Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The real culprits would say Helena Stoeckley was very unstable wouldn't they? It's true that she was never a novice in a nunnery, or belonged to the local Rotary club or that she sometimes told lies. That's not an excuse to say she was not credible. Her information should have been investigated and verified.

This is what former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate once said about the matter. Judge Murnaghan could see the problem with Helena, but he lacked a strong personality to tell the biased trial judge that he was wrong:

You are truly a singularity, but viewed in context it makes perfect sense.

You make it up as you go along, much like your JM case calendar girl and you want people to ignore all the crap you've posted that established your total lack of credibility.

Must be lonely on that island where the misfit toys go.
 
Henriboy's responses to being exposed are comical AND sad. He's copying and pasting posts that he constructed under different poster names on several MacDonald Case discussion boards. Caphill, I mean, Wudge, I mean, Henriboy, is simply rinsing and repeating the SAME talking points he made in 2003.

Again, this is a game to him and he loves the attention that comes with being the lone contrarian. He doesn't care that he has been exposed as a fraud on multiple true crime discussion boards, so I no longer care to play his game. As BStrong consistenly points out, Henriboy/Caphill/Wudge has no credibility, so why take a second of my time to respond to his fantasy narratives?

I've done it for 14 years, so I'm due for retirement. LOL. Considering this is the most litigated murder case in history, there are plenty of issues to discuss without setting foot on troll island. We're still awaiting the 4th Circuit's decision on whether inmate's conviction stands. Nothing shocks me anymore, but I would be surprised if the 4th Circuit accepts inmate's dubious arguments and grants him a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The mods may have an interest in this if you've got the goods. I seem to remember that the TOS forbids reposting material available elsewhere on the web and bringing disputes from other forums here.
 
the real culprit will and has said all sorts of things INCLUDING THAT HE DID NOT RECOGNIZE HELENA WHEN SHOWN A CONTEMPORARY PHOTO OF HER JUST 2 MONTHS AFTER HE SLAUGHTERED HIS FAMILY.

AMONG OTHER STATEMENTS HE SAID 'SHE HAS A DISTINCTIVE NOSE, I'D HAVE REMEMBERED THAT NOSE'.....THE REAL CULPRIT (singular) IS IN PRISON WHERE HE BELONGS.

Byn has been saying for years that according to her medical experts, Jeff MacDonald would have been concussed and unconscious and not have remembered anything about what happened after ten minutes. It all happened so quickly and he can only remember what he can remember. The fact is that what Helena said happened is what Jeff MacDonald said happened. He could only see white or beige boots and a candle. The lighting conditions were not good. Witness identification is a controversial subject. Jeff MacDonald didn't know the woman. Helena had no motive to make it all up.

B. Strong doesn't like freedom of speech and a free Press and an independent judiciary. I don't like biased internet forums. That would be like Nazi or Soviet or Egyptian justice.

Wudge had some strong opinions about JTF in 2008:

The 24" saran fiber came from the hairbrush. It's entirely reasonable to adduce it got there via brushing, and since it is not human hair, it must be synthetic hair. Because it was foreign to every source in the house, I hold it came from Helena's wig and represents exculpatory evidence.

SNIP

"There was a single unsourced DARK fiber found on Colette's mouth, two on her body, and two were found on the murder club."

Correct. These dark fibers are yet more unexplained foreign material and represent still more exculpatory evidence.

SNIP

"Similar to the fiber evidence, the unsourced wax drippings do not support MacDonald's story."
False. They clearly do and are exculpatory evidence.
SNIP

"Reading the following link would probably improve the quality and content of your posts."

I told you before that you come across as juvenile by self promoting , nothing has changed.
 
I know WUDGE pre-dates my participation in discussions and I was "board-napped" into the mix because JTF posted a question about "what do these facts say to you" and I happened upon the old A&E site and saw it. At that point I had not yet read Fatal Vision or Fatal Joke or inmate's website either. I joined, commented, and read JTF's response and then he and bunny started asking me more direct "evidence based" questions and showing me where I could go to see the documents etc. and I've been hooked ever since.....so, that would have been sometime after 4/1/2002 which is when we moved into our current office building......do you remember JTF or bunny?
 
Byn has been saying for years that according to her medical experts, Jeff MacDonald would have been concussed and unconscious and not have remembered anything about what happened after ten minutes. It all happened so quickly and he can only remember what he can remember. The fact is that what Helena said happened is what Jeff MacDonald said happened. He could only see white or beige boots and a candle. The lighting conditions were not good. Witness identification is a controversial subject. Jeff MacDonald didn't know the woman. Helena had no motive to make it all up.

B. Strong doesn't like freedom of speech and a free Press and an independent judiciary. I don't like biased internet forums. That would be like Nazi or Soviet or Egyptian justice.

Wudge had some strong opinions about JTF in 2008:

She had the same motive that you do.

You're starved for attention, and even negative attention is better than none.

Internet forums of just about any stripe aren't exactly happy with you either.

Wudge? is that the nickname your man crush gave you? the soft touch version of a nuggie?

ETA: 100% in favor of free speech, and 100% in favor of laughing at fools.
 
Last edited:
Byn has been saying for years that according to her medical experts, inmate would have been concussed and unconscious and not have remembered anything about what happened after ten minutes.

No, what byn has been saying and continues to say AND IS CORRECT IN STATING is that inmate's story of what happened is medically impossible. INMATE is the one who claimed to have been rendered unconscious. MEDICAL EXPERT DR. MARY CASE TESTIFIED IN A DIFFERENT CRIMINAL TRIAL THAT IT IS MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS AND THEN REMEMBER THE BLOW THAT CAUSED THE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. SHE ALSO STATED THAT MEMORY OF THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE BLOW WOULD BE LOST OR DAMAGED. MEDICAL FACT.

http://path.slu.edu/index.php?page=mary-case-m-d

the above link is for Dr. Mary Case's bio. henri when you can come anywhere CLOSE to her education, certifications, experience, knowledge THEN you can comment on the subject of loss of consciousness and memory.

Dr. Case is certified in Anatomic Pathology, Neuropathology AND Forensic Pathology. imho nuff said.....

It all happened so quickly and he can only remember what he can remember.

that is my point henri IF his story were true then he would not and could not remember anything especially not detailed descriptions or the number of alleged intruders and what they were wearing. It is that simple his story is medically impossible.

....that what Helena said happened is what inmate said happened........ Helena had no motive to make it all up.

NO, what Helena said happened didn't happen she confessed and recanted and confessed and recanted and NONE of her confessions match inmate's story or the evidence. THAT IS FACT. IF you are going to pick and choose a story of her's to believe then why not choose the version that included "we were having a sexual affair and I watched him kill his family?" at least THAT is plausible.

Crazy people and drug addled teenager's with attention seeking tendencies don't need a motive to confess. Her story changed and his story changed...the only difference is there is plenty of evidence to support the "he killed his family" story which is why he was convicted for the actions he took in murdering Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.
 
Timeline

BYN: If memory serves, I began posting on MacDonald Case discussion boards in the Fall of 2002, so I would assume that it was in that time frame when you came across my post. I could tell that you were a critical thinker and would not be swayed by hyperbole and circular logic.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
If you lie, your information is at best suspect and your own testimony given less weight.

When you lie, AND the physical evidence supports a different narrative, your testimony is worthless.

Ms. Stoeckley's testimony is worthless.

A police informant is obviously going to lie if there is any danger of being arrested, or imprisoned. The police in Scotland last year spent £500000 on informants. There must be some good reason for that. There was never any romantic interest between Jeff MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley. I suppose you could say she did it for the money for drugs, but she was taking a big risk and putting herself in grave peril. The Mafia and the Cocaine Importation Agency don't like snitches.

There was a big controversy several years ago in the UK over the use of 'supergrasses' informing on the IRA, and being paid large sums of money for it, particularly coming from Irish lawyers and journalists. I believe Helena Stoeckley and Detective Beasley. It's idle to suggest that their leads and suspects should be disregarded because they were supposed to be seriously ill, or befuddled, or were not credible.

Judge Murnaghan, now deceased, of the 4th Circuit always said that if he had been the trial judge he would not have excluded Helena's confessions. Judge Dupree, the biased trial judge was clearly erroneous. There needs to be a judge, or judges, in the MacDonald case with moral courage and a strong personality and right judgment.

There is some legal waffle about this informant business at:

www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2009/12/information-and-tips-aspx

Criminal Informants

What makes the citizen informant so credible is that he or she is providing information with no hopes of reimbursement. The same cannot be said for criminal informants, who provide information to police for a number of dubious reasons including revenge, a reduction of pending charges, and a hope of leniency at the time of sentencing.

Understandably, courts are skeptical of information provided by criminals. For this reason, it's best to use the information provided by criminal informants as a piece of a totality of circumstance equation. Knowing the criminal informant's reliability will be scrutinized by the courts, take proactive steps at the beginning of the investigation to ensure the informant's information is reliable.

The most common way to establish a criminal informant's reliability is to document past use. You'll certainly want to note all the times the informant's information was correct. Taking this one step further, note how often the informant's tips led to an arrest and conviction. Also include the types of investigations the informant assisted with. If you can show the informant has been consistently correct in matters of "street drug sales" or "burglary investigations" this specialized knowledge will lend credence to his or her reliability.

Another factor that can enhance the perceived reliability of an informant in court is if one makes statements against his own interests while providing the tips. The courts have realized that admitting to criminal behavior to the police is not something a person would usually do. When an informant takes this unusual step his or her statements are viewed as more credible.
 
A police informant is obviously going to lie if there is any danger of being arrested, or imprisoned. The police in Scotland last year spent £500000 on informants. There must be some good reason for that. There was never any romantic interest between Jeff MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley. I suppose you could say she did it for the money for drugs, but she was taking a big risk and putting herself in grave peril. The Mafia and the Cocaine Importation Agency don't like snitches.

There was a big controversy several years ago in the UK over the use of 'supergrasses' informing on the IRA, and being paid large sums of money for it, particularly coming from Irish lawyers and journalists. I believe Helena Stoeckley and Detective Beasley. It's idle to suggest that their leads and suspects should be disregarded because they were supposed to be seriously ill, or befuddled, or were not credible.

And your reliance of Stoeckley as credible is not in the least diminished.

Evidently, on the Island of No Facts everybody is a liar unless you like the lies they tell.

The great philosopher Bugs Bunny had a word for folks like you but I can't recall it in the instant - something like 'what a ..." something or other.

Again with the facts not in evidence. Not surprising given your aversion to actual evidence. When evidence is your enemy you have to start looking for alternative facts. Are you posting from within the beltway?

Remember what credibility means? It's what evidence or witnesses must have, and you don't have. Are you using the world "idle' correctly or was that a Freudian slip?
 
And your reliance of Stoeckley as credible is not in the least diminished.

It's not a question of just thinking MacDonald did it with no supporting evidence. You don't assume anything in a murder investigation, and you don't disregard leads and suspects like the Army CID, and FBI, and Judge Dupree did. Just having a biased internet forum is not good enough, and censoring any Fleet White did it postings as in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 concluded that Helena Stoeckley and her Stoeckley crowd should be further investigated.

Colonel Rock had his head screwed on. The Army CID and FBI and mainstream media should not have insisted on putting an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life.

The matter is discussed on that Unsolved Mysteries website:

3. Follow every lead
Keeping an open mind about the causes and possible perpetrators of a crime is essential to an investigator’s success. If Unusual Suspects has taught us anything, it’s that homicides are rarely straightforward, and following every lead – no matter how contrived they seem – is crucial. Whether it’s witness statements, or tips called in by the public, detectives never know where a lead is going to take them. For the investigators looking into Sky Alland’s (Driven to Murder, ep4) execution-style death, following leads that took them cross-country and sorting the red herrings from the real clues was exactly what it took to bring the 34-year-old businessman’s killer – an ex-employee – to justice.
 
It's not a question of just thinking MacDonald did it with no supporting evidence. You don't assume anything in a murder investigation, and you don't disregard leads and suspects like the Army CID, and FBI, and Judge Dupree did. Just having a biased internet forum is not good enough, and censoring any Fleet White did it postings as in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 concluded that Helena Stoeckley and her Stoeckley crowd should be further investigated.

Colonel Rock had his head screwed on. The Army CID and FBI and mainstream media should not have insisted on putting an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life.

The matter is discussed on that Unsolved Mysteries website:

How would you know anything about the subject? You're certainly not a trained investigator and you have no credibility. You have an opinion, and like all mammals you have a fundamental. You often mistake one for the other.

They didn't.

After a little googling on my own to confirm what has been posted by others concerning your propensity for multiple personalities on a single forum, I have proven to my satisfaction that the allegations are true and hereinafter I will refer to you as...wait for it...

Henrudge.

Congratulations.
 
Beyond Thorough

The CID and FBI each completed not one, but two lengthy investigations. The conclusions of all 4 investigations mirrored one another. Jeffrey MacDonald was deemed as being the lone killer of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen MacDonald. The conclusions were based on the FACT that ALL of the sourced evidence in this case linked inmate to the crime. Not a single piece of evidence collected at the crime scene was sourced to a known intruder suspect. All of the suspects were interviewed by the CID and/or FBI, and by 1983, all of these individuals were cleared as having any involvement in these brutal murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
The MacDonald case was poorly investigated by the Army CID, and by the FBI. As Helena Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, once remarked the prosecution never proved its case and MacDonald was screwed. I think it's a public scandal.
 
The CID and the FBI thoroughly investigated this case. The reinvestigation alone took over 2 years and consumes thousands and thousands of pages of documentation to prove that no lead was overlooked. Inmate thought he was smarter than everyone in the world and that the rules of civilized behavior did not (does not) apply to himself. The investigation led to a Grand Jury hearing after which he was indicted. This was followed, after some legal machinations by inmate, with a full trial before a jury of his peers. The prosecution, using only about 60% of the available inculpatory evidence, presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted about 7 weeks and the jury convicted in about 6 hours. inmate was justly convicted of 3 counts of murder (I think all 3 should have been first degree personally) and he was sentenced to 3 consecutive life sentences. inmate is a base coward who will meet his maker without clearing his conscious and he will burn in hell for eternity for what he did to Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.
 
The MacDonald case was poorly investigated by the Army CID, and by the FBI. As Helena Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, once remarked the prosecution never proved its case and MacDonald was screwed. I think it's a public scandal.

What Henrudge thinks is immaterial.

Two heads ..err...user names are nor better than one.
 
The CID and the FBI thoroughly investigated this case. The reinvestigation alone took over 2 years and consumes thousands and thousands of pages of documentation to prove that no lead was overlooked. Inmate thought he was smarter than everyone in the world and that the rules of civilized behavior did not (does not) apply to himself. The investigation led to a Grand Jury hearing after which he was indicted. This was followed, after some legal machinations by inmate, with a full trial before a jury of his peers. The prosecution, using only about 60% of the available inculpatory evidence, presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted about 7 weeks and the jury convicted in about 6 hours. inmate was justly convicted of 3 counts of murder (I think all 3 should have been first degree personally) and he was sentenced to 3 consecutive life sentences. inmate is a base coward who will meet his maker without clearing his conscious and he will burn in hell for eternity for what he did to Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.

Well said. Thanks for the clear, common sense, rational perspective.

It's too bad that it's beyond Henri's comprehension.
 
Well said. Thanks for the clear, common sense, rational perspective.

It's too bad that it's beyond Henri's comprehension.

It's a man-crush thing.

It's a 'net version of the women that write to Scott Peterson while he sits on death row:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/No-shortage-of-women-who-dream-of-snaring-a-2689657.php

"Scott Peterson, the man who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child, had been on Death Row barely an hour when the first proposal arrived from a woman who wants to be the new Mrs. Scott Peterson.

Three dozen phone calls came in to the warden's office on Peterson's first day at his new home in San Quentin State Prison -- women were pleading for his mailing address, and one smitten 18-year-old said she wanted to marry him.

As far as anyone knows, these women don't really know Peterson -- and unlike Laci Peterson, they certainly haven't spent any time with him, usually a requisite for getting married -- but, according to several experts on the world of the condemned, it doesn't really matter.
 
Pages 12 and 13 of the following document is a stark reminder of Stoeckley's unreliability.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/1982/1982-12-xx_USSC_4thCircuit_gov_petition.html

what does he have to do with it?

tumblr_l1iotoYo541qbn8c7.jpg
 
Pages 12 and 13 of the following document is a stark reminder of Stoeckley's unreliability.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/1982/1982-12-xx_USSC_4thCircuit_gov_petition.html

There are people who disagree with JTF about Helena Stoeckley's reliability. You must remember that Greg Mitchell also confessed along similar lines, but his confessions were disregarded in the same way. You don't disregard leads and suspects in a murder investigation unless you are a bent cop, or a rookie detective.

Officer Gaddis distinctly testified at the Macdonald trial that he would have further investigated after what Helena had told him in Nashville. I don't have the quote at hand that Gaddis is supposed to have said that Helena changed her mind to him later on about it, as that legal document from JTF implies.

Evan Hughes has an interesting article on the internet about Helena Stoeckley on the internet.

This is part of it.

Here is how McGinniss handles the central and troubling matter of Helena Stoeckley: for one, while he does recount her known admissions at the time of writing, he makes them sound more tentative and hazier than they were. He prefers to emphasize her testimony on the stand, when she devastated the defense by denying any memory of the house and saying she could not recall her prior confessions. In that testimony, she also said, oddly, that she burned her blonde wig two to three days after the crime “because it connected me with the murder,” but you wouldn’t know that from reading Fatal Vision.

The judge then excluded any testimony implicating Stoeckley from the six people prepared to give it — a ruling that became the focus of appeals. (McGinniss could not have known that a retired Deputy U.S. Marshal named Jimmy Britt would come forward in 2005, citing a need to lift a “moral burden,” and state in a sworn affidavit that he was present when Stoeckley told a prosecutor immediately before testifying that she had been inside the MacDonald house during the crime. The prosecutor, James Blackburn, responded that if she testified to that effect, he would indict her for murder, the affidavit said. Blackburn denies it. Morris can’t resist going for the jugular and pointing out that Blackburn was later disbarred and imprisoned for forgery, fraud, and embezzlement.)

On various occasions, Stoeckley spoke about trying to quiet a German Shepherd near the MacDonald house, about lighting a candle and carrying it around inside, about an upside-down book on MacDonald’s chest while he slept with his glasses on the floor next to him, and about the rocking horse. When Stoeckley told police that “it did not begin to rain hard until after the homicide,” they asked how she knew. She replied, “I have already said too much.” Perhaps this was all a lot of nothing, scraps she had cobbled together over time, and on some occasions she added new bits that didn’t jibe, particularly under Gunderson’s questioning. But the inconsequential details like the upside-down book and the glasses — I find them eerily plausible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom