Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

The result of this detachment of the mass of the people from the administration of the law is that there is no healthy public opinion to prevent the existence of abuses.The Press is not much help. Very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and, unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part.

 

[byn63]

The result of this detachment of the mass of the people from the administration of the law is that there is no healthy public opinion to prevent the existence of abuses.The Press is not much help. Very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and, unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part.

You have agreed with us! The newspaper & magazine reports & 'investigative' television shows that have recently been published in re: this case are FULL of inaccuracies. The books WOE and FJ are also full of misrepresentations, cut and paste presentation, revisionist history and outright lies. For example, we have found on average at least 1 error for every 5 pages in FJ. In comparison the book Fatal Vision has had NO SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS FOUND since its publication. Sadly the defense doesn't care if they are telling untruths......

as for the word in italics - I am going to be a grammar nazi here....it should read "The most common mistake....."

 

[BStrong]

The result of this detachment of the mass of the people from the administration of the law is that there is no healthy public opinion to prevent the existence of abuses.The Press is not much help. Very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and, unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part.

Unless you agree with the writers POV, right?

Man, the irony here is thick. Do you understand what credibility is and why the credibility of a witness is important? Do you understand why citing a witness who has been determined to be without credibility kills any argument made with the testimony of the non-credible source?

 

[desmirelle]

The result of this detachment of the mass of the people from the administration of the law is that there is no healthy public opinion to prevent the existence of abuses.The Press is not much help. Very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and, unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part.

Try doing what I did: READ THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS.

 

[byn63]

after reading BStrong's message I recalled a movie (based on facts) where a teacher kept saying to a special needs student "you know how to...." until she suddenly realized the child didn't know how to.....So, perhaps henri doesn't know what credible or credibility means. Therefore henri:

credible: adjective {from the latin "credere" meaning to believe.} (1) Capable of being believedLAUSIBLE. (2) deserving confidence. credibility noun

As BStrong has mentioned previously, Ted Gunderson does not qualify and neither do anonymous internet sources.

 

[Henri McPhee]

after reading BStrong's message I recalled a movie (based on facts) where a teacher kept saying to a special needs student "you know how to...." until she suddenly realized the child didn't know how to.....So, perhaps henri doesn't know what credible or credibility means. Therefore henri:

credible: adjective {from the latin "credere" meaning to believe.} (1) Capable of being believedLAUSIBLE. (2) deserving confidence. credibility noun

As BStrong has mentioned previously, Ted Gunderson does not qualify and neither do anonymous internet sources.

That's a load of bollocks. I have read the trial transcripts, and unlike the jury the Article 32 transcripts, and it doesn't inspire confidence in American justice. The MacDonald case is a notorious miscarriage of justice.

I speak only as to the facts in the MacDonald case, not to speculation, or hysterical and emotional wild speculation about how cruel and arrogant MacDonald was supposed to have been to have supposed to have murdered his wife and kids and unborn baby.

Part of the trouble is that moderators on these forums only want short opinions and twitters and soundbites. If you start quoting facts, or internet sources, then it is far too complicated for them, and you tend to get a rule infringement and warning.

When Gunderson and Detective Beasley said that Mazerolle never appeared in court to be sentenced until a year after he was arrested, and that Mazerolle jumped bail then that's a FACT. It was never an iron-clad alibi as the popular journals always make out.

JTF's theory without facts is basically the Stombaugh of the FBI theory that Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the threads. That isn't EVIDENCE. That's just an opinion. It ain't necessarily so. In theory a court case is supposed to elicit the TRUTH, not for the prosecution lawyers to indulge in Brady violations, and to mislead a jury with lies and manufactured evidence, and withholding exculpatory evidence with a biased trial judge and jury. It's a serious matter when innocent people are wrongfully convicted.

 

[BStrong]

That's a load of bollocks. I have read the trial transcripts, and unlike the jury the Article 32 transcripts, and it doesn't inspire confidence in American justice. The MacDonald case is a notorious miscarriage of justice.

I speak only as to the facts in the MacDonald case, not to speculation, or hysterical and emotional wild speculation about how cruel and arrogant MacDonald was supposed to have been to have supposed to have murdered his wife and kids and unborn baby.

Part of the trouble is that moderators on these forums only want short opinions and twitters and soundbites. If you start quoting facts, or internet sources, then it is far too complicated for them, and you tend to get a rule infringement and warning.

When Gunderson and Detective Beasley said that Mazerolle never appeared in court to be sentenced until a year after he was arrested, and that Mazerolle jumped bail then that's a FACT. It was never an iron-clad alibi as the popular journals always make out.

JTF's theory without facts is basically the Stombaugh of the FBI theory that Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the threads. That isn't EVIDENCE. That's just an opinion. It ain't necessarily so. In theory a court case is supposed to elicit the TRUTH, not for the prosecution lawyers to indulge in Brady violations, and to mislead a jury with lies and manufactured evidence, and withholding exculpatory evidence with a biased trial judge and jury. It's a serious matter when innocent people are wrongfully convicted.

When you demonstrate you understand the difference between assertion and fact please let us know.

I believe byn63 hit the nail on the head.

You do not understand the meaning of the word "credibility" or what the importance of credibility is in determining the veracity of evidence or testimony.

ETA: If I understand correctly you've been PNG'd from different websites for your particular style of posting.

At what point will you comprehend that the problem is you and not everyone else in the world?

 

[byn63]

That's a load of bollocks. I have read the trial transcripts, and unlike the jury the Article 32 transcripts, and it doesn't inspire confidence in American justice. The MacDonald case is a notorious miscarriage of justice.

First of all, what does this have to do with my providing you with the definition of credibility? Second of all, it isn't BS of any sort IT IS FACT. The Article 32 transcripts have no bearing on the trial, that was held under the USMCJ. I find myself irritated with the justice system MAINLY because they keep giving this murdering narcissistic sociopathic bastard additional bites of the apple at tax payer expense. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming. He has been fairly and justly convicted.

I speak only as to the facts in the MacDonald case, not to speculation, or hysterical and emotional wild speculation about how cruel and arrogant MacDonald was supposed to have been to have supposed to have murdered his wife and kids and unborn baby.

No henri, you DO NOT discuss FACTS at all. you post inane, ignorant, and/or disproven suppositions. you make bigoted comments about people (posters and participants in the case alike) You support a known murderer and refuse to look at certifiable, verifiable, documented FACTS but post anonymous, unsupported, non-documented, untrue and often specious allegations.

Part of the trouble is that moderators on these forums only want short opinions and twitters and soundbites. If you start quoting facts, or internet sources, then it is far too complicated for them, and you tend to get a rule infringement and warning.

the moderators on this board have allowed you to post your bigotted, sexist, racist and slanderous/libelous comments. So why are you mad at them? The posters here ARE NOT going to accept your nonsense unchallenged. FACTS henri.

When Gunderson

Ted Gunderson IS NOT CREDIBLE. I provided you with the definition of that term. THIS IS A FACT.

and Detective Beasley said that Mazerolle never appeared in court to be sentenced until a year after he was arrested, and that Mazerolle jumped bail then that's a FACT. It was never an iron-clad alibi as the popular journals always make out.

First henri, whether or not Allen Mazerolle ever went to court on the case for which HE WAS IN JAIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS is irrelevant. Second, he would not have been required to appear at court to be SENTENCED until/unless he was convicted. HE WAS IN JAIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT REPEAT COULD NOT REPEAT AGAIN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. This henri is a FACT. it has nothing to do with whether he went to his court dates or jumped bail. He could not have jumped bail BEFORE HE HAD BEEN BAILED OUT. HE WAS NOT BAILED OUT UNTIL MARCH 10 ALMOST A MONTH AFTER THE MURDERS. PERIOD. THIS IS A FACT. Everyone in the world seems to get that but you. FACT FACT FACT....

JTF's theory without facts is basically the Stombaugh of the FBI theory that Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the threads. That isn't EVIDENCE. That's just an opinion.

It isn't JTF's theory - STOMBAUGH was an expert who testified in court. The jury heard Stombaugh's theories/explanations. The jury also heard the defense experts. During deliberations the jury accepted STOMBAUGH's testimony as FACTS. It is that simple. The problem is that you seem to want to opine about the subject. Too late henri, inmate was tried and convicted in 1979. Stombaugh's testimony can not be changed.

In theory a court case is supposed to elicit the TRUTH, not for the prosecution lawyers to indulge in Brady violations, and to mislead a jury with lies and manufactured evidence, and withholding exculpatory evidence with a biased trial judge and jury. It's a serious matter when innocent people are wrongfully convicted.

Yes, the TRUTH is what is sought in any trial. The truth is that this trial did FIND THE TRUTH. There were no Brady violations in this case, there was no evidence withheld at all. These issues are res judicata henri. they've been heard and decided by the highest courts in the land. The prosecution didn't manufacture evidence. IN FACT, the prosecution only used about 60% of the available inculpatory evidence at trial. ALSO the case against inmate is even stronger now, because the DNA evidence is not at all helpful to inmate. You see henri, the mystery hair that inmate and his various lawyers and supporters all said would prove to be from the murderer is a 100% DNA match to inmate. Judge Dupree was not biased against inmate either.

As for the jury - Bernie Segal hired a specialist to get the best jury possible. The jury was not biased against inmate. in fact, I've read quotes from several of the jurors who stated they tried and tried to find something, anything, that would show inmate had not done the brutal slayings. The FACTS did not support a not guilty verdict. INMATE IS GUILTY. The evidence shows it, not anonymous internet sources or even the ridiculous slanted/biased/inaccurate books FJ or WOE either. The FACTS are that inmate wanted to live a swinging batchalor lifestyle and set about ridding himself of the impediments to such a life.......he thought he was smart enough to stage the scene and be believable.....he was WRONG. That is why he was convicted.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Yes, the TRUTH is what is sought in any trial. The truth is that this trial did FIND THE TRUTH. There were no Brady violations in this case, there was no evidence withheld at all. These issues are res judicata henri. they've been heard and decided by the highest courts in the land. The prosecution didn't manufacture evidence. IN FACT, the prosecution only used about 60% of the available inculpatory evidence at trial. ALSO the case against inmate is even stronger now, because the DNA evidence is not at all helpful to inmate. You see henri, the mystery hair that inmate and his various lawyers and supporters all said would prove to be from the murderer is a 100% DNA match to inmate. Judge Dupree was not biased against inmate either.

As for the jury - Bernie Segal hired a specialist to get the best jury possible. The jury was not biased against inmate. in fact, I've read quotes from several of the jurors who stated they tried and tried to find something, anything, that would show inmate had not done the brutal slayings. The FACTS did not support a not guilty verdict. INMATE IS GUILTY. The evidence shows it, not anonymous internet sources or even the ridiculous slanted/biased/inaccurate books FJ or WOE either. The FACTS are that inmate wanted to live a swinging batchalor lifestyle and set about ridding himself of the impediments to such a life.......he thought he was smart enough to stage the scene and be believable.....he was WRONG. That is why he was convicted.

The foreman of the jury was definitely biased and this has been proved. He was overheard by three different witness saying he was going to convict the hell out of Jeff MacDonald before the trial even started. The criminal trial judge was also biased, and the prosecution lawyers were dishonest, and the lab technicians made it up and tampered with the hair evidence. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 was fair and just.

The matter of the Brady violations, which Byn categoricllay denies ever happened, is discussed at this website by former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate:

https://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=2841&terms=harvey+silverglate For some reason it now does not link directly, but you can find the Silverglate article if you click on to the search area.

One of the questions Murtagh asked Puretz to address in the memo particularly struck my interest and provoked my skepticism:

Need the detailed data of a lab report, as distinguished from the conclusions of the report, be disclosed, where such conclusions have been disclosed and are nonexculpatory?

Why in the world, I asked myself, would a prosecutor bother having research done on such a question? If “the conclusions of the report” were not exculpatory and were disclosed, why would a prosecutor hesitate to simply turn over to defense counsel “the detailed data” underlying the nonexculpatory conclusions? I knew that Murtagh had refused to turn over lab bench notes to the defense, insisting instead that MacDonald’s lawyers make do with the finalized, typewritten lab reports. Could it be, I wondered, that there was something in the detailed data in the expert’s cache of evidence or in the expert’s bench notes made during the testing process that undermined the nonexculpatory conclusions in the report? This is how we stated it in our brief to the district court upon the filing of our October 1990 motion for a new trial: These questions became “particularly pregnant” once we discovered as a result of the Murphy FOIA expedition that “there were highly exculpatory laboratory bench notes (the ‘detailed data’) that were not reflected in the conclusory, typewritten, final reports.”

And then the prosecutor asked Puretz to answer still more questions that tweaked my interest: “What are the ramifications of an open-file policy of disclosure by the prosecutor?” and, further, “At what point in time must exculpatory materials be disclosed to the defense in a criminal proceeding?”One of the questions Murtagh asked Puretz to address in the memo particularly struck my interest and provoked my skepticism:

Need the detailed data of a lab report, as distinguished from the conclusions of the report, be disclosed, where such conclusions have been disclosed and are nonexculpatory?

 

[BStrong]

The foreman of the jury was definitely biased and this has been proved. He was overheard by three different witness saying he was going to convict the hell out of Jeff MacDonald before the trial even started. The criminal trial judge was also biased, and the prosecution lawyers were dishonest, and the lab technicians made it up and tampered with the hair evidence. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 was fair and just.

The matter of the Brady violations, which Byn categoricllay denies ever happened, is discussed at this website by former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate:

https://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=2941

Hearsay isn't generally accepted as evidence, and even if it was in this case the credibility of the witnesses would need to be determined.

Silvergate's opinion doesn't equal proof that the prosecutors violated Brady.

 

[byn63]

The foreman of the jury was definitely biased and this has been proved. He was overheard by three different witness saying he was going to convict the hell out of Jeff MacDonald before the trial even started.

No actually, this inane and inaccurate statement has been proven to be wrong. The jury foreman, could NOT have KNOWN he was going to be on the jury at trial BEFORE the trial started. Voir Dire and the seating of the jury is the beginning OF TRIAL. These alleged witnesses LIED.

The criminal trial judge was also biased, and the prosecution lawyers were dishonest,

No Judge Dupree was a fair and just Jurist. IF he'd been biased as you claim the case would have been overturned years and years ago. Judge Dupree was not found to have made any reversible errors and no bias found by any other court.

...and the lab technicians made it up and tampered with the hair evidence.

PROOF? Oh that is right you don't have any because your accusations like the "alleged intruders" are figments of your imagination and/or inmate's imagination.

Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 was fair and just.

He may have been a fair and just man, but he WAS NOT A JUDGE OR A LAWYER. He had NO LEGAL TRAINING at all. He overstepped his charge by trying to decide facts of law and he was wrong. You can dislike the facts all you want but you cannot change them. Every single sourced piece of evidence points at inmate as the sole actor in this disturbing horrific slaughter of his own family.

The matter of the Brady violations, which Byn categoricllay denies ever happened, is discussed at this website by former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate:

I don't care what Harvey says....the FACTS ARE THAT THE COURTS MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON FACTS OF LAW. THE FACT IS THAT THERE WERE NO BRADY VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE. You have been told this again and again. Refusing to believe it doesn't make your insistence on repeating this ridiculous claim WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. No Brady Violations in this case.

 

[Whip]

I was trying to think of a name for this bizarre condition of dredging up old, dead cases for no reason and purposely avoiding their facts and think I have finally gotten one........dead case necrophilia.

 

[BStrong]

I was trying to think of a name for this bizarre condition of dredging up old, dead cases for no reason and purposely avoiding their facts and think I have finally gotten one........dead case necrophilia.

Crime groupies never sleep.

 

[JTF]

Back To The 2nd Challenge

HENRIBOY: The irony of your obsession with Mazzerolle is that no other MacDonald advocate shares your fantasy narrative. Gunderson, Bost, Silverglate and a host of other advocates admitted that Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70. This collective opinion was based on the correctional records, Mazzerolle's firm denials of involvement in this crime and the FACT that no trace evidence collected at the crime scene was sourced to Mazzerolle.

It's important to note that when given the opportunity to DNA test exemplars from the "Stoeckley Gang," inmate's defense team only requested exemplars from Stoeckley and Mitchell be tested by the AFIP. Hmmm, what does that tell ya? The defense had access to hair exemplars from Cathy Perry and Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle were alive when DNA testing protocol was being formulated.

The fact that the defense only requested exemplars from two members of the Stoeckley Seven, speaks to the defense team's lack of confidence that Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle had any involvement in this horrific crime. Heck, the defense never even attempted to contact Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle for permission to provide DNA samples to the AFIP.

At the oral arguments session, Joey Z had no choice but to argue that the 3 unsourced hairs were from unknown hippie home invaders. The illogic of this position is palpable. Basically, the defense is arguing that Stoeckley and Mitchell were accompanied to 544 Castle Drive by individuals who were mere acquaintances rather than friends and/or fellow substance users.

In order for this fantasy narrative to work, Stoeckley and Mitchell would have to convince these 4 individuals to partake in a home invasion that has no specific motivation or goal. No drugs were taken from the residence and 2 small children/pregnant woman were slaughtered whereas the focus of this home invasion was left alive.

It took several months for you to admit that no lab documentation exists that sources a known intruder suspect to this crime. It's been almost a month since I issued a new challenge, yet you have failed to provide documentation that proves the CID and FBI failed to investigate a viable intruder suspect.

Considering the depth and scope of the CID's 4 year reinvestigation and the FBI's 3 year investigation into suspects not named Jeffrey MacDonald, I would wager it's going to take another several months before you admit that you cannot come up with the goods.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[BStrong]

HENRIBOY: The irony of your obsession with Mazzerolle is that no other MacDonald advocate shares your fantasy narrative. Gunderson, Bost, Silverglate and a host of other advocates admitted that Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70. This collective opinion was based on the correctional records, Mazzerolle's firm denials of involvement in this crime and the FACT that no trace evidence collected at the crime scene was sourced to Mazzerolle.

It's important to note that when given the opportunity to DNA test exemplars from the "Stoeckley Gang," inmate's defense team only requested exemplars from Stoeckley and Mitchell be tested by the AFIP. Hmmm, what does that tell ya? The defense had access to hair exemplars from Cathy Perry and Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle were alive when DNA testing protocol was being formulated.

The fact that the defense only requested exemplars from two members of the Stoeckley Seven, speaks to the defense team's lack of confidence that Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle had any involvement in this horrific crime. Heck, the defense never even attempted to contact Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle for permission to provide DNA samples to the AFIP.

At the oral arguments session, Joey Z had no choice but to argue that the 3 unsourced hairs were from unknown hippie home invaders. The illogic of this position is palpable. Basically, the defense is arguing that Stoeckley and Mitchell were accompanied to 544 Castle Drive by individuals who were mere acquaintances rather than friends and/or fellow substance users.

In order for this fantasy narrative to work, Stoeckley and Mitchell would have to convince these 4 individuals to partake in a home invasion that has no specific motivation or goal. No drugs were taken from the residence and 2 small children/pregnant woman were slaughtered whereas the focus of this home invasion was left alive.

It took several months for you to admit that no lab documentation exists that sources a known intruder suspect to this crime. It's been almost a month since I issued a new challenge, yet you have failed to provide documentation that proves the CID and FBI failed to investigate a viable intruder suspect.

Considering the depth and scope of the CID's 4 year reinvestigation and the FBI's 3 year investigation into suspects not named Jeffrey MacDonald, I would wager it's going to take another several months before you admit that you cannot come up with the goods.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

I seem to remember that JM did have stocks of different types of amphetamines in the house - am I recalling this correctly or have one of my concussions come back to haunt me?

 

[JTF]

Page 123

BSTRONG: From page 123 of FATAL VISION...

"It looked more than a little excessive," Shaw said, glancing at a list which showed that, among many other drugs, syringes and disposable scalpel blades, MacDonald's hall closet had contained eighteen fifty-milligram vials of liquid Thorazine...

...a few sentences later, "Were you sending these things to people?" "Just my mother, my in-laws. Diet pills, thyroid medicine, blood pressure pills."

What MacDonald did not tell investigators at the 4/6/70 interview was that he stole this stash of medical supplies. So, in addition to being a serial cheater, a coward and a mass murderer, he was also a thief.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

I was trying to think of a name for this bizarre condition of dredging up old, dead cases for no reason and purposely avoiding their facts and think I have finally gotten one........dead case necrophilia.

Many people, and TV stations, are interested in the Jack the Ripper case even though it will now never be solved. There are also numerous American TV shows about horrible murders in America. Some people are interested in the history of the law.

 

[Henri McPhee]

BSTRONG: From page 123 of FATAL VISION...

"It looked more than a little excessive," Shaw said, glancing at a list which showed that, among many other drugs, syringes and disposable scalpel blades, MacDonald's hall closet had contained eighteen fifty-milligram vials of liquid Thorazine...

...a few sentences later, "Were you sending these things to people?" "Just my mother, my in-laws. Diet pills, thyroid medicine, blood pressure pills."

What MacDonald did not tell investigators at the 4/6/70 interview was that he stole this stash of medical supplies. So, in addition to being a serial cheater, a coward and a mass murderer, he was also a thief.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

That's not absolutely correct. If MacDonald had taken legal advice and had a lawyer with him at that April 1970 he might have kept his mouth shut about all those medicines which came to haunt him later on. It's ridiculous for a juror to say publicly that MacDonald was arrogant at that April 1970 interview and that's why he was convicted. MacDonald was being frank, candid and open.

This is what MacDonald said about the matter of medicines in his house. There is nothing suspicious about it.

Investigator: Captain, you have a lot of--a lot of drugs in your house.

MacDonald: I know.

Investigator: Why? Why do you have a lot of drugs there?

MacDonald: Oh, I just got something or everything in case anyone ever asks me and--Johnny-on-the-spot. You know, very often I'd suture people; and I took care of half the neighborhood, you know, and--nothing there was controlled.
I was careful about that, you know. I didn't have any controlled drugs or anything like that. Everything was stuff there wouldn't be any problem with and no one should be after for any reason.
And I just had--like, for instance, if we were going on a camping trip, I was all ready to make up a nice little M3A kit with that--you know, all the possibilities involved; but that was the only reason.
All this came about when the third disbanded, and they had boxes and boxes of stuff they were just going to burn. And I thought that was stupid, so I just took a couple bottles of everything and was going to make up my own aid kit, you know, for my car and camping and stuff.
But I know, it looked a little--a little excessive, I'm sure.

Investigator: It looked more than a little excessive. It looked real excessive, frankly. I'm being more than frank with you as you're being frank with me, I hope.

MacDonald: Yeah, well—

Investigator: And we understand that you were sending these things to people, too.

MacDonald: Right, to my in-laws.

Investigator: Okay, were you sending anything to anybody around here that would suggest--

MacDonald: Huh-uh (No).

Investigator: --To someone that--

MacDonald: The only people I--the only people I did that for was my mother--my grandmother and Mildred Kassab, my mother-in-law, and her sister Helen--Helen Madison.

Investigator: What kind of drugs were you sending?

MacDonald: Oh, thyroid medicine, diuretics--to make them lose fluid. Quinamine--it's a heart pill. My grandmother has Parkinson's. She was taking Parkinson's pills. And high blood pressure pills.
My--my moth--my mother-in-law was on diet pills, but that's controlled in the Army so I haven't got many through the Army for her.

Investigator: What kind of pills was--

MacDonald: Amphetamine sulphate, 15 milligrams. But, you know, you got to sign your life away in the Army so I--she's had to get her own since I got in the Army.
Let's see, high blood pressure, Parkinson's--that's it basically. A couple different types of high blood pressure. My aunt takes one type. My aunt--Colette's aunt, Helen Madison, takes one type; and Mildred takes another type. My grandmother takes another type, so it involved a lot. And my mother-in-law takes a hormone, estrogen.

Investigator: Most of the pill heads I know--

MacDonald: What's that?

Investigator: --pill heads--take anything. I had one guy tell me, "if I don't know what it is, I take eight and I get something out of it, either an upper or a downer." That's the way he thinks. (Inaudible)--How I met the gentleman.

MacDonald: Uh-huh (Yes).

Investigator: (Inaudible) Ornaids, as I recall. He got a reaction. I don't know what it did for him, but he was happy

MacDonald: Pretty hard from Ornaids. It makes you a little sleepy.

Investigator: So, again, this--this points back to these people being in the house, perhaps with--

MacDonald: Ulterior motive.

Investigator: (Inaudible)

MacDonald: Yeah. Not many people knew I had that. Only a couple. People knew that--you know, that I had a--so far as my neighbors, knew that--whenever she needed pills, I gave them to her.
But I--I don't think she knew that I had them in the house. She probably thought I got them out of the dispensary at the time--stuff like that.
But I can't think of anyone, except one guy who's in Vietnam that--he brought his girl-friend over one time, and I went through the drug collection trying to find something for her psoriasis.

Investigator: Was he there?

MacDonald: Yeah.

Investigator: Who was that?

MacDonald: Geeze, I can't remember. Let me see now. He's Hoffman. Larry Hoffman. Played quarterback for our football team.

Investigator: Where might he be now?

MacDonald: He's on his way to Vietnam.

Investigator: So he is still in the service?

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: Is he--is he a medical officer?

MacDonald: No, he was in the--either civil affairs or psyops, something like that. Intelligence--one of the ancillary things for the third.
And he brought his--after a football game one night, he brought his girlfriend over and she a reaction on her hands. So I took out--I had an old box of--a big box in the bottom of my closet. They were all samples that we had brought from Chicago, as a matter of fact--Chi-cago to New Jersey to here.
And I went through the whole thing and couldn't find any. And I think he was standing there with me. Probably didn't know what I had, but--you know, I told him they were just samples. There was vitamins and garbage, you know.
But he's certainly straight. He's no--no pill head and--

 

[byn63]

That's not absolutely correct. If MacDonald had taken legal advice and had a lawyer with him at that April 1970 he might have kept his mouth shut about all those medicines which came to haunt him later on. It's ridiculous for a juror to say publicly that MacDonald was arrogant at that April 1970 interview and that's why he was convicted. MacDonald was being frank, candid and open.

No, inmate was being arrogant. Inmate was also arrogant at the Grand Jury hearing, and at trial. He was arrogant when he went on the Dick Cavett show and did his Bob Hope impression never once expressing grief over his dead wife and 2 precious daughters. For that matter, he never even used their names. He is a narcissistic bastard that still believes the world revolves around him.

This is what MacDonald said about the matter of medicines in his house. There is nothing suspicious about it.

It does not matter one bit what inmate had to say about the drugs found in his apartment. It is a simple matter of FACT that he was directed by superior officers to dismantle and dispose of a Special Forces Groups Medical Offices. He was to inventory and dispose of EVERYTHING. He filled out and signed a form acknowledging he had disposed of the medications and equipment. Then, he took the equipment (or large portions of it) home and put it in his hall closet. This DOES NOT QUALIFY as DISPOSAL it QUALIFIES as THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. That he was never charged or prosecuted for those actions does not mean it shouldn't have happened. I think the USArmy and base Commander decided to give him a break.

DISPOSE:to get rid of.

taking it home and dispensing it to friends and family IS NOT synonymous....

 

[BStrong]

Many people, and TV stations, are interested in the Jack the Ripper case even though it will now never be solved. There are also numerous American TV shows about horrible murders in America. Some people are interested in the history of the law.

The term that comes to mind is "crime groupie."

JTF - Thanks.

It's not particularly well known, but even today amphetamines are at times issued to specific military units. If a specific unit is on the ground and the situation is a question of staying awake for 72 hours or potentially being captured or killed, amphetamines are about the only thing that will absolutely make that happen.

JM would have had access to amphetamines as part of his duties, and his house supplies of pharmaceuticals was pilfered from Bragg.

From my first hand experience and POV, amphetamines can be a good survival tool, but when abused are not known for improving anyone's decision making skills.