FYI - There is a new "48 Hours Mystery" program profiling the case of Jeffrey MacDonald that will air on November 12th @ 9 p.m. (central).

I honestly don't see why he bothers anymore - guilty or innocent - he's probably never getting out. There is just too much against him for him to exonorate himself.

I honestly don't see why he bothers anymore - guilty or innocent - he's probably never getting out. There is just too much against him for him to exonorate himself.
Like what? I'll watch tonight....

It's on in a few minutes not on November 12th, I'll sure be watching.

The case is quite complex - if you scroll a few pages back you'll find a multi page thread where we discussed it for a bit. Although I believe in my heart that Mac is innocent it is one case where you think he is innocent one minute and guilty the next. A case with that much "play" between guilt or innocence and with a conviction already levied against Mac makes it an uphill battle.

I should rephrase - Mac should continue fighting for his freedom however his quest is hindered by many obstacles that despite his many years of fighting for his freedom he has been unable to overcome them. Does this mean he is guilty? - Not necessarily, he could be guilty but the evidence he has put forth to proclaim his innocence has done little to sway both his former wife's family or the court system that there was a true miscarriage of justice.

I hope the facts someday come out and McDonald is a free man. But like you said he does at times seem guilty, like the Esquire Magazine found about the Manson case, could he have gotten the idea about the hippies from that article?

In my opinion what Mac needs to do if he is going to make any strides towards freedom is to get his former wife's family to believe his account of what happened that night. This would likely be very hard but it is probably a crucial step in his fight. For those who are not up to date with the case - Colette's family ever since the mid 70s I believe have stated that Jeff is guilty as charged and have made great strides to see him remain in prison.

There are several other ways that Mac could attempt to stride for freedom - this is just one. Some conclusive DNA evidence would help - I think it goes without saying unless Mac can prove there is evidence and conclusive evidence that other people were in the house that night his chances of getting out of prison are very slim.

I agree-it is a case where you say, "Innocent" one minute and then "Guilty" the next. The way 48 Hours set up the crime scene and what could have happened there screamed,"Guilty" and yet you can't deny the possibility of his innocence when the DNA and Helena Shockley(sp?) and the blonde wig are brought into the picture.
To me, what put his ass his prison was the way he behaved after the murders. In December 1970 (only 8 months after the slaying) he went on Dick Cavett and was joking around. Maybe he was in shock,I don't know. But it didn't look good then or now.
If he is innocent, I hope that the DNA can prove it. No innocent person should be in prison.

I hate I missed this show. Hopefully, they will re-run it. Mac the Knife is where he belongs. May he rot.

I missed the show but I've posted previously that I would comfortably bet my life he is completely innocent. I don't think it's even a close handicap.

Let's remember one thing above all: science is high percentage guesswork. Universal science as well as crime scene science. That's why it keeps changing and being modified and debated. There is a saying that only 50% of scientific conventional wisdom is accurate at any given time. DNA may be an absolute, or very close to it, but many of these supposed crime scene reenactments are flawed as hell. If you had an actual audio and video of what happened, after a supposedly high tech and precise evaluation of the scene provided a reenactment, the actual events would blow apart the reenactment and make it look silly if not criminally innacurate. The people who put together the flawed and misleading reeneactment would be judged as suddenly guilty and perhaps worthy of jail time in some extreme cases, not the previously charged.

The MacDonald case is the premier example, IMO. He is mandated to fight for his innocence, despite the severe unlikelihood of reversal and success, for the reasons DarkDante mentioned.

As I've posted previously, there is zero chance someone as smart as MacDonald would have invented a vague group of hippies if they weren't the actual perpetrators. That flies open the variables in exponential proportion. You have to answer questions from law enforcement about every member of the group and no way to keep your story straight or make it sensible if you're making it up. MacDonald had the extreme misfortune of being the victim of a crime that sounds illogical, truth stranger than fiction. If MacDonald were guilty and acted alone, there should be zero evidence of blonde wig fibers or calls to the home during the attack or confessions from a weirdo female with plenty of specifics or sightings of her outside the home, etc.

MacDonald's family, specifically his in-laws, were guilty of the apropos grief spilling over into a misplaced pursuit. They are blinders-on simpletons who master and pursue the most obvious scenario. That seems to be a flaw of law enforcement and prosecutors in general. I've expressed outrage over that many times. That's how you get a Richard Jewel case, and the Innocence Project eventually freeing hundreds.

Very well said. Unfortunately, bias can blind.

I TivO'ed it and have watched it twice and I STILL HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND, as much as I think he's innocent, then I start to believe he did it, but WHY? I think most puzzling of all was his actions after the murders, going on TV and the look on his face during that show, its amazing how much he's aged

I don't know this case and the darlie routier case, I just don't want to believe a parent could do this but it really looks that way sometimes, I really want to know for sure:(

Let's remember one thing above all: science is high percentage guesswork. Universal science as well as crime scene science. That's why it keeps changing and being modified and debated. There is a saying that only 50% of scientific conventional wisdom is accurate at any given time. That's right. Science is bunk. But, the statements of a confirmed narcissistic liar are much more accurate. DNA may be an absolute, or very close to it, but many of these supposed crime scene reenactments are flawed as hell. But the reenactment of MacDonald's fairy tale makes perfect sense and fits the crime scene evidence to a tee.:rolleyes: If you had an actual audio and video of what happened, after a supposedly high tech and precise evaluation of the scene provided a reenactment, the actual events would blow apart the reenactment and make it look silly if not criminally innacurate. The people who put together the flawed and misleading reeneactment would be judged as suddenly guilty and perhaps worthy of jail time in some extreme cases, not the previously charged.

The MacDonald case is the premier example, IMO. He is mandated to fight for his innocence, despite the severe unlikelihood of reversal and success, for the reasons DarkDante mentioned.

As I've posted previously, there is zero chance someone as smart as MacDonald would have invented a vague group of hippies if they weren't the actual perpetrators. You're right. Violent egocentrists doped up on amphetemines always think things through carefully and come up with plausible explanations. Nevermind the fact that there are brilliant astrophysicists in the world who lack the common sense to open a jar of peanut butter. That flies open the variables in exponential proportion. You have to answer questions from law enforcement about every member of the group and no way to keep your story straight or make it sensible if you're making it up. Keeping your story straight means claiming a different number of icepick wounds every time you are interrogated? MacDonald had the extreme misfortune of being the victim of a crime that sounds illogical, truth stranger than fiction. If MacDonald were guilty and acted alone, there should be zero evidence of blonde wig fibers (because it couldn't have come from anything else in an unvaccuumed apartment) or calls to the home during the attack (those darn phone records missed a call again, and everyone knows how common 3:00 AM phone calls are ) or confessions from a weirdo female with plenty of specifics or sightings of her outside the home, etc. Drug addicted schizophrenic occult fanatics are always reliable witnesses.

MacDonald's family, specifically his in-laws, were guilty of the apropos grief spilling over into a misplaced pursuit. They are blinders-on simpletons (a.k.a. people who know how to wade through bull****) who master and pursue the most obvious scenario. That seems to be a flaw of law enforcement and prosecutors in general. I've expressed outrage over that many times. That's how you get a Richard Jewel case, and the Innocence Project eventually freeing hundreds.

I've seen some Mac the Knife apologists before, but this takes the cake.