Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bad Script

The landlord's responses to the documented record are akin to a script that is consistently passed over by Hollywood studios. The biggest problem with the script is that it contains repetitive dialogue and its plot is all over the map. The script has several scenes where the big, bad government "invents" over 1,000 evidentiary items in order to railroad the protagonist with a heart of gold.

This script provides ample excuses for the protagonist cheating on his wife with at least 8 different women and for continuing this behavior after his wife is put in the ground. The script then delves into science fiction by providing an, ahem, explanation for the protagonist lying to his father in-law about killing one of the "real" murderers.

Outside of the script being ridiculous and boring, the reason why it gets thrown into the garbage bin is that it relies on characters who are stereotypes. The nefarious government, the crooked Judge(s), the dirty cops, and the mean in-laws. The landlord includes it all in a script that rivals Plan Nine From Outer Space as the worst script ever written. The big difference between the two is that Plan Nine actually got made whereas the Greet Beret Doctor Is Innocent movie has never seen the light of day.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
That's more Irish blarney from JTF. We are talking about facts and evidence here, not MacDonald's sex life, or family rows and perjury and prejudice in the Kassab family. It's not a Hollywood film. It's more a horror example of how several people got away with murder due to bad police work by the Army CID, and invented evidence by the FBI.

It's patently untrue for JTF, and even Christina, to say publicly that Dr. Thornton had "unfettered access" to the forensic evidence. He was able to examine the pajama top and the bedsheet but that was about it.

Dr Thornton explained his problems in an affidavit:

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1979-03-26_EDNC_aff_thornton.html

The MacDonald lawyer Junkin made a good response to Murtagh and his sidekick Judge Fox once at:

www.themacdonaldcase.org/Images/Macdonald_Reply_to_Govt_Response.pdf

Part of the trouble is that MacDonald ran out of money for his legal fees and private investigators. I suppose you can't expect a criminal defense lawyer to work for nothing. I agree that most of their clients are guilty. It's not a problem faced by biased Judge Fox, or by the trickster lawyer Murtagh. I think the MacDonald defense fund is still advertised on his website and it's tax deductible as far as I know.
 
Point of Fact: the evidence was there, it was available for examination. Segal did not send Thornton until the last moment, which makes it the fault of the defense, not the prosecution that Thornton's access was limited (by time).

Quit blaming everyone else but the murdering Jeffrey Robert Macdonald for the jury coming to the correct conclusion. If he hadn't killed his pregnant wife and two daughters, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.....
 
JTF said:
This script provides ample excuses for the protagonist cheating on his wife with at least 8 different women and for continuing this behavior after his wife is put in the ground.
Click to expand...
FTR, it stopped being cheating when she died.
Outside of the script being ridiculous and boring, the reason why it gets thrown into the garbage bin is that it relies on characters who are stereotypes. The nefarious government, the crooked Judge(s), the dirty cops, and the mean in-laws.
Click to expand...
You forgot the evil hippies. Can't leave out the evil hippies!
 
Clarification

DZ: The portion of the landlord's script that covers inmate's post-murder behaviors glosses over behavior that is far worse than his history of marital infidelity. This includes bedding the 16 year old daughter of family friends Marian and Bob Stern.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Henri McPhee said:
MacDonald was not being tried for his sex life. That Judge Fox is a bit dim. It's strained logic. Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent.
Click to expand...

Four random, unconnected sentences.

Sentence one: But it spreaks volumes on his character that he cheated on his wife, seduced a teen he was supposed to be helping, and immediately after his wife's death he's boinking a neighbor in the BOQ.

Sentence two: You would be the resident expert on dimness.

Sentence three: Without knowing which of your imagined injustices in the case you're addressing, can't really comment - unless you're referring to considering Macdonald anything other than guilty as charged, then it's strained logic.

Sentence four: Lie, just a flat-out untruth.
 
Jeff MacDonald was given plenty of good character references at the 1979 trial, and at the McGinniss case in 1987, but they were rejected and ignored. Anything to do with sex, and women and narrow-minded Irish Catholics become unreliable. Should President Kennedy have been tried for murder? It's like having some sort of rock star in charge of the MacDonald case. I appreciate that judges are human but it's obviously unfair.
 
inmate is a lying, cheating, nacissistic sociopathic family slaughterer and a bastard who does't deserve the title human.....even in jail he thinks he is above the rules...
 
All the character witnesses saw was the side of Macdonald that he wanted them to see and he could pull it off when he didn't have to live with the person. I'd bet all my Monopoly cash that none of them knew he cheated on his wife.

Quite rightly, in a CONTRACT dispute, the character witnesses were not allowed. This was a trial about the contract for the book written by McGinnis about Macdonald. It ended in a hung jury because the judge's instructions were so complicated the jury deadlocked on the first question they had to answer. Nobody won that one, but to keep it from going to trial again, the insurance company of McGinnis paid out - the least amount went to Macdonald, who would have been still colllecting residuals from the book sales had he just badmouthed Joe in the press rather than take him to court. According to the contract, Joe had the right to write it as he saw it. To finish the book, I bet he took more phenergen (nausea med) than he should have, to not vomit every time he had to deal with a man he realized was an angry, murderous, conscienceless being.

Your last four sentences are, per usual, Henri nonsense and have nada to do with Macdonald's case. You seem to think that stringing together nonsensical random thoughts will support your case, but, in reality it makes you look uneducated with regard to this particular case, much as your racist comments on Irish ancestry (assumed) and competency of various posters/writers/judges/lawyers does.

Insulting the winning team without facts is bad form, old boy.
 
Last edited:
That's insulting. Opinions and beliefs are not evidence.

There was a problem at the McGinniss case in 1987 because one juror refused to agree with the others unless something was done about animal rights. They all agreed that MacDonald had been cheated by that Irish son of a bitch McGinniss, if not railroaded and screwed. Greedy Kassab then tried to claim the damages from the insurance company when it was MacDonald who had been wronged.

I don't know why Wambaugh thinks MacDonald is a sociopath. Not all cops have right judgment, or do careful investigations. That's why cases are not tried by the police.
 
Last edited:
You're a very bad advocate for this case, Henri. So far all you give as the case for the defense is ....

a) A rag tag of conspiracy theories backed up by a false confession from a mentally ill woman
b) The assertion that everybody on the prosecution/police side of the case is Irish and therefore uniquely evil.

Far from convincing anyone reading that MacDonald deserves a retrial, you're more likely to convince the waverers that he's guilty.
 
The point is that Jeff MacDonald was unfairly blamed for the MacDonald murders. I can't help it if the Irish have got no principles and that they manufacture evidence. How you can believe Dwight Smith when he said he could not remember where he was the night before when the murders happened, or Greg Mitchell saying he might have been staying with his parents I do not know. It's bad police work.

This is an alternative viewpoint which makes sense to me. Page 385 of Fatal Justice by Jerry Potter and Fred Bost:

David Yarnell, a movie producer in Southern California, told me that his
stepdaughter had lost part of a finger in an accident. All the doctors who saw
her immediately after it occurred advised that the severed part couldn’t
be reattached. Not Dr. MacDonald. He performed the surgery and saved
the finger....... .........

I was to hear many, many more stories about his lifesaving efforts. The
Long Beach Police Department made him a lifetime honorary officer for
performance “beyond the call” when he saved the life of an officer
wounded in a shoot-out. A retired nurse told me, , during the civil trial
in Los Angeles, that she would forfeit the remainder of her days if she
could only get him back into the trauma center again. “No one was ever
better there,” she said.

Even Alfred Kassab said he had charisma. The CID said that six months
after his wife’s death MacDonald had bedded down one of the army’s
civilian secretaries at his BOQ. That is true. What the army investigators
didn’t reveal is that, when they interviewed her, the woman insisted that
it was she who approached MacDonald, and the affair was her idea. And
when they asked her how often it had happened, she replied, proudly,
“As often as possible.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
The point is that Jeff MacDonald was unfairly blamed for the MacDonald murders. I can't help it if the Irish have got no principles and that they manufacture evidence. How you can believe Dwight Smith when he said he could not remember where he was the night before when the murders happened, or Greg Mitchell saying he might have been staying with his parents I do not know. It's bad police work.

This is an alternative viewpoint which makes sense to me. Page 385 of Fatal Justice by Jerry Potter and Fred Bost:
Click to expand...

Aren't you from Britain Henri?

Actually, let me rephrase that question - aren't you from the country which gave us some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in history? The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Birmingham Six, the Cardiff Three, Stefan Sisko, the Bridgewater Three, Judith Ward, Colin Stagg, Timothy Evans and the list goes on and on. Your people have a far stronger claim than mine to be without principles and predisposed to fabricate evidence.

So if we're going to start indulging racism on this forum, I posit the suggestion that a British person claiming MacDonald to be innocent is suggestive that he's guilty, because Britain's record shows them to be untrustworthy.
 
Persona

STRAWBERRY: For the past 14 years, I've responded to the landlord's disjointed diatribes on multiple true crime forums, and I'm convinced that his LONE reason for posting is to stir the pot. He loves being a contrarian and he could care less about whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent.

His priority has been to create a persona that has no basis in reality. He has posted under several different names, he regurgitates debunked claims, and ignores documented fact. I don't believe that he lives in the United Kingdom and his anti-Irish ramblings are simply for show.

He enjoyed the reaction he got from calling Joe McGinniss an "Irish son of a bitch," and considering that I'm Irish, he probably thought he was upsetting me in some form or fashion. Fat chance.

IMO, he is simply a true crime troll who is frustrated with his inability to formulate a salient rebuttal to any of the facts presented by the CID, FBI, and/or on my website.

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters in less than 7 hours. At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and DNA test results further inculpated inmate. His hippie home invader story is beyond absurd and no convicted murderer has been treated more fairly by the legal system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
STRAWBERRY: For the past 14 years, I've responded to the landlord's disjointed diatribes on multiple true crime forums, and I'm convinced that his LONE reason for posting is to stir the pot. He loves being a contrarian and he could care less about whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent.

His priority has been to create a persona that has no basis in reality. He has posted under several different names, he regurgitates debunked claims, and ignores documented fact. I don't believe that he lives in the United Kingdom and his anti-Irish ramblings are simply for show.

He enjoyed the reaction he got from calling Joe McGinniss an "Irish son of a bitch," and considering that I'm Irish, he probably thought he was upsetting me in some form or fashion. Fat chance.

IMO, he is simply a true crime troll who is frustrated with his inability to formulate a salient rebuttal to any of the facts presented by the CID, FBI, and/or on my website.

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters in less than 7 hours. At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and DNA test results further inculpated inmate. His hippie home invader story is beyond absurd and no convicted murderer has been treated more fairly by the legal system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

Thank you.

You clearly know alot more about the case than I do, but I will say that as soon as I heard the hippy story from MacDonald my BS detector went off. Nobody ever in the history of the entire world has said "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." That's the type of thing that a man from MacDonald's demographic would imagine hippies saying, or something he read in a magazine about hippy culture. I don't believe for one second that it ever happened.
 
Strawberry said:
Aren't you from Britain Henri?

Actually, let me rephrase that question - aren't you from the country which gave us some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in history? The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Birmingham Six, the Cardiff Three, Stefan Sisko, the Bridgewater Three, Judith Ward, Colin Stagg, Timothy Evans and the list goes on and on. Your people have a far stronger claim than mine to be without principles and predisposed to fabricate evidence.

So if we're going to start indulging racism on this forum, I posit the suggestion that a British person claiming MacDonald to be innocent is suggestive that he's guilty, because Britain's record shows them to be untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

There may be 1000 so-called items of evidence, but none of those items prove that MacDonald did it. Just because there was blood at the crime scene proves nothing. This "acid is groovy" business has been debated endlessly on the MacDonald forums in the past. You may be too young to know it but "groovy" was used in modern parlance in the 1960s. Some people make silly remarks like saying things are "cool" or Kim Jong Un saying Trump is hysterical. It proves nothing.

Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were clearly erroneous with regard to Helena Stoeckley, and it's not just me that thinks that. That's what lawyers have said.

I agree that there have been gross miscarriages of justice in the UK in the past. Innocent people have been convicted while the guilty go free. In a way DNA has been helpful in the past few years. From a book called English Justice written in 1932 by a solicitor:

The Wallace case is an instance where a man would have been hanged by the verdict of a jury had it not been for the Court of Criminal Appeal. And it must be remembered that the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal are limited. There is no rehearing of the case.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
Thank you.

You clearly know alot more about the case than I do, but I will say that as soon as I heard the hippy story from MacDonald my BS detector went off. Nobody ever in the history of the entire world has said "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." That's the type of thing that a man from MacDonald's demographic would imagine hippies saying, or something he read in a magazine about hippy culture. I don't believe for one second that it ever happened.
Click to expand...

The word groovy was not unknown in the 1960s, even by hippies. I can't understand why people can't believe that what MacDonald said happened did happen even though it might be strange. This is an example of a song from the time with the word groovy in it:

https://youtu.be/b3kXqlJhGuE
 
By 1970, "groovy" had been co-opted by mainstream and was abandoned by the counter-culture.

I can't believe anyone with a fully functional brain would consider anyone but Macdonald as the murderer after reviewing ALL the transcripts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom