You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
<snip of drivel> Guilt or innocence is not decided by the media or social media. It's decided on the facts in court and not on opinions. <snip>
You are right (for the second time, I believe). Your man crush's guilt was decided by facts presented in court; not by the media - social media didn't even exist at the time he was convicted.
Your opinion that he is not guilty is just that, your opinion.
My opinion is that the jury got it right.
The fact is, he's guilty. He's been found so by a jury of his peers (including a former Green Beret, who had perhaps the most compelling reason to find a reasonable doubt - Macdonald fouled the name of the Green Berets when he was found guilty).
Oh, and Byn's got it right as well: why are you bellyaching about the ONE court to let him come back time and again with his appeals?
Last edited by a moderator:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I think Murtagh is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
This an opinion about the 4th Circuit judges from one of MacDonald's military lawyer's, Malley:
This an opinion about the 4th Circuit judges from one of MacDonald's military lawyer's, Malley:
Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable. The trial resulted in Jeff’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment on charges of killing his wife, Colette, and his two daughters Kim and Kristen. Many appeals followed, most of which resulted in not much. Jeff remains in prison today, and probably will for life.
I myself dropped out of the defense “team” (which changed over time) in the late 1980s-early ‘90s—I just didn’t see what more use I could be—but I remained in touch with Jeff. Harvey Silverglate ‘64, who was a year ahead of me at Harvard Law School, agreed to take up the appellate representation of Jeff around that time. Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications.
Edited by Agatha:Edited for rule 4. Will you please remember to limit quotes from elsewhere to a maximum of two paragraphs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
inmate didn't like Brian Murtagh either, most probably because he wasn't taken in by the "Golden Boy" persona that inmate tried to project. Murtagh saw inmate for EXACTLY WHAT HE IS - A NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATHIC FAMILIAL SLAUGHTERER. It is easy to tell that Brian Murtagh did not feel overly concerned (translation - it didn't bother him at all) when inmate called him the Little Viper. IN FACT, Brian ordered vanity plates for his car that read LiLViPR......it fits....Brian Murtagh is intelligent, skilled, honest, hard-working, talented, dedicated advocate for his client(s) in this case we are talking about Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn son that inmate butchered.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Brian Murtagh is intelligent, skilled, honest, hard-working, talented, dedicated advocate for his client(s) in this case we are talking about Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn son that inmate butchered.
I entirely disagree. There is a criticism of Brian Murtagh which makes sense to me at this website and it's something the 4th Circuit judges and even the Supreme Court should read:
https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Brian-Murtagh/1151877393
To me Brian Murtagh is a shady lawyer.I agree with what was written on an old newsgroup forum about Brian Murtagh :- "But if he IS guilty, why did the prosecutors need to manufacture, misrepresent, and suppress evidence in order to obtain and maintain a conviction?If he did it, there should have been evidence that he did it, but there wasn't (as COL Rock found at the Art.32 in 1970), so the FBI lab and Brian Murtagh had to, essentially, make it up, then cover their tracks by not allowing the defense to see what they'd done."
More criticism of Brian Murtagh from an internet article :- "Fatal Justice states that during the MacDonald trial the prosecution released no evidence or lab reports to the defense. Because the prosecutor, Brian Murtagh, insisted that the lab reports held nothing to support MacDonald's claims, the judge refused to make Murtagh release the lab documents to the defense.(131)
Last edited:
The Little Things
Malley and the landlord are peas in a pod. Both can't even get the "little things" right. In regards to Malley's cursory knowledge of this case...
"Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable."
The 4th Circuit Court disagrees with Malley's slanted opinion.
"Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications."
This is the same appraisal put forth to Judge Dupree in 1989, the 4th Circuit Court in 1992, and to Judge Fox in 1995. In each case, Silverglate's evidentiary arguments were considered specious and lacked merit.
"In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial."
This is a half-truth. The evidence presented at evidentiary hearings in 1984, 1989, and 1995 were not uniform. In 1984, the defense presented 7 "new" evidentiary items. In 1989, they focused on unsourced fiber evidence. In 1995, their focus was on unsourced hair evidence.
"The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013,"
The evidentiary hearing took place in 2012, not 2013.
Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion.
Malley is the only individual to claim that Judge Fox "reluctantly" held an evidentiary hearing and his claim is not backed by the documented record. In terms of the delay, that had nothing to do with Judge Fox. The lone reason for the delay falls in the lap of the defense. During that time period, the defense asked for 4 separate extensions to present written briefs in this case.
"Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view."
No, it doesn't. When addressing the "evidence as a whole," Judge Fox is required to track/summarize ALL of the evidentiary claims in this case. Malley clearly didn't read the decision in its entirety.
"He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years"
Malley ignores the mass of "ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions" put forth by his friend in the past 47 years.
"Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt."
There ya go.
www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Malley and the landlord are peas in a pod. Both can't even get the "little things" right. In regards to Malley's cursory knowledge of this case...
"Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable."
The 4th Circuit Court disagrees with Malley's slanted opinion.
"Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications."
This is the same appraisal put forth to Judge Dupree in 1989, the 4th Circuit Court in 1992, and to Judge Fox in 1995. In each case, Silverglate's evidentiary arguments were considered specious and lacked merit.
"In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial."
This is a half-truth. The evidence presented at evidentiary hearings in 1984, 1989, and 1995 were not uniform. In 1984, the defense presented 7 "new" evidentiary items. In 1989, they focused on unsourced fiber evidence. In 1995, their focus was on unsourced hair evidence.
"The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013,"
The evidentiary hearing took place in 2012, not 2013.
Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion.
Malley is the only individual to claim that Judge Fox "reluctantly" held an evidentiary hearing and his claim is not backed by the documented record. In terms of the delay, that had nothing to do with Judge Fox. The lone reason for the delay falls in the lap of the defense. During that time period, the defense asked for 4 separate extensions to present written briefs in this case.
"Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view."
No, it doesn't. When addressing the "evidence as a whole," Judge Fox is required to track/summarize ALL of the evidentiary claims in this case. Malley clearly didn't read the decision in its entirety.
"He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years"
Malley ignores the mass of "ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions" put forth by his friend in the past 47 years.
"Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt."
There ya go.
www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
henri using your own ignorant and uninformed opinions posted on old forums to bolster your ridiculous claims now DOES NOT help your cause. It just points out even more clearly that inmate and his few followers do not care about the truth and many of them wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the nose.
Lack Of A Critical Eye
The landlord also doesn't help his cause, obsession or whatever one wants to call it, by refusing to lend a critical eye to the claims leveled by other MacDonald advocates. I could claim that a unicorn was the intruder wielding the ice pick, but that doesn't make it so. Any investigator worth a salt would require evidence that is SOURCED to that unicorn. In the case of the Stoeckley Seven and the New York Four, not a single piece of evidence was ever SOURCED to either group.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The landlord also doesn't help his cause, obsession or whatever one wants to call it, by refusing to lend a critical eye to the claims leveled by other MacDonald advocates. I could claim that a unicorn was the intruder wielding the ice pick, but that doesn't make it so. Any investigator worth a salt would require evidence that is SOURCED to that unicorn. In the case of the Stoeckley Seven and the New York Four, not a single piece of evidence was ever SOURCED to either group.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I entirely disagree.
snipped
We know. You never met a handsome convicted murderer that you didn't like.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
We know. You never met a handsome convicted murderer that you didn't like.
That's patently untrue. Some people are definitely bad. They have an evil evil kink which leads them to complete selfishness and cruelty. They are often sexually attractive and they have no good in them at all. Jeff MacDonald was never such a person. Other murderers are simply idiots who think they will never be caught or convicted.
The penalty for murder used to be death. In a way I agree with that. The problem with that is that I don't trust judges and juries to always have right judgement, or even honesty, or to be impartial and competent. You take everything on the evidence and FACTS, not on the opinions of the media, or Joe McGinniss.
Sometimes there are no forensics at all in a difficult murder. There were some forensics in the MacDonald case, but they were disregarded by the incompetent boobs in the Army CID and FBI so that they could not be linked to the Stoeckley group.
Malley spoke sense about the MacDonald case unlike that silly old fool Judge Fox.
Some people are definitely bad. They have an evil evil kink which leads them to complete selfishness and cruelty.
EXACTLY! Inmate, your man crush, is one of those evil evil people. He took a KNIFE and STABBED HIS 2 year old DAUGHTER AT LEAST TWICE DIRECTLY IN THE HEART. He HIT HIS 5 year old DAUGHTER SO HARD THAT HE BROKE HER CHEEK BONE AND CAUSED IT TO TEAR THE SKIN OF HER FACE AND LEAVE THE BONE STICKING OUT.
....inmate was never such a person. Other murderers are simply idiots who think they will never be caught or convicted.
Yes, actually he is such a person and he did believe that he'd not be caught and punished for what he did, although technically speaking he is not an idiot since he was sufficiently book smart enough to get accepted to Princeton.
...is that I don't trust judges and juries to always have right judgement, or even honesty, or to be impartial and competent. You take everything on the evidence and FACTS, not on the opinions of the media, or Joe McGinniss.
Once again you make our point for us henri......WE ARE ALL DISCUSSING FACTS AND EVIDENCE. YOU are the only one here who uses opinion to base their arguments. I know you hate it when we cloud the issue with FACTS but the FACT is that EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS DIRECTLY AT INMATE AS THE SOLE MURDERER. FACT henri FACT! The problem you are encountering here as that the FORENSICS and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is ALL SOURCED TO INMATE or UNSOURCED. Despite your comments to the contrary UNSOURCED is FORENSICALLY USELESS.
Well, to be fair you also have a really odd belief that somehow Brian Murtagh magically obtained a limb hair from inmate THAT EXACTLY MATCHED the size and color descriptions of the mystery hair WITHOUT inmate noticing AND also MAGICALLY got it covered in the same dried blood as on the splinter. All this while the packing of the DNA test samples were witnessed by the defense AND FILMED. You make the LilVipr appear even more powerful than the Wizard of OZ.
Malley was not involved in the actual TRIAL so any of his comments about what went down are AT BEST to be taken with a whole barrel of salt.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
All this while the packing of the DNA test samples were witnessed by the defense AND FILMED. You make the LilVipr appear even more powerful than the Wizard of OZ.
Malley was not involved in the actual TRIAL so any of his comments about what went down are AT BEST to be taken with a whole barrel of salt.
Malley has a thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case unlike silly old fool Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit judges. Real proof that the mystery hair in the hand was witnessed by the defense and then videotaped please. Judge Fox made a ruling that it should be videotaped which was ignored by Stombaugh and Malone at the FBI lab, and by Murtagh. That mystery hair was substituted as a MacDonald hair by forensic fraud and then DNA tested by the AFIP lab in order to prevent any further MacDonald appeals. That hair had been unidentified until 2006.
This is some background information to the MacDonald case forensics by MacDonald lawyer Eisman:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1989-09-08-ferrari-depo.html
A At all of these sessions that I had attended or was aware of, there appeared to be indications of non-conclusiveness. For a case of this magnitude there seemed to be inadequate or insufficient physical evidence. At different times, both Dr. Besant-Mathews and I remarked, is this all? There had to be more. We will need more in order to arrive at a positive conclusion.
At the exit meeting with all the members of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the CID special agents present, Dr. Froede said that on the basis of the evidence, both physical and documentary that was presented for examination and evaluation, there was no conclusionary or positive evidence to indicate that the homicides were committed by Dr. MacDonald.
Last edited:
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
Malley has a thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case unlike silly old fool Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit judges. <snip of items not being addressed>
You've whined on and on about bias and you're commending the most biased and least attentive attorney connected to the case? Malley, as if you don't already know, WAS A FRIEND OF MACDONALD's prior (that means before) to the murders, prior to the trial in 1979. He was someone who had a preconceived idea of who and what Macdonald was and was capable of PRIOR the murders & trial. He was, hands down, the most biased attorney ever connected with this case. His judgment of Macdonald was colored by his prior experiences with Macdonald in college, and the facts had nothing to do with his opinion.
Malley had long since stopped being involved in inmates case before the TRIAL and thus had absolutely NO GRASP OR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of what was presented as evidence, what the DEFENSE EXPERTS discovered, no idea WHAT THE FORENSICS FOUND, in other words he knows NOTHING of what happened at trial. On the other hand respected, distinguished jurists such as Judge Franklin Dupree and Judge Fox were or have detailed and in-depth knowledge of the case, the evidence, who and what inmate truly is AND is knowledgeable about the Federal Rules of Evidence, and all other pertinent legal materials.
ScottPletcher
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
- Messages
- 99
The evidence, in toto, clearly shows that inmate must be the killer. His subsequent lies only serve to reinforce that fact.
Rather than the obscure obfuscations that inmate tries to focus on, let's look at the evidence more generally. Any quotes below are from inmate himself, my favorite way to prove his guilt and his lies.
1) Any "intruders" would have had to have astounding timing. Inmate himself says he was up past 2AM. Then was "attacked" and "unconscious" for a significant period of time: "it had to take awhile to get me cold enough to have shaking chills so my teeth were shaking." Then he did repeated circuits of the apartment, crawling part of the time. Yet by 3:33AM, he is phoning for help. Hmm, how did the "intruders" somehow manage to get there immediately after he "fell asleep"??
2) As so often noted here, the wording is wrong: "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." is a non sequitur for a head: groovy is a feel good word, and thus would never go with kill. And the ham-handed "Pig" on the headboard also doesn't fit the alleged "Stoeckley gang", whereas Manson had a reason for his use of pig/pigs (however bizarre it was).
3) Inmate had no significant injuries -- according to inmate (who was a doctor at the time):
"thinking that I was going into shock and not being able to breathe. Now I, you know, when I look back, of course, it's merely a symptom, that shortness of breath. It isn't - you weren't really that bad, but that's what happens when you get pneumothorax. You, you think you can't breathe. And I had to get down on my hands and knees and breathe for a while, and then I went in and checked the kids and checked their pulses and stuff."
"Oh, I just seemed to have a little--a little bump on this head, and I had pain back here and a little lump back here (motioning to the back of his head). It wasn't very exciting. It wasn't what I, you know, expected."
4) Inmate struck the "intruders" but was allowed to live, while they slaughtered two tiny, harmless girls?
I think I hit the guy with the club once, but nothing very spectacular, let me tell you.
SHAW: Do you think you hit him with your fist, too?
Inmate: Fists--I really grabbed. You know, I got grabbing; and I thought at the time--that, you know, I was grabbing him on the--
Rather than the obscure obfuscations that inmate tries to focus on, let's look at the evidence more generally. Any quotes below are from inmate himself, my favorite way to prove his guilt and his lies.
1) Any "intruders" would have had to have astounding timing. Inmate himself says he was up past 2AM. Then was "attacked" and "unconscious" for a significant period of time: "it had to take awhile to get me cold enough to have shaking chills so my teeth were shaking." Then he did repeated circuits of the apartment, crawling part of the time. Yet by 3:33AM, he is phoning for help. Hmm, how did the "intruders" somehow manage to get there immediately after he "fell asleep"??
2) As so often noted here, the wording is wrong: "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." is a non sequitur for a head: groovy is a feel good word, and thus would never go with kill. And the ham-handed "Pig" on the headboard also doesn't fit the alleged "Stoeckley gang", whereas Manson had a reason for his use of pig/pigs (however bizarre it was).
3) Inmate had no significant injuries -- according to inmate (who was a doctor at the time):
"thinking that I was going into shock and not being able to breathe. Now I, you know, when I look back, of course, it's merely a symptom, that shortness of breath. It isn't - you weren't really that bad, but that's what happens when you get pneumothorax. You, you think you can't breathe. And I had to get down on my hands and knees and breathe for a while, and then I went in and checked the kids and checked their pulses and stuff."
"Oh, I just seemed to have a little--a little bump on this head, and I had pain back here and a little lump back here (motioning to the back of his head). It wasn't very exciting. It wasn't what I, you know, expected."
4) Inmate struck the "intruders" but was allowed to live, while they slaughtered two tiny, harmless girls?
I think I hit the guy with the club once, but nothing very spectacular, let me tell you.
SHAW: Do you think you hit him with your fist, too?
Inmate: Fists--I really grabbed. You know, I got grabbing; and I thought at the time--that, you know, I was grabbing him on the--
Take 330
Only the landlord would have the stones to ignore my post regarding Malley's cursory case knowledge AND to claim that Malley has a "thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case." Just a little reminder...
"Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable."
The 4th Circuit Court disagrees with Malley's slanted opinion.
"Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications."
This is the same appraisal put forth to Judge Dupree in 1989, the 4th Circuit Court in 1992, and to Judge Fox in 1995. In each case, Silverglate's evidentiary arguments were considered specious and lacked merit.
"In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial."
This is a half-truth. The evidence presented at evidentiary hearings in 1984, 1989, and 1995 were not uniform. In 1984, the defense presented 7 "new" evidentiary items. In 1989, they focused on unsourced fiber evidence. In 1995, their focus was on unsourced hair evidence.
"The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013,"
The evidentiary hearing took place in 2012, not 2013.
"Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion."
Malley is the only individual to claim that Judge Fox "reluctantly" held an evidentiary hearing and his claim is not backed by the documented record. In terms of the delay, that had nothing to do with Judge Fox. The lone reason for the delay falls in the lap of the defense. During that time period, the defense asked for 4 separate extensions to present written briefs in this case.
"Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view."
No, it doesn't. When addressing the "evidence as a whole," Judge Fox is required to track/summarize ALL of the evidentiary claims in this case. Malley clearly didn't read the decision in its entirety.
"He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years"
Malley ignores the mass of "ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions" put forth by his friend in the past 47 years.
"Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt."
There ya go.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Only the landlord would have the stones to ignore my post regarding Malley's cursory case knowledge AND to claim that Malley has a "thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case." Just a little reminder...
"Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable."
The 4th Circuit Court disagrees with Malley's slanted opinion.
"Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications."
This is the same appraisal put forth to Judge Dupree in 1989, the 4th Circuit Court in 1992, and to Judge Fox in 1995. In each case, Silverglate's evidentiary arguments were considered specious and lacked merit.
"In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial."
This is a half-truth. The evidence presented at evidentiary hearings in 1984, 1989, and 1995 were not uniform. In 1984, the defense presented 7 "new" evidentiary items. In 1989, they focused on unsourced fiber evidence. In 1995, their focus was on unsourced hair evidence.
"The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013,"
The evidentiary hearing took place in 2012, not 2013.
"Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion."
Malley is the only individual to claim that Judge Fox "reluctantly" held an evidentiary hearing and his claim is not backed by the documented record. In terms of the delay, that had nothing to do with Judge Fox. The lone reason for the delay falls in the lap of the defense. During that time period, the defense asked for 4 separate extensions to present written briefs in this case.
"Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view."
No, it doesn't. When addressing the "evidence as a whole," Judge Fox is required to track/summarize ALL of the evidentiary claims in this case. Malley clearly didn't read the decision in its entirety.
"He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years"
Malley ignores the mass of "ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions" put forth by his friend in the past 47 years.
"Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt."
There ya go.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The evidence, in toto, clearly shows that inmate must be the killer. His subsequent lies only serve to reinforce that fact.
Rather than the obscure obfuscations that inmate tries to focus on, let's look at the evidence more generally. Any quotes below are from inmate himself, my favorite way to prove his guilt and his lies.
[/I]
The timings in the MacDonald case are not one hundred percent accurate for the simple reason that nobody was looking at their watches at the time. The fact is that MacDonald was asleep on the couch when Mazerolle and Mitchell and Dwight Smith and Helena Stoeckley burst in, after leaving Dunkin Donuts some time after 2am. As far as I can remember MacDonald said he had been watching late night TV, and he had left the TV on. MacDonald definitely had a pneumothorax and that's a medical fact.
Helena Stoeckley confessed that she had said "acid is groovy kill the pigs" and something like kill the others. MacDonald was left alive so that the incompetent boobs in the Army CID and FBI would blame him for it.
Another aspect of this is as Byn keeps saying, his concussion might have affected his memory slightly of the exact details of what happened. There is no evidence of lies or inconsistencies on his part.
This is what Gunderson said about the matter:
The defense scenario is quite different from the government scenario. The defense claims that in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970 Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, then a Green Beret captain and physician at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was awakened by the screams of his wife. She was in their bedroom; he had gone to sleep on the couch because his younger daughter had climbed into the double bed in the master bedroom and wet the bed.
Dr. MacDonald saw at least three men and a woman standing over him. There was a brief struggle, during which he was beaten and stabbed. His pajama top had been pulled up over his head and had bound his wrists, rendering him somewhat defenseless. He collapsed in the hallway and later awakened to a cold, quiet house. He went to his pregnant wife, then to each of their two daughters, trying to resuscitate them. They had been brutally murdered. In disbelief, he called for police and ambulances, and finally collapsed next to his wife's body.
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
Hate to break it to you, Henri, but as an actual resident of army quarters at that time period, any screaming (by Colette, Mac, the unicorn JTF mentioned) would have gotten the neighbors' attention - as 0200 hours was an unusual hour to be having an argument. Had Colette been screaming for Jeff or Santa Claus, the neighbors would have been up and (at least) looking out their windows and seen the (imaginary) intruders.
We heard when they fought, we heard them "make up", we heard their stereos, TVs, children playing.....I, in fact, once answered the woman next door when she repeatedly asked her children "Do you hear what I'm saying?" I didn't have to yell loudly for her to hear me and complain to my mother about my "The whole quad hears you" reply.
Also, there is no way for mac to have done all he claims to have done between phone calls. Literally no way. It's strange how all you mac lovers ignore his impossible claim to have made the rounds of the house, checking on everyone before returning to call the operator an ******* because "some people" had killed "some people".
We heard when they fought, we heard them "make up", we heard their stereos, TVs, children playing.....I, in fact, once answered the woman next door when she repeatedly asked her children "Do you hear what I'm saying?" I didn't have to yell loudly for her to hear me and complain to my mother about my "The whole quad hears you" reply.
Also, there is no way for mac to have done all he claims to have done between phone calls. Literally no way. It's strange how all you mac lovers ignore his impossible claim to have made the rounds of the house, checking on everyone before returning to call the operator an ******* because "some people" had killed "some people".
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I don't know about you but not being a light sleeper I'm usually fast asleep in the middle of the night. I don't usually hear any other noises from other apartments or houses, except perhaps for a dog barking outside for hours on end.
Jeff MacDonald went to check on his family after he rather lost his temper when the emergency phone operator asked for his social security number. That's not strained logic, like silly old fool Judge Fox.
There is a bit about polygraphs as it applies to the Jeffrey MacDonald case on You Tube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ujSeBy7fY
Jeff MacDonald went to check on his family after he rather lost his temper when the emergency phone operator asked for his social security number. That's not strained logic, like silly old fool Judge Fox.
There is a bit about polygraphs as it applies to the Jeffrey MacDonald case on You Tube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ujSeBy7fY
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.