• 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.

Cont: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II

Lawyers are trying to drop MacDonald's Appeal

His lawyers asked for more time yesterday to get MacDonald's written

permission to drop the appeal.

If anyone is interested in a copy of that file, send me a PM with your email

address and I will send it to you.
 
At this point, inmate is just amusing himself with these "appeals." He knows they're going nowhere. Obviously he will never be able to prove himself "innocent", which is what he must do now.

Thus, whining about past "judicial bias", etc., is irrelevant now. That part of the appeals process is over.
 
The Delayed Briefings were due TODAY! However MacDonald's lawyers asked for another extension

until September 10th citing "Due to unseen delays in the receipt, delivery and distribution of mail

at FCI Cumberland where the appellant is currently housed".

NOT TRUE

I called FCI today and asked about delays in mail at the Institution and they told me THERE ARE NONE.
 
ScottPletcher said:
At this point, inmate is just amusing himself with these "appeals." He knows they're going nowhere. Obviously he will never be able to prove himself "innocent", which is what he must do now.

Thus, whining about past "judicial bias", etc., is irrelevant now. That part of the appeals process is over.
Click to expand...

The fact is that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent. The case reminds me of an episode in that Friends sitcom in which one of the actresses denies that gravity happens. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. The Press is not much help.

It all reminds me so much of those bullying Irish Christian Brothers who get away with their sex abuse allegations and don't maintain discipline among their Irish heritage pupils. Something needs to be done about these communist fascist corrupt gangster governments around he world. The proof is in the pudding.
 
Yes Henri, it is your right to be utterly, completely wrong.

Still in a cage where he belongs.
 
It has been around 35 years since I read "Fatal Vision" for a mock trial in HS. I seem to recall that some motivators in the murders were cited as being MacDonald using amphetamines, and perhaps his desire to be "free"? Again, it has been a long time since I read it. What I am more interested in than anything else, is the psychology of this killer. I mean, he has stuck to his story. There must be some psychological analysis to support this sort of behavior. That part really fascinates me.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
It has been around 35 years since I read "Fatal Vision" for a mock trial in HS. I seem to recall that some motivators in the murders were cited as being MacDonald using amphetamines, and perhaps his desire to be "free"? Again, it has been a long time since I read it. What I am more interested in than anything else, is the psychology of this killer. I mean, he has stuck to his story. There must be some psychological analysis to support this sort of behavior. That part really fascinates me.
Click to expand...

He has stuck to his story because he is innocent. I have never been persuaded that what MacDonald said happened didn't happen. The American public and even British public were duped in the same way as in the Madeleine McCann case, and JonBenet Ramsey case, and also American ignorance about the Taliban in Afghanistan being backed by Pakistan.

I fully appreciate that some people including women can be definitely bad, pure evil, and have no good in them at all. The psychology of it must be some kind of evil, or mental kink. There was a British TV show recently about British serial killers which was enough go make anybody's hair curl. The point is that MacDonald or the Ramsey parents or Madeleine McCann parents are not that type of person.

Sarah Palin spoke sense about the MacDonald case and about the Joe McGinniss slanders from that website I mentioned above:

"Palin wrote that she did not know for certain if MacDonald’s insistence that he was smeared were the “words of a murderer or an innocent man wrongfully convicted and then betrayed by a writer who lured the public into complacently accepting a false narrative.”

“I don’t know with 100 percent certainty,” Palin wrote. “But I do know from personal experience that McGinniss is a stone cold manipulative liar.”

After considerable research, Errol Morris describes McGinniss in a way in which he may be better remembered: “a craven and sloppy journalist who confabulated, lied, and betrayed while ostensibly telling a story about a man who confabulated, lied, and betrayed.”
 
Henri McPhee said:
He has stuck to his story because he is innocent. I have never been persuaded that what MacDonald said happened didn't happen. The American public and even British public were duped in the same way as in the Madeleine McCann case, and JonBenet Ramsey case, and also American ignorance about the Taliban in Afghanistan being backed by Pakistan.

I fully appreciate that some people including women can be definitely bad, pure evil, and have no good in them at all. The psychology of it must be some kind of evil, or mental kink. There was a British TV show recently about British serial killers which was enough go make anybody's hair curl. The point is that MacDonald or the Ramsey parents or Madeleine McCann parents are not that type of person.

Sarah Palin spoke sense about the MacDonald case and about the Joe McGinniss slanders from that website I mentioned above:

"Palin wrote that she did not know for certain if MacDonald’s insistence that he was smeared were the “words of a murderer or an innocent man wrongfully convicted and then betrayed by a writer who lured the public into complacently accepting a false narrative.”

“I don’t know with 100 percent certainty,” Palin wrote. “But I do know from personal experience that McGinniss is a stone cold manipulative liar.”

After considerable research, Errol Morris describes McGinniss in a way in which he may be better remembered: “a craven and sloppy journalist who confabulated, lied, and betrayed while ostensibly telling a story about a man who confabulated, lied, and betrayed.”
Click to expand...

None of that has anything to with the FACT that the scientific evidence totally obliterates the inmate's story. It proves that the murders couldn't have possibly happened the way he claimed.
 
Papa TomGo said:
None of that has anything to with the FACT that the scientific evidence totally obliterates the inmate's story. It proves that the murders couldn't have possibly happened the way he claimed.
Click to expand...

That's a lie and a con job. The scientific evidence was presented to the court by the crooked lawyer Murtagh who coached forensic whores to 'find' evidence, supported by bad judges and stupid cows and drunken Irish sons of bitches It was false evidence. Bad journalists never properly explained the situation to the American pubic in the same way as they covered up the situation in Afghanistan.

One example was when the crooked prosecutor Blackburn said in court that the conclusive evidence against MacDonald was that there was supposed to be MacDonald pajama fibers on the murder weapon. That was patently untrue. The fibers were black wool fibers with no known source.

Colonel Rock had right judgment about the case in 1970 from his 1970 report on the Article 32 proceedings:

"RECOMMENDATIONS

In the interest of military justice and discipline, it is mended that:

(1) All charges and specifications against Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald be dismissed because the matters set forth in all charges and specifications are not true. There are no lesser charges and/or specifications which are appropriate.

(2) That appropriate civilian authorities be requested to investigate the alibi of Helen [sic] Stockley [sic], Fayetteville, North Carolina, reference her activities and whereabouts during the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, based on evidence presented during the hearing."
 
Last edited:
Old man yelling at ……..

Vile and defamatory rantings do not make you right, just unhinged.

The evidence stands and is the reason McMurderer will stay in his cage where he belongs.
 
GiSEQ said:
Vile and defamatory rantings do not make you right, just unhinged.

The evidence stands and is the reason McMurderer will stay in his cage where he belongs.
Click to expand...

The scientific evidence does not stand .It was all before the days of DNA investigation. Trump was accused of being unhinged and almost half the American public voted for him.

I still think it was ridiculous for Judge Dupree to say in public that a blood speck found on MacDonald's glasses proves that he was lying about not wearing his glasses at the time of the murders and that Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere at the time of the MacDonald murders. Talk about unhinged and a want of judgment, if not corrupt bias.

There is a bit about this scientific evidence business in murder cases at this website:

A. Reliability of Scientific Proof

Previous articles have discussed the reliability of scientific proof;
19
therefore, it is necessary to highlight only a few points here. As illustrated by several fingerprint cases, even the most basic techniques are
subject to error. In Imbler v. Craven, 20 for example, the prosecution expert failed to observe an exculpatory fingerprint in a murder case in
which the death penalty was imposed. In another murder case, State v.
Caldwell, 21 the court observed that the expert's fingerprint testimony
"was damning-and it was false. " 22

These cases do not represent isolated mistakes. Proficiency test results of many common laboratory examinations are alarming. One of
the authors of a major proficiency test acknowledged that "a disturbingly high percentage" of routine laboratory tests are not performed
competently

. 23 Seventy-one percent of the crime laboratories. tested
provided unacceptable results in a blood test, 51.4% made errors in
matching paint samples, 35.5% erred in a soil examination, and 28.2%
made mistakes in firearms identifications.24 Similarly, a review of five
handwriting comparison proficiency tests showed that the document examiners at best were correct 57% of the time and were incorrect 43% of
the time. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom