Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?)

I can predict where this might go.

The prosecution has fit the evidence into a complete and credible narrative. It is summarized in the article at the top of this thread.

MacDonald's supporters will never fit the evidence into competing narrative. Instead, they will seize on unexplained details to support the claim that "something else happened," without ever saying exactly what.

 

[Henri McPhee]

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.

That's completely untrue. There is no evidence that any of the murder weapons came from the MacDonald apartment.

Dr. MacDonald was convicted by a biased jury and judges who were in bed with the prosecution and by prosecutors who had no respect for the Brady material law on the disclosure of evidence to the defense.

Dr MacDonald was cleared by Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 after a thorough investigation and Colonel Rock then suggested Helena Stoeckley should be investigated. That never really happened properly, except for a few cursory questions.

Army CID agent Shaw thought Colette murdered the two little girls and Kearns thought he did it because he was a womanizer. It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to render an opinion about fabric impressions and as Murtagh said in court that Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the threads.

The blood where Dr. MacDonald fell was deliberately left off the charts shown to the jury which swayed at least one juror

Judge Dupree said at a 1985 MacDonald appeal that Helena and Greg Mitchell were probably courting on a bridge somewhere! The MacDonald case needs a competent and just judge.

The crux of the prosecution case is that there was supposed to be no evidence of intruders, except that the were blonde synthetic hair -like fibers at the crime scene which almost certainly came form Helena Stoeckley. There was candle wax which Browning of the Army CID lab did not come from any MacDonald candle, and a world expert in surgical gloves testified that it was "extremely unlikely' that the surgical glove fragment came from a MacDonald surgical glove

There were black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and on her arm, with no known source. Murtagh tried to explain that by saying there are photos of Colette once wearing a black dress which is ludicrously unsatisfactory.

I think the background to this case is that the CIA, and possibly Army CID and FBI ,were drug smuggling through Fort Bragg, and they didn't want the real culprits to talk about the matter in a courtroom.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Just as expected...

 

[JTF]

Alert

Henri is a MacDonald advocate/groupie who has posted on MacDonald case discussion boards for almost a decade. Documented fact does not deter Henri from posting the same debunked claims leveled by the MacDonald camp for the past 42 years.

 

[JTF]

Serial Fabricator

The main goal of MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour is to debunk the notion that MacDonald's story has been consistent in the past 42 years. The documented record clearly demonstrates that MacDonald is a serial fabricator. In Fatal Vision, McGinniss correctly points out that MacDonald has a history of adjusting his story to fit the physical evidence found at the crime scene. Allard Lowenstein said it best when he told Freddy Kassab that MacDonald, "will say anything to anybody."

 

[JTF]

Kiss

This case is frequently described as being overly complex and MacDonald advocates have used this tag to jump all over the map when presenting their arguments for inmate's innocence. The reality is that this case is quite simple. As soon as MacDonald told CID investigators that he took off his pajama top after "finding" Colette on the master bedroom carpet, the ballgame was over. Considering that MacDonald has stated that he doesn't know for sure when the pajama top was torn, let's go with the theory put forth by author/MacDonald advocate Fred Bost that the pajama top was torn as he was removing it from his wrists in the master bedroom. This scenario ends any salient debate about whether MacDonald is guilty of these horrific crimes. Why?

1) Twenty Four pajama fibers were found under Colette's body.

2) One of those fibers was found directly under her head and was protruding from the carpet in pigtail fashion.

3) Twenty Two pajama fibers were found on top of the master bed.

4) Six pajama fibers were found on the master bed pillow.

5) A pajama fiber was found by the headboard of the master bed. The word PIG was written on the headboard in Colette's blood.

6) A bloody pajama fiber was found entwined with a bloody head hair from Colette on a multi-colored bedspread. This bedspread was found bundled with a blue bedsheet near the closet in the master bedroom.

7) A finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in this bundled bedding and it was stained with Colette's blood.

8) Multiple pajama fibers were found on the blue bedsheet.

9) Three bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet. This bedsheet was used to transport Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

10) Two bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to Colette's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet. This bedsheet was used to transport Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

11) Fourteen pajama fibers were found under Kimmie's blankets.

12) A 20.5 inch warp yarn sourced to MacDonald's pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

13) A pajama fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow.

14) Two pajama fibers were found under Kristen's blankets.

15) A bloody pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail.

16) Four Type A blood stains that continued across a tear on MacDonald's pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pajama top before it was torn.

17) Six Type A blood stains found on the face of the pocket of MacDonald's torn pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pocket before it was torn from the garment.

18) The torn pajama top was found on Colette's chest and subsequent analysis determined that the stab wound pattern in Colette's chest matched the pattern of puncture holes in the pajama top.

In addition, all of the puncture holes in the pajama top were perfectly round indicating that the garment was stationary when pierced with the ice pick. The pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Colette testified that her body was stationary when stabbed with the ice pick.

The only viable conclusion that could be drawn from this data is that MacDonald's torn pajama top was resting on Colette's inert body and that she was stabbed through the pajama top with the ice pick.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I fully appreciate that it's annoying when the guilty go free. It's even more annoying when the innocent are convicted. You are assumed to be guilty in America. There is a dangerous court of public opinion there for an innocent person to have to contend with.

It's a serious matter. The consequences of being put on trial for murder or manslaughter can be financial ruin..

There was a similar sort of case to the MacDonald case in America about ten years ago in the Entwistle case, when Entwistle shot his wife and baby daughter for no reason at all. It's just in that case there were two gunshot wounds which make his explanation of a suicide rather difficult to believe. That's not such a difficult murder to detect.

In the MacDonald case Ivory of the Army CID testified at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 that there were never any violent arguments between Colette and Dr. MacDonald and that everybody the Army CID spoke to had the highest opinion of Dr. MacDonald.

I think in that Darlie Routier case that the husband did it and he then pinned it on to his wife. He had been involved in insurance fraud and divorce had been discussed. There is an affidavit on the internet from one of the original Routier case forensic experts, Terry Laber, expressing grave doubts about the forensic evidence in the Routier case.

 

[desertgal]

In the MacDonald case Ivory of the Army CID testified at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 that there were never any violent arguments between Colette and Dr. MacDonald...

How would Ivory have known that? Was he a witness to their marriage 24/7 from the wedding onward?

 

[Henri McPhee]

How would Ivory have known that? Was he a witness to their marriage 24/7 from the wedding onward?

We are talking about EVIDENCE here. Ivory was unable to come up with a single incident of any violent argument in the MacDonald household. He also attempted to find an incident of a MacDonald temper tantrum, but the best he could come up with was some cock-and- bull story that one of of the little girls was supposed to have told the school bus driver that she wished he was her daddy!

You must be guided by the evidence in these sort of cases and follow the evidence. There were numerous character witnesses at the 1979 as to Dr. MacDonald's character, and to what a brilliant doctor he was. The psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff reported that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it but the jury were never told about that because Judge Dupree didn't want a battle of the experts.

A court must take into consideration nothing but but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

All that stuff about pajama fibers and pajama cuff impressions from JTF proves nothing. For one thing there is no evidence that any pajama fibers found at the crime scene came to be there on the night of the murder. Blackburn in his closing argument made a big deal about a footprint which Dr. MacDonald never denied could be his. It proves nothing.

The Army CID tried to imply that Dr. MacDonald was lying because no pajama fibers were supposed to have been found in the living room, but only where he fell unconscious. Dr. MacDonald never did say that the pajama top was torn in the living room. Glisson of the Army CID lab believed there was blood on the pajama top and pocket after it was torn, and not before, as Stombaugh tried to suggest in order to imply a violent argument.

Stombaugh of the FBI was basically an insurance salesman who somehow ended up in the FBI lab. He was never qualified to render an opinion about fabric impressions in this case. The MacDonald forensic expert, Dr. Thornton, testified that Stombaugh's pajama folding experiment was contrived and impossible and conceptually unsound. It was weak supporting evidence, and full of reasonable doubt..

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think in that Darlie Routier case that the husband did it and he then pinned it on to his wife.

Plonk.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

We are talking about EVIDENCE here. Ivory was unable to come up with a single incident of any violent argument in the MacDonald household. He also attempted to find an incident of a MacDonald temper tantrum, but the best he could come up with was some cock-and- bull story that one of of the little girls was supposed to have told the school bus driver that she wished he was her daddy!

You must be guided by the evidence in these sort of cases and follow the evidence. There were numerous character witnesses at the 1979 as to Dr. MacDonald's character, and to what a brilliant doctor he was. The psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff reported that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it but the jury were never told about that because Judge Dupree didn't want a battle of the experts.

A court must take into consideration nothing but but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

All that stuff about pajama fibers and pajama cuff impressions from JTF proves nothing. For one thing there is no evidence that any pajama fibers found at the crime scene came to be there on the night of the murder. Blackburn in his closing argument made a big deal about a footprint which Dr. MacDonald never denied could be his. It proves nothing.

The Army CID tried to imply that Dr. MacDonald was lying because no pajama fibers were supposed to have been found in the living room, but only where he fell unconscious. Dr. MacDonald never did say that the pajama top was torn in the living room. Glisson of the Army CID lab believed there was blood on the pajama top and pocket after it was torn, and not before, as Stombaugh tried to suggest in order to imply a violent argument.

Stombaugh of the FBI was basically an insurance salesman who somehow ended up in the FBI lab. He was never qualified to render an opinion about fabric impressions in this case. The MacDonald forensic expert, Dr. Thornton, testified that Stombaugh's pajama folding experiment was contrived and impossible and conceptually unsound. It was weak supporting evidence, and full of reasonable doubt..

Henri,

The way it works here, on JREF, is you provide official, reliable cites for each of the things you claim. You might want to poke around on the forums and read some of the various threads to see how the debates here work. You can post whatever you want but it will not be taken seriously unless you provide such cites.

 

[Arisia]

Plonk.

Well, at least Neil Entwistle is still guilty.

(I happen to live in the town where that particular tragedy took place.)

 

[desertgal]

We are talking about EVIDENCE here. Ivory was unable to come up with a single incident of any violent argument in the MacDonald household.

Well, your statement was that Ivory testified that there were never any violent arguments between Colette and MacDonald, not that he couldn't find any evidence of any. You should be more careful how you state things.

And...so? I've been married several decades. We've had severe disagreements. Just because no one witnessed them beyond ourselves doesn't mean they didn't happen.

As well, the two people most likely to have witnessed something along those lines died with Colette.

He also attempted to find an incident of a MacDonald temper tantrum, but the best he could come up with was some cock-and- bull story that one of of the little girls was supposed to have told the school bus driver that she wished he was her daddy!

So...Jeffrey MacDonald was a saint who never, ever lost his temper? Unlikely.

You must be guided by the evidence in these sort of cases and follow the evidence.

I have. Fatal Vision provided a fairly sound summation.

There were numerous character witnesses at the 1979 as to Dr. MacDonald's character, and to what a brilliant doctor he was.

Being brilliant doesn't exempt him, or anyone, from being capable of murder. Ted Bundy was brilliant. So was Diane Downs.

The psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff reported that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it but the jury were never told about that because Judge Dupree didn't want a battle of the experts.

Was Dr. Sadoff in the house on Castle Drive the night of the killings?

A court must take into consideration nothing but but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

I see. So if Dr. Sadoff had been allowed to testify that he was fairly certain MacDonald didn't do it, that would've been a fact versus an opinion?

All that stuff about pajama fibers and pajama cuff impressions from JTF proves nothing. For one thing there is no evidence that any pajama fibers found at the crime scene came to be there on the night of the murder. Blackburn in his closing argument made a big deal about a footprint which Dr. MacDonald never denied could be his. It proves nothing.

To whom? Seems like it proved something to the jury.

The Army CID tried to imply that Dr. MacDonald was lying because no pajama fibers were supposed to have been found in the living room, but only where he fell unconscious. Dr. MacDonald never did say that the pajama top was torn in the living room. Glisson of the Army CID lab believed there was blood on the pajama top and pocket after it was torn, and not before, as Stombaugh tried to suggest in order to imply a violent argument.

Now, in respect to Glisson, you say he "believed". Would that be considered fact or opinion? Remember, "experts must not be allowed to give their opinions".

Stombaugh of the FBI was basically an insurance salesman who somehow ended up in the FBI lab. He was never qualified to render an opinion about fabric impressions in this case.

Evidence?

The MacDonald forensic expert, Dr. Thornton, testified that Stombaugh's pajama folding experiment was contrived and impossible and conceptually unsound. It was weak supporting evidence, and full of reasonable doubt..

I'm sorry, was that Dr. Thornton's opinion?

 

[JTF]

Same Old Crap

As I stated in a prior post, Henri has posted his special brand of nonsense for almost a decade. On this thread, he has simply copied and pasted his posts from MacDonald case discussion boards. His postings have not and will not change in content or tone. Henri is a MacDonald advocate and a conspiracy junkie. To Henri, the Government has manufactured their massive case against MacDonald for reasons that only a Ted Gunderson type mindset would understand.

 

[JTF]

Link

IMO, the following article is one of the best articles ever written about this case.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...ate-new-hanover-county-murderer-online-review

 

[desertgal]

As I stated in a prior post, Henri has posted his special brand of nonsense for almost a decade. On this thread, he has simply copied and pasted his posts from MacDonald case discussion boards. His postings have not and will not change in content or tone. Henri is a MacDonald advocate and a conspiracy junkie. To Henri, the Government has manufactured their massive case against MacDonald for reasons that only a Ted Gunderson type mindset would understand.

Ah. I missed that earlier post.

In that case, I withdraw from any further discussion with Henri. Joe McGinniss and your own website make a much more compelling case.

 

[Henri McPhee]

How would Ivory have known that? Was he a witness to their marriage 24/7 from the wedding onward?

I agree with you that Dr. MacDonald and Colette might have had little disagreements, as is usual in any marriage, but there were never violent arguments where the police would have been called, and which could lead to murder. There was some story that a neighbor, Kalin, heard an argument because Dr. MacDonald had purchased a TV set.

This matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 with Army CID agent Shaw:

Q Did they ever have any violent arguments?
A I do not know.
Q There was no indication in your reading of the investigation that there was any particular problem which led to a violent argument or anything?
A Well, they supposedly had arguments, according to neighbors, and sometimes violent arguments, violent in raised voices.
Q Raised voices? When was the last raised-voice argument any neighbor might have heard the MacDonalds having before this night?
A Before that night? I can't give you a specific date.
Q Was it within a week or month or a few months?
A I don't know.
Q With regard to Captain MacDonald's love of his children, was there any indication that you have, other than the alleged statement by a bus driver, that he was anything but a good father and loved his children very deeply?
A On the contrary, everything that I have personally developed or have heard of says that he loved his children very much and was a good provider and was a good father.
Q In general?
A Yes.
Q What possible motive would he have for killing--actually I think Mr. Ivory used Colonel Kriwanek's expression or description of "overkill"--of his two children, brutally beating and stabbing of his two children, what possible motive would he have to do this?
A Of "over killing," or just killing them?
Q Both; killing in that fashion?
A Well, to kill them in that fashion, I would say, and it is an opinion, that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of Captain MacDonald to put more than one killer in the house. In other words, we have four different weapons, which would indicate there were four persons there.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Henri,

The way it works here, on JREF, is you provide official, reliable cites for each of the things you claim. You might want to poke around on the forums and read some of the various threads to see how the debates here work. You can post whatever you want but it will not be taken seriously unless you provide such cites.

The point is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence an expert must be a real expert who is qualified to render an opinion in court, and that his scientific methodology must be scientifically good and correct. Stombaugh was never qualified to pontificate about pajama cuff impressions. His testimony should have been thrown out by a competent and just judge in an excellent court, and Stombaugh should have been withdrawn as a witness.

The pajama folding experiment was fabricated evidence by Stombaugh to somehow 'prove' Dr MacDonald had stabbed Colette through his pajama top. It was not scientifically correct. Even the biased Judge Dupree became tetchy when Murtagh suggested in court that the pajama top could be folded in three different ways to fit the holes.

The matter was discussed at the 1979 trial with MacDonald forensic expert Dr Thornton. This is part of it:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can we say in lay person's terms that she did it differently than the way he described the holes?
A Yes.
Q All right. Hereafter, let's use my terms and then see if that will work better. What, if anything else, did you base your opinion on?
A Hole 36 was originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh as inside-out or an exit hole. In Ms. Green's reconstruction, it is designated as outside-in or an entrance hole. Again, just with respect to that one particular discrepancy, I think that it negates the validity of this reconstruction.

MR. MURTAGH: MOVE TO STRIKE that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. He has testified that the thing was impossible. So, that is just in furtherance of that same answer.
Go ahead.
Isn't that what you say is your opinion?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Any further basis for your opinion in that regard?
A No. I think that is sufficient. With respect to hole number 48, Mr. Stombaugh hasn't designated that as being one way or the other or whether he cannot determine that. So, I can't properly evaluate that particular hole in the pajama top.
But on the basis of the six foregoing discrepancies, I think that this is impossible.

 

[JTF]

Evidence And Behaviors

Not only did the Government present over 1,100 evidentiary items at trial. Not only did the AFIP's DNA tests of 28 exhibits produce 5 inculpatory test results. Not only was no trace evidence of a known intruder suspect found at the crime scene. Jeffrey MacDonald's behaviors cemented his guilt. One only has to read the transcripts of the 4/6/70 CID interview and/or MacDonald's testimony at the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings to see that this guy was/is a sociopath/psychopath. Leave it to a sociopath/psychopath to call their father in-law with a concocted tale of finding and killing a mythical hippie home invader.

 

[Strawberry]

Not only did the Government present over 1,100 evidentiary items at trial. Not only did the AFIP's DNA tests of 28 exhibits produce 5 inculpatory test results. Not only was no trace evidence of a known intruder suspect found at the crime scene. Jeffrey MacDonald's behaviors cemented his guilt. One only has to read the transcripts of the 4/6/70 CID interview and/or MacDonald's testimony at the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings to see that this guy was/is a sociopath/psychopath. Leave it to a sociopath/psychopath to call their father in-law with a concocted tale of finding and killing a mythical hippie home invader.

BBM.

That's interesting too. If he was telling the truth about that - even though I don't believe him - then he's guilty of murder anyway.