Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conflation

HENRI: The fact is that ALL of your posts are a conflation of fact and fiction. Your ADHD and/or trolling mentality exacerbates your focus on a complex conspiracy involving the CID, FBI, and DOJ.

Still waiting on that murder timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
There is an interesting report from that recent defense reply on Christina's website from the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff, who always said he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it. Judge Dupree would not allow any psychiatric testimony at the 1979 trial because he said he didn't want a battle of the experts which sounds quite ludicrous to me.

Judge Dupree and Murtagh did arrange for a couple of what I think were CIA psychiatrists to interview Dr. MacDonald without a lawyer being there with him. I'm not sure if the jury were ever informed about that. The jury were given a pamphlet of the prosecution case which I don't think would happen in the UK. One of those prosecution psychiatrists was suffering from senile dementia at the time.

It's rather like saying if the President of Brazil said she thought she was being bugged by the American NSA then a psychiatrist would say she was schizophrenic.

This is part of what Dr. Sadoff wrote on that recent defense reply:

"I also testified that I had a forensic psychologist, Dr. James Mack, evaluate Captain MacDonald, including a battery of psychological tests. Dr Mack's opinion confirmed my own conclusion. Captain MacDonald did not exhibit any signs of prior or current psychopathology."
 
There are some old articles from the Los Angeles Times about JTF's hero Joe McGinniss, who according to JTF always writes the pure unadulterated historical truth and which JTF is always very credulous about:

"OPINION
Joe McGinniss and Janet Malcolm: Back at it again
June 6, 2010 | Charlotte Allen
Who's worse, Joe McGinniss or Janet Malcolm? The two journalists were famously at each other's throats after Malcolm wrote scathingly about McGinniss' book on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder trial of 1979. But they are also eerily similar in their penchant for overwriting, amateur psychoanalysis of their subjects, sneering condescension and questionable journalistic tactics. And now they've both come roaring back into the public eye. McGinniss' latest caper is renting the house next door to Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska."
 
Another old article from the Los Angeles Times:

"Milking a Murder?
October 09, 1988

After years of seeing coverage in books and newspapers and on TV, I still honestly have no idea if Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty ("A Murderer Airs His Appeal," by Peter H. Brown, Oct. 2).

But when Joe McGinniss, author of "Fatal Vision," the book about the MacDonald murder case, says, "It's terrible for entertainment shows to milk dollars when they are dealing with human life," it's got to be the greatest bit of hypocrisy since George Bush declared himself an environmentalist."
 
Henri McPhee said:
There are some old articles from the Los Angeles Times about JTF's hero Joe McGinniss, who according to JTF always writes the pure unadulterated historical truth and which JTF is always very credulous about:

"OPINION
Joe McGinniss and Janet Malcolm: Back at it again
June 6, 2010 | Charlotte Allen
Who's worse, Joe McGinniss or Janet Malcolm? The two journalists were famously at each other's throats after Malcolm wrote scathingly about McGinniss' book on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder trial of 1979. But they are also eerily similar in their penchant for overwriting, amateur psychoanalysis of their subjects, sneering condescension and questionable journalistic tactics. And now they've both come roaring back into the public eye. McGinniss' latest caper is renting the house next door to Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska."
Click to expand...

FOFL! Janet Malcolm!!?? That's pathetic.
 
Keep Up With The Times

HENRI: Hey, you made the big leap and decided to include post-1982 case information in your rambling musings. Atta, boy! Janet Malcolm, eh? Is this the same Janet Malcolm who didn't attend the 1987 MacDonald VS McGinniss civil trial, yet commented on that trial as though she was present? Isn't this the same Janet Malcolm whose New Yorker articles were torn apart by the American Lawyer?

If you want to continue to ignore legal documentation in this case that has been filed in the past 10 years, be my guest, but please keep the Way Back Machine posts to a minimum. The impact of the Government's 54 page sur-reply is similar to McGinniss' FINAL VISION. McGinniss' masterpiece was FATAL VISION, but FINAL VISION is an amazing addendum to the greatest true crime book ever written. The Government's masterpiece is their 200 page response memo. Similar to FATAL VISION, it thoroughly exposes Jeffrey MacDonald as a liar, a coward, and a mass murderer.

The Government also exposed the claims leveled by MacDonald's advocates as being nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In the end, McGinniss' testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing assisted the Government in proving that for the past 43 years, inmate has lived in a fantasy world consisting of mythical hippie home invaders and Army conspiracies.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
There is a poster on another MacDonald forum who now wants to understand the technicalities of the McCleskey law with regard to the MacDonald case. JTF has not replied to that poster so far. I suppose it's beyond his comprehension.

To put it in words of one syllable the McCleskey law was a monstrous and dangerous law introduced in the early 1990's, I think by the Supreme Court, to put a time limit on any new evidence a prisoner might appeal on.

It was used by Judge Dupree in an appeal in about 1991 to reject the new information acquired under the Freedom of Information Act by the defense about the mystery unidentified black wool fibers around Colette's mouth and on the murder weapon, and the blonde synthetic hair like fibers which were never disclosed to the judge or jury or defense at trial.

Judge Dupree unfairly put the blame on Dr. MacDonald and his lawyers for not presenting it to the court in time under this McCleskey law when it was Murtagh who had suppressed that information at the trial. Dupree then put forward the spurious argument at the appeal that this new information would not sway a jury. I don't think so somehow.

Judge Dupree was biased and Judge Fox is biased. The Article 32 military court was an excellent court, unlike the 1979 MacDonald trial. I think there was a secret agreement between Fox and Dupree, before Dupree died, to keep Dr. MacDonald in prison whatever new evidence was presented to the court.
 
Failures

HENRI: Be careful, now. You're starting to creep into the 1990's. I haven't read the post on McClesky, but that case hindered Silverglate's ability to throw everything against the wall and hoping that something would stick. At 1992 oral arguments, Judge Russell was frustrated with the attempts by Silverglate and Dershowitz to make an end run around McClesky. Their attempts failed and MacDonald was denied relief.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Just finished 'Final Vision', the latest McGinniss piece. Short, sweet, and to the point. I almost didn't read it following 'Wilderness', as I didn't think it was really necessary, but I'm glad I did. It just emphasizes the 'just the facts, Ma'am' style of McGinniss compared to Morris' rambling. While Morris seems to be urging his readers to guess and conjecture, McGinniss just lays down the facts, supports them as needed, and allows the reader to form his/her own opinion.
 
Tiktaalik said:
Just finished 'Final Vision', the latest McGinniss piece. Short, sweet, and to the point. I almost didn't read it following 'Wilderness', as I didn't think it was really necessary, but I'm glad I did. It just emphasizes the 'just the facts, Ma'am' style of McGinniss compared to Morris' rambling. While Morris seems to be urging his readers to guess and conjecture, McGinniss just lays down the facts, supports them as needed, and allows the reader to form his/her own opinion.
Click to expand...

I just read Final Vision also. McGinniss really laid out the facts behind what Malcom claimed in Wilderness. Most of what Malcom wrote was wrong and he knew it when he wrote his book. MacDonald is where he belongs and he will die in prison. He's certainly been treated better than he treated Colette, Kimmy and Kristen.
 
KatieG said:
I just read Final Vision also. McGinniss really laid out the facts behind what Malcom claimed in Wilderness. Most of what Malcom wrote was wrong and he knew it when he wrote his book. MacDonald is where he belongs and he will die in prison. He's certainly been treated better than he treated Colette, Kimmy and Kristen.
Click to expand...

Errol Morris wrote Wilderness. Janet Malcolm was the New Yorker reporter.
 
KatieG said:
I just read Final Vision also. McGinniss really laid out the facts behind what Malcom claimed in Wilderness. Most of what Malcom wrote was wrong and he knew it when he wrote his book. MacDonald is where he belongs and he will die in prison. He's certainly been treated better than he treated Colette, Kimmy and Kristen.
Click to expand...

There is a bit about this matter of McGinniss and Malcolm in a Wikipedia article on the internet:

"There was a later book about the MacDonald case by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost called Fatal Justice that was a counterattack to Fatal Vision. Potter and Bost professed that MacDonald was innocent and that McGinniss's book was wildly inaccurate. They pointed to various parts of the book they claimed were untrue. For example, McGinnis proposed a theory that MacDonald killed his wife and children during a psychotic episode brought on by his use of diet pills. At the trial, McGinnis was forced to admit under oath that he had no hard evidence to support this theory and it may not have happened at all. Judge Ross split the money between Mildred Kassab and Dorothy MacDonald, the MacDonald lawyers, with Jeffrey MacDonald being allowed to keep the rest. Neither side filed an appeal. Judge Ross likened McGinniss's conduct to that of "a thief in the night," then he corrected himself, saying, "I guess a thief in the night wouldn't see you. He is more of a con man than he is a thief". In her book The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm used the McGinniss-MacDonald trial to explore the problematic relationship between journalists and their subjects.

The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy was published in 1993. The highly speculative volume was widely panned; The New York Times called it "half-baked" and "awful". "
 
FV Epilogue

In his 1989 epilogue in FATAL VISION, McGinniss takes apart Malcolm piece by piece. He effectively argues that she was smitten by MacDonald and points out that she didn't attend a single day of the 1987 civil trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
In the end it doesn't really matter if McGinniss was dishonest in his dealings with MacDonald, anyway. The facts speak for themselves, and they are compelling.
 
Compelling

The facts were so compelling to a 1979 jury that they convicted MacDonald of 3 counts of murder in less than 7 hours. The prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. Once the AFIP's DNA tests produced 5 inculpatory results, the fat lady was singing in the jail cell of Jeffrey MacDonald.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Tiktaalik said:
In the end it doesn't really matter if McGinniss was dishonest in his dealings with MacDonald, anyway. The facts speak for themselves, and they are compelling.
Click to expand...

That simply isn't true. You must have supporting evidence before you convict anybody, not just a lot of theories without facts.

I agree with Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Jerry Leonard, who has been quoted as saying that the prosecution never proved their case. All this waffle from JTF about a thousand evidence items proving nothing, and sixty percent of the so called evidence never being presented to the court, and footprints and "pajama-like fibers" and bodies supposedly being carried in a sheet, and blood, and a contrived pajama folding experiment, and false suggestions that he is a psychopath, or that he was a womanizer, isn't real proof.

The reason so-called evidence was never presented to the court is because it was legally inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence. It was gossip and hearsay, which a lawyer would understand. I think the technical term is Incompetent.

In Blackburn's closing argument in 1979 he told the jury that the military police could not have contaminated the crime scene because they said they didn't. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. They admitted they contaminated the crime scene at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970.

Just because a North Carolina jury convicted Dr. MacDonald in seven hours doesn't make him guilty. The jury were conned by the con man and fraudster Blackburn, and the trickster lawyer Murtagh, who deliberately and illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence at the 1979 trial.

The only so-called evidence against Dr. MacDonald was that he was in the apartment when Colette and the two little girls were murdered. That is exactly what Judge Carnes said is the only evidence against the Ramseys in the JonBenet case.

This is the Army CID theory in a quote from Army CID agent Kearns. It's guesswork and speculation. If a jury believes all this then they probably think the moon is made of green cheese. It's cloud cuckoo land:

"Let's say Colette kills Kimmie in a rage over bedwetting. MacDonald attempts to intervene and the resulting struggle lead to Colette's initial injuries - MacDonald takes Kimmie to her bed intending to call for assistance. Colette regains consciousness, goes to Kris's room and still raging, kills Kris; MacDonald enters the room and strikes her with the wood trying to stop her stabbing Kris."
 
Last edited:
This is another example of the lack of overwhelming evidence in the MacDonald case. it comes from the affidavits section of Christina's MacDonald case website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

It's September 8,1989 Deposition of Mario J Ferrari by Denis Eisman:

Q "Do you remember what type of evidence the CID brought with them to the AFIP?

A I don't recall any specifics to any degree of certainty except it was given to Dr. Froede.
Whatever was presented was placed on a large conference table. Most of the items there were packaged or in boxes. They seemed to be in some degree of disorganization. There were sloppy markings, no recordings of a chain of custody, labeling was not the best, in my opinion, and legibility was very poor.

Q What is your recollection as to the meetings that were held and the results as to the opinion as to whether or not there was evidence that Dr. MacDonald had committed these murders?

A At all of these sessions that I had attended or was aware of, there appeared to be indications of non-conclusiveness. For a case of this magnitude there seemed to be inadequate or insufficient physical evidence. At different times, both Dr. Besant-Mathews and I remarked, is this all? There had to be more. We will need more in order to arrive at a positive conclusion.
At the exit meeting with all the members of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the CID special agents present, Dr. Froede said that on the basis of the evidence, both physical and documentary that was presented for examination and evaluation, there was no conclusionary or positive evidence to indicate that the homicides were committed by Dr. MacDonald."
 
Henri McPhee said:
That simply isn't true. You must have supporting evidence before you convict anybody, not just a lot of theories without facts.
Click to expand...

No, it simply isn't true TO YOU. Everyone is entitled to their own judgment of what they feel is the truth. It's too bad you will never understand that.

Just because a North Carolina jury convicted Dr. MacDonald in seven hours doesn't make him guilty.
Click to expand...

You're right. That he slaughtered his wife and daughters makes him guilty. That would be Colette Stevenson, and Kimberly, and Kristen. The real victims you always airily overlook in favor of slobbering fatuously over Jeffrey MacDonald.
 
Telling Initials

BStrong said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dr. William Petit was moving under his own power soon afterwards. So you don't believe he was brutally assaulted, then? Fine. But sensible people will beg to differ with you.
.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom