• 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.
Intruder Fairy Tale

"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."

AMPULLA: Exactly. None of the DNA exhibits matched the profile or signature of Stoeckley or Mitchell. In addition, the Defense did not request that DNA exemplars from the remaining five members of the Stoeckley group be tested by the AFIP. What does that tell ya?

"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."

AMPULLA: Absolutely. This was a classic domestic rage killing. This is how absurd MacDonald's mythical scenario is...

A minimum of 6 hippie home invaders come unnarmed to the MacDonald residence, MacDonald is the target of this home invasion, the home invaders obtain weapons from an unfamiliar residence, they slaughter a pregnant woman and two small children, yet inflict ONE severe wound to a Green Beret officer with boxing training? Anyone who relies on critical thinking skills laughs at this fairy tale scenario.
 
Exactly. Oh, and just for good measure, the defense investigator who got Helena Stoeckley to "confess" was.....Ted Gunderson. Yes, THAT Ted Gunderson, lolol.

In a world where Ryan Ferguson can be denied a retrial, if MacDonald gets one I really will spit.
 
Thank you for good answers!

The emotional high-point in _Fatal Vision_, for me, is when Kassab starts going over the transcript, day and night. He's obsessed. He's got only one purpose -- to find out what happened. He finds dozens of discrepancies between MacDonald's story and the facts. Later, he and the CID investigators go to the house, still sealed, and they spend several days testing out these discrepancies. It couldn't have happened the way MacDonald says it did.

I have to say, I admire Kassab. Without him, MacDonald would have walked away.

btw, You can use the "multiquote" button when you want to respond to someone's post, but afaic, cutting and pasting as you did was clear enough.
 
JTF said:
A minimum of 6 hippie home invaders come unnarmed to the MacDonald residence...
Click to expand...

I thought MacDonald's claim included three hippie home invaders-two men and a woman? Or was that just how many he "saw" when he was "being attacked" in the living room?
 
JTF said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Great site. Thanks.

MacDonald is as evil as evil can be.
 
Number Of Mythical Home Invaders

"I thought MacDonald's claim included three hippie home invaders-two men and a woman? Or was that just how many he "saw" when he was "being attacked" in the living room?"

DESERTGAL: MacDonald claims that he awoke on the living room couch to Colette screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" One would assume that, at minimum, "they" encompassed two people. If you add MacDonald claiming he was attacked by three armed males and that he saw a female near the dining room, that would make a minimum of 6 home invaders. Ten people in a cramped residence fighting for their lives at three in the morning would have awoken every resident on Castle Drive.

People who lived above the MacDonald's only heard a thump and Jeffrey MacDonad either laughing or crying. In addition, MacDonald told a CID agent that he was attacked by two black males and one white male, but he subsequently told several other individuals that it was two white males and one black male who attacked him in the living room. Even psychopaths can't keep their stories straight.
 
It's a minor issue, but I like to ponder the definition of psychopath.

I'd say MacDonald is a narcissist who snapped and then decided to lie about it for the rest of his life. Whether -- as some of the early psychiatrists said -- this is denial or a hysterical style, or whether he's really a classic Cleckley-Hare psychopath would come down to what?

What distinguishes these two categories -- narcissist vs. psychopath/sociopath?

If he hadn't had three jobs and a 24 hour shift and a nasty spat with his wife, would things have turned out differently?

The more I think about it, the more confusing it gets.

He's glib, charming, has a false front, no remorse. On the other hand, he seems to have been a competent surgeon who people liked.

Which only means that some psychopaths, I suppose, can function ok if they find their niche.

What would Hare say?

Again, morally, how you classify him changes nothing. Or?
 
Last edited:
Sociopath Or Psychopath

CALEB: The two terms that are most frequently used to describe MacDonald are sociopath or psychopath. IMO, MacDonald presented the characteristics of a psychopath during the 4/6/70 CID interview, his appearance on the Dick Cavett show, and during his testimony at the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings. Former NY City homicide detective and true crime author Joseph Wambaugh felt that MacDonald was a psychopath. After meeting with MacDonald to discuss Wambaugh writing a book about his upcoming trial, Wambaugh could not recall ever meeting someone who could present the horrific murders of loved ones in such a glib fashion.
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
CALEB: The two terms that are most frequently used to describe MacDonald are sociopath or psychopath. IMO, MacDonald presented the characteristics of a psychopath during the 4/6/70 CID interview, his appearance on the Dick Cavett show, and during his testimony at the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings. Former NY City homicide detective and true crime author Joseph Wambaugh felt that MacDonald was a psychopath. After meeting with MacDonald to discuss Wambaugh writing a book about his upcoming trial, Wambaugh could not recall ever meeting someone who could present the horrific murders of loved ones in such a glib fashion.
Click to expand...

Yes. MacDonald acted differently than someone who's momentarily dazzled by the spotlight. He really seemed like he was enjoying himself.

But the main thing is the physical evidence.

I have _A Wilderness of Error_ out from the library again. I'm going to be looking for a few things:

1) Does Morris challenge the most solid evidence?

2) Does Morris challenge the factual accuracy of the main points in _Fatal Vision_ (as opposed to irrelevant issues such as whether McGinnis was opportunistic)

3) Does Morris contend that MacDonald was honest in general (as opposed to being a liar, a liar even when he didn't have to be)

4) Does Morris deal with the testimony of the doctors who examined MacDonald at the time? (and the testimony of others) -- who said that MacDonald's injuries were light -- not at all what MacDonald claimed.

There are loose ends and discrepancies, as there always are. But our focus should remain on the big picture. The big picture is the blood evidence, other physical evidence, and MacDonald's honesty or lack of it.

I suspect that Morris will make mountains out of molehills.

We can throw out a lot of the conflicting psychiatric testimony, all of Gunderson, and all of Stoekley. (Unless, of course, there's something solid.)

Sure, MacDonald had his supporters, and he was capable of being a hard-working doctor and a high-achieving person in other ways. But that doesn't go to issues of guilt or innocence.

from a good review on Amazon of Morris' book, by W. Weaver:

In essence, Mr. Morris presents a sterling brief for the defense, but in fact largely ignores the biggest hole in his case - Jeffrey MacDonald himself. The disparity in the injuries between MacDonald and his family, not to mention the implausibility of MacDonald's version of events, is what ultimately condemned him. A pajama top used as a shield to fend off an icepick attack is no more plausible today than it was in 1970. Admittedly, perhaps if Mr. Morris had been on that defense team during the original trial, the outcome might have been different. Because of this, however, if you are looking for a balanced and thoughtful weighing of all the evidence in this case, I would not recommend this book. If you are interested in a picking apart of inconsistencies in the evidence or initial trial, including a thorough trashing of the author Joe McGinniss, and also the MacDonald in-laws, Freddy and Mildred Kassab, then you might enjoy this book.
Click to expand...

eta: Oh, and of course, it's easy to find fault with the psychological theories about psychopaths, and to criticize Cleckley. The whole subject of psychopaths is intellectual quicksand. But the fact remains that there are people who are con-artists and killers who don't have any remorse about it. And that such people are capable of fooling others. Because this is quicksand and much nonsense has been written on the subject, we have to concentrate on the physical evidence.
 
Last edited:
calebprime said:
eta: Oh, and of course, it's easy to find fault with the psychological theories about psychopaths, and to criticize Cleckley. The whole subject of psychopaths is intellectual quicksand. But the fact remains that there are people who are con-artists and killers who don't have any remorse about it. And that such people are capable of fooling others. Because this is quicksand and much nonsense has been written on the subject, we have to concentrate on the physical evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know what psychiatric classification suits MacDonald, but as a criminal, he belongs in a group that includes OJ Simpson, Ed Sherman, Richard Crafts, John List, and Michael Peterson. These guys are all high functioning, and they can come across as very honest and reasonable. List killed his whole family, created a new life for himself and remained free for many years.

They can also be persuasive. Michael Peterson is free today, thanks to his supporters. He may be tried and convicted again, and I hope he is, because I think he killed his wife. He has been around one too many fatal staircase accidents for me to believe in his innocence.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I don't know what psychiatric classification suits MacDonald, but as a criminal, he belongs in a group that includes OJ Simpson, Ed Sherman, Richard Crafts, John List, and Michael Peterson. These guys are all high functioning, and they can come across as very honest and reasonable. List killed his whole family, created a new life for himself and remained free for many years.

They can also be persuasive. Michael Peterson is free today, thanks to his supporters. He may be tried and convicted again, and I hope he is, because I think he killed his wife. He has been around one too many fatal staircase accidents for me to believe in his innocence.
Click to expand...

That's a list of mostly new names that I'll be curious to Google and check out. Thanks for that.

Finished skimming the Morris book for the second time today. He devotes huge amounts of space to Helen Stoekley and other unlikely angles. He doesn't really have much about MacDonald, or the blood evidence (one brief chapter). His book, imo, is badly proportioned, and he doesn't really have a theory of the case that holds up.

I was thinking about the theory of psychopaths because Morris is skeptical of this theory in his book. Everyone who thinks about the subject has to be skeptical, because there's much that we don't know for sure. But that skepticism doesn't change the fact that such people really exist, and their behavior is only revealed over a period of time. They are often quite capable of charming psychiatrists or anyone else in relatively short meetings. Even Robert Hare says that he was fooled, in his time.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
I don't know what psychiatric classification suits MacDonald, but as a criminal, he belongs in a group that includes OJ Simpson, Ed Sherman, Richard Crafts, John List, and Michael Peterson. These guys are all high functioning, and they can come across as very honest and reasonable. List killed his whole family, created a new life for himself and remained free for many years.

They can also be persuasive. Michael Peterson is free today, thanks to his supporters. He may be tried and convicted again, and I hope he is, because I think he killed his wife. He has been around one too many fatal staircase accidents for me to believe in his innocence.
Click to expand...

He definitely will be tried again. He is on house-arrest until his new trial. And I also believe he killed Kathleen.

Jeffrey MacDonald and Michael Peterson are both intelligent people. I believe this plays a part in their ability to be convincing. They say Ted Bundy was also intelligent and he certainly was convincing, as evidenced by his ability to lure his victims. I wonder if there have ever been any convincing killers with average or less-than-average intelligence or if there is some kind of relationship between the ability to successfully persuade others and intelligence.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
He definitely will be tried again. He is on house-arrest until his new trial. And I also believe he killed Kathleen.

Jeffrey MacDonald and Michael Peterson are both intelligent people. I believe this plays a part in their ability to be convincing. They say Ted Bundy was also intelligent and he certainly was convincing, as evidenced by his ability to lure his victims. I wonder if there have ever been any convincing killers with average or less-than-average intelligence or if there is some kind of relationship between the ability to successfully persuade others and intelligence.
Click to expand...

I don't know any. I honestly don't understand why anyone would get behind someone like Michael Peterson, unless he was an old friend. He is a grandiose, self-serving liar who lives beyond his means. Why wouldn't he kill his wife? He's just the type. But his supporters are willing to believe anything except that. They have seriously proposed that Kathleen Peterson fell down the stairs because an owl attacked her, and the owl inflicted the injuries that can't be explained by a fall.

I can't say it's impossible, because I live in a part of the world where owls sometimes attack people, mostly women with pony tails, which they apparently mistake for squirrels. But I don't think they follow people inside a house to attack.

I got a glimpse of this mentality on the Injustice Anywhere forum, where there's a discussion of the Scott Peterson case. His supporters see him as a man of impeccable character, and they are willing to consider any possibility except the obvious.

The ultimate case in this vein has got to be Jack Unterweger, who was imprisoned for a string of rapes and at least one murder. He wrote a book and managed to convince a gaggle of intellectuals and influential people that he had reformed. They petitioned for his release, and as soon as he got out, he started killing women. He even got a job as a consultant for the LAPD, which gave him an opportunity to kill several women in California.

These cases rankle me, because they give innocence projects a bad name, and there are a lot of genuinely innocent people locked up in prison.
 
Ignorance

"Does Morris challenge the most solid evidence?"

CALEB: Nope. He doesn't address a majority of the Government's massive case against MacDonald. This includes fibers from inmate's torn pajama top found under bedcovers, bodies, and his youngest daughter's fingernail. This includes 10 bisected Type A blood stains found on inmate's torn pajama top which indicated that Colette's blood got on inmate's pajama top before it was torn. This includes bloody fabric impressions found on a blue bedsheet used to transport Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. The bloody impressions were of the pajama cuffs from Jeffrey AND Colette MacDonald's pajamas. None of it is mentioned in WOE.

"Does Morris challenge the factual accuracy of the main points in _Fatal Vision_ (as opposed to irrelevant issues such as whether McGinnis was opportunistic)"

CALEB: Nope.

"Does Morris contend that MacDonald was honest in general (as opposed to being a liar, a liar even when he didn't have to be)"

CALEB: Morris' depiction of serial liar Jeffrey MacDonald is complete fantasy.

"Does Morris deal with the testimony of the doctors who examined MacDonald at the time? (and the testimony of others) -- who said that MacDonald's injuries were light -- not at all what MacDonald claimed."

CALEB: Morris ducks and dodges the ominous pieces of testimony by physicians who examined MacDonald at Womack. The fact is that MacDonald's vital signs were normal and he didn't require a single suture to close his superficial wounds.

"I suspect that Morris will make mountains out of molehills."

CALEB: He does more than that. Morris is a journalistic vulture who presented 500 pages of supposition, half-truths, speculation, distortions, and b.s.
 
Last edited:
Morris is a journalistic vulture who presented 500 pages of supposition, half-truths, speculation, distortions, and b.s.
Click to expand...

Its sad to see Morris described that way, because he did play a significant role in freeing a genuinely innocent man from death row with his documentary "The Thin Blue Line."

I'd prefer to think Morris has just been conned.
 
Strawberry said:
Its sad to see Morris described that way, because he did play a significant role in freeing a genuinely innocent man from death row with his documentary "The Thin Blue Line."

I'd prefer to think Morris has just been conned.
Click to expand...

I think artists have a set of talents and obsessions. When those talents and obsessions are connected to the right subject or style, they do good work. When they pick the wrong subject, they do bad work.

(Somewhat parallel: Norman Mailer and Jack Henry Abbott.)

Morris has a talent for being persistent and inventive, and an obsession with being contrarian, at least. The only problem here is that he's chosen the wrong subject.

Also, he's skeptical enough to question whether Cleckley was right, but he doesn't take the next step when he should -- the step where he admits that there are people who act like psychopaths, whatever you choose to call them.

What's distasteful is that he should value reality over the exercise of his talents and obsessions, and he doesn't.

That's the way it seems to me after reading _Fatal Vision_ and skimming Morris' book a couple of times.
 
Last edited:
Turning A Blind Eye

"I think artists have a set of talents and obsessions. When those talents and obsessions are connected to the right subject or style, they do good work. When they pick the wrong subject, they do bad work."

CALEB: I agree. IMO, Morris pulled an Oliver Stone (e.g., JFK film) when constructing his mess of a book.

"Morris has a talent for being persistent and inventive, and an obsession with being contrarian, at least. The only problem here is that he's chosen the wrong subject."

CALEB: He certainly did. Morris has been a believer in MacDonald's innocence for the past 22 years, yet rather than delve into the heart of the evidence which led to MacDonald's conviction, this former private eye turned a blind eye to the concrete data in this case.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Dr Jeffrey MacDonald's story is plausible and consistent with the evidence. It was a horrendous miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to some of MacDonald's claims, with rebuttals.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

(called MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour)

Admittedly, it's anti-MacDonald.

Also, there are one or two items that I disagree with.

But on the whole, it's a source for arguing.

Can you take particular items, or any other particular lines of evidence, and talk about them? (I mean, can you elaborate?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom