More on Dr. MacDonald

[HyeTev]

Interesting article here...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1408389

[Ireneparalegal]

MacDonald's story was the feature on last night's Larry King.

[HyeTev]

This case has baffled me for so many years. I cannot decide whether he did it or not. There is plenty of evidence both for and against his guilt.

I hope the DNA tests will be completed and released soon. It will be great to have this case finally come to a definite and irrefutable conclusion. No more articles, movies, and books about it.

[Ireneparalegal]

You know, I just don't understand, if new evidence (actually supressed evidence) has existed, they why is there not a rush to see if this is enough evidence to have a new trial? This has baffled me. I mean, I have seen the movie, I have read the books, I have read articles, seen interviews and yet, I am still confused at that issue. I can understand the DNA part of it, DNA wasn't in use until after 1987, BUT, there were strands of a wig (supposedly) found at the murder scene. Last night one of the military investigators who was the first to arrive on the scene, said he is guilty, and there is nothing that is being hidden by them, etc.

[MICTR88]

THE MOVIE WAS BIAS AGAINST HIM, THE EVIDENCE WAS MISHANDLED AT THE CRIME SCENE, ANY EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST HAS SINCE BEEN SO MUDDLED IT IS USELESS. MY FATHER WAS A GREEN BERET WHO SERVED WITH HIM, HE DIDN'T THINK "JEFF" (AS HE CALLED HIM ) DID IT. I ASKED MY FATHER IF HE THOUGHT HE WAS CAPABLE OF DOING IT, HE SAID "OF COURSE HE WAS CAPABLE".

[pixies1900]

it mentions a call to their house that she claims to have picked up and spoken to the person, did they ever figure out through phone records or whatever who had called the house and what they heard on the other end?

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by pixies1900

it mentions a call to their house that she claims to have picked up and spoken to the person, did they ever figure out through phone records or whatever who had called the house and what they heard on the other end?

who did Helena make this statement to? the article isn't clear...

[Thinman]

Regarding the long blonde hair found that Mac hinges his freedom on: If the FBI examined every square inch of my house right now they would find things that I would have no explanation for. Fibers, hairs, fingerprints, and DNA with no identifiable source would be present. This says several things. First, I need to be a better housekeeper. Second, after six years of living there, a lot of people have come and gone. My point is, unless Mac's apartment had been professionally cleaned top to bottom prior to the murders (it had not), there were going to be some things at the crime scene that the defense team would grab and hold on to for dear life. A group of (at least) six marauding, strung out hippies would have left a lot more fiber and DNA evidence than was found.

Regarding the phone call: For some odd reason, the telephone company did not have a record of the call. Also, the guy claiming he made the call was a schizo that had spent time in the same loony bin where Helena Stoeckley had resided. And, ask yourself this question. How often do you receive phone calls at 3:00 AM? Once a year? Twice? Those are usually hang ups or wrong numbers. I know, Mac was a doctor. Still, what are the odds that a patient is going to call at that time of morning from a pay phone at the exact time the Stoeckley Six (or seven or eleven) were supposedly in the apartment?

Regarding Stoeckley's confession: Helena Stoeckley at first said she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders. Later, she said she was present in the apartment and watched MacDonald slaughter his family. Then, after much coaxing, coersion, and extortion she claimed to have been involved in the attacks. My question to people who believe in her confession is, why do you believe one statement over multiple others from a confirmed pathological liar? Could it be that that is just the one you want to hear?

Bottom line: Mac is guilty and is where he belongs.

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by Thinman

Regarding the long blonde hair found that Mac hinges his freedom on: If the FBI examined every square inch on my house right now they would find things that I would have no explanation for. Fibers, hairs, fingerprints, and DNA with no identifiable source would be present. This says several things. First, I need to be a better housekeeper. Second, after six years of living there, a lot of people have come and gone. My point is, unless Mac's apartment had been professionally cleaned top to bottom prior to the murders (it had not), there were going to be some things at the crime scene that the defense team would grab and hold on to for dear life. A group of (at least) six marauding, strung out hippies would have left a lot more fiber and DNA evidence than was found.

Regarding the phone call: For some odd reason, the telephone company did not have a record of the call. Also, the guy claiming he made the call was a schizo that had spent time in the same loony bin where Helena Stoeckley had resided. And, ask yourself this question. How often do you receive phone calls at 3:00 AM? Once a year? Twice? Those are usually hang ups or wrong numbers. I know, Mac was a doctor. Still, what are the odds that a patient is going to call at that time of morning from a pay phone at the exact time the Stoeckley Six (or seven or eleven) were supposedly in the apartment?

Regarding Stoeckley's confession: Helena Stoeckley at first said she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders. Later, she said she was present in the apartment and watched MacDonald slaughter his family. Then, after much coaxing, coersion, and extortion claimed to have been involved in the attacks. My question to people who believe in her confession is, why do you believe one statement over multiple others from a confirmed pathological liar? Could it be that that is just the one you want to hear?

Bottom line: Mac is guilty and is where he belongs.

I can't and never will believe Helena's statements/comments because she had no credibility. Her story continuosly changed. Whether someone told her what to say or she had hallucinations (which I am sure are many) of being there. I highly doubt after she said over and over she was so high she couldn't remember anything why suddenly, later on she remembers being in the house? she remembers a phone call? it's all bogus to me.

MaDonald's attorneys brought up, how could he know abt a blonde haired woman with a floppy hat (who was seen on the property earlier in the evening) unless she was in the house? My explanation would be, that he had seen her himself...he may have been looking out the window and caught a glimpse of Helena. With that in mind, he began to think abt a believable story of intruders. And of course, it helped that the Manson murders had just occurred six months prior.

One of the new allegations coming out of this, is that Jefferey MacDonald was "caught in the act" of molesting his daughter, which is what may have triggered the fight and ultimate murders of his family. He had to keep Collette quiet, and in killing her, had to kill his daughters too, especially the one he was supposedly molesting. This was mentioned on the Larry King show the other night. I don't know how this new "theory" came abt, but to me, it almost doesn't matter anymore "Why" he killed them, but that he remain where he is.

[Awsi Dooger]

Originally Posted by Thinman

Regarding the long blonde hair found that Mac hinges his freedom on: If the FBI examined every square inch of my house right now they would find things that I would have no explanation for. Fibers, hairs, fingerprints, and DNA with no identifiable source would be present. This says several things. First, I need to be a better housekeeper. Second, after six years of living there, a lot of people have come and gone. My point is, unless Mac's apartment had been professionally cleaned top to bottom prior to the murders (it had not), there were going to be some things at the crime scene that the defense team would grab and hold on to for dear life. A group of (at least) six marauding, strung out hippies would have left a lot more fiber and DNA evidence than was found.

Regarding the phone call: For some odd reason, the telephone company did not have a record of the call. Also, the guy claiming he made the call was a schizo that had spent time in the same loony bin where Helena Stoeckley had resided. And, ask yourself this question. How often do you receive phone calls at 3:00 AM? Once a year? Twice? Those are usually hang ups or wrong numbers. I know, Mac was a doctor. Still, what are the odds that a patient is going to call at that time of morning from a pay phone at the exact time the Stoeckley Six (or seven or eleven) were supposedly in the apartment?

Regarding Stoeckley's confession: Helena Stoeckley at first said she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders. Later, she said she was present in the apartment and watched MacDonald slaughter his family. Then, after much coaxing, coersion, and extortion she claimed to have been involved in the attacks. My question to people who believe in her confession is, why do you believe one statement over multiple others from a confirmed pathological liar? Could it be that that is just the one you want to hear?

Bottom line: Mac is guilty and is where he belongs.

Nice whiff. Yeah, I'm sure all of us have blonde 22 inch synthetic wig wibers lying around all over the place. And if the existence of fibers like that was so typical and understandable, why did the MacDonald prosecution feel compelled to suppress it at trial? Perhaps because they were of such high caliber and integrity that three of the prosecutors in the MacDonald case were subsequently disgraced and/or disbarred for misconduct and such crimes as forging signatures, embezzling and changing court documents. Just a guess.

Probability is incompetently understood and persistently misapplied. That is my ongoing frustration on internet websites and elsewhere. It's usually blatant guesswork and when probability is not properly utilized the innacurate scattergun conclusions are pathetic. Those faulty conclusions lead to innocent people sometimes being charged, and when you're charged the overwhelming probability is you will be convicted.

I've posted many times here and elsewhere that Jeffrey MacDonald would never have invented such a large and diverse group of intruders if it weren't, unfortunately for him, the truth. The posters who insist on his guilt have never competently addressed that issue. Because they can't. MacDonald specifically detailed so many aspects of the assault, including a black man with a baseball bat and specific attire, plus two white men who also attacked him. Then the long haired blonde woman who was carrying a flickering object like a candle and making bizarre chants. Is that the known successful strategy of inventing perpretators, a large group including both sexes, plus both black and white? Yeah. And I suppose it's just an incredible coincidence that a woman matching MacDonald's description of her was seen near the crime scene and later confessed, including on camera, to being there and her involvement many times, as did her boyfriend.

It's beyond laughable to assert the evidence decisively points to MacDonald's guilt. The murders occured in 1970 yet he wasn't convicted until late '79. In fact, the decision was initially reversed via the denial of a speedy trial. The timeline itself screams at reasonable doubt, at the absolute outside. It wasn't like MacDonald was in hiding or other suspects were being slowly eliminated. The crime scene evidence was so inconclusive to non-existent that many potential prosecutors declined to go forward with the case while others used terms like "exculpatory character of some of the evidence."

I'll be the first to admit backing Jeffrey MacDonald is a futile situation. He will never be acquitted or released. Too high profile and not enough physical evidence for a reversal. That's what happens when you get interesting situations like skin scrapings from under his wife Colette's fingernails conveniently being lost. MacDonald had no evidence of any scrape marks by a fingernail and the DNA of that skin sample might have exonerated MacDonald. Of course, Thinman and blindfolded others will probably argue that we all have random skin tissue lounging around under our fingernails. What was that again, poor housekeeping?

MacDonald is partially a victim of his own inept handicapping. He didn't grieve properly and that influenced his in-laws to turn against him after he moved to California and resumed a life instead of visiting the graves every day, as Colette's parents apparently wanted. But again, that's what an innocent person would do, since he had nothing to run from. Going on Dick Cavett and ripping his accusers and the process is something a mind-at-ease innocent person does. A Scott Peterson goes on TV claiming he told Laci about his affair with Amber Frey and she was barely upset. Do the comparitive handicapping for yourself.

MacDonald also sealed his reputation with the masses by ignorantly agreeing to a book deal with snake Joe McGinniss. No chance a book like that is going to be a supportive and balanced portrayal tending toward innocence. Innocence doesn't sell. I absolutely can't believe no one advised MacDonald on the probability/certainty that McGinniss would turn against him for financial motive. But again, wanting a definitive book on the case and allowing total access is something an innocent albeit naive person would pursue.

This is a very long post with snippets from this excellent website: http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Overview.html

BTW, I have not written to MacDonald yet but will soon. Just in the past few days I finally located his old prison cellmate from the '80s, Kenny, who now lives here in Las Vegas. Kenny was even more insistent on his belief in MacDonald's innocence than when I spoke to him twice a year or more ago, and said other inmates held the same view regarding MacDonald based on how he acted and what he said regarding his case.

Some highlights of the pro-MacDonald side of this case:

* The Army Hearing

After a six week Army pre-court martial hearing, presiding officer Colonel Warren V. Rock concluded that the charges against Captain MacDonald were " not true". Colonel Rock had learned that cult member Helena Stoeckley, daughter of a retired colonel, had made statements that suggested she had been involved in the murders.* He discovered that army investigators had failed to reveal that Stoeckley, a key narcotics informant for the local and army police, had made admissions to them.* She had admitted that she had worn a floppy hat, blonde wig and boots on the murder night, that she was on drugs that night, and that she had no alibi for the period during which the murders took place. She later admitted that she burned the hat, wig and boots, fearing they would incriminate her.* She was seen by military police, standing at a street corner on post, as they rushed to the crime scene. Colonel Rock requested that Stoeckley be thoroughly investigated by civilian authorities.

In 1971, Helena Stoeckley failed a polygraph administered by the CID (Army's Criminal Investigative Division), in which she denied being at the crime scene.* Years after trial, she confessed, before television cameras, to being with the assailants at the murder scene.

* Greg Mitchell

A heroin addict and soldier, Mitchell was Helena Stoeckley's boyfriend.* Before his death, Mitchell confessed to the crimes to numerous people including a pastor and his boss. In recent years, several friends who knew him well have come forward and signed sworn statements as to Mitchell's confessions to them.* Mitchell stated on numerous occasions that he and his group had gone to the MacDonald home to assault the family, because he believed MacDonald would not help him obtain methadone - a substance used to aid drug addicts.* Mitchell said the group was strung out on drugs, things "got bad" and they left after the phone rang unexpectedly (and was answered by Helena Stoeckley).**

* Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen writes the CID stating the case against MacDonald is too weak to prosecute. He cites "the exculpatory character of some of the evidence together with the total lack of evidence as to possible motive."

* The Long Beach Police Association hosts a $100 per plate dinner to raise money for Jeff's defense.

* Dr. Thomas T. Noguchi, a leading forensic expert, publishes an opinion on the MacDonald case, stating that, given the physical evidence, one person alone could not have committed the murders.

* Dr. David C. Raskin, one of the country's renowned polygraphers, tests MacDonald and finds "no deception"

* Warren Coolidge, former US Attorney for the Eastern District of NC, who fought so hard to indict MacDonald, is disbarred after being caught embezzling funds from clients.

* Former MacDonald prosecutor James Blackburn is disbarred, is indicted on 12 felony counts including changing court documents, and is sentenced to 7 years in federal prison

* FOIA attorney Anthony Besceglie uncovers 1400 new pages of case documents, despite government claims that all information had been previously released to the defense. Michael Malone's report stating he found no pajama top fibers on the club is found.

* The government contended that a surgeon would know how to injure*himself "safely", and the seriousness of MacDonald's collapsed lung*was minimized at trial.* Five of the six doctors consulted at the*Army Hearing (Article 32) testified that MacDonald could not have*predicted the outcome of what they termed a very "serious" stab wound*to the chest, which collapsed the lung by 40%.* All agreed that the liver*could have been damaged, with death resulting, and that even a doctor*would not be able to predict the outcome of such a wound, should he*inflict in on himself. MacDonald's injuries were hardly superficial, in fact serious enough that he was not released from the hospital until 8 days after the murders.

* Colette was found with a piece of gouged skin lodged under one of her*fingernails.* Kimberley, Kristen and their mother were all found with*foreign hairs, unmatched to their father, under their nails. There were*no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald.

* Two of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists, Dr. Thomas Noguchi*of Los Angeles County, CA, and Dr. Ronald Wright of Broward County,*Florida, researched the fatal blows suffered by Colette and concluded*that they were inflicted by a left-handed person.* Greg Mitchell, the man*the defense believes to have been Colette's killer, was left-handed.**Greg Mitchell's blood type (O) was also found on Colette's hands,*but no type B (Jeffrey's type).* A brown hair, has found clutched in*Colette's hand.* Greg Mitchell had brown hair (Jeffrey's was blonde).**Despite the discrepancy in color, the CID lab tried to source the hair*to Jeffrey anyway, but failed

* Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell, two of the alleged assailants told numerous people, including officials, friends and clergy that they did not go to the apartment to kill anyone, just to "shake up" MacDonald, whom they believed to have taken a hard line against drug use on post.* Mitchell and his group assaulted MacDonald, who fell unconscious in the hallway.* They were so high on drugs that their violence escalated.* They say they left in a panic when the phone rang and Helena answered it, throwing the weapons out the back door, without further thought to whether their victims were still alive or not.

* Stoeckley, the woman MacDonald described upon being resuscitated was a known drug user and informant for the Fort Bragg military police.* She was also the daughter of an retired Army Lt. Colonel.* She had no alibi for her whereabouts on the murder night, and later confessed to burning her clothing from that night because it would incriminate her.* The Army had a vested interest in not pursuing Helena Stoeckley and her friends, quite possibly because of some of its own officers involvement in drug trafficking.* Once MacDonald was exonerated by the Army, investigators failed to follow up on suggestions that they pursue Stoeckley and her boyfriend, Greg Mitchell.* At trial, all testimony from the group was deemed "unreliable" by Judge DuPree because they were known drug users.

* A man named Jimmy Friar stated that he was connected to the "wrong" Dr. MacDonald (there were two on post) during the timeframe of the murders, and told authorities the phone was answered by a woman who laughed when he asked to speak to Dr. MacDonald.* He then he heard a man's voice say "Hang up the goddamn phone!"* Later, Helena Stoeckley gave a similar account of answering the* phone call made by Friar.

* Helena Stoeckley identified and described items within the MacDonald home in great detail, including a jewelry box found in the master bedroom, and a broken rocking horse in one of the children's rooms.

* Blonde, synthetic wig hairs, 22 inches in length, were found in a clear-handled hair brush on a table in the living room where MacDonald said he saw the blonde female.* These wig hairs would have been critical to MacDonald's defense.* Army investigator William Ivory knew Helena Stoeckley wore a blonde wig, which matched the descriptions given by MacDonald and MP Kenneth Mica, but didn't reveal the presence of these long blonde wig hairs at the crime scene.

* A bloody, adult palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed on the morning of the murders, near Colette MacDonald's body. The print did not match palm prints of either Jeffrey or Colette MacDonald, nor could it be matched to palm prints from persons known to have been at the crime scene that morning.* Despite extensive efforts by the FBI, the source of this bloody palm print remains unidentified

* A brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberley's bloody fingernail.* This hair was found not be Jeffrey MacDonald's.* It remains a foreign hair in the hand of a murder victim, and was unreported.

* A brown hair, with root intact, was also found under baby Kristen's bloody fingernail. The hair possessed different characteristics from the hair in Kimberly's hand.* It was found not to be Jeffrey's or Colette's hair, yet this too was kept secret from the defense and during the trial.

* Unmatched black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth and shoulder.* These were not reported.* The fibers were important because the FBI also found black wool fibers on the murder club.* At trial, these black wool fibers were misrepresented to the jury as blue cotton fibers from MacDonald's pajama top, and were used to convict him.* They were also important because Stoeckley was known to have affected a wardrobe of black clothing around the time of the murders.

* Human skin under Colette's fingernail, left hand, was lost. The loss wasn't reported, even though it appears clear that MacDonald's injuries (at least 15 stab wounds and 3 head contusions) did not include fingernail scratches.*

[Ireneparalegal]

WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE FOR KILLING ALL BUT MACDONALD? I don't see that in your post...whatever...........

[Thinman]

Wow. No wonder it took him almost a month to reply. He's been typing the whole time.

Do you have anything to add other than fluff intent on confusing the reader and plagiarized material from a website? You sound like the Cliff's Notes version of Fatal Justice.

Are you a Scott Peterson advocate, too?

If you truly believe Mac had fifteen stab wounds, I've got a gorgeous ski-area mountain condo in Kansas for sale you might like.

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by Thinman

Wow. No wonder it took him almost a month to reply. He's been typing the whole time.

Do you have anything to add other than fluff intent on confusing the reader and plagiarized material from a website? You sound like the Cliff's Notes version of Fatal Justice.

Are you a Scott Peterson advocate, too?

If you truly believe Mac had fifteen stab wounds, I've got a gorgeous ski-area mountain condo in Kansas for sale you might like.

LOL!!!!!
Those "stab wounds" were nothing but self-inflicted gashes. If gashes can be construed as stab wounds, then I have been stabbed at least ten times in my life
When a person is tried for murder the first thing that will need to be addressed is motive. What motive did these "hippies" have? They did it cuz they were drug-crazed??? Then how did MacDonald receive non life-threatening wounds????? btw, my questions are rhetorical because THERE IS NO MOTIVE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO THIS, MACDONALD DID IT.

[kadrmas15]

Well I have watched this case numerous times and have decided to bring it up. I dont think MacDonald did this. He is innocent and to be honest even if he didnt do it, I think the evidence wasnt there to convict him. Certainly the case against him was shaky at best why do you think this case took over 9 years after the murders before it even went to trial? Why even after he was convicted was his conviction overturned by the lower courts in 1980 and MacDonald released on bail pending his appeal? The supreme court upheld MacDonald's conviction in 1982 however he still could have remained free pending a new trial. A judge that didnt even have the authority to revoke the bail did it anyway. I just dont buy that MacDonald murdered his whole family because his daughter peed on his side of the bed and he was upset about it. This was the prosecution's motive. In my view not good enough for a conviction. Basically I think MacDonald would have been acquitted if his defense team had access to all the proseuction's files. Remember that the government had a prison cell filled with boxes of evidence and documents, and MacDonald's defense team didnt get access to it until two weeks before the trial. It certainly was not enough time for them to even come close to going through all that evidence. They did find the guy who mistakenly called MacDonald's house the night of the murders and he said he spoke to a woman. Her problem was she flip flopped so much and besides that she said she wouldnt stick to her story about how she was present at the MacDonald house that night unless she received immunity in exchange for her testimony. It sucks for J effrey MacDonald because he should have never been convicted. MacDonald I dont think would have ever even been tried on the matter had he not gone on the Dick Cavett show and pissed off the government and military. That was MacDonald's biggest mistake probably. His in-laws initially supported him and believed him to be innocent. As Aswi said, when he decided to move on with his life and when he moved out to California his in laws turned on him. I believe this was around 1971 or so that he moved out to California and supposedly when MacDonald made a trip back east and failed to visit his in laws his father in law was enraged and started saying that he thought MacDonald was guilty. They were mad because he had moved on with his life and that he was living the good life out in California. He was driving a Mercedes and living in a beach front Condo. They were mad at him for that and they were mad that he was moving on with his life and living a good life and they were mad that he didnt grieve his wife and daughters every second of the day and that he didnt stay out east and visit their graves every day. This is actually part of the reason I believe MacDonald to be innocent. If he was guilty he wouldnt have gone on the Dick Cavett show and he wouldh ave stayed out east and overplayed the remorse game. MacDonald's in laws probably testified against him at his trial. If MacDonald got a new trial I think he would be acquitted. The justice system will never allow him a new trial though because it would make the justice system look bad. But his in laws both passed away in the early 90's so they wouldnt be there. Sorry for going off on this, it just pisses me off because the guy I think is innocent and he could be out there saving lives as a doctor and they have him in prison. MacDonald applied for parole in 2005 and he was denied. It could be as late as 2020 before he has another parole hearing. MacDonald will be 77 in 2020. Hey Awsi, did you ever write to MacDonald and if so did you ever get a response?

[Thinman]

Guilty as sin.