Where did the MacDonald case come from? - A True Mystery! - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

DarkDante · 08-04-2005, 05:47 PM

Hi all,

Last summer I was watching UM on LIFETIME and for the first time I saw the Jeffrey Macdonald case which most of you are familiar with. The thing that struck me is by that time (last summer) I had been watching UM for over ten years and had seen every case that I thought Lifetime had broadcasted and remembered several others from the NBC original airings but for the life of me I never saw this one.

What struck me as odd as well is how damn long the segment was (it took three slots) when the longest I'd previously ever clocked one segment as taking is two slots. I thought possibly this was a "new" segment from 2001/2002 (since it was aired as part of a 2001/2002 re-edit) but no dice because Stack looks far too young for it to be dated from then I believe. I have recently gained information that this case was NEVER broadcasted on UM but on their spin off show "Final Appeal" - This would explain why the segment runs about a half hour as I believe "Final Appeal" was a shorter show than UM.

Also again I have never seen a single UM segment taking up more than three "time slots". - Can anyone confirm where this case originally came from?

Later.

DD

Composite Sketch · 08-04-2005, 05:54 PM

It definitely came from the very short-lived UM spinoff "Final Appeal". I think it was from the first episode of that series, in the fall of 1992. I recall watching it when it originally aired. I think someone here may have the exact date. Wasn't it shown on either Friday or Saturday nights?

You can tell that the Sans Serif lettering was different in that segment than in regular old school UM episodes.

Kemistry · 08-04-2005, 06:15 PM

They should show more segments from that short series.

jcjh20 · 08-04-2005, 06:31 PM

I never even heard of that spin-off before, nor do i recall ever seeing anything like it before. I'd like to see it...too bad they don't show it more often.

crystaldawn · 08-04-2005, 08:33 PM

Yes, it would be nice to see some airings of that spin-off

Here is what the IMDB says about it. A user did comment that they aired the Jeffrey MacDonald case on it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103412/

Thinman · 08-05-2005, 08:18 AM

Off topic, but Jeffrey MacDonald is as guilty as they come and he is right where he belongs. I hope the rest of his life is as miserable as possible.

DarkDante · 08-05-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinman

Off topic, but Jeffrey MacDonald is as guilty as they come and he is right where he belongs. I hope the rest of his life is as miserable as possible.

And I know a number of people on this board feel MacDonald is guilty but there is just as much evidence to prove his innocence as their is his guilt. The problem with this case is due to the trickary of the prosecution during the trial and the way the case was handled the jury never got to hear the evidence supporting MacDonald's claims of innocence. All they heard was the prosecution's physical evidence that MacDonald committed the crimes.

That being said I believe that IF MacDonald murdered his family it did not take place they way the prosecution said it did. It was not a "spur of the moment" thing over his daughter's bedwetting. It was pre-meditated murder - which then begs the question - What was the motive for Macdonald to slay his wife and kids? - Jeff Macdonald did not suffer from mental illness, had a good marriage and was not a violent man.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the theory put forth by the prosecution and certain outfits of the media that MacDonal is guilty of this crime. The physical evidence that the prosecution has is strong but there are too many inconsistencies to make the prosecution's version of the story the definitive one.

Physical evidence of articles of clothing that MacDonald had not had access to, confessions of people who admitted to murdering the MacDonald family and eyewittnesses to support their claims. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T BE LYING in my view - It's highly improbable. In addtion, I believe that Jeffrey MacDonald deserves at least a new trial as a forum for his side of the story to be told to a JURY who has the whole case "no holds bared" put in front of them and let them decide who committed these murders. It takes a lot of rage for a man to kill his children - I'm not say Macdonald is not capable of doing such an act - But surely if he did - I have trouble believing it went down the way that MANY think it did.

In addition my father in law served at the same base as MacDonald around the time of the killings. While they never met my father in-law believes MacDonald is guilty however does state that a number of his collegues then and NOW believe MacDonald is innocent and think the case deserves a second look.

Later.

crystaldawn · 08-05-2005, 04:21 PM

You know I'm with you Dante - I tend to think he is innocent as well. A new trial certainly wouldn't hurt.

Back to the subject of the spin-off "Final Appeal", by watching RS's intro to the Patricia Stallings case today I wondered if it was on there as well. I'm sure once that show was cancelled they just threw the episodes into UM. Anybody know? It would have been a good candidate for that show.

justins5256 · 08-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Back to the subject of the spin-off "Final Appeal", by watching RS's intro to the Patricia Stallings case today I wondered if it was on there as well. I'm sure once that show was cancelled they just threw the episodes into UM. Anybody know? It would have been a good candidate for that show.

The Patty Stallings case was first shown on UM on May 1, 1991. It appears the resolution came on 11/13/91. "Final Appeal" didn't primere until 1992 (according to the IMDB), so I don't think the Stallings case would have been included, as it had already been resolved. Not to mention that the presentation and "update" shown in that case was UM in appearance.

PS - I first heard of the Macdonald case through the TV show "American Justice", and yes, I believe he is innocent.

Thinman · 08-06-2005, 08:25 PM

It's amazing that the posters on this board overwhelmingly believe in Mac the Knife's innocence. I can understand if one's only knowledge of the case comes from the UM segment because UM biased the segment in favor of Mac, in my opinion. However, do some research on the case independently of UM. You will see it in a whole new light. The book Fatal Justice (along with the defense team) relies on circumstantial evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimony to plead his case. Fatal Vision, on the other hand, and the prosecution rely on tangible physical evidence that conclude that Mac slaughtered his family. Getting a bunch of brain damaged hippies to tell outrageous tales is not that big of an accomplishment. Helena Stoeckley also told detectives that she watched Mac kill his family. If you take one of her statements at face value, you have to take them all. Also, I've had Super Bowl parties that did more damage to my apartment than the "intruders" did to the MacDonald home. I refuse to believe that a clan of murderous Woodstock wannabes would be kind enough to not break the furniture, put holes in the walls, and destroy everything in their collective paths. Not to mention, three people are overkilled while the family patriarch is left alive with a superficial stab wound and a bump on his head. I've had papercuts worse than Mac's self-inflicted stab wound. All that aside, the fiber and blood evidence make it indisputable to me. Mac is a sick psychopath who is exactly where he belongs. I even wrote him a letter a few years back telling him so.

DarkDante · 08-06-2005, 10:54 PM

Hmm well I've read both books you've mentioned and I've found both of them to be biast towards one side of the case at least in my view but I'm not going to get in a whole "innocence vs. guilt" debate because like I said there is enough evidence either way to build a case. The only thing I will say is that Jeffrey MacDonald does deserve another day in court. If he is truly guilty his case will fold like a deck of cards in front of a jury, if it stands up he will be released - that simple.

The thing is also if you truly believe he is guilty then by letting him have another trial - if he is still convicted after he gets to tell his side of the story then Jeffrey MacDonald's arguements of innoncence will carry less weight. Until that time MacDonald has a plausible story that has convinced many intelligent people that he is innocent. Let the prosecution put on their case and the defense put on their case with the evidence discovered after the inital trial - Let the jury decide whether MacDonald is guilty or not.

Later.

Thinman · 08-06-2005, 11:04 PM

Why does he deserve another trial? What convincing evidence has been brought forth since he was convicted? He was already found guilty by a jury after they heard the damning evidence against him. Do you realize what would happen if we gave every prisoner who cries innocence a new trial? Over half of the people incarcerated claim innocence. Another trial would be an enormous waste of time and money and would yield the same result.

Guilty.

DarkDante · 08-07-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinman

Why does he deserve another trial? What convincing evidence has been brought forth since he was convicted? He was already found guilty by a jury after they heard the damning evidence against him. Do you realize what would happen if we gave every prisoner who cries innocence a new trial? Over half of the people incarcerated claim innocence. Another trial would be an enormous waste of time and money and would yield the same result.

Guilty.

Well to each his own I guess or "agree to disagree" or whatever they say. I feel that the theories he and others have put forward that show that he is innocent more than enough warrant the need for the case to have a second look by a jury. Obviously you and others feel differently which is cool - Obviously you feel strongly enough about your views to write this guy a letter telling him how you feel where as although I do feel he is innocent have no desire to rattle my saber and yell "Free MacDonald" - I feel if he gets released, good for him - If not well there are probably a bunch of other people sitting in prison who are innocent of their crimes who will never be exonorated - UM has profiled a ton of them. I feel he is innocent while you feel he is guilty - Like I said it all comes down to a matter of subjective opinion

Later.

DD

mortytbusybody · 08-07-2005, 02:31 AM

This is a little off topic...
I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of science is not the greatest, but how can it be that each member of the MacDonald family has a different blood group? I was under the impression that children had to have the same blood group as one of their parents. (Remember that other case that aired on UM where a daughter learned she was adopted because she had a different blood group than her mother and father?)

SOMEONE SMART PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!

Todd Mueller · 08-07-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinman

It's amazing that the posters on this board overwhelmingly believe in Mac the Knife's innocence.

I don't believe overwhelmingly in his innocence. I used to think like you, that he was as guilty as sin. The problem is that there is so much circumstatial evidence that it can't be proven one way or another.

Read "Fatal Vision," you think he is guilty. Read "Fatal Justice," you think he is not.

The bottom line is that Jeffrey MacDonald was not a good person in many ways. He had numerous affairs and seemed to be very narcissistic (sp?) at times. But being a jerk doesn't make one a murderer.

Is he guilty or is he innocent? None of us can say either way with any certainty. For every piece of evidence that makes him guilty, I can find one that shows he couldn't have. For every reason why he wouldn't have done it, I can find you one to say he would have.

I don't think any of us will every know the truth. But to say that it is definite one way or the other is a leap in my book.

08-04-2005, 05:47 PM	#1
DarkDante Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 27, 2002 Posts: 1,569	Where did the MacDonald case come from? - A True Mystery! Hi all, Last summer I was watching UM on LIFETIME and for the first time I saw the Jeffrey Macdonald case which most of you are familiar with. The thing that struck me is by that time (last summer) I had been watching UM for over ten years and had seen every case that I thought Lifetime had broadcasted and remembered several others from the NBC original airings but for the life of me I never saw this one. What struck me as odd as well is how damn long the segment was (it took three slots) when the longest I'd previously ever clocked one segment as taking is two slots. I thought possibly this was a "new" segment from 2001/2002 (since it was aired as part of a 2001/2002 re-edit) but no dice because Stack looks far too young for it to be dated from then I believe. I have recently gained information that this case was NEVER broadcasted on UM but on their spin off show "Final Appeal" - This would explain why the segment runs about a half hour as I believe "Final Appeal" was a shorter show than UM. Also again I have never seen a single UM segment taking up more than three "time slots". - Can anyone confirm where this case originally came from? Later. DD

08-04-2005, 06:15 PM	#3
Kemistry Mysterious Intrigue Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 16, 2005 Location: Outside Your Window... Posts: 339	They should show more segments from that short series.
	__________________ Kemistry

08-05-2005, 08:18 AM	#6
Thinman Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 08, 2005 Posts: 182	Off topic, but Jeffrey MacDonald is as guilty as they come and he is right where he belongs. I hope the rest of his life is as miserable as possible.
	Last edited by Thinman; 08-05-2005 at 11:12 AM.

08-04-2005, 05:54 PM	#2
Composite Sketch Staring at you Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 26, 2003 Location: British Columbia, Canada Posts: 304	It definitely came from the very short-lived UM spinoff "Final Appeal". I think it was from the first episode of that series, in the fall of 1992. I recall watching it when it originally aired. I think someone here may have the exact date. Wasn't it shown on either Friday or Saturday nights? You can tell that the Sans Serif lettering was different in that segment than in regular old school UM episodes.

08-04-2005, 06:31 PM	#4
jcjh20 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 22	I never even heard of that spin-off before, nor do i recall ever seeing anything like it before. I'd like to see it...too bad they don't show it more often.

08-04-2005, 08:33 PM	#5
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	Yes, it would be nice to see some airings of that spin-off Here is what the IMDB says about it. A user did comment that they aired the Jeffrey MacDonald case on it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103412/

08-05-2005, 04:21 PM	#8
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	You know I'm with you Dante - I tend to think he is innocent as well. A new trial certainly wouldn't hurt. Back to the subject of the spin-off "Final Appeal", by watching RS's intro to the Patricia Stallings case today I wondered if it was on there as well. I'm sure once that show was cancelled they just threw the episodes into UM. Anybody know? It would have been a good candidate for that show.

08-06-2005, 08:25 PM	#10
Thinman Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 08, 2005 Posts: 182	It's amazing that the posters on this board overwhelmingly believe in Mac the Knife's innocence. I can understand if one's only knowledge of the case comes from the UM segment because UM biased the segment in favor of Mac, in my opinion. However, do some research on the case independently of UM. You will see it in a whole new light. The book Fatal Justice (along with the defense team) relies on circumstantial evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimony to plead his case. Fatal Vision, on the other hand, and the prosecution rely on tangible physical evidence that conclude that Mac slaughtered his family. Getting a bunch of brain damaged hippies to tell outrageous tales is not that big of an accomplishment. Helena Stoeckley also told detectives that she watched Mac kill his family. If you take one of her statements at face value, you have to take them all. Also, I've had Super Bowl parties that did more damage to my apartment than the "intruders" did to the MacDonald home. I refuse to believe that a clan of murderous Woodstock wannabes would be kind enough to not break the furniture, put holes in the walls, and destroy everything in their collective paths. Not to mention, three people are overkilled while the family patriarch is left alive with a superficial stab wound and a bump on his head. I've had papercuts worse than Mac's self-inflicted stab wound. All that aside, the fiber and blood evidence make it indisputable to me. Mac is a sick psychopath who is exactly where he belongs. I even wrote him a letter a few years back telling him so.

08-06-2005, 10:54 PM	#11
DarkDante Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 27, 2002 Posts: 1,569	Hmm well I've read both books you've mentioned and I've found both of them to be biast towards one side of the case at least in my view but I'm not going to get in a whole "innocence vs. guilt" debate because like I said there is enough evidence either way to build a case. The only thing I will say is that Jeffrey MacDonald does deserve another day in court. If he is truly guilty his case will fold like a deck of cards in front of a jury, if it stands up he will be released - that simple. The thing is also if you truly believe he is guilty then by letting him have another trial - if he is still convicted after he gets to tell his side of the story then Jeffrey MacDonald's arguements of innoncence will carry less weight. Until that time MacDonald has a plausible story that has convinced many intelligent people that he is innocent. Let the prosecution put on their case and the defense put on their case with the evidence discovered after the inital trial - Let the jury decide whether MacDonald is guilty or not. Later.

08-06-2005, 11:04 PM	#12
Thinman Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 08, 2005 Posts: 182	Why does he deserve another trial? What convincing evidence has been brought forth since he was convicted? He was already found guilty by a jury after they heard the damning evidence against him. Do you realize what would happen if we gave every prisoner who cries innocence a new trial? Over half of the people incarcerated claim innocence. Another trial would be an enormous waste of time and money and would yield the same result. Guilty.

08-07-2005, 02:31 AM	#14
mortytbusybody Mystery Nut Occasional Poster Join Date: Jul 26, 2004 Location: California Posts: 69	This is a little off topic... I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of science is not the greatest, but how can it be that each member of the MacDonald family has a different blood group? I was under the impression that children had to have the same blood group as one of their parents. (Remember that other case that aired on UM where a daughter learned she was adopted because she had a different blood group than her mother and father?) SOMEONE SMART PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!