Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The End Game

HENRI: The Youtube segment demonstrates that MacDonald's legal shell game is evident to those who only have a cursory knowledge of this case. The commentator is quite correct in assessing the standard of proof put forth at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

The burden is on MacDonald to prove his "actual innocence." This burden is "extraordinarily high" and MacDonald's legal team didn't come close to meeting that burden at the hearing. Instead of producing concrete data of hippie home invaders, the defense used 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony to defuse the mass of SOURCED evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction.

At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. This evidence included hairs, fibers, blood spatter, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, bloody footprints, and fabric damage evidence.

In 2006, DNA test results further linked MacDonald to these horrific murders. The main piece of inculpatory DNA evidence was a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's left hand. This hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

In addition, there was no sourced evidence linking any intruder suspect to the crime scene. No fingerprints, no hairs, no fibers, nothing, nada, zip. Based on what occurred at the evidentiary hearing, I would be shocked if Judge Fox granted MacDonald a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Was there enough blood lying around that the alleged non MacDonald attackers would need to have stepped in if they really committed this crime?

Lack of possible foot and shoe prints that could be tied to somebody besides MacDonald seems like such strong evidence of his guilt that I'm wondering why it was ever considered that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I must be missing something here.
 
Guilty Beyond ALL Doubt

Blood, fiber, hair, and bloody fabric/non-fabric impression evidence demonstrated that Colette AND Kimberley MacDonald were wrapped in a bedsheet, and carried back to their respective bedrooms. Three bloody footprints were found exiting Kristen MacDonald's room and one of the bloody prints matched the left foot exemplar of Jeffrey MacDonald.

MacDonald did not claim that the mythical home invaders were barefoot, no bloody shoeprints were found at the crime scene, and he denied wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his family slaughtered in their bedrooms. The bedsheet used to carry Colette and Kimberley contained bloody cuff impressions from the pajama sleeves of BOTH Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald.

MacDonald also denied ever coming in contact with Kimberley or touching the bedsheet containing the bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions. Kimberley's blood, however, was found on his torn pajama top and Colette's blood was found on his pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn.

The evidence of MacDonald's guilt is overwhelmming and resulted in the jury convicting him in less than 7 hours. MacDonald has been able to get back in Court due to a rotating band of lawyers who have been able to wrap "old" evidentiary arguments into new legal packages.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Davefoc, if you've got more than a passing interest in this case, you might want to pick up 'Fatal Vision' (which you can follow with 'A Wilderness of Error' for a - kind of - view from the other side). I read a lot of true crime and I thought Fatal Vision (McGinniss) was quite well done. I certainly didn't have much doubt when I was done about MacDonald's guilt, although I did go on to read Morris' book to try and get a balanced view. There's also a third book, 'Final Vision', and although it wraps up a few stray ends, it's not really necessary to read that one as well.
 
Tiktaalik said:
There's also a third book, 'Final Vision', and although it wraps up a few stray ends, it's not really necessary to read that one as well.
Click to expand...

True, but it is valuable in clarifying MacDonald's oft claimed "victory" over McGinniss, especially since it spells out that MacDonald did not refute, or even challenge, the conclusions of Fatal Vision when he had the opportunity.
 
Judge Jeanine just assumed it was a domestic violence case. You assume nothing in a murder investigation. It was brutal murders by Mazerolle and his other accomplices some of whom are now dead after saying on TV that they were going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg.

I agree with the female judge that there should be more to an appeal than a complicated discussion about hairs by the trickster lawyer Murtagh of Lockerbie fame. In order to focus on priorities it would be more important for judges to find out exactly what happened and why.

I can't quite see why Colette's brother Bob Stevenson agrees with the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory Army CID theory that his sister Colette murdered the little girls or that there was a rage over bedwetting by Kim, instead of the other little girl, which Dr. MacDonald always insisted happened. Dr. MacDonald never denied any footprints could have been his. The footprints prove nothing and there are doubts anyway that they are his footprints. Why not just believe what Dr. MacDonald said happened did happen?

All that rubbish which JTF keeps mentioning about bodies supposedly being carried in a sheet was presented to the court by Stombaugh of the FBI who was never qualified to testify in court about fabric impressions anyway under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Stombaugh was a former insurance salesman and not a blood man with an expert opinion.

The Army CID must learn to develop suspects and not to jump to conclusions. They are not homicide detectives.

In the UK with these cuts to government spending in the future the guilty will be acquitted and the innocent convicted. It's becoming more like America every day. The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, UK, which had a great reputation has been closed down by this government.
 
This is a weird thread. A number of people have come into it, had a look at the evidence, and I don't think a single one has ended up with any serious doubt that MacDonald was as guilty as hell.

I've met cases where obviously innocent people have been convicted. I've met cases where people with no credible evidence against them have been convicted. I've met cases where people were convicted on evidence that really wasn't convincing. I've come across people declaring that although they believe the accused actually did it, the conviction shouldn't have been brought because the evidence wasn't beyond reasonable doubt. We can have interesting discussions about all of these.

Here we have someone who was obviously guilty as hell, and there's one poster - count him, just one - breathlessly asserting the complete and total innocence of his hero "Dr. MacDonald". I'm not quite sure why anyone is bothering with this.

Rolfe.
 
Henri McPhee said:
I can't quite see why Colette's brother Bob Stevenson agrees with the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory Army CID theory that his sister Colette murdered the little girls...
Click to expand...

That's a complete fabrication. Bob Stevenson has never claimed to agree with that theory. You just make this crap up as you go along, Henri.

Why not just believe what Dr. MacDonald said happened did happen?
Click to expand...

Why? Just because your hero-a man who slaughtered a pregnant woman and two little girls-said it doesn't make it true.

Yawn.
 
desertgal said:
True, but it is valuable in clarifying MacDonald's oft claimed "victory" over McGinniss, especially since it spells out that MacDonald did not refute, or even challenge, the conclusions of Fatal Vision when he had the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. I actually thought 'Final Vision' was quite worthwhile, just not necessary to proving the case.
 
Appellate Insanity

The weirdest thing about this case is not this thread, but the way in which our appellate system gives murderers multiple opportunities at freedom. Jeffrey MacDonald has received 8 chances at a new trial which makes this the most litigated murder case in history.

The fact that there is a mountain of evidence linking him to this horrific crime means little to a legal system which is broken at every level. In this case, the main culprit is the 4th Circuit Court who granted MacDonald his latest shot at freedom in 2011.

The Court basically ignored the fact that the Government has debunked all of the dubious claims leveled by the Defense from 1984-2009. They decided that it didn't matter that the Government had pitched a shutout in prior evidentiary hearings.

They decided to throw MacDonald a bone by ruling that MacDonald's last shot at freedom should include the "evidence as a whole." In essence, it didn't matter that most of what was presented by the Defense at the 2012 evidentiary hearing had been shot down at prior evidentiary hearings.

The Court's ruling gave the Defense the ability to lump all of their past claims into a messy legal ball filled with hearsay testimony. The good news is that the "evidence as a whole" included all of the evidence that the Government did not present at trial and/or since MacDonald returned to prison in 1982.

At the 2012 hearing, the Government was able to combine the evidence presented at the 1979 trial with the 2006 DNA test results that further linked MacDonald to these murders. Judge Fox's ruling will probably come down in the next few months.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Henri McPhee said:
Judge Jeanine just assumed it was a domestic violence case. You assume nothing in a murder investigation. It was brutal murders by Mazerolle and his other accomplices some of whom are now dead after saying on TV that they were going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg.

I agree with the female judge that there should be more to an appeal than a complicated discussion about hairs by the trickster lawyer Murtagh of Lockerbie fame. In order to focus on priorities it would be more important for judges to find out exactly what happened and why.

I can't quite see why Colette's brother Bob Stevenson agrees with the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory Army CID theory that his sister Colette murdered the little girls or that there was a rage over bedwetting by Kim, instead of the other little girl, which Dr. MacDonald always insisted happened. Dr. MacDonald never denied any footprints could have been his. The footprints prove nothing and there are doubts anyway that they are his footprints. Why not just believe what Dr. MacDonald said happened did happen?

All that rubbish which JTF keeps mentioning about bodies supposedly being carried in a sheet was presented to the court by Stombaugh of the FBI who was never qualified to testify in court about fabric impressions anyway under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Stombaugh was a former insurance salesman and not a blood man with an expert opinion.

The Army CID must learn to develop suspects and not to jump to conclusions. They are not homicide detectives.

In the UK with these cuts to government spending in the future the guilty will be acquitted and the innocent convicted. It's becoming more like America every day. The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, UK, which had a great reputation has been closed down by this government.
Click to expand...

In all the years I've been following this case, I have never, never, ever seen this ridiculous claim put forth against Robert Stevenson. Do you have a link to this preposterous claim?
 
For years Bob Stevenson has supported the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory Army CID theories with regard to the MacDonald case, starting with his sister supposedly having murdered the two little girls. He has even supported Kassab and Joe McGinniss. He appeared on radio at the time of the Parole Hearing in about 2005 to say he thought like Kassab that there was child molestation by Dr. MacDonald when there was never a particle of evidence, medical or otherwise, to back that up. It was pure speculation and libel by Stevenson who has said publicly that he knows nothing about the forensics of the MacDonald case, a bit like Judge Fox.

The con man McGinniss amphetamine psychosis theory was proved to be wrong in a court case in California in 1987.

I still think the public should have a right to criticize and to reform our institutions, even though the public no longer seems to have a right to protest, or any right to privacy, or confidential information. It's a legal Woolworths except for the corrupt banks who are showered with bailouts and bonuses paid for by money printing and by the unemployed, who only get workfare as help and advice from academic economists and the media. The MacDonald case was a miscarriage of justice.

It is obvious that the MacDonald case was an unsafe verdict and that there was poor police work involved. I'm not the only person who thinks that either. It can't possibly have been right judgement.
 
Last edited:
Reality

The attacks leveled by the MacDonald camp on Freddy Kassab, Bob Stevenson, the CID, the FBI, and the DOJ are nothing new. Most, if not all, of the attacks are unfounded and based on a religious devotion to Jeffrey MacDonald. Similar to what was presented by the Defense at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, MacDonald advocates rely on half-truths, innuendo, and hype in an attempt to paint MacDonald as some sort of tortured innocent.

Much to the chagrin of MacDonald's lawyers and his advocates, the physical evidence in this case remains strong and will not go away. No matter how much he fumes about getting railroaded by the CID and FBI, MacDonald cannot dispute the FACT that his wife's blood was on his pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn.

He cannot dispute the FACT that his torn, bloody limb hair was found clutched in his wife's left hand. He cannot dispute the FACT that fibers from his torn pajama top were found under his wife's body, under the bedcovers of his children, under his child's pillow, and under his child's fingernail.

MacDonald advocates live in a fantasy world filled with government conspiracies and evil journalists. The reality is that Jeffrey MacDonald is a murderer, a coward, and a psychopath.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Rolfe said:
Here we have someone who was obviously guilty as hell, and there's one poster - count him, just one - breathlessly asserting the complete and total innocence of his hero "Dr. MacDonald". I'm not quite sure why anyone is bothering with this.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Every now and then we have a case where there is true injustice and a truly innocent man or woman, or small dog, is in prison. It takes a lot of work and effort to make a case for innocence in those cases.

Trouble is, for every case where there is true innocence, there is a totally guilty person with fans trying to pull the same routine (Mumia, MacDonald). From an outsider's perspective it can often look very much the same unless one digs deep - which is often more time than can be spared.

The worst thing that can happen in these matters is to let the guilty party's fanboys run rampant without anything to counter the argument. It lets the guilty own the conversation. If you need an example of this look at the Mumia case in the 90's. To listen to the media or the early internet one would think that the man was framed. I was one of the few online who would try to counter some of the Free Mumia idiots. For a while it seemed like I was very much alone in these arguments.

So yeah, I think these things do need to be challenged. Even if the claimants arguments are weak.



So if countering that level of mania
 
I can understand some of the ridiculous indignation with regard to the MacDonald case. It does make me cross that a recent report in the UK says that about a half of professional burglars in court last year were not jailed in order to cut costs. I still think there needs to be a rule of law in America, whatever academic economists might say, and that an innocent prisoner should be able to get out of prison, and not just be assumed to be guilty.

Take nothing on looks, take everything on evidence.

This business of blood supposedly being on the pajama top before it was torn, which JTF has just mentioned, is extremely weak evidence. Janice Glisson of the Army CID lab said that there was blood after it was torn and she was a qualified forensic serologist, unlike Stombaugh of the FBI who was a purported expert and hair and fiber man and former insurance salesman. That was against the Federal Rules of Evidence. There must be expert opinions if opinions and speculation are to be allowed in court.

The hair in Colette's left hand is another complex business. That hair was unidentified from the start which is the reason that MacDonald and his lawyers were so interested in it. In about 1996 the Fourth Circuit judges ordered Judge Fox to do some DNA testing in the MacDonald case, which included that hair in the left hand.

There was then an unseemly wrangle about the chain of custody and who was to do the DNA testing because Harvey Silverglate thought that Dr. MacDonald would be cheated and that the DNA testing would not be honest. Then Harvey Silverglate retired. Judge Fox delayed the DNA testing for ten years, supposedly because of 9/11, and in about 2006 Murtagh magically declared that hair was a MacDonald hair, like some kind of dishonest postman using legal trickery. I think it was forensic fraud by the FBI lab.

Murtagh then hoped that would be the end of the MacDonald case. Then there was some kind of court ruling, perhaps by the supreme court, that the 'evidence as whole' should be included in appeals. Judge Fox was then ordered to examine the 'evidence as a whole', by the Fourth Circuit which he has managed to delay for a few more years.

The MacDonald lawyers did manage to win an Evidentiary Hearing for 2012 from the Fourth Circuit, which was excellent legal work by them because of this evidence as a whole business.

This quite ludicrously unsatisfactory Army CID theory that Colette murdered the two little girls and that Colette supposedly hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush needs to be included in the evidence as a whole, and also that Stombaugh should have been withdrawn as a witness at the 1979 trial because he was a purported expert, and not giving an expert opinion.

Mazerolle was mentioned in passing as a suspect at the 1979 MacDonald trial, but the matter was never properly investigated, or questions asked, or information received. American oil interests are not the only thing to be considered.
 
kookbreaker said:
The worst thing that can happen in these matters is to let the guilty party's fanboys run rampant without anything to counter the argument. It lets the guilty own the conversation. If you need an example of this look at the Mumia case in the 90's. To listen to the media or the early internet one would think that the man was framed. I was one of the few online who would try to counter some of the Free Mumia idiots. For a while it seemed like I was very much alone in these arguments.

So yeah, I think these things do need to be challenged. Even if the claimants arguments are weak.
Click to expand...


I guess you're right. I didn't follow the Mumia thing at all. I remember back in early 2000, I had been talking to a doctor friend about a couple of miscarriages of justice I was concerned about. She said, what do you think about Shipman? I said, "can you spell guilty as hell?" She looked slightly surprised and started talking about evidence, and I told her about the altered computer records, and she said OK, guilty as hell. (My God I had no idea what was cooking up in the Netherlands right then, or how it would be affecting my life in 2013-14!)

There wasn't much of a "he was framed" movement about Shipman, not when the full facts came out. But it's interesting that some people seem to think that if you strongly believe one or two cases are miscarriages of justice, you must automatically jump on every high-profile conviction as being wrong.

It's quite distressing how stupid people can be sometimes, especially when they develop tunnel vision and an idee fixe.

Rolfe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom