Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blood And B.S.

It seems that Henriboy has forgotten about the massive injuries inflicted upon Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. These injuries resulted in extensive internal AND external bleeding. The shag carpet in the master bedroom, MacDonald's pajama top, and the bedding used to transport Colette were all soaked in Colette's blood.

The shag carpet in the master bedroom and the hallway floor contained a number of blood spots in Kimmie's blood type. Her bedding was soaked in her blood due to the stab wounds that penetrated her neck and the blunt trauma force wounds to her face. The deep stab wounds to Kristen's back and chest resulted in her blood running down the side of her bed and forming a pool next to her bed.

Despite being the focus of their murderous frenzy, the mythical home invaders played nice with MacDonald and decided to inflict superficial wounds on him. There is also a strong argument for this being the worst group of drug addicts in the history of true crime. Despite chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," this group ignored MacDonald's impressive stockpile of drugs and needles in the hall closet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Didn't MacDonald also claim that he was stabbed and bludgeoned multiple times, even though his physical exam put the lie to that? I seem to recall Mildred Kassab being somewhat startled by the claim, since, as she put it, he didn't even have Meurochrome (sp?) on him at the hospital.

BTW, Henri, MacDonald DID bleed, as I recall - on the floor outside the cabinet where the surgical gloves were kept. Imagine that.

It's also interesting to me that a Green Beret could get into a violent physical altercation with several intruders...and yet greeting cards on a table in the adjoining dining area remained upright, even with an uneven floor. That's fantastic. Hallmark could almost use that as a promotional edge. "American Greetings fall down, but ours don't even wobble."

Despite being the focus of their murderous frenzy, the mythical home invaders played nice with MacDonald and decided to inflict superficial wounds on him. There is also a strong argument for this being the worst group of drug addicts in the history of true crime. Despite chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," this group ignored MacDonald's impressive stockpile of drugs and needles in the hall closet.

If it weren't so tragic, it would almost be laughable, wouldn't it? A group of invaders, wasted on drugs, tiptoe down a residential street of an Army base. slip unnoticed into an officer's apartment, light candles, find and snap on surgical gloves, overkill the officer's wife and children while chanting something straight out of the Manson Family Handbook, write on the headboard, and then slip back out just as secretly. ALL without making hardly any noise. YET they leave alive the one person who really posed a threat to them, with one very neat incision in the midst of their wild stabbing rampage, and, while they manage to locate surgical gloves in this strange apartment, they completely miss the cache of drugs. Potent drugs.

Sure. I can't imagine why anyone would disbelieve Jeffrey MacDonald.
 
Last edited:
Americans are an emotional people rather like most Britishers are sentimental softheads. It's a bit like all this money printing is being paid for by others.

Just because the two little girls suffered horrific injuries doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald did it. The Army CID failed to photograph Dr. MacDonald's injuries until many months later when his injuries had practically healed . That was poor police work.

A military policeman knelt on the pajama top when he first arrived at the scene which must have shed pajama fibers all over the place, and even under bodies. We don't know for certain if any bodies were moved at the same time. There was no proper crime scene manager or protection of the crime scene. Segal once remarked that the MacDonald case crime scene is now used in police training schools as an example of how not to do it.

A complete stranger sat on the couch before it had been examined for blood spots or pajama fibers. It's just like saying Dr. MacDonald could not have made the emergency phone call because none of his fingerprints were found on the phone.

The surgical glove fragment was described by a world expert at the trial to be "exceedingly unlikely" to have come from a MacDonald surgical glove. The bath mat was moved when Dr. MacDonald was in hospital.

Hairs and fibers have been described as junk science in the past. It's exceedingly weak evidence and in the MacDonald case there are doubts about accuracy. Browning of the Army CID at first described the blonde synthetic hair-like hairs as female which can't be scientifically correct. The FBI lab technician Kathy Bond talked about "pajama-like" fibers which isn't a definite opinion to me.
 
This matter of the bloody fiber entwined which JTF keeps going on about was discussed in an article about ten years ago:

"The government added a new evidence claim long after the murders, at the 1974 grand jury investigation, an FBI Lab Technician introduced new evidence he claimed was delivered to him, that year, in a vial, marked as "part of the debris evidence collected by the CID from the bloody bedspread at the crime scene, on the bedroom floor." He then introduced a bloody hair matching Colette’s, allegedly found entwined with a long sewing thread, said to be from MacDonald’s pajama top. (The original lab note seems to suggest that the entangled items had already been mounted on a slide. A general note written later however indicates otherwise.)This was viewed as damning evidence that Supports the government’s claim that Jeffrey and Colette had a vicious fight.It is a common forensic requirement for photographs to be taken of the hair and thread before separating them, but the FBI Lab Technician did not do this. He washed away the alleged blood on the hair to make a microscopic examination. So the only "proof" that a bloody hair was entwined with a fiber is solely based on the word of the FBI Lab Technician.There is something drastically wrong with this claim. In previous years, numerous examinations of the debris from the bedspread were recorded by the Army CID. These lab notes revealed a bloody hair was among the debris found, but the hair matched Kimberly’s hair, not Colette’s. The FBI found only one hair matching Colette in the debris from the bedspread. As documented, the CID had already found, examined and cataloged that hair. In a deposition prior to the Army hearing in 1970, the CID Technician who controlled this evidence explained how he washed hairs taken from the bedspread in preparation for microscopic analysis. So the question is, how did entwinement develop? If the bloody hair was Colette’s, why was it identified as Kimberly’s? If the hair was washed by the CID, how did it remain bloody for the FBI?"
 
It's also interesting to me that a Green Beret could get into a violent physical altercation with several intruders...and yet greeting cards on a table in the adjoining dining area remained upright, even with an uneven floor. That's fantastic. Hallmark could almost use that as a promotional edge. "American Greetings fall down, but ours don't even wobble."

All this accusations about the Valentine cards seem to have come from Fred Kassab again after he had visited the crime scene and he wondered why it wasn't a complete scene of destruction. It's just more manufactured evidence. If there is a bar room brawl somewhere the paintings on the wall don't automatically fall down.
 
All this accusations about the Valentine cards seem to have come from Fred Kassab again after he had visited the crime scene and he wondered why it wasn't a complete scene of destruction. It's just more manufactured evidence. If there is a bar room brawl somewhere the paintings on the wall don't automatically fall down.

These are the kinds of confrontations between MacDonald and the alleged intruders that seem likely to me:
1. The intruders and MacDonald engage in a desperate violent fight crashing into furniture and walls, resulting in upturned and broken furniture with the items that had been on the furniture strewn about the room. There might have been items used as make shift clubs or defense against knife attacks.

If a knife was used by the attackers one would expect to see slashing type wounds and stabbing wounds with widened holes created as MacDonald moved about. If the attackers were experienced knife fighters at least some of the knife wounds would have probably suggested that the attacker held the knife with the blade up. If the attackers gained the upper hand in such a fight and had attempted to incapacitate MacDonald one would have expected lethal or near lethal wounds when they cut or choked MacDonald in a way that they would have been sure he couldn't recover and attack them.

2. The attackers gain the upper hand immediately by grabbing and holding him. An attack on a single individual, even a green beret trained soldier, by multiple strong individuals might have subdued MacDonald before MacDonald could put up much of a defense. If this happened there might have been injuries to MacDonald where he was grabbed and held. And after MacDonald was subdued once again one would have expected lethal or near lethal wounds as they cut or choke MacDonald in a way that would guarantee he couldn't recover and attack them.

3. The attackers gain the upper hand immediately by knocking MacDonald out with a club or other method. Once again one would have expected lethal or near lethal wounds as they cut or choke MacDonald in a way that would guarantee he couldn't recover and attack them.
MacDonald didn't have wounds consistent with any of these kinds of confrontations. From my perspective, this kind of argument falls short of definitive proof that MacDonald was guilty, but it is evidence that strongly suggests that he is. You [Henri McPhee] seem to disagree. Could you describe a confrontation between MacDonald and the intruders where the expected or plausible outcome is that he sustains the kind of wounds that he had?
 
The problem with all this pajama fiber stuff which is the main plank of JTF's theory is that there are doubts as to what was described as pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers. There were many fibers of various colors found at the murder scene most of which were described as household debris.

Browning of the Army CID lab made mistakes. He once described one hair as a human hair which later turned out to be horse hair. As I have mentioned before Kathy Bond of the FBI described "pajama-like" fibers which doesn't sound beyond reasonable doubt to me. The forensic significance of all this is that Blackburn swayed the jury into thinking Dr. MacDonald used the wooden club on his family. The mystery unidentified black wool fibers on the club were never reported to the judge or jury or defense at the time of the 1979 trial. A perhaps more simple explanation about all this comes from an opinion on the internet in 1999:

"Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps,
and on the murder club found out back.
In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact black wool fibers that were similiar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
witheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-reexamined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debris" and were not
forensically significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps the fibers are simply household
debris.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it."
 
Last edited:
This matter of whether pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with Army CID lab technician Browning:

MR. EISMAN: But he is giving a chemical analysis saying that the thread was grossly similar to that found in the pajama top. This line of questioning merely goes to the fact that this could have been grossly similar to thread found on any other piece of clothing manufactured anywhere else. Since this witness does not know the name of the manufacturer, does not know whether or not there could have been other garments in the house that night, who had this thread, he cannot say to a scientific certainty that this particular thread came from this particular garment.
 
It looks as though Dr. MacDonald was assaulted with an ice pick and some sort of baseball bat. He mentions being punched as well.

Thanks for the response, so how do you see this attack happening?

Surely he didn't sit or stand passively as they assaulted him. Did they knock him out first and then make the cut between his ribs? Was he standing still while they punctured him with the ice pick? Did he have the kind of defensive wounds that one would expect from this kind of attack?

You have clearly studied the case in great deal. I haven't and my questions are genuine. It seems like you must have thought about what was the nature of an attack that is consistent with the kind of wounds that MacDonald had and with what he said about the attack and the attackers?
 
Thanks for the response, so how do you see this attack happening?

You have clearly studied the case in great deal. I haven't and my questions are genuine. It seems like you must have thought about what was the nature of an attack that is consistent with the kind of wounds that MacDonald had and with what he said about the attack and the attackers?

The MacDonald case is a bit like the Ramsey case or the Darlie Routier case in that it is a difficult murder. I can understand that an average person or average juror is not likely to make a profound study of the case. Probably they are being much more interested in beer football, and house price inflation. When I first became interested in the case I made some glaring errors.

I am dubious about all this so-called hair and fiber evidence in any case. The trouble is it can be the only evidence there is. That was particularly the case before the time of DNA evidence. If there is going to be blood evidence used to convict then it should be presented to the court by a qualified blood expert who can give his expert opinion.

In the Ramsey case the Ramseys were asked for the clothes they wore at the time of the murder about a year after the murder and then magically and miraculously similar and consistent fibers were 'found' in incriminating and entwined places by Dr. Henry Lee. It could be forensic fraud.

Dr. MacDonald never really changed his story. This is an example from his April 1970 interview with the Army CID. He mentions here a blade but I have always understood his injuries were consistent with an ice pick:

"And I went to sleep on the couch.
And then the next thing I know I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also. And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed.
So, I don't know if I really said anything or I was getting ready to say something. This happened real fast. You know, when you talk about it, it sounds like it took forever; but it didn't take forever.
And so, I sat up; and at first I thought it was--I just could see three people, and I don't know if I--If I heard the girl first--or I think I saw her first. I think two of the men separated sort of at the end of my couch, and I keep--all I saw was some people really.
And this guy started walking down between the coffee table and the couch, and he raised something over his head and just sort of then--sort of all together--I just got a glance of this girl with kind of a light on her face. I don't know if it was a flashlight or a candle, but it looked to me like she was holding something. And I just remember that my instinctive thought was that "she's holding a candle. What the hell is she holding a candle for?"
But she said, before I was hit the first time, "Kill the pigs. Acid's groovy."
Now, that's all--that's all I think I heard before I was hit the first time, and the guy hit me in the head. So I was knocked back on the couch, and then I started struggling to get up, and I could hear it all then--Now I could--Maybe it's really, you know--I don't know if I was repeating to myself what she just said or if I kept hearing it, but I kept--I heard, you know, "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."
And I started to struggle up; and I noticed three men now; and I think the girl was kind of behind them, either on the stairs or at the foot of the couch behind them. And the guy on my left was a colored man, and he hit me again; but at the same time, you know, I was kind of struggling. And these two men, I thought, were punching me at the same time. Then I--I remember thinking to myself that--see, I work out with the boxing gloves sometimes. I was then--and I kept--"Geeze, that guy throws a hell of a punch," because he punched me in the chest, and I got this terrible pain in my chest.
And so, I was struggling, and I got hit on the shoulder or the side of the head again, and so I turned and I--and I grabbed this guy's whatever it was. I thought it was a baseball bat at the time. And I had--I was holding it. I was kind of working up it to hold onto it.
Meanwhile, both these guys were kind of hitting me, and all this time I was hearing screams. That's what I can't figure out, so--let's see, I was holding--so, I saw the--and all I got a glimpse was, was some stripes. I told you, I think, they were E6 stripes. There was one bottom rocker and it was an army jacket, and that man was a colored man, and the two men, other men, were white.
And I didn't really notice too much about them. And so I kind of struggled, and I was kind of off balance, 'cause I was still halfway on the couch and half off, and I was holding onto this thing. And I kept getting this pain, either in--you know, like sort of in my stomach, and he kept hitting me in the chest.
And so, I let go of the club; and I was grappling with him and I was holding his hand in my hand. And I saw, you know, a blade. I didn't know what it was; I just saw something that looked like a blade at the time.
And so, then I concentrated on him. We were kind of struggling in the hallway right there at the end of the couch; and then really the next distinctive thing, I thought that--I thought that I noticed that--I saw some legs, you know, that--not covered--like I'd saw the top of some boots. And I thought that I saw knees as I was falling.
But it wasn't what was in the papers that I saw white boots. I never saw white, muddy boots. I saw--saw some knees on the top of boots, and I told, I think, the investigators, I thought they were brown, as a matter of fact.
And the next thing I remember, though, was lying on the hallway floor, and I was freezing cold and it was very quiet. And my teeth were chattering, and I went down and--to the bedroom."
 
...
[MacDonald's description of the attack]

What do you think of that story? Can you see how somebody would be very suspicious of MacDonald given the nature of his injuries when that is the story MacDonald told about the attack?

One part of the story seemed credible to me. I can imagine an attack where MacDonald is hit by a club and the impact eliminates his ability to defend himself. There are some problems though. In MacDonald's description the fight continues. At this point the combatants are engaged in a life and death struggle. How would you have expected the attacker with the bat to proceed? I have no doubt what I would have done. I would have used the bat to continue the attack until the victim was rendered immobile or I would have waited for the other attackers to finish the victim off. Obviously the attacker with the bat didn't proceed. The injuries to MacDonald would have been profound and obvious. That means the man with the bat must have allowed the other attackers to proceed. But are the injuries to MacDonald consistent with this second kind of attack? It doesn't seem like it to me. Here I would have expected deep slashing wounds if they were using a knife or multiple stab wounds from the ice pick as the second round of attackers took advantage of the fact that MacDonald was stunned to finish him off or at least injure him so seriously injured that there was no chance of that MacDonald would be capable of continuing the fight.

Like I said above, I don't think these kind of arguments are proof of MacDonald's guilt by themselves (especially when they are put forth by an arm chair detective such as myself). But does the nature of MacDonald's injuries given his story give you some reason to doubt your idea that he is innocent?
 
You have to really wallop somebody in the head to knock them out. That kind of hit leaves obvious marks including bumps, contusions, split skin, and certainly hemorrhaging that can be seen on skull X-ray. MacDonald says he fell unconscious in the hallway but there are no injuries consistent with him being knocked out or losing enough blood to be rendered unconscious (in which case he wouldn't have waked up again, anyway).
 
You have to really wallop somebody in the head to knock them out. That kind of hit leaves obvious marks including bumps, contusions, split skin, and certainly hemorrhaging that can be seen on skull X-ray. MacDonald says he fell unconscious in the hallway but there are no injuries consistent with him being knocked out or losing enough blood to be rendered unconscious (in which case he wouldn't have waked up again, anyway).

I assumed that this was the case which is why I hypothesized an impact that would have only temporarily stunned MacDonald. From my personal experience I believe such an impact is possible. If I received a blow like that in a full out fight I would expect to have reduced capacity to fight at least for a moment which would give my attacker the opportunity to injure me with little or no resistance from me for that moment.

But I would also expect my attacker to realize that I was not completely incapacitated and unless he took advantage of the opportunity my momentary incapacitation provided I might recover and continue to offer resistance. The problem I suggested with this scenario is that the wounds on MacDonald don't seem to indicate that the attacker made a serious effort to finish him off after he was stunned or that MacDonald retained enough of his ability to resist and that a serious life and death fight ensued.
 
Timeline

Henri certainly has a right to his opinion, but his posts haven't changed for a decade. He is a conspiracy theorist who simply regurgitates the opinions of MacDonald advocates and ignores the mass of evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. When you stick to undiluted fact, this case is quite simple.

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours of three counts of murder.

At trial, the prosecution presented 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file.

All of the SOURCED evidence in this case points to MacDonald as the perp. This includes DNA, blood, fiber, hair, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence.

No SOURCED evidence from a known intruder suspect was found at the crime scene. No DNA, no hair, no fingerprints, no fibers, nothing, nada, zip.

For the past 8 years, I've posed a challege to MacDonald advocates and that is to produce a murder timeline based solely on the physical evidence collected at the crime scene. Nobody, including Henri, has taken me up on the challenge. Joe McGinniss, Brian Murtagh, and Paul Stombaugh had no problem creating a murder timeline demonstrating MacDonald's guilt. The following is my murder timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/timeline.html
 
Last edited:
You have to really wallop somebody in the head to knock them out. That kind of hit leaves obvious marks including bumps, contusions, split skin, and certainly hemorrhaging that can be seen on skull X-ray. MacDonald says he fell unconscious in the hallway but there are no injuries consistent with him being knocked out or losing enough blood to be rendered unconscious (in which case he wouldn't have waked up again, anyway).

That's a bit unfair. I can understand the doctors at the local military hospital not regarding Dr. MacDonald's injuries as life threatening. They were probably used to terrible battle horrors of war injuries and fatal car crashes. There is no evidence that Dr. MacDonald was given a skull X-ray at first. That was disgraceful treatment. I think if it had resulted in brain damage from a hairline fractured skull he would have had a medical negligence claim.

It was only when Dr. MacDonald showed symtoms of serious breathing difficulties that they diagnosed the punctured lung. You would have thought that the diagnosis would have been almost immediate in a case like that.

The matter is discussed in an article on the internet:

"Interestingly, MacDonald's wounds were never photographed, while those his family suffered were rigorously documented. Womack Hospital photographer John McCaffrey waited for a request to record MacDonald's wounds, but it never came. "Somebody goofed," he said.

However, eye witness accounts and medical records describe injuries to MacDonald that go far beyond those minimized by the prosecution.

For example, the government claimed that MacDonald had only a small bruise to the head. Doctors Paul Manson and Robert McGann both observed and testified to seeing " a large contusion" over his left mid-forehead area, and another one over the right temple, slightly obscured by the hairline.

Friend and fellow officer Ron Harrison, when interviewed by the CID, stated that when he went to the hospital, he not only observed the bruises on the front of MacDonald's head, but lumps at the back of the head, and numerous wounds to the chest, arms and abdomen, and what he believed to be ice pick wounds to the neck.

Dr. Straub, at Womack Hospital, examined Jeffrey MacDonald's abdominal wound. He testified at the Army hearing that he "spread it apart, as I recall, and saw that it had gone through a great deal of the muscle of the abdominal wall."

The government made a point of claiming MacDonald suffered no wounds to the hands or arms. But Dr. Severt Jacobson, also of Womack Hospital, described to the grand jury in 1974 cuts he observed to MacDonald's forearms and hand "from a very sharp object". The government also claimed there were only superficial wounds to the chest, other than the stab wound, and no ice pick wounds. But Dr. Jacobson told of seeing four puncture wounds to the upper chest, and multiple punctures elsewhere (arms, abdomen). The puncture wounds were corroborated by Dr. Robert McGann and officer Ron Harrison.

Dr. Frank E. Gemma, an Army surgeon wrote a report on MacDonald's injuries upon his admission to Womack Hospital. He, too, noted "several small puncture wounds that may have come from an instrument such as an icepick."

In order to protect their scenario of Colette injuring her husband in self-defense, the government ignored any and all mention of ice pick wounds in the records. It would have been implausible for Colette to have been wielding not only a knife and a club, but an ice pick, as well. The presence of three different types of wounds from three different types of weapons gave credence to MacDonald's account of multiple intruders.

Considering all the statements from medical personnel, hospital records and eye witnesses, MacDonald summarily suffered at least seventeen stab wounds to the hands, arms, and torso, stabbings through the muscle in the bicep and abdomen, a stab wound to the lung requiring a chest tube and two surgeries, and multiple contusions to the head. He required resuscitation at the murder scene. He could not save his family because he was knocked unconscious. (see Q&A section for more on this subject.)

Colette was found with a piece of gouged skin lodged under one of her fingernails. Kimberley, Kristen and their mother were all found with foreign hairs, unmatched to their father, under their nails. There were no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald."
 
Your definition of 'stab wound' must be considerably different than mine. Only one of MacDonald's wounds required any treatment at all. One of my employees just bumped his head on a tree branch while hiking. He required eight staples in his scalp.
 
Fictional Intruder Tale

The case record is clear on the vast difference in the number and severity of wounds inflicted upon the MacDonald family. Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen were overkilled whereas inmate received a large bruise over his left eye, superficial stab wounds of the bicep, the webbing between two fingers, and his abdomen. Inmate also had 4 pin prick marks on his chest and several on his abdomen. The only penetrating wound he had was on the right side of his chest near his armpit.

As they lay inert, inmate's wife and two children received multiple penetrating stab wounds and Colette/Kimmie were stuck several times with a 31 inch piece of wood. The autopsy report indicates that had she lived, Colette would have been "cosmetically disfigured" and a piece of bone was protruding through Kimmie's cheek. Kristen was stabbed 33 times and two of those wounds penetrated her heart.

Anyone who places importance on critical thinking is quick to dismiss inmate's ridiculous story. It defies all logic that a band of drug-crazed home invaders would slaughter a pregnant woman and two small children, yet leave the target of their invasion VERY much alive. As a matter of fact, as his family was being placed in body bags, inmate's vital signs were normal at the Womack ER.

Henri, still waiting on that timeline.
 
Last edited:
Your definition of 'stab wound' must be considerably different than mine. Only one of MacDonald's wounds required any treatment at all. One of my employees just bumped his head on a tree branch while hiking. He required eight staples in his scalp.

It looks as though your employee was properly diagnosed and properly treated. There have been a couple of cases in my own area where hospitals have been sued for medical negligence when fractured skulls leading to brain damage have not been diagnosed in time.

Dr. MacDonald was given a chest X-ray but no action seemed to have been taken until it looked as though he was dying. From the testimony of the doctors it looks as though they thought the injuries could have been self-inflicted and so the full extent of his injuries were not properly reported or diagnosed. It's lucky for him that he seems to have the constitution of an ox.

I think part of the trouble is that being unconscious for any length of time is not something familiar to doctors. The police, who are not medically qualified, immediately become suspicious and jump to conclusions that the victim is lying.

There is a case on the internet of a woman whose husband had been murdered. She told the police she was unconscious for 45 minutes. She was immediately arrested and prosecuted because the police said they had never come across a case like it before.

I think it's crazy. It's poor police work and poor medical work. It's like for some reaon we now all have to go to war to support al-Qaeda and the Taliban and the banks and billionaires. It doesn't make sense.
 
Wimp, Coward, Child Killer

HENRI: MacDonald was neither dying nor does he have an ox-like constitution. MacDonald's vital signs were normal upon arrival at Womack and considering that a two year old girl and a pregnant woman put up more of a fight than a Green Beret with boxing experience, one has to categorize MacDonald as being a bit of a wimp and/or coward. Still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom