unbiased opinions.

This is another example of a case where because it's been so many years, facts have been distorted, faded and contadicted.

For every argument that Mac is innocent, there's an equally compelling one that damns him. and there seems to books and mountains of info to back up either side. It;s like the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

This is why it;s so important for cases to be solved within the 1st 48 hrs. It's the period where the evidence is the most clearest. where the case has no bias. Where the evidence leads the investigation.

When a stories this old, it become difficult to tell what is a fact and what isn;t.

When you have a bias, it;s like a rorshach test. if your already thinking of the butterfly, of course your going to see the butterfly.

The good detective is the one that case look a the blotch objectiveley and see all the images within the blotch and make a rational decision that there is one true image in there

This is another one of those cases where I think people are too close to the flame here to give unbiased opinions.

This is another example of a case where because it's been so many years, facts have been distorted, faded and contadicted.

For every argument that Mac is innocent, there's an equally compelling one that damns him. and there seems to books and mountains of info to back up either side. It;s like the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

This is why it;s so important for cases to be solved within the 1st 48 hrs. It's the period where the evidence is the most clearest. where the case has no bias. Where the evidence leads the investigation.

When a stories this old, it become difficult to tell what is a fact and what isn;t.

When you have a bias, it;s like a rorshach test. if your already thinking of the butterfly, of course your going to see the butterfly.

:clap

Amen. Agreed on all points. I certainly understand this forum is about discussing these cases and allowing everyone to vocalize their thoughts, theories, and opinions, but I have to admit, everytime this thread gets bumped I roll my eyes. No one is going to convince anyone with a very firm opinion on this case that it could've gone down any other way, so I honestly don't see why the same points are continually being argued between the same handful of posters.

They were showing something on tv the other day and I saw "kill the pigs" written in blood on a wall.

Wasn't that written on the wall at the McDonald crime scene?

I paid closer attention to the tv once I saw that. Turns out, it was about the mansons.

The same quote, written in blood, just like the mansons, at the second murder scene, on the opposite side of the country, makes me think mac set it up, not that drugged out hippies did a copy cat killing.

They were showing something on tv the other day and I saw "kill the pigs" written in blood on a wall.

Wasn't that written on the wall at the McDonald crime scene?

I paid closer attention to the tv once I saw that. Turns out, it was about the mansons.

The same quote, written in blood, just like the mansons, at the second murder scene, on the opposite side of the country, makes me think mac set it up, not that drugged out hippies did a copy cat killing.

I believe it was written on Mac & Colette's bedframe.

:clap

Amen. Agreed on all points. I certainly understand this forum is about discussing these cases and allowing everyone to vocalize their thoughts, theories, and opinions, but I have to admit, everytime this thread gets bumped I roll my eyes. No one is going to convince anyone with a very firm opinion on this case that it could've gone down any other way, so I honestly don't see why the same points are continually being argued between the same handful of posters.


I am not assuming your post was directed at me, but this was my first post not only to this thread but to this board. I didn't make a post simply to repost the "same points" by the "same handful of posters" (which, BTW, could also be argued for people who are pro-MacDonald). I thought that perhaps an opinion from someone who thought for years that MacDonald was innocent, only to change her view, might be appreciated. For those people who are on the fence about this case, CM's website is an invaluable source. For the record, CM herself thought MacDonald was innocent, she actually attended his trial and only began believing in his guilt once she read the actual legal documents, viewed photos, etc.

And peachysquirt is right - - the word "PIG" was written in Colette's blood on the headboard of her bed.

Knowing Meg, I'm SURE it was not directed at you, psychoticstate. Stick around long enough, and you'll find out how weird we are here. LOL Heck, half the time I'm arguing with someone in one thread, and agreeing with them in another. Somehow we manage to stay friends. :)

I am not assuming your post was directed at me, but this was my first post not only to this thread but to this board. I didn't make a post simply to repost the "same points" by the "same handful of posters" (which, BTW, could also be argued for people who are pro-MacDonald). I thought that perhaps an opinion from someone who thought for years that MacDonald was innocent, only to change her view, might be appreciated. For those people who are on the fence about this case, CM's website is an invaluable source. For the record, CM herself thought MacDonald was innocent, she actually attended his trial and only began believing in his guilt once she read the actual legal documents, viewed photos, etc.

And peachysquirt is right - - the word "PIG" was written in Colette's blood on the headboard of her bed.

Yesterday I spent the majority of the day looking over CM's website. Before doing this, I also had the opinion that MacDonald was innocent. After looking over that website, boy has my opinon changed. I didnt even get to read half of what is posted on her site & I have now come to the conclusion that there is no way anyone else specially these so called 4 intruders comitted this crime. MacDonald commited this crime. If anyone is still on the fence about this case, I suggest you check out CM's website. It has alot of very detailed info about this case from the beginning to the end. Now I just do not see how anyone could think MacDonald is innocent.

If anyone is still on the fence about this case, I suggest you check out CM's website. It has alot of very detailed info about this case from the beginning to the end. Now I just do not see how anyone could think MacDonald is innocent.

That is exactly what I have been telling this board for years. Do some outside research. Christina Masewicz's website is the best resource out there for this case. I can see how if someone's only knowledge of this case came from UM, they would lean toward not guilty. UM is famous for putting doubt in the viewer's minds and that is exactly what kept ratings high for all those years. UM tried hard to be unbiased in the MacDonald segment, but by giving the pro-prosecution side first and the pro-defense side last, the viewer had the pro-Mac stance fresh on their minds. Hence, 90% of this forum believes Mac is innocent.

I am not assuming your post was directed at me, but this was my first post not only to this thread but to this board. I didn't make a post simply to repost the "same points" by the "same handful of posters" (which, BTW, could also be argued for people who are pro-MacDonald). I thought that perhaps an opinion from someone who thought for years that MacDonald was innocent, only to change her view, might be appreciated.

No, I know you're new to the board (welcome, BTW) and offering some fresh insight by posting your ideas. I apologize if my post seemed abrasive to you (it wasn't meant to be). This is, obviously, a hotly contested case, and I think at times some of the posts in this thread lean towards outright flames that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

I am personally not pro-MacDonald. At one point in time I did feel quite strongly that he was innocent, but I've been undecided for a very long time now. Thus far I haven't been completely convinced either way.

In any event, I apologize. :wave:

No problem, MegtheEgg. I have posted elsewhere about this case and for whatever reason, this case is definitely one of those that gets people's tempers up. People seem to feel very passionately about it, one way or the other.

Thank you for the welcome! :wave:

peachysquirt, your experience sounds very much like mine. CM's website is a treasure trove of information (although sad information).

No problem, MegtheEgg. I have posted elsewhere about this case and for whatever reason, this case is definitely one of those that gets people's tempers up. People seem to feel very passionately about it, one way or the other.

Thank you for the welcome! :wave:

peachysquirt, your experience sounds very much like mine. CM's website is a treasure trove of information (although sad information).


ITA, nothing brings out the passion more than this case. For one thing, Mac himself will never let it die. He keeps peppering the court with his motions, that don't go anywhere, but he'll continue probably until the day he dies. I too have read most of CM's website. When you read the lab documents and the investigative reports and the transcripts, you're eyes are definitely opened. There is no way anyone but Mac committed this crime.

This is another one of those cases where I think people are too close to the flame here to give unbiased opinions.

This is another example of a case where because it's been so many years, facts have been distorted, faded and contadicted.

For every argument that Mac is innocent, there's an equally compelling one that damns him. and there seems to books and mountains of info to back up either side. It;s like the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

This is why it;s so important for cases to be solved within the 1st 48 hrs. It's the period where the evidence is the most clearest. where the case has no bias. Where the evidence leads the investigation.

When a stories this old, it become difficult to tell what is a fact and what isn;t.

When you have a bias, it;s like a rorshach test. if your already thinking of the butterfly, of course your going to see the butterfly.

The good detective is the one that case look a the blotch objectiveley and see all the images within the blotch and make a rational decision that there is one true image in there


Not really. All the documents from that time are now online. They've been acquired through the FOIA. That's why those of us who have read them can confidently assert an opinion based on those documents.

I do agree the first 48 hours are the most important but remember the year. In 1970, nothing like this has ever happened except in LA a few months prior and no way would anyone believe the father would or could do this. The CIA had their suspicions the first day but they didn't have the techniques they have today to analyze this evidence and interrogate suspects.

Mac was granted dna testing a few year's ago and the results pointed straight at him once again.

The lady who runs the forensic astrology website just recently did a reading on this case. Here is the link to the post.

http://forensicastrology.blogspot.com/2009/07/mcdonald-family-murders.html

I thought what she had to say was interesting.

The lady who runs the forensic astrology website just recently did a reading on this case. Here is the link to the post.

http://forensicastrology.blogspot.com/2009/07/mcdonald-family-murders.html

I thought what she had to say was interesting.


That was interesting.... most of it was incorrect as in the times of death and the 911 call. As well, it's been proven that both children were dead before Colette was.

This is also a tough one for me. I do feel that there is "reasonable doubt," as well as a prosecutor who was clearly in it for the betterment of himself. I do, however, find Macdonald to be someone who could easily be deemed a "sociopath." In all the interviews I have seen of him, he strikes me as someone coldly removed from the case, and talking only about himself and how this has effected him (and forgetting that the real tragedy was the fact that his wife and two daughters were murdered). I understand that, if he IS innocent, he would be focused on his wrongful conviction, but he really appeared cold and sociopathic to me. He almost seems like a male version of Diane Downs (as I'm sure many of you know her case on this forum).

I know it's wrong to decide one's guilt based on appearance and body language, but since we are all speculating here, I figured it was appropriate. He just doesn't seem like a great guy, and he appears to be a master manipulator who is very narcissisistic.

Am I the only one?

i never believe Jeff was guilty. this link sums things up pretty nicely.

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

i never believe Jeff was guilty. this link sums things up pretty nicely.

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

So, you will look at that but not Christina Masewicz's website?

Three observations about this case.

1. This case like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, the JFK assassination are similar in that it is extremly difficult to find unbiased information. It seems like every source of info has come into the case with their own theory and have cherry picked the info that fits it. So I would say view any website regarding Mac's case with a grain of salt.

2. What makes this case unique is that it is one of those rare, either or cases. Either Mac killed his familly or the woman and the soldiers did it. It's really a matter of choosing suspects. It's not like if Mac is innocent, we have to go looking far and wide for the real suspects. You have the choice of two murder suspects.

3. All do apologies to all lawyers on this site. But this case is less of a murder investigation and more of a legal tete-a-tete on whether Mac should be in jail or not. This case really does show the difference between lawyers and investigators. Lawyers are trying to prove a position that they've taken. Detectives/Investigators are trying to find a suspect and the evidence needed to arrest that suspect. The detective could care less who is the suspect just as long as he's found a viable suspect. The lawyer could care less whether his position is wrong, just as long as jury rules in his favor.

So, you will look at that but not Christina Masewicz's website?

I don't recall ever saying I wouldn't look at Christina Masewicz's website. In fact, if you would like to post a link, I'd be happy to take a look at it. I do try to get both sides of the story. Though I will say, I doubt my mind on this subject can be swayed.

There were something like 35 points on that link I posted that pointed to intruders. IIRC, the only things the prosecution brought to the table were this wildly-constructed timeline of events, and attempted to poke holes in it. Even assuming McDonald's version of events isn't entirely accurate, that doens't make him the murderer. I don't expect him to remember everything correctly. It was mass chaos, he was beaten and his wife 2 and kids were killed. He is going to be focused on helping them and getting help himself, not trying to remember every step he took and in what order. Plus, he's injured so his thinking isn't going to be exactly very clear. And the claim that there weren't signs of a struggle, because the only things they found were an overturned coffee table and plant. But Mcdonald says that he was beaten up before he could get up off the couch, it's not like he ever claimed they were fighting all over the house. And the claim that he suffered much less severe wounds. If you listen to Helena Stoeckley, she stated that she never itended to kill them, just rough McDonald up a little because they believed he was narcing about drugs. They didn't kill McDonald because they didn't intend to. Once things got out of hand, Helena left.

There's hair and other physical evidence of intruders, that seals the deal for me. That, plus that Helena Stoeckly knows way too much information not to be involved. Her recollections of that night were very detailed, mentions of a barking German Shepard, that McDonald was reading a book, the t.v. was on but it was off the air, the stab marks on Collette in the shape of an S. And then there's the phone call. And many witnesses place her very near the crime scene at the time of the murders. She died mysteriously right before planning to release a bomshell in the case that would have implicated intruders. She just knows way too much not to have been involved. It's a shame her testimony was dismissed.

I don't recall ever saying I wouldn't look at Christina Masewicz's website. In fact, if you would like to post a link, I'd be happy to take a look at it. I do try to get both sides of the story. Though I will say, I doubt my mind on this subject can be swayed.


Fair enough. Have at it...

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

I would like to begin by responding to some of the questions and issues raised by other posters.

1. “There is absolutely no history of violence”. It often happens that there has been abuse, but it has not been documented. Sometimes abuse gets reported, sometimes it does not. And some people are lifetime “stuffers” - until one day they snap and the picture isn`t pretty. Also, someone else pointed out that others witnessed to his temper and tendency towards rage.

2. “MacDonald was also a victim of the attack” ... “Why do it in this manner?” This is a common theme in certain murders. Darlie Routier (though there is some doubt about her guilt) immediately comes to mind. It seems quite logical to me, especially for 1970. Yes, you could poison them, but it looks pretty suspicious when a military man`s wife takes off with his children, vanishing without a trace. “My wife took off with the kids.” But pretty soon, suspicion will catch up, the authorities will do a bit of digging, and he will be charged with murder. But if you rough yourself up pretty good, giving yourself a nasty gash, a punctured lung, and a concussion, people are more likely to suspect that it was done by druggies - especially when you write “PIG” on the wall in blood, a la the Tate murder which took place the year earlier. This might not be the way most would do it, but when you are a doctor, you have the expertise and the knowledge to self-inflict certain injuries that make it seem as though a person would never do that to himself. So one of the defenses was that since it was possible the punctured lung could have easily been more severe, no man would inflict such a wound. I would argue that a doctor would know exactly where to stick that weapon to make it appear that way.

3. “Why kill his children and why do it in this matter?” Good question, but I think there is a good answer. If MacDonald is guilty, it was a crime of passion. Why his children too? First, they were witnesses, and second and most importantly, as it has been said earlier, these children were “oopsies” (the first one occurring in high school, which prompted the shotgun wedding in the first place), and he resented them just as much as his wife for “holding him back” from his ambitions. Brad Bishop also killed his children, when his beef was with his condescending wife. Who knows what gets into these men`s heads. Why not just take off to Vietnam? Because he will eventually have to come back, and pay alimony, deal with her nagging phone calls and guilt trips over abandoning the family, and having to live with the fact that she will eventually “move on” (how many men have killed their ex`s because of the “if I can`t have her, no one can” mentality? These are all moot points anyway, as it was a crime of passion (though this thinking, which had been stewing for a while, may have contributed to his lack of restraint in getting to the point of flying off the handle). Needless to say, there are sufficient reasons as to “why” he would do this.

4. “Why would Bryant Lane lie?” Many people come out with “information” about a big case to get attention or just for “kicks”. Personally, I thought Lane came across as being rather phony - the way other story-tellers and chronic liars do. Consdier, too, that Lane was his ``best friend``. I would think that best friends of druggies and murderers probably do not have the best of character either and would not be beyond telling such fibs. Then again, it might just be me.

Now, I have a few questions of my own:

1. Why, months after the murders, did MacDonald move to an expensive townhouse and purchase a Mercedez Benz? Did he have a life insurance policy? And why would a grieving husband and father use money he gained from such a heinous murder of his loved ones to start living the “high life”?

2. It has been pointed out that the prosecutor was a shady individual, and that he might have “doctored” (no pun intended) the evidence. This is indeed a real possibility. However, does it not seem as though Jeffrey MacDonald himself, even if we are to assume he is innocent, is just as shady an individual or even moreso? And if so, does it not greatly limit the credibility of the “I think he is innocent because the prosecutor is corrupt” argument? Do we not have to look at the evidence, rather than the charadcter of the people involved, to find out if it was the shady prosecutor who doctored the evidence, or the shady MacDonald who doctored the crime scene?

3. Most importantly, as Mr. Lane so sincerely recalled, Greg Mitchell said they were only planning to “teach him a lesson” and “rough up his family”, but that “things went wrong”. The question Dr. MacDonald`s lawyers have to answer is: “Why did things go wrong, and What specifically went wrong to account for why his family members were murdered so viciously?” If the plan was to rough up the family members, how did a planned roughing up turn into 37 stab wounds to the daughter, and 48 stab wounds to the wife? What triggered this? And why did not whatever triggered this turn into an equally savage assault on the man they were upset with to begin with - Dr. MacDonald? It has been said he had Green Beret training, and that he was strong enough to defend himself. But yet, three men with weapons were able to inflict quite a bit of damage (including a knife wound that went in and came out cleanly without any twisting or tuning of hte body). Is it possible that these three men were unable to do any more than that becuase MacDonald was able to successfully fight them off?

Two more statements:

1. Although the woman`s testimony is worthless in a court of law due to the fact that her story has changed so often, it must be said that this does not mean that her recollections on the BBC documentary were not true. Therefore, WE (the court of public opinion) may either believe or disbelieve her testimony. I personally am suspicious of it.

2. Therefore, all things considered, I believe he is probably guilty, though I am not sure I believe that ``beyond a reasonable doubt``. I would invite any of our posters to reply to my questions and to my statements, and no doubt, answers can be given and objections made. But with what I have read, it seems like the answers and objections made by those who believe in his guilt have made more sense, at least to me.

Looking at this case again. I think there could be a case made for both McDonald's guilt or innocence.

I do not believe this case is as cut and dry as some people believe.

Bottom line: people, rumors, theories, and half-cocked ideas lie; physical evidence does not.

Sure it does.

I haven't done enough independant research to conclusively state one way or the other if McDonald is guilty or not, although the serious procedural violations certainly concern me.

But, back to physical evidence, first of all, if a crime scene is compromised, all physical evidence is suspect. Second, presuming the collection is done correctly, you still have the human analysis of the same, which can lead to errors and misinterpretations - the level of the same depends on the nature of the evidence - properly collected DNA is subject to little subjective analysis, while hair, fiber, and handwriting comparisions have a large degree of subjectivity, as even do fingerprints (at least lower point matches).

Moreover, physical evidence does not always have one intrepretation. Certainly, applying occam's razor, certain intrepretations are less likely than others, but alternative explanations are usually possible.

In the instant case, I see you refer to "1600" pieces of physical evidence frequently, however, you must recognize that quality is far more important than quantity. What do you consider the most incriminating pieces of PE?

But, back to physical evidence, first of all, if a crime scene is compromised, all

That fact alone, makes this case far from cut and dry.

There are over 1,600 pieces of physical evidence that point to MacDonald being the butcher. There is not one shred of physical evidence that points to foreign intruders. So, I am to assume the bumbling Keystone cops destroyed all of the evidence of intruders, simultaneously manufacturing the 1,600 pieces that implicate the good doctor.

Makes sense to me. I've changed my mind.

What do you consider the most incriminating pieces of PE?

Oh for starters, Mac's bloody footprint exiting Kristin's bedroom that was made while he was carrying something heavy, the weapons that came from the MacDonald household, and the fact that Kimberley and Colette were moved from the rooms where they were attacked/killed.

Now, for the lack of physical evidence. The "intruders" were nice enough to not damage the apartment. And there was not one drop of Mac's blood or anyone else's in the living room where he had an epic "battle for his life".

That fact alone, makes this case far from cut and dry.
Yes and no. I think it would depend on the scope and scale of the compromise.

Certainly it means that evidence could have been overlooked and/or destroyed in the living room, which means the lack of PE for the "hippies" doesn't necc. mean they weren't there.

More disturbing would be the possability that inexperienced LE could have walked all around the house, from room to room, contaminating and cross-contamining each bedroom, rendering the blood distribution analysis worthless. If the blood evidence is bad, the case against MacDonald becomes much weaker, if not non-existant, since it formed the backbone of the prosecution's case. Even granting that crime-scene investigation was less sophisticated forty years ago, failing to secure and properly catalogue a crime scene is an inexcusable error and the number one reason crimes aren't solved and/or there remain questions.

This all said, the inconsistancies in MacDonald's story are troubling, to say the least. Even granting that trace evidence in the living room might have destroyed, the pictures don't show any evidence of a struggle, which you would certainly expect if his story was true; nor does his story mesh with the "typical" pattern of a hippie/home invasion. While this doesn't, by itself, mean it's false, again, it raises questions. I can't give too much weight to the "confessions" of Stokely, given both her unreliability and the time lag.

So im guessing that Jeff is still wrongfully in jail ?

So im guessing that Jeff is still wrongfully in jail ?

Wrongfully in jail??? HAHAHAHAHA Oooooooooook....

Sorry but that scumbag is right where he belongs.

I have always leaned towards Jeff MacDonald being innocent. Granted a lot of this has to do with the UM segment which in my opinion is made to make MacDonald look 100% innocent to begin with.

Mastermind is right there is a good case that could be made both for and against MacDonald's innocence. I think at the very least Jeff MacDonald deserves a new trial, where evidence can be rexamined, everything can be brought up to date (DNA testing and whatnot) and hopefully a definitive resolution can be brought to this case because from everything I've seen there are some serious questions as to how MacDonald's case was handled back then.

The prosecutor says in the segment that "how could Jeffrey not get a good look at the woman 4 feet away from him while he was getting beaten?" Well good question. But an easy answer. The woman was hardly his first priority. He was getting beaten with bats by three other guys. It was dark. Plus he may not have gotten cut but just bruised at that time. Which might explain why there was no blood in the living room. Also they say the living room was undisturbed but claim that a coffee table was tipped along with a plant. Sounds somewhat disturbed to me.

Also a lot of things point in Jeffrey's favour. The hypnosis tape (if you believe it), the confession of the Stockly woman, Jeffrey's war on drugs that would have ticked off those kinds of people, the phone call from the patient, the confession Greg Mitchell gave to his friend (who seemed honest) about killing the McDonald family.

And lastly the lack of motive. I don't buy the prosecutors idea that a fight was started about his daughter wetting the bed. Why would that conversation escalate to murder? And why would he off his two young daughters while he was at it? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

And lastly the lack of motive. I don't buy the prosecutors idea that a fight was started about his daughter wetting the bed. Why would that conversation escalate to murder? And why would he off his two young daughters while he was at it? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think it makes sense. Please check the previous page (p.9), because I discussed this under the username "WHMIS" (background on that: I signed up for an account not too long ago, and then discovered that I already had an account years ago with the username "Wamisto" but had forgotten about that since I stopped using this forum after early 2004. So I returned to my original account when I discovered that. Kind of a cool side story!)

The prosecutor says in the segment that "how could Jeffrey not get a good look at the woman 4 feet away from him while he was getting beaten?" Well good question. But an easy answer. The woman was hardly his first priority. He was getting beaten with bats by three other guys. It was dark. Plus he may not have gotten cut but just bruised at that time. Which might explain why there was no blood in the living room. Also they say the living room was undisturbed but claim that a coffee table was tipped along with a plant. Sounds somewhat disturbed to me.

Also a lot of things point in Jeffrey's favour. The hypnosis tape (if you believe it), the confession of the Stockly woman, Jeffrey's war on drugs that would have ticked off those kinds of people, the phone call from the patient, the confession Greg Mitchell gave to his friend (who seemed honest) about killing the McDonald family.

And lastly the lack of motive. I don't buy the prosecutors idea that a fight was started about his daughter wetting the bed. Why would that conversation escalate to murder? And why would he off his two young daughters while he was at it? It doesn't make a lot of sense.


With Stockly's confessions you have to take them with a grain of salt IMO. I do not put any value into what she had said.

I think he's another brad bishop and scott peterson: A seemingly "perfect" man who turns out to be a sociopath. He certainly is incredibly narcisistic.

Aside from all the evidence that has been discussed for many pages here, this is what always sticks in my mind: First, he lied many times, including telling his father in law that he found the people who did it and he killed them (an outright lie), and second of all, he, to this day, has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.

I don't know why this case bothers me. I think it's b/c this egomaniac has clearly succeeded (based on manipulation) in convincing many many people that he didn't do it. I don't like when a sociopathic killer gets his ego fed even more, and you know it just delights him to know that there are so many out there that think he has experienced an "injustice."

has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.


Hmm, I did not know that part. I agree. A polygraph is something that can clear your name or go a long ways in doing so. After 40 years no polygraph? That is rather weird and the ones on here that didn't take a polygraph (Paul Pollis, Mike Morris) are pretty much considered guilty as sin by 100% of us.

If it were me I would bew tripping over myself in an attempt to take the polygraph just to show I have nothing to hide.

I think he's another brad bishop and scott peterson: A seemingly "perfect" man who turns out to be a sociopath. He certainly is incredibly narcisistic.

Aside from all the evidence that has been discussed for many pages here, this is what always sticks in my mind: First, he lied many times, including telling his father in law that he found the people who did it and he killed them (an outright lie), and second of all, he, to this day, has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.

I don't know why this case bothers me. I think it's b/c this egomaniac has clearly succeeded (based on manipulation) in convincing many many people that he didn't do it. I don't like when a sociopathic killer gets his ego fed even more, and you know it just delights him to know that there are so many out there that think he has experienced an "injustice."

I'm puzzled why so many people feel definitive about one side in this case. This case is one of the truly bizzare cases in history in that it's one of the rare cases where there is as much evidence on one side as there is on the other.

Some things to consider.
1. This case involves a compromised crime scene.
2. This case involves politics from both sides.
3. Both scenarios have the same degree of logic.
4. We actually have suspects other than MacDonald. (unlike a lot of cases such as the OJ simpson case. Nobody has found the "real killers". But in this case we do have "the real killers".

I personally think anyone who is steadfast on one theory is underestimating the above factors.

I think either scenario is plausible in this case.

I'm puzzled why so many people feel definitive about one side in this case. This case is one of the truly bizzare cases in history in that it's one of the rare cases where there is as much evidence on one side as there is on the other.

Some things to consider.
1. This case involves a compromised crime scene.
2. This case involves politics from both sides.
3. Both scenarios have the same degree of logic.
4. We actually have suspects other than MacDonald. (unlike a lot of cases such as the OJ simpson case. Nobody has found the "real killers". But in this case we do have "the real killers".

I personally think anyone who is steadfast on one theory is underestimating the above factors.

I think either scenario is plausible in this case.

:yeahthat

I'm puzzled why so many people feel definitive about one side in this case. This case is one of the truly bizzare cases in history in that it's one of the rare cases where there is as much evidence on one side as there is on the other.

Some things to consider.
1. This case involves a compromised crime scene.
2. This case involves politics from both sides.
3. Both scenarios have the same degree of logic.
4. We actually have suspects other than MacDonald. (unlike a lot of cases such as the OJ simpson case. Nobody has found the "real killers". But in this case we do have "the real killers".

I personally think anyone who is steadfast on one theory is underestimating the above factors.

I think either scenario is plausible in this case.

I do agree that this is def. not a clear cut case, that's for sure. I got really into this case several years ago, and read both "Fatal Vision" I and "Fatal Justice," the two definitive books on the case, one arguing JM did it, the other arguing that he didn't. I also read the transcripts online (that took awhile, ouch), and viewed several pro and anti websites. So I'd like to think I'm not viewing this case ignorantly.

I just can't help but think that Macdonald is being given more credibility than other "husbands whose families/wives end up dying while they are in the house too" because he is: handsome, well educated, smart, and charming/manipulative.

Your list, mastermind, is somewhat misleading I think.

1) A compromised crime scene: Alright, probably, although we don't know how much. Did inexperienced cops walk around, yes, but does that somehow cause physical evidence from any and all other supposed suspects simply vanish? Remember, there was not a single piece of forensic evidence that indicated anyone else had been in that house, despite Jeff's claim that he fought for his life.

2) Politics on both sides: That's pretty vague to me, and not a strong argument for why Jeff isn't guilty based on the evidence.

3) Both scenarios have the same degree of logic: :eek:
This I just don't agree with.

a: Jeff (a man who has had several affairs so is capable of lying), for whatever reason, either loses his temper and harms a family member, then panics and kills the other members, or snaps for some reason. This happens all the time, sadly. The murder weapons were from inside the house (Darlie Routier anyone?), and Jeff made inconsistent statements, and lied blatantly to the LE as well as family members. there is also evidence of a clean up in the bathroom. I'm not even mentioning the 3 weeks of physical evidence that was presented at the trial (which I feel some are dismissing erroneously because of a nebulous "crime scene contamination" theory")

b: Or, a group of drug crazed hippies show up at the house (apparently intent on revenge for Jeff's anti-needle policy) and manage to kill everyone BUT Jeff, leave no physical evidence whatsoever, use weapons from Jeff's home, and.... best of all, walk out without taking a single needle or narcotic medication, even though they are in clear and plain view of the living room. The only link to this scenario is Jeff's story, and a very, deeply disturbed heroin addict who has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, and whose story changed more often than Oprah's weight (and I love Oprah)!

You see what I'm saying?

Listen, I am not 100% sure that Jeff is guilty, because I wasn't there, but after reviewing as much as I have, I am disturbed by how so many people are willing to take Jeff's side based on, perhaps, irrelevant reasons.

3) Both scenarios have the same degree of logic:
This I just don't agree with.

The JM did it scenario requires him to intentionally injure himself to cause the lung injury. That alone is unique (though not impossible).
This has always been a problem with me in this case.

That and that the JM did it theory has Mac apparently after getting involved with a struggle with his wife..then still having enough rage to go up and slaughter the children.

That's the problem I have with this case...I can buy a drug induced bunch of sod

The fact that there was no preamble to this vicious rampage also disturbs me.

For the murder scenario to work this had to have be an unpremeditated crime of passion...yet the conflicts with some signs of forward planning.

Or, a group of drug crazed hippies show up at the house (apparently intent on revenge for Jeff's anti-needle policy) and manage to kill everyone BUT Jeff, leave no physical evidence whatsoever, use weapons from Jeff's hom

Hippies? I thought a few of them were soldiers. Soldiers trained to kill people. Soldiers who when drug or drugged could be capable of enormous violence. I believe they even traced one of these guys.

heroin addict who has been diagnosed as schizophrenic,

She was also a police informant and may have been identified at the seen of the crime by the first responders.

A compromised crime scene: Alright, probably, although we don't know how much. Did inexperienced cops walk around, yes, but does that somehow cause physical evidence from any and all other supposed suspects simply vanish?

Yes it does. Fibers get displaced. Footprints are muddled over. Hair gets blown to the side or tracked on someones heel and foot bottom. Fingerprints are smudged by touch. The list is endless on how evidence can be missing from a contaminated crime scene.

I remember one case where a bullet casing was kicked into the corner of a kitchen by a patrol officer. It wasn't found until weeks later when the officer admitted he kicked it but did not want to get into trouble for walking on the crime scene. So he told nobody about it. :rolleyes:

I just can't help but think that Macdonald is being given more credibility than other "husbands whose families/wives end up dying while they are in the house too" because he is: handsome, well educated, smart, and charming/manipulative.

I would argue this has hindered as much as helped Mac. It was the blowback from those women that felt that he was a "philanderer" that led to the family going against him. It may have been the actual reason why Mac is in jail right now.

The thing that I'm surprised about in this case is that people forget that Mac was a soldier in the Army. On a base even. This to me is a vital detail in both scenarios being that Mac was not your average husband.

If a cop gets murdered in his home, his case can;t get looked at the same way as if he was a civilian.

I tend to agree with Mastermind. There are great points to be made on BOTH sides of the fence. It is pretty damning that the cops remember seeing a "woman with a hat" right near the house. Plus you can't always chalk up a philanderer parallel to a killer. Some people say "well if he cheated then he is capable of killing........"

True an adulterer is not a great role model or a so-called pillar of the community but this is a good reason why Larry Race was put in jail to start with, people look at his lifestyle. To me falling into the temptations of a certain part of your body is not akin to actually murdering your whole family. Wanting to get away with being a pig is not equal to trying to get away with murder.

Plus these hippies that killed his family would they not be punishing Jeffrey very seriously if they offed his whole family and left him potentially alive to suffer and THEN to get blamed?

We can debate this to death. Some people don't believe a heroin addict's confession. But what about the other things? The friend of Mitchell relaying his confession? Sounded accurate to me?

mastermind and clockwork:

I agree that this can be debated forever. It def. is not a clear cut case, and there is room for doubt. Just personally, for some reason, after reading all the stuff, and watching interviews with Jeffrey, I just feel that he's capable of murder, and comes off as a very arrogant man... and perhaps a sociopath. He did himself no favors in his behavior soon after the murders, such as appearing on entertainment shows joking and laughing. It was just really weird and disturbing. But I respect the other side.

Also, "clockwork"..I noticed that you wrote on the "Mary Morris" thread that her husband not taking a polygraph exam was a "huge red flag." Couldn't the same be said about Jeffrey Macdonald?"

Also, "clockwork"..I noticed that you wrote on the "Mary Morris" thread that her husband not taking a polygraph exam was a "huge red flag." Couldn't the same be said about Jeffrey Macdonald?"

Jeffrey didn't take one did he? I wasn't sure about that. Well yes of course it's a huge red flag. Which is why I have a tough time making a commitment on this one. Paul Pollis, Mike Morris, Al Henderson even are examples of guys where there is no physical evidence that they had anything to do with a crime and a polygraph would go a long ways in settling down the accusations, permitting they pass it. I know the polygraph is not something that can convict you but it has been known to clear people in the past.

Now with the case of Jeffrey I can see how one might classify him as a sociopath. So with that being said does he manage to pass the polygraph (a la Larry Gibson) based on calmness and arrogance? Possibly, but I would have liked to have seen him try.

Some people make a big deal about MacDonald having (relatively) minor injuries while his family was "overkilled". My theory is that a different group of assailants dealt with MacDonald while another group took out the rest of the family. When the intruders entered, some went into a bedroom while the remaining were the ones that found MacDonald in the living room. The one sin the bedroom were more crazed than the others. Accoridng to Greg Mitchell, the intent was to "rough up" the family, not kill anyone.

I'm still on the fence about this case. While I lean towards guilt, there is reasonable doubt.

Until someone can come up with a logical reason as to why MacDonald's hair was found in the clenched fist of his dead wife's hand, there is no reason to doubt his guilt. There is no reason as to why Colette would feel the need to rip MacDonald's hair out of his head if he was an innocent victim. And that's just one of the pieces of physical evidence connecting him to the crime, there are several other pieces that conclusively point to MacDonald as the murderer. And for those that ask how a father could possibly murder his wife and two young children, I'll ask a similar question. How is is possible for a man whose wife and two young children were brutally slaughtered by four people still on the loose, appear on a late night talk show, smugly joke with the host about watching said late night talk show on the night of his wife and children's murders, and then go on to criticize the CID for investigating him yet not appeal to anyone to help apprehend the "real killers"? MacDonald's a sociopath.

A few of his lies:
-He told Colette that he would be heading on a "special assignment" with the Green Beret's going to Russia. It turns out he told her this so he could spend more time with a mistress.
-He told Freddy Kasab (Colette's step-father) that he actually located one of the four hippies that murdered his family and he retaliated by murdering the hippie. By telling Kasab he killed one of the murderers, he was hoping Kasab would simply let it rest and not keep pushing for more information, in all probability exposing more of MacDonald's lies.
-He claims to have given Kristen mouth to mouth in an attempt to save her life. Yet the crime scene photos clearly show she is on her side, with her bottle close to her mouth. So why would MacDonald lie about this? Because he knew his footprint was found in Kristen's bedroom and he needed an "innocent" explanation as to why it would be in there. IMO, he was carrying her dead body into her bedroom, which is where the footprint came from.
-Not technically a lie per se, but on the 911 call MacDonald placed that horrible night he said, "Some people have been stabbed..." Not exactly the way an innocent man should have described what just happened to his wife and two young daughters.

MacDonald's supporters consistently keep pointing the finger at Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell as being part of the gang of hippies that attacked and murdered the MacDonald family. But DNA testing on the scene confirmed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell were ever at the crime scene. MacDonald supporters need to come up with an explanation for this. They also need to explain how four people could enter a house on a rainy night, brutally (and if you've seen the crime scene photos you know how brutal these murders were) murder three people, and not leave behind any shred of physical evidence. They also need to explain that if the original plan by these "hippies" was to "rough up" MacDonald, why did they feel the need to search the house to find weapons? There was (according to MacDonald) at least three males present, would they really need weapons to rough him up? And after their attack on MacDonald, why did they feel the need to seek out others in the house (including two children under the age of ten) and slaughter them for no reason? Could a drug like acid actually make someone that violent? And if MacDonald was the target of this attack, why did they murder Colette and Kimmie first (if you believe MacDonald, his account of the night was awaking to the screams of his wife and one of his daughters)? Yet MacDonald (based of of his own account of what happened) was the third person attacked that night, but he's the only one who received superficial wounds? Supporters would need to explain why these killers would slaughter two people (one of which was a child, the other a young woman), then barely scratch the only male present who would presumeably pose the greatest threat for a struggle, to go on and slaughter another young child? It just doesn't make any sense. And if Stoeckely was desperately trying to set the record straight (she appeared on camera stating she was present when the MacDonald family was murdered), why did she never publically name any of the other attackers? Sounds more like someone attempting to thrust themselves into a notorious crime rather than clearing their conscience. There must also be an explanation as to why the assailants would even feel the need to use surgical gloves to write the word "PIG" on the headboard in Colette's blood. It's a known fact that the surgical gloves came from the MacDonald household. And if their true intent was to "rough up" MacDonald, I don't think they spent any time searching for surgical gloves to do so. My point is, after brutally murdering three people in cold blood, why did the deem it necessary to then search for surgical gloves and then use them to write the word "PIG"? It's such an unnecessary thing to do. There must also be an explanation as to how blood from MacDonald's daughter Kimmie got on his PJ top. According to MacDonald it was taken off of him in the midst of a struggle with the killers, so just how did blood from Kimmie get on it? For MacDonald's innocence to be established, there must be solid, logical explanations for all of these points/inconsistencies. And there are several more that I didn't bring up because I'm just going off of my memory on the case.

And I know it's an older post, but I feel the need to comment on this one:

Some things to consider.
1. This case involves a compromised crime scene.
2. This case involves politics from both sides.
3. Both scenarios have the same degree of logic.
4. We actually have suspects other than MacDonald. (unlike a lot of cases such as the OJ simpson case. Nobody has found the "real killers". But in this case we do have "the real killers".

1. This crime scene was also preserved for close to ten years after the murders, in case it was ever brought to trial. I also fail to see how a compromised crime scene would lead not one single trace of anyone being there other than the MacDonald family. Nothing indicating any assailants or any intruders.
2. As does every high profile murder case.
3. I think I've pointed out above how almost everything about the "MacDonald is innocent" argument is illogical.
4. These suspects were cleared based off of DNA evidence. Might I also add that MacDonald never made any real search for the "real killers" in the years after the murders. He moved away from North Carolina to California, living the life of a single, jet-setting playboy.

Might I also add that MacDonald never made any real search for the "real killers" in the years after the murders. He moved away from North Carolina to California, living the life of a single, jet-setting playboy.
..and,I think that was his goal.and he achieved it, for awhile.thank goodness justice was served.although I don't think the death penalty would have been inappropriate in this case.

Until someone can come up with a logical reason as to why MacDonald's hair was found in the clenched fist of his dead wife's hand, there is no reason to doubt his guilt. There is no reason as to why Colette would feel the need to rip MacDonald's hair out of his head if he was an innocent victim. And that's just one of the pieces of physical evidence connecting him to the crime, there are several other pieces that conclusively point to MacDonald as the murderer. And for those that ask how a father could possibly murder his wife and two young children, I'll ask a similar question. How is is possible for a man whose wife and two young children were brutally slaughtered by four people still on the loose, appear on a late night talk show, smugly joke with the host about watching said late night talk show on the night of his wife and children's murders, and then go on to criticize the CID for investigating him yet not appeal to anyone to help apprehend the "real killers"? MacDonald's a sociopath.

A few of his lies:
-He told Colette that he would be heading on a "special assignment" with the Green Beret's going to Russia. It turns out he told her this so he could spend more time with a mistress.
-He told Freddy Kasab (Colette's step-father) that he actually located one of the four hippies that murdered his family and he retaliated by murdering the hippie. By telling Kasab he killed one of the murderers, he was hoping Kasab would simply let it rest and not keep pushing for more information, in all probability exposing more of MacDonald's lies.
-He claims to have given Kristen mouth to mouth in an attempt to save her life. Yet the crime scene photos clearly show she is on her side, with her bottle close to her mouth. So why would MacDonald lie about this? Because he knew his footprint was found in Kristen's bedroom and he needed an "innocent" explanation as to why it would be in there. IMO, he was carrying her dead body into her bedroom, which is where the footprint came from.
-Not technically a lie per se, but on the 911 call MacDonald placed that horrible night he said, "Some people have been stabbed..." Not exactly the way an innocent man should have described what just happened to his wife and two young daughters.

MacDonald's supporters consistently keep pointing the finger at Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell as being part of the gang of hippies that attacked and murdered the MacDonald family. But DNA testing on the scene confirmed that neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell were ever at the crime scene. MacDonald supporters need to come up with an explanation for this. They also need to explain how four people could enter a house on a rainy night, brutally (and if you've seen the crime scene photos you know how brutal these murders were) murder three people, and not leave behind any shred of physical evidence. They also need to explain that if the original plan by these "hippies" was to "rough up" MacDonald, why did they feel the need to search the house to find weapons? There was (according to MacDonald) at least three males present, would they really need weapons to rough him up? And after their attack on MacDonald, why did they feel the need to seek out others in the house (including two children under the age of ten) and slaughter them for no reason? Could a drug like acid actually make someone that violent? And if MacDonald was the target of this attack, why did they murder Colette and Kimmie first (if you believe MacDonald, his account of the night was awaking to the screams of his wife and one of his daughters)? Yet MacDonald (based of of his own account of what happened) was the third person attacked that night, but he's the only one who received superficial wounds? Supporters would need to explain why these killers would slaughter two people (one of which was a child, the other a young woman), then barely scratch the only male present who would presumeably pose the greatest threat for a struggle, to go on and slaughter another young child? It just doesn't make any sense. And if Stoeckely was desperately trying to set the record straight (she appeared on camera stating she was present when the MacDonald family was murdered), why did she never publically name any of the other attackers? Sounds more like someone attempting to thrust themselves into a notorious crime rather than clearing their conscience. There must also be an explanation as to why the assailants would even feel the need to use surgical gloves to write the word "PIG" on the headboard in Colette's blood. It's a known fact that the surgical gloves came from the MacDonald household. And if their true intent was to "rough up" MacDonald, I don't think they spent any time searching for surgical gloves to do so. My point is, after brutally murdering three people in cold blood, why did the deem it necessary to then search for surgical gloves and then use them to write the word "PIG"? It's such an unnecessary thing to do. There must also be an explanation as to how blood from MacDonald's daughter Kimmie got on his PJ top. According to MacDonald it was taken off of him in the midst of a struggle with the killers, so just how did blood from Kimmie get on it? For MacDonald's innocence to be established, there must be solid, logical explanations for all of these points/inconsistencies. And there are several more that I didn't bring up because I'm just going off of my memory on the case.

And I know it's an older post, but I feel the need to comment on this one:



1. This crime scene was also preserved for close to ten years after the murders, in case it was ever brought to trial. I also fail to see how a compromised crime scene would lead not one single trace of anyone being there other than the MacDonald family. Nothing indicating any assailants or any intruders.
2. As does every high profile murder case.
3. I think I've pointed out above how almost everything about the "MacDonald is innocent" argument is illogical.
4. These suspects were cleared based off of DNA evidence. Might I also add that MacDonald never made any real search for the "real killers" in the years after the murders. He moved away from North Carolina to California, living the life of a single, jet-setting playboy.

Very good post. He is guilty-plain and simple.

Another thing I've always found odd was that only 2 out of the 4-7 "hippies" were ever named. Only Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were ever fingered as the murderers. The MacDonald supporters are quick to point out that both Stoeckley and Mitchell confessed to their involvement in the murders, yet they don't drop anymore names, and there haven't been any other "confessions" from anyone other than Stoeckley and Mitchell. Don't you think someone would have wanted to clear their conscience by now if they did in fact exist?

Always felt he was innocent.

If anyone is interested in this case - and this topic always is hopping - please read "Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinnis. It spells out all the evidence and is a great book. His in laws were initially very supportive him and were highly offended if anyone suggested Dr. McDonald was guilty. That soon changed in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

It is a great book - and just for the record I have no reason to promote it. It is just a really good read.

If anyone is interested in this case - and this topic always is hopping - please read "Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinnis. It spells out all the evidence and is a great book. His in laws were initially very supportive him and were highly offended if anyone suggested Dr. McDonald was guilty. That soon changed in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

It is a great book - and just for the record I have no reason to promote it. It is just a really good read.

Yes I recommend that book as well. It wasn't the book that convinced me of MacDonald's guilt, it was MacDonald's own words printed in the book that convinced me he was a murdering sociopath. He was more concerned with the publicity (and celebrity) he was attaining over finding the "real killers". He also packed up and moved to California, apparently forgetting that Colette, Kimmy, and Kristen even existed. Guilty as hell.

.

This to me is a vital detail in both scenarios being that Mac was not your average husband.




How very true. A cheating, lying, amphetemine abuser who neglected his wife and kids for his career.

Not your average husband at all. He's an ice pick baby killer.

I'm puzzled why so many people feel definitive about one side in this case. This case is one of the truly bizzare cases in history in that it's one of the rare cases where there is as much evidence on one side as there is on the other.

Some things to consider.
1. This case involves a compromised crime scene.
2. This case involves politics from both sides.
3. Both scenarios have the same degree of logic.
4. We actually have suspects other than MacDonald. (unlike a lot of cases such as the OJ simpson case. Nobody has found the "real killers". But in this case we do have "the real killers".

I personally think anyone who is steadfast on one theory is underestimating the above factors.

I think either scenario is plausible in this case.

The blood evidence isn't compromised. All you need is that blue bed sheet and MacDonald's pajama top. Even the defence expert at trial concurred with the blood evidence on the bedsheet.

We have suspects that MacDonald said were there, no evidence was ever found from any of them.

Helena's confessions are ridiculous and don't match with any of the phsyical evidence found.

Explain how the MPs walking around the crime scene put fibres from MacDonald's pj top under his children's blankets?

Not to mention that both Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were both cleared by DNA evidence conclusively proving that neither of them were present at the crime scene.

What really sealed the deal was Jeffrey, Collette, and their two kids all had different blood types and authorities could map out whose blood was whose throughout the crime scene.

The science was all there in support of his guilt.

The whole hippy angle kinda made me laugh. Most "stoned hippies" can't organize a trip to the toilet, let alone a murder.

No offense to stoner hippies intended!

What really sealed the deal was Jeffrey, Collette, and their two kids all had different blood types and authorities could map out whose blood was whose throughout the crime scene.

The science was all there in support of his guilt.

The whole hippy angle kinda made me laugh. Most "stoned hippies" can't organize a trip to the toilet, let alone a murder.

No offense to stoner hippies intended!

Yes, you can't argue with the science. It proves he killed his wife and babies.

LOL, I take no offence. I was one of those stoner hippies back in 1970 and we didn't go around killing babies that's for sure. And yes, you wouldn't have been able to organize anything whilst under the influence of LSD. And MacDonald claims these hippies were on five different drugs that night. He as a doctor knows they would have been comatose had they taken that many drugs, not out killing babies. Only someone on speed (like diet pills) would be that violent.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't an addict or anything..we experimented in the '60's.

Another thing I've always found odd was that only 2 out of the 4-7 "hippies" were ever named. Only Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were ever fingered as the murderers. The MacDonald supporters are quick to point out that both Stoeckley and Mitchell confessed to their involvement in the murders, yet they don't drop anymore names, and there haven't been any other "confessions" from anyone other than Stoeckley and Mitchell. Don't you think someone would have wanted to clear their conscience by now if they did in fact exist?

I don't think Mitchell even confessed to being in the MacDonald home. He had PTSD from his service in Viet Nam. I believe he was talking about his experiences in Viet Nam when he said he killed some people.

Well there was Cathy Perry, she was obviously mentally disturbed as she said she went upstairs and saw the "two boys" dead. There was no upstairs and as we know they were girls not boys.

However, MacDonald told Larry King a few years ago that one of the killers was living in Florida and that's where Cathy was.

I think he's another brad bishop and scott peterson: A seemingly "perfect" man who turns out to be a sociopath. He certainly is incredibly narcisistic.

Aside from all the evidence that has been discussed for many pages here, this is what always sticks in my mind: First, he lied many times, including telling his father in law that he found the people who did it and he killed them (an outright lie), and second of all, he, to this day, has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.

I don't know why this case bothers me. I think it's b/c this egomaniac has clearly succeeded (based on manipulation) in convincing many many people that he didn't do it. I don't like when a sociopathic killer gets his ego fed even more, and you know it just delights him to know that there are so many out there that think he has experienced an "injustice."

He actually took three private polygraphs and failed the first two. He says he passed the third one but he refuses to allow Backster to release the results...so that to me means he failed it.

The JM did it scenario requires him to intentionally injure himself to cause the lung injury. That alone is unique (though not impossible).
This has always been a problem with me in this case.

That and that the JM did it theory has Mac apparently after getting involved with a struggle with his wife..then still having enough rage to go up and slaughter the children.

That's the problem I have with this case...I can buy a drug induced bunch of sod

The fact that there was no preamble to this vicious rampage also disturbs me.

For the murder scenario to work this had to have be an unpremeditated crime of passion...yet the conflicts with some signs of forward planning.



Hippies? I thought a few of them were soldiers. Soldiers trained to kill people. Soldiers who when drug or drugged could be capable of enormous violence. I believe they even traced one of these guys.



She was also a police informant and may have been identified at the seen of the crime by the first responders.

[QUOTE]The JM did it scenario requires him to intentionally injure himself to cause the lung injury. That alone is unique (though not impossible).
This has always been a problem with me in this case.



You can't believe a doctor who had medications in the house and who witnessed the same surgery only days before, could slide a little scapel in there to partially collapse his lung? There have been many others who have also intentionally injured themselves trying to cover up their mad crimes. Charles Stewart for one. Jeesh all he had to do was numb the area and his B type blood found in the bathroom sink kinda looks as if that's where he got the injury..not in the living room fighting with intruders. Two tiny bottles were found in the bathroom sink trap.

That and that the JM did it theory has Mac apparently after getting involved with a struggle with his wife..then still having enough rage to go up and slaughter the children.


No it doesn't. That's not anyone's theory..well maybe yours. The theory is MacDonald accidentally killed Kimmy as he swung that club at Colette. Colette then attacks him and he put her down. Once he realized what had happened, what he just did, he had to kill the baby. She's the only death that was premeditated. His rage was centered on Colette and Kimmy. The baby she got pregnant with whilst they were in college so he had to marry her. He just lost all control. It happens..even in the best of families.

Hippies? I thought a few of them were soldiers. Soldiers trained to kill people. Soldiers who when drug or drugged could be capable of enormous violence. I believe they even traced one of these guys.


MacDonald said they were hippies, not soldiers. How could they trace a negative? No one was in that house that night that left any evidence of their presence.

Are you aware that everyone of those claims in Fatal Justice has been debunked?

The fact that there was no preamble to this vicious rampage also disturbs me.


I don't know what that means. Do you not believe that an argument with his wife could turn violent? He's exhausted from sleep deprivation, he's taking amphetemenes to stay awake at his moonlighting jobs, he's sleeping with other women, he's pissed at his change in duties. LOL, MacDonald likes to fool people that he was some kind of drug counsellor or heading some kind of needle exchange when he was basically in charge of latrine duty and keeping the guys in shape...not much more than that.

If he was a soldier, he wasn' t much of one. Couldn't beat his way out of an old pajama top.

She was also a police informant and may have been identified at the seen of the crime by the first responders.


LOL she was a snitch who ratted out her friends so she could please Beasley.

She was not identified at the scene of the crime. Only one solider allegedly saw the woman near the phone booth and he said she had nice legs. MacDonald says the woman was wearing boots. How could the soldier see nice legs if she was wearing boots?

The bottom line on Stoeckley is that under oath she denied being present at the MacDonald house on the night of the murders. And DNA evidence backed that claim up by conclusively proving that she was never in the home. She was a dope fiend are we supposed to take these alleged confessions at face value?

The bottom line on Stoeckley is that under oath she denied being present at the MacDonald house on the night of the murders. And DNA evidence backed that claim up by conclusively proving that she was never in the home. She was a dope fiend are we supposed to take these alleged confessions at face value?

I've wondered what MacDonald's candid feelings are on this. It must be a trip having people coming out of the woodwork admitting to a crime you know you yourself committed.

I've wondered what MacDonald's candid feelings are on this. It must be a trip having people coming out of the woodwork admitting to a crime you know you yourself committed.

He probably enjoys all the attention he's still getting over it. He seemed to enjoy all of the "marriage proposals" he was getting in jail over the years.

He probably enjoys all the attention he's still getting over it. He seemed to enjoy all of the "marriage proposals" he was getting in jail over the years.

I believe he got married while in prison! I few years ago his wife was on "Larry King."

"Lonely widower with lots of free time looking for that special someone...."

I think he is guilty. He got the idea of the hippies from the Manson murders.
He is a conniving and crafty psychopath who had good representation for awhile and who is a danger to society IMO.

I think he is guilty. He got the idea of the hippies from the Manson murders.
He is a conniving and crafty psychopath who had good representation for awhile and who is a danger to society IMO.

There is no question he got the "acid is groovy" murdering hippy idea from the Esquire magazine (featuring the article on the Manson murders). They found blood on the tips of the pages of the magazine. Unless in the midst of this attack, either one of the MacDonald family members or the hippies themselves felt it necessary to sit down and read Esquire, there is no other explanation for it other than MacDonald reading it after murdering his wife and kids.

Yes I recommend that book as well. It wasn't the book that convinced me of MacDonald's guilt, it was MacDonald's own words printed in the book that convinced me he was a murdering sociopath. He was more concerned with the publicity (and celebrity) he was attaining over finding the "real killers". He also packed up and moved to California, apparently forgetting that Colette, Kimmy, and Kristen even existed. Guilty as hell.


The Book is fiction. McGinniss liberally cut and spliced MacDonald quotes to make him seem like a narcissistic sociopath. He also misquotes medical journals for his own agenda. The amphetamine theory is junk science and PURE speculation on McGinniss' part. And this is just the beginning.

MacDonald is not the most likeable guy, but he is NOT a murderer. Please read Fatal Justice by Potter and Bost. I also recommend The Journalist and the Murderer (detailing MacDonald's lawsuit against McGinniss).

Well, apparently, a new evidentiary hearing is set for MacDonald again, which I believe has been postponed until next April. It's pretty obvious that this case will NEVER die until MacDonald does.
http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2011/oct/15/ina-hughs-jeffrey-macdonald-case-resurfaces-with/

While I certainly do agree with that there is a lot of damning evidence against MacDonald and that the DNA match to his hair in Collette's clenched fist cannot be easily explained by supporters, BUT... I am still a bit bothered by the fact that Kimberley had a piece of hair under her fingernail that was not a DNA match for anyone in the MacDonald family. Where exactly did this hair come from if there weren't any intruders?

Of course, I wouldn't say this piece of evidence exonerates MacDonald since I've always wondered if he could have had someone else in the house who helped him murder his family.

The Book is fiction. McGinniss liberally cut and spliced MacDonald quotes to make him seem like a narcissistic sociopath. He also misquotes medical journals for his own agenda. The amphetamine theory is junk science and PURE speculation on McGinniss' part. And this is just the beginning.

MacDonald is not the most likeable guy, but he is NOT a murderer. Please read Fatal Justice by Potter and Bost. I also recommend The Journalist and the Murderer (detailing MacDonald's lawsuit against McGinniss).


The book is NOT fiction, the only part that McGinniss retracted later was his "diet pill" theory. In essence, McGinniss theorized (and flat out said it was his and his alone's theory in the book) that MacDonald killed his family due to exhaustion from working all the time and being high from the diet pills he was consuming at the time. MacDonald KNEW and read the manuscript BEFORE the book was published, so he knew which direction McGinniss was going in. Even MacDonald himself has never disputed the quotes used in the book, and McGinniss gave him a "Voice" in just about every other chapter. You make it seem like just because McGinniss was wrong about the "diet pill" theory, MacDonald must be innocent. McGinniss didn't need to slant anything to prove MacDonald's guilt, MacDonald himself did plenty of that on his own. Like the Dick Cavett appearance. This was well before McGinniss was in the picture. Even Cavett himself couldn't believe his demeanor on the show. The TV show appearance was supposed to be the perfect time for MacDonald to thrust the case into the limelight and appeal for the government to reopen the investigation into finding the "real" killers, yet he did none of that on the show. He joked about watching Johnny Carson and whined about the CID investigation. Oh, and he also lied about the amount and the severity of his wounds. All of these things are something an innocent man, who's wife and two young children were brutally slaughtered by a group of drug ingesting hippies, would have NEVER done.

The book is NOT fiction, the only part that McGinniss retracted later was his "diet pill" theory. In essence, McGinniss theorized (and flat out said it was his and his alone's theory in the book) that MacDonald killed his family due to exhaustion from working all the time and being high from the diet pills he was consuming at the time. MacDonald KNEW and read the manuscript BEFORE the book was published, so he knew which direction McGinniss was going in. Even MacDonald himself has never disputed the quotes used in the book, and McGinniss gave him a "Voice" in just about every other chapter. You make it seem like just because McGinniss was wrong about the "diet pill" theory, MacDonald must be innocent. McGinniss didn't need to slant anything to prove MacDonald's guilt, MacDonald himself did plenty of that on his own. Like the Dick Cavett appearance. This was well before McGinniss was in the picture. Even Cavett himself couldn't believe his demeanor on the show. The TV show appearance was supposed to be the perfect time for MacDonald to thrust the case into the limelight and appeal for the government to reopen the investigation into finding the "real" killers, yet he did none of that on the show. He joked about watching Johnny Carson and whined about the CID investigation. Oh, and he also lied about the amount and the severity of his wounds. All of these things are something an innocent man, who's wife and two young children were brutally slaughtered by a group of drug ingesting hippies, would have NEVER done.

McGinniss' flawed diet pill story has NOTHING to do with me believing MacDonald is innocent. To the contrary, the ONLY time I have ever believed that MacDonald may be guilty was immediately after I read Fatal Vision. I just read Fatal Vision , The Journalist and the Murderer, and Fatal Justice back-to back-to back.

McGinniss' story is based on the government evidence which was completely flawed (nearly every part of the crime scene was compromised. ). A bloody syringe, a piece of skin (clearly identified NOT to be MacDonald's, a piece of hair found in Collette's hand (found NOT to be MacDonald's, numerous gloves, etc were all "lost" by the CID. MacDonald's wallet was filched from the crime scene by an ambulance driver (nothing to do with MacDonald's innocence...just an interesting side note). MacDonald had to be put back on the gurney because he jumped off to get into his daughter's bedroom (which is why there was a footprint in the hallway). MacDonald was still wearing his pajama pants (which were torn from knee to knee) when he tended to Collette (which is why pj fibers were found). Collette's body was moved by MP's. t least two people sat on the sofa and MP's cleaned the weapons prior to them being examined. The weapons found in the yard were moved at least once by MP's prior to being photographed. Judge Dupree was the father-in-law of one of the prosecutors (a highly unethical practice). Stombaugh's blood stain and ice pick theories were all ripped apart based on physical evidence. There is no actual record of MacDonald failing any polygraph. He stated he left the polygraph because the examiner began asking questions concerning bestiality and incest. MacDonald passed another polygraph later . This was corroborated by a third party that looked at the results (which were provided with no name attached). And there is much, much more. Please read Fatal Justice.

Finally, MacDonald was told by McGinniss that McGinniss believed MacDonald to be innocent right up until publication. MacDonald did not read any final transcript of the book. When MacDonald was interviewed by Mike Wallace immediately after Fatal Vision's release, he had NO idea that the book portrayed him in that light. Finally, for his own purpose, McGinniss removed mention of MacDonald's grief for his family when discussing his vacation to Tahiti. This is discuused in detail in Fatal Justice. fatal Vision is a very intriguing read an dis very convincing of MacDonald's guilt...until you look at other evidence. I have no doubt that MacDonald was railroaded.

Well, apparently, a new evidentiary hearing is set for MacDonald again, which I believe has been postponed until next April. It's pretty obvious that this case will NEVER die until MacDonald does.
http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2011/oct/15/ina-hughs-jeffrey-macdonald-case-resurfaces-with/

While I certainly do agree with that there is a lot of damning evidence against MacDonald and that the DNA match to his hair in Collette's clenched fist cannot be easily explained by supporters, BUT... I am still a bit bothered by the fact that Kimberley had a piece of hair under her fingernail that was not a DNA match for anyone in the MacDonald family. Where exactly did this hair come from if there weren't any intruders?

Of course, I wouldn't say this piece of evidence exonerates MacDonald since I've always wondered if he could have had someone else in the house who helped him murder his family.

There was an additional hair found in collette's hand that was NOT a match to anyone in the house. It was lost by the CID.

It seems obvious that this is the most polarizing case ever featured on UM. Because I believe we will always argue, I am not discussing this case with anyone that has not read Fatal Justice.

This case was/has been bungled so bad in so many ways that we will never know the truth.

The problem is that MacDonald's story, on it's face, makes little sense. The evidence, however, is very contradictory about what happened. The way the crime scene was handled and the evidence it contained, was a joke -- it was very compromised. MacDonald's behavior before and after the fact certainly doesn't help his case in the court of public opinion.

I have read Fatal Vision, Fatal Justice, and a whole lot else about this case. I still don't know who I think did it.

I do think that this crime scene was bungled and I don't think he got a fair trial many years ago. Had the evidence been done properly who knows what might have happened. But I still think his story is very weak so I'm not sure of where I come down. Maybe it is somewhere in the middle, like he didn't do it but knows more about it or even had arranged for it to happen. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

This many years later though, I don't know anything that would solve this 100%. I honestly think the only way to have that happen would be for Jeffrey MacDonald to confess, and we know that won't happen. If he wasn't the killer, there will be no way to figure out who was this many years later when many of the principles are no longer alive.

McGinniss' story is based on the government evidence which was completely flawed (nearly every part of the crime scene was compromised. ). A bloody syringe, a piece of skin (clearly identified NOT to be MacDonald's, a piece of hair found in Collette's hand (found NOT to be MacDonald's, numerous gloves, etc were all "lost" by the CID.

The hair found in Colette's hand was retested and proven to have came from the head of Jeffrey MacDonald. There is no explanation (if he's truely innocent) for Colette to have ripped MacDonald's hair from his head that night.

MacDonald had to be put back on the gurney because he jumped off to get into his daughter's bedroom (which is why there was a footprint in the hallway).

MacDonald nor his defense attorneys NEVER once testified to this being the reason that his bloody footprint was found in his daughter's bedroom. Not to mention that everyone from the army who arrived at the scene made absolutely no mention of MacDonald jumping off the gurney to go back into his daughter's room. In fact, they testified to the contrary. First, they said he kept telling the MPs to "check his kids", and made no effort to get up and check himself. And they also said MacDonald was taken out of the house in a calm, sedated like state, with the blanket pulled up to his neck.

MacDonald was still wearing his pajama pants (which were torn from knee to knee) when he tended to Collette (which is why pj fibers were found).

Why were his blue pajama fibers found under the headboard of their bed where the word, "PIG" was written?

Collette's body was moved by MP's. t least two people sat on the sofa and MP's cleaned the weapons prior to them being examined. The weapons found in the yard were moved at least once by MP's prior to being photographed.

Ok, so the crime scene was compromised/bungled. Who cares? That does not necessitate MacDonald's innocence. You do realize that the first people to arrive were inexperienced MPS who probably never even saw a dead body let alone a woman and her two young children in that condition (not to mention the brutality of it all). Not everyone was prepared for what they saw that day. These weren't trained forensic experts or anything. I think the crime scene paints a perfect picture of what happened that night, since every member of the MacDonald family had a different blood type. MacDonald supporters (like yourself) have to come up with an explanation as to why MacDonald's blood is only found in the bathroom and nowhere near where he claims to have struggled with the "assailants".

Judge Dupree was the father-in-law of one of the prosecutors (a highly unethical practice). Stombaugh's blood stain and ice pick theories were all ripped apart based on physical evidence.

MacDonald's own statement that his PJ top was bunched up around his arms and wrists as the assailants were stabbing him being the reason for the holes in his PJ top was proven to be false by the prosecution. In a darkened room, high on acid, in the middle of assaulting someone struggling for their life, what human being is going to be that precise in stabbing at a fabric over 20 times without nicking or stabbing MacDonald in the arm? There were no wounds to his arms whatsoever. The prosecution recreated this before the jury and after about 3 swipes, Brian Murtagh was cut on his arm.

There is no actual record of MacDonald failing any polygraph. He stated he left the polygraph because the examiner began asking questions concerning bestiality and incest.

MacDonald was hesitant about taking one when asked by the CID, and he continually kept asking them how accurate they were. He eventually caved and said he would submit to one, but called ten minutes later after leaving the CID offices saying he no longer wanted to take one.

When MacDonald was interviewed by Mike Wallace immediately after Fatal Vision's release, he had NO idea that the book portrayed him in that light. Finally, for his own purpose, McGinniss removed mention of MacDonald's grief for his family when discussing his vacation to Tahiti. This is discuused in detail in Fatal Justice.

If MacDonald is willing to lie about killing his wife and children, why wouldn't he lie to a reporter that he had no idea that the book portrayed him negatively?

Here's a better portait of MacDonald, and the lies he's told over the years:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

EDIT: Went back and double checked about the bloody footprint found in Kristen's room. The foot print was made when MacDonald was exiting the room. Unless he did a backflip off of the gurney, I don't believe this story ever happened. More than likely it was concocted by a supporter (or someone hired by MacDonald) as a way to explain why his footprint would have been in the room and be innocent.

Wow TheCars1986 - that is one awesome list of evidence for dear old Dr. McDonald.

He is just a psycho through and through. Joe McGinness went into that whole process wanting to find him innocent. I mean, at the time he probably thought - ""Geez this poor guy's pregnant wife and two little kids were brutally murdered.....he seems likeable....." and ends up convinced of his guilt.

I love the defense continually dragged Helena Stokely out as a "witness." You have all this science and blood evidence and you want us all to believe an addicted drug addict?

McDonald's own worst enemy in this whole thing has been himself. Going on Dick Cavett and making jokes was not cool. His ego keeps getting in the way and his mouth keeps yammering on and on!

Mac did get off the gurnbey (in Fatal Justice). Murtaugh's re-enactment was inaccurate in that Murtaugh was waving his arms back and forth. Mac always said he was pushing forward with the pajama top (also in fatal Justice). Collette's body was moved by the MP's and was covered (in Fatal Justice). This is why pj fibers were found all over the crime scene. Finally by all accounts the defense was not given all the evidence prior to trial in 1979 (detailed greatly in Fatal Justice and discussed in many other venues. Even Blackburn would not deny that. He just said "no comment" when asked about this. Greg Mitchell was cleared by the CID (who blew the whole investigation and handled almost everything poorly). Greg Mitchell confessed to at least 3 people that he was involved later in life. A late night phone call to the Mac house ended the brutality (which is why MacDonald was not finished off. Stoeckeley and others said they believed him to be dead when they left. Mac's injuries were far more severe than ever revealed by the prosecution or his in-laws (I feel terrible for Freddie and Mildred Kassab, but their inability to move on was a little unsettling. You never get over losing a child but you have to move on. their lack of understanding of MacDonald continuing his life was a fault they had. MacDonald grieved as much as they did. This is detailed in Fatal Justice as well).

We live in the greatest country on Earth and we are free to disagree. I respectfully disagree with you and base my opinion on all that I have read. As I stated before, I will not discuss this case any further unless somebody who has read Fatal Justice also cares to discuss it. We will probably always disagree on this issue. Thankfully, we are entitled to our opinions. In the grand scheme, our opinions mean nothing. Cheers.

Mac did get off the gurnbey (in Fatal Justice). Murtaugh's re-enactment was inaccurate in that Murtaugh was waving his arms back and forth. Mac always said he was pushing forward with the pajama top (also in fatal Justice). Collette's body was moved by the MP's and was covered (in Fatal Justice). This is why pj fibers were found all over the crime scene. Finally by all accounts the defense was not given all the evidence prior to trial in 1979 (detailed greatly in Fatal Justice and discussed in many other venues. Even Blackburn would not deny that. He just said "no comment" when asked about this. Greg Mitchell was cleared by the CID (who blew the whole investigation and handled almost everything poorly). Greg Mitchell confessed to at least 3 people that he was involved later in life. A late night phone call to the Mac house ended the brutality (which is why MacDonald was not finished off. Stoeckeley and others said they believed him to be dead when they left. Mac's injuries were far more severe than ever revealed by the prosecution or his in-laws (I feel terrible for Freddie and Mildred Kassab, but their inability to move on was a little unsettling. You never get over losing a child but you have to move on. their lack of understanding of MacDonald continuing his life was a fault they had. MacDonald grieved as much as they did. This is detailed in Fatal Justice as well).

We live in the greatest country on Earth and we are free to disagree. I respectfully disagree with you and base my opinion on all that I have read. As I stated before, I will not discuss this case any further unless somebody who has read Fatal Justice also cares to discuss it. We will probably always disagree on this issue. Thankfully, we are entitled to our opinions. In the grand scheme, our opinions mean nothing. Cheers.

But you're using information from a pro-MacDonald book. "Fatal Justice", as far as I know, is the only piece of literature to come out in support of MacDonald over the years. If he were "railroaded" by the courts, the CID, and everyone else that MacDonald has blamed, why hasn't there been another person that's came out wanting to "expose" the "true" facts in this case? And the point about MacDonald being spared because of the phone call is contradicted by Helena's alleged statement that they thought he was already dead. His injuries were not severe. The emergency room doctor who attended to him that night said that on the night he was brought in, when he (the doctor) came to check on MacDonald and introduce himself he was sitting upright and needed no immediate attention.

I have no desire to read "Fatal Justice". I know what "evidence" MacDonald supporters use. I also know that a couple of years ago (after "Fatal Justice" was released) DNA tests conclusively proved that Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell had never been in the MacDonald residence. I just don't see how there's any more room for debate. The crux of MacDonald's case is blaming the murders on Mitchell and Stoeckley, and not only did they both (under oath) denied being there that night, DNA evidence also helped prove they weren't there.

Wow TheCars1986 - that is one awesome list of evidence for dear old Dr. McDonald.

He is just a psycho through and through. Joe McGinness went into that whole process wanting to find him innocent. I mean, at the time he probably thought - ""Geez this poor guy's pregnant wife and two little kids were brutally murdered.....he seems likeable....." and ends up convinced of his guilt.

I love the defense continually dragged Helena Stokely out as a "witness." You have all this science and blood evidence and you want us all to believe an addicted drug addict?

McDonald's own worst enemy in this whole thing has been himself. Going on Dick Cavett and making jokes was not cool. His ego keeps getting in the way and his mouth keeps yammering on and on!


Yeah most of it's Macdonalds Fairy Tale as he wishes it to be. He can't shut up has to tell everyone the injustices done to him. You know all those old cliches loose links sink ships, etc. He's too blame. He's the killer, it just oculdn't be anyone else.

He was completely out of thise thing until he went on Divk Cavette and called Army a bunch of names.

Remember him smiling like a chesire cat on Dick Cavette.

Ice pick baby killer.

Yeah most of it's Macdonalds Fairy Tale as he wishes it to be. He can't shut up has to tell everyone the injustices done to him. You know all those old cliches loose links sink ships, etc. He's too blame. He's the killer, it just oculdn't be anyone else.

He was completely out of thise thing until he went on Divk Cavette and called Army a bunch of names.

Remember him smiling like a chesire cat on Dick Cavette.

Ice pick baby killer.

I am a firm "just the evidence" please kinda person. I don't (normally) judge people on their actions when they are accused of a crime. But going on the Dick Cavett show and talking about it is telling to me. Why in the WORLD would you want to talk about the most horrific day of your life? Again and again? Oh that is right......attention and sympathy!

I am a firm "just the evidence" please kinda person. I don't (normally) judge people on their actions when they are accused of a crime. But going on the Dick Cavett show and talking about it is telling to me. Why in the WORLD would you want to talk about the most horrific day of your life? Again and again? Oh that is right......attention and sympathy!

I could see if it was a heartfelt plea to find the real killers. But MacDonald never did this. The entire interview was about the injustice done to him by the CID. Almost like, "How dare they investigate me?" And to be smiling about it (the only emotion he showed in the interview) is a huge indicator of his guilt, IMO.

I lean towards guilt since I've always felt that his alternative explaination of events feels far too fantastical and elaborate. The more cases I study, the more I look for patterns and statistical probability, so I don't really buy his tale. Then again, I'm a pretty strong proponent of occum's razor and think that MacDonald's psychology plus his defense is just too much for me to swallow.

Now, whether or not he got a fair trial is a completely different tale given what you see on UM, which begs the question of how in the world he never got a retrial if the defense's discovery was so limited and so much was omitted etc. The two weeks of discovery just seems like cause for a mistrial. I haven't read too much on this case, and am curious what these other books are that have been spoken about here.....

yes I think he's guilty.and the so-called phone calls are only recent additions;as time passes more lies get thrown into the mix.the only phone call mentioned in JM's statement is the one where he called for help.and in all the yrs I've heard about the case (since 1984 when the movie came out),I don't recall hearing of any other phone calls.when jeff was asked why he didn't call the neighbors for help,he said he didn't know them well enough (even tho it was an emergency and they'd been over for t-giving dinner just 3 mo. earlier).
His voice always cracks when he comes to talking about the youngest child...I recall an expert saying it's bc he was angry when he killed Kimberly and Colette,but Kristen was killed in cold blood,even sitting on his lap at the time (based on wounds and blood evidence).

I personally think he's innocent, but I can understand why one would consider him guilty.

I personally think he's innocent, but I can understand why one would consider him guilty.
Dude, have I told you before how much I love your avatar?

Dude, have I told you before how much I love your avatar?
Don't believe, you have, but thank you kind sir. :talk:

Don't believe, you have, but thank you kind sir. :talk:

Is it from the Kurt Sova segment?

Is it from the Kurt Sova segment?
Yeah. Lulzy scene.
"You're gonna find him dead in 2 days."

At the end of the episode I was kind of leaning towards him being innocent. Then came the magic words... "I know I am innocent". On some other episodes there are some people who I feel are clearly guilty with this same quote. The reason I pick up on this is from another show I watch a lot called The First 48. In the show you get to see a lot of the interviews with the guilty party. Almost every time this line is said the party is guilty. If someone is innocent they say "I am innocent" or something along these lines usually. When you say "I know I am" you are trying to prove a lie usually. Just my two cents.

I personally think MacDonald has been spewing the same lies for over thirty years so much that he probably does believe everything he says to be the truth.

I personally think MacDonald has been spewing the same lies for over thirty years so much that he probably does believe everything he says to be the truth.

^ This sums up my sentiments nicely.

I personally think MacDonald has been spewing the same lies for over thirty years so much that he probably does believe everything he says to be the truth.
mmmhmm. Absolutely disgusting.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/08/justice/errol-morris-book/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Looks like we're in for a rehash of Final Appeal. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/08/justice/errol-morris-book/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Looks like we're in for a rehash of Final Appeal. :D

Errol Morris?! Well, color me surprised. This man made a documentary, "The Thin Blue Line", which helped get an innocent man off death row, but I wouldn't have expected him to be so supportive of MacDonald.

I don't know, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest MacDonald is guilty, there will always be things about this case that nag at me and prevent me from being 100 % sure, so I am still interested to hear Morris' take on things.

Errol Morris?! Well, color me surprised. This man made a documentary, "The Thin Blue Line", which helped get an innocent man off death row, but I wouldn't have expected him to be so supportive of MacDonald.

I don't know, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest MacDonald is guilty, there will always be things about this case that nag at me and prevent me from being 100 % sure, so I am still interested to hear Morris' take on things.

Me too. I have always been somewhat torn about the case and I'm looking forward to a fresh look at the case - without the mysterious/spooky angle UM put on it.

Guilty. Two small children and a pregnant woman get brutally hacked up but the six-foot tall marine who posed the most threat to the intruder gets off with a little hole in his chest? I'm not buying it.

Guilty. Two small children and a pregnant woman get brutally hacked up but the six-foot tall marine who posed the most threat to the intruder gets off with a little hole in his chest? I'm not buying it.

This was the first thing that set off red flares in the minds of the army investigators...his story simply makes no sense whatsoever. There was never a reason given as to why four to five "hippies" would randomly enter a house and attack a family of four and brutally slaughter the three female members but simply stab the man one time and leave without making sure he was dead?

Yeah, it made me think of the Diane Downs case in which Diane expected us to buy a carjacker shooting three small kids dead center in the chest, but letting the adult who had the keys off with a hole in her arm.

This was the first thing that set off red flares in the minds of the army investigators...his story simply makes no sense whatsoever. There was never a reason given as to why four to five "hippies" would randomly enter a house and attack a family of four and brutally slaughter the three female members but simply stab the man one time and leave without making sure he was dead?
They also attacked them with items from the house, then left the murder weapons at the scene. And left no other evidence that they were there at all.

They also attacked them with items from the house, then left the murder weapons at the scene. And left no other evidence that they were there at all.

The big kicker was bloody fingerprints were found on the pages of a Time Magazine that was in their house which had an article about the Manson slayings. MacDonald got the idea of the intruders from this which is also why he wrote "PIG" on the headboard, IMO. I'm amazed that people still think there's a possibility he's innocent despite the fact that these "intruders" left no trace of ANY evidence behind at the scene.

The big kicker was bloody fingerprints were found on the pages of a Time Magazine that was in their house which had an article about the Manson slayings. MacDonald got the idea of the intruders from this which is also why he wrote "PIG" on the headboard, IMO. I'm amazed that people still think there's a possibility he's innocent despite the fact that these "intruders" left no trace of ANY evidence behind at the scene.

The MacDonald defense typically follows up with the fact that there were many unidentified fibers and hair (to include one strand found in Colette's hand that was never traced to anyone in the household) and some wax drippings. It is also often highlighted that the MPs and CID failed to cordon the scene properly.

I don't at all doubt there were many unidentified hair and fibers in the home. The only individuals that were ever compared against this hair and fiber, however, were the MacDonalds and what they were wearing that night. No visitors, visiting family, or even previous tenants were accounted for, nor any of the investigatory party members. Wax drippings may also have been quite present for any number of reasons--to include the possibility that it was an afterthought attempt to stage the scene. People were in and out of that living unit for YEARS after the fact.

Which is extremely unfair to MacDonald, even if he is guilty (and I think he is). It is literally impossible to glean anything from that crime scene that clearly supports any definite conclusion about the crime itself. I feel CPT MacDonald's injuries, his family's wounds, and his account of events do far more to cast doubt on him than most aspects of the scene itself.

I feel CPT MacDonald's injuries, his family's wounds, and his account of events do far more to cast doubt on him than most aspects of the scene itself.

I agree 100%. I also seem to remember the prosecution saying the MacDonald household had several candles which could have accounted for the wax found on the floor. The unidentified hair and fibers could have easily came from one of the several guests they had over their house. They were known to entertain guests and have people over for dinner, holidays, etc.

This was the first thing that set off red flares in the minds of the army investigators...his story simply makes no sense whatsoever. There was never a reason given as to why four to five "hippies" would randomly enter a house and attack a family of four and brutally slaughter the three female members but simply stab the man one time and leave without making sure he was dead?


there actually was a reason given, and thats why ive always leaned towards the intruder theory. Ive read extensively on what life was like in america near the end of the 60's, early 70's time period. Things has deteriorated from the Flower power, peace and love stuff, and as a result of all the chaos and whatnot, things in Berkeley and even Fayatteville at that time were insane. Supposedly it was like the wild west, high and drunk and out of their mind soldiers returning home from vietnam would congregate there. there was a major drug problem, read some of the stories about helena stokeley and her crew, they painted every thing in their house blue, even the refrigerator, and would hold ceremonies and writhe around in cats blood.

Macdonald was obviously a military figure, at a time when anything symbolizing the military was a major contentious issue, especially among young people who were coming back home. The nation was aflame in antiwar sentiment, and fayatteville was one of them. Macdonald was one who many folks felt was turning in suspected drug users. Its disturbing and interesting to read how things had changed by 1970, in terms of tactics and beliefs of hippies and radicals obviously because of escalating violence in vietnam and elsewhere and because of drugs and everything else. Macdonald doesnt seem like the type who'd go out and support either drug users nor would he be supportive of the politics helena and other hippies of the era believed in and supported. This was a military town, at a time of extreme upheaval and a time of crisis and chaos.

The crime, as in the theory Macdonald did it, wasnt or isnt proposed to be premeditated. it was spur of the moment. Ive always found it more than a little shocking, if macdonald was guilty, why he wouldnt make up just a general nondescript suspect description. He'd have had to, as its not like he had much time between the murder and when he had to name what the hippies looked like. Whats always intrigued me is that he was able to identify and describe suspects who turned out to be actual real people, hippies living in Fayatteville who actually admitted they had major beef with Macdonald. Not only that, but the woman with the floppy hat was seen near the macdonald house at 2am by arriving MP. Thats one hell of a coincidence. The woman he names as a suspect coincidentally appears on the sidewalk near his house the night of the murder? Not only that, but the others Macdonald named were her friends. Not only that, the suspects he named, turned out to have major problems, and were bizaare people to say the least.

So for macdonald to have done this, to be guilty, he'd have had to do one of two things. One, somehow run into Stokely and her whole crew prior to the murder and then while he's killing his family somehow remember all these details about them. I highly doubt he'd encounter helena in his office with a floppy hat and a wig and a candle. Nor do I think he'd ever run into them all 4 at the same time, its not like he'd see helena, greg, and the others together at his office, he'd see them as all doctors see all their patients, seperate and alone, one by one. Or he killed his family and looked out his window and thought, hey i will blame the murders on these people. Both scenarios seem highly unlikely.

According to Helena Stoeckley, she would sometimes wear the floppy hat and the wig for fun when she was high. She also admitted to wandering around Fort Bragg in the wee hours of the morning high on drugs. I think MacDonald saw her and her cronies either that night or another night and used the general description of them to try and pin the murders on a group of drugged up hippies. Since there was rampant drug use going on at the base, MacDonald probably figured his story would be believed (and it was for a time) at face value and he'd get off scot-free. The CID actually did question Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, and several other drug users at Fort Bragg based off of their resemblance to the sketches. I think the fact that they just so happened to be on drugs the night of the slayings and also since Stoeckely repeatedly said she couldn't remember what she did that night made MacDonald's story look somewhat believable. Unfortunately, the overkill he inflicted on his wife and children made his story look that much more unbelievable.

According to Helena Stoeckley, she would sometimes wear the floppy hat and the wig for fun when she was high. She also admitted to wandering around Fort Bragg in the wee hours of the morning high on drugs. I think MacDonald saw her and her cronies either that night or another night and used the general description of them to try and pin the murders on a group of drugged up hippies. Since there was rampant drug use going on at the base, MacDonald probably figured his story would be believed (and it was for a time) at face value and he'd get off scot-free. The CID actually did question Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, and several other drug users at Fort Bragg based off of their resemblance to the sketches. I think the fact that they just so happened to be on drugs the night of the slayings and also since Stoeckely repeatedly said she couldn't remember what she did that night made MacDonald's story look somewhat believable. Unfortunately, the overkill he inflicted on his wife and children made his story look that much more unbelievable.


I just dont buy it. Seems too tidy of an explanation. He happened to see Helena and her friends that night or the night before and remembered them, and then coincidentally the people he named as suspects actually have serious issues and have major grudges against Macdonald. How many people lived in Fayatteville in that year? He could have picked out anyone as being the killers, yet he correctly picked people who had major mental health issues and werent sure where they were that night? Say he did do it, killed his wife and kids, he for whatever reason looks out his window at 2am, happens to see Helena and her friends, and in the dark is able to tell their race, and their clothes and a description of them, is able to tell Helena is wearing a wig, and has a floppy hat. How close were they to his house? They'd have to be pretty darn close for him to get that good a description. Its too much of a coincidence. As a doctor and someone in the military he must have seen an insane number of people daily. It seems preposterous to me he'd remember Helena and her friends in such great detail if he had seen them the night before (why would he even remember any of their descriptions, if he did it, im sure, if he did see Helena the night before, dont you think he'd have seen a gazillion other folks who could have been pinned for the murder as well), and if he kills his wife and kids and wonders what do do next, who to blame, the last thing I would think he would be doing, would be opening up a window or door and trying to see who was out there. That assumes several things, one, helena and her crew HAPPENED to be outside near his house at the time of the murders, and two, that he'd be able to be quick thinking enough to gather completely on point descriptions of each person, in the dark. I would assume his wife and kids were in hysterics and screaming, how did he know looking out the window wouldnt attract attention or that Helena and her friends werent MP?

Despite what I said earlier, there were plenty of hippies at that time, who were nonviolent, and would never dream of doing anything like murdering his wife and kids. Who did drugs but werent out at 2am that night, who actually could remember where they were that night, and who had no grudge against mcdonald. Seems like the best luck in the world, as far as macdonald is concerned, that he happened to pin the blame on individuals who seemed violent and "out there", and also had no idea where they were that night.

Found this interesting review of "A Wilderness of Error", the new book by Errol Morris about the MacDonald case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/books/a-wilderness-of-error-by-errol-morris-on-the-macdonald-trial.html?pagewanted=all

The reviewer says that after reading this book "you'll be 85 percent certain that MacDonald's innocent and 100 percent certain he did not get a fair trail". I don't know, considering that so many books have already been published and there's so much information about the case out there, I really wonder if Morris will be able to reveal anything new in order to change anybody's mind. I read that he tried to get a documentary about the MacDonald case made, but couldn't get funding because studio executives were sure he was guilty.

That said, I have a lot of respect for Errol Morris and enjoy his documentaries so I'd like to think he's not just writing this book as some cheap cash grab. Will definitely read it at some point.

I just dont buy it. Seems too tidy of an explanation. He happened to see Helena and her friends that night or the night before and remembered them, and then coincidentally the people he named as suspects actually have serious issues and have major grudges against Macdonald. How many people lived in Fayatteville in that year? He could have picked out anyone as being the killers, yet he correctly picked people who had major mental health issues and werent sure where they were that night?

Jeffrey MacDonald moonlighted at Cape Fear Valley Hosptial in Fayetteville in addition to his military job at Womack Army Medical Center (which is now "Old" Womack on base). It is likely he was exposed to at least Greg Mitchell (and therefore probably Helena Stoeckley) beforehand in his capacity as a doctor and Greg Mitchell in his as a habitual drug user. Helena and her crowd were all over Ft Bragg in the years leading up to the murders. It's not entirely implausible that MacDonald would be able to at least select them out of a crowd, or be aware that they were all habitual drug users. As you stated, the climate was ripe for blaming things on "hippies"--drug-using hippies at that. It has been claimed by his associates and co-workers that MacDonald suffered no fools when it came to drug addicts, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that, given MacDonald was aware of Stoeckley's gang and their activities, he'd find them convenient objects of blame. After all, he already had a pre-made story with the Manson murders. All he needed were characters.

Say he did do it, killed his wife and kids, he for whatever reason looks out his window at 2am, happens to see Helena and her friends, and in the dark is able to tell their race, and their clothes and a description of them, is able to tell Helena is wearing a wig, and has a floppy hat. How close were they to his house? They'd have to be pretty darn close for him to get that good a description. Its too much of a coincidence.

There is nothing to suggest MacDonald couldn't have seen this group of people earlier in the evening. I think their being near the home was merely a happy accident for MacDonald. He'd planned to blame it on them long before the actual murders.

I would assume his wife and kids were in hysterics and screaming

Likely Colette. Sadly, it doesn't seem any of the little ones ever got a chance to scream.

Seems like the best luck in the world, as far as macdonald is concerned, that he happened to pin the blame on individuals who seemed violent and "out there", and also had no idea where they were that night.

I'm sure he thought so, too. Who's more credible in the general public's eyes--an SF doctor, or a group of druggies who can't remember last week? They were all probably so addled that night they couldn't even fry an egg let alone commit a violent murder.

The reviewer says that after reading this book "you'll be 85 percent certain that MacDonald's innocent and 100 percent certain he did not get a fair trail".

I am 100% certain he did not get a fair trial. I am 98% certain he is anything but innocent.

I am 100% certain he did not get a fair trial. I am 98% certain he is anything but innocent.

I believe he got a fair trial. The guy was free for ten years for crimes he committed, and actually got off for a brief period on a technicality. The guy was lucky as far as I'm concerned to have been free as long as he was.

This is another reason to doubt MacDonald's story. After the army cleared him as a suspect what does he do? Leaves North Carolina and moves to California and lives the life of a jet-setting playboy. He admitted that he wanted to put things behind him. Never once was there ever any appeal by MacDonald to find the real killers of his wife and children. Something an innocent man would have been pushing feverishly for. And also there's an interesting point brought up in the "Fatal Flaw" book. During Helena Stoeckley's testimony, the woman whom MacDonald claimed was responsible for butchering his two young daughters and his wife, MacDonald sat there stonefaced and showed no emotion at all.

Jeffrey MacDonald, a clean-cut Green Beret and doctor convicted of killing of his pregnant wife and their two daughters, is getting another chance at trying to prove his innocence - more than four decades after the slayings terrified a nation gripped by his tales of Charles Manson-like hippies doped up on acid slaughtering his family in their own home.
The case now hinges on something that wasn't available when he was first put on trial: DNA evidence.
A federal judge will convene a hearing on Monday to consider new DNA evidence and witness testimony that MacDonald and his supporters say will finally clear him of a crime that became the basis of a best-selling novel and a TV drama.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203732/Jeffrey-MacDonald-New-DNA-evidence-clear-ex-Green-Beret-doctor-killing-pregnant-wife-daughters-1970.html#ixzz26Z40XMBO

This is another reason to doubt MacDonald's story. After the army cleared him as a suspect what does he do? Leaves North Carolina and moves to California and lives the life of a jet-setting playboy. He admitted that he wanted to put things behind him. Never once was there ever any appeal by MacDonald to find the real killers of his wife and children. Something an innocent man would have been pushing feverishly for.

Oh yeah, he seemed to be having the time of his life. Even as early as that Dick Cavett Show nonsense. It was all about griping and blaming the Army for making his life inconvenient.

It's been some time since I've watched the UM case of this since they removed it from the video site, but did they ever question a motive for the killings if in fact Jeffrey stabbed them?

It's been some time since I've watched the UM case of this since they removed it from the video site, but did they ever question a motive for the killings if in fact Jeffrey stabbed them?
The prosecutor guy (who I know is called a big jerk and I also found him very arrogant, even if I don't think MacDonald is innocent) theorized something about Kristen's bedwetting leading to this whole thing-which I find plainly ridiculous. I think an argument could very well have started and caused Kimberly to be at the door (the blood evidence showed it), but I think the argument was probably a lot bigger and that the attack would probably have been premeditated if he is indeed guilty (which I lean toward). Perhaps family life was too stressful or he wanted a way out and couldn't handle the thought of another baby coming. It's been a long time since I've read up on this case, but was he unfaithful? Maybe Collette wanted a divorce and he didn't want to pay child support/alimony.

I think someone posted on here that MacDonald had numerous affairs throughout his marriage.

The part that makes me ill is the over-the-top tape of MacDonald's recollection of events under hypnosis. Give me a break.

It's been some time since I've watched the UM case of this since they removed it from the video site, but did they ever question a motive for the killings if in fact Jeffrey stabbed them?

Yes. The MacDonalds' relationship had been degenerating into an unhappy one since the birth of their first daughter (who was conceived out of wedlock, pressuring MacDonald into marrying Colette). CPT MacDonald's ill temper has been noted by a number of people who have known him, but Colette MacDonald herself documented it in her diaries. He engaged in numerous extramarital affairs. His family "kept" him from living the life he felt he should have been living: as a successful doctor with no familial responsibilities or attachments to "weigh him down".

It's possible that he was angry about being pressured into the marriage (wasn't he still in college/med school?) and wanted to womanize and be "free" so to speak.

I have to say that if MacDonald is guilty, what a stupid way to stage a crime . No signs of a struggle and just one stab wound when everyone else was stabbed multiple times violently. But the guy who put up a fight was simply punched and stabbed once? Also, were there even any evidence of these bruises from being punched? I don't remember them being mentioned. Hell, in the Darlie Routier case at least she had several wounds and plenty of bruising (another one where I lean toward guilty, just saying if she staged it even she did a better job).

How much of Colette's diaries have been made available to the public? I'm very curious about the contents.

I think someone posted on here that MacDonald had numerous affairs throughout his marriage.

The part that makes me ill is the over-the-top tape of MacDonald's recollection of events under hypnosis. Give me a break.

My mother and I scoff at his "crocodile tears" when he talks about going in to check Kristin. It just seemed fake. No emotion when checking his wife or Kim though.

Colette had mentioned to her friend that night on the way to her class,that Jeffrey was acting strangely at dinner.I suspect he had it planned,to some degree,and was thinking about carrying it out that night.
IDK if there was an argument;it does seem Jeffrey was angry,from the way Collotte and Kimberly were swung at w the bat and attacked,but it could have been ongoing anger as well.Recall Jeff said Collette yelled 'why are they doing this to me??!!!',and that the prosecutor said she prob. really ,instead yelled 'why are YOU doing this to me???!!'
also note there is always a bit of a catch in his voice when he talks about Kristen.The others were stabbed in anger,and Kristen wasn't..she was thought to be sitting on his lap,from the way the wounds were.
Jeff also went and got a little bottle of chocolate milk and stuck it in her mouth after he killed her....this is something only a parent would do.

IIRC,the author of Fatal Vision also talked about Jeff taking prescription diet pills,and the possibility he had become manic on them.I think it's possible,although it may have been something he would have done anyway.But if he was taking amphetamines,it certainly wouldn't have helped any.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/justice/macdonald-murder-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I kind of hope he gets a new trial just so he can be put away - fairly.

the fact that both helena and greg admitted to committing the murders and that several others of the group did also

that to me is another one of those things thats too real to be a coincidence. Macdonald could have put the blame on any one of the hippies in Fayatteville. Many could have straight out said, "no i didnt commit those murders". Yet, he happened to pick people who not only exhibited insane behavior, but they actually admitted to the crimes.

And yes, as a doctor he saw many people, many hippies. But you also have to admit not every hippie he encountered as doctor would hate him, or have a grudge against him. Again, he just "happened" to name as suspects out of thin air, people who admitted to the crimes, and also had stated grudges against macdonald. its not like helena and greg and the rest of the group were indifferent to macdonald and what he was doing. They HATED him and everything he stood for. And the fact that one of those people he named as being present was near his house at the time. How many other hippies were near his house at that time at 2am?

So Helena just "happened" to be around his house at that time? Had Mica interrogated her right then and there that night, I think we would have had a different case and outcome here.

He could have picked a million other people. The ones he did point out as the suspects fit the mold of who could have committed the crime.

He could have picked a million other people. The ones he did point out as the suspects fit the mold of who could have committed the crime.

Greg Mitchell was suffering from PTSD from serving in Vietnam. This could account for his odd behavior and his "admissions" about the MacDonald murders. Helena Stoeckely denied, under oath at MacDonald's trial, to ever having been in the MacDonald residence. She apparently was bribed to appear on camera and "confess" to the murders after the trial. DNA testing both conclusivley ruled out Stoeckely and Mitchell as viable suspects. I just think MacDonald got lucky when he went outside to discard his weapons, he saw Stoeckely (and possibly Mitchell and two others) and figured he'd blame the whole thing on them.

Greg Mitchell was suffering from PTSD from serving in Vietnam. This could account for his odd behavior and his "admissions" about the MacDonald murders. Helena Stoeckely denied, under oath at MacDonald's trial, to ever having been in the MacDonald residence. She apparently was bribed to appear on camera and "confess" to the murders after the trial. DNA testing both conclusivley ruled out Stoeckely and Mitchell as viable suspects. I just think MacDonald got lucky when he went outside to discard his weapons, he saw Stoeckely (and possibly Mitchell and two others) and figured he'd blame the whole thing on them.


reguardless helena and crew were near the house at the time of the murders. Thats an important fact.

Going outside to discard weapons and happens to see helena and crew-really? you think thats what happened? Thats more than getting lucky. How many murders do you think involve that sort of action? They murder someone, and as they throw the weapons outside the door, they run and see someone, and then when caught they put the blame on that person. I would say that rarely if ever happens. Ive never heard of it happening other than what you are suggesting that it happened in this case. I dont think humans think like that. Can you name another case where you think the killer looked out their window immediately after the window, saw a random person out there and then in that split second decided to blame that person for the murders? I cant think of a single other case where this happened.

I also think we know how informants are treated. Ive seen it again and again, in cases UM has shown, and elsewhere, when informants mess up their actions are always covered up. She was an informant, allowed to continue her drug use and wierd behavior because she was "helping" to get Beasley arrests. They would have run Beasley and everyone in the office out of town had it been widely accepted that they had turned a blind eye to helena and her crew and that the crew had murdered a woman and her two kids.

The luck aspect of it is too absurd to believe. He throws the weapons outside, sees helena, and in the wild minutes after the murder and cleaning up blood and trying to stage the scene, he is able to remember precisely not only her desciption but her friends descriptions to a T. Mica happens to see Helena. Macdonald had no way of knowing Mica would see helena that night.

For macdonald to even be outside, if he is guilty, would have been insane. He would have been carrying the murder weapon, covered in blood, thats not exactly the best way to present oneself post-murder if you are attempting to suggest you are innocent. Anyone could have been outside at that moment, he had no idea who would be out there. And if helena was close enough outside for him to see, she could have seen him as well. he had no way to tell if she was a drugged out hippie who would be unable to point the blame at him, or if she or her crew were just regular neighbors. Certainly, a person in fatigues, a person he named as a suspect, could have been anybody, civilian or someone actually in the military.

Macdonald did NOT OD on amphetamine. he was taking a diet drug that contained amphetamine, but he had taken 3-5 pills over the course of several weeks, not within a day (as McGinniss led people to believe...he also led people to believe that he did not throw darts at the pictures of the prosecution and was simply a bystander while Mac and his attorneys chucked the darts).

Mac also described a black male that had Sergeant's stripes. Such a man ran in the cult that Stoeckley and Mitchell were involved with. Mitchell may have suffered from PTSD, but his confessions (plural) several years later cannot be discounted out of hand. There is also strong evidence that Stoeckley changed her story several time sin order to protect herself from prosecution. It is no secret that I believe MacDonald to be innocent. he is not likeable man at all. However, that doesn't make him a killer. Again, I refuse to discuss this case (in conversation) with anybody who has not read Fatal Justice . If one has only read [I]Fatal Vision[I], that is akin to watching Disney's Pocahontas then repeating then believing the story (as portrayed) as historical fact. If one reads [I]Fatal Justice[I] and still believes MacDonald's guilt, then I respect that. It just bothers me (in any argument) when people don't look at both sides in an issue like this. Whether we believe he is guilty or not means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Our Creator will will have that say.

As an aside, I sometimes wonder if the people who are so convinced of MacDonald's absolute guilt also believe that:


Michael Scott Martin was guilty of Armed Robbery

Johnny Lee Wilson was actually guilty

Patty Stallings was guilty of poisoning her child (the saddest case ever portrayed on UM, IMO. As someone who has lost a child, I have nothing but sympathy)

Huey Long was killed by Carl Weiss



In closing, if MacDonald ever confesses, I will be the first (as long as I am near my home computer) to come one here and say I was wrong.

I didn't say McD. OD's on the pills,I agreed with the author that he could have been taking them over a course of time,and become manic on them.Back in the 70's,they didn't know as much about drugs as they do now.We don't really know how many he took or how often he took them.
But he didn't have to take any to have committed this crime.He obviously wasn't sad about their deaths,and he went to live the high life in Long Beach, CA,not long afterwards.He even lied to his FIL Freddy and claimed to have killed one of the hippies.
And I don't really care about minor things,like what the author did when chucking darts.JMO.

the fact he was able to tell about the color of the field jacket and the color of the stripes and the E6 emblem tells me he was extremely up close to this person in helenas crew. You arent going to be able to tell these details or other details he provided by casually seeing them out the window at 2 or 3am, and they'd have to be within feet from his house. Again, had they been that close to the house, it was a risky move on his part, because he was coming out the house drenched in blood and carrying a weapon, the murder weapon. He had no reason to believe helena and her crew wouldnt have turned him in or asked him what he was doing or that he wouldnt see a neighbor etc... Additionally if they WERE that close to the house, he wouldnt have known if they had heard the screams inside the house or not. For all he knew they could have been concerned neighbors who were trying to find out what all the noise and screams were about. He'd have no reason to believe they were just drugged out and oblivious.

Also the call to the other Dr Macdonald has long been something that sticks in my mind. I believe that guy called Macdonald by mistake, and Helena picked up the phone. She was able to say word for word what was said, and that matched up with what the guy said went on.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/justice/macdonald-murder-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I kind of hope he gets a new trial just so he can be put away - fairly.

Me too.

That DNA evidence is bound to be interesting.

Going outside to discard weapons and happens to see helena and crew-really? you think thats what happened? Thats more than getting lucky. How many murders do you think involve that sort of action? They murder someone, and as they throw the weapons outside the door, they run and see someone, and then when caught they put the blame on that person. I would say that rarely if ever happens. Ive never heard of it happening other than what you are suggesting that it happened in this case. I dont think humans think like that. Can you name another case where you think the killer looked out their window immediately after the window, saw a random person out there and then in that split second decided to blame that person for the murders? I cant think of a single other case where this happened.

It didn't have to happen this way, I'm just saying it's possible that MacDonald observed Stoeckley outside at some point. Who's to say he didn't see them days before and then also noticed Stoeckley sometime that night wandering around? It could have been before or after the murders. The MP Mica says he saw her (or someone resembling her) so she was obviously within the vicinity at the time of the murders. This is why she was initially considered a prime suspect in the slayings.

I also think we know how informants are treated. Ive seen it again and again, in cases UM has shown, and elsewhere, when informants mess up their actions are always covered up. She was an informant, allowed to continue her drug use and wierd behavior because she was "helping" to get Beasley arrests. They would have run Beasley and everyone in the office out of town had it been widely accepted that they had turned a blind eye to helena and her crew and that the crew had murdered a woman and her two kids.

So you think it's highly unlikely that MacDonald saw Stoeckley and her cohorts and was able to give a general description of them to try and blame the murders on them, but think it's entirely plausible that the government/CID covered up the brutal murders of a mother and her two young daughters just to protect a dope fiend? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

The luck aspect of it is too absurd to believe. He throws the weapons outside, sees helena, and in the wild minutes after the murder and cleaning up blood and trying to stage the scene, he is able to remember precisely not only her desciption but her friends descriptions to a T. Mica happens to see Helena. Macdonald had no way of knowing Mica would see helena that night.

There's also no way to confirm that Mica did in fact see Stoeckely that night. And who's to say she wasn't usually out and about wandering around high on drugs? By her own admission there were several nights where she was "blacked out" wandering around the town all hours of the night. This is why I think MacDonald picked her as one of his "assailants".

For macdonald to even be outside, if he is guilty, would have been insane. He would have been carrying the murder weapon, covered in blood, thats not exactly the best way to present oneself post-murder if you are attempting to suggest you are innocent. Anyone could have been outside at that moment, he had no idea who would be out there. And if helena was close enough outside for him to see, she could have seen him as well. he had no way to tell if she was a drugged out hippie who would be unable to point the blame at him, or if she or her crew were just regular neighbors. Certainly, a person in fatigues, a person he named as a suspect, could have been anybody, civilian or someone actually in the military.

MacDonald was outside that night. The bottom of his robe was moist and had grass trimmings on it. This was when he knelt down in the grass after he dumped the weapons outside. Unless of course one of the "assailants" decided to wear it outside as an attempt to frame MacDonald.

I'm sorry but all of this new exculpatory "evidence" that keeps surfacing years after the murders is getting kind of old. If there was in fact mountains of evidence that would have cleared MacDonald, it should have been presented at his trial when his life was on the line. It wasn't, so therefore I honestly believe he's exactly where he belongs.

So far I haven't heard any of his defenders explain the discrepancies when it comes to his injuries versus his family's. How is it a pregnant woman plus two small kids get brutally hacked up but the six foot marine who posed the most threat gets a small hole in his chest? Regardless of all the speculation about hairs that's what I keep coming back to. Plus Helena Stoeckley couldn't be any more of an unreliable witness if she tried.

So far I haven't heard any of his defenders explain the discrepancies when it comes to his injuries versus his family's. How is it a pregnant woman plus two small kids get brutally hacked up but the six foot marine who posed the most threat gets a small hole in his chest? Regardless of all the speculation about hairs that's what I keep coming back to. Plus Helena Stoeckley couldn't be any more of an unreliable witness if she tried.

He was an Army officer, not a Marine. :) But yes, I agree that is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against MacDonald. He's a physician, and was an Army SF physician at that. He knows what injuries he can sustain for a time before he receives medical treatment. He knew how to make it look "just real enough" to the general population at large, and he thought he could fool all those silly MPs, CID officers, and medical professionals too. I think he stumbled on his own arrogance. Criminals--for whatever reason--seem to have the idea that the rest of the world is astronomically less intelligent than they are.

And I also agree: poor Helena Stoeckley probably didn't know what year it was or what color the sky is half the time.

MacDonald was a Green Beret,and of course he had to achieve that position,and be tough enough to do so.It wasn't just handed to him.

And I also agree: poor Helena Stoeckley probably didn't know what year it was or what color the sky is half the time.

She also claimed that she called the MacDonald household on the night of the murders, shortly before Colette went to her evening classes. Stoeckely says she questioned Colette over the phone as to where she was going, when she was coming back, who was babysitting the kids that night, etc. and Colette simply answered everything which is how Stoeckely and her "gang" knew when to strike. I'm sure Colette never once thought it odd to volunteer personal information to a complete stranger over the telephone. :rolleyes:

MacDonald was a Green Beret,and of course he had to achieve that position,and be tough enough to do so.It wasn't just handed to him.

I don't think anyone is denying that. It's hard enough to get through med school let alone selection.

She also claimed that she called the MacDonald household on the night of the murders, shortly before Colette went to her evening classes. Stoeckely says she questioned Colette over the phone as to where she was going, when she was coming back, who was babysitting the kids that night, etc. and Colette simply answered everything which is how Stoeckely and her "gang" knew when to strike. I'm sure Colette never once thought it odd to volunteer personal information to a complete stranger over the telephone. :rolleyes:

Typical. :rolleyes:

Helena...is her "confession" credible? Did they ever identify all those who were with her that night allegedly? I think one of the guys later died, didn't he? Drug overdose I think.

This story troubled me, so I did a bunch of research. After reading lots of testimony from the trial transcripts, I believe he's GUILTY.

I don't think anyone is denying that. It's hard enough to get through med school let alone selection.
Oh i know,just sayin' :)

Helena...is her "confession" credible? Did they ever identify all those who were with her that night allegedly? I think one of the guys later died, didn't he? Drug overdose I think.

She did identify the "attackers" who were allegedly with her that night. All of them were questioned by the FBI and cleared as suspects. IIRC, one of the people she claimed was with her that night was actually in jail at the time. She is not credible at all, IMO.