Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[desmirelle]

HENRI

You never did answer my question. I understand reading comprehension is one of your problems, but I did provide choices.

 

[Henri McPhee]

WHICH statement from Helena? The one where she said she was so messed up on drugs she didn't know where she was that night? The one where she and mac were having an affair? The one where there was a phone call? The next one where she says she has no idea of where she was because she'd done mescaline? The one where she says nobody on LSD would do this (while being shown the crime scene photos by SEGAL) but maybe someone on speed?

I agree that Helena lied through thick and thin, but that doesn't mean you have to reject her story. I think she said once that she was inside the MacDonald house the previous week. There is no real proof of that. Her story that the MacDonald murders took place because Dr. MacDonald was too stern on the local drug addicts is also pure speculation.

One statement which I consider crucial evidence is when she told her lawyer, Leonard, at the time of the trial that she had been inside the house when the murders took place.

Her other piece of information that somebody phoned the MacDonald house when the murders took place is also crucial information, in my opinion. That was Friar. The problem was that Friar was a suspicious character and anybody who didn't attend the vicar's tea party was erroneously rejected as a witness by biased Judge Dupree. I think the criminal defense lawyers should have pressed harder on that point.

There is some background to this Friar business in about 1990:

www.goupstate.com/article/NC/19900304/News/605191101/SJ/

The woman spoke a few disjointed words then abruptly hung up. Friar, mystified, eventually made his own way back to the hospital. He didn't learn about the murders until a few days later and thought it just a coincidence that the suspect's name was MacDonald. When he read what the doctor claimed had happened, however, he made his own judgment: He believed that he had called the residence while the murders were in progress and that one of the hippies whom MacDonald claimed had killed his wife and children had, automatically, picked up the phone when it rang. Nobody believed him.

He even volunteered to testify for the defense, but was never called, he said. Although he had more severe problems of his own - he was convicted of several minor and major crimes - he followed the case through the years. When a woman subsequently came forward with a story that seemed to corroborate MacDonald's, Friar thought that the physician would be cleared. It didn't happen: Helena Shoeckley, an admitted drug addict who knew only that she could have been a part of the murders, soon was found dead, of suspicious but apparently natural causes. That wasn't the end of Friar's involvement, however. When he was moved to a Piedmont North Carolina prison, he claimed to have received mysterious warnings to discuss the MacDonald case with no one. For a long time, he didn't. He was afraid, he said, and wasn't sure he was safe in prison.

In case you're wondering, Friar told this story before Joe McGinniss wrote "Fatal Vision" and, to all indications seemed to have no ax to grind nor hope of cashing in on any publicity. At the time of our conversation, a retrial was in the initial stages but that, too, ended in a reconfirmation of MacDonald's guilt. Ihave no opinion in the matter; the courts decide guilt. But after Friar's story appeared in several South Carolina newspapers, I received strange phone calls, including one supposedly from a detective who was working on the MacDonald case and another from someone who asked questions about Friar's family. I referred all callers to the Department of Corrections. It was the nature of some of the calls that made me wonder whether Friar's story had some validity.

What brought this subject to mind was an announcement last week that a Boston lawyer is seeking a retrial for MacDonald on the basis of new evidence which he described as "startling." I will await the further unfolding of this tale with utmost curiosity; I'm sure you will, too. Frances Helms is a columnist for the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

 

[desmirelle]

Henri

You still have not answered my question. To help you out, I'll tell you what to do to answer it: Pick one of the statements (that does not mean you quote my entire question, but rather select the one of my choices of Helena's many stories that you believe to be the true one).

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[byn63]

henri - the point that you seem to be missing is "WHICH" of Helena's stories do we believe? They cannot ALL be the real story. Thus, as I've stated before I choose to believe her when she said that she "WATCHED" inmate slaughter his family.

As to your comment about use of informants - that is apples vs oranges as to whether or not Helena's out of court statements to third parties are admissible or credible. Helena said on the stand that she didn't remember where she was the night of the murders, she said in the interview with Segal that she could not help him she was not involved, she stated that someone on SPEED might have done those horrific acts but not someone on acid. So, what she said to Posey (or what Posey claimed she said) or anyone else outside of the courts is HEARSAY and inadmissible. Not to mention the fact that Posey failed a lie detector test AND later admitted he'd made up the stories he'd given investigators for inmate. Posey is no credible either!

 

[Henri McPhee]

So, what she said to Posey (or what Posey claimed she said) or anyone else outside of the courts is HEARSAY and inadmissible. Not to mention the fact that Posey failed a lie detector test AND later admitted he'd made up the stories he'd given investigators for inmate. Posey is no credible either!

You can't just say that all Helena's confessions are inadmissible. That is clearly erroneous under Rule 804 (b) (3).

Posey testified at the fair and just Article 32 proceedings in 1970, and so did Jan Snyder who said a rifle was pointed at her apartment after she came forward as a witness. Both of them now seem to have vanished. I don't know if they are still alive. There was no money in it for them, or any kind of fame and fortune. Posey left Fayetteville after his cats were killed. It could be that Posey and Jan Snyder are badly scared and don't want to get involved.

The matter of Posey was raised during the cross-examination of Helena Stoeckley at the 1979 trial:

Helena mentioned to Segal at the 1979 trial that she told Posey to lock his doors:

Q Do you remember in the months after February 17th, the first few days after February 17th, having some conversation with your neighbor, Bill Posey?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall talking with him about the subject of the MacDonald murders at Fort Bragg?
A The subject came up but I don't remember what was said.
Q Let me break the question, if I can, into two parts. Do you or don't you recall at least talking about the MacDonald murders with Bill Posey within the week after February 17th, 1970?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have a recollection of anything that you said to him at that time about the MacDonald family and murders that had taken place?
A Only one conversation that I do remember having.
Q Okay, can you tell us about that conversation? First of all, do you remember approximately when after February 17th, 1970, that that conversation took place?
A It was about a week and a half later I would say. He was up on Haymount Hill, and I ran into him up there; and I was just fooling around. I knew--you know, he seemed to be trying to put me on the spot or something.
So, I don't remember the extent of the conversation, but it ended up by my telling him to tell his wife to keep her door locked.
Q May I ask, do you recall talking about the MacDonald murders before this remark was made?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What was the subject matter that you were talking about before you made this comment to Mr. Posey?
A I'm not sure.
Q Did you have some other conversation with Bill Posey between February of 1970 and, say, August of 1970?
A Several times.
Q Did the subject of the MacDonald murders come up in those conversations?
A Usually.

MR. BLACKBURN: I would OBJECT to this line of questioning.

THE COURT: Well, I cannot rule on an objection to a line of questioning. If there is a question I will try to rule on that.

MR. SEGAL: I'm sorry; I could not hear Your Honor's ruling.

MR. BLACKBURN: I WITHDRAW the objection.

THE COURT: That one is over. I will tell you, though, he apparently wanted to object to a line of questioning and it is a little bit difficult for the Court to make a ruling on that kind of an objection; but I said if you made a specific question and there was a specific objection to that question, I would undertake to rule on that. That is what I told him.

MR. SEGAL: Thank you. I gather the Government has withdrawn the objection?

THE COURT: They did.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What I was asking, Ms. Stoeckley, was, you did tell us of having some conversations with Bill Posey, other than the one you mentioned between then and August of 1970, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q I would ask you, did any of those conversations involve the subject of the MacDonald murders?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did any of those conversations involve where you were and what you had done between midnight and 5:00 a.m. on February 17th?

 

[byn63]

so we circle back to which "confession" to we consider admissible and/or credible? IF we have to accept one admission, then we have to accept ALL of them. Then she really WILL be non-credible and inmate and his attorney's would look even more ridiculous. I can just see it Bernie Segal asks her what she can tell us about the night of the murders and she says she can't remember anything she was doped up. He tries to elicit other confessions, and gets no place. The prosecution then asks "what did you tell the defense in your meeting yesterday?" and Helena replies "no one on acid would have done this, maybe someone taking speed" and it is all down hill from there. Posey alleged she said she was at the house, but he admitted he lied after failing a polygraph so we cannot use his story. So again, I think we have already proved her not credible. IF you want to believe one of her stories then why won't you believe the one where she claimed she watched inmate slaughter his family? How about the one where she claimed she and inmate were having an affair? Either is more credible then the stories she told later - the ones that DO NOT MATCH THE EVIDENCE AND DO NOT MATCH INMATE'S STORY EITHER. Inmate himself could not identify her in a photo shown him in April but then he claims he recognizes her and her drastically changed appearance 9 years later? I call BS. You know she wasn't involved. You know she was not credible too.

 

[Henri McPhee]

so we circle back to which "confession" to we consider admissible and/or credible? IF we have to accept one admission, then we have to accept ALL of them. Then she really WILL be non-credible and inmate and his attorney's would look even more ridiculous. I can just see it Bernie Segal asks her what she can tell us about the night of the murders and she says she can't remember anything she was doped up. He tries to elicit other confessions, and gets no place. .

I don't think that's strictly true. This may come as a shock to you but suspects and witnesses sometimes lie to avoid being prosecuted. Politicians sometimes make empty promises. Con artists sometimes try to obtain your bank details in order to defraud you out of money. You can't just say that because she lied that she should be disregarded.

A good policeman has been described in the past as a man who will lie through thick and thin. I agree that brilliant detection in the Sherlock Holmes sense hardly ever happens. The police and the FBI usually have to be told who the murderer, or murderers are.

I also agree that a lot of what Helena said was a load of bull. All that stuff about having an affair with MacDonald was never proved. MacDonald had never met the woman. She also never mentioned that Mitchell was involved in the MacDonald murders until her affair with him had broken up. The point is that Helena was a key witness and she should have been thoroughly and properly investigated, as Colonel Rock suggested at the Article 32 proceedings conclusion in 1970. She also named names and they should have been further investigated, not just a cursory questioning by the FBI and tunnel vision by the Army CID.

Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous in disregarding Helena as untrustworthy and a poor befuddled creature on a point of law. That MacDonald case verdict should have been reversed by the higher courts because of that.

The matter was mentioned in an old English law book published in 1932 called English Justice:

Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part.

 

[byn63]

Yes henri, it is STRICTLY true. IF you are going to believe ANY of Helena's stories then the story would need to AT LEAST MATCH THE EVIDENCE. The ONLY one of Helena's numerous statements that matches the evidence is "I do not know where I was, I was not involved, I was too doped up".

None of the other stories Helena told match the evidence and they DO NOT MATCH the stories told by inmate. ALSO, inmate did not/could not identify Helena from a photo shown to him at the April 1970 interview. Inmate stated "she has a distinctive nose, I would have remembered that nose". Are you saying you believe he could recognize her 19 years later after a drastic change in appearance but he couldn't recognize her in a contemporary photo taken within months of the murders? Talk about "not credible"!

 

[JTF]

Non-Issue

HENRIBOY: I realize that you and other MacDonald advocates puff up the Stoeckley issue to hyperbolic levels because you really have nothing else to offer to the Courts, media and general public. For two decades, inmate's biggest advocate was the late Fred Bost, but even Fred acknowledged that Smith, Harris, Fowler and Mazzerolle had no involvement in these murders.

Despite having access to exemplars for DNA testing, inmate's defense team did not request that the exemplars from 5 members of the Stoeckley Seven be DNA tested by the AFIP. So, even before DNA testing on exemplars from Stoeckley and Mitchell were completed, MacDonald's own defense team acknowledged that there was no physical evidence linking Perry, Smith, Fowler, Harris and Mazzerolle to these murders.

Still waiting on that lab documentation that links ANY "member" of the Stoeckley Seven to this horrific crime. Put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Border Reiver]

I don't think that's strictly true. This may come as a shock to you but suspects and witnesses sometimes lie to avoid being prosecuted. Politicians sometimes make empty promises. Con artists sometimes try to obtain your bank details in order to defraud you out of money. You can't just say that because she lied that she should be disregarded.

Now be a good boy and explain which of Ms Stoeckley's divergent statements matches the physical evidence.

Why you cannot say that if someone lies they must be disregarded, you can say that a liar's testimony must be corroborated before it is believed.

A good policeman has been described in the past as a man who will lie through thick and thin. I agree that brilliant detection in the Sherlock Holmes sense hardly ever happens. The police and the FBI usually have to be told who the murderer, or murderers are.

Evidence for your assertion.

I also agree that a lot of what Helena said was a load of bull. All that stuff about having an affair with MacDonald was never proved. MacDonald had never met the woman. She also never mentioned that Mitchell was involved in the MacDonald murders until her affair with him had broken up. The point is that Helena was a key witness and she should have been thoroughly and properly investigated, as Colonel Rock suggested at the Article 32 proceedings conclusion in 1970. She also named names and they should have been further investigated, not just a cursory questioning by the FBI and tunnel vision by the Army CID.

Given that her various stories are widely divergent and the physical evidence does not support the idea of her being present in the home, why should she even be considered as a witness?

Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous in disregarding Helena as untrustworthy and a poor befuddled creature on a point of law. That MacDonald case verdict should have been reversed by the higher courts because of that.

Your honour! I have person who, outside of court, claims to have witnessed the murder/participated in the murder/had an affair with the accused, but refuses to keep to one story, who the accused does not recognize and whose presence in the house is not corroborated physical evidence! Her evidence must be of great import to the case!

Seriously?

The many inconsistencies in her testimony do not even come close to raising reasonable doubt.

The matter was mentioned in an old English law book published in 1932 called English Justice:

No, what you are quoting is a section on the effect of the press in influencing jurors' opinions. It has nothing to do with excluding irrelevant witnesses.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Now be a good boy and explain which of Ms Stoeckley's divergent statements matches the physical evidence.

Why you cannot say that if someone lies they must be disregarded, you can say that a liar's testimony must be corroborated before it is believed.

The problem with that is that there were were more than seven people in the Stoeckley group, many of whom were just friends and girl friends and associates who all knew exactly what happened, but all of whom have kept their mouths shut about it. I have always thought that Bruce Fowler knew exactly what happened even though there is no evidence he was actually involved in the murders. A good detective could make him sing like a canary.

I agree that Helena Stoeckley was a bad character who lied through thick and thin. You can't expect in reality all witnesses to be angels, or to be frank, candid and open. It's not in their interests. If Judge Dupree had his way and all untrustworthy witnesses had their statements banned from a murder trial you might end up with no witnesses.

Helena was just as reliable as Stombaugh of the FBI who testified that Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush. He only said it could be as well as the threads. Or CID agent Shaw who testified that he thought Colette murdered one of the little girls. Helena was Detective Beasley's most reliable informant. They were making it up with a hypothesis.

I still think the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers are good enough physical evidence for me.

This is part of what Colonel Rock wrote in his conclusion at the Article 32 in 1970:

The rationale for recommendation number two is based on testimony presented at the hearing by a civilian witness Posey which had never previously been presented to civilian police and/ or military investigative authorities. There was a remarkable similarity of part of his testimony to testimony by the accused and other evidence.

As a result of this information the Investigating Officer requested that the government attempt to get a civilian female Stockley [sic] whom Posey had seen during the early morning hours of 17 February, to appear as a witness at this hearing. CID Agent Ivory testified that he subsequently interviewed her twice, that she had no alibi for that morning because she had been on marijuana, and that she declined to testify.

It seems appropriate to pursue this line of inquiry further and to provide the testimony of Posey and Ivory to appropriate local civilian authorities with a request that they determine if Stockley [sic] and/or her companions of that evening can be placed at the scene of the crime.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Helena Stoeckley was questioned by Army CID agent Ivory after the murders but it was a bit of a pathetic interview. The Army CID need to up their game. They were only focused on MacDonald. It was tunnel vision and disregarding suspects.

Ivory being cross-examined by MacDonald lawyer Eisman at the Article 32 in 1970:

Q Did you ask for the description of the owner of that blue Mustang she was driving?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what, if anything, did she tell you in that regard?
A He was a white male, former enlisted man in the Army, and she couldn't go into more specific details, other than the physical description.
Q Did you ask her any questions about specific identification points?
A I asked her to describe the man to me as best she could, and she said he was twenty or under and a white male, dark hair.
Q Did you ask her any other questions in regard to the identification of that person, or the description of that person?
A That's all she could furnish me, in any way of a description.
Q But did you ask her any specific points of identification?
A Yes, sir, I asked her to describe any facial features, et cetera.
Q Is it fair to say that's the only type of question you put to her?
A Yes, she just could give me a general description.
Q When you say she could just give you, you mean she could or that's all she chose to give you?
A I couldn't read her mind. That's what she gave me.
Q How about her manner of demeanor? Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q Candid and open. Is that right?
A Right.
Q And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory. I don't underestimate that for a moment. What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A I could not -- I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A I've never tried it. I do not know.
Q Well, I didn't suggest that. I said based upon your experience as an investigator, I am sure you've talked with physicians in regard to marijuana, the fact you are aware, I am sure, that marijuana does not -- is not reported in any way to effect the memory processes.
A As far as I know.
Q So knowing that, at least, you still felt that she was being frank, candid and open when she told you that she couldn't remember her whereabouts when she was smoking marijuana?
A What else could I say?
Q You could say that she was a liar and ask her to be more specific about what she was doing and where she was.
A I possibly could have.
Q But you did not, sir?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ask Miss Stoeckley about her relationship with Mr. Posey?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did she indicate that Mr. Posey had any grudge or malice against her that she knew of?
A She couldn't understand why that he had -- had -- had -- she couldn't understand really why he had any -- she said that on occasion she had teased him about being square but that was the extent of her relationship with him.
Q Did Miss Stoeckley admit or deny having a conversation with Mr. Posey on the street in August 1970, earlier last month, in the Haymount section of town?
A No, I didn't query her about that.
Q Were you aware that Mr. Posey had testified in these proceedings that he had seen Miss Stoeckley, if that's the right person that he talked to, on or about August the 12th of 1970?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q Were you told by anyone that Posey had said that he had seen Miss Stoeckley during the month of August?
A No.
Q As far as you know, when was the last time Mr. Posey is supposed to have been in the presence of Miss Stoeckley?
A On dates she was -- if not vague, she just didn't know dates.
Q Well, did you ask her when was the last time she saw Posey?
A No, I did not.
Q Was there any reason why you didn't ask her that?
A No, no particular reason.
Q You have no more information that you can give as to when she believes was the last time she was in Mr. Posey's company?
A No.
Q Did she indicate when she moved from the apartment next door to where Mr. Posey lived?
A No, she did not.
Q Did you ask her when?
A No.
Q Were you aware that Mr. Posey has said that she moved within a short period, maybe a matter of days or weeks, after the MacDonald episode, on February 17th?
A No, I was not aware of this.
Q And you did not ask her whether, you know, when she moved to the address at Arsenal Street?
A No, I did not.
Q Would you tell me, what was the purpose of your interviewing Miss Stoeckley?
A To find out if, in fact, she was involved, or if there was any implication of her being involved in anything at Fort Bragg.
Q You mean -- anything at Fort Bragg -- I assume you are talking about the MacDonald killings?
A Correct.

 

[byn63]

henri - there have ONLY ever been SEVEN people accused of being members of "Helena's Gang" (which was non-existent, it was a group of friends not a gang) that at any given time Helena pointed the finger at as having participated in the murders. You cannot now try to bring in a bunch of people that she may have known or hung out with and try to add them to the mix. That goes WAY BEYOND NOT CREDIBLE.

Why don't you admit that you have nothing in any shape, manner, or form that corroborates your position on this case? We've been waiting months for you to provide documentation (certified lab or investigative documentation) that puts ANY of the 7 people Helena ever accused of being involved AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.

It is long past time henri - PUT UP OR SHUT UP

 

[Henri McPhee]

henri - there have ONLY ever been SEVEN people accused of being members of "Helena's Gang" (which was non-existent, it was a group of friends not a gang) that at any given time Helena pointed the finger at as having participated in the murders. You cannot now try to bring in a bunch of people that she may have known or hung out with and try to add them to the mix. That goes WAY BEYOND NOT CREDIBLE.

There were more than just seven who were involved in the heroin operation at Fort Bragg. It has always been covered up because it's all hopelessly corrupt. It's the innocent people like Dr. MacDonald who suffer from it, and other whistle blowers who sometimes end up dead.

There is a bit of background information to all this from what Detective Beasley said in the past:

Helena also told me after the MacDonald murders, that Alan Mazerolle, who was in her coven Satanic Cult, was a drug runner up and down the East Coast. Mazerolle took drugs as far away as Florida and New York City. Mazorelle was in the Army at the time. She never said where Mazerolle obtained his drugs.

Helena also told me that Don Harris, also a member of her coven Satanic Cult, was a heavy user of drugs. This is all she said about him.

[page 4]

Helena told me that Dwight Smith was a drug dealer locally. She never said where Smith obtained his drugs. She said Smith was an "alright guy".

Helena told me that Kathy Perry was a user of drugs. Perry took as many drugs as she could get her hands on. Perry dealt drugs only to maintain her habit.

Helena told me that Greg Mitchell was a dealer and a heavy user of drugs. She never gave details regarding how he dealt, but she stated anytime someone couldn't find drugs, they could always go to Mitchell and he would have them. At times, he would supply the whole group.

Helena told me that Bruce Fowler was a drug dealer and a user, and that she was his girlfriend. She never gave more details than this.

Dwight Smith, Don Harris, Alan Mazerolle, Bruce Fowler and Greg Mitchell were all in the same coven Satanic cult with Helena, and were all in the military. She stated that all of the above were dangerous, but she was the most afraid of Mazerolle. She stated Mazerolle would kill you in a minute.

I had extensive intelligence files on all of the above close associates of Helena's, but this information has disappeared from the Fayetteville Police files. I learned these files disappeared in August, 1979. During the MacDonald trial I was given a subpoena to bring these records to the trial. It was then that I learned they were gone.

In 1981 or 1982, I talked to Mrs Greg Mitchell, after Greg had died. She told me Greg had previously told her about drugs being smuggled into the U.S. in the body cavities of the dead G.I.'s from Viet Nam. She stated that Greg didn't give her the names of persons involved, but told her about the contacts in Viet Nam who placed the drugs in plastic bags, into the bodies, and others in the U.S. at our Air Bases who met the planes, and took the drugs from the bodies. She stated military personnel were involved in this operation in Viet Ham and in the U.S.

[page 5]

Lieutenant Studer told me in 1968-1969 that drugs were being brought into the U.S. from Viet Nam in the body cavities of the dead soldiers. He said they were being flown into the United States to the military Air Bases, and dispersed from there by contacts within the military.

Studer subsequently was promoted to Captain, Chief of Detectives, but was forced to resign because he misappropriated pornographic material obtained during an investigation. Helena told me that Studer monitored the drugs that Helena obtained, and if he didn't like them, he had her exchange those drugs for drugs that Studer could use. Helena told me that if the police obtained drugs on an arrest, they would often be on the street the next day. Studer would take the drugs and give them to Helena to sell back on the street. The only way I know that Studer could get these drugs was from the evidence room. Studer and Detective Larry Sonberg both had keys to the evidence room.

Helena told me that William F. Ivory, C.I.D.. and Studer were close friends. She stated that Ivory was dealing drugs with Studer. She stated she would give more details concerning Ivory if she was given immunity. Ivory was involved in the crime scene search on the MacDonald case. She also stated she would give more information on Studer if she vas given immunity.

Joseph Bullock was an informant and undercover operator for me and Studer from 1969 to 1971. Bullock advised me that he saw Studer and Ivory exchange envelopes on occasion at the Dunkin' Donuts, Bragg Blvd, Fayetteville, N.C., during this period of time. Studer dropped Bullock shortly after this because, according to Bullock, Studer knew too much of what was going on. Bullock was subsequently shot in the head during an ambush when he came home from work. It was general knowledge in the community that Bullock was an informant for me. Bullock described Studer as a "son of a bitch."

Sonberg left town unexpectedly, shortly after the MacDonald murders. The rumor was that Sonberg had double-crossed some drug dealers, and had to leave town. Helena told me that Sonberg was dealing

[page 6]

drugs even though he was a police officer. I have no knowledge that Sonberg was involved with the drug operation out of Viet Nam.

Helena once mentioned the name Proctor to me. I don't recall what was said about him, but I knew she knew him. I assume she was referring to James Proctor, Judge DuPree's ] former son-in-law. I don't recall if she referred to Proctor by his first name. She mentioned this sometime after the MacDonald murders. She said she would talk more about Proctor if given immunity.

 

[JTF]

Motivations Of A Troll

HENRIBOY: Ignoring undiluted fact and my original challenge is not going to make either aspect of this case magically go away. Still waiting on that document sourcing an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. Still waiting on your rationale for being at odds with inmate's defense team and advocates such as the late Fred Bost.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

HENRIBOY: Ignoring undiluted fact and my original challenge is not going to make either aspect of this case magically go away. Still waiting on that document sourcing an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. Still waiting on your rationale for being at odds with inmate's defense team and advocates such as the late Fred Bost.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The point is that if a group of people possibly have knowledge in relation to a crime then there should be INVESTIGATING of those people, and they should not refuse to provide information when properly called upon to do so. Because the heroin operation at Fort Bragg was so corrupt, the real culprits were given protection by the CIA and FBI and military Army CID and police and judges. The Justice Department was complicit in this. Ivory was a bent cop.

Dwight Smith was interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation a couple of days after the murders and he replied that he couldn't remember where he was on the night of the murders. Greg Mitchell told Ivory that he might have been staying with his parents on the night of the murders. That was never verified. The FBI asked for the name and address of Bruce Fowler and Mazerolle and Don Harris, and the FBI didn't further investigate. Ted Gunderson didn't investigate any other culprits besides Stoeckley because he said MacDonald owed him $150000, though that was the next logical step in the investigation.

To my mind, the black wool fibers at the crime scene with no known source point straight at the velveteen clothes worn by Mazerolle at the MacDonald murders, and the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers point straight at Stoeckley. Fred Bost was up against it, and so is the MacDonald defense team if the Army CID and mafia and FBI and Justice Department and judges act like dishonest postmen in relation to the matter. It's what is known technically as fighting corruption.

The matter was discussed in a 1989 internet article:

Justice on trial: the case
of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald

by Carol White

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court plays a special role in the
United States judicial system because of its location in Richmond,
Virginia, adjoining the federal capital of Washington
and extending to North Carolina. Cases involving the federal
government, the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, and special
forces fall naturally under its jurisdiction. It is one of the
contentions of Lyndon LaRouche and his co-defendants that
their trial was transferred from its original Boston jurisdiction
to Alexandria, Virginia-seat of the Eastern District of Virginia,
which falls under the Fourth Circuit-in order to railroad
them to an unjust conviction. (Formally the Boston case
was a separate case from that tried in Alexandria, but this is
a transparent legal fiction.)

The emergence of the Eastern District as the "rocket
docket," where the speed with which a trial is prosecuted
takes priority over the constitutional rights of a defendant,
has made it an anathema in legal circuits; however, the case
of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald reveals a more longstanding record
of deliberate abuse of justice within the Fourth Circuit.

 

[byn63]

the point is henri - that the people who Helena fingered are a set # and whether there were more hippies living in and around Fayetteville at the time of the murders is irrelevant. You cannot just make these people "intruder suspects" because you do not want to believe that your hero is the murdering bastard that he is.....he murdered his family in a brutal and horrific manner and then tried (and continues to try) and blame others for his actions. He is a wimpy narcissistic sociopathic bastard and he is right where he belongs. He was tried fairly and convicted and that is also FACT.

 

[Henri McPhee]

the point is henri - that the people who Helena fingered are a set # and whether there were more hippies living in and around Fayetteville at the time of the murders is irrelevant. You cannot just make these people "intruder suspects" because you do not want to believe that your hero is the murdering bastard that he is.....he murdered his family in a brutal and horrific manner and then tried (and continues to try) and blame others for his actions. He is a wimpy narcissistic sociopathic bastard and he is right where he belongs. He was tried fairly and convicted and that is also FACT.

That's just your opinion which would be inadmissible in a courtroom because it's not backed up with supporting evidence. In a way the MacDonald case and the JonBenet case are similar in that the only so-called evidence against the accused is that they were in the house when the murders occurred. The Army CID jumped to conclusions with tunnel vision, and the FBI just made it up with corrupt bias. They refused to properly investigate Stoeckley and her associates who were supposed to have knowledge in relation to the crime..

There is more about this matter in that Carol White article in 1989. It sounds as though that Larouche case in 1989 was a miscarriage of justice as well. So much for English and American justice:

The evidence

Much of the forensic evidence collected by the Army at
the time of the incident is called into question, by sloppy
laboratory procedures. Questionable assumptions were made
on blood and urine typing, all to the disadvantage of Dr.
MacDonald. Certain vital evidence such as tissues samples
found under Mrs. MacDonald's fingernails, and clothing worn
by Dr. MacDonald on the night of the murder, mysteriously
disappeared. Only a partial analysis of fingerprints found on
the scene was accomplished.

Blood tests made by the Armywere later disputed by the FBI, but evidence of the disagreement was not made available to the defense, although it
would have materially affected the prosecution case. Evidence
has now been uncovered showing that fiber samples
supposed to have come from MacDonald's own pajamas may
actually have been of wool rather than silk, substantiating the
presence of outsiders.

During the trial itself, the judge prevented Dr. MacDonald
from introducing psychiatric evidence on his own
behalf. The judge's pretext was a counter-evaluation by Dr.
Brussells, in which the latter claimed that MacDonald was
lying about the events of that night. The judge ruled that the
jury would only be confused to hear contradictory testimony.
Likewise the evidence of 35 witnesses who could have substantiated
evidence connecting the Satanic cult to the murder
was withheld as hearsay.

Finally, Helen Stoeckley requested
immunity so that she could testify to what really occurred
that night, but this request was rejected out of hand by the
government, who claimed that her testimony would be irrelevant.

The MacDonald case should be reopened, not only so
that justice is done on his behalf, but so that the role of the
FBI and the Justice Department is brought to light.

 

[JTF]

Reminder

HENRIBOY: Back to the simple parameters of my original challenge. Produce a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect or admit that there is no concrete evidence pointing to a perp NOT named Jeffrey MacDonald. It's important to remind you that this challenge does NOT include opinions by MacDonald advocates. You have studiously ignored this part of the challenge as evidenced by your repetitive use of articles constructed by MacDonald advocates.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

HENRIBOY: Back to the simple parameters of my original challenge. Produce a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect or admit that there is no concrete evidence pointing to a perp NOT named Jeffrey MacDonald. It's important to remind you that this challenge does NOT include opinions by MacDonald advocates. You have studiously ignored this part of the challenge as evidenced by your repetitive use of articles constructed by MacDonald advocates.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

There is no lab document which sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect because any such exculpatory evidence was deliberately and illegally censored by the prosecution, like the skin under the fingernail which that bent cop Ivory somehow manged to lose. It was years later after the trial that MacDonald lawyers were able to find out about the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and around Colette's arm and mouth with no known source from the Freedom of Information Act, which Murtagh opposed at the time. That points to an intruder wearing black clothing. Similarly with the mystery blonde synthetic hair- like fibers which point directly at Helena Stoeckley, whatever that FBI crook Malone said about the matter.

That bloody fool Judge Dupree then declared at a MacDoanld appeal that it was all too late now under the time limits that existed at the the time, and that a different jury would have come to the same verdict, which is pure speculation.