• 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.
Bob001 said:
Any thoughts? Does anyone really think Doc MacDonald isn't a vicious, remorseless baby killer?
Click to expand...

1. The story in the article designed to be answered by a sociopath is readily answered by anyone who reads mysteries.

2. A Green Beret does not let his family get killed by intruders without dying himself.

3. "Acid is groovy - kill the pigs" ? Come on. That is something that a square Army doctor imagines that hippies would say and is so obviously contrived that it stands pretty much alone as proof of guilt.

4. The whole thing was weirdly echoed in the Chuck Stuart case here in Boston. As soon as I heard that his wife had been killed but himself only shot in the side, I knew what had happened.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I have never had any doubt about the guy's guilt. His own statements never made much sense and they contradicted the physical evidence. McGinniss' "Fatal Vision" is totally persuasive. And of course, a jury found him guilty and multiple appeals courts have affirmed that verdict for decades. I mention it only because Errol Morris and his book have gotten a lot of attention and some favorable reviews recently by writers who apparently aren't very familiar with the case.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm missed target: no joy. I say again, no joy.
 
Having read most of the comments of the reviews of Morris' book on Amazon, there doesn't appear to be much doubt about MacDonald's guilt among the commenters. The big question being bandied about there is not whether he was guilty, but whether he received a fair trial. The consensus there is that he did not.

It's been a few years since I last reread Fatal Vision, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details of the trial, but if I recall correctly, Murtagh prosecuted to the best of his ability, and MacDonald was convicted on the evidence (and the lack of evidence supporting his defense), not on the basis of railroading by the prosecution.

I'll put the question here: Even with his guilt established, was Jeffrey MacDonald convicted unfairly?

Course, that also begs the question: If a person is guilty-and there's little doubt MacDonald is-how does a guilty verdict qualify as "unfair"?
 
Last edited:
No, I don't think so.

Its sad to see the Innocence Project and Errol Morris waste their time with this case. There are real miscarriages of justice they could be worrying about, McDonald is as guilty as sin.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I don't buy it.

She told people about the guy who attacked her weeks before the murder, but the judge kept the jury from hearing that testimony.

But, beyond that, why, if she was admitting to the crime when the police talked to her, did she describe a completely different scenario in a different part of town? Why would she admit to anything? There was no physical evidence against her. If she hadn't said anything, she'd have never been a suspect.

And why would she kill this guy in the first place?
Click to expand...

I am not asking this to be difficult, I swear. What are your sources for your statements? If you have believable sources for those 2 statements, I would love to see them.
 
Strawberry said:
No, I don't think so.

Its sad to see the Innocence Project and Errol Morris waste their time with this case. There are real miscarriages of justice they could be worrying about, McDonald is as guilty as sin.
Click to expand...

I think it tarnishes the Innocence Project and other such groups to throw their weight behind such cases. It makes people wonder if other cases with which they have been involved had a guilty accused as well. One can no longer rely on such an innocence group to exhibit good judgment. It becomes a credibility problem.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
I am not asking this to be difficult, I swear. What are your sources for your statements? If you have believable sources for those 2 statements, I would love to see them.
Click to expand...

Here's a good starting point:

http://justicedenied.org/lobato_habeas.pdf

Lobato's supporters have gathered affidavits from multiple people who were prepared to testify at her trial that Lobato described her incident weeks before Bailey was murdered. The judge kept that testimony out of the courtroom on a hearsay objection, even though the entire case against Lobato is hearsay - testimony about incriminating statements she supposedly made. There is:

- no physical evidence
- no witnesses who saw her at or near the crime scene
- no motive

Finally... the victim in this case was a nasty guy with real enemies, but Lobato wasn't one of them. She didn't know him, and no one has ever put forth any evidence that she did.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
I think it tarnishes the Innocence Project and other such groups to throw their weight behind such cases. It makes people wonder if other cases with which they have been involved had a guilty accused as well. One can no longer rely on such an innocence group to exhibit good judgment. It becomes a credibility problem.
Click to expand...
A person can be guilty and still be wrongfully convicted.
 
paiute said:
1. The story in the article designed to be answered by a sociopath is readily answered by anyone who reads mysteries.

2. A Green Beret does not let his family get killed by intruders without dying himself.

3. "Acid is groovy - kill the pigs" ? Come on. That is something that a square Army doctor imagines that hippies would say and is so obviously contrived that it stands pretty much alone as proof of guilt.

4. The whole thing was weirdly echoed in the Chuck Stuart case here in Boston. As soon as I heard that his wife had been killed but himself only shot in the side, I knew what had happened.
Click to expand...

Good post. I recall that as soon as I heard about the ridiculous writing on the wall about acid-is-groovy, I knew what happened. Chuck Stuart too. At least he took himself out before a trial where the family twisted in even more pain.

Darlie Routier. If pure evil exists, it is Darlie. I doubt she will ever make it to death row, but she is where she belongs. Her husband, who divorced her, I find suspect as well. With his kids slashed and stabbed to death he felt it appropriate to tell the paramedic what great boobs his wife has. WHO does that?
 
I think MacDonald and Routier are where they belong, but I am also aware of cases where the bushy-haired stranger turned out to be real. One is the Christine Morton murder. Her husband spent more than two decades in prison, until DNA testing showed that he was innocent and that another man, a compete stranger, broke into the house and killed Christine while Michael was at work.

When Stephanie Crowe was murdered in California, the cops believed an intruder could not possibly have gotten in without waking up the entire household, so they decided it was an inside job and put Stephanie's brother through a hellish interrogation. The murderer turned out to be a paranoid schizophrenic named Richard Tuite.

I'm trying to think if I know of any cases where a real BHS injured someone who then became a suspect... nothing comes to mind, but I'll bet there's a case out there somewhere.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Here's a good starting point:

http://justicedenied.org/lobato_habeas.pdf

Lobato's supporters have gathered affidavits from multiple people who were prepared to testify at her trial that Lobato described her incident weeks before Bailey was murdered. The judge kept that testimony out of the courtroom on a hearsay objection, even though the entire case against Lobato is hearsay - testimony about incriminating statements she supposedly made. There is:

- no physical evidence
- no witnesses who saw her at or near the crime scene
- no motive

Finally... the victim in this case was a nasty guy with real enemies, but Lobato wasn't one of them. She didn't know him, and no one has ever put forth any evidence that she did.
Click to expand...

Nearly every one of those affidavits contradicts the original testimony. That is why reading the 2002 transcripts is so important. Also the 2005 transcripts show how they started backpedaling, especially Dixie. Yes, the most incriminating evidence is Blaise's statements but they are very damning, including lying low with her car because she was afraid it hd been seen at the scene. The enemies that the defense wants you to believe were after the victim turn out to be not all that impressive either. Diane didn't even know the "Mexicans" the defense wants everyone to suspect of the crime. I will take this private so as not to derail the original topic.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Nearly every one of those affidavits contradicts the original testimony. That is why reading the 2002 transcripts is so important. Also the 2005 transcripts show how they started backpedaling, especially Dixie. Yes, the most incriminating evidence is Blaise's statements but they are very damning, including lying low with her car because she was afraid it hd been seen at the scene. The enemies that the defense wants you to believe were after the victim turn out to be not all that impressive either. Diane didn't even know the "Mexicans" the defense wants everyone to suspect of the crime. I will take this private so as not to derail the original topic.
Click to expand...

OK, I just downloaded the transcripts and I'll take a look.
 
junk science

BenBurch said:
You want to see a miscarriage of justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Richey

The fire evidence was laid out on the tarmac where they fueled vehicles, and the evidence they found was traces of gasoline... And the prosecution theory had a man in a cast climbing a trellis that would not support the weight of a man.
Click to expand...

Wiki: "At the original trial, the judges accepted that, 'Other evidence established that the arsonist had used accelerants, including dominant pour patterns in the burning on the wood deck and living room concrete. An accelerant was also found in wood chips from the deck floor. Thus, even if the rug had been wrongfully admitted, other evidence of arson rendered any error harmless.'" and "It was a fast, hot, intense fire because of the accelerant."

Pour patterns and the notion that accelerant causes a fire to burn fast and hot are discredited arson pseudo-science.
 
Here's another tangent: MacDonald's guilt or innocence aside, what do people think of "statement analysis"?

Is it the same thing as "content analysis"?

What do people think of the "statement analysis" here?

(I read something somewhere about this, and this is what I eventually found on Google. If there is a better, more worthy example of such analysis, let's look at that instead.)

I'm a little skeptical of this kind of close reading, but maybe it has more validity than I know. How, where is it used?

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

excerpt:
His Statement

"Let's see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading. And I went to bed about, somewhere around 2:00. 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."

MacDonald does not introduce his wife by name. If you are with a friend and you meet another friend, it would be considered rude if you do not introduce them to each other. The same thing applies when writing. It is impolite not to introduce a character. He introduces his kids but not his wife. This is an indication of tension in their relationship.

He mentions 2:00 but tells us "I really don't know." The word "really" is a word that indicates untruthfulness. It is like saying "honestly" or "truthfully." Deceptive people will try to convince you they are telling the truth. Perhaps he does know what time it was.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom