Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

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.

That's a lot of rubbish. It's scientifically and medically good to say that a person can be knocked unconscious for more than a few minutes and there are many such concussion cases all over the world. Nowadays scans tend to be used if any brain damage is suspected, but that tends to be a case of medical judgement.

Have you any personal experience of being hit on the head, say on a hockey pitch by a hockey stick?

You have just got to watch a few boxing matches on TV to see that a boxer can stagger about and then collapse unconscious. There are often no visible signs of what caused that boxer to collapse.

Dr. MacDonald was convicted by dishonesty and legal trickery and he is being kept in prison wrongly by legal trickery.

 

[BStrong]

That's a lot of rubbish. It's scientifically and medically good to say that a person can be knocked unconscious for more than a few minutes and there are many such concussion cases all over the world. Nowadays scans tend to be used if any brain damage is suspected, but that tends to be a case of medical judgement.

Have you any personal experience of being hit on the head, say on a hockey pitch by a hockey stick?

You have just got to watch a few boxing matches on TV to see that a boxer can stagger about and then collapse unconscious. There are often no visible signs of what caused that boxer to collapse.

Dr. MacDonald was convicted by dishonesty and legal trickery and he is being kept in prison wrongly by legal trickery.

First bolded: I'm absolutely the wrong person to ask that particular question. I've been hit with all manner of objects, and not on a playing field.

I've got a whole medical history of injury through various accidents and injuries sustained in service and on the PD.

What I posted was the absolute truth - if they don't have to peel you off the ground and load you in the ambulance, nobody was serious about hurting you - anything short of that is kid stuff, not a failed murder attempt.

Comparing violence committed in the scene of a mass murder to sports injuries doesn't quite get the point. As has been pointed out, if you've really got a group of nuts cutting up and beating to death everything in sight, except the one individual who could pose a threat to them, something doesn't fit, and that is that the survivor of the attack...wasn't.

JM is incarcerated beacuse he was convicted in a court of law, fight all you want to clear his name, sign up as a groupie, whatever floats your boat, but he's guilty in the murder of his family.

 

[JTF]

Nuff Said

"The section of MacDonald’s Reply dealing with his unsourced hair claims addresses none of the Government’s refutation, and contains not a single challenge or citation to the Government’s Memorandum...MacDonald merely repeats his arguments from the Evidentiary Hearing...MacDonald ignores the reality of his demonstrated failure to meet his burden of proof, and the Government’s refutation evidence in respect of his 2006 unsourced hairs claim..., and proceeds to argue, without citation to the record, as if there were no disputed factual issues."

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/2013/2013-09-23_doc352-00_USDC_gov_sur-reply.pdf

 

[Henri McPhee]

I agree that the MacDonald case is difficult for an average family to understand and that it was quite right and proper that Dr. MacDonald was investigated in the initial investigation, as the Ramseys were investigated at first in that case, and Polanski investigated in the Manson case.

The point is that there must be credible evidence. You assume nothing in a murder investigation and you don't jump to conclusions and disregard leads and suspects, or information received.

Detective Beasley had many of the culprits down at the local police station in the initial investigation, but the Army CID were totally uninterested so he had to let them all go. That was bad police work.

For the doctors at the local military hospital to just assume Dr. MacDonald self-inflicted his injuries and then not to give him a skull-x-ray was not good medical work. They seemed to be more frightened of Ron Harrison saying in the hospital that he was going to bump off the culprits. I don't think they were brilliant doctors. If there had been brain damage special drugs need to be applied for the brain immediately.

I think the plan of the murderers was to murder Colette and the two little girls and to incapacitate Dr. MacDonald. They carefully planned that the Army CID and FBI would then jump to conclusions by accusing Dr. MacDonald and that would then deflect any suspicion away from themselves. That's what happened. If he died they would say it was a murder and suicide, which might even make the media ask some questions.

There was a recent murder case in my own area where an attractive young woman was murdered in her rented apartment. The landlord was arrested and the media went to town on his background information. It later then turned out that a fellow lodger, or boarder, did it and he was convicted and imprisoned. That landlord has since received many thousands in compensation from the police and national newspapers.

I don't think any hair evidence will get Dr. MacDonald out of prison. Murtagh can easily just substitute any hair in question from the FBI's large collection of hairs and doll fibers. I think that's what he did with the hair in Colette's left hand and the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers in the MacDonald case. Murtagh still needs to come up with a better explanation for the black wool fibers on the wooden club and around Colette's mouth than that she was once seen in a photo wearing a black dress!

 

[JTF]

You've Lost A Step

HENRI: What, no disjointed copy and paste rebuttals to the Government's sur-reply? No comparisons between the Government's talking points and the legal system in the U.K.? No commentary on the massive CID/FBI/DOJ conspiracy in the MacDonald case? You let me down, Henriboy.

Still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[desertgal]

I agree that the MacDonald case is difficult for an average family to understand...

Nkt really. McGinniss laid it out clearly.

I don't think any hair evidence will get Dr. MacDonald out of prison.

Nothing will get MacDonald out of prison. He's guilty. You are wasting your own life obsessing otherwise. He will rot there until he dies, and justice will have been served.

Boo hoo. Poor Jeffy.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I think the plan of the murderers was to murder Colette and the two little girls and to incapacitate Dr. MacDonald. They carefully planned that the Army CID and FBI would then jump to conclusions by accusing Dr. MacDonald and that would then deflect any suspicion away from themselves. That's what happened. If he died they would say it was a murder and suicide, which might even make the media ask some questions.

Why did these people "carefully" plan to set up Dr. MacDonald for the murder of his family? It is hard to imagine the circumstances under which a group of people would "carefully" plan one of the most heinous crimes imaginable to get back at someone. What did MacDonald do to this group of individuals that made them want to conspire and "carefully" plane their revenge?

 

[desertgal]

Why did these people "carefully" plan to set up Dr. MacDonald for the murder of his family? It is hard to imagine the circumstances under which a group of people would "carefully" plan one of the most heinous crimes imaginable to get back at someone. What did MacDonald do to this group of individuals that made them want to conspire and "carefully" plane their revenge?

Mafia, according to Henri. MacDonald punched an alleged Mafia member in the face. Stoeckley, etc, were all Mafia hitmen. And, you know, Henri knows ALL about the Mafia code. He watched The Godfather AND he found "some stuff on the Internet". He's an expert.

The Mafia, when someone punches one of their (alleged) members in the face, will slaughter an innocent pregnant woman and her two little innocent girls just to get a point across. I guess the point is that a punch in the face is worth three innocent lives, but it's not really clear how that figures, even to a gangster. Then they will carefully set it up so that Dad will walk free for several years before being found guilty.

Ain't that right, Henri? I mean, it did recently occur to you, and we all know when something occurs to you, it becomes a cast in stone fact.

Tell us more about the Mafia code, Henri.

 

[kookbreaker]

Mafia, according to Henri. MacDonald punched an alleged Mafia member in the face. Stoeckley, etc, were all Mafia hitmen. And, you know, Henri knows ALL about the Mafia code. He watched The Godfather AND he found "some stuff on the Internet". He's an expert.

The Mafia, when someone punches one of their (alleged) members in the face, will slaughter an innocent pregnant woman and her two little innocent girls just to get a point across. I guess the point is that a punch in the face is worth three innocent lives, but it's not really clear how that figures, even to a gangster. Then they will carefully set it up so that Dad will walk free for several years before being found guilty.

And of course what the mafia really wants is high-profile cases that garner attention. They love that stuff, especially when it brings the police and federal agents around their other operations.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Mafia have nothing to fear from the MacDonald case. Mazerolle was only interviewed by the FBI about ten years after the murder and his pal Rizzo has never been interviewed at all, as far as I know. Greg Mitchell was interviewed a couple of times when he said to Ivory in about 1972 that he might have been staying with his parents at the time of the MacDonald murders, and shortly before his death he said he had been interviewed by the SBI, which I think is the State Bureau of Investigation. I still think the man Dr. MacDonald punched in New York in connection to his drug addict brother should have been identified.

This idea that just because Dr. MacDonald was convicted in a court of law makes him guilty is a load of nonsense. Why are there appeals? Are they all frivolous and vexatious and of a trivial nature? I do not think any one who has seriously considered the matter can doubt that the verdict of a jury is very likely to be wrong. There have been striking instances in which juries have been proved to be wrong in cases of the most serious nature. It has been said that a third of all civil cases in the UK are decided wrongly.

In any case why would anybody want to appeal in a case of a trivial nature? Because they are fearfully aggrieved that's why.

 

[JTF]

Research

HENRI: Not only do your posts butcher the documented record, but you can't even stay on point. Have you read any of the RECENT legal documents on this case? You seem to be stuck in a time warp which encompasses the first 10 years of this case, but SO much has happened since 1980. The links to several post-hearing documents are on this thread, so I would suggest that you get off the trolling bandwagon, and do some real case research.

Still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[desertgal]

This idea that just because Dr. MacDonald was convicted in a court of law makes him guilty is a load of nonsense.

You're right. However, Jeff MacDonald is guilty because he slaughtered his wife and daughters. The real victims you always overlook. Anyone with a grain of sense understands that.

 

[JTF]

Question Everything

The Government's presentation of the Britt matter is another example of how advocates for inmate's shell game tend to scrape the bottom of the credibility barrel. For example...

"Mary Britt also testified that Jimmy Britt told her he was at Fort Bragg with MacDonald during his time in the Army, which is clearly false."

Like Stoeckley, Gunderson, and Leonard, Britt can't even keep the little things straight. Widenhouse and Morris make excuses for Britt's tall tales by stating that he simply has a poor memory. Considering that both men are hypocrites (e.g., Jack Crawley wasn't cut the same slack), their arguments are meaningless to those with knowledge of the documented record, but many media members have fed Gordie's and Errol's special brand of nonsense to the general public. Hopefully, discussion boards and websites that focus on the facts of this case, have influenced the thought process of those who don't take everything at face value.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

I have taken a quick look at Murtagh's recent reply on Christina's website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

It seems to be a long spiel about whether Helena Stoeckley was ever at Pickens County Jail, and Murtagh's witnesses couldn't possibly have been bribed to lie about it, and the Joe McGinniss version of Jimmy Britt in the Fatal Vision TV movie must be the pure unadulterated historical truth, and Helena's lawyer Jerry Leonard was an alcoholic and had a poor memory.

There is then a lengthy convoluted argument about hairs, and that the hair in Colette's left hand couldn't possibly be forensic fraud by the FBI lab. The black wool fibers were not mentioned.

What worries me is that Judge Fox will just rubber stamp all this without testing the evidence, or ordering the real culprits to be interviewed, or to testify in court.

There is an interesting quote about all this from Leonard in about 1980 which I found quite amusing:

"Note: Mr Leonard stated that he did not know if MacDonald was guilty or innocent, however he stated that he did feel that the prosecution did not prove their case. He stated that he thought MacDonald had been screwed."

 

[desertgal]

I have taken a quick look at Murtagh's recent reply on Christina's website:

Then you didn't read it thoroughly, so your summation is easily dismissed by all. Nice try.

Jeff MacDonald slaughtered his wife and daughters, the real victims you couldn't care less about.

Next.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I think the plan of the murderers was to murder Colette and the two little girls and to incapacitate Dr. MacDonald. They carefully planned that the Army CID and FBI would then jump to conclusions by accusing Dr. MacDonald and that would then deflect any suspicion away from themselves. That's what happened. If he died they would say it was a murder and suicide, which might even make the media ask some questions.

This.is.hilarious.

Firstly, they would have had to have had medical knowledge of exactly where to stab JM to "incapacitate" him.

Then it requires a crystal ball to predict how the Army, CID and FBI would jump to said conclusions.

If the killers had been Stoeckley and Mitchell, they were entirely too drugged up and stupid to do such and thing and if it had been the mafia, they would have done a better job of framing JM.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't think it is hilarious. Some criminals are men of great ingenuity and weigh their chances very carefully. They know that the Army CID and FBI are totally inexperienced homicide detectives, and lousy detectives, and that there are some shady prosecutors like Murtagh who will lie through thick and thin to further their own careers.

The only people the Stoeckley gang had to fear were Detective Beasley, who could see right through them, or possibly Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry who could snitch on them. They calculated that those people would not be believed, and that was right judgement on their part. Many in LE have a low IQ and they lack comprehensive vision. It's like the NSA only seems to be bugging billionaires and whistleblowers and not dangerous Al Qaeda and Somali terrorists.

I still think that if Dr. MacDonald had died that even the Army CID and FBI might have listened to Detective Beasley, which is not what Mazerolle and Greg Mitchell and the rest of them wanted to happen.

It is the judges, and not the police, on whom the responsibility for accepting or rejecting the evidence rests, but benches as a rule do not realize this and merely "support the police". The disastrous result is that neither police nor judges feel any responsibility for a conviction.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is some background information to all this from the 1979 trial testimony of Detective Beasley. Helena showed him a blonde wig and floppy hat and talked about an ice pick:

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Mr. Beasley, have you examined that photograph, or whatever it is, before?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you have a chance to look at it?
A I saw one in the newspaper like this.
Q Have you had an opportunity to examine that particular item in the past few days?
A Yes, sir; back in the interview room with Ms. Stoeckley and Mr. Segal.
Q All right, now, Mr. Beasley, I will ask you if you will to describe what this object is that you have examined?
A It is a picture of one of the suspects.
Q Is it a drawing?
A Drawing of one of the suspects.
Q Mr. Beasley, does that drawing portray fairly any individual that you ever saw with Helena Stoeckley?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know the name of that individual?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was his name?
A His last name was Mazerolle
Q Mazerolle?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know his first name?
A Yes, sir; I've got it here.
Q Would it refresh your recollection if I asked you if his name was Allen?
A That's it; Allen P. Mazerolle.
Q Allen Mazerolle?
A Yes, sir.

MR. SMITH: No further questions, Your Honor.

MR. BLACKBURN: Just a moment, Your Honor.


R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N 11:12 a.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q When was the last time you saw Mr. Mazerolle?
A I can look at my records and tell you.
Q Approximately?
A About 1970 -- '69 or '70. I arrested him with about $15,000 worth of LSD.
Q How many times did you see him in your career?
A In my career -- about half a dozen times.
Q Do you have a picture of him?
A No, sir; I don't have one with me. The records don't have them in Fayetteville. They are all misplaced. I don't know where they are. I tried to get one, but I could not find it.
Q The drawing that was exhibited to you by Mr. Smith -- do you know when it was made?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know who made it?
A No, sir; I don't.
Q Well, the time that you had Helena and the three friends in with you at the police station, did you take any pictures of them?
A No, sir; they were never arrested. They do not --
Q (Interposing) I don't want to cut you off. Are you through, or were you through?
A Yeah; I'm through. I was just going to explain why.
Q Yes; go ahead?
A We don't take pictures unless we arrest them.

MR. BLACKBURN: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any further?

MR. SMITH: No, sir.


E X A M I N A T I O N 11:13 a.m.

BY THE COURT:
Q Let me ask you, Mr. Beasley, about several matters that either I didn't hear your answers, or you were not asked. You say you didn't arrest these people? Where did you detain them?
A At Helena's house.
Q Just out there in the driveway?
A Yes, sir; I stayed right out there. We was right out there in the street.
Q You kept them there for about an hour?
A Yes, sir.
Q You called in to the police department and asked them to get somebody on the radio, to get these people to come out there?
A That is correct.
Q After an hour, nobody showed up?
A Nobody showed up.
Q So you let them go?
A That is correct.
Q I assume you did get their names, didn't you?
A Yes, sir; I've got their names in the folder that is missing, Your Honor. We can't locate it anyplace. We have located these records, but that folder is missing.
Q Did you ever turn that folder over to the investigators?
A Yes, sir; it was turned over -- well, turned over to our office. Now, it was 1971 before I got any further contact with the CID and this folder was never requested. Had it been, they could have had it easily.
Q You never volunteered to let them have it?
A No, sir.
Q I see. And do you know whether or not any of these people were ever interviewed by the CID?
A To my knowledge, not one of them. The only one was Helena.
Q I say, do you know whether or not?
A To my knowledge; no, sir, except Helena Stoeckley.
Q Can you recall the names of any of the people that were with her that night?
A There was one name that I can remember -- his name was Greg Mitchell. And the other two I cannot. That name sounds familiar because he was one of the boys that was sort of in charge of a group of the hippie-type people there, and we had a special lookout on him. He lived somewhere here in North Carolina, but we can't find any records on him anywhere in our office.
Q As a result of any investigation that you ever made, do you know whether or not anyone was ever arrested or charged with anything in connection with these crimes?
A Not with the crimes, Your Honor, but the black man -- I signed a warrant for him and he was arrested and released on a $2,000 bond, and we have not seen him since. He never showed up and the case was nol pros'd in Superior Court.
Q What was he charged with?
A Possession of drugs. He was one of the men that I was looking for the day we hit the trailer with the other people that were supposed to have been there. The other three was not there -- or he wasn't there when we raided the trailer.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'm not sure what these chunks of testimony are supposed to demonstrate, but they never seem to have anything to do with what is being discussed. They are not helping your case.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I'm not sure what these chunks of testimony are supposed to demonstrate, but they never seem to have anything to do with what is being discussed. They are not helping your case.

It's suppose to indicate that Detective Beasley kept the real culprits for about an hour, but the Army CID, whose jurisdiction it was, were totally uninterested in that information and they, or Murtagh, then went on to 'lose' the police records of those culprits from the police station. It's fishy.