• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henri McPhee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Misdirection will not change Mac's fairytale. He specifically said Colette and Kim were screaming, which wakes others when a regular tone of voice will not. So, mac lied when he said he heard them screaming. It was all part and parcel of his attempted cover-up of his murder spree.

Your man crush most assuredly did NOT check on his family and the house (which is what he claimed to do) in the two minutes he was away from the telephone. He probably checked himself in the bathroom mirror because he was worried he'd done too good a job on himself. It is physically impossible in two minutes to go through the house and to medically check three people. Impossible - that means it can't happen.

And you're ignored the fact that he calls an operator an *******, but refers to the (imaginary) killers as "some people" - the exact phrase he also uses to refer to his dead family. That's not 'losing his temper' - that's contempt for the family he just murdered.
 
desmirelle said:
Misdirection will not change Mac's fairytale. He specifically said Colette and Kim were screaming, which wakes others when a regular tone of voice will not. So, mac lied when he said he heard them screaming. It was all part and parcel of his attempted cover-up of his murder spree.
Click to expand...

The fact is that Colette and Kim screaming did not wake any neighbour up. That's not suspicious. At least one neighbor saw the fleeing criminals but they were threatened when a rifle was pointed at their apartments, and they refused to testify for the defense.

It's no good coming on the internet and saying what PROBABLY happened. MacDonald was interviewed and cross-examined several times, even on TV, and he never really changed his story. This is from the April 1970 interview and is exactly what happened:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/interview1970.html

MacDonald: Let's see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading. And I went to bed about -- somewheres around two o'clock. I really don't know; I was reading on the couch, and my little girl Kristy had gone into bed with my wife.
And I went in to go to bed, and the bed was wet. She had wet the bed on my side, so I brought her in her own room. And I don't remember if I changed her or not; gave her a bottle and went out to the couch 'cause my bed was wet. And I went to sleep on the couch.

And then the next thing I know I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also. And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
The fact is that Colette and Kim screaming did not wake any neighbour up. That's not suspicious. At least one neighbor saw the fleeing criminals but they were threatened when a rifle was pointed at their apartments, and they refused to testify for the defense.

It's no good coming on the internet and saying what PROBABLY happened. MacDonald was interviewed and cross-examined several times, even on TV, and he never really changed his story. This is from the April 1970 interview and is exactly what happened:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/interview1970.html
Click to expand...

Screaming in military quarters in 1970 would have roused the neighbors. Unlike civilians, military personnel tended to watch out for others during the Vietnam era, especially with the anti-war protesting going on. Different war, different attitudes towards soldiers back then. Nobody said "Thank you for your service" when they saw a man in a military uniform back then. It was "baby killer" and, sometimes, spitting on them.

Which neighbor? Back up this lie.

You are the only one saying what mac said is the truth. The truth was proven at trial and it's why your boyfriend is still in jail. No proof of his implausible story.

Oh, and did you notice mac's "You guys are more thorough than I thought?" in that interview?

And you can't say "exactly what happened" - unless you are confessing to being there when it happened.

I notice, though, that you keep avoiding the FACT that mac lied about what he did between talking to the operator. It's physically impossible to have done everything he claimed to have done in the two minutes that elapsed. Address that one, if you would. Oh, wait, you can't. You cannot do anything but passive-aggressively defend your man crush with the lies he told, not with facts.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring Logic

The landlord leaves out the pesky testimony provided by inmate's upstairs neighbor who told the CID that she could hear inmate either laughing or crying on 2/17/70. In the landlord's world of illogic and mythical home invaders, it makes perfect sense that neighbors could clearly hear laughing or crying, yet not hear the screams of an adult and/or a small child. It's important to note that inmate claimed the screams awoke him from a sound sleep.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Liar, Liar, pants on fire,
killing his family was his desire,
he wanted to be a free man,
so he removed encumbrances and then,
he made up a story to cover his tracks,
changed it trying to match the facts.
All these years later he cries foul,
because wasn't believed anyhow.
Supporters of inmate are few and far,
they don't realize how off track they are....
Still inmate is in prison where he should be,
and he shall stay there always and never be free.

bynthebard
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that:
"And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed."
And the next thing you know, they were all over him, attacking. That's quite a well coordinated move, considering your man crush stated that those "some people" were high.
So where was your man? On the couch? If so, how could he have seen "some people" in the bedroom, even if the kitchen light was on?
 
desmirelle said:
Which neighbor? Back up this lie.

I notice, though, that you keep avoiding the FACT that mac lied about what he did between talking to the operator. It's physically impossible to have done everything he claimed to have done in the two minutes that elapsed. Address that one, if you would. Oh, wait, you can't. You cannot do anything but passive-aggressively defend your man crush with the lies he told, not with facts.
Click to expand...

MacDonald was tricked into that April 1970 interview by the CID with promises that he could get back some of his private property from the crime scene. It then became a full blown interview with lights being shone in his face. It's true that he was told his Miranda rights, and that he could 'no comment' and that he could have a lawyer with him.

It would have been a good business like move to have a lawyer with him who could have warned him to be careful about what he said. The transcripts were later misconstrued, and they may not be entirely accurate, as happened in the JonBenet Ramsey case, and the Darlie Routier case.

Where is the reference that the emergency phone operator was on the phone for two minutes? That's not scientifically reliable.

This is the neighbour who saw the fleeing criminals at the crime scene. The jury were never informed of this because Murtagh and 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree wangled it so that the jury and the 4th Circuit judges, and Supreme Court, never saw this testimony on the specious grounds that it was ten years old:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1970-08-12-a32-jchester.html

A About Captain MacDonald's family -- and --
Q Did she make any indication that she had seen anything that appeared to her to have some possible connection with that episode?
A Yes, she did.
Q Would you tell the investigating officer what Mrs. Snyder said in your presence?
A She said that there was a disturbance in her house, her children were yelling and she had occasion to be up at 3 or 3:30 in the morning and heard a commotion outside, in front of the house, and went to look out the window and saw some people. She was kind of vague -- a woman and some of men get into an automobile and the automobile drove away.
Q Do you recall any of the details of that -- did she indicate whether she had seen anything about the appearance of clothing, physical characteristics of any of the people that she saw in front of her house?
A She said that the woman had long hair. She didn't say what color it was, she merely said it was long and she wasn't specific as to the men.
Q Were you there for the entire conversation on the subject of what Mrs. Snyder had to say?
A No.
Q Did you have occasion to repeat to anyone else what Mrs. Snyder had said to you?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you repeat that information?
A Yes, an FBI agent who came to the house about ten days or two weeks after that.
Q Did you ever have occasion to give that information to any CID investigator or PMI?
A Yes, I did.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
The fact is that Colette and Kim screaming did not wake any neighbour up. That's not suspicious. At least one neighbor saw the fleeing criminals but they were threatened when a rifle was pointed at their apartments, and they refused to testify for the defense.
Click to expand...

Come on, back up that highlighted lie.
 
desmirelle said:
Come on, back up that highlighted lie.
Click to expand...

While trying to keep it to two short paragraphs, this backs up what I have said from that Chester testimony mentioned above:

COL ROCK: So you went where?

A The wall she was beating on that divided our apartment and asked her what was wrong and she said there was somebody out front with a gun.
Q Excuse me. What did you do at that time?
A I went to the front bedroom and looked out. There was a car out there. There were two individuals in it. One of them, one driving, had a rifle pointed in the direction of the -- our house.
Q You say "our house." How close --
A This is a 6-apartment complex.
Q Did you, in fact, observe the weapon?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you describe to the investigating officer what you saw?
A I saw a weapon with a telescope sight.
Q Do you have any particular competence in the area of weapons?
A I like to think so, yes.
Q What is that, sir? What is the basis of your --
A I'm a professional shooter, now that I'm out of the service.
Q What, if anything, did you do when you saw the weapon with the scope that you described?
A I went into the back bedroom of my house to get a shotgun.
Q Then what did you do?
A I went to the front window and at that time --
Q Was the vehicle still there?
A It was in the act of leaving. It was maybe a hundred yards from the house, moving away from the house.
Click to expand...
 
Article 32 "testimony" is of no value BECAUSE THE TRIAL CAME LATER....any testimony of value from the Article 32 would have been brought forward....since Bernie Segal did not see fit to call whoever made those claims of "rifle pointed toward the apartments" one can infer that there was something incorrect about the claims....it could have been a different day/night for example. inmate is still a lying, cheating, narcissistic, sociopathic familial slaughterer.....
 
Henri McPhee said:
While trying to keep it to two short paragraphs, this backs up what I have said from that Chester testimony mentioned above:
Click to expand...


And you conveniently fail to mention that the alleged rifle incident took place nearly a week after the murders; even granting, arguendo, that it actually occurred, there is no evidence that it was connected with the MacDonald case. You have repeatedly claimed that Fort Bragg was a hotbed of illegal drug activity at the time; why couldn't this incident be connected with drug smuggling?

Further, Segal apppears to set great store by the fact that the witness was a former Army officer and firearms expert, as if that implies that he couldn't possibly have been mistaken about what he saw. This is the same fallacy that UFO enthusiasts fall into when they cite pilots who claim to have seen airborne objects that can't be explained as normal aircraft. The fact is, pilots are conditioned to see phenomena such as suddenly appearing lights or clouds as other aircraft that must be avoided as a matter of life or death. By the same token, the witness would have been conditioned to possibly see something such as a camera, or even a man's arm in a dark coat, as a rifle.
 
You implied that the rifle was seen on the night in question by not mentioning the date that the 'rifle' was seen up front; a lie by omission is still a lie. In fact, it's the same sort of shady **** Segal tried to pull by claiming he wasn't given enough time to examine the evidence because the fact was that he couldn't be bothered to send someone to North Carolina until just before the trial.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
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.
Click to expand...

The timings are FROM INMATE HIMSELF. That was the point of my post. Unless MacD is in a conspiracy against himself -- oh damn, I just gave him another claim on which to base an appeal! -- he had no reason to lie about the times.

In fact, he didn't. The times are accurate (except that he may well have committed the murders considerably earlier). Even you just stated that it was well after 2AM before the attacks even started. And we know for an absolute fact that the call-for-help time, ~3:33AM, is accurate, since it was logged.

And inmate's own timeline proves that MacD is the killer, as the timings are just too compressed for "intruders".
 
Last edited:
Same Thought Process

You could replace Gunderson with Henri in the following commentary (e.g., 2012 article entitled TED GUNDERSON: DEATH OF A PUBLIC PARANOID) and not miss a beat.

"In the world of Ted Gunderson, every seemingly arbitrary idiosyncrasy, every obscure sign constructed from the random held signification aimed inexorably toward one unifying narrative."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Henri McPhee said:
You can't just fabricate it out of whole cloth. You are out of touch with reality
Click to expand...

Your man crush is the fabricator (although he had help from "Esquire" for the story) and you're the one who's out of touch.

The trial proved macdonald did it. His own words condemn him. He referred to the imaginary killers as "some people" and then used the same words to refer to his slaughtered family. Hardly phraseology a loving husband and father would use.

Explain how mac did everything he claimed to do in the two minutes between him dropping (but not hanging up) the phone and picking the handset back up? You can't, not without lying (again) or dismissing what he's said all along he did in those two minutes.
 
those two minutes locked inmate into a narrative....Freddy Kassab went to the apartment with the permission of the CID, and tried several times to recreate MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour (http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html) and it couldn't be done. THE FACTS don't fit the narrative. Inmate could not have moved from bedroom to bedroom checking for signs of life and stop in the bathroom to check on his own injuries AND made it back to the phone within the 2 minutes. It was physically impossible NOT TO MENTION he claimed he attempted resuscitation during those 2 minutes and that is also impossible.

FACT: just to attempt to resuscitate Kimmie (with the blown open cheek) would have taken more than 2 minutes AND inmate (super ER doc in his own mind) would have taken her out of bed and laid her on the floor - even the most basically trained first responder KNOWS THAT CPR MUST BE DONE ON A HARD SURFACE. The FACT that Kimmie was found totally tucked into bed SCREAMS LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE in inmate's face. period.
 
byn63 said:
Inmate could not have moved from bedroom to bedroom checking for signs of life and stop in the bathroom to check on his own injuries AND made it back to the phone within the 2 minutes. It was physically impossible NOT TO MENTION he claimed he attempted resuscitation during those 2 minutes and that is also impossible.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm misinformed, but none of you have provided a REFERENCE in black and white which indicates the emergency phone operator was only on the line for just two minutes. Are you making it up, or is that something that drunken dour Irishman son of a bitch Joe McGinniss once said?

Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were dishonest judges. If you break the rules in a sport like golf, or even in the Olympics, there are punishments. It's the same with the rules of evidence and procedure in a courtroom, and the Brady law on disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense lawyers.
 
henri don't be ignorant - the phone operator LOGGED THE INITIAL CALL AT 3:33am AND THEN THE CALLER DROPPED THE PHONE BUT DID NOT DISCONNECT AND CAME BACK TO THE PHONE AT 3:35am. That is 2 minutes. Read the testimony of the TRIAL.

Neither Judge Fox nor Judge Dupree has been accused of dishonesty in the cases they have tried. The 4th Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have heard this case multiple times and they did not find any merit or support to claims of Brady violations or hiding exculpatory evidence. That is YOUR nonsense. You cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support your man crush, while we can all produce hundreds of items that show inmate is guilty.

I do not appreciate your vicious slanderous nasty vitiolic and uncalled for comments about the late Joe McGuiness. Knock it off!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom