• 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.
That's a load of bollocks, if you pardon my French. The matter is explained at this website, and it was demolished by MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick at the McGinniss trial in 1987:

http://dingeengoete.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/dr-jeffrey-macdonald.html

Your man crush wasn't drug free.

Long before there was any serious issues with amphetamines in the general population, amphetamines were commonly available in the military, even as late as when I was in 74-80.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/the-drugs-that-built-a-super-soldier/477183/

One of the "perks" of being a military physician was the nearly uncontrolled availability of controlled substance pharmaceuticals. The uncontested fact is that your man crush had a ******** of pharmaceuticals in hand in his home.
 
One of the "perks" of being a military physician was the nearly uncontrolled availability of controlled substance pharmaceuticals. The uncontested fact is that your man crush had a ******** of pharmaceuticals in hand in his home.

The matter of diet pills in the MacDonald case is explained at this website. It was another invention by Kassab.:

https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/IS-JEFFREY-MACDONALD-INNOCENT-Despite-his-3042069.php

Their debunking is helped along by an unlikely source: McGinniss himself, responding under oath to a civil lawsuit filed by MacDonald alleging fraud and breach of contract pertaining to "Fatal Vision." When asked whether he believed the theory advanced in his book -- that diet pills caused a psychotic snap in MacDonald -- McGinniss explained that he had to give his readers more than a "rehash" of the trial, the authors write. He then replied: "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."
 
Last edited:
Cognitive Sheep

The Eskatrol issue is another example of the landlord being unable to think for himself. He simply hears or sees an advocacy piece for inmate and his thought process is set in stone. He clearly doesn't consider the distinct possibility that the authors of said pieces have not taken the time to read the documented record. At the Article 32 hearing, inmate admits that he has used Amphetamines, he repeats this admission on the very 1st page of his case journal, and it is a medical fact that Amphetamine use can cause a rage reaction. As if the landlord needed a reminder, this case is a classic example of a rage killing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
This thread is getting long and slow, so I have opened a continuation thread here.
Posted By: Agatha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom