Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Babbylonian]

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:

The example you provide looks pretty wooish to me in the absence of an extensive sampling of his normal conversational style. I say "I really don't know" all the time because, well, I really don't know.

It gets worse to my eyes pretty quickly:

In an open statement, the subject should only report what he remembers. When a person states that he does not remember something, he is telling us that he remembers that he does not remember! This is a strong indication the subject is withholding information.

Maybe, or the subject knows that the reader would expect him to remember something so he's honestly reporting that he doesn't.

Three is a liar's number. When deceptive people have to come up with a number they will often use the number three. It is not an absolute but an indication of deception.

Blech, blech, awful, blech.

I'm skipping the rest to get back to work but, whatever the truth of the case (I saw the movie when I was a kid but that's the extent of my knowledge), this particular methodology - or at least how it's applied/written here - reeks of BS to me.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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

I'd say it is on a par with "reverse speech" in terms of forensic value.

http://www.reversespeech.com/home.htm

 

[Bob001]

Speaking of gross injustice....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...71ce00-d02c-11e1-b630-190a983a2e0d_story.html

 

[lane99]

Holy Confabulations, Batman

...The only thing I find unfathomable in this case is how anyone can look at the facts and conclude that this man is innocent.

Well, it might become fathomable if you had a better grasp on the facts. For instance, you assert Macdonald was stabbed just once. That's incorrect. For all I know this is not your only misconception. Or perhaps it is.

Macdonald's most rapid detractors claim this is an open and shut case without any room whatsoever for doubt about his guilt. His most smitten supporters profess equal certainty about his innocence. Personally I don't agree with either of those positions.

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...

It was a ridiculous post. Further, either you are suffering from a false memory, or your original certainty was based on misinformation.

If you heard "acid is groovy" was written inside the house, that's wrong. It's what Macdonald claims the alleged intruders SAID. While indeed the word "pig", written in blood, was found in the bedroom.
.
.
.

 

[JTF]

Open And Shut

Those who place emphasis on supposition, half-truths, innuendo, and fantasy give credence to the notion that MacDonald is a tortured innocent. Those who stick to documented fact have a very different take on this case.

1) It took a jury less than 7 hours to convict MacDonald on three counts of murder.

2) At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file.

3) All of the sourced evidence points to MacDonald's guilt. This includes DNA, blood, fibers, hairs, bloody footprints, fabric damage, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions.

4) Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen MacDonald were all overkilled whereas MacDonald suffered one severe wound. That wound was a neat, clean stab wound to the right side of his chest and it was only one centimeter in length. To CID and FBI investigators, this indicated that it was self-inflicted. The rest of his wounds were superficial and required no sutures.

5) There is not a shred of evidence linking a known intruder suspect to the crime scene. No DNA, hair, fibers, and fingerprints from a mythical hippie home invader were found at 544 Castle Drive.

Jeffrey MacDonald is not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilty beyond ALL doubt. In the past 30 years, his ever-dwindling band of advocates has put forth multiple unsubstantiated claims which cannot hold up to the slightest scrutiny. I spoke to MacDonald's latest mouthpiece (e.g., Errol Morris) on the phone in 2011, and he played the con game to the hilt.

When I told him that I assumed he was writing a book proclaiming MacDonald's innocence, he immediately denied that assumption and stated his book would focus on the reasons why this case continues to fascinate the general public. Well, he clearly lied to me and his book turned out to be a complete mess.

As Gene Weingarten points out in his article in the WP, Morris' literary defense brief is manipulative and appeals to those who know little about this case. Morris flat-out ignores a majority of the Government's massive case against MacDonald and relies on the disjointed ramblings of an attention-seeking drug addict.

The only worthwhile book about this case is Fatal Vision. IMO, it is one of the top 5 true crime books ever written. Joe McGinniss wove a compelling narrative about a psychopath who almost got away with murder. Despite 9 years of freedom after he committed these horrific crimes, justice did take hold in the Summer of 1979. MacDonald has spent 31 of the past 33 years in prison. MacDonald is a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath.

 

[kookbreaker]

5) There is not a shred of evidence linking a known intruder suspect to the crime scene. No DNA, hair, fibers, and fingerprints from a mythical hippie home invader were found at 544 Castle Drive.

This is what seals it for me. A group of hippies (chanting stock phrases from Hollywood central casting - no obscure crap like Manson's "Helter Skelter") manage to leave zero evidence whatsoever on the crime scene. I doubt they would take such care as to bring glove to write in blood on the mirror. It just does not add up one bit.

I seem to recall some fuss a few years about a wig hair that was found at the crime scene, the defense made a big thing about that since the aforementioned druggie was fond of wearing wigs. IIRC it turned out to be a doll's hair.

But a group of people, none of them exactly in the 'professional killer' category manages to break in, kill three and wound a third and doesn't so much as leave a stray hair, cut, fingerprint.....nothing.

 

[Bob001]

.....But a group of people, none of them exactly in the 'professional killer' category manages to break in, kill three and wound a third and doesn't so much as leave a stray hair, cut, fingerprint.....nothing.

It's also worth noting, as the Post writer did, that all of the murder weapons -- a knife, an ice pick and a piece of lumber -- belonged to the MacDonalds. The doctor's story is that a gang of crazed psychokillers invaded the home of a Green Beret officer intending to massacre him and his family without bringing any weapons. Pretty hard to swallow.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Those who place emphasis on supposition, half-truths, innuendo, and fantasy give credence to the notion that MacDonald is a tortured innocent. Those who stick to documented fact have a very different take on this case.

1) It took a jury less than 7 hours to convict MacDonald on three counts of murder.

2) At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file.

3) All of the sourced evidence points to MacDonald's guilt. This includes DNA, blood, fibers, hairs, bloody footprints, fabric damage, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions.

4) Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen MacDonald were all overkilled whereas MacDonald suffered one severe wound. That wound was a neat, clean stab wound to the right side of his chest and it was only one centimeter in length. To CID and FBI investigators, this indicated that it was self-inflicted. The rest of his wounds were superficial and required no sutures.

5) There is not a shred of evidence linking a known intruder suspect to the crime scene. No DNA, hair, fibers, and fingerprints from a mythical hippie home invader were found at 544 Castle Drive.

Jeffrey MacDonald is not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilty beyond ALL doubt. In the past 30 years, his ever-dwindling band of advocates has put forth multiple unsubstantiated claims which cannot hold up to the slightest scrutiny. I spoke to MacDonald's latest mouthpiece (e.g., Errol Morris) on the phone in 2011, and he played the con game to the hilt.

When I told him that I assumed he was writing a book proclaiming MacDonald's innocence, he immediately denied that assumption and stated his book would focus on the reasons why this case continues to fascinate the general public. Well, he clearly lied to me and his book turned out to be a complete mess.

As Gene Weingarten points out in his article in the WP, Morris' literary defense brief is manipulative and appeals to those who know little about this case. Morris flat-out ignores a majority of the Government's massive case against MacDonald and relies on the disjointed ramblings of an attention-seeking drug addict.

The only worthwhile book about this case is Fatal Vision. IMO, it is one of the top 5 true crime books ever written. Joe McGinniss wove a compelling narrative about a psychopath who almost got away with murder. Despite 9 years of freedom after he committed these horrific crimes, justice did take hold in the Summer of 1979. MacDonald has spent 31 of the past 33 years in prison. MacDonald is a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath.

What DNA?

 

[Trish Randall]

I watched some of the InSession (formerly Court TV) coverage of the recent MacDonald hearing, then re-watched a Bill Kurtis documentary on the case.

One small detail struck me. MacDonald consistently describes the female as chanting "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs." Having studied poetry writing, the phrases stuck me as odd things to chant. So I tried it, alternating the phrases was very awkward - they don't flow into each other & have entirely different, clashing rhythms. Of the two, "acid is groovy" is slightly, but not very, melodious.

Ampulla of Vater asks, "What DNA"? My understanding is the DNA is from under one of the victim's fingernails & doesn't match anyone in the family. I got this from the InSession blog:


http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/justice/macdonald-murder-case/index.html?iref=allsearch

There was also a piece of dark-colored fiber the defense made much of, saying it didn't match any of the clothing in the apartment. But later, it turned out to be consistent with the fibers in an army dress uniform jacket.

 

[Trish Randall]

Debora Green killed two of her three children when she burned down her own house. She also poisoned her husband and almost killed him. She had no obvious motive, but she had a lot of problems. I can speculate that she might have seen the fire as a way of arming herself with an excuse for why her life was such a mess, and the same might go for Routier.

I'd word it that Debora Green succeeded in killing 2 of her 3 children - but one managed to escape the fire by jumping from the house.

 

[JTF]

Inculpatory DNA

"What DNA?"

AMPULLA: In 2006, the AFIP's DNA test results produced five inculpatory evidentiary exhibits.

1) A bloody head hair matching the DNA profile of Kimberley MacDonald was found in bundled bedding located in the master bedroom.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: Jeffrey MacDonald denies having his pajama top on when "finding" Kimberley dead in her bed. MacDonald also denies touching the bedding that contained Kimberley's bloody head hair. Kimberely's blood was found on her father's torn pajama top and the bedding was used to transport Colette MacDonald from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

2) A bloody head hair matching the DNA profile of Colette MacDonald was found twisted with a bloody blue pajama fiber.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: The source of the bloody fiber was Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top. The twisting of the hair and fiber demonstrates direct contact between Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald.

3) A body hair matching the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald was found on top of Kristen's bed.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: Jeffrey MacDonald denies getting on Kristen's bed when he "found" her.

4) A body hair matching the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald was found in the bundled bedding located in the master bedroom.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: Jeffrey MacDonald denies touching the bundled bedding on 2/17/70.

5) A bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: A splinter from the club was also found in Colette's left hand indicating that the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the club.

 

[JTF]

Forensic Red Herrings

"Ampulla of Vater asks, "What DNA"? My understanding is the DNA is from under one of the victim's fingernails & doesn't match anyone in the family. I got this from the InSession blog"

TRISH: There were three unsourced DNA exhibits in this case.

1) An unsourced body hair was found on top of Kristen's bed.

2) An unsourced pubic hair was found under Colette's body.

3) An unsourced 5mm hair fragment was ALLEGEDLY found under Kristen's fingernail.

COMMENTARY: Where to begin?

- Colette allowed neighbors to use her washer and dryer

- Colette was not sexually assaulted

- The unsourced pubic hair was resting on a shag carpet that the MacDonald's brought with them from a prior residence

- No hairs were found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy

- CID Chemist Dillard Browning analyzed Kristen's fingernail scrapings shortly after her autospy and he found no hairs in these scrapings

- The only piece of trace evidence found in these scrapings was a bloody pajama fiber that was later sourced to Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top

- The LONE source document that mentions a hair fragment behind found under Kristen's fingernail was written 6 months after the murders.

- The chain of custody of Kristen's fingernail scrapings indicates that the inclusion of the hair fragment was the result of lab contamination

- All three unsourced hairs had club roots which indicated that they were naturally shed

- All three hairs had different DNA sequences

- None of the hairs matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

JTF, it sounds like you have the facts of the MacDonald case nailed. What is your connection, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[calebprime]

I've been reading _Fatal Vision_ for a few nights now, and I'm just past the point where Bernie Segal challenges some of the evidence in the first Army (?) trial.

Now, I still think M. did it, but I'm trying to decide if there's reasonable doubt.

My questions goes to anyone, but especially JTF.

We hear that dozens of people tramped through the crime scene, and that they used the phone and the toilets. We hear that the ambulance driver righted a fallen potted plant, and that he or someone else also stole MacDonald's wallet.

Now, at this point, the most compelling solid evidence (to me, not an expert on this case) is the blood evidence, because each member of M.'s family had a different type of blood, so it's easier to tell them apart.

M.'s initial statements don't seem to match what the blood evidence shows.

> Is there any way that all those people walking through there could affect that blood evidence?

> We hear that (?) five CID agents spent several days going through the place, collecting evidence, very soon after the crime. We also hear that no traces of any intruders were found. How could they tell the difference between traces of intruders and all the traces of the personnel who walked through there?

> Morris makes much of the long blonde wig-like fiber found at the scene. But was it too long to be from a doll?

> Do any of these kind of issues amount to reasonable doubt?

> What are the strongest things that the defense had (or has, potentially)?

> Segal tried to create, imo, a sort of false dichotomy in which only someone who was psychotic or verifiably crazy could commit such a crime. I think that such a distinction -- between a complete psychopath -- (or someone who was psychotic) -- and the rest of us -- isn't really necessary. MacDonald need only be young, callous, desensitized to gore, stressed to the breaking point temporarily, and in love with his own image. He doesn't have to be an inhuman monster, but rather, just a real bastard, if you will. This wouldn't be important except that much has been said about this. He had a tough father, a rather domineering mother, and a need to maintain a very high-achieving image of himself: He couldn't be seen to fail at anything. Does trying to understand his motivation -- as McGinniss does -- help determine if he did it? Or is this line of thinking all just rationalization after the fact?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

"What DNA?"

AMPULLA: In 2006, the AFIP's DNA test results produced five inculpatory evidentiary exhibits.

1) A bloody head hair matching the DNA profile of Kimberley MacDonald was found in bundled bedding located in the master bedroom.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: Jeffrey MacDonald denies having his pajama top on when "finding" Kimberley dead in her bed. MacDonald also denies touching the bedding that contained Kimberley's bloody head hair. Kimberely's blood was found on her father's torn pajama top and the bedding was used to transport Colette MacDonald from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

2) A bloody head hair matching the DNA profile of Colette MacDonald was found twisted with a bloody blue pajama fiber.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: The source of the bloody fiber was Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top. The twisting of the hair and fiber demonstrates direct contact between Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald.

3) A body hair matching the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald was found on top of Kristen's bed.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: Jeffrey MacDonald denies getting on Kristen's bed when he "found" her.

4) A body hair matching the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald was found in the bundled bedding located in the master bedroom.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: Jeffrey MacDonald denies touching the bundled bedding on 2/17/70.

5) A bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

INCULPATORY ASPECTS: A splinter from the club was also found in Colette's left hand indicating that the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the club.

Well where the heck have I been? I had no idea DNA tests were ever performed. I believe I am up to speed now though. No DNA matched either Stoeckley or Mitchell, which is who the defense has tried to pin the crime on.

Also interesting is I am in the middle of one of John Douglas' books. In looking at the MacDonald case from the stance of a profiler, clearly it was a rage killing. These types of murders are done by someone close to the victim, not strangers. Collette had been stabbed 37 times and clubbed to death. No stranger did this.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Well where the heck have I been? I had no idea DNA tests were ever performed. I believe I am up to speed now though. No DNA matched either Stoeckley or Mitchell, which is who the defense has tried to pin the crime on.

Also interesting is I am in the middle of one of John Douglas' books. In looking at the MacDonald case from the stance of a profiler, clearly it was a rage killing. These types of murders are done by someone close to the victim, not strangers. Collette had been stabbed 37 times and clubbed to death. No stranger did this.

Does Douglas say that such killings are always or usually committed by someone close to the victim? I don't think that's true. Take a look at this case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8020498.stm

What is generally true, I think, is that this type of overkill is an indication of mental instability.

 

[calebprime]

Does Douglas say that such killings are always or usually committed by someone close to the victim? I don't think that's true. Take a look at this case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8020498.stm

What is generally true, I think, is that this type of overkill is an indication of mental instability.

I was thinking of the last Florida sorority killings of Ted Bundy, but a better example would be the murders of the Shankill Butchers, perhaps. That seemed to be politically motivated with sadism at the core of it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Does Douglas say that such killings are always or usually committed by someone close to the victim? I don't think that's true. Take a look at this case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8020498.stm

What is generally true, I think, is that this type of overkill is an indication of mental instability.

Well, for sure he never states something is "always" a certain way, just usually.

I will have to look back through and see exactly how he phrased the part about overkill. My notes have the following:

Types of Homicides:

• Murder during commission of felony (as in during a burglary)
• Contract killing
• Sexual homicide
• Group-cause homicide (cult and extremist murders, hostage situations, group excitement/spontaneous excitement of the moment
• Personal-cause homicide (acts ensuing from interpersonal aggression

A subcategory of personal-cause homicide is Domestic Homicide which is either:

• Spontaneous
• Staged

In personally-directed attacks one expects to see more obliterating wounds to the face.

"In Sustained-aggression situations, [the injuries are] much more than necessary to cause nearly instant death and it is most common in domestic homicides. It shows deep-seated and often long-standing anger by the offender against the victim and is an attempt to depersonalize the victim. Facial battery indicates an attempt to strip the victim of actual identity and familiar power."

What he states about psychosis and mental instability is in a Disorganized Homicide (as opposed to an Organized Homicide) instability is usually the case of the perpetrator when the "crime is disorganized (as in a frenzy attack) mixed with careful, ritualistic elements indicating a need to control or master small components of the crime scene."

 

[JTF]

Website

"JTF, it sounds like you have the facts of the MacDonald case nailed. What is your connection, if you don't mind my asking?"

CHARLIE: I've researched this case for 27 years and created a MacDonald case website in 2007. I can't provide a link to my website until I've posted 15 or more times. If you want to check out my website, simply Google Justthefacts MacDonald Case.

 

[JTF]

Fact Vs Hype

"We hear that dozens of people tramped through the crime scene, and that they used the phone and the toilets. We hear that the ambulance driver righted a fallen potted plant, and that he or someone else also stole MacDonald's wallet."

CALEB: The dozens of people comment is typical MacDonald camp hype. Lead CID investigator William Ivory testified that the largest number of individuals inside 544 Castle Drive at one time was seven. In terms of the mistakes made at the crime scene, it's important to point out that none of those mistakes occurred in the three bedrooms. It was in those rooms that most of the evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction was collected.

"Now, at this point, the most compelling solid evidence (to me, not an expert on this case) is the blood evidence, because each member of M.'s family had a different type of blood, so it's easier to tell them apart."

CALEB: That was extremely important data, but the pajama fiber evidence was just as compelling. MacDonald claims his pajama top was torn in the living room where he fought with three armed intruders, yet not one fiber from that garment was found in the living room. Eighty-One pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom, nineteen fibers were found in Kimmie's room with fourteen of those fibers found under her bedcovers, and three fibers were found in Kristen's room with one of those fibers found embedded under her fingernail.

"We hear that (?) five CID agents spent several days going through the place, collecting evidence, very soon after the crime."

CALEB: CID crime scene investigators from the Fort Gordon lab spent four days inside 544 Castle Drive.

"We also hear that no traces of any intruders were found. How could they tell the difference between traces of intruders and all the traces of the personnel who walked through there?"

CALEB: No traces of a KNOWN intruder suspect were found at the crime scene.

"Morris makes much of the long blonde wig-like fiber found at the scene. But was it too long to be from a doll?"

CALEB: That is one of the many CLAIMS leveled by Morris in his mess of a book. Morris' book is heavy on speculation and short on documented fact. There were two long saran fibers found in Colette's hairbrush, but...

- The FBI matched one of those two fibers to doll hair from their exemplar collection.

- Neither fiber matched a wig used for human wear in the FBI's exemplar collection.

- The only fiber matching a wig used for human wear was a fiber found in that same hairbrush that matched a fall owned by Colette.

"Do any of these kind of issues amount to reasonable doubt?"

CALEB: Not even close.

"What are the strongest things that the defense had (or has, potentially)?

CALEB: The three unsourced hairs found at the crime scene, but...

- Colette allowed neighbors to use her washer and dryer

- Colette was not sexually assaulted

- The unsourced pubic hair was resting on a shag carpet that the MacDonald's brought with them from a prior residence

- No hairs were found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy

- CID Chemist Dillard Browning analyzed Kristen's fingernail scrapings shortly after her autospy and he found no hairs in these scrapings

- The only piece of trace evidence found in these scrapings was a bloody pajama fiber that was later sourced to Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top

- The LONE source document that mentions a hair fragment behind found under Kristen's fingernail was written 6 months after the murders.

- The chain of custody of Kristen's fingernail scrapings indicates that the inclusion of the hair fragment was the result of lab contamination

- All three unsourced hairs had club roots which indicated that they were naturally shed

- All three hairs had different DNA sequences

- None of the hairs were bloody

- None of the hairs matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect