http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/fatal-vision-killer-appeals-40yearold-crime

According to the article, Jeffrey MacDonald and his lawyers will get an hour on Thursday to prove that he deserves a new trial.

"All he wants to do is get a barbecue and have friends over and make shrimp and beef kabobs on the grill, watch football on TV and feel grass under his feet," she said.

Really? How about visiting the graves of your late wife and kids?

Ok, time for MegtheEgg86 to post an eye-roll emoticon, as the debate will resume, and the old arguments stated and rehashed until we have come full circle two or three times.

Well, this is something. I can't wait to see how his lawyers work this.

Really? How about visiting the graves of your late wife and kids?

It's a quote from someone other than himself, so who knows. I doubt his new wife really wants to think about his previous wife and kids as is the usual case regardless of what happened to them. She's probably only thinking about how she wants to spend time with him, not necessarily what he wants to do.

I'm not trying to defend the man, as I could go either way with the case, tbh. I just wouldn't necessarily judge his wants by what his wife says.

It's a quote from someone other than himself, so who knows. I doubt his new wife really wants to think about his previous wife and kids as is the usual case regardless of what happened to them. She's probably only thinking about how she wants to spend time with him, not necessarily what he wants to do.

I'm not trying to defend the man, as I could go either way with the case, tbh. I just wouldn't necessarily judge his wants by what his wife says.

So very true. Maybe she is projecting the life she wants. She could be a very nice, although a bit deluded (IMO) woman!

So very true. Maybe she is projecting the life she wants. She could be a very nice, although a bit deluded (IMO) woman!

I am of the opinion that anyone who marries a convicted felon serving life is deluded.

Whoa, whoa folks lets just take it easy here. Okay, I see the usual suspects are out in ripping on Dr. MacDonald, nothing new there. However I see that even you guys managed to twist things out of context. I am sure Dr. MacDonald will visit the graves of his wife and daughters when he is released as I am confident he will be sooner or later.

It will not be easy for him to get that though from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. However I hope and pray he does get relief as he is innocent. You all might not like his conduct during his marriage or how he acted afterwards but there is NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING that points to or even implies guilt in this case except pure conjecture.

As for Dr. MacDonald's wife, I see the usual suspects are also out in throwing bricks. She is a grown woman and it was her decision to marry Dr. MacDonald. Regardless if you disagree with that it does not make her mentally ill or a basket case. She had known Dr. MacDonald for roughly 20 years at the time at she married him. It was not like she was writing prisoners seeking companionship because she was lonely.

I don't blame Dr. MacDonald for wanting to throw a barbeque when he gets out. If he invites me, I will show up. I will assume he will not stab me to death and try to blame a bunch of crazed hippies for doing it. Seriously though, if I served 30 years in prison as an innocent man, I would certainly celebrate after getting out. I see nothing that is wrong with that but maybe someone can explain this to me.

As for the prosecution, they suck! Totally. James Blackburn has since been disgraced. He has been disbarred because he stole money from his own clients. You can get away with about anything as a lawyer EXCEPT for stealing money from your clients. THat is the one they will not let you get away with. He has been disbarred, he is a convicted felon just like MacDonald and Blackburn also served time in federal prison. Blackburn now lives in a run down apartment and waits tables for a living as he deserves to for being unethical and putting innocent people in prisons.

I wonder if any woman that marries James Blackburn is also 'deluded'? Let's stop and think about that one for a while. Also, I agree with the earlier poster. I get you all hate Dr. MacDonald and think he is guilty and want to look for any excuse you can to nourish that belief. However that said, do not judge what Dr. MacDonald wants or does not want based on what his wife says. Dr. MacDonald was not asked, his wife was.

Good luck, Mac! You'll need it. Also, if you get out, you might want to change your name and move far, far away. Bob Stevenson will be looking for you.

Actually, I have doubts both ways. I don't know if he's guilty or innocent, and I can see evidence for both sides. I'm just going to be awfully surprised if he's able to get his appeal. If he does it will be amazing to follow.

Whoa, whoa folks lets just take it easy here. Okay, I see the usual suspects are out in ripping on Dr. MacDonald, nothing new there. However I see that even you guys managed to twist things out of context. I am sure Dr. MacDonald will visit the graves of his wife and daughters when he is released as I am confident he will be sooner or later.

It will not be easy for him to get that though from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. However I hope and pray he does get relief as he is innocent. You all might not like his conduct during his marriage or how he acted afterwards but there is NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING that points to or even implies guilt in this case except pure conjecture.

As for Dr. MacDonald's wife, I see the usual suspects are also out in throwing bricks. She is a grown woman and it was her decision to marry Dr. MacDonald. Regardless if you disagree with that it does not make her mentally ill or a basket case. She had known Dr. MacDonald for roughly 20 years at the time at she married him. It was not like she was writing prisoners seeking companionship because she was lonely.

I don't blame Dr. MacDonald for wanting to throw a barbeque when he gets out. If he invites me, I will show up. I will assume he will not stab me to death and try to blame a bunch of crazed hippies for doing it. Seriously though, if I served 30 years in prison as an innocent man, I would certainly celebrate after getting out. I see nothing that is wrong with that but maybe someone can explain this to me.

As for the prosecution, they suck! Totally. James Blackburn has since been disgraced. He has been disbarred because he stole money from his own clients. You can get away with about anything as a lawyer EXCEPT for stealing money from your clients. THat is the one they will not let you get away with. He has been disbarred, he is a convicted felon just like MacDonald and Blackburn also served time in federal prison. Blackburn now lives in a run down apartment and waits tables for a living as he deserves to for being unethical and putting innocent people in prisons.

Dr MacDonald..? Oh will you stop brown nosing!

I find it somewhat amuzing that you can slag off on James Blackburn but yet you don't seem too disturbed by say Michael Martin's behavour at the grocery store before he robbed the gas station, just using this as an example. Dodgy prosecution or not, Mac is where he belongs.

I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world if Mac was released. I mean really how much time does he have on earth left?

There have been far more dangerous criminals that have been released early and nobody has made an arguments.

Hell, look how many times John Gotti broke the rap.


Good luck, Mac! You'll need it. Also, if you get out, you might want to change your name and move far, far away.

I would think he would do that in any regard, guilty or innocent.


Bob Stevenson will be looking for you.

Then that would bolster MacDonald's innocence even more. It makes it seem that overzealous justice seekers were trying to keep an innocent man in jail just to have someone pay for the crime.

Oh dear...I was scared to come in here! But I have been back and forth with this one for years. I use to think he was guilty then I read some more about this case and the hair fibers and whatnot so now i'm not so sure.

Is there an unbiased website where I can read opinions for him being guilty and for him being innocent??? I have to see the evidence for myself. Now I don't wanna look at the crime scene photos!!! I just want someone to convince me either way.

I've never understood the hate on MacDonald. There is clear evidence BOTH ways. On the one side we have an admission from one of the hippie suspects, we have a police officer witnessing her in the area of MacDonald's house, we have motive for why they would enter his house and we have her story parallel to his. This has always been far from a clear cut case in my opinion.

Whatever Space Invaderz, I see you have returned to trolling. By the way, that is hardly brown nosing. The guy is a doctor, what else am I supposed to call him? I suppose if I called him 'Mac the knife' you would give me a pat on the back?

As for Michael Scott Martin, have you not ever read a single post I have made on that case? I never said I did not find his behavior at the grocery store disturbing. I also never said that he did not deserve to be punished for that. Yes what he did at the grocery store was wrong and was illegal and was stupid and he deserved to be held accountable for it and he was.

However you act like that makes the guy a psychopath or something because he did that when all it really was, was a drunk and angry young man who did not think before he did something and it resulted in a stupid and illegal and potentially dangerous action on his part.

Also Space Invaderz, are you honestly trying to compare a drunk young man shooting in the air and not directly at people to a prosecutor who deliberately stole from his law firm and who on top of that put innocent people in jail? The prosecutor is in essence a law enforcement officer, it is his job to do justice for ALL and yes that tends to disturb me when someone that is supposed to do that, does not follow through.

I hope he doesn't get a new trial. He is right where he belongs.

There is clear evidence BOTH ways. On the one side we have an admission from one of the hippie suspects, we have a police officer witnessing her in the area of MacDonald's house, we have motive for why they would enter his house and we have her story parallel to his.


How are any of those considered clear evidence?


I’ll admit that this is one segment I don’t even watch just because the story is too horrific and I’ll admit that I’m ignorant of a lot of what transpired during the lengthy judicial process, so take that for what you will. But I most definitely understand the hatred for Dr. Jeffrey McDonald (using a title someone earned isn’t brown nosing, either), as I think the miserable scumbag murdered those defenseless little babies.


The actual EVIDENCE at the crime scene points to an inconsistent story, at the very least, told by a man who has been proven to be an inveterate liar both before and after the crime.

How are any of those considered clear evidence?


I’ll admit that this is one segment I don’t even watch just because the story is too horrific and I’ll admit that I’m ignorant of a lot of what transpired during the lengthy judicial process, so take that for what you will. But I most definitely understand the hatred for Dr. Jeffrey McDonald (using a title someone earned isn’t brown nosing, either), as I think the miserable scumbag murdered those defenseless little babies.


The actual EVIDENCE at the crime scene points to an inconsistent story, at the very least, told by a man who has been proven to be an inveterate liar both before and after the crime.

Well I'll choose my words more carefully. Maybe it isn't clear evidence. But the other circumstantial evidence presented is enough to make me at least have some doubts on this case either way. Besides, if MacDonald is guilty for what he did then he has been there for over 30 years. Anyone who thinks that he is guilty need not worry, he is in prison!

The thing that bothers me is the motive. Why oh why kill your two children and wife? There was nothing to indicate that he would benefit from any of it. I don't buy the theory of him being angry and doing the killings by accident. Therefore there has never been a reason as to why the man would do this in the first place.

Well, I think where people often get confused, is they tend to believe someone is 'guilty' because they can't explain why they are not guilty. I mean, it is kind of odd logic, but that is how it so often works out. Where people say, ah ha, you can't explain this, but if you were truly innocent you would be able to explain it and because you can't then you must be guilty.

All, I will say is, where is the evidence MacDonald really killed this people? You all are absolutely right, he may have. The key word there being may. That is not good enough to convict, let alone think for sure a guy did it, but maybe I looked up the wrong word in the dictionary. So MacDonald had lied and told grandiose tales? I still find that pretty amazing how people assume someone must be a murderer because they lied about something. I mean, if everyone who had told a lie was a murderer, well, things would be very very bad. Everyone would basically be a murderer then under that logic.

I am not sure where you get the info he was a chronic liar though Corky? I mean, what did you expect him to do, tell his wife that he was going away so he could carry on extramarital affairs behind her back? The one big one that hurt MacDonald at trial, was how he had lied to his father in law, and said he had killed one of the intruders. But I still don't see how it makes him guilty of murder that he lied about that? All he is guilty of in that regard is telling a tall tale. Heck, the Kassab's were on his side, until he decided to move west and move on with his life and that angered them and it was only then that they turned against him.

But what really did it with this case, was the jury, well in this instance, I can't completely blame them for convicting. They did not hear all the evidence. They were not allowed to hear Helena Stokely's version. The physical evidence on the scene was not exactly conclusive. I would not think it would be unusual for MacDonald's blood to be shed in his home if he was attacked.

Again, only MacDonald (I better not call him Dr as I guess calling a person by their title is brown nosing) truly knows, 100 percent, for sure, if he did or did not do this. However I do not think he should have been convicted, because I do not think his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I guess I see why the conviction rates are so high. It is often because the jury is made to hate the defendant, and it is easier to convict someone off of what I would say is at best a shaky case, if you do not like them isn't it?

But again this does raise interesting questions about jury dynamics and the like. Honestly, it is luck of the draw. MacDonald's jury convicted him, yet a jury of 12 different people might not have. If you take O.J. and if you take Robert Blake, at least in Robert Blake's case, I do not think he was acquitted because he was a celebrity. A lot of people think he was but I do not think that. I think he was acquitted because while the jurors felt he possibly did do it, the evidence was not strong enough for them to convict him.

Whatever Space Invaderz, I see you have returned to trolling. By the way, that is hardly brown nosing. The guy is a doctor, what else am I supposed to call him? I suppose if I called him 'Mac the knife' you would give me a pat on the back?

As for Michael Scott Martin, have you not ever read a single post I have made on that case? I never said I did not find his behavior at the grocery store disturbing. I also never said that he did not deserve to be punished for that. Yes what he did at the grocery store was wrong and was illegal and was stupid and he deserved to be held accountable for it and he was.

However you act like that makes the guy a psychopath or something because he did that when all it really was, was a drunk and angry young man who did not think before he did something and it resulted in a stupid and illegal and potentially dangerous action on his part.

Also Space Invaderz, are you honestly trying to compare a drunk young man shooting in the air and not directly at people to a prosecutor who deliberately stole from his law firm and who on top of that put innocent people in jail? The prosecutor is in essence a law enforcement officer, it is his job to do justice for ALL and yes that tends to disturb me when someone that is supposed to do that, does not follow through.

Just to answer your statements;

Sorry, I don't live my life on these boards. If I feel I may have something to add or question I will, which is hardly ever because just about every case has been discussed to death already.

I try not to read as much of your posts as possible.

I'm not comparing anything, I just said I find it somewhat amuzing, those were my exact words.

I try not to read as much of your posts as possible.


I agree with that statement. Some of the points that are made are good, but the way things are said and the browbeating turns me off. I generally skim them now, and if there is even a hint of browbeating or condescension, I skip the rest of the post entirely.

The thing that bothers me is the motive. Why oh why kill your two children and wife? There was nothing to indicate that he would benefit from any of it. I don't buy the theory of him being angry and doing the killings by accident. Therefore there has never been a reason as to why the man would do this in the first place.

Please refer to the longer thread on Dr. MacDonald - the issue of motive is discussed extensively, especially in the last few pages.

Like SP4CE INV4DERS said, this case has been discussed to death.

I am still waiting for MegtheEgg86 to get on here and post her eyeroll emoticon.

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh
The thing that bothers me is the motive. Why oh why kill your two children and wife? There was nothing to indicate that he would benefit from any of it. I don't buy the theory of him being angry and doing the killings by accident. Therefore there has never been a reason as to why the man would do this in the first place.

In the Mac did it theory, the whole case boarders on the act being a crime of passion with no premeditation.

Yet this case has a lot of aspects of premeditation...
1. The self-inflicted wound.
2. The cover story

I would believe this case a lot more if Mac came up with a plan and coldly executed it as a way to get out of marriage and family. I can buy that completely. Mac indeed seems like the type of person that could plan something like that with an objective and execution.

But instead we are to believe that Mac (a surgeon) simply flies off the handle (with no prior history) and kills his wife and then with the same strong rage goes up and kills all the children with equal rage. Then he composes himself enough to come up with an elaborate and well detailed cover story, that just happens to actually produce two real life suspects that match. he then thinks this through enough to perform the surgical incision on his lung (which is dangerous to do..even for a surgeon).

I'm not say that the Mac theory is necessarily wrong. But I think there are some questions to it that are valid. The Mac did it theory is not ironclad(nor is the Mac didn't do it theory, for that matter)

The Macdonald murder reminds me a lot of the DeFeo family murders(of Amityville Horror fame). And in the DeFeo murder there are still questions in that case.

Then he composes himself enough to come up with an elaborate and well detailed cover story, that just happens to actually produce two real life suspects that match. he then thinks this through enough to perform the surgical incision on his lung (which is dangerous to do..even for a surgeon).

I'm not say that the Mac theory is necessarily wrong. But I think there are some questions to it that are valid. The Mac did it theory is not ironclad(nor is the Mac didn't do it theory, for that matter)

The Macdonald murder reminds me a lot of the DeFeo family murders(of Amityville Horror fame). And in the DeFeo murder there are still questions in that case.

Exactly, that is where it gets tricky. This is either the cold hard truth, the biggest most fantastic coincidence on the face of the earth or a druggie claiming credit for murders she did not aide in committing. I have a hard time with the 3rd option. It is not unusual for a convicted felon who is already going to be in jail the rest of his life to admit to a crime. It is another thing for a person who is free to make that claim.

Ouch Space Invaderz. Thanks for the cheap shot though even though it is not accurate. As for Wamisto, I have never been condescending to anyone. I get you consider it condescending and brow beating when I disagree with you but that is not condescending.

All you Knife zealots: please don't get your hopes too high. He is not going to win a new trial. Brace yourself for the inevitable. Mac will die in prison someday.

I am still waiting for MegtheEgg86 to get on here and post her eyeroll emoticon.

:rolleyes:

You're welcome. :lol:

Now if this were the Darlie Routier thread, it'd be worthy of 3 eyerolls.

All you Knife zealots: please don't get your hopes too high. He is not going to win a new trial. Brace yourself for the inevitable. .

You seem to be under this impression that people are emotionally involved in seeing Mac be released from jail.

And that YOU yourself have no emotional involvement in seeing Mac stay in prison.

Personally, i could care less whether Mac lives his days out in Maui with a dozen supermodels or he dies being burned alive at stake with fire ants eating out his carcass.

I could care less whether we arrest Mike MacDonald did it or whether he didn;t.

I'm looking at this case from an unbiased objective view...can we say the same for you?:confused:

.

You seem to be under this impression that people are emotionally involved in seeing Mac be released from jail.

And that YOU yourself have no emotional involvement in seeing Mac stay in prison.

Personally, i could care less whether Mac lives his days out in Maui with a dozen supermodels or he dies being burned alive at stake with fire ants eating out his carcass.

I could care less whether we arrest Mike MacDonald did it or whether he didn;t.

I'm looking at this case from an unbiased objective view...can we say the same for you?:confused:

Yes.

All you Knife zealots: please don't get your hopes too high. He is not going to win a new trial. Brace yourself for the inevitable. Mac will die in prison someday.

I agree with Thinman. Although I personally believe Dr. MacDonald is innocent I don't believe he has enough evidence to get himself a new trial. In cases like this there would need to be overwhelming evidence in MacDonald's favor for him to be granted a new trial and I don't think that amount of evidence is present in this case.

Yeah I hate to agree with him too, he is not unbiased but he is probably correct in that MacDonald will not get a new trial, at least not on the grounds he is presenting. It is not enough for MacDonald to just present 'new evidence' in order for the court to grant him a new trial, they would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that if the evidence that MacDonald is presenting, that he says should have been allowed at his original trial, the 3 judge panel would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could have or would have been different had the evidence been allowed. If they do not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that even if the jury had heard the evidence that MacDonald says should have been allowed, if they do not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it would have changed the jury's verdict, then there will be no new trial for MacDonald. Basically, MacDonald only gets a new trial if the judges are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury's verdict would have been different had they heard that evidence.

:rolleyes:

You're welcome. :lol:


I love it! Thanks for obliging and humouring me, although I am sure you were all to happy to do so.

Here is another applicable emoticon for this one :

:horse:

Hahaha!

I hesitated to respond to this because I really loathe discussions of what possible motives could be, as it pertains to determining a person's guilt or innocence. I think too often we ask for rational explanations for irrational actions. I respect and appreciate your posts so please understand I responding as much in that vein as I can.


The thing that bothers me is the motive. Why oh why kill your two children and wife? There was nothing to indicate that he would benefit from any of it...Therefore there has never been a reason as to why the man would do this in the first place.

That seems a tremendous leap in logic. I don't understand how you get from A to B.

A:
There was nothing to indicate that he would benefit from any of it...

Define "benefit"? Financially? Socially?


B:
Therefore there has never been a reason as to why the man would do this in the first place.

Neither John List nor Brad Bishop "benefited" from the slaughtering of their entire family but they did most definitely did it for a reason. John List wrote out a several page letter giving reasons. Dr. McDonald may have had a billion reasons for wanting to kill off his family, he may have wanted to be alone, he may have just been having a bad day. Even if I could tell what was his thought process was, even if I could tell you exactly why he decided to kill them, every reason would probably make us, both fo us, say "THAT'S no reason to murder a defenseless pregannt woman and children!!". The reasons would look ridiculous to us but were obviously enough to spur these amoral animals to commit such awful crimes.


So what I'm trying to say is I don't agree that there "has never been a reason", nor that one can determine there's no reason just because there's no discernible financial benefit.

I believe think he's guilty based off of what I know of the actual evidence, as well as his behavior both before and after. Not being able to point to a specific "ah-ha" motive, aside from the assumption that he just didn't want to be a husband and father any more, doesn't preclude me in the least from being convinced that he's guilty of premeditated murder.

Well again Corky, you seem to be shifting the burden. Aside from personal dislike of how Dr. MacDonald behaved and how he did not behave in a way that you evidently felt that he should have, what else 'makes him guilty' of first degree murder? Nothing. There is simply nothing there other than pure conjecture.

Yeah I hate to agree with him too, he is not unbiased

Define unbiased. I came into this case just as unbiased as everyone else who didn't have a dog in this fight. This crime took place eight years before I was born and I don't know, nor have met anyone involved. I have formed an opinion about his guilt based on the evidence presented. I am no less "unbiased" than anyone here.

what else 'makes him guilty' of first degree murder? Nothing. There is simply nothing there other than pure conjecture.


A trial. If he was found innocent I wouldn't say he was a guilty man, i would say "in my opinion" he's guilty. But he had a trial, was found guilty, and by definition that DOES mean he's guilty.

Neither John List nor Brad Bishop "benefited" from the slaughtering of their entire family but they did most definitely did it for a reason.

1. I think Brad Bishop benefited in that he got rid of a family that he felt was a burden to him. He presumably now gets to life in peaceful solitude without any nagging children, wife or mother-in-law. Not that I'm condoning the act, who here has never wished for that?:D

2. John Lists problems that preceded the murders are too numerous to mention.

There are some key differences between List/Bishop and MacDonald.

1. Premeditation -Lists murders were planned out well. There is a very good possibility that Bishops murders intended to murder his famlily that day and even planned his escape route.

For the MacDonald murder theory to work, the murders had to be spontaneous. The theory falls apart if the crime was premeditated.

2. Prior History- Bishop was a ticking time bomb waiting to explode according to his collegues and friends. List was going through multiple problems prior to murdering his family.

We have no such stories even remotely matching in MacDonald. MacDonald seemed to become a violent killer overnight.

I believe think he's guilty based off of what I know of the actual evidence, as well as his behavior both before and after.

Unfortunately we have a compromised crime scene & information culminated through biased investigations ( from both sides).

I don;t know about every one else, but I've found it almost impossible to find reliable websites, books or information services regarding this case.

That;s why this case is very similar to the JFK assasination and the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Nobody seems to have an unbiased account. Also both have politics and compromised crime scenes.

Define "benefit"? Financially? Socially?


As far as I know there was not a price tag on their lives. I do not know of a substantial amount of life insurance he was to collect if his wife died. Tommy Ziegler was to collect $500,000 in 1975 which is a staggering amount at that time. It doesn't mean Ziegler is guilty or Mac is innocent but that eliminates a motive for Mac IMO.

Socially? I don't know about this one. A reputable doctor wants to be free of the reigns of being a father? This despite no signs of violence prior to this (as far as I know). If you want a divorce, get one. Yes people have killed for that exact same reason, but most of the time it involved past questionable erratic behaviour or a large sum of insurance money.

It is possible that a fight occured and he accidentally hurt his wife therefore having to cover up everything when his daughter witnessed it. This is exactly what the prosecution believes.

But I have always found that the hippie story is just if not more than likely. Remember the marine found dead in his house who was responsible for cracking down on drugs?(geez I forget his name). Never ever underestimate what a drug addict is capable of doing. They act selfish, immoral, desperate and irrational all in one. Why not punish the doctor trying to crack down on drug use? Makes a lot of sense to me.

to me motive is just a red herring that people use to make themselves feel good about the world.

There are so many different types of murders and reason. Sometimes its in the heat of the moment, or for money, or cause your just sick of looking at your family, sometimes your just a whack job that feels the need to kill every once in a while. Motive means nothing to me.

I dont have a dog in this fight either. I just think that both sides have really compelling arguments as to why he did/or didnt kill his family. I'm just waiting for someone to convince me.

So does anyone know what the results were?

to me motive is just a red herring that people use to make themselves feel good about the world.

There are so many different types of murders and reason. Sometimes its in the heat of the moment, or for money, or cause your just sick of looking at your family, sometimes your just a whack job that feels the need to kill every once in a while. Motive means nothing to me.

I dont have a dog in this fight either. I just think that both sides have really compelling arguments as to why he did/or didnt kill his family. I'm just waiting for someone to convince me.
__________________

They always say there are three type of crimes
1. Crimes of passion/Spontaneous crimes
2. Crimes of profit/crimes of cause(terrorism/patriotism/religious)
3. Psychotic crimes

If Mac Did it, it falls in number 1.

If the hippies did it it falls in #2 and was a botched for profit crime.

Well, I think where people often get confused, is they tend to believe someone is 'guilty' because they can't explain why they are not guilty. I mean, it is kind of odd logic, but that is how it so often works out. Where people say, ah ha, you can't explain this, but if you were truly innocent you would be able to explain it and because you can't then you must be guilty.

All, I will say is, where is the evidence MacDonald really killed this people? You all are absolutely right, he may have. The key word there being may. That is not good enough to convict, let alone think for sure a guy did it, but maybe I looked up the wrong word in the dictionary. So MacDonald had lied and told grandiose tales? I still find that pretty amazing how people assume someone must be a murderer because they lied about something. I mean, if everyone who had told a lie was a murderer, well, things would be very very bad. Everyone would basically be a murderer then under that logic.

I am not sure where you get the info he was a chronic liar though Corky? I mean, what did you expect him to do, tell his wife that he was going away so he could carry on extramarital affairs behind her back? The one big one that hurt MacDonald at trial, was how he had lied to his father in law, and said he had killed one of the intruders. But I still don't see how it makes him guilty of murder that he lied about that? All he is guilty of in that regard is telling a tall tale. Heck, the Kassab's were on his side, until he decided to move west and move on with his life and that angered them and it was only then that they turned against him.

But what really did it with this case, was the jury, well in this instance, I can't completely blame them for convicting. They did not hear all the evidence. They were not allowed to hear Helena Stokely's version. The physical evidence on the scene was not exactly conclusive. I would not think it would be unusual for MacDonald's blood to be shed in his home if he was attacked.

Again, only MacDonald (I better not call him Dr as I guess calling a person by their title is brown nosing) truly knows, 100 percent, for sure, if he did or did not do this. However I do not think he should have been convicted, because I do not think his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I guess I see why the conviction rates are so high. It is often because the jury is made to hate the defendant, and it is easier to convict someone off of what I would say is at best a shaky case, if you do not like them isn't it?

Im glad that he is getting to plead his case again (what number is this now)?, because I think everyone is jail should be given the utmost benefit of the doubt, but in reading your posts Kadrmas, I'm struck, at least in your first post on here, when you said "He IS innocent." I know later you said he "may" have done it, but I'm curious why you feel so strongly that he is innocent.

I totally agree with you that society has a tendency to assume someone is guilty if they can't explain everything away, hence the difficulty in defending clients a lot of the time, but I don't agree with you that all the evidence against him is "conjecture." As I think I mentioned on another thread, I've read the entire court transcript, and done a lot of research on this fascinating (and sad) case- not that I'm an expert or anything- but there is certainly plenty of evidence that points to Macdonald's guilt.

I can see why a lot of people feel he was railroaded, especially since the grand jury initially did not press charges, and then because the prosecutor was unethical in his dealings with billing certain clients, but I don't conclude that he is not guilty because of those things. Can you imagine if all convicted murderers were deemed suspect simply because the prosecutor who convicted them was later found to be an a-hole?

Anyway, I'm not one who is adamant:) about his guilt, but I wanted to respond b/c I respect your opinions and was therefore surprised to read that you feel that there is absolutely no evidence that he is guilty. If you want to get more into this, let me know.

PS..I know this case has been discussed to death, but hey, this is a forum about unsolved crimes, and the MacDonald case is one of the most fascinating and talked about in history, so why not right? Personally, if there's a case I feel has been exhausted, and I'm not interested in it anymore, I just skip over it or don't read the thread; I wouldn't go on and shake my head at those who are still interested in discussing it... know what I mean?

PS..I know this case has been discussed to death, but hey, this is a forum about unsolved crimes, and the MacDonald case is one of the most fascinating and talked about in history, so why not right? Personally, if there's a case I feel has been exhausted, and I'm not interested in it anymore, I just skip over it or don't read the thread; I wouldn't go on and shake my head at those who are still interested in discussing it... know what I mean?

Agreed.

This is one of the most unusual cases in history
1. This is an either or scenario..either MacDonald killed his wife or the hippies did. There's really no other scenario.

2. This is one of the few cases where the alternate theory has suspects. OJ still hasn;t found the "real killers". Jon Benet Ramseys intruder still hasn;t been found.

I can certainly see both sides of the equation. I will say this though, the MacDonald case is far more believable than the Darlie Routier case which is the exact same thing ("I woke up my kids were dead and they attacked me").

The cocky way he acted on the Dick Cavett show hurt him a lot in the court of public opinion. To this day even Cavett claims to never forget it. I know there was a lot of talk about little he seemed to care about catching the supposed killer of his family rather than letting the world know he had his rights violated, but since most of us would agree had he done this is would be spontaneous I have to say I don't think the way he acted during that interview would be the way a "spontaneous" killer would act.

Here's why:

- If you had murdered your family by snapping and were a chief suspect in the case the last thing you would be doing is acting cocky - even if you were trying to get off. You'd be drenched with guilt, it would be hard to hide that. So the only other option is if this was a calculated master plan. Then I could see him with some swagger in his step. But since most of us can agree it wasn't............well, I'm just saying it's something to talk about.

Joe McGinnis' book "Fatal Vision" is the definitive tome on the subject. He studied all of the evidence, interviewed MacDonald multiple times and spoke w/ all of the witnesses. And he believes that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty.

While there is always the chance that MacDonald is innocent and was the unfortunate victim of a miscarriage of justice, the fact that almost 30 years has passed since his conviction w/o any exonerating evidence bring brought forward pretty much states that he was justly convicted.

Joe McGinnis' book "Fatal Vision" is the definitive tome on the subject. He studied all of the evidence, interviewed MacDonald multiple times and spoke w/ all of the witnesses. And he believes that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty.

While there is always the chance that MacDonald is innocent and was the unfortunate victim of a miscarriage of justice, the fact that almost 30 years has passed since his conviction w/o any exonerating evidence bring brought forward pretty much states that he was justly convicted.

McGinnis was also sued by MacDonald for fraud in 1987 and McGinnis/MacDonald settled for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Quite a hefty sum to pay if he wasn't guilty of what MacDonald was accusing him of. As to the case itself, it really could go either way. The brutality of Colette and her daughters murders compared to MacDonald's superficial wounds can hardly be overlooked. But there was also that witness who called the MacDonald residence at 2:00 a.m. (the time the murders were being committed) and a woman answered and began to giggle uncontrollably when the man asked for "Dr. MacDonald". Helena Stoeckley corraborated this account. And the fact that Helena Stoeckely openly admitted involvement should also cast doubt on MacDonald's guilt. And the whole "she's a known drug user and liar" argument used by law enforcement and the prosecutors is such a joke. If she were such a compulsive liar, why was she a drug informant for law enforcement?

McGinnis was also sued by MacDonald for fraud in 1987 and McGinnis/MacDonald settled for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Quite a hefty sum to pay if he wasn't guilty of what MacDonald was accusing him of. As to the case itself, it really could go either way. The brutality of Colette and her daughters murders compared to MacDonald's superficial wounds can hardly be overlooked. But there was also that witness who called the MacDonald residence at 2:00 a.m. (the time the murders were being committed) and a woman answered and began to giggle uncontrollably when the man asked for "Dr. MacDonald". Helena Stoeckley corraborated this account. And the fact that Helena Stoeckely openly admitted involvement should also cast doubt on MacDonald's guilt. And the whole "she's a known drug user and liar" argument used by law enforcement and the prosecutors is such a joke. If she were such a compulsive liar, why was she a drug informant for law enforcement?

McGinnis' publishing company paid the settlement, not McGinnis, personally. And if you look at what the suit was for, at no time during it is it stated by either side that any of McGinnis' work was factually inaccurate.

In fact, w/ the exception of a book written by supporters of McGinnis, no one has ever proven the major elements of Fatal Vision are untrue. There may be minor errors in the story, but the core narrative has never proven to be false.

Given that almost 30 years has passed, it would be likely that at least a portion of story would be proven false if the evidence did point away from MacDonald. It hasn't...and it doesn't.

It's taken me literally years to move on one side or the other of "the fence", but after having read both Fatal Justice and Fatal Vision, I think CPT MacDonald is guilty. His Article 32 hearing was a joke. He should've been convicted in 1970.

McGinnis was also sued by MacDonald for fraud in 1987 and McGinnis/MacDonald settled for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Quite a hefty sum to pay if he wasn't guilty of what MacDonald was accusing him of. As to the case itself, it really could go either way. The brutality of Colette and her daughters murders compared to MacDonald's superficial wounds can hardly be overlooked. But there was also that witness who called the MacDonald residence at 2:00 a.m. (the time the murders were being committed) and a woman answered and began to giggle uncontrollably when the man asked for "Dr. MacDonald". Helena Stoeckley corraborated this account. And the fact that Helena Stoeckely openly admitted involvement should also cast doubt on MacDonald's guilt. And the whole "she's a known drug user and liar" argument used by law enforcement and the prosecutors is such a joke. If she were such a compulsive liar, why was she a drug informant for law enforcement?


Ah yes, I forgot about the patient calling at 2am who claims a woman picked it up. If I remember correctly the prosecution debunked him saying he had issues with mental illness or drugs as well did they not?

Look I am all for the death penalty, but when there is so much doubt cast upon this case I would lose sleep over it if I were to be responsible for a potentially innocent man getting injected.

One last thing, has MacDonald's story changed in the last 40 years? Has he wavered from the actual core of the story?

Everyone interested in the case should read Fatal Vision and Final Vision. The books have opposite views and I personally was very convinced of MacDonald's guilt. I don't believe there were any hippies in his house killing everyone but the biggest threat to them, which would be MacDonald.

If I remember right he did change his story and most of what he claimed happened was torn apart by prosecutors in the second trial. The part about his wife's pajama top comes to mind.

Also a magazine in the house talked about the Manson killings, and MacDonald allegedly mentioned those crimes to friends and it's believed that was why the scene was staged as a "hippie" murder.

As for Stoeckely - I think she was confused on what day she was near the house. Witnesses said they saw her on that block several days before but no one could say for certain they saw her there on the night in question. She was on drugs and may have believed she was involved after reading about it in the papers.

Has anyone else here read both books?

Another portion of MacDonald's story that doesn't seem to hold water is how "Pig" was written in blood in almost the exact same way as the Manson family did in the Tate/LaBianaca murders. Throw in the fact that the magazine about the Mason family was found near their coffee table, and it seems like MacDonald began to panic (after realizing what he had done) and then went back and stabbed each victim several more times, with different weapons, in an attempt to set up a "home invasion" angle. The whole crime scene seems so staged. When someone is going to someone's home to "rough them up", don't they usually bring their own weapons? Almost like the Darlie Routier case. I still don't see any logical reason as to why Stoeckley would admit to these brutal crimes if she really had nothing to do with them. Really on the fence about this one, it still could go either way. Maybe I should read both books.

Everyone interested in the case should read Fatal Vision and Final Vision. The books have opposite views and I personally was very convinced of MacDonald's guilt. I don't believe there were any hippies in his house killing everyone but the biggest threat to them, which would be MacDonald.

If I remember right he did change his story and most of what he claimed happened was torn apart by prosecutors in the second trial. The part about his wife's pajama top comes to mind.

Also a magazine in the house talked about the Manson killings, and MacDonald allegedly mentioned those crimes to friends and it's believed that was why the scene was staged as a "hippie" murder.

As for Stoeckely - I think she was confused on what day she was near the house. Witnesses said they saw her on that block several days before but no one could say for certain they saw her there on the night in question. She was on drugs and may have believed she was involved after reading about it in the papers.

Has anyone else here read both books?

helena stoekley was involved. what i'd love to know from people who think mcdonald is guilty, how did he magically conjur up descriptions and what people looked like, in a murder he committed by your rationale? He didnt just say some nameless faceless people committed the murder. He had descriptions. And lo and behold, the descriptions were of some woman in a flppy hat wearing what helena wore. and her friends were the other people he described. she had friends who fit the profile mcdonald gave, the descriptions he gave. if helena and her friends werent involved in the murder, how did mcdonald magically describe people who actually existed?

secondly, helena was at or near the crime scene. mica the MP who rushed to the scene, the night of the murder, said he saw a woman in a floppy hat, that matched mcdonalds description of the woman holding the candle in the room, standing in the rain, at 2am near the mcdonald house. she was there. people can come up with any number of reasons why mcdonald would lie, but why would mica lie?

the whole idea of a bunch of hippies killing someone also wasnt just in the news from the manson killing, and that was the only reason. anyone who knows anything about the trajectory and evolution of both the protest movement and the hippie movement during the 1960's and 70's, knows as the 60's moved on, 1968. 1969, 1970, the hippie scenes went completely bezerk, and sort of broke with reality, this coming from someone who identifies with many of the hippie values and ethics.

fayattesville was in chaos. vets from vietnam were coming back from nam and settling there, and that obviously was rough as alot of them were not dealing with the war well. fayattesville itself was beyond bizzare, was a military town, yet had a huge hippie population, with the city itself a mix of strip joints and bars and taverns.

one cannot underestimate or overestimate the effect vietnam had on people at that time. hell in 2004 we had an election here in the u.s. we were fighting 2 wars in iraq and afghanistan, and what was the topic? vietnam. whether john kerry lied about his service, and whether george w lied or used his wealth to get out of the draft.

vietnams shadow looms large even today. imagine in 1970...

helena stoekley was involved. what i'd love to know from people who think mcdonald is guilty, how did he magically conjur up descriptions and what people looked like, in a murder he committed by your rationale? He didnt just say some nameless faceless people committed the murder. He had descriptions. And lo and behold, the descriptions were of some woman in a flppy hat wearing what helena wore. and her friends were the other people he described. she had friends who fit the profile mcdonald gave, the descriptions he gave. if helena and her friends werent involved in the murder, how did mcdonald magically describe people who actually existed?

secondly, helena was at or near the crime scene. mica the MP who rushed to the scene, the night of the murder, said he saw a woman in a floppy hat, that matched mcdonalds description of the woman holding the candle in the room, standing in the rain, at 2am near the mcdonald house. she was there. people can come up with any number of reasons why mcdonald would lie, but why would mica lie?

1) MacDonald was a doctor and probably saw dozens of people (or more) daily. It wouldn't be too hard for him to simply have described people using a person that he saw that day or earlier and give people that description. Since it's a real person, "remembering" what they look like wouldn't be that difficult.
Plus, he was describing "hippies" so a general (and stereotypical) description would usually suffice (long hair, dirty clothes sandals,etc)

2) He may not have lied. He may have seen a woman in a floppy hat. But that's not proof that the floppy hat woman had anything to do w/ the murders. Fort Bragg has always all kinds of people on it or near it (until they made it a closed post) so it's likely that any number of people could be out wandering around at all hours.

So basically (since I take it that you don't believe that MacDonald is guilty) you are agreeing w/ MacDonald that a random group of people broke into his home, killed his entire family, slightly wounded him and escaped leaving behind only trace evidence on a rainy night? They did this w/o apparently stealing anything and also leaving the weapons they used behind?

Really?

the whole idea of a bunch of hippies killing someone also wasnt just in the news from the manson killing, and that was the only reason. anyone who knows anything about the trajectory and evolution of both the protest movement and the hippie movement during the 1960's and 70's, knows as the 60's moved on, 1968. 1969, 1970, the hippie scenes went completely bezerk, and sort of broke with reality, this coming from someone who identifies with many of the hippie values and ethics.

fayattesville was in chaos. vets from vietnam were coming back from nam and settling there, and that obviously was rough as alot of them were not dealing with the war well. fayattesville itself was beyond bizzare, was a military town, yet had a huge hippie population, with the city itself a mix of strip joints and bars and taverns.

one cannot underestimate or overestimate the effect vietnam had on people at that time. hell in 2004 we had an election here in the u.s. we were fighting 2 wars in iraq and afghanistan, and what was the topic? vietnam. whether john kerry lied about his service, and whether george w lied or used his wealth to get out of the draft.

vietnams shadow looms large even today. imagine in 1970...

The "crazed hippies" story was initially suspicious for two reasons:

A) The word "pig" was written in blood on a headboard in the MacDonald home in almost the exact manner as the Manson family had at the Tate residence a few years before.

B) A magazine was found in the MacDonald residence that covered the Manson murders in detail.


The speculation, of course, is that MacDonald quickly concocted the story to cover himself. Which, in a very twisted way, makes "sense"--a federal agency is coming to investigate. Crazy, criminal hippies who have little respect for anything remotely bureaucratic--especially the military--are all over the news, entertainment. Perhaps he felt his fellow soldiers in the MP Corp and CID would find this story credible--and maybe even hold a bit of sympathy/empathy for him. Apparently, he was wrong.


A gang of maraudering hippies coming to exact vengeance on "the man" by singling out a rather obscure military officer and his family on an Army installation literally full of targets that could potentially carry more symbolic or catastrophic weight? I don't think so at all. I think the entire story is a load of crap, and Helena Stoeckley is without a shadow of a doubt an unreliable witness. She didn't see or do a damn thing.

According to Stoeckley, one of her friends OD'ed on drugs and was taken to a hospital where he was treated by MacDonald. MacDonald went on to scold Stoeckley and her friends for letting their friend OD and the way they were acting and that is allegedly what motivated the attacks by Stoeckley and company. But the fact that MacDonald saw these people before the murders shows where he could have gotten a description of them. "Crazed hippies" no matter how messed up they are on LSD would not break into a home to "rough up" MacDonald without any of their own weapons. The fact that each victim was stabbed several times with several different weapons suggests a sad attempt of a cover-up by MacDonald IMHO.

"Crazed hippies" no matter how messed up they are on LSD would not break into a home to "rough up" MacDonald without any of their own weapons. The fact that each victim was stabbed several times with several different weapons suggests a sad attempt of a cover-up by MacDonald IMHO.

Agreed.



As well, Stoeckley was diagnosed as suffering from borderline personality disorder in 1978, with of course an obvious history of drug abuse.


http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stoeckley_med_1978-11-02.html

According to Stoeckley, one of her friends OD'ed on drugs and was taken to a hospital where he was treated by MacDonald. MacDonald went on to scold Stoeckley and her friends for letting their friend OD and the way they were acting and that is allegedly what motivated the attacks by Stoeckley and company. But the fact that MacDonald saw these people before the murders shows where he could have gotten a description of them. "Crazed hippies" no matter how messed up they are on LSD would not break into a home to "rough up" MacDonald without any of their own weapons. The fact that each victim was stabbed several times with several different weapons suggests a sad attempt of a cover-up by MacDonald IMHO.

There are so many things that suggest one side or the other on this story. I can personally say there has never been a case where I am literally sitting on the fence and cannot decide either way. With each post making me sway from side to side. There are good points, very good points, on either side of this case, even the critics can admit this.

I want to know about the man who allegedly made the phone call to the household during the attack and Stokely confirming this call in her testament. That's really one of the main things that keeps me on the fence, as well as some of the defense's evidence. However, there are many things that keep me wondering if he is entirely guilty of the crime and a cover up. How would he get the group of hippies to admit to it if it had been all fabricated? I'm wondering what may have happened here and if he had bribed Stokely in any way to make up the story. But also what about the boyfriend of hers who allegedly confessed to a friend? Whether he meant his confession or not, the friend who was interviewed seemed quite sincere that the confession had actually happened. There's so much more to the story that you would hope could come out after forty years!

Another point that I forgot about was at the time wasn't it universally thought that the Manson family had committed the murders while high on acid? Even though years later it turned out none of the family members were on drugs that night (unless you believe "Tex" Watson, who said he took some speed the night of the Tate murders). If that was the case, it makes it more likely that MacDonald made up his "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" murdering hippie story based off of the Manson murders.

Although MacDonald's ability to make that story up in the amount of time he did is kind of impressive to say the least. Not to mention actually have Stoeckley corraborate parts of his story. I agree about remaining on the fence, but after the 30 plus years that have passed without some sort of new DNA evidence or an admission from one of the alleged hippies it seems like MacDonald is exactly where he belongs.

describing someone as hippie and describing them is two different things. he didnt describe people with long hair and sandals at least not to my knowledge. someone wearing a wig and a floppy hat isnt a stereotypical hippie costume. when someone talks about hippies today i dont picture someone in a floppy hat, and with a blond wig on. maybe thats just me.

secondly, he didnt describe any of the other men, the people with helena who actually assaulted mcdonald and killed his family, they werent described as stereotypically hippie as well. he described an african american male, and several other men, all clean cut if i remember well. again, this isnt a typical image of a hippie one thinks of. if i remember well, helenas boyfriend was greg mitchell a returning vietnam vet and she was also friends with a bunch of people who fit the desciption that mcdonald gave. greg mitchell looks an awful lot like one of the white males mcdonald sketched, and helena sure looks a hell of a lot like the woman in the floppy hat, especially given the fact she was outside in the rain at 2am near the mcdonald house the night of the murders wearing exactly what mcdonald said she was wearing in his house.

again whats more likely here, Jeff Mcdonald killed his entire family, then lucked out and while scheming to think of who could have broken in, and done the deed, he comes up with not only an accruate description of helena but she also happens to be outside near his house that same night. and also by coincidence she has friends who fit the description of the killers that mcdonald said were in the house. or, that helena and her friends really did commit the crimes... gee let me think here!

describing someone as stinky, smelly, wearing burkenstocks, having long hair is one thing. but to describe people like mcdonald did, and to have helena and her friends match the descriptions TO A T, is quite another thing.

describing someone as hippie and describing them is two different things. he didnt describe people with long hair and sandals at least not to my knowledge. someone wearing a wig and a floppy hat isnt a stereotypical hippie costume. when someone talks about hippies today i dont picture someone in a floppy hat, and with a blond wig on. maybe thats just me.

secondly, he didnt describe any of the other men, the people with helena who actually assaulted mcdonald and killed his family, they werent described as stereotypically hippie as well. he described an african american male, and several other men, all clean cut if i remember well. again, this isnt a typical image of a hippie one thinks of. if i remember well, helenas boyfriend was greg mitchell a returning vietnam vet and she was also friends with a bunch of people who fit the desciption that mcdonald gave. greg mitchell looks an awful lot like one of the white males mcdonald sketched, and helena sure looks a hell of a lot like the woman in the floppy hat, especially given the fact she was outside in the rain at 2am near the mcdonald house the night of the murders wearing exactly what mcdonald said she was wearing in his house.

again whats more likely here, Jeff Mcdonald killed his entire family, then lucked out and while scheming to think of who could have broken in, and done the deed, he comes up with not only an accruate description of helena but she also happens to be outside near his house that same night. and also by coincidence she has friends who fit the description of the killers that mcdonald said were in the house. or, that helena and her friends really did commit the crimes... gee let me think here!

describing someone as stinky, smelly, wearing burkenstocks, having long hair is one thing. but to describe people like mcdonald did, and to have helena and her friends match the descriptions TO A T, is quite another thing.

Yes but he had seen Stoeckley and others at the hospital he worked at before the murders. That would explain how he was able to describe them in accurate detail. These four people come into his house and brutally slaughter his wife and children (each stabbed over 15 times with various weapons) but MacDonald only gets hit about the arms and head with a two by four and one stab wound? Since he was allegedly the target of the attack why didn't they do the same to him?

to say its all a coincidence, that ONE HELL of a coincidence. if he had described in general what helena wore thats one thing, but to describe what she was wearing that NIGHT, the night of the murder a few hours after it happened, if he was making it up, how could he possibly know helena was going to wear the same clothes he made up, how would he even know helena existed?

to believe mcdonald is guilty you have to be suspicion and discount nearly every person involved in the case.

if mcdonald is guilty-mica didnt see helena near the house as he raced to the scene. he was lying

helena was lying when she said she was inside the house

mcdonald made up composites and descriptions of people that really existed. he committed the crime and in racing to come up with a cover story, inexplicably described "fake" people who actually existed. all a coincidence

that the patient who called his house at 2am and spoke to helena was lying and mentally ill. after all he was mentally ill and a patient.

the friend who saw mitchell in a farmhouse with the words "I killed mcdonalds wife and kids" freshly painted on it was lying or the words were a joke.

that mitchell being described as pshychotic as a result of his service in nam was unrelated. that as the boyfriend of someone who was a major figure in this case, he had no role in it, and that he played no part. he was a patsy and a non issue.

yeah i dislike this case partly because people cant get beyond certain things. their mind is set in stone. its like arguing with a wall. i say one thing, the mcdonald hater and non supporter says another thing. back and forth. kind of stupid. i personally think there is way more than sufficient evidence that helena and her friends were in the house that night. i dont know how anyone could argue otherwise. but again, im not a wall...

oh so i see, he saw them at the hospital and the night his entire family is murdered, he remembers, "oh yeah, that helena woman, shes insane, if i blame her, i can get away with murder". so he wracks his brain, and remembers, in the heat of the moment, as his entire family was just brutally murdered at his own hands, and remembers what helena wore to his office that one time, years ago. "helena wore that floppy hat, and that wig yeah i remember that". coincidentally, helena really is, near the mcdonald house that night, a few blocks away, wearing the same thing he made up. again, you really willing to bet a man's life in prison on the fact you believe the guy is guilty and is psychotic?

to say its all a coincidence, that ONE HELL of a coincidence. if he had described in general what helena wore thats one thing, but to describe what she was wearing that NIGHT, the night of the murder a few hours after it happened, if he was making it up, how could he possibly know helena was going to wear the same clothes he made up, how would he even know helena existed?

to believe mcdonald is guilty you have to be suspicion and discount nearly every person involved in the case.

if mcdonald is guilty-mica didnt see helena near the house as he raced to the scene. he was lying

helena was lying when she said she was inside the house

mcdonald made up composites and descriptions of people that really existed. he committed the crime and in racing to come up with a cover story, inexplicably described "fake" people who actually existed. all a coincidence

that the patient who called his house at 2am and spoke to helena was lying and mentally ill. after all he was mentally ill and a patient.

the friend who saw mitchell in a farmhouse with the words "I killed mcdonalds wife and kids" freshly painted on it was lying or the words were a joke.

that mitchell being described as pshychotic as a result of his service in nam was unrelated. that as the boyfriend of someone who was a major figure in this case, he had no role in it, and that he played no part. he was a patsy and a non issue.

Stoeckley could have been lying about everything for attention, or maybe she was high on drugs at the time of her claims. The fact that MacDonald described what she wore is irrelevant. If MP Mica claims to have seen her on the base, isn't it likely MacDonald could have seen her there before the murders as well? All he had to do was spot her at one point during the day and then "remember" her being in the house when he was "attacked". His descriptions of his attackers was vague, to say the least. A woman with a floppy hat and blonde hair holding "something that glowed" was about as much of a description that MacDonald gave.

yeah i dislike this case partly because people cant get beyond certain things. their mind is set in stone. its like arguing with a wall. i say one thing, the mcdonald hater and non supporter says another thing. back and forth. kind of stupid. i personally think there is way more than sufficient evidence that helena and her friends were in the house that night. i dont know how anyone could argue otherwise. but again, im not a wall...

There's no difference between you than someone who thinks MacDonald is guilty. It's called an opinion. You're mind is obviously set in stone as well, and no matter what evidence is brought forward that paints MacDonald as guilty you're still going to be planted firmly in your belief that he's innocent. In other words, a "wall".

what about the hair found under the fingernails of collete and around the scene, the hair, the wig hair found at the crime scene? brown hair under all the victims fingernails. the blue fiber. all of that. its one thing to say mcdonald did it, but to not have a single piece of evidence ie dna that links him to the crime is another. and on top of that to have dna evidence that explicitly points to helena, 22 inch synthetic blond wig hair, or the brown hair (mcdonald doesnt have brown hair, greg mitchell did), and to ignore it all is so sick it is astounding.

the dna in this case points away from mcdonald. i trust dna alot more than i trust anyone else in this case. again, anyone here willing to bet a mans life in prison on ignoring dna evidence.

where did the brown hair come from if mcdonald killed them? How about the blond wig hair? the blue fiber?

Keep in mind Stoeckley was a military dependent at the time of the murders; her father was a retired colonel. That's how she even had access to the post in the first place. She was very familiar with the installation and still had friends living on it. She could've been seen--or treated--multiple times while there--as could her friends.


you really willing to bet a man's life in prison on the fact you believe the guy is guilty and is psychotic?

No one is betting anything, and a jury did find him guilty based on the evidence presented. As far as his mental health is concerned, professionals have offered a plethora of findings. I clearly remember reading one issued in August 1979 in which the psychiatrist stated he was, indeed, a psychopath:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac-silverman_1979-08-16.html

Of course, there are others who don't go quite this far. They are all consistent in one observation, however: CPT MacDonald had great feelings of personal inadequacy, especially as related to his masculinity. More than one of the reviewing psychologists and psychiatrists pointed to evidence of a hostile attitude towards women.

people said and maintain that damien echols murdered those 3 boys in west memphis arkansas, he was declared a psychopath by many including doctors

same situation there. no dna links the wm3 to the scene. yet they remain victims of people who think they are guilty. its sad when its so set in stone that people dont question anything anymore.

people said and maintain that damien echols murdered those 3 boys in west memphis arkansas, he was declared a psychopath by many including doctors

same situation there. no dna links the wm3 to the scene. yet they remain victims of people who think they are guilty. its sad when its so set in stone that people dont question anything anymore.

Personally, I have always wanted to believe MacDonald was innocent. I'm an Army officer, too. But given what I have read and what I know about my organization, I simply cannot. I questioned the quality of the investigation more than anything else (especially as relates to the maintenance of the crime scene. It was left 'intact' for close to fifteen years. :eek:), and I find it's just one of those things: there is more evidence, in my opinion, that suggests he did it than he didn't.

It's just that, an opinion. I am not COL Rock, a JAG officer, or a juror.

seems a pretty straight forward case to me. the blond wig hairs dont belong to collette or his daughters. the brown hair under the fingernails of all victims didnt come from macdonald as he didnt have that color hair, and the blue fiber found didnt come from any fabric in the mcdonald home. seems to me its quite a logical next step to say...um gee, the killers were someone ummm not named jeffrey macdonald. i know that a huge leap there. it takes a huge amount of faith to assert that...

seems to me its quite a logical next step to say...um gee, the killers were someone ummm not named jeffrey macdonald. i know that a huge leap there. it takes a huge amount of faith to assert that...

Not really 'faith', but would help to have some decent and 'thorough' investigative work, which clearly a lot of this case was/is lacking ;)

Remember hearing that Ted Gunderson had been looking deeply into the case though and i think it was his opinion that the evidence pointed towards McD being innocent.

This is so much part of the problem in this case, who knows how many ppl were 'paid off' to say certain things, write certain things, ignore certain important aspects. An impartial investigator is really what is needed.



One other thing - JMcD has now been in prison for 30 years. His family were all killed. He has nothing to live for.

Why rot away in a prison for so long - why not just kill yourself and get it over with - I mean, what will there be to come out to by the time (or if) he would ever get out?

No family, a whole new changed way of life and a criminal record making it difficult for someone of his previous standing to live a decent lifestyle in this day and age. With a record and such a high profile as that, he's certainly not going to walk straight back into his previous field of work overnight.


On the other hand, maybe he has everything to live for - and maybe that everything to him is to simply clear his name. Just a thought.

If this case was so straight forward and there was groundbreaking evidence that exonerates MacDonald, why is he still incarcerated? They did test DNA on the hairs found in Colette's fingernails and it was her own hair, and they also found fibers from MacDonald's pajama top on her hands as well. The clincher in this case was the tips of surgical gloves (which were linked to MacDonald, BTW) which were found underneath the head board of the bed, where the word "Pig" had been written in blood. Why would drugged up hippes be composed enough to remember to use surgical gloves to conceal their fingerprints? And how would they know MacDonald owned such gloves?

The UM segment mentioned that McD may have gotten into an argument regarding drugs on base in the weeks previous.

So, McD being a doctor on base, surgical gloves = pretty obvious connection.

Whether or not they knew he owned them is irrelevant, just seems a very simple connection.

One other thing - JMcD has now been in prison for 30 years. His family were all killed. He has nothing to live for.

Why rot away in a prison for so long - why not just kill yourself and get it over with - I mean, what will there be to come out to by the time (or if) he would ever get out?

No family, a whole new changed way of life and a criminal record making it difficult for someone of his previous standing to live a decent lifestyle in this day and age. With a record and such a high profile as that, he's certainly not going to walk straight back into his previous field of work overnight.

On the other hand, maybe he has everything to live for - and maybe that everything to him is to simply clear his name. Just a thought.

Well, MacDonald did get married in 2002, so he does have a wife to finally spend time with if he ever gets out. Guilty or not, the guy still does have a lot of friends and supporters and if his behaviour from the 1970s is any indication, I'm sure he'll make as much money as he can doing talk shows and what-not. In 2005, MacDonald did have a parole hearing where he refused to admit his guilt, so if he is truly innocent, then it obviously does mean a great deal to him to get his name is cleared.

The fact that least injured member of the MacDonald family was also the physically strongest tells me who committed the crimes. The other evidence was simply icing and sprinkles on the cake.

The UM segment mentioned that McD may have gotten into an argument regarding drugs on base in the weeks previous.

So, McD being a doctor on base, surgical gloves = pretty obvious connection.

Whether or not they knew he owned them is irrelevant, just seems a very simple connection.

But would these hippies honestly risk being caught by hanging around the crime scene longer by searching the house for MacDonald's surgical gloves? They had the wherewithal to use gloves all the while high on drugs?

But would these hippies honestly risk being caught by hanging around the crime scene longer by searching the house for MacDonald's surgical gloves? They had the wherewithal to use gloves all the while high on drugs?

How do we know they had to search - McD could simply have had some in the house for his own use, the fact they got a hold of them may be happen-stance.

Also, McDs base would probably have ordered in hundreds if not thousands of boxes of the same gloves (mass ordering = keep the overall price down) - so they may have simply been part of the same batch that were available all over the base, hence same type of gloves?

And people do some crazy things while on drugs. Maybe they thought they were playing doctor. I am kidding, but it is possible. Plus one of the group may not be as drugged up as the others and may have had the wherewithal to put some gloves on.

How do we know they had to search - McD could simply have had some in the house for his own use, the fact they got a hold of them may be happen-stance.

Also, McDs base would probably have ordered in hundreds if not thousands of boxes of the same gloves (mass ordering = keep the overall price down) - so they may have simply been part of the same batch that were available all over the base, hence same type of gloves?

And people do some crazy things while on drugs. Maybe they thought they were playing doctor. I am kidding, but it is possible. Plus one of the group may not be as drugged up as the others and may have had the wherewithal to put some gloves on.

The surgical gloves do not suggest anything other than someone trying to cover up the crimes. If they were intelligent enough to use gloves to conceal prints, why did they blatantly leave the weapons lying on the front lawn? And they still had to have done some kind of search through MacDonald's residence, how would four unknown intruders know where he kept the gloves at?

The fact that least injured member of the MacDonald family was also the physically strongest tells me who committed the crimes. The other evidence was simply icing and sprinkles on the cake.

This, this, and this.

Even if the investigation was handled substandardly, MacDonald's injuries are not at all conducive to fending off a gang of drug-addled hippies (including three males, no less) who just brutally murdered two children and a woman in their sleep, even though they would've encountered MacDonald on the couch long before they would have any other member of the family.

oh so i see, he saw them at the hospital and the night his entire family is murdered, he remembers, "oh yeah, that helena woman, shes insane, if i blame her, i can get away with murder". so he wracks his brain, and remembers, in the heat of the moment, as his entire family was just brutally murdered at his own hands, and remembers what helena wore to his office that one time, years ago. "helena wore that floppy hat, and that wig yeah i remember that". coincidentally, helena really is, near the mcdonald house that night, a few blocks away, wearing the same thing he made up. again, you really willing to bet a man's life in prison on the fact you believe the guy is guilty and is psychotic?

Hmmm, good points. MacDonald is either the most unlucky person on the face of the earth or the most self absorbed. I too am not sure why others have their mind made up with this thing. I feel I've watched everything on MacDonald on Youtube and STILL cannot come up with something.

One thing I do not know for sure. Was a polygraph taken? After all Tommy Ziegler passed his polygraph despite being on death row. The person giving Tommy the test said it was in his professional and personal opinion that Tommy was telling the truth. What about MacDonald?

One thing I do not know for sure. Was a polygraph taken? After all Tommy Ziegler passed his polygraph despite being on death row. The person giving Tommy the test said it was in his professional and personal opinion that Tommy was telling the truth. What about MacDonald?

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

This is the main site that provides the most arguments for MacDonald's innocence. In regards to a polygraph test for MacDonald, they claim:

"Jeffrey MacDonald passed two polygraph tests, one of them administered by one of the top professionals in this field, Dr. David Raskin. The results were then presented "blindly" (name of person being tested not given) to two other experts, who corroborated Dr. Raskin's findings of "no deception". Helena Stoeckley's polygraph indicated that she was deceptive when she denied involvement in the murders. She later took a polygraph, confessing her presence during the murders, which indicated "no deception"."

Of course, if MacDonald is guilty, he's likely a manipulative sociopath that would have no trouble lying and still passing a polygraph test, so these tests don't prove anything, either way.

However, anytime I sway towards the side of MacDonald being guilty, some of the arguments presented on this site provide me with a lot of reasonable doubt, so you're right, it's VERY difficult to come up with a definitive opinion and stick to it. If you search through all the MacDonald-related threads on this board, you're likely to find posters who've changed their mind about this case numerous times over the years.

If this case was so straight forward and there was groundbreaking evidence that exonerates MacDonald, why is he still incarcerated? They did test DNA on the hairs found in Colette's fingernails and it was her own hair, and they also found fibers from MacDonald's pajama top on her hands as well. The clincher in this case was the tips of surgical gloves (which were linked to MacDonald, BTW) which were found underneath the head board of the bed, where the word "Pig" had been written in blood. Why would drugged up hippes be composed enough to remember to use surgical gloves to conceal their fingerprints? And how would they know MacDonald owned such gloves?


you familiar with the cases of the wm3, peltier and mumia? Just because exonerating evidence exists doesnt meant squat in terms of people getting released.

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

This is the main site that provides the most arguments for MacDonald's innocence. In regards to a polygraph test for MacDonald, they claim:

"Jeffrey MacDonald passed two polygraph tests, one of them administered by one of the top professionals in this field, Dr. David Raskin. The results were then presented "blindly" (name of person being tested not given) to two other experts, who corroborated Dr. Raskin's findings of "no deception". Helena Stoeckley's polygraph indicated that she was deceptive when she denied involvement in the murders. She later took a polygraph, confessing her presence during the murders, which indicated "no deception"."

Of course, if MacDonald is guilty, he's likely a manipulative sociopath that would have no trouble lying and still passing a polygraph test, so these tests don't prove anything, either way.

However, anytime I sway towards the side of MacDonald being guilty, some of the arguments presented on this site provide me with a lot of reasonable doubt, so you're right, it's VERY difficult to come up with a definitive opinion and stick to it. If you search through all the MacDonald-related threads on this board, you're likely to find posters who've changed their mind about this case numerous times over the years.

polygraphs should never be the basis for you, jurors, or judges, or the public at large deciding whether someone is guilty or not. I have no criminal record, but in school i detested exams largely because i got freaked out/stressed out and would blank out and start sweating and forget all i had learned. i think its sad if we as a society decide someone is guilty not based on dna evidence, but rather, based on whether some machine thought they "failed" some question. I think thats gross. if i stood accused of some crime, and was asked to take a polygraph and was innocent, i'd refuse to take the test. i;d flat out refuse. it proves nothing and is useless. macdonald passing or failing polygraphs or anyone else in UM history passing or failing is meaningless and should not be focused on.

i have a serious issue with people on this board and in the general public condemning and being judge and jury all based on circumstantial evidence and all that nonsense. Again, I have given time and money and support to the cases of mumia, peltier and the wm3, all were convicted and jailed based on circumstantial evidence or nothing at all. I dont think surgical glove tips mean squat in this case. neither does the fact he was less injured than anyone else in the house, the only person not murdered. the killers could have had a million reasons why they spared his life.

Hell look at the jonbenet ramsey case. for years people said it was the parents. she was murdered with rope and a garot from her own house and the ransom note written on the mothers art paper. and the odd ransom amount of 118,000. all circumstantial. yet, we now know john and patsy were and are innocent. suggesting that circumstantial evidence is king is a slippery and dangerous slope and a dangerous game to play.

im wary of people who suggest others should be imprisoned not on evidence, but on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. Hypotheticals, innuendos, conjectures. He didnt have an alibi for that day, or he was in the area at the time of the murder, or he showed signs of being odd. lets investigate people and allegations sure, but if its all we find, just allegations, i dont really think thats meaningful

They were obviously half-brained, drug induced hippies. So playing doctor may have actually been a reality.

What killer decides to take time out to make a phone call in the middle of a spree?

What fool decides to take a ride on a rocking horse (a little fun) before making a frenzied attack on a bunch of other human beings (a twisted idea of fun)?

Sounds like a screwed up or bad drug trip.

They were obviously half-brained, drug induced hippies. So playing doctor may have actually been a reality.

What killer decides to take time out to make a phone call in the middle of a spree?

What fool decides to take a ride on a rocking horse (a little fun) before making a frenzied attack on a bunch of other human beings (a twisted idea of fun)?

Sounds like a screwed up or bad drug trip.

What "victim" makes a call for help and then leaves the phone dangling before giving any vital information so he can go into the bathroom and compose himself?

The fact that least injured member of the MacDonald family was also the physically strongest tells me who committed the crimes. The other evidence was simply icing and sprinkles on the cake.

That isn't evidence. It may be a fact of the case, but it isn't evidence.

This, this, and this.

Even if the investigation was handled substandardly, MacDonald's injuries are not at all conducive to fending off a gang of drug-addled hippies (including three males, no less) who just brutally murdered two children and a woman in their sleep, even though they would've encountered MacDonald on the couch long before they would have any other member of the family.

One thing that can't be forgotten about though, is that MacDonald was a trained Green Beret. The guy may have been a doctor, but he was still a trained Green Beret. He knew how to fight, so he would have a hell of a lot better chance in a fight than the average person. The injuries may not be the same as what a normal person would get, but MacDonald was trained in physical combat.

Someone who has received physical combat training isn't going to suffer nearly as bad of injuries when fighting a group of people, as someone who has no combat training.

One thing that can't be forgotten about though, is that MacDonald was a trained Green Beret. The guy may have been a doctor, but he was still a trained Green Beret. He knew how to fight, so he would have a hell of a lot better chance in a fight than the average person. The injuries may not be the same as what a normal person would get, but MacDonald was trained in physical combat.

Someone who has received physical combat training isn't going to suffer nearly as bad of injuries when fighting a group of people, as someone who has no combat training.

MacDonald's combat training actually harms, rather than helps, his case. Even if he was "surprised" by multiple assailants, he should have been able to either severely wound or kill at least one and his struggles would have frightened off all but the most hardened of criminals.
Or the assailants would have had to kill or severely incapacitate MacDonald. That they didn't should have raised alarm bells among the investigators on the scene.

The fact that there wasn't at least one dead or wounded assailant in the MacDonald home pretty much states that there were probably no assailants in the home. Well...except for the doctor,of course.

MacDonald was the "target" in this so called "attack". People who believe his innocence then need to explain why his wife, and two small children (under the age of 10) were stabbed up to thirty times with various types of weapons whereas MacDonald was subdued and stabbed once. If these acid-induced hippies were there to rough up MacDonald but things got out of hand, why did they simply leave MacDonald alive? Why not repeatedly stab him over and over again to not leave any witnesses?

One thing that can't be forgotten about though, is that MacDonald was a trained Green Beret. The guy may have been a doctor, but he was still a trained Green Beret. He knew how to fight, so he would have a hell of a lot better chance in a fight than the average person. The injuries may not be the same as what a normal person would get, but MacDonald was trained in physical combat.

Someone who has received physical combat training isn't going to suffer nearly as bad of injuries when fighting a group of people, as someone who has no combat training.


i disagree, macdonald was woken up and beaten. even bruce lee would have been at a disadvantadge. I am sure he was groggy. Im sure he also felt at some point that it was a dream, so theres that. He was caught seriously off guard. If theres 3 men standing over you with an ice pick and a bat, lets face it, even a Green Beret is gonna be scared as hell.

The fact he didnt kill any of them means little to nothing

MacDonald was the "target" in this so called "attack". People who believe his innocence then need to explain why his wife, and two small children (under the age of 10) were stabbed up to thirty times with various types of weapons whereas MacDonald was subdued and stabbed once. If these acid-induced hippies were there to rough up MacDonald but things got out of hand, why did they simply leave MacDonald alive? Why not repeatedly stab him over and over again to not leave any witnesses?


macdonald has no requirement to prove such a thing. if anything its the police and prosecutors who need to prove the blue fibers that were found that were not part of any other fabric/clothes in the house was found what it came from and who it came from. They also must prove, whose blond wig hair that was. Finally the brown hair in the victims hands, whose was that?

i dont know the killers and dont know what they were thinking. I do know about DNA and real hard evidence. If you want to deal in conjecture of of "oh what was the killer thinking" thats one thing, I dont have a degree in crinminalogy, or psychology and my guess is neither do you all. What we can do is deal in hard truths and facts. The fabric, hair and wig hair were found at the scene. How are they explained.

Im sort of tired of the silly conjecture of "yes this person is guilty because of circumstantial evidence".

I think its unethical at best to convict, try and accuse someone of a crime if all you have is circumstantial evidence. its highly unprofessional

crime scene errors that are more than enough to free macdonald, or should have provided enough to not have him be imprisoned.

-unsecured crime scene. 22 plus MP's, and regular joe's walking through the house and crime scene

-ambulance driver sitting on couch

-people standing up the overturned flowerpot

-MP picking up phone with hands and putting it back in cradle

-loss of blue fibers and skin from the fingernails and body of collete and his daughter.

-the manson copycat idea was brought up mostly because of the time magazine issue on the table in the living room, which had blood on it. Dusted for fingerprints, it was found to only have the fingerprints of investigators on and in it.

----

these actions are unprofessional and illegal. every single one of the MP's and investigators save for Mica should have

mica said that the woman on the corner, near macdonalds house hours after the murder, wearing the same exact clothes macdonald described, was unusual for fayatteville and macdonalds area of residence. people just didnt do that or look like that. Again, the likelihood of a coincidence here is beyond ridiculous. even if macdonald ran into helena at his clinic, he sure didnt run into her the day of the murder or the week before. How would he know that she would be wearing the same exact clothes he described, AND THE SAME EXACT WIG AND HAT, and would be standing close to his house that night? Again, thats a coincidence that betrays logic, and therefore is not true.

Macdonald described helena stokely accurately because, gee golly willikers folks, SHE WAS THERE!

i disagree, macdonald was woken up and beaten. even bruce lee would have been at a disadvantadge. I am sure he was groggy. Im sure he also felt at some point that it was a dream, so theres that. He was caught seriously off guard. If theres 3 men standing over you with an ice pick and a bat, lets face it, even a Green Beret is gonna be scared as hell.

The fact he didnt kill any of them means little to nothing

That they were able to subdue him w/o causing him any serious injury is part of the reason that his tale was (and is) suspect. That's not a supposition; that was (and is) the tale that MacDonald told. And since MacDonald was trained combatant, he should at least injured one or more of his assailants, who, it would be safe to assume, were not.

The lack of any serious injuries isn't speculation or conjecture; it's part of the police and the Army's Article 32 investigations. A man attacked by three people should sustained far more injuries than MacDonald did. Or he should have been killed along w/ his family. That he was not, is indicative of logical flaws in his story.

A jury, when presented w/ evidence from both sides found MacDonald guilty. An author who studied every scrap of information and interviewed MacDonald in person on multiple occasions and wrote the definitive book on the case believes him to be guilty. And in the almost 30 years since his trial, MacDonald and his attorney's have been unable to prove to any appellate court or elected official that he deserves either a new trial, a writ of habeas corpus or a pardon/commutation of sentence.

Now this doesn't mean that there's a 100% chance that MacDonald is guilty. But that's only because 100% is a theoretical maximum. To me his guilt certainly has certainly been proven well into the high 90's.

macdonald has no requirement to prove such a thing. if anything its the police and prosecutors who need to prove the blue fibers that were found that were not part of any other fabric/clothes in the house was found what it came from and who it came from. They also must prove, whose blond wig hair that was. Finally the brown hair in the victims hands, whose was that?

i dont know the killers and dont know what they were thinking. I do know about DNA and real hard evidence. If you want to deal in conjecture of of "oh what was the killer thinking" thats one thing, I dont have a degree in crinminalogy, or psychology and my guess is neither do you all. What we can do is deal in hard truths and facts. The fabric, hair and wig hair were found at the scene. How are they explained.

Im sort of tired of the silly conjecture of "yes this person is guilty because of circumstantial evidence".

I think its unethical at best to convict, try and accuse someone of a crime if all you have is circumstantial evidence. its highly unprofessional

MacDonald doesn't need to "prove" anything. His supporters who constantly ignore the known facts are the ones that need to explain the holes in his story. As for the hair found in Colette's hand, didn't they do DNA tests and it was determined that the hair was her own? And skin found underneath her fingernails was determined to be MacDonald's. The fabric could easily have been transported by one of the many investigators on the scene. As to the synthetic hair, isn't it possible that it came from one of the girls dolls/toys? The "fact" that four people were allegedly in the house, three of which were violently beating MacDonald, and that they only left behind a few synthetic hairs and some fibers of clothing should be enough to start questioning MacDonald's story. In the fight for his life, MacDonald would have produced some unknown "fibers", hair, or skin from one of his assailants. The fact that he didn't pretty much sums up the fact that there were no intruders and there was no fight.

Macdonald described helena stokely accurately because, gee golly willikers folks, SHE WAS THERE!

If she was reportedly seen by others at the base, why is so hard to believe that MacDonald simply saw her earlier and that's how he accurately described her?

MacDonald doesn't need to "prove" anything. His supporters who constantly ignore the known facts are the ones that need to explain the holes in his story. As for the hair found in Colette's hand, didn't they do DNA tests and it was determined that the hair was her own? And skin found underneath her fingernails was determined to be MacDonald's. The fabric could easily have been transported by one of the many investigators on the scene. As to the synthetic hair, isn't it possible that it came from one of the girls dolls/toys? The "fact" that four people were allegedly in the house, three of which were violently beating MacDonald, and that they only left behind a few synthetic hairs and some fibers of clothing should be enough to start questioning MacDonald's story. In the fight for his life, MacDonald would have produced some unknown "fibers", hair, or skin from one of his assailants. The fact that he didn't pretty much sums up the fact that there were no intruders and there was no fight.



If she was reportedly seen by others at the base, why is so hard to believe that MacDonald simply saw her earlier and that's how he accurately described her?

Good post!

I was cleaning out the closet the other day and came across an old tape of "Fatal Vision". I watched it and was intrigued by the scene where the Navy forensic specialist led Collette's "father" played by Carl Malden through the whole murder. Was this scene actual transcripts from the trial or a fictional account of the murders? If it was the actual forensic account of what happened I don't see how he could be innocent.

I was cleaning out the closet the other day and came across an old tape of "Fatal Vision". I watched it and was intrigued by the scene where the Navy forensic specialist led Collette's "father" played by Carl Malden through the whole murder. Was this scene actual transcripts from the trial or a fictional account of the murders? If it was the actual forensic account of what happened I don't see how he could be innocent.

I've never seen the movie, but I've heard it's pretty faithful to the book, which I'm currently reading. And 2 investigators did in fact take Freddy Kasab (Colett'es step father) back to the scene of the crime to which he would re-examine points of MacDonald's story that didn't seem to make sense. For example, he laid on the couch in the dark (like MacDonald said he was doing on the night of the murders) and had the two investigators approach and he couldn't even see their faces. The fact that MacDonald was able to describe 3 out of the 4 of his "attackers" in complete darkness is one of the holes that made Freddy start to question MacDonald's innocence.

The biggest thing that does it for me is that its such a rip-off of the Manson murders. The details are very similar, and to me he got inspiration from the details of those incidents. I've said it before elsewhere--I find it hard to believe there were two murderous bands of acid-tripping hippies murdering perfect strangers. He's just a sociopath.

The biggest thing that does it for me is that its such a rip-off of the Manson murders. The details are very similar, and to me he got inspiration from the details of those incidents. I've said it before elsewhere--I find it hard to believe there were two murderous bands of acid-tripping hippies murdering perfect strangers. He's just a sociopath.

What really convinced me was the way he would testify in court and his hearings. When asked about one of his several affairs he repeatedly denied knowing the woman. But when confronted with the fact that the woman admitted to their affair he said something like, "Yeah I balled her. She was a secretary. Big deal." I actually think that was verbatim. Doesn't sound like a grieving soul survivor, does it?

It looks like Joe McGinniss, the author of "Fatal Vision", is still writing and has just released an "unauthorized" biography of Sarah Palin that could potentially lead to lawsuits. This article is written by a Jeffrey MacDonald supporter who refers to McGinniss as a literary shock jock.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september222011/mcginnis-palin-tk.php

Now, that I've bumped this thread, maybe someone here can answer a question about the MacDonald case that I've always been curious about. MacDonald's supporters claims that one of the biggest pieces of evidence that backs up his story is a phone call that was placed to the MacDonald residence by Jimmy Friar while the murders were supposedly taking place, in which he heard a woman giggling and someone yelling "Hang up the damn phone!" in the background. However, some people don't believe Jimmy Friar's story at all since he had a history of mental illness. So, my obvious question is: did they ever check phone records to verify this call actually took place?

Since Friar only wound up calling the MacDonald residence because he was accidentally transferred to the wrong Dr. MacDonald, wouldn't they have been able to confirm this story with a switchboard operator? And I know we're talking about 1970 technology here, but did they have the ability back then to check if a phone call went through and how long the call lasted? It doesn't prove his guilt or innocence, either way, but if this call did happen and MacDonald really WAS the middle of murdering his family and staging the crime scene, I have to wonder how he would have reacted to his phone suddenly ringing in the middle of the night.

I believe he is guilty. The hair found in Colette's hand has been tested and it's a 100% match to Mr. MacDonald. What kind of drug crazied people tuck a 2 year old child in bed? And why didn't they raid the drugs the doctor had in the house? Right now the defense is trying to have the weapons tested for DNA. Go right ahead and will just prove more of the same-that Mr. Donald is guilty. And DNA has been tested against Helena & Greg and none of it matches them.

I believe he is guilty. The hair found in Colette's hand has been tested and it's a 100% match to Mr. MacDonald. What kind of drug crazied people tuck a 2 year old child in bed? And why didn't they raid the drugs the doctor had in the house? Right now the defense is trying to have the weapons tested for DNA. Go right ahead and will just prove more of the same-that Mr. Donald is guilty. And DNA has been tested against Helena & Greg and none of it matches them.

I agree. Drug crazed hippies would have broken into a house and left behind some sort of trace evidence that they existed. Not to mention the fact that they apparently had no motive for slaughtering a woman and her two young children, since NOTHING was taken from the residence. As to the phone call placed by Friar, IIRC in "Fatal Vision" McGinniss glosses over the phone call and discredits it due to his history with mental issues. And I also think he changed his story quite a few times.

As to the phone call placed by Friar, IIRC in "Fatal Vision" McGinniss glosses over the phone call and discredits it due to his history with mental issues. And I also think he changed his story quite a few times.

I actually found out more information about the phone call at the pro-guilt MacDonald website. It's true that Jimmy Friar is not the most reliable witness in the world and could easily have been making up the story or got the date wrong. However, since he claims to have spoken with a couple of operators and an OD, I wonder if any of them ever verified that he actually called the MacDonald residence on the night of the murders.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/aff5-madden-1984-07-12.html

This guy and his defense team will never stop, will they? He's 100% guilty. MacDonald should just admit his guilt already.

I actually found out more information about the phone call at the pro-guilt MacDonald website. It's true that Jimmy Friar is not the most reliable witness in the world and could easily have been making up the story or got the date wrong. However, since he claims to have spoken with a couple of operators and an OD, I wonder if any of them ever verified that he actually called the MacDonald residence on the night of the murders.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/aff5-madden-1984-07-12.html

Any credibility that Friar brought to the case was shattered when he said he was drunk at the time of the alleged phone call, and also years later he was threatened by a male over the phone telling him to "forget the MacDonald case". Do you honestly think anyone would want to threaten Friar over one alleged phone call? Especially after MacDonald was already convicted and serving his sentence. I hardly think Friar's testimony would be enough to get an acquittal, especially since he admitted being intoxicated on the night in question. Seems to me like he was another one of these "witnesses" who attempt to seek attention and try to associate themselves with a high profile case.

This guy and his defense team will never stop, will they? He's 100% guilty. MacDonald should just admit his guilt already.

He will never admit his guilt. IMO is he has a narr personality. His defense team and supporters are gasping at straws at best. Really if the evidence was to prove his innocence he would be out by now.

But by him not admitting his guilt he will never get out by a parole board since you have to have remorse for the crimes you have commited.

I've never seen the movie, but I've heard it's pretty faithful to the book, which I'm currently reading. And 2 investigators did in fact take Freddy Kasab (Colett'es step father) back to the scene of the crime to which he would re-examine points of MacDonald's story that didn't seem to make sense. For example, he laid on the couch in the dark (like MacDonald said he was doing on the night of the murders) and had the two investigators approach and he couldn't even see their faces. The fact that MacDonald was able to describe 3 out of the 4 of his "attackers" in complete darkness is one of the holes that made Freddy start to question MacDonald's innocence.


McGinniss' semi-fictional book Fatal Vision isn't exactly the most trustworthy source of information on this case. You must also follow-up with The Journalist and the Murderer and Fatal Justice (I am trying to get a copy of the latter). Joe McGinniss needed something to make his book sell so he did everything to point of MacDonald's guilt.

I agree 100% that MacDonald does not come across as likeable at all (some of the stories of his philandering behavior were actually coaxed out of him by McGinniss. MacDonald himself questioned why any of those stories were relevant (McGinniss told macDonald they would help build a picture). McGinniss also deceived MacDonald throughout the entire process of writing his semi-fictional book (the diet drug theory is a complete assumption on McGinniss' part with NO basis in fact) an dclaimed he felt MacDonald was innocent (in fact, he did not feel MacDonald was innocent from very early on). McGinniss' deception does NOT let MacDonald off the hook. I do not believe MacDonald to be guilty...and I base that on evidence.

Also read transcripts from Ted Gunderson and others. This is a very complicated case and I seriously doubt the whole truth will ever be known. This case is like the Paul Pollis case to me in that NOBODY involved is likeable at all (though I do like Gunderson). MacDonald is not likeable, Collette's whole family is unlikable (and in some ways, Freddie Kassab was a witch Hunter that made many assumptions). Collette's brother is an extremely unlikable sort as well. And I did not even mention Jim Blackburn, Bill Ivory, MacDonald's new wife, Helena Stoeckley Davis, etc.

BTW, what ever happened to the confessions of Greg Mitchell? UM is the ONLY program I have seen on this case that even mentions him. I would suggest also reading the accounts of Jim Britt. Finally, there was some candle wax found in the home (along with black wool) that did NOT belong to any of the clothing or candles in the MacDonald apartment. Freddie Kassab claimed the house was dark. The intruders had a candle. I apologize if this rambling..I am trying to watch my two daughters while I type (they are 2 and 1).

Finally, there was some candle wax found in the home (along with black wool) that did NOT belong to any of the clothing or candles in the MacDonald apartment. Freddie Kassab claimed the house was dark. The intruders had a candle.

If this was truely there, don't you think this would have helped exonerate MacDonald? And in all of the accounts I've read (including pro-MacDonald websites), I've never seen anything about candle wax being found. The clincher IMO, is the fact that the hair found in Colette's clenched hands came from MacDonald. There is no reasonable exlanation, if he is truely innocent, as to why his dead wife would have his hair in her clenched fists, as if she pulled it right out of his head.