Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

The point is that any good and astute detective would say hello hello hello to himself after interviewing Dwight Smith and Pat Reese about the Macdonald murders, and not be absurdly credulous about it all like the FBI and JTF.

 

[byn63]

The point is that Pat Reese was a damned good reporter, he was able to review the FACTS and connect the dots correctly. Unlike certain people who connect the dots in a fashion so cattywumpus that the FACTS get ignored, logic goes out the window, sane and rational thought is regarded as irrelevant and insane/inane stances on the case keep getting reposted as if the 500th time the nonsense is posted will make it suddenly credible! lol, doesn't work that way, but someone certainly keeps trying to make it so....

 

[Ygraine]

The only hysterical and emotional woman I've noticed on this board is you - especially the hysterical part, although I doubt that we share the same definition of hysterical. My definition refers to the highly amusing and outrageously funny aspect of the word.
Perhaps when you finally decide to look at the facts and stop repeating the same things over and over, you will come to the same conclusions that the rest of the sane world has - your man crush did it.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The only hysterical and emotional woman I've noticed on this board is you - especially the hysterical part, although I doubt that we share the same definition of hysterical. My definition refers to the highly amusing and outrageously funny aspect of the word.
Perhaps when you finally decide to look at the facts and stop repeating the same things over and over, you will come to the same conclusions that the rest of the sane world has - your man crush did it.

I'm not gay and I don't have a man crush on MacDonald. I have never met the man. I just think the MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice. As I have said before, I would stop posting on the internet immediately if Byn or Bunny or JTF came up with any real proof. I agree with Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard, who has said publicly that the prosecution never proved its case and that MacDonald was screwed.

The curmudgeonly Pat Reese socialised with the Stoeckley group before the MacDonald murders even though he was supposed to be a 'saintly' local reporter. He didn't do much investigating, as JTF thinks. He only tried to put the blame on MacDonald in his local paper articles.

There is some background information about Pat Reese when he was once interviewed by that 'genius' detective from the Army CID, Kearns, who thought you could retest a urine stain after ninety weeks:

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/cid/1971-01-01_stmt_kearns.html

 

[byn63]

henri - we have ALL provided you with DEFINITIVE, CORROBORATED, CERTIFIED, ACTUAL, LEGAL PROOF that inmate is guilty. Not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt. The problem is that YOU have UNREASONABLE DOUBT AND A SUPER MAN-CRUSH ON INMATE. Denial of FACT and stomping your feet and insisting that untrue things are useful is petty and childish. Just because you do not want to BELIEVE something to be true DOES NOT MEAN that it is not true.

Perhaps if you stopped arguing nonsense that even the defense doesn't believe to be true you could take the time to understand the EVIDENCE.

 

[byn63]

OH and by the way henri - IF the prosecution had not proven its case then inmate would not be an inmate. SINCE HE WAS CONVICTED THE PROSECUTION OBVIOUSLY PROVED ITS CASE. SINCE THE CONVICTION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED THE CASE HAS BEEN PROVEN AGAIN. AND AGAIN. You don't become a convict if the prosecution doesn't prove its case - it is called acquittal. INMATE WAS CONVICTED.

 

[JTF]

Alternate Reality Part Deux

The landlord can run from the documented record, but he can't hide. Pat Reese did far more than "socialize" with a few members of the "Stoeckley Seven." He provided them with substance abuse counseling in a group setting. Considering your stated opinion that Fred Bost "got it right," it is humorous that you label Dwight Smith as a murderer when Bost dismissed him outright as a viable suspect.

Bost's reasoning was that Smith did not match either description (e.g., inmate's descriptions) of the mythical black male intruder. The landlord also ignores the FACT that Smith's prints were not found at the crime scene and the defense thought so little of Smith as a suspect, they did not request a DNA sample be obtained and/or tested at the AFIP. For whatever reason, the landlord doesn't seem to care that he is at odds with the rest of MacDonald's dwindling support system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

OH and by the way henri - IF the prosecution had not proven its case then inmate would not be an inmate. SINCE HE WAS CONVICTED THE PROSECUTION OBVIOUSLY PROVED ITS CASE. SINCE THE CONVICTION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED THE CASE HAS BEEN PROVEN AGAIN. AND AGAIN. You don't become a convict if the prosecution doesn't prove its case - it is called acquittal. INMATE WAS CONVICTED.

Innocent people sometimes get convicted. That's why there are appeals. Dwight Smith and Pat Reese were never properly, or thoroughly, investigated because Gunderson was only interested in Helena Stoeckley. They were interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation shortly after the murders where they categorically denied everything. Dwight Smith said he couldn't remember where he was a couple of nights before the murders. That's suspicious. The Army CID and FBI were only trying to convict MacDonald with false evidence. MacDonald lawyers are not detectives and neither were Fred Bost and Potter, or other journalists.

It was never an impartial judge and jury as it should have been. MacDonald private investigator Shedlick had affidavits from three different witnesses that the foreman of the jury said he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started. Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were in bed with the prosecution, for whatever reason.

The matter is discussed at this website:

www.crimetraveller.org/2017/08/innocent-man-part-iii-trial-of-jeffrey-macdonald-critique-of-the-case

Further corroboration of Stoeckley’s involvement came from Jerry Leonard. Judge Dupree himself had chosen Leonard to be the court-appointed attorney for Helena Stoeckley. In A Wilderness of Error-The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald, Morris writes, that when the two were alone, Stoeckley confided to Leonard the complete scenario of what had allegedly transpired on the night of the murders. This was the first time in nine years she had done so. She said that:

“She was a member of a cult with a core group of followers. One night one member of the group had raised the issue of Dr. MacDonald’s discriminatory treatment toward drug addicted veterans. MacDonald was one of the doctors involved in a treatment and counselling program. He had a hard stance and often refused to give methadone to heroin users. This member of the cult talked the group into going to the MacDonald residence to confront and intimidate him over his treatment. Consequently, they went to the house that night. But things got out of hand and the people she was with committed the murders.”

Author, Errol Morris, contends that Stoeckley’s confessions to Leonard are credible. He states they were, “detailed and given to an officer of the court and under the protection of attorney-client privilege.” Stoeckley had always said, that she would tell the truth, if she was offered immunity from prosecution. Morris believes Jeffrey MacDonald would never have gone to prison if Stoeckley’s testimony had been heard by the jurors and not ruled inadmissible as evidence.

 

[byn63]

Sometimes innocent people get convicted BUT IN THIS CASE A GUILTY PERSON WAS CONVICTED. The Honorable Judge Dupree was a fair and impartial jurist, and if it had not been for him Bernie Segal's antics would have made an even worse impression on the jury. The jury was also impartial, it was one of the first times that a jury consultant was used and the model is still commonly used today. The juror questionaires make is easier for lawyers to determine the best jury composition.

the landlord of MacFantasy Island has never taken the time to examine the FACTS of the case. he believes that he can claim something is inaccurate and that will make it so....but that is not how it works in the real world. The blood trail, the fibers and threads, the splinters, the DNA evidence all shows that inmate slaughtered his family. It really is that simple.

Helena's stories have NEVER matched the evidence NOR have the EVER matched inmate's version of events. There has NEVER been one single solitary piece of evidence that could be linked to Helena found at the crime scene. Helena was a known liar and teller of tall tales (including one where she claimed to have "stood watch" with an MP) and she was always looking for "daddy figures" in her life. IF one of these men asked her to admit to something, she was going to do so......that doesn't make any or her nonsensical confessions TRUTH.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Helena's stories have NEVER matched the evidence NOR have the EVER matched inmate's version of events. There has NEVER been one single solitary piece of evidence that could be linked to Helena found at the crime scene. Helena was a known liar and teller of tall tales (including one where she claimed to have "stood watch" with an MP) and she was always looking for "daddy figures" in her life. IF one of these men asked her to admit to something, she was going to do so......that doesn't make any or her nonsensical confessions TRUTH.

Helena confessed to her own mother a couple of times. Her mother's affidavit is on the internet. Her mother said Greg Mitchell did it with one other, probably Mazerolle. There is some evidence, or at least strong suspicion besides her numerous confessions, that Helena was at the crime scene in the wrong number phone call to MacDonald's apartment in the middle of the night from Jimmy Friar asking for a Richard MacDonald. Helena began laughing and hung up. Helena admitted that phone call, but Segal never called Friar as a witness because he was a bad character maddened by drink. That was a mistake. I think it could have raised some eyebrows with the jury, except for the biased foreman of the jury.

I agree with what one person has said on the internet in 2012:

Their case was based entirely on crime scene evidence but the management of the crime scene was badly botched and they tenaciously resisted giving defense experts meaningful access to the evidence and have continued to resist further testing of the evidence - all of which suggests a lack of confidence in the merits of their case and a dogged resistance to having it scrutinized.

The judge was completely biased against the defense, the defense lawyer was negligent, and the prosecutor was subsequently disciplined for misconduct in another case. This is a case of a manifestly unfair trial violating not only the Constitution but also fundamental fairness. He should definitely get a new trial ASAP.

 

[byn63]

Helena confessed to her own mother a couple of times. Her mother's affidavit is on the internet.

No henri, she DID NOT. Don't you pay attention to ANYTHING that is FACT? That affidavit was the result of Helena's younger brother's try for 15 minutes of fame (infamy). He had is seriously ill, near death, totally blind mother sign a blank sheet of paper and SMQ filled in the blank pages with a story that was full of BS. Helena Sr. was interviewed at the time of the trial and several other times and stated quite clearly that Helena would say anything that Daddy Beasley asked her to say. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT HELENA WAS NOT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDERS.

NONE of Helena's confessions matched the evidence NOR did they ever match inmate's story of what he alleged happened AND there is not a single piece of evidence of Helena being at that apartment EVER.

Her mother said Greg Mitchell did it with one other, probably Mazerolle.

BULL. Besides the fact that there is no evidence to suggest Greg Mitchell was involved in the crimes, and the FACT that he took and passed a polygraph in which he stated he was not involved. Helena Sr's alleged affidavit is a piece of fiction. The format is improper and as one lawyer I know put it, "I would NEVER submit an affidavit so improperly prepared". The signature is supposed to be on the same page as at least "some of the testimony". LOOK at the affidavit - you can see plainly that the signature was done on a blank sheet of paper. SMQ and little Stoeckely (whatever his name is/was) should be ASHAMED of the way that they used/treated that seriously ill elderly woman.

Oh, and as you have been told ad nauseum Allan M WAS IN JAIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. just because you do not like a FACT does not make it any less A FACT.

There is some evidence, or at least strong suspicion besides her numerous confessions, that Helena was at the crime scene

No there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Helena was EVER in that apartment.

in the wrong number phone call to MacDonald's apartment in the middle of the night from Jimmy Friar asking for a Richard MacDonald.

that phone call NEVER HAPPENED. It was made up, a fake, pretend, make believe, A LIE. Choose your term but they all are accurate. IF such a phone call HAD happened the defense would have used it.

That was a mistake. I think it could have raised some eyebrows with the jury,

Actually it would have been a mistake if they'd attempted to use the claims of Friar at trial, because the government would have proven beyond all doubt that the phone call NEVER HAPPENED. PERIOD

except for the biased foreman of the jury.

The foreman of the jury was not biased. He was an honest man. I cannot believe the ridiculousness of the claims that you keep espousing. You must really really love that man-crush of yours to keep spewing forth nonsense that even the defense doesn't claim. You DO REALIZE that inmate would be embarrassed beyond belief if he knew that your claims (as weird and untrue and totally bizarre as they are) are the only ones in his defense?

 

[Henri McPhee]

No henri, she DID NOT. Don't you pay attention to ANYTHING that is FACT? That affidavit was the result of Helena's younger brother's try for 15 minutes of fame (infamy). He had is seriously ill, near death, totally blind mother sign a blank sheet of paper and SMQ filled in the blank pages with a story that was full of BS. Helena Sr. was interviewed at the time of the trial and several other times and stated quite clearly that Helena would say anything that Daddy Beasley asked her to say. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT HELENA WAS NOT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDERS.

You can't just come on to the internet and say that in your opinion an affidavit is false without hard evidence and facts to back it up. I agree that Helena's brother did not get on well with his sister. There are reports of family rows. There can be no doubt at all that Helena's brother, and Helena's mother, however elderly she was at the time, both believed Jeff MacDonald is innocent and that Helena was involved in the MacDonald murders.

Helena's mother's affidavit can be seen here:

themacdonaldcase.org/Images/Helen_Stoeckley_Affidavit.pdf

 

[byn63]

You can't just come on to the internet and say that in your opinion an affidavit is false without hard evidence and facts to back it up.

henri - first - you have a LOT of nerve to claim that I or anyone else on this board post opinion without evidence or fact. Look in the mirror - that is what YOU do. What I do is base my comments on facts and evidence.

I can come on the internet and say that the affidavit is false and/or fraudulent. Especially since I supported my comments by providing information given to me by a lawyer that follows this case and 3 other lawyers who don't but also looked at the affidavit. It doesn't take a genius to SEE that poor elderly sick woman was asked to sign a blank sheet of paper.

I agree that Helena's brother did not get on well with his sister. There are reports of family rows.

Helena's little brother would not have had much time in her company since he was very young when the murders occurred. I don't doubt that there were family fights especially when Helena lived at home. She was a drugged out hippie with a penchant for telling tall tales (liar liar pants on fire). She would do and say anything that Daddy Beasley wanted her to say. Her little brother wanted his 15 minutes of fame....what he got was infamy. The affidavit was not believed because it was improperly formatted and obviously created without facts.

There can be no doubt at all that Helena's brother, and Helena's mother, however elderly she was at the time, both believed inmate is innocent and that Helena was involved in the MacDonald murders.

There is plenty of evidence to support the FACT that Helena Sr. DID NOT BELIEVE Helena was involved in the murders. The CONTEMPORARY RECORDS provide plenty of evidence to show that Helena Sr knew her daughter well, knew she lied when she claimed to participate, knew she lied about a great many things, knew that she would say anything that Prince E Beasley asked her to say.

IF Helena had been involved there would be evidence to support this but there is not any sourced evidence that points to anyone other than inmate was there that night. You have his bloody footprint exiting Kristen's room, you have the hair found clutched in Colette's hand that is a 100% DNA match to inmate, you have his lies about pulling a knife out of Colette's chest, you have his bloody pj fibers in Kimmie's bed, you have his lies about attempting to resuscitate his family, you have the threads and fibers in every room but the one he claimed to have used his pj top as a shield AND the pocket with Colette's blood on it in the MB and not where he claimed the pj was torn, and Colette's blood on the top BEFORE it was torn. Then there is also the 2 minutes that he claimed to have done all sorts of heroic things when there was not enough time to have done them, the surgical gloves, the blood trail, the splinters, the fibers UNDER Colette's body, all the weapons coming from inside the house......

 

[Henri McPhee]

I can come on the internet and say that the affidavit is false and/or fraudulent. Especially since I supported my comments by providing information given to me by a lawyer that follows this case and 3 other lawyers who don't but also looked at the affidavit. It doesn't take a genius to SEE that poor elderly sick woman was asked to sign a blank sheet of paper.

There was some story that Helena once told her brother that she knew some people who could do him in. There is another story that the FBI told Helena and her mother to keep their mouths shut about the MacDonald murders.

There was nothing wrong with Helena's mother's affidavit, whatever the beliefs and opinions of Byn's lawyer pals are about the matter. There is background information about this at:

www.themacdonaldcase.org/Images/MacDonald_Motion_to_Supplement.pdf

5. On March 31, 2007, Gene Stoeckley and Kathryn MacDonald traveled to Fayetteville,
North Carolina to visit Helena Stoeckley (senior), the mother of the deceased Helena
Stoeckley, at the mother’s residence in the Haymount Rehabilitation and Nursing Center.
6. Mrs. Stoeckley (senior), voluntarily, and without prompting, proceeded to describe two
separate incidents in detail during which her daughter, Helena Stoeckley, confessed to her
that she was in the MacDonald house the night of the murders, and provided details of the
incident.
7. Mrs. Stoeckley (senior), moreover, indicated that her daughter had said that she was
afraid to tell the truth at the trial because she was afraid of the prosecutor.
8. After hearing Mrs. Stoeckley (senior) divulge these confessions made by her daughter,
Kathryn MacDonald inquired as to whether Mrs. Stoeckley would sign an affidavit. Mrs.
Stoeckley (senior) agreed to do so, and also agreed to meet with the applicant’s counsel,
Hart Miles, Esq., for the purpose of producing an affidavit.
9. Mr. Miles and Laura Redd, his paralegal (who is also a notary public), traveled to
Fayetteville that night to meet with Mrs. Stoeckley, Gene Stoeckley, and Kathryn
MacDonald.
10. Once Mr. Miles and Mrs. Redd arrived, they were introduced to Mrs. Stoeckley (senior)
who indicated that she was willing to sign an affidavit as to the confessions of her
daughter.
11. An affidavit was drafted in the Haymount Rehabilitation and Nursing Center and printed
out there on one of the facility’s printers.
12. Gene Stoeckley reviewed the affidavit with his mother (who is legally blind) for accuracy
by reading it to her. She requested a few changes be made to the original draft and those
changes were made. She then, in front of Gene Stoeckley, Kathryn MacDonald, Laura
Redd, Hart Miles, and a nurse technician Grady Peterson, signed the affidavit.

 

[desmirelle]

Henri -

Since you believe Helena's account of the evening was so up front, why don't you believe she and your man crush were doing the 'horizontal tango' (as my uncle called it)? There is just as much evidence of that as there is of her presence in the Macdonald quarters that horrific night in February 1970. And it gives motivation for the killing beyond your beau's bad temper.

 

[byn63]

there is a great deal wrong with Helena Sr affidavit. Not just the obvious FACT that she signed a blank sheet of paper and the "testimony" was typed in after the fact either. There is also the improper format just one point of which is that there is NO TESTIMONY on the page with the signature. It doesn't take a genius to see these glaring problems.

Helena Jr may have said any number of things to her brother, that just further proves my point that she was a drugged out hippie with a penchant for telling tall tales. IF you are so determined to believe her confessions and not believe her recantations then how come you don't believe that she and inmate were doing the horizontal tango? Not to mention the FACT that NONE of Helena's multiple confessions matched the evidence NOR did they match inmate's version of the events of that awful night.

THE FACT is that EVERY SINGLE SOURCED EVIDENTIARY ITEM CAN BE LINKED TO INMATE AS THE SOLE PERP. PERIOD. FACT Henri not your inane lather rinse repeat arguments. PROOF henri not your opinions...

 

[JTF]

Same Old You Know

In typical fashion, the landlord studiously ignored my prior post, and deflected the pesky documented record by mixing and matching unrelated issues. He can hop around the record all he likes, but it is not going to magically go away. There is a reason why the 1979 trial verdict has stood the test of time. One thousand inculpatory evidentiary items will garner a conviction 99.9 percent of the time.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[JTF]

Same Old You Know What

In typical fashion, the landlord studiously ignored my prior post, and deflected the pesky documented record by mixing and matching unrelated issues. He can hop around the record all he likes, but it is not going to magically go away. There is a reason why the 1979 trial verdict has stood the test of time. One thousand inculpatory evidentiary items will garner a conviction 99.9 percent of the time.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

In typical fashion, the landlord studiously ignored my prior post, and deflected the pesky documented record by mixing and matching unrelated issues. He can hop around the record all he likes, but it is not going to magically go away. There is a reason why the 1979 trial verdict has stood the test of time. One thousand inculpatory evidentiary items will garner a conviction 99.9 percent of the time.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

That's a load of bollocks again from JTF. That's a lie to say there were one thousand inculpatory items. There are a thousand items in every murder case, only a few of which are relevant.

Just because Fred Bost thought that Smitty, or Dwight Smith, was not involved is not firm evidence. That's just an opinion and belief from Fred Bost. Fred Bost was never a hard detective, even though he talked a lot of sense about the MacDonald case when he was alive.

Any average Joe would say hello hello hello to himself if he read this statement from Dwight Smith, who I think along with Mazerolle is still alive. Can you not recall where you were two nights before you may have been interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation? That's ridiculous and suspicious.:

5. He could not recall the names or identities of any of Helena Stoeckley's friends and/or associates. He was of the opinion she resided somewhere in the Haymont area, possibly with her parents. The names of Bruce Johnny Fowler, Shelby Don Harris, Allen Patrick Mazerolle and "Wizard" meant nothing to him whatsoever. He believes he remembers the name of Gregory Howard Mitchell and thinks Mitchell was probably acquainted with Helena Stoeckley, although he could not provide any information regarding Mitchell.

6. He could not recall specifically where he was during the evening of February 16 or the early morning hours of February 17, 1970. He does remember that during the early or mid-morning hours of February 17, 1970, that Ray Davis and Cuyler Windham, SBI Agents, came to his residence and spoke with him and Pat Reese regarding the MacDonald murders. They were seeking information from Smith and Reese as to possible suspects as the SBI had a description of a group of individuals which may have participated in the MacDonald murders.

 

[desmirelle]

<snip of fecal matter>


Any average Joe would say hello hello hello to himself if he read this statement from Dwight Smith, who I think along with Mazerolle is still alive. Can you not recall where you were two nights before you may have been interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation? That's ridiculous and suspicious.:

You are seriously promoting the idea that a drug user will remember things while high? And that the man (dismissed by your literary hero Bost) was involved in the murders as well?

I know a woman (girl, then) who was a heavy user. She couldn't tell you where she was, what she was doing at the time she was doing it, much less a day or two later. You appear to have led a sheltered life, away from the reality of what recreational drug use truly does.