Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you about Shipman. I know a doctor in Manchester who used to proclaim at family gatherings that he believed Shipman was innocent until the full facts came out. I think he used to correspond with him in prison. There had been other doctors, and others, who had raised suspicions about Shipman in the past with regard to the high number of deaths. It was not really until the obviously forged will of the former lady mayor was discovered by the police that any careful investigation was started.

Mistakes have been made in murder investigations in the past in the UK. I don't want to bore readers with the cases involved but there have been some quite recent cases where men have been released from prison after several years when it was discovered the murderer was somebody quite different. The media hardly mention those cases, possibly to avoid embarrassment.

I still think there are grave doubts in the MacDonald case and in the Ramsey case and Darlie Routier case in America. There are other cases which have never been given much publicity, like the wrongful imprisonment of the father of the little girl Riley Fox where another man's DNA was later discovered on the little murdered girl and he was then imprisoned.

The MacDonald case was a poor investigation with theories without facts and jumping to conclusions. How can the Army CID possibly say there was a rage over bedwetting because Kim was supposed to have wet the bed when they say the urine stain was tested after eighty weeks? It's amateurish.
 
The MacDonald case seems to me to be about as close as you can possibly get to "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

It is always possible to dream up unreasonable doubt, which you seem to have been doing for 17 pages now.

Rolfe.
 
Henri McPhee said:
...I still think there are grave doubts in the MacDonald case and in the Ramsey case...
Click to expand...

Whether they qualify as "grave" is debatable. But it should be obvious to all but the Macdonald equivalent of interminable cut-and-paste polemicists such as "Harry Rag" (seen in the Amanda Knox case) that there is some degree of doubt about Macdonald's guilt. Quite simply there are countless cases for which there is less doubt about the accused's guilt than that which remains in the Macdonald case.

Incidentally, in the Ramsey case, your grave doubts are about what exactly? Because no one's ever been charged, let alone convicted, in the Ramsey girl's murder.
.
.
 
Thirty-Two Years In Prison And Counting

The only doubt about MacDonald's guilt has come from a few 4th Circuit judges, who concluded that the ramblings of an attention-seeking drug addict had some merit. In the opinion of the CID, FBI, DOJ, two District Court judges, and several 4th Circuit judges, there is NO doubt about MacDonald's guilt. IMO, when the Government gets a conviction in less than 7 hours and then proceeds to pitch a 7-0 shutout in the appellate system, any doubt about MacDonald's guilt is not based in reality.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
IMO, I don't trust the opinion of any court implicitly, whether they deliberated for seven hours or seven months. All allegations of a miscarriage of justice deserve to be examined on their merits.

Looked. Guilty as hell.

Next?

Rolfe.
 
I have noticed that it takes a lot (or more likely a complete lack of a lot) to get groups of judges to vote unanimously for or against something. There is often a split of two groups, or a holdout or two on a Civil Rights issue. When they come back unanimous it speaks volumes about the merits.
 
Legal Timeline

Shortly after the conclusion of the 1979 trial, jurors did a poll and the vote was 10-2 to convict. They deliberated for almost 7 hours and decided to convict MacDonald on 3 counts of murder. In 1980, the 4th Circuit Court overturned the verdict by a vote of 2-1. Their vote was based on speedy trial issues, not on the merits of the prosecution's case. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court re-instated MacDonald's conviction by a vote of 6-3.

The same 4th Circuit Court who overturned the trial verdict concurred with the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 3-0. After 18 months of freedom, MacDonald returned to prison and he has remained there for the past 32 years. In the past 30 years, MacDonald has had 8 chances at receiving a new trial and his current legal record is 0-7, with a decision on his 8th attempt to be made in the coming months.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
...
In the past 30 years, MacDonald has had 8 chances at receiving a new trial and his current legal record is 0-7, with a decision on his 8th attempt to be made in the coming months.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

Just curious, what issues would he raise in an eighth attempt? As I understand it (as a non-lawyer), a new appeal has to raise issues that have not been previously considered. Does MacDonald think he's got something new? Or is my understanding incorrect?

Also, who's paying for MacDonald's decades of litigation? Does he have a defense fund? Are there really people who take his story so seriously that they are giving him money?
 
Rolfe said:
This is a weird thread. A number of people have come into it, had a look at the evidence, and I don't think a single one has ended up with any serious doubt that MacDonald was as guilty as hell.

I've met cases where obviously innocent people have been convicted. I've met cases where people with no credible evidence against them have been convicted. I've met cases where people were convicted on evidence that really wasn't convincing. I've come across people declaring that although they believe the accused actually did it, the conviction shouldn't have been brought because the evidence wasn't beyond reasonable doubt. We can have interesting discussions about all of these.

Here we have someone who was obviously guilty as hell, and there's one poster - count him, just one - breathlessly asserting the complete and total innocence of his hero "Dr. MacDonald". I'm not quite sure why anyone is bothering with this.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


I agree. I liked Fatal Vision and reading that and more about the case it's obvious MacDonald is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

What the one poster disputing that here is trying to accomplish is a good question. He does not appear to be doing a very good job changing anyone's mind.
 
kookbreaker said:
I have noticed that it takes a lot (or more likely a complete lack of a lot) to get groups of judges to vote unanimously for or against something. There is often a split of two groups, or a holdout or two on a Civil Rights issue. When they come back unanimous it speaks volumes about the merits.
Click to expand...


Unless they've done some sort of horse-trading deal behind the scenes so as to present a united front, of course.

Even without that, it's not even that unusual for a group of people discussing the same circumstances to make the same flawed leaps of reasoning, or to be influenced by one or two dominant personalities.

Rolfe.
 
Several Chances

Althought they've had their collective asses kicked at several evidentiary hearings, MacDonald's lawyers have done a good job of getting him back into court.

1980 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief due to speedy trial issues.

1982 Defense argues before the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's decision to grant MacDonald relief should be upheld.

1982 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief due to speedy trial issues.

1984 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on 7 pieces of "new" evidence.

1989 Defense argues before District Court Judge Franklin Dupree that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on unsourced fiber evidence not known to the Defense at trial.

1992 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on unsourced fiber evidence not known to the Defense at trial.

1995 Defense argues before District Court Judge James Fox that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on evidence allegedly hidden from the Defense by the Government.

2006 Defense argues before District Court Judge James Fox that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on DNA test results and information contained in the affidavits of Jimmy Britt.

2011 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on the "evidence as a whole."

2012 Defense argues before District Court Judge James Fox that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on the "evidence as a whole." This includes previously litigated evidentiary arguments.

From 1970-1983, MacDonald's legal team consisted of a core group led by Bernie Segal and Wade Smith. Once MacDonald returned to prison, however, he went through several legal teams. MacDonald paid out of pocket for his legal fees from 1970-1988. From 1989-2011, MacDonald's legal representation was pro bono with the accompanying legal fees being taken care of by his defense fund. In 2012, he hired Gordon Widenhouse to represent him and MacDonald used his mother's trust fund to pay for Widenhouse's legal services.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
lane99 said:
Incidentally, in the Ramsey case, your grave doubts are about what exactly? Because no one's ever been charged, let alone convicted, in the Ramsey girl's murder.
.
.
Click to expand...

In the Ramsey case practically all the public forums are biased against the Ramseys. Most have them have the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory idea that Burke did it. It was really only because of the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, who always used to say quite rightly that you don't prosecute unless you have enough evidence, and his suspicions of Fleet White, that no Ramsey was ever imprisoned. The Ramseys could also afford first-class lawyers. There was no such DA in the MacDonald case.

Most of MacDonald's lawyers have been working pro bono in the past, or working for nothing in plain English. His previous lawyers did some excellent legal work in obtaining the 2012 Evidentiary Hearing, mainly I think because of this 'evidence as a whole' court ruling from somewhere which seemed to have swayed the Fourth Circuit judges.

Those previous lawyers then seemed to have resigned from the case, perhaps for financial reasons, and it looked for a time as though the 2012 Evidentiary Hearing would be in the hands of a public defender lawyer, who might not have been a first-class lawyer.

Then somehow Widenhouse became the new MacDonald lawyer. He seems to be financed by the MacDonald Defense fund. He is supposed to be an expert at appeals but I am not sure what he can do because Judge Fox is biased, and Judge Fox uses the law's delay and a rubber stamp for Murtagh to keep MacDonald in prison.

It looks as though finance was provided by somebody because Judge Fox made a ruling, which is on the internet on Christina's site, that such finance would be confidential. I believe payments to the MacDonald Defense Fund can be legally tax deductible.

I have often thought that private detectives should be employed by the MacDonald lawyers for the careful investigation of the real culprits, since the police and Army CID and FBI are too lazy and incompetent to do it themselves.

MacDonald did finance detectives like Gunderson and Detective Beasley and Shedlick when he was first imprisoned, but he ran out of money before those detectives could take the next logical steps, and then ask questions and information received and gossip and digging up of facts of the real culprits. I agree MacDonald should have done that before he was convicted, but he probably didn't then want the endless expense and anxiety of it all.
 
Henri McPhee said:
In the Ramsey case practically all the public forums are biased against the Ramseys. Most have them have the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory idea that Burke did it. It was really only because of the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, who always used to say quite rightly that you don't prosecute unless you have enough evidence, and his suspicions of Fleet White, that no Ramsey was ever imprisoned. The Ramseys could also afford first-class lawyers. There was no such DA in the MacDonald case.
Click to expand...

Actually, no Ramsey was ever imprisoned because no Ramsey was ever charged and convicted of the murder.

Where are these multiple forums whose members are convinced Burke Ramsey did it? Would it be possible for you to actually substantiate anything you say beyond "I read it on the Internet somewhere."
 
It seems that the murder of one's family including small children by the father is a rare event and usually the perpetrator is caught immediately because they are some form or crazy.

Assuming the above is true this makes the MacDonald case something of an anomaly. Has there ever been evidence put forth as to possible MacDonald motives? It seems like somebody suggested above that MacDonald might have been crazed because he took some kind of drug? Did MacDonald have a mistress? Outside of the murder, has there ever been evidence put forth for any kind of violent behavior by MacDonald?

I asked a question above about how intruders could even be plausibly suggested as possible murderers if there wasn't some kind of footprint evidence of their presence in the blood on the floor. How much blood was on the floor and were there any indications that unidentified footprints in that blood were inconsistent with MacDonald footprints?
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
In the Ramsey case practically all the public forums are biased against the Ramseys...
Click to expand...

I see. You meant you have doubts that the Ramseys deserve the vilification they have received over the years. Ok, I agree with you on that.

I was confused because the Ramseys were officially cleared of being suspects a few years ago. So I wondered if you meant that you had "grave doubts" about their innocence.
.
.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
It seems that the murder of one's family including small children by the father is a rare event and usually the perpetrator is caught immediately because they are some form or crazy.

Assuming the above is true this makes the MacDonald case something of an anomaly. Has there ever been evidence put forth as to possible MacDonald motives? It seems like somebody suggested above that MacDonald might have been crazed because he took some kind of drug? Did MacDonald have a mistress? Outside of the murder, has there ever been evidence put forth for any kind of violent behavior by MacDonald?

I asked a question above about how intruders could even be plausibly suggested as possible murderers if there wasn't some kind of footprint evidence of their presence in the blood on the floor. How much blood was on the floor and were there any indications that unidentified footprints in that blood were inconsistent with MacDonald footprints?
Click to expand...

(from memory, so excuse any inaccuracies):

There's a lot of evidence, which is gone over pretty meticulously in 'Fatal Vision', but no motive was ever established. MacDonald had a bunch of mistresses, but didn't seem to think it was wrong. He was taking amphetamines for weight-loss at the time and had likely been up for an inordinately long period of time as he worked multiple jobs; however, there's no proof that he experienced some sort of amphetamine rage. His wife had just returned from a class in child psychology that evening, and there is evidence that one of the daughters had wet the bed (not her own; the master bed, on MacDonald's side) and also evidence that the same child was grievously injured in the bedroom. There is evidence that Collette (wife) was struck in the bedroom (blood, both hers and small amounts of his, particularly on the pajama top) but she bled copiously in the younger daughter's bedroom, and yet somehow ended up back in the master bedroom. Her blood and pajama cuff imprints were found on a sheet, along with bloody cuff imprints from MacDonald's pajama top.

There's tons of other blood evidence. There was a lot of blood in the house in various places including each child's bedroom and the master bedroom. A unique thing about the case is, each member of the MacDonald household had a different type blood. This makes it possible to differentiate blood fairly easily and track the movements of each person throughout the house. No blood from anyone else, or footprints or any other personal evidence, was ever found. To me, the blood evidence, when broken down step by step, was extremely compelling.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the case to me is, blood evidence indicates that the youngest daughter was being held while she was stabbed to death. Besides the blood around her in the bed, her blood was found in a pool next to and down the side of the bed, a location indicating that she was likely sitting on someone's lap when she bled like that. And she had defensive wounds on her hands; she fought. She was two.
 
Motives And Bloody Prints

As I mentioned in a prior post, there were three bloody bare footprints found exiting Kristen's room. One of the bloody prints matched the left foot exemplar of Jeffrey MacDonald. Blood stains and bloody fabric impressions found on a blue bedsheet demonstrated that someone wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's torn blue pajama top carried Colette out of Kristen's room in that blue bedsheet.

The FBI's theory was that as MacDonald wrapped his wife's body in the blue bedsheet, he either stepped on his wife's bloody body or on a portion of the bloody bedsheet. As he was carrying his wife's body in a cradle position in the bedsheet, he formed 3 footprints in his wife's blood as he exited Kristen's room.

It defies all reason to believe that a band of drug-crazed hippies could avoid leaving bloody shoeprints at the crime scene. In terms of a motive in this case, this was the least significant aspect of the prosecution's case. They focused exclusively on the mass of physical evidence linking MacDonald to these murders. There were several possible motives for this crime.

- MacDonald had at least 8 affairs and the CID was convinced that the more accurate figure was 15.

- In addition to his Army duties, MacDonald was working 2 jobs and seeking a 3rd moonlighting job. Friends and acquaintances commented to the CID that MacDonald seemed exhausted during that time period.

- MacDonald admitted in his diary that he may have ingested amphetamines for weight loss in the weeks leading up to the murders.

- Colette told her sister in-law that she was aware of her husband's cheating ways.

- Despite the fact that Colette experienced severe medical complications when giving birth to her two children, MacDonald was planning on being with his former girlfriend when Colette was expected to deliver their third child. MacDonald's ruse was that he was going to be in Russia to serve as the staff physician for the Fort Bragg boxing team.

- Despite his claim that Kristen had wet his side of the master bed, serology reports demonstrated that the source of the urine stain was Kimberley. Blood evidence proved that Kimberley was hit with the club in the master bedroom and then carried in a blue bedsheet back to her bedroom.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
I realize I am repeating this question but what is it that the pro-innocence side is hanging their hat on here. If there is blood all over the place how is it possible that there were intruders at the murder scene that left no footprints in the blood?

It seems like I must not understand something here.
 
desertgal said:
Where are these multiple forums whose members are convinced Burke Ramsey did it? Would it be possible for you to actually substantiate anything you say beyond "I read it on the Internet somewhere."
Click to expand...

There are several biased anti-Ramsey forums on the internet like Forums for Justice and Websleuths and Topix.net JonBenet Ramsey forum, and even Crimeshots. There used to be a pro-Ramsey forum, Jameson's forum, but that is now defunct. There is one pro-Ramsey private forum.

The blood trail and footprints and pajama-like fibers in the MacDonald case do not prove MacDonald did it. Not all the witnesses who know exactly what happened and who have knowledge in relation to the crime are dead.

I know the victims had different blood types but that was mainly used by the prosecution to manufacture a theory that bodies had supposedly been carried in a sheet put forward by the purported expert FBI hair and fiber man and former insurance salesman Stombaugh.

There were never rivers of blood anyway which you would know if you had a thorough grasp of the subject and were acquainted with the whole business of the MacDonald case. To say there must have been footprints of intruders is a silly remark. How many murder cases do you know about where the footprint of the murderer was found at a crime scene? When visitors or other people visit your home they very rarely leave any footprints. It isn't a very clever criminal who leaves any of his blood or fingerprints behind.

About thirty people had tramped across the crime scene in the MacDonald case before there was any analysis of the blood evidence. There was no protection of the crime scene or crime scene manager. That was contamination.

The Army CID must learn how to elicit information from potential suspects and not just to jump to conclusions. They are not professional homicide detectives.
 
Lone Explanation

MacDonald advocates hang their hats on the CLAIM that the CID contaminated the crime scene to the point where "crucial" evidence of MacDonald's innocence was altered or destroyed. Lead CID investigator Peter Kearns scoffed at this CLAIM, stating that there was no concrete evidence that the actions of Army MP's and/or CID investigators altered any of the blood and fiber evidence that linked MacDonald to these murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom