Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katy0755 said:
I apologize if this topic has already been discussed; but I would like to comment on Kimmy's injury in the master bedroom. Brian Murtagh states:

“Then, he swings the club. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he was going for the girl. I think he swung at Colette but he missed and cracked Kimmy’s head open like a walnut. She falls and bleeds copiously on the shag rug."

There is no one I respect more than Brian when it comes to the MacDonald case. But after reading the above posts that gruesomely describe the first blow to Kimmy's head, I believe it was intentional. I do agree with Brian that it was Kim's bed-wetting, which triggered the initial rage in MacDonald. I believe that once he had obtained the club, his rage was roaring out of control, and he back-handed Kimmy with the club. My opinion is that the blow was too severe to be unintentional.

As I said, just my opinion!
Click to expand...

I totally agree the injury was too severe to have been unintentional. I see inmate holding the club like a baseball bat; lining up and using Kimmie's little head as a baseball and he swung for the fences.

the severity of the injury is why I am thinking brain serum was in the spatter and/or soaking stain from Kimmie. I KNOW I read it somewhere - just have not had the time to search through all my notes. Also trying to get a clear answer on whether or not composition of the stain could have been determined forensically.......
 
Request Not A Positive For Inmate

In regards to Judge Fox's 4/17/14, request to have a transcript of Part One of the 4/6/70 CID interview with inmate, the following excerpt illustrates why this request doesn't bode well for inmate's chances at a new trial.

SOURCE: Fatal Vision Page 108

TOPIC: 4/6/70 CID Interview

"And so, on this first Monday morning of April 1970, he could not realize that the account he was about to render would stick to him like tar for years afterward, in all its messy, inconvenient detail, despite his many attempts to cleanse himself of it as his understanding of the physical evidence, and its implications, increased."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Closing Arguments

SOURCE: Closing arguments presented by Brian Murtagh at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

The most important question that any investigator ever asked Dr. MacDonald was early on, on April 6th, 1970, when Bob Shaw asked MacDonald, how is it, Doctor, your pajama top is soaked in blood and there's only a little bit of blood on the pocket? So, as happened on several occasions, MacDonald has to invent facts without knowing all the consequences of those inventions.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Hi, Katy:

I'm also a big Murtagh fan, but bear in mind that he (and Michael Malone) wrote the following in a June 1993 Police Chief article:

"Given the other evidence, which establishes that MacDonald's pajama top was torn in the master bedroom and that Colette and Kimberley were struck there with the club, it is entirely consistent that the initial focus of the confrontation was Kimberley. As Kimberley screamed in response to her father's blows, Colette picked up the Geneva Forge knife and attempted to stab MacDonald. In response, MacDonald grabbed the club, and in the fray, struck Kimberley and fractured her skull."

This seems a bit ambiguous to me, since Murtagh first says the "initial focus of the confrontation was Kimberley," then ends by saying she was struck "in the fray." I also note that there's no mention of brain serum in the article, which would have been an ideal thing to mention if it existed (I believe it wasn't mentioned because there's no documentation or confirmation of anyone's brain serum on any door frame or anywhere else), but I guess interpretation of these statements will have to be left up to the reader.
 
My Take

BUNNY: Judging by their statements at the 1979 trial, both James Blackburn and Brian Murtagh believed that the main precipitent for inmate's explosion was Kimmie wetting his side of the master bed. IMO, Murtagh's statement about Kimmie being the initial focus was in reference to this bed wetting incident and the "fray" involved the initial fight between inmate and Colette.

In terms of Murtagh's statement about Kimmie responding to her father's blows, the only logical inference is that inmate was striking Kimmie with an open hand or fist which led to Colette obtaining the Geneva Forge knife. I disagree with Murtagh on this timeline, but his knowledge of the case provides his theory with ample credibility.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Still Waiting

Judge Fox has not yet made a decision on whether inmate deserves a new trial. In the past, Judge Fox has taken 2 years to make decisions on key issues in this case. The evidentiary hearing that dealt with the "evidence as a whole," took place in September of 2012, so his decision will most likely be rendered in the next few months.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Where Have You Gone, Mr. Morris?

In the past 16 months, nary a word has been uttered about this case by Errol Morris. Poor book sales and several articles that were critical of his "research" methods appear to be the impetus for his silence on the MacDonald case. The bottom line is that Morris is a brilliant filmmaker, but a lousy private eye.

Despite his assertions to the contrary, Morris is an advocate for convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald and his book is simply a means to regurgitate the same debunked claims leveled by the MacDonald camp for the past 44 years. The facts are that MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours of murdering his wife and two daughters. At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 evidentiary items and the lone source of key evidentiary items was Jeffrey MacDonald.

This includes blood, fiber, bloody fabric impression, and bloody footprint evidence. Morris fails to mention the fact that there is documented proof that Jimmy Britt lied in his affidavit and that a limb hair found clutched in his wife's hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Morris also fails to mention the fact that no unsourced hairs were found under his youngest child's fingernail at autopsy. What was found under his youngest child's fingernail was a fiber from her father's torn pajama top. This is not a case, but a cause for Morris. I just wish he had the guts to admit it.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Wow, Henri hasn't posted a lame argument since May. Maybe his mom took his computer away. :D
 
Type AB on door frame

Just to clear up references to so-called findings of AB blood on either of the east bedroom door jambs...

When he was questioned by the defense on July 5, 1970, prior to the Article 32 hearing, CID investigator Robert Shaw spoke of Type AB blood on the north and south walls of the hallway, and on "the doorjamb" of the east bedroom:

[SHAW]...Now there was some AB blood, perhaps not large, on the doorjamb.

Q Approximately how high on the doorjamb, if you recall?

A Four to six inches.

Q Four to six inches?

A Yes.

Q Were there any other AB type bloodstains higher on the walls of the hall doorjamb or the east bedroom, in that general vicinity where it might be reasonable to think blood may have spattered from the blow being struck in that vicinity, if it was struck?

A There were either in fact or were indications of AB blood down in [the] hallway on this south wall of the hall, and some other scattered there, some spots of blood, Captain Douthat, without looking at the laboratory report and all of that.
Click to expand...


Actually, although the USACIL lab reports do list Type AB blood on the north hall wall (Exhibit D61), there is no specific finding shown in the lab reports of Type AB blood on either of the east bedroom door jambs. There are only findings on those jambs for "blood" and human blood, with further blood typing precluded due either to the paucity of the stain or the contamination of the stain. It certainly could be expected that Kimberley's blood type could have been on an east bedroom door jamb, but the lab reports don't conclude it definitively.
 
So Long, Dirtbag

The legal phase of the Jeffrey MacDonald case is finally over. On 7/24/14, Judge Fox took names and kicked ass. His decision covers both the "evidence as a whole" AND the merits of the Britt and DNA claims. Judge Fox clearly understood that the burden of proof was "extraordinarily high" and that the defense didn't come close to meeting that burden. The government proved that Britt was a serial fabricator, that the DNA tests were more inculpatory than exculpatory, and that the remaining issues had been litigated several times over.

Anyone who has followed the legal machinations of this case realizes that this was inmate's last REAL shot at a new trial. Yeah, inmate will give his lawyers more money to file an appeal to the 4th Circuit Court, but there is little chance that they will overturn Judge Fox for a 2nd time. The thoroughness of his decision put a stop to the hopes and dreams of Jeffrey MacDonald. He will not pop champagne with Kathryn. He will not practice medicine ever again.

He is a liar, a coward, and a psychopath. Without an ounce of remorse, he took the lives of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. He escaped justice for 9 years, but the truth caught up to him and he will spend the rest of life in prison. Kathryn, Rebel, Errol Morris, Harvey Silverglate, and other believes and/or advocates can no longer ignore documented fact. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming and Judge Fox placed a big, rubber stamp on that evidence.

Cheers to all the hard work put in by investigators, lab technicians, lawyers, and Freddy Kassab. Kudos should also go out to those in the general public who fought the good fight and reminded everyone that this case was about the physical evidence. The evidence was always more important that inmate's looks, personality, and charisma. The evidence made those attributes irrelevant and proved beyond ALL doubt that Jeffrey MacDonald is a mass murderer.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-11e4-b7ce-001a4bcf6878/53d1828967ccf.pdf.pdf
 
I saw the order (also posted at crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald in the New Uploads section). I'm still going through it (bad eyes), but how great to see this last nail in Mac's coffin get hammered in.

I wonder what Mac and Kathryn are thinking today as he sits there rotting away. It'll be interesting to see what's posted on his website, if and when they decide to update it. In the meantime, rah, rah, rah to Judge Fox for his decision; it's been a long wait, but we couldn't have asked for a better outcome.
 
JTF said:
...Yeah, inmate will give his lawyers more money to file an appeal to the 4th Circuit Court, but there is little chance that they will overturn Judge Fox for a 2nd time.
Click to expand...


I note on the last two pages that Fox writes: "Having denied MacDonald’s motion, the court must determine if he has made a sufficient showing to entitle him to a certificate of appealability . . . Here, Macdonald has not made the requisite showing, and therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED."
 
Bunny said:
I note on the last two pages that Fox writes: "Having denied MacDonald’s motion, the court must determine if he has made a sufficient showing to entitle him to a certificate of appealability . . . Here, Macdonald has not made the requisite showing, and therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED."
Click to expand...

I in no way have anything good to say about Dr. M. But does this mean that a judge can determine that his decision CANNOT be appealed? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Is that standard procedure? If you don't like a judge's decision, you have to get his permission to appeal it? What keeps any judge from announcing that any decision can't be appealed?
 
Bob001 said:
I in no way have anything good to say about Dr. M. But does this mean that a judge can determine that his decision CANNOT be appealed? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Is that standard procedure? If you don't like a judge's decision, you have to get his permission to appeal it? What keeps any judge from announcing that any decision can't be appealed?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is what that means. I believe, and I could be wrong (but don't ever tell anyone if I am) it means the judge did not find any violation of the guy's constitutional rights. Since there was no violation of his rights, it cannot be appealed based on that particular thing. It only has to do with a constitutional right being violated.
 
No Hope

In his 2008 decision, Judge Fox came to the same conclusion regarding inmate's right to file a COA, but the 4th Circuit Court disagreed. IMO, the 4th Circuit Court will allow inmate to file a COA, oral arguments will occur late next year, and they will concur with Judge Fox's 7/24/14 decision in 2016.

Inmate will then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and, IMO, they will refuse to hear the case which will bring an OFFICIAL end to the legal phase of the Jeffrey MacDonald case. As I mentioned in my prior post, Judge Fox's decision ended any REAL chance for inmate to receive a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
JTF, I think you are spot on in predicting the next moves of the MacDonald camp. But my question is this: how do they expect to pay for all of this? I don't imagine Gordie will continue on just out of the goodness of his heart (and, IMO, if Mac is as difficult a client as I've heard, Gordie would no doubt love to be done with all of it). I would also imagine that Mac still owes Widenhouse a hefty chunk of change from these last proceedings...

This is just my opinion, but I have a feeling that Perry's trust fund money may be all gone; and Mac's defense fund is also empty due to lack of contributors. So, Mr and Mrs. Inmate...who's going to pay your legal fees?

Any ideas?
 
JTF, I think you are spot on in predicting the next moves of the MacDonald camp. But my question is this: how do they expect to pay for all of this? I don't imagine Gordie will continue on just out of the goodness of his heart (and, IMO, if Mac is as difficult a client as I've heard, Gordie would no doubt love to be done with all of it). I would also imagine that Mac still owes Widenhouse a hefty chunk of change from these last proceedings...

This is just my opinion, but I have a feeling that Perry's trust fund money may be all gone; and Mac's defense fund is also empty due to lack of contributors. So, Mr and Mrs. Inmate...who's going to pay your legal fees?

Any ideas?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom