Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
So a vast conspiracy spanning decades is killing people to frame MacDonald, who was barely scratched by a gang of bloodthirsty, drug-crazed thugs who butchered a young mother and her two babies, and who, as a Green Beret officer, would have been by far the biggest -- if not only -- threat to them? And the authorities chose to frame an innocent Army doctor rather than lock up known criminals? That's your story? While you're at it, tell us who faked the moon landings.
Last edited:
This thread has inspired me tobuyread the book Fatal Vision
Support your local public library!
Kindle Book
In 2012, Joe McGinniss completed his final work on the MacDonald case. FINAL VISION is a terrific addendum to his masterpiece FATAL VISION. You can purchase FINAL VISION via Amazon Kindle books.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
In 2012, Joe McGinniss completed his final work on the MacDonald case. FINAL VISION is a terrific addendum to his masterpiece FATAL VISION. You can purchase FINAL VISION via Amazon Kindle books.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
In regards to MacDonald's wound, I remember a 60 Mintues show shortly after the murders where they showed the location of his wound and how it might have happened. A doctor on the show said that he believed the wound was caused by a scalpel and that MacDonald knew exactly where to use the scalpel without injuring himself fatally. About 10 years ago, I contacted CBS to see if they still had that show available. The numnuts I spoke with told me that, after 40 years, they didn't have it. That show was the first I'd heard about this terrible murder and I was surprised MacDonald was the suspect.
I did a bunch of research in libraries and found a lot of articles that gradually led me to believe he was guilty as sin. The more I read, the more certain I was. Then along came the internet and all the info that became available. I read Fatal Vision and though Joe McGinniss nailed it. Nothing that's come along since has made me change my mind. Jeffery MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife and 2 small daughters in cold blood. He may have been fighting with Colette and struck her in anger but he had to think about and take the time to brutally murder Kristen and Kimberly.
MacDonald is right where he belongs and he will die in prison.
I did a bunch of research in libraries and found a lot of articles that gradually led me to believe he was guilty as sin. The more I read, the more certain I was. Then along came the internet and all the info that became available. I read Fatal Vision and though Joe McGinniss nailed it. Nothing that's come along since has made me change my mind. Jeffery MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife and 2 small daughters in cold blood. He may have been fighting with Colette and struck her in anger but he had to think about and take the time to brutally murder Kristen and Kimberly.
MacDonald is right where he belongs and he will die in prison.
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 3,666
I don't have a public library
- I live in the sticks.But I do have both a Nook and a Kindle, and ebooks of both Fatal, the first, and Final, the final, Vision!
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Final Vision is an excellent addendum to a true crime masterpiece.
Henri can bleat all he wants. The fact remains that MacDonald's lawsuit against McGinniss, and I've said this before, but it bears repeating, boiled down to nothing more than MacDonald having a legal hissy fit because McGinniss wrote the truth.
MacDonald had the opportunity to rebut Fatal Vision point by point, through his lawyers, in a court of law. Ample opportunity since to prove McGinniss wrong. He refused to take the initial opportunity, and he hasn't proven his case since. Why not? Because you can't disprove the truth, and all the shadow boxing by Errol Morris and Jeff MacDonald and Henri won't change that.
Henri can bleat all he wants. The fact remains that MacDonald's lawsuit against McGinniss, and I've said this before, but it bears repeating, boiled down to nothing more than MacDonald having a legal hissy fit because McGinniss wrote the truth.
MacDonald had the opportunity to rebut Fatal Vision point by point, through his lawyers, in a court of law. Ample opportunity since to prove McGinniss wrong. He refused to take the initial opportunity, and he hasn't proven his case since. Why not? Because you can't disprove the truth, and all the shadow boxing by Errol Morris and Jeff MacDonald and Henri won't change that.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Joe McGinniss was employed and paid by Dr. MacDonald's defense lawyer Segal to write a pro-MacDonald book to protect MacDonald's interests in the court of public opinion. When that wrong verdict came in 1979 McGinniss betrayed Dr. Macdonald with his Fatal Vision book and TV movie. Dr. MacDonald then sued and in 1987 there was a court case in California which Dr. MacDonald won, although most of the damages seemed to go to Colette's emotional and heavy drinker stepfather Fred Kassab, for some reason or another.
I have not read the recent Errol Morris book. From what I have seen of the reviews it seems to be a more fair and just account of the MacDonald case. McGinniss had a premise that there was a MacDonald amphetamine psychosis which McGinniss testified in court in 1987 that he did not even believe himself. McGinniss then went on a luxury cruise around the world after that court case. McGinniss has come under criticism for some of his other books, like the book on Edward Kennedy and his Sarah Palin book.
Dr. MacDonald suffered life threatening injuries with a collapsed lung and internal bleeding. The doctors at the local military hospital who made light of all that at the trial have since said that they only said that because he was presumed to have been guilty. The eminent forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff always said that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald did not do it.
My own theory is that the murderers deliberately left Dr. MacDonald alive in order to deflect suspicion away from themselves. Even the Army CID might have investigated the case more thoroughly if the whole family had died, though the CID and FBI would have probably put it down to a murder and suicide. It was hardly relentless investigating for Ivory to ask Greg Mitchell where he was on the night of the murders and then get the answer that he might have been staying with his parents! That should have been checked out.
I still think the Army CID and the CIA and NSA are a bunch of idiots. At first the Army CID tried to get Dr. MacDonald to confess at the April 1970 interview, which he never did. Dr. MacDonald had phoned the Army CID then about the possibility of the return of some of his private property, but once he arrived at the building he was confronted with a lengthy interview by a couple of Army CID agents with a light shining in his eye. It's true he was warned of his Miranda rights about not answering questions if he didn't want to and offered the services of a lawyer, which he declined because he is innocent. That was probably a bit naive.
Admissions and confessions, even when apparently legally admissible, ought to be looked on with much greater suspicion then they usually are. The main priority of anybody held at a police station is to get home as soon as possible and many people including intelligent and innocent people are willing to be coached into signing anything if they are told they can then go home. The lawyers at the police station are not much help. They are usually in league with the police.
There was the notorious case of the murdered little girl Riley Fox whose father signed a false confession. He was imprisoned for about a year until the police discovered the DNA of a completely different man on the murder victim, who has since been imprisoned. He received many thousands in compensation from the public purse which is a waste of money.
I appreciate there is no absolute certainty. There was a documentary on TV recently of a little boy from somewhere like Alabama being forced to confess in a police station to the murder of his little sister. That confession seemed to be the only evidence the police had in the case. It's just that it hardly seemed to be a careful and complete investigation. He might have been guilty for all I know.
Juries can be incompetent. There was a case in my own area of a thug being acquitted for murder a few years ago after a new year's eve bar room brawl. Then today the same man was convicted of murder in an exactly similar incident a few years later.
I have not read the recent Errol Morris book. From what I have seen of the reviews it seems to be a more fair and just account of the MacDonald case. McGinniss had a premise that there was a MacDonald amphetamine psychosis which McGinniss testified in court in 1987 that he did not even believe himself. McGinniss then went on a luxury cruise around the world after that court case. McGinniss has come under criticism for some of his other books, like the book on Edward Kennedy and his Sarah Palin book.
Dr. MacDonald suffered life threatening injuries with a collapsed lung and internal bleeding. The doctors at the local military hospital who made light of all that at the trial have since said that they only said that because he was presumed to have been guilty. The eminent forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff always said that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald did not do it.
My own theory is that the murderers deliberately left Dr. MacDonald alive in order to deflect suspicion away from themselves. Even the Army CID might have investigated the case more thoroughly if the whole family had died, though the CID and FBI would have probably put it down to a murder and suicide. It was hardly relentless investigating for Ivory to ask Greg Mitchell where he was on the night of the murders and then get the answer that he might have been staying with his parents! That should have been checked out.
I still think the Army CID and the CIA and NSA are a bunch of idiots. At first the Army CID tried to get Dr. MacDonald to confess at the April 1970 interview, which he never did. Dr. MacDonald had phoned the Army CID then about the possibility of the return of some of his private property, but once he arrived at the building he was confronted with a lengthy interview by a couple of Army CID agents with a light shining in his eye. It's true he was warned of his Miranda rights about not answering questions if he didn't want to and offered the services of a lawyer, which he declined because he is innocent. That was probably a bit naive.
Admissions and confessions, even when apparently legally admissible, ought to be looked on with much greater suspicion then they usually are. The main priority of anybody held at a police station is to get home as soon as possible and many people including intelligent and innocent people are willing to be coached into signing anything if they are told they can then go home. The lawyers at the police station are not much help. They are usually in league with the police.
There was the notorious case of the murdered little girl Riley Fox whose father signed a false confession. He was imprisoned for about a year until the police discovered the DNA of a completely different man on the murder victim, who has since been imprisoned. He received many thousands in compensation from the public purse which is a waste of money.
I appreciate there is no absolute certainty. There was a documentary on TV recently of a little boy from somewhere like Alabama being forced to confess in a police station to the murder of his little sister. That confession seemed to be the only evidence the police had in the case. It's just that it hardly seemed to be a careful and complete investigation. He might have been guilty for all I know.
Juries can be incompetent. There was a case in my own area of a thug being acquitted for murder a few years ago after a new year's eve bar room brawl. Then today the same man was convicted of murder in an exactly similar incident a few years later.
Last edited:
So the doctors -- MacDonald's professional brethren -- who treated him lied to frame him?
This might explain any confessions that may have been made by drug-addled Helena Stoeckley. But MacDonald never confessed to anything, and his conviction doesn't depend on any confession.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
As far as I can recall Dr. MacDonald described his treatment at the local military hospital after the MacDonald murders as pretty ******. I think it was disgraceful treatment. One of the doctors there later apologised for failing to diagnose the collapsed lung. Dr MacDonald was a brilliant emergency doctor and he knew what he was talking about.
A junior doctor there, Dr. Neal, was called to the crime scene in the middle of the night to certificate that the victims were dead. At the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 and at the 1979 trial Dr. Neal was quite candid in saying that he moved bodies and fabrics as he accomplished that task. Army CID agent Ivory then categorically denied Neal's testimony in order to support the lunatic theory about bodies being carried in a sheet.
You must have a theory which fits the facts and not just make up facts to fit a theory.
This is as far as Dr. Macdonald got to confessing, from his Grand Jury testimony in 1974/5:
"Because I didn't spend the rest of my life, you know, praying on the graves you tell me I don't love my family. And that means I must have killed them. That's not true.
Oh, it's a lot of ****. I didn't kill Colette. And I didn't kill Kimmie, and I didn't kill Kristy, and I didn't move Colette, and I didn't move Kimmie, and I didn't move Kristy, and I gave them mouth to mouth breathing, and I loved them then, and I love them now. And Colette didn't kill them either. And you can shove all your *********** evidence right up your ass.
Q Dr. MacDonald, we have gone into certain matters because we have had to go into those matters.
A Sure.
Q You were examined by a psychiatrist, your own psychiatrist, your own psychologist, you were examined by the Army psychiatrist and psychologist, and you know when psychologists and psychiatrists probe into your personality and state of mind they inevitably focus on your sex life and how that affects your family life--
A I'd like to probe into some of the psychiatrists's sex life you know."
A junior doctor there, Dr. Neal, was called to the crime scene in the middle of the night to certificate that the victims were dead. At the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 and at the 1979 trial Dr. Neal was quite candid in saying that he moved bodies and fabrics as he accomplished that task. Army CID agent Ivory then categorically denied Neal's testimony in order to support the lunatic theory about bodies being carried in a sheet.
You must have a theory which fits the facts and not just make up facts to fit a theory.
This is as far as Dr. Macdonald got to confessing, from his Grand Jury testimony in 1974/5:
"Because I didn't spend the rest of my life, you know, praying on the graves you tell me I don't love my family. And that means I must have killed them. That's not true.
Oh, it's a lot of ****. I didn't kill Colette. And I didn't kill Kimmie, and I didn't kill Kristy, and I didn't move Colette, and I didn't move Kimmie, and I didn't move Kristy, and I gave them mouth to mouth breathing, and I loved them then, and I love them now. And Colette didn't kill them either. And you can shove all your *********** evidence right up your ass.
Q Dr. MacDonald, we have gone into certain matters because we have had to go into those matters.
A Sure.
Q You were examined by a psychiatrist, your own psychiatrist, your own psychologist, you were examined by the Army psychiatrist and psychologist, and you know when psychologists and psychiatrists probe into your personality and state of mind they inevitably focus on your sex life and how that affects your family life--
A I'd like to probe into some of the psychiatrists's sex life you know."
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
Without even looking at the evidence very hard*, it's difficult to believe MacDonald's account. Just using logic and Occam's Razor, which is easier to believe: That there's a wide-ranging conspiracy involving hippies, military police, civilian police, and doctors, all acting in concert to frame MacDonald for murder for some yet unexplained reason, or that Dr. MacDonald felt that he'd be better off without his wife and children and decided to murder them? Which story is more common and more likely?
I also object to Freddy Kassab being depicted as "hard-drinking" and "emotional". Who wouldn't be emotional after their daughter and granddaughters were brutally murdered? Perhaps if MacDonald had been more emotional during his trial more jurors would have believed him. I fail to see what Kassab's drinking has to do with anything, since MacDonald wasn't exactly a teetotaler himself. Kassab may not have been the most pleasant person in the world and I'm sure he had many, many flaws, but criticizing the man like this long after his death just seems derogatory and mean-spirited.
*I have, of course, read Fatal Vision and a few other independent accounts of the case and have come to my own conclusion that MacDonald did it. All the evidence points to MacDonald and away from the hippie theory, and nobody else stood to benefit from the deaths of MacDonald's wife and children. Cui bono? Only MacDonald.
I also object to Freddy Kassab being depicted as "hard-drinking" and "emotional". Who wouldn't be emotional after their daughter and granddaughters were brutally murdered? Perhaps if MacDonald had been more emotional during his trial more jurors would have believed him. I fail to see what Kassab's drinking has to do with anything, since MacDonald wasn't exactly a teetotaler himself. Kassab may not have been the most pleasant person in the world and I'm sure he had many, many flaws, but criticizing the man like this long after his death just seems derogatory and mean-spirited.
*I have, of course, read Fatal Vision and a few other independent accounts of the case and have come to my own conclusion that MacDonald did it. All the evidence points to MacDonald and away from the hippie theory, and nobody else stood to benefit from the deaths of MacDonald's wife and children. Cui bono? Only MacDonald.
Final Vision
The following is an excerpt from Joe McGinniss' FINAL VISION.
Can anyone seriously argue that Jeffrey MacDonald has not been given his day in court? He's been given years. He's been given decades. And Fox intended to be sure that, by the time the hearing was over, no appellate court would ever again be able to suggest that MacDonald had not been given ample opportunity to avail himself of all of his constitutional rights. There may be no more graphic illustration of the hearing's essential insignificance than the fact that three of MacDonald's most high-profile lawyers- Barry Scheck, Alan Dershowitz, and Harvey Silverglate were nowhere to be found.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The following is an excerpt from Joe McGinniss' FINAL VISION.
Can anyone seriously argue that Jeffrey MacDonald has not been given his day in court? He's been given years. He's been given decades. And Fox intended to be sure that, by the time the hearing was over, no appellate court would ever again be able to suggest that MacDonald had not been given ample opportunity to avail himself of all of his constitutional rights. There may be no more graphic illustration of the hearing's essential insignificance than the fact that three of MacDonald's most high-profile lawyers- Barry Scheck, Alan Dershowitz, and Harvey Silverglate were nowhere to be found.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
That's a silly remark by Joe McGinniss.
Dr. MacDonald and his lawyers have always only been able to do so much to prove his innocence and they have always been up against corrupt bias and forensic fraud and media frenzy. He has had many lawyers over the years. The trouble is lawyers expect to get paid for the severe strain of their legal work and Dr. MacDonald can no longer afford the legal fees or private detectives. Money talks.
None of the lawyers who have represented him in the past have ever changed their mind about the case that I know about. Harvey Silverglate is now retired and you can't expect him to continue to go through the worry and expense of attending Hearings and writing responses.
There was an army lawyer involved in the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 who was quoted in a newspaper last year as saying what happened to Dr. MacDonald was horrendous. I'm not the only person who thinks he didn't do it, or that the real culprits have gone free to kill again, or engage in white collar crime and bank fraud and drug dealing with impunity.
Dr. MacDonald and his lawyers have always only been able to do so much to prove his innocence and they have always been up against corrupt bias and forensic fraud and media frenzy. He has had many lawyers over the years. The trouble is lawyers expect to get paid for the severe strain of their legal work and Dr. MacDonald can no longer afford the legal fees or private detectives. Money talks.
None of the lawyers who have represented him in the past have ever changed their mind about the case that I know about. Harvey Silverglate is now retired and you can't expect him to continue to go through the worry and expense of attending Hearings and writing responses.
There was an army lawyer involved in the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 who was quoted in a newspaper last year as saying what happened to Dr. MacDonald was horrendous. I'm not the only person who thinks he didn't do it, or that the real culprits have gone free to kill again, or engage in white collar crime and bank fraud and drug dealing with impunity.
This Will End Poorly For Inmate
HENRIBOY: Silly, eh? Your lack of insight is palpable. In the past 43 years, inmate has had 21 lawyers represent him and he has received more chances at freedom than any murderer in history. Inmate was convicted in less than 7 hours of 3 counts of murder, yet he has received 8 chances at a new trial. Incredible. This most recent legal circus will produce the same result and inmate will die in prison. Justice prevails.
HENRIBOY: Silly, eh? Your lack of insight is palpable. In the past 43 years, inmate has had 21 lawyers represent him and he has received more chances at freedom than any murderer in history. Inmate was convicted in less than 7 hours of 3 counts of murder, yet he has received 8 chances at a new trial. Incredible. This most recent legal circus will produce the same result and inmate will die in prison. Justice prevails.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Or perhaps to bit parts as evil aging hippies in the new remade Hawaii Five-O.
Seriously, the only place something like that chanting happened in reality was in the Manson murders. An article about that in Esquire was found in MacDonald's living room.
The only other place I've heard of chanting that dumb-sounding was the old Hawaii Five O, or maybe MAD magazine.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The Esquire magazine with the report of the Manson murders is no more evidence of guilt than saying I was involved in the murder of Princess Diana because I have a magazine in which her death is reported. There were reports that several military policemen had leafed through the Esquire magazine as something to read at the MacDonald crime scene. It was hardly uncontaminated evidence.
From what I have read several of the Stoeckley group moved away from North Carolina to lie low. One or two went to California and others to Canada. Somebody once posted that Mazerolle is now prospering in charge of some kind of business in the north-east of America. I think the NSA should keep tabs on these people instead of them just bugging the highly confidential information on Wall Street.
The point about Mazerolle was that he is a hard cookie, as Detective Beasley described him. It looks as though Helena Stoeckley snitched on him before the MacDonald murders so that Beasley could arrest him for drug dealing. Mazerolle was supposed to have turned up in court for that on the day of the MacDonald murders because Beasley was scheduled to be a witness in the case. Mazerolle never did turn up in court. Instead he went on the run and was jailed in another state many months later for burglary. The Army CID and FBI showed no curiosity about this. It's true there is a piece of paper saying Mazerolle was supposed to be in jail, and that is Mazerolle's alibi, but Detective Beasley said he saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders, and Beasley said there was bribery and corruption about the issue of jail certificates. Mazerolle's pal Rizzo who was arrested at the same as Mazerolle time was definitely out on bail.
Bruce Fowler was in jail at one time where he was so called interviewed by the Army CID or FBI and asked for his name and address.
What I don't understand is that Judge Fox has been in charge of the MacDonald case for the past twenty years and he declared publicly last year that he is not familiar with the 1979 MacDonald trial.
From what I have read several of the Stoeckley group moved away from North Carolina to lie low. One or two went to California and others to Canada. Somebody once posted that Mazerolle is now prospering in charge of some kind of business in the north-east of America. I think the NSA should keep tabs on these people instead of them just bugging the highly confidential information on Wall Street.
The point about Mazerolle was that he is a hard cookie, as Detective Beasley described him. It looks as though Helena Stoeckley snitched on him before the MacDonald murders so that Beasley could arrest him for drug dealing. Mazerolle was supposed to have turned up in court for that on the day of the MacDonald murders because Beasley was scheduled to be a witness in the case. Mazerolle never did turn up in court. Instead he went on the run and was jailed in another state many months later for burglary. The Army CID and FBI showed no curiosity about this. It's true there is a piece of paper saying Mazerolle was supposed to be in jail, and that is Mazerolle's alibi, but Detective Beasley said he saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders, and Beasley said there was bribery and corruption about the issue of jail certificates. Mazerolle's pal Rizzo who was arrested at the same as Mazerolle time was definitely out on bail.
Bruce Fowler was in jail at one time where he was so called interviewed by the Army CID or FBI and asked for his name and address.
What I don't understand is that Judge Fox has been in charge of the MacDonald case for the past twenty years and he declared publicly last year that he is not familiar with the 1979 MacDonald trial.
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There was another funny business when Helena's bloody clothes and boots were handed in to Army CID agent Ivory by Mrs Garcia after the MacDonald murders and then promptly disregarded. Either Ivory is a stupid cop, or he is corrupt. This is what I have previously written about the matter:
"This business of Mrs Garcia and the bloody boots is a bit complicated.
It looks to me as though Helena Stoeckley must have given the clothes and boots she wore at the MacDonald murders to Cathy Perry/Williams. Cathy Perry started going nuts at that time, and she went to live with Mrs Garcia.
Mrs Garcia went through Cathy Perry's clothes and she became suspicious. She took the items, through a lawyer, to the Army CID agents Kearns and Ivory, who promptly returned them.
The point is that MacDonald defense lawyers should have been informed about all this, and not been kept in the dark about it all, even if there was no forensic significance involved. It's a pity in a way that Mrs Garcia never delivered the items to a MacDonald lawyer.
Murtagh and Juge Dupree at the 1985 MacDonald appeal categorically denied there was any blood on the boots, or that any clothes had been delivered. That's not what the FBI say, or some of the lawyers involved in the incident. It looks like more fraud over receipts in the MacDonald case, rather like the bail bonds in the Mazerolle case. This is some background information:
"Meanwhile on January 8th 1971 Jackie Don Wolverton returned to off post quarters to find two laundry bags filled with Perry's possessions, which according to Wolverton, apparently included some blood stained clothing and a bag of marijuana.
Accompanied by one EDDIE McDANIELS, Wolverton drove to Mrs Garcia's house and deposited the laundry bags, without the marijuana in them, on Mrs Garcia's porch.
At his point in the saga fate intervened and McDANIELS and Wolverton were stopped by the police, arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.
Consequently Nance, who represented EDDIE McDANIELS, recontacted the CID, and tried to involve them in his client's case. Ultimately, on February 2nd 1971, Mrs Garcia appeared at Kearns' office and demanded the return of the property previously furnished by Nance to Ivory.
A diligent search by the undersigned of the loose CID property receipt processed under FOIA disclosed only a copy of a DA-19-31 signed by Mrs Betty Garcia, acknowledging the return of the property from Agent Ivory on Feb 2nd 1971."
This is what MacDonald lawyer Bernie Segal had to say about those clothes and boots in an affidavit:
"During the entire course of my representation, I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of clothing or boots. Moreover, Army Captain James A. Douthat was under no duty to the defense team to keep the defense informed after his official representation of Dr MacDonald
at the conclusion of the Article 32 proceeding."
MacDonald's army lawyer Malley said in 1984:
"During the entire course of my representation I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of this clothing and boots."
"This business of Mrs Garcia and the bloody boots is a bit complicated.
It looks to me as though Helena Stoeckley must have given the clothes and boots she wore at the MacDonald murders to Cathy Perry/Williams. Cathy Perry started going nuts at that time, and she went to live with Mrs Garcia.
Mrs Garcia went through Cathy Perry's clothes and she became suspicious. She took the items, through a lawyer, to the Army CID agents Kearns and Ivory, who promptly returned them.
The point is that MacDonald defense lawyers should have been informed about all this, and not been kept in the dark about it all, even if there was no forensic significance involved. It's a pity in a way that Mrs Garcia never delivered the items to a MacDonald lawyer.
Murtagh and Juge Dupree at the 1985 MacDonald appeal categorically denied there was any blood on the boots, or that any clothes had been delivered. That's not what the FBI say, or some of the lawyers involved in the incident. It looks like more fraud over receipts in the MacDonald case, rather like the bail bonds in the Mazerolle case. This is some background information:
"Meanwhile on January 8th 1971 Jackie Don Wolverton returned to off post quarters to find two laundry bags filled with Perry's possessions, which according to Wolverton, apparently included some blood stained clothing and a bag of marijuana.
Accompanied by one EDDIE McDANIELS, Wolverton drove to Mrs Garcia's house and deposited the laundry bags, without the marijuana in them, on Mrs Garcia's porch.
At his point in the saga fate intervened and McDANIELS and Wolverton were stopped by the police, arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.
Consequently Nance, who represented EDDIE McDANIELS, recontacted the CID, and tried to involve them in his client's case. Ultimately, on February 2nd 1971, Mrs Garcia appeared at Kearns' office and demanded the return of the property previously furnished by Nance to Ivory.
A diligent search by the undersigned of the loose CID property receipt processed under FOIA disclosed only a copy of a DA-19-31 signed by Mrs Betty Garcia, acknowledging the return of the property from Agent Ivory on Feb 2nd 1971."
This is what MacDonald lawyer Bernie Segal had to say about those clothes and boots in an affidavit:
"During the entire course of my representation, I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of clothing or boots. Moreover, Army Captain James A. Douthat was under no duty to the defense team to keep the defense informed after his official representation of Dr MacDonald
at the conclusion of the Article 32 proceeding."
MacDonald's army lawyer Malley said in 1984:
"During the entire course of my representation I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of this clothing and boots."
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,892
So why are they going thru all this effort to frame him? Seriously, assuming that he is being framed for his family's murder, why frame him? What is the motive? What did he do or what does he know that it makes more sense to murder his entire family and frame him than to just kill him and be done with him. Or are the real killers and the evil forces framing him unrelated? I want to understand the logic of this conspiracy theory.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
- Status