Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Helena Stoeckley and the rest of the gang should have been asked about a timeline. They all seemed to be at a restaurant before the murders and they were seen at a restaurant after the murders. The time of the emergency phone call is official knowledge. Dr. MacDonald wasn't looking at his alarm clocks at the time.

I don't think Wade Smith's cross-examination of the doctors at the military hospital was particularly competent. It seemed to be a highly technical discussion about whether there was a punctured lung or not. The doctors seemed to reply that they believed it was self-inflicted but they wouldn't have done it themselves because of the proximity to the liver and some dangerous little arteries in the area. It wasn't exactly simplicity and I think the North Carolina jury didn't know what he was on about.

The matter of unconsciousness was hardly mentioned, which I think is important because I think the police and jury thought he was lying about unconsciousness. The matter was mentioned at the trial for about a few seconds with Dr Podgorny:

Q Moving along then, Dr. Podgorny, away from the things that you have examined and into some other material, let me ask you a question concerning head trauma and ask you to state whether or not you can tell the jury basically what causes unconsciousness in a human being.
A There are several reasons for unconsciousness. Two of the most common -- one is secondary to an injury to the head, a blow on the head, and the other would be more biochemical related to the lack of sugar in the blood.
Q Would you state whether or not unconsciousness is always related to any external evidence of trauma?
A No; it is not.
Q Would you explain what you mean by that answer?
A External evidence of trauma on the head relates to what can be seen or felt by fingers over the scalp, the skull, the face, the upper extent of the neck. None of that as such has any relationship or a causative effect then with unconsciousness. That is only a reflection of a certain mechanical injury.
Unconsciousness results from, as best I can put in lay terms, a shaking up of the brain, a movement of the brain, which then temporarily knocks out the portions of the brain that we use for conscious thinking, awareness.
 
The matter was discussed at the 1979 trial with Dr. Jacobson:

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Dr. Jacobson, you are not suggesting -- are you -- that Dr. MacDonald intentionally inflicted any wounds that you have described on the chart?
A No.
Q As a matter of fact, you saw no evidence of that; did you?
A I don't know.
Q You don't know whether you did. You didn't see anything that would cause you to believe that; did you?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SMITH:
Q At the Article 32 proceeding, I believe you were asked certain other questions about this subject. Let me read the question and read you your answer and see if it refreshes your recollection, Dr. Jacobson. The question was this: "If you were going to inflict a pneumothorax on yourself, would you inflict it in the area of the seventh intercostal space or would you choose some other area?" Do you remember that question?
A Yes; I do.
Q I believe your answer at that time was: "I would choose some other area." Was that your answer? A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q I believe the next question was this: "And why would you do that?" And the answer was: "Well, as is already indicated, there are some vital structures in this area that could make the condition much more serious." Was that your answer?
A That is correct.
 
The matter was also mentioned at the Article 32 in 1970 with Dr. Jacobson:

Q Doctor, getting to the next injury or injuries which you've described to the investigating officer, you've described an injury which you can recollect seeing on the head. Could you once again indicate to the investigating officer -- I'm not certain whether you were asked to do it by the prosecution, but indicate where this injury was?
A This was on the forehead, midleft of the midline. It was moderately swollen. There was an area of black and blue or ecchymosis and the skin was slightly raised. There was no laceration. There was no deep depression under the skin.
Q Would you say doctor -- the last term, no depression, could you please explain to the investigating officer why you looked for a depression? And what a depression means?
A Well, should an individual sustain a pressed skull fracture, there's cerebral status at that time, and a significant amount of possible compromise. It's a -- an emergency that most -- well, there are different medical opinions, but the majority of them will indicate a pressed skull fracture should be elevated immediately. This is the concern.
Q Now, in describing a wound to the head, can you make a valid determination of its relative seriousness merely by describing what it looks like to the eye?
A No.
Q And isn't it a fact that in many cases there is -- isn't it a fact that in many cases there is no medical relation to what the injury looks like on the surface as to what damage it causes to the brain?
A That's right.
Q Since you are now in a training program regarding neurosurgery, doctor, do you regard any injury to the head to be significant of this nature?
A No.
Q As a matter of fact, hasn't it been said by Hippocrates that no head injury is so slight that it should be neglected.

CPT SOMERS: What Hippocrates may have said is irrelevant here; I object.

COL ROCK: Objection sustained. I don't think we need to bring in any humorous matters into this proceedings, counselor.
 
Henri, why do you keep quoting and referencing stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the source(s)?
 
Last edited:
Henri,
I've asked you twice now whether you find the MacDonald's condition suspicious in light of the story he told about his confrontation with the intruders.

You have responded with evidence that you believe shows MacDonald's injuries were more extensive than has been characterized in this thread and evidence that suggests that MacDonald might have been rendered unconscious without signs of external trauma to his head.

Thank you for your responses but I was asking about your personal view of the situation. Are you suspicious about the nature of MacDonald's injuries given his story about his confrontation with the intruders?

As to your posts suggesting that MacDonald's injuries were more extensive than they have been characterized in this thread:

Even if your characterization of the injuries is accurate, I still see significant reasons to be skeptical of MacDonald's story. Pin prick wounds caused by the ice pick? How do you think those happened? Did they happen while the intruders were in a desperate fight to subdue MacDonald and they just happened to stab him only a little? If there was a violent fight to subdue MacDonald where is the evidence of that? Where are deep slashing wounds from a knife, or major traumatic wounds from a club, or major wounds from being stabbed or slashed with an ice pick? What kind of violent homicidal intruders are these? They overkill defenseless children and they don't cause life threatening wounds to the only person in the house likely to be a threat to them?

As to the information that MacDonald might have been rendered unconscious with less external trauma than might have been expected:

OK, except MacDonald says that he actively resisted the intruders. So according to MacDonald he wasn't rendered unconscious by the initial attack. So we go back to the problem for MacDonald's story that there is much less trauma than one would expect from a life and death struggle from attackers armed with a bat and an ice pick.

But let's assume that MacDonald was rendered unconscious by the blow from the attacker. The attackers couldn't know that he would be unconscious from the trauma that MacDonald sustained. Wouldn't you expect them to continue the attack to insure that MacDonald was immobilized? Do the injuries to MacDonald suggest that they were caused by an attacker attempting to render him immobile? It doesn't look like that to me. How about a few ice pick jabs to the heart while the intruders had the chance? How about a few substantive blows from the bat while the intruders had the chance?

As I have noted above, I don't find the suspicious nature of MacDonald's story about the attack definitive evidence of his guilt, but aren't you a tad bit suspicious of it? If you're not, then what do you think happened in the confrontation between MacDonald and the intruders that explains the nature of MacDonald's injuries?

ETA:
On further consideration, I realize that the evidence on consciousness was probably offered to support MacDonald's claim that he became unconscious for a period of time after the confrontation with the intruders. Even if one assumes that MacDonald's injuries were severe enough to cause a period of unconsciousness I don't see how the rest of his story is consistent with either his injuries or the lack of damage to the room where he says the confrontation with the attackers happened.

ETA2: One other obviously suspicious aspect of the nature of MacDonald's wounds:

Why would these violent homicidal intruders leave a witness alive that could identify them? MacDonald's wounds aren't remotely consistent with an attack where an attempt was made to kill him. Even assuming Henri's characterization of the wounds is accurate, the intruders would have had to have known that it was likely that MacDonald would survive.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
...
ETA:
On further consideration, I realize that the evidence on consciousness was probably offered to support MacDonald's claim that he became unconscious for a period of time after the confrontation with the intruders. Even if one assumes that MacDonald's injuries were severe enough to cause a period of unconsciousness I don't see how the rest of his story is consistent with either his injuries or the lack of damage to the room where he says the confrontation with the attackers happened.
Click to expand...

Exactly - MacDonald claims that he fell unconscious after his altercation with the 'intruders' in the living room, prompting my comment that people generally become unconscious either by a big wallop to the head (which leaves obvious trauma and causes immediate unconsciousness OR slowly-developing intercranial pressure, which he did not have), or by loss of blood, in which case they don't usually regain consciousness spontaneously. So why did he become unconscious at some point after the altercation, on his way to the bedroom? I've been an EMT for 22 years, and to me this sounds strange. I've also been injured fairly badly myself a couple times, and it's true that people sometimes faint due to pain and fear - but it generally happens immediately, not at some later time.
 
Running Away From The Evidence

I commend the patience of those who are giving Henri a chance to jump all over the map without responding directly to the ridiculous fairy tale put forth by MacDonald. The nature and severity of the wounds inflicted upon the MacDonald family are not open to interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/wounds.html

It's telling that MacDonald advocates studiously avoid a majority of the evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. If you include 5 inculpatory DNA test results to the evidentiary pile, this case is open and shut.

Henri, still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/timeline.html
 
Is it me, or does "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" sound like the Archies gone deeply deeply wrong?

:blackcat:
 
Just because Helena Stoeckley said "acid is groovy" doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald is lying. She was a funny woman. It's like saying Manson's women couldn't have been seen crawling along the road because that is so strange.

I can't quite see why people can't believe that what Dr. MacDonald said happened is what happened. It's like something out of a Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin film where Goering says "I can't believe it " as Hitler was furious at the time.

I don't like the way Murtagh tried to discredit anybody who tried to oppose him. Detective Beasley was supposed to have a brain disease. Ted Gunderson had some legal and financial tangles. Mrs. Garcia was going through a divorce. The CIA and Bush family are above the law. Witnesses in the Lockerbie case were bribed by Murtagh to lie. John Carman should never have attempted to fight corruption and Michael Hastings couldn't possibly have been bumped off. Jimmy Britt was deemed to be a bankrupt and Bradley Manning must spend the rest of his life in prison for telling the truth. I think Murtagh manufactures evidence.

JTF seems to think that Judge Fox will now just rubber stamp the prosecution's case to keep Dr, MacDonald in prison. I don't know what the MacDonald lawyers can do about it. I have always thought closing in on the real culprits was the best bet. I think both Judge Dupree and Judge Fox displayed corrupt bias. There used to be a statement on the internet saying that a large amount of money was deposited in Judge Dupree's bank account after the 1979 trial.

The MacDonald case needs some competent and just judges. The media is not much help. They are only interested in celebrity gossip. I think Judge Carnes in the Ramsey case is a good judge. and her father Charles Carnes was supposed to be a good judge. It's a pity she can't be in charge of the MacDonald case.
 
Henri, why do you keep quoting and referencing stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the source(s)?
 
desertgal said:
Henri, why do you keep quoting and referencing stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the source(s)?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if that worries you.

If I'm quoting about something like the Mafia I usually just look up Mafia on Google and quote from the list that comes up.

That statement about Judge Dupree depositing a large sum of money after the MacDonald trial was something on Christina's website years ago.

http://www.jeffreymacdonaldcase.com
 
Henri McPhee said:
I'm sorry if that worries you.

If I'm quoting about something like the Mafia I usually just look up Mafia on Google and quote from the list that comes up.

That statement about Judge Dupree depositing a large sum of money after the MacDonald trial was something on Christina's website years ago.

http://www.jeffreymacdonaldcase.com
Click to expand...

I'm not "worried" about it. What a stupid thing to say.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you keep quoting stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the sources? I'm not referring to the Mafia posts. I'm referring to the MacDonald case. Even if you are quoting from a Google list, it's not difficult to go one step further and providr the source. You know how to copy/paste. We've seen you do it ad nauseum.

It diminishes the points you try so hard to make. If you can't prove your sources, then no one can take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
Abyss

Jeffrey MacDonald is a convicted murderer and psychopath. Henri is a conspiracy theorist on the level of Ken Adachi and Ted Gunderson. Barry Scheck is an opportunist. Errol Morris is a con man. Janet Malcolm is a groupie. Anyone who takes stock in MacDonald's tortured innocent ploy gets sucked into an abyss that consists of distortions, half-truths, lies, propaganda, illusions, delusions, and a lack of critical thinking.

Henri, still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Henri McPhee said:
Just because Helena Stoeckley said "acid is groovy" doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald is lying. She was a funny woman. It's like saying Manson's women couldn't have been seen crawling along the road because that is so strange.
Click to expand...

I would expect strange, especially from people doped up as MacDonald claims. Road crawling is weird but not unexpected.

"acid is groovy, kill the pigs" sounds like Hollywood scriptwriting at its most Central Casting.

I can't quite see why people can't believe that what Dr. MacDonald said happened is what happened. It's like something out of a Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin film where Goering says "I can't believe it " as Hitler was furious at the time.
Click to expand...

If we ignore all the physical evidence (or lack therof) it still makes no sense. MacDonald is doubtless the biggest threat in the house to any intruder and he gets one blow to the head while others in the house are pounded. These are supposed to be brutal killers and yet when they allegedly get MacDonald down with one blow and a few weak stabs they decide 'that's enough' and move on, brutalizing the other less dangerous members of the house.

The story fails on almost all levels. I am surprised anyone buys it.
 
kookbreaker said:
If we ignore all the physical evidence (or lack therof) it still makes no sense. MacDonald is doubtless the biggest threat in the house to any intruder and he gets one blow to the head while others in the house are pounded. These are supposed to be brutal killers and yet when they allegedly get MacDonald down with one blow and a few weak stabs they decide 'that's enough' and move on, brutalizing the other less dangerous members of the house.

The story fails on almost all levels. I am surprised anyone buys it.
Click to expand...

It is not just the inherent un-believability of Macdonald's story it is the lack of evidence of any struggle in the Living Room. The lack of evidence for invaders in the apartment. All we have are various un-sourced hairs, which cannot be linked to any of the so-called intruders. And since any place anyone lives in will have un-sourced hairs etc., such evidence unless it is linked to known individuals proves zilch.

The so called evidence of intruders, the alleged wig hair, the candle drippings etc., all fades away into meaninglessness upon the most cursory examination. We are asked to believe that 4+ home invaders looking for drugs attacked a family in a incredibly brutal fashion, stabbing and beating people to death in a homicidal frenzy and too put it bluntly "overkill", yet managed to not leave a trace of themselves. I would think that such invaders would have left plenty of evidence of their visit. From bloody hand prints, to scuff marks to hair, fibers etc. Yet these particular invaders were so immaculate and clean they left no trace. Further it appears that the alleged invaders got the weapons, or at least most of them, in the apartment so they came unarmed?!* Rather strange and hard to credit. All we got as evidence of the alleged intruders is the usual un-sourced stuff found in every non-invaded home.

It is the context of MacDonald's story that makes it very hard to believe. If there was evidence of multiple invaders MacDonald's story, however unlikely, would have support. After all unlikely events happen all the time. In this case however we have an unlikely story combined with a virtually total lack of evidence for the alleged invasion.

So MacDonald is almost certainly "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!"

* I Suspect that MacDonald may have got rid of some of the murder weapons later.
 
Kudos To Brian, John, And Leslie

The sur-reply puts a steak in the heart of the Ice Pick Baby Killer's remote chance at a new trial. The government put forth a painstaking portrayal of a flip-flopping defense team that has consistently failed to meet the burden of proof on any of the relevant issues in this case. The defense didn't come close to proving the Britt issue, the unsourced hair claim, the Gunders..., I mean, Leonard claim, and the reliability of the Stoeckley confessions. To compare the defense's 37 page reply memo to the government's 54 page sur-reply is akin to comparing a velvet tiger portrait to a Picaso painting. Gordie has been unimpressive in collecting his blood money whereas Murtagh/Cooley/Bruce continue to advocate for those who can no longer speak for themselves.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/352-main.pdf
 
The Manson murders were unlikely as well and Manson himself was only convicted on circumstantial evidence. They were never accused of leaving their pajama fibers around the place, or transporting bodies in a sheet, as in the MacDonald case.

It was only because a couple of the Manson women became snitches, like Helena Stoeckley in the MacDonald case, that Polanski himself was not prosecuted and convicted even though he was out of the country, I think, at the time.

Bugliosi was lucky that Susan Atkins turned state's witness. I think Bugliosi was not accurate about the President Kennedy assassination. He just accepted the opinions of the former insurance salesman Stombaugh of the FBI. You must have an abstract sense of justice and independent thinking in these sort of cases. Juries are a lottery.

The Army CID and FBI just disregarded the Stoeckley gang in the MacDonald case. In the Manson case the California police seemed to have a few more half-suspicions about the Manson gang.

It's just like these politicians and the media are just protecting the interests of the rich.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
It looks as though Dr. MacDonald was assaulted with an ice pick and some sort of baseball bat. He mentions being punched as well.
Click to expand...

And he was moving under his own power soon afterwards.

The rule of thumb on the difference between being roughed up and brutally assaulted is simple - if you move under your own power after the incident, you haven't been brutally assaulted.

JM is as guilty as they come, and might be the most successful teller of tales in the world - All you need do is read this thread for proof.
 
Total Failure

The beauty of Gordie's arrogance (e.g., requesting a Defense reply to the Government's 200 page masterpiece) is that he allowed the Government to have the last word. There is NO chance that Judge Fox will allow a reply to a reply, so any rebuttal regarding the Gunderson/Leonard comparisons is limited to private diatribes between inmate, Kathryn, and Gordie. IMO, the Government did a good job of using the ramblings of Stoeckley/Friar as a bridge to Leonard's lifting from Gunderson's dubious investigation. In addition, they used Leonard's own words (e.g., 2012 evidentiary hearing) against him to prove that he is an unreliable reporter.

The other thing that stood out was how the Government placed importance on having citations for every one of their arguments which is in stark contrast to Gordie's reliance on sweeping claims with no accompanying documentation. As the Government pointed out in their sur-reply, this forced the Defense to alter and backtrack on several key evidentiary arguments. Prime examples of each are as follows.

BACKTRACKING: Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the Defense filed briefs arguing that the three unsourced hairs were bloody and broken. At the hearing, Gordie admitted that this was not the case, but he then went back to his original position on the hairs in his 130 response memo. In his 37 page reply, he again backtracked on his original position by stating that the condition of the hairs was irrelevant. Gordie stated that the only relevant aspect of the hairs was that they were unsourced.

ALTERATION: Since 2006, the Defense has argued that inmate's constitutional rights were violated when Blackburn allegedly threatened Stoeckley and allegedly lied to Judge Dupree about the nature of his interview with Stoeckley. In post-hearing memos, however, Gordie claims that the Defense has no obligation to prove that inmate's constitutional rights were violated. Considering that this was the MAIN argument leveled by the Defense during oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court, his current position on this issue is flat-out laughable.

Inmate is done. He knows it. Kathryn knows it. Gordie knows it. This isn't some fawning interviewer buying into unsubstantiated claims spilling out of the mouth of Errol Morris. This is a legal process that requires concrete proof of claims rendered in briefs, memos, and appellate hearings. The burden of proof is on the Defense, that burden is "extraordinarily high," and they failed to meet that burden. They failed on the merits of the Britt claim. They failed on the merits of the unsourced hair claim. They failed on the constitutional claim. Most importantly, they failed to prove that a reasonable juror would not convict MacDonald based on the "evidence as a whole."

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/2013/2013-09-23_doc352-00_USDC_gov_sur-reply.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom