NC - MacDonald family murders at Fort Bragg, 1970 - Jeffrey MacDonald innocent?

[oftenwonder]

Exactly right, oftenwonder. Remember that entry on the MMT? "[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]MacDonald implies that he was prevented from inspecting the crime scene. During the 2003 Larry King Live interview, he said that the apartment 'was kept for about 15 years, and then when we wanted entry, when the defense finally was close to getting an order from a judge to go into that apartment, they wrecked it.'" But the truth was that in June of 1979 Bernie Segal, Joe McGinniss, John Thornton and James Osterburg spent five hours inside 544 Castle Drive in preparation for the trial, and the Court found that the defense "had every reasonable opportunity to inspect this crime scene at any reasonable time during the last thirteen years..."[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]
Segal was sloppy about things in this case, so cavalier about it that I believe he thought he could just repeat his Article 32 performance, hammer witnesses on cross-examination, and that would do the trick. I don't think he realized that Blackburn and Murtagh were taking the case far more seriously than he was. Every time I read Bernie's closing argument, I just shake my head in disbelief. But of course it wasn't his closing argument which convinced a jury to convict MacDonald; it was the evidence (including Mac's own lies) and the lack of evidence to support his stories which put Mac where he is today.
[/size][/font]

Right, Bunny. The thing I find funny and so oh predictable and pathetic is MacDonald's arguments/lies that spring up out of nowhere. Since his stories about what happened that night didn't keep his sorry a.. out of prison, he had to start making more stuff up and he has been doing this for 36+ years now. In 1970 he couldn't identify Helena, but 9 years after the fact he knew it was Helena who was in his apartment (by sight and voice) and she was also the woman standing on the corner alone. MacDonald keeps reaching and reaching, but he will never reach far enough to get out of prison. Since they say "the truth will set you free" and MacDonald doesn't know how to tell the truth, he will never be free (emotionally or physically).

 

[Bunny]

Moreover, rather than just let Helena Stockley tell her story on the witness stand, Blackburn told her that she would be indicted for murder if she did so, which was, obviously, yet another major incident of evidence suppression and witness coercion by Blackburn.

Helena did testify in front of the jury, and told the court and jury the same thing she told Segal, that (among other things) she didn't know where she was and didn't kill anyone. Even with Bernie's intense efforts trying to force her to confess to something she didn't do, he couldn't make her do that. Wade Smith even affirmed to Judge Dupree that she'd told the defense the same thing she told the prosecution, so this new claim that she "changed her story" seems a bit strange to me.

And of course it shouldn't be forgotten that despite their implications that Stoeckley was at the scene, the defense didn't even want to call her to the stand:

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

MR. SMITH: Maybe the Government would like to call her.

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. SMITH: At least at this moment, we do not.

THE COURT: Well, now, listen, enough of the thing is enough, Wade. If you are going to ever call her, you call her right now or I am going to release her from her subpoena.

MR. SMITH: Judge, I understand what you are saying. Let me just say this: that woman made the most outrageous statements to a lady at the hospital when she got her nose fixed that you have ever heard.

THE COURT: They could not be any more outrageous than the ones she has made.

MR. SMITH: They are. They are more outrageous. They are more incriminating, and, Judge, we don't know what she is going to do. We don't know what she is going to say.

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

 

[Wudge]

Helena did testify in front of the jury, and told the court and jury the same thing she told Segal, that (among other things) she didn't know where she was and didn't kill anyone. Even with Bernie's intense efforts trying to force her to confess to something she didn't do, he couldn't make her do that. Wade Smith even affirmed to Judge Dupree that she'd told the defense the same thing she told the prosecution, so this new claim that she "changed her story" seems a bit strange to me.

And of course it shouldn't be forgotten that despite their implications that Stoeckley was at the scene, the defense didn't even want to call her to the stand:

THE COURT: How about Stoeckley?

MR. SMITH: Maybe the Government would like to call her.

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. SMITH: At least at this moment, we do not.

THE COURT: Well, now, listen, enough of the thing is enough, Wade. If you are going to ever call her, you call her right now or I am going to release her from her subpoena.

MR. SMITH: Judge, I understand what you are saying. Let me just say this: that woman made the most outrageous statements to a lady at the hospital when she got her nose fixed that you have ever heard.

THE COURT: They could not be any more outrageous than the ones she has made.

MR. SMITH: They are. They are more outrageous. They are more incriminating, and, Judge, we don't know what she is going to do. We don't know what she is going to say.

THE COURT: Well, call her.

MR. SMITH: We don't want to.

Sure, but the fact remains: The prosecutor's words to her before trial were clearly outright witness coercion.

You need to quit trying to protect him. This is just another North Carolina case whereby the prosecutor followed State policy, which is not to turn over exculpatory/exonerating evidence to the defense.

That's just the way things are practiced in NC. Of all the states, NC is the most corrupt in this regard; no one else comes close.

 

[Wudge]

Rash is right on all counts, Wudge. You can read Glisson's notes and the DNA results for yourself if you don't believe her.

Also, with regard to the hair in Colette's hand, Mac's website long proclaimed that the hairs were brown, but MacDonald was blonde, so the hair couldn't have come from him. But as Rash pointed out, Jeffrey MacDonald was indeed described as having brown hair in the Criminal Investigation Division report: "MacDonald: 12 Oct 43; Jamaica, NY; M; Cauc; 71 in; 175 lbs; brown hair; green eyes; medium build; discharged from US Army 4 Dec 70..."

Although this hair was initially found not to match MacDonald, it was not tested against hairs from the children's heads, nor was it tested against hairs from all parts of MacDonald's body.

This hair, by the way, was certainly not withheld from the defense, since they knew about it as early as the 1970 Article 32 hearing where it was reported. Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh classified it as the distal portion or the tip of a limb hair. Limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there was no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair was Greg Mitchell's.

And of course we know now that this crucial "mystery hair," which for decades Mac has claimed could only have come from Colette's murderer, was his very own.

I still don't understand what this "group" of type O spots is that you keep referring to...can you be a little more clear on exactly what it is you're talking about here?

Both of the children had brown hairs under their fingernails. As for the group O blood spots, they were found -- as I described earlier -- on the hand of Colette. That's pretty clear to me.

And, as I first said, if I had my way, the prosector would be behind bars, not MacDonald. Of course, in that regard, I would have a ton of North Carolina prosecutors behind bars, for withholding/suppressing evidence is endemic within North Carolina's system of (alleged) justice.

 

[Bunny]

Sure, but the fact remains: The prosecutor's words to her before trial were clearly outright witness coercion.

Well, as long as you're going to act as though the courts had already decided this issue, I guess there's no harm in me doing the same thing. Blackburn never threatened Helena and there was nothing said or done by him that was "clearly outright witness coercion."

 

[Wudge]

Well, as long as you're going to act as though the courts had already decided this issue, I guess there's no harm in me doing the same thing. Blackburn never threatened Helena and there was nothing said or done by him that was "clearly outright witness coercion."

North Carolina protects (and promotes) prosecutors who withhold evidence. It is a way of life there.

 

[Bunny]

Both of the children had brown hairs under their fingernails. As for the group O blood spots, they were found -- as I described earlier -- on the hand of Colette. That's pretty clear to me.

You must've missed the post which told you that not a single one of the lab techs who saw the scrapings before Glisson described any hair being under Kris's nails. You must've also missed seeing that even Glisson wasn't sure about it, since she put a ? mark after the word "hair." If you have any evidence that these lab techs did describe this hair being found under her nail, I'd love to see that. And, you'd of course want to notify the defense about that, since to the best of my recollection they've had no comeback at all so far to the government's observation that "There is no evidence in the record that the presence of a hair under Kristen's fingernail was observed, either at the crime scene, or at the autopsy." (March 15, 2006, Gov't response to the Cormier affidavit re: DNA results, at http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/gov_dna_2006-03-15.html)

It's been known for ages that Colette had Type O on her, and I've never heard anything at all about this being "suppressed." Can you point me to the link which shows this?

Also, can you tell me why, after so many years of trumpeting that it's "exculpatory evidence," the defense is now saying nothing at all about the hair fragment in Kim's nail scrapings? Their silence is deafening on this issue, and they apparently didn't even want it DNA tested, which is very curious indeed.

 

[Bunny]

North Carolina protects (and promotes) prosecutors who withhold evidence. It is a way of life there.

Could you point me to a link for any court decision which shows this was found to have happened in the MacDonald case? Thanks.

 

[Wudge]

Could you point me to a link for any court decision which shows this was found to have happened in the MacDonald case? Thanks.

Not yet (and very silly to have asked), but that does not refute the fact that such is endemic to NC, or that it's State policy is for prosecutors to withhold exonerating/execulpatory evidence from the defense. Does it?

 

[Bunny]

Not yet (and very silly to have asked), but that does not refute the fact that such is endemic to NC, or that it's State policy is for prosecutors to withhold exonerating/execulpatory evidence from the defense. Does it?

But that's not at all what we were talking about, or at least I didn't think it was. I thought we were discussing the Mac case specifically, not some general supposition which may (or may not) be true.

For a final time, Wudge (or at least I hope it's the final time, but it probably won't be), the courts have studied this case meticulously and exhaustively for decades now and found absolutely NO evidence of any wrongful suppression whatsoever. I can tell how much you wish that would have happened, but it didn't. Again, if you can point us to any link from any court connected with this case which shows differently, I know I'm not the only one who would like to see that.

 

[Wudge]

But that's not at all what we were talking about, or at least I didn't think it was. I thought we were discussing the Mac case specifically, not some general supposition which may (or may not) be true.

For a final time, Wudge (or at least I hope it's the final time, but it probably won't be), the courts have studied this case meticulously and exhaustively for decades now and found absolutely NO evidence of any wrongful suppression whatsoever. I can tell how much you wish that would have happened, but it didn't. Again, if you can point us to any link from any court connected with this case which shows differently, I know I'm not the only one who would like to see that.

I hear an echo. So I will repeat, too: Not yet.

Regarding the matter of NC's massive prosecutorial corruption, for any NC murder case based on weak circumstantial evidence, it is always the Tyrannosaurus in the corner. To pretend it didn't happen in this case is absurd.

 

[Bunny]

Regarding the matter of NC's massive prosecutorial corruption, for any NC murder case based on weak circumstantial evidence, it is always the Tyrannosaurus in the corner. To pretend it didn't happen in this case is absurd.

This case certainly didn't have "weak" circumstantial evidence, so I'm not sure how this applies here. Regardless, to imply that because it snows in Wisconsin it must also snow in Phoenix, or that because one dog is black all dogs are black, or that because some prosecutors wrongly withhold evidence then all of them do, is what's absurd to me. Sorry, but I don't understand that kind of thinking.

 

[Wudge]

This case certainly didn't have "weak" circumstantial evidence, so I'm not sure how this applies here. Regardless, to imply that because it snows in Wisconsin it must also snow in Phoenix, or that because one dog is black all dogs are black, or that because some prosecutors wrongly withhold evidence then all of them do, is what's absurd to me. Sorry, but I don't understand that kind of thinking.

CUTTING SNIPS

"This case certainly didn't have "weak" circumstantial evidence"

(snicker)

"I don't understand that kind of thinking"

( I can only hope that is because you are totally unfamiliar with the prosecutorial corruption problem in NC.)

 

[sharpar]

If what you claim is true and that is a big IF ...... it doesnt explain away
the mountain of foresnic evidence that says Jeff murdered his entire family
in a violent and most gruesome way. He is guilty and there is no doubt
about it not with the jury not so far with any appeal, motions or other avenues he has explored to get out of prison . The defense putting spin
on pieces here and there doesnt make him innocent and doesnt change the
fact he is a lying murderer who will rot in the cell he built when he chose
to do away with his family.

 

[Wudge]

If what you claim is true and that is a big IF ...... it doesnt explain away
the mountain of foresnic evidence that says Jeff murdered his entire family
in a violent and most gruesome way. He is guilty and there is no doubt
about it not with the jury not so far with any appeal, motions or other avenues he has explored to get out of prison . The defense putting spin
on pieces here and there doesnt make him innocent and doesnt change the
fact he is a lying murderer who will rot in the cell he built when he chose
to do away with his family.

(chuckle).... Oh yes, the evidence was so good there is "no doubt about it", re: his guilt. ....(double chuckle).... That's why they decided to wait nine years to begin the trial.

I suggest you get a grip and study up on the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Bunny]

(chuckle).... Oh yes, the evidence was so good there is "no doubt about it", re: his guilt. ....(double chuckle).... That's why they decided to wait nine years to begin the trial.

Hmmm. I will have to go back and reread the records, but wasn't it true that the years after indictment and before trial were largely taken up with the defense's delays?

I suggest you get a grip and study up on the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

And so the jury found beyond any reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of all other reasonable explanations, and I assume to a moral certainty, that MacDonald murdered his family.

Sans R-11, Mac long ago had all of his evidence presented to various courts and has never managed to make a single dent in those verdicts.

As Fox indicated, even if the DNA results came back matching Stoeckley's or Mitchell's DNA profiles (which didn't happen, as we know), it would only mean that Mac wasn't alone when he committed the murders. No ridiculous unmatched "wig hair" or unmatched/unsourced black wool or candles which drip blood and not wax can ever begin to overcome the existing physical evidence against him, and no unsourced 5mm hair fragment (or even three unsourced hairs) is ever going to be enough to get him out of prison.

(chuckle, chuckle, snicker, snicker)

 

[JTF]

Hello, guys. My first post on this board. It's good to see that many of the MacDonald case discussion Hall of Famers are here. Cami, Bunny, Rashomon..... nice. Well, to the business at hand.

Wudge: You appear to be stuck on the singular issue of alleged supression in this case which, in my opinion, has some merit on specific issues such as the 1979 FBI fiber re-analysis. Having said that, when you make a statement regarding the strength or lack thereof of the government's case, it's obvious that you haven't taken the time to read the government's case in its totality. The case against Jeffrey MacDonald is a no-brainer. He murdered his entire family and the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented at trial proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you add MacDonald's own big mouth with the DNA test results which demonstrate that Colette ripped an arm hair from her husband as she fought for her very life, this case becomes easy to decipher. I have challenged MacDonald advocates for years to come up with a murder timeline that fits the evidence found at the crime scene. Nobody from the MacDonald camp has yet to respond. Care to give it a try?

JTF.

 

[Wudge]

Hmmm. I will have to go back and reread the records, but wasn't it true that the years after indictment and before trial were largely taken up with the defense's delays?



And so the jury found beyond any reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of all other reasonable explanations, and I assume to a moral certainty, that MacDonald murdered his family.

Sans R-11, Mac long ago had all of his evidence presented to various courts and has never managed to make a single dent in those verdicts.

As Fox indicated, even if the DNA results came back matching Stoeckley's or Mitchell's DNA profiles (which didn't happen, as we know), it would only mean that Mac wasn't alone when he committed the murders. No ridiculous unmatched "wig hair" or unmatched/unsourced black wool or candles which drip blood and not wax can ever begin to overcome the existing physical evidence against him, and no unsourced 5mm hair fragment (or even three unsourced hairs) is ever going to be enough to get him out of prison.

(chuckle, chuckle, snicker, snicker)

This is going to shock you, but, due to a the Supreme Court ruling in the eighties, states were required to remove "to a moral certainty" (vague, lack of clarity) from their "reasonable doubt" jury instructions. Someday, you might want to upgrade and join us in today's world.

 

[Wudge]

Hello, guys. My first post on this board. It's good to see that many of the MacDonald case discussion Hall of Famers are here. Cami, Bunny, Rashomon..... nice. Well, to the business at hand.

Wudge: You appear to be stuck on the singular issue of alleged supression in this case which, in my opinion, has some merit on specific issues such as the 1979 FBI fiber re-analysis. Having said that, when you make a statement regarding the strength or lack thereof of the government's case, it's obvious that you haven't taken the time to read the government's case in its totality. The case against Jeffrey MacDonald is a no-brainer. He murdered his entire family and the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented at trial proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you add MacDonald's own big mouth with the DNA test results which demonstrate that Colette ripped an arm hair from her husband as she fought for her very life, this case becomes easy to decipher. I have challenged MacDonald advocates for years to come up with a murder timeline that fits the evidence found at the crime scene. Nobody from the MacDonald camp has yet to respond. Care to give it a try?

JTF.

I followed this case closely for many a year and have read the transcripts, but thank you for your useless thought.

As for you pretending to be omnipotent, re: "He murdered the entire family", you, too, need to bone up on what the standard is in our system of jurisprudence; i.e., we use "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". We do not need to pretend to be God by professing knowledge that Macdonald "murdered his entire family".

As I said earlier, this is another murder case tried on weak (very weak as I see it) circumstantial evidence, and the key issue is reasoanble doubt. And that issue is always exacerbated when prosecutors hide exculpatory/exonerating evidence from the defense, which is the state policy (no joke) in North Carolina.

 

[robinparten]

I followed this case closely for many a year and have read the transcripts, but thank you for your useless thought.

As for you pretending to be omnipotent, re: "He murdered the entire family", you, too, need to bone up on what the standard is in our system of jurisprudence; i.e., we use "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". We do not need to pretend to be God by professing knowledge that Macdonald "murdered his entire family".

As I said earlier, this is another murder case tried on weak (very weak as I see it) circumstantial evidence, and the key issue is reasoanble doubt. And that issue is always exacerbated when prosecutors hide exculpatory/exonerating evidence from the defense, which is the state policy (no joke) in North Carolina.

Wudge, I have seen you post this same rhetoric about other murder cases, apparently, you seem to think that unless the murder was filmed and then shown on Fox or CNN for the entire world to see, then "reasonable doubt" exists. You need to learn a thing or two about critical thinking.